1 CREATING OUR OWN RELATIONSHIP EXPERIENCES: THE EFFECTS OF RELATIONSHIP GOALS ON RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES By AMANDA GESSELMAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014
2 2014 Amanda Gesselman
3 To Bisu, for keeping me on my toes
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my family for their infinite su pport. I thank my mom for always being my biggest fan, and Memaw for inspiring me with her lifelong love of learning. I thank my friends especially Alexis, Corey, Devon, Jen, Jenny, Sophia, and Steve for keeping my sanity intact over the past five years. I thank my advisor, Greg, for mentoring with friendship and kindness. Last, I thank all of the graduate and undergraduate students who have helped my research come to fruition
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Identifying Relationship Goals ................................ ................................ ................ 12 Prior Work on Social Goals ................................ ................................ ..................... 12 Avoidance and Approach Goals in Relationships ................................ ................... 14 Compassionate and Self Image Goals in Relationships ................................ ......... 17 Overview of the Current Research ................................ ................................ .......... 19 2 STUDY 1: EXAMINING GOAL STRUCTURE ................................ ......................... 21 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 21 Participants and Procedure ................................ ................................ .............. 21 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 22 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 25 Factor Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 Multiple Regression ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 29 3 STUDY 2: GOAL EFFECTS ON RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES ............................ 31 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 31 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 32 Pretest and Posttest Measures ................................ ................................ ........ 33 Daily Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 35 Variance Decomposition and State Trait Convergent Validity .......................... 35 Trait Level Relationship Goals Predicting Relationship Outcomes ................... 36 State Level Relationship Goals and Relationship Satisfaction ......................... 45 St ate Level Mood and Relationship Satisfaction ................................ .............. 50 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 51 4 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ....................... 53
6 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 Future Directions and Implications ................................ ................................ .......... 59 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 60 APPENDIX A STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ......... 61 B APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS ................................ ................................ 63 C SELF IMAGE AND COMPASSIONATE GOALS ................................ .................... 64 D PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP QUALITY COMPONENT (PRQC) INVENTORY .... 65 E STUDY 2: INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ......... 66 F COVARIATES USED IN STUDY 2 ................................ ................................ ......... 68 G INCLUSION OF OTHER IN THE SELF (IOS) SCALE ................................ ............ 72 H INTERNATIONAL POSITIVE AND NEGA TIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE SHORT FORM ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 73 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 74 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 80
7 LIST OF TABLE S Table page 2 1 Descriptive statistics for Study 1 ................................ ................................ ......... 23 2 2 Zero order correlations for Study 1 ................................ ................................ ..... 24 2 3 Approach Compassionate, Avoidance, and Self Image goals predicting perceived relationship quality in Study 1 ................................ ............................ 28 3 1 Variance decomposition for Le vel 1 and 2 variables in Study 2 ......................... 36 3 2 Descriptive statistics for trait level measures in Study 2 ................................ ..... 38 3 3 Zero order correlation s for all variables used in Study 2 ................................ .... 39 3 4 Baseline use of approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image goals predicting baseline perceptions of relationship quality in Study 2 ....................... 44 3 5 Baseline use of approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image goals predicting posttest perceptions of relationship quality in Study 2 ........................ 45 3 6 Descriptive statistics for state level measures in Study 2. ................................ .. 46 3 7 Baseline model and potential moderators of the association between state level daily relationship goal use and relationship satisfaction in Study 2 ............ 47
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Schematic confirmatory factor analysis models for Study 1. .............................. 27 3 1 The effect of anxious attachment style on the association between daily relationship satisfaction and daily approach compassionate goal use in Study 2. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 49 3 2 The effect of agreeableness on the association between daily relationship satisfaction and daily approach compassionate goal use in Study 2. ................ 50
9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Scho ol of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CREATING OUR OWN RELATIONSHIP EXPERIENCES: THE EFFECTS OF RELATIONSHIP GOALS ON RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES By Amanda N. Gesselman May 2014 Chair: Gregory D. Webster Major: Psychology Relationships with others enhance our psychological and physical well being, so long as they are quality relationships. While quality relationships are likely to be preferred by all, this preference does not translate into reality. In the current research, I explore how people may contribute to their own relationship experiences fostering beneficial or detrimental relational dynamics through the goals driving their interactions with their relationship partner. Across two studies, I conducted a multi method investigation into the goals that people hold in their romantic relationships and how those goals affect perceptions of relationship quality and satisfaction. In Study 1, I conducted confirmatory fac tor analyses to determine whether the four relationship goals currently proposed in the literature approach, avoidance, self image, and compassionate goals reflect four distinct constructs that uniquely predict perceptions of relationship quality. Results suggested that a three goal model best fit the data, following the combination of approach and compassionate goals into one factor. Additionally, only use of approach compassionate goals predicted perceptions of relationship quality. In Study 2, I conducte d a two week daily diary study to explore the effects of relationship goals on relationship satisfaction at the trait and state level.
10 Across both levels, use of approach compassionate goals was associated with perceptions of greater relationship quality and satisfaction. Avoidance and self image goals were unrelated to relationship outcomes. I discuss the implications of this research for the current literature on relationship goals, and how approach compassionate goals may be applied to mental health and couples counseling.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship quality are linked with positive outcomes for relationship partners, and this association has implications for both psychological and physical health (e.g., 1998; Gable & Impett, 2012). For instance, studies show that more and higher quality social connections predict better psychological well being, physical health, and more rapid recovery from illness (Uchino, Caciopp o, & Kiecolt Glaser, 1996). Put simply, better relationships have healthier partners. Nevertheless, even our most important relationships are not uniformly positive, and some relationships can bring distress and deterioration (Reblin, Uchino, & Smith, 2010 ; Uchino, 2013). Being socially of negative outcomes, including depression, anxiety, drug use, increased chances of contracting the common cold, decline in immune f unctioning, and increased risk of cardiac failure leading to death (Cohen, 2005; Eaker et al., 2007; Gable & Impett, 2012; Wilcox, Kasl, & Berkman, 1994). Recent meta analyses suggest that poor or absent relations may be as strongly related to mortality as habitual smoking, lack of exercise, and obesity (Holt Lundstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). Reflecting on these findings, it is safe to assume that most relationship partners would prefer and benefit from satisfying, quality relationships. Such a preference b egs the question: How do we create good relationships? The literature on personal relationship outcomes has primarily focused on two areas: (1) the influence of individual differences factors, including personality variables or attachment styles; or (2) t he influence of characteristics of partner interactions, such
12 as self disclosure behavior and responsiveness to the disclosure. This research builds on the central idea that humans have a fundamental need for social connections (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; E mmons, 1999; Klinger, 1977; Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000). Specifically, because close relationships are essential to our well being, we are highly motivated to form them. Although the fundamental need to belong is a widely accepted tenet, surprisingly little research has examined the motivational component of relationship maintenance and continuity. Partners may be motivated to interact with their relationship partners to satisfy different goals, and those goals may differentially affect relationship o utcomes and ultimately well being for both partners. In the relationship. Identifying Relationship Goals Investigations into relationship focused goals fall into two programs of research: one focused on approach versus avoidance goals, and another focused on compassionate versus self image goals. In the current research, I examine each of these four goals and their influence on positive or negative relationship outcome s. Following a brief overview of earlier work on social goals in general, I review both programs of goal research as they pertain to relationships. Prior Work on Social Goals Pioneering research on the motives underlying the fundamental need for social co nnection extensively focused on need for affiliation, which was characterized by goals shaped by feelings of insecurity, rejection, and fear of social isolation (Atkinson, Heyns, & Veroff, 1954; DeCharms, 1957; Shipley & Veroff, 1952). As conflicting resul ts
13 with others, vs. positive correlations with interest in garnering approval from others), two disparate motivational processes emerged: approach and avoidance goals fo r approach goals, whereas fear of rejection drove avoidance goals (Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1974; Russell & Mehrabian, 1978). Investigations into the influence of these motiv ational states on social outcome variables revealed that people with more approach goals evoked more positive judgments from others, whereas people with more avoidance goals evoked more negative evaluations. Although informative and influential, early und ertakings predominantly characterized these goals as opposite ends of the same spectrum. This characterization allowed for labeling a person as an approacher or an avoider. More recent work characterizes approach and avoidance goals not as a bipolar contin uum, but as two independent processes that can operate simultaneously (e.g., Gable, Reis, & Elliott, 2003). That is, being motivated by approach goals does not necessitate the absence of avoidance goals, and both types of goals can be held simultaneously. Neurophysiological models of motivation (Gray, 1987) lend support to the idea of distinct processes. Specifically, independent approach (appetitive) and avoidance (aversive) systems were identified using electroencephalography (EEG). The behavioral approac h system (BAS) is a neurophysiological pathway in the left prefrontal cortex that activates in response to reward relevant cues. This approach oriented system drives behavior in response to those cues. Alternatively, the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) is the avoidance oriented neurophysiological system. The BIS is located in the right prefrontal cortex and activates based on cues of punishment (Carver & White, 1994;
14 see Elliot & Covington, 2001, for a review). Whereas both systems can be activated at an y given time or at the same time people show individual differences in sensitivity to cues. In studies of self relevant outcomes, people with more BAS activation (i.e., more sensitive BAS pathways) experienced more daily positive affect, reported greater s ubjective well being, and had fewer depressive symptoms. Conversely, people with more BIS activation experienced more negative affect and less subjective well being (Coats, Janoff Bulman, & Alpert, 1996; Elliott, Sheldon, & Church, 1997). The neuropsycho logical evidence for separate motivational systems has translated into research on personal relationships, which I review in the following sections. One remaining conflict in the earlier literature, however, surrounds the cues of reward, were thought to hold more approach goals across contexts. Research building off these ideas shows di fferences in measuring dispositional (trait) goals versus more short term or fluctuating (state) goals (Brunstein, 1993; Cantor, 1994; Elliott, 1997; Emmons, 1986). The research reviewed in the following sections, and the current project, assesses both tra it and state level goals to ensure a more complete understanding of the effects of goals on relationship outcomes. Avoidance and Approach Goals in Relationships In the context of personal relationships, approach goals focus on obtaining positive outcomes, such as increased feelings of intimacy. In contrast, avoidance goals focus on evading negative outcomes, such as conflict or disapproval (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005). Gable and others have applied this motivational perspective to relationship maintenan ce particularly factors that are helpful or harmful and to
15 broader relationship outcomes to better understand how partners may create positive or negative relationship experiences. In one study of maintenance behavior, researchers applied the approach and avoidance framework to sacrifice in personal relationships (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, interest for a partner or relationship continuity, is associated with a host of opposing consequences. In studies of dating or Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999). Observations from couples therapy has suggested relationship satisfaction and feelings of a loss of self (Cramer, 2002; Jack & Dill, 1992). To determine how sacrificing leads to good or bad outcomes, Impett et al. (2005) gathered the goals behind sacrificial behaviors in couples. In both a single sessi on and a two week daily diary study, the authors collected specific examples of sacrificing suggested that sacrificing was beneficial when motivated by approach goals. P eople driven to sacrifice by more approach goals experienced more positive affect, life satisfaction, relationship quality, and less conflict. Approach oriented sacrificers also experienced an increased likelihood of remaining in their relationship one mon th later. Sacrifices driven by avoidance goals corresponded with negative affect, lower life when describing times their partner sacrificed for them, participants reported less well being and relationship satisfaction in response to behaviors seemingly motivated by avoidance goals.
16 Following these findings, researchers investigated motivational influences on sexual behavior between relationship partners, because s uch behavior has the potential to bring disparate results (Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005). In a two week daily diary study, the authors collected information on daily sexual interactions, motives for engaging in these interactions, and personal and interpe rsonal outcomes. As in the study of sacrifices, partners who were driven to have sex with their partners by approach goals reported more positive affect, life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, fun, and less conflict. When driven by avoidance goals, however, partners experienced more negative affect, less satisfaction with life and the relationship, and more conflict. Taken together, these findings suggest that relationship partners may create positive relationship environments through approach driven behaviors, whereas avoidance driven behaviors may do more harm than good. Drawing from these findings, Gable (2006) more thoroughly examined approach and avoidance goals as driving forces behind relationship outcomes over time. Across three studies, parti cipants reported their chronic and proximate romantic and social goals, which were content coded as approach or avoidance oriented. The researchers goals predicted relat ionship outcomes over time. Both chronic and proximate approach oriented goals predicted positive relationship outcomes over time, whereas avoidance oriented goals were associated with increased anxiety, negative attitudes toward the relationship, loneline ss and conflict over time. Partners with tendencies toward approach goals successfully fostered a positive relationship dynamic, but perhaps more
17 interestingly, partners with stronger or more frequent avoidance goals created the exact environment they wish ed to avoid (Gable & Impett, 2012). Compassionate and Self Image Goals in Relationships In a separate line of research, Crocker and colleagues (2008) argue that examining relationship goals in terms of approaching desired end states and avoiding undesir being and does not being. Instead, the researchers focus on self image and compassionate goals, and believe these (Crocker, Canevello, Breines, & Flynn, 2010). Self image goals are egoistic or egocentric motivations. People driven by self image goals wish to maintain and validate desire d conceptions of the self, and thus engage with others to reap the benefits to the self. Alternatively, compassionate goals involve a focus on the partner and the relationship. People driven by compassionate goals wish to have partner interactions that are mutually beneficial, satisfy the needs of both partners, and avoid harming their partner (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). In their initial examination of self image and compassionate goals affecting relationship functioning, Crocker and Canevello (2008) exa mined the impact of these divergent goals on social support in same sex roommate dyads entering their first semester of college with no prior relation to one another. The researchers observed their roommate dyads longitudinally to assess the impact of both trait level goals and more momentary fluctuations of goals on a newly emerging support system between the partners. Across time, more compassionate goals held by the roommates predicted increases in social support received, social support given, and trust but only if self
18 image goals were infrequent. Roommates with more self image goals even if they also held compassionate goals received less support from, and were also perceived to give less support to, their roommate. As support is associated with bette r physical and psychological health, it seems that roommates with more compassionate and less self image goals fostered an environment that provided valuable benefits to both partners. Roommates with more self image goals, however, appeared to create a pot entially detrimental environment for both partners. Building on the initial investigation, Canevello and Crocker (2010) sought to Specifically, the authors examined re sponsiveness as a function of self image or compassionate goals. Responsiveness is defined as supporting, understanding, and valuing important aspects of a partner, and includes an emotional component, a psychological component, or both. Research shows tha t people who perceive their relationship partner to be responsive to their needs feel closer, more satisfied, and more committed to their relationship. For the actor, self image or compassionate goals can affect responsiveness in two ways. First, the goal projects onto the relationship partner. Lemay and colleagues (2007, 2008) have found that relationship partners do contribute to their own relationship experiences in this way. Second, the actor Shaver, 198 8). Across two studies, Canevello and Crocker (2010) again followed same
19 sex roommate dyads entering their first year of college. Results suggested that goals and the generally, roommates with compassionate goals became more responsive over time and their roommate perceived them as such. They also perceived their roommate to be more responsive, an d their roommate reported increases in their own responsive behavior. The increase in responsiveness given and received corresponded with adopting more compassionate goals, perpetuating an environment of support and understanding. Roommates with more self image goals created a less enticing environment. They became less responsive over time and were perceived as such. Their roommate also became less responsive, and was perceived as such. This decreased level of responsiveness did not perpetuate further self image goals, but corresponded with a marked decline in compassionate goals in both partners, thus prohibiting any growth in Overview of the Current Research To date, I know of no research that has examined all four goals (i.e., approach, avoid, self image, and compassionate) simultaneously to determine possible overlap, and to determine which goals are most effective at explaining and predicting positive versus negative relationship outcomes. Because relati onship outcomes weigh heavily on the psychological and physical well being of partners, it is important to better understand individual differences in goal orientations and how each type of goal uniquely contributes to relationship outcomes. The current re search examines these contributions. Across two studies, I expand prior work on the motivational aspect of
20 romantic relationships, further investigating how partners create relationship outcomes for themselves through their goals. In the following sections I outline both studies and their results. Last, I provide a general discussion and limitations of the current work. For the current research, I developed four focused hypotheses: 1. Each of the four goals (i.e., avoidance, approach, self image, compassiona te) will represent four separate constructs (Study 1). 2. Each of the four goals will uniquely relate to relationship outcomes (Study 1). 3. Relationship goals will relate to relationship outcomes at the trait level (Study 2). 4. Relationship goals will relate to r elationship outcomes at the state level (Study 2).
21 CHAPTER 2 STUDY 1: EXAMINING G OAL STRUCTURE The purpose of Study 1 is to determine whether the four goals (i.e., approach, avoidance, self image, compassionate) represent distinct constructs, and wheth er they uniquely predict relationship outcomes. Method Participants and Procedure Participants (N = 363; 123 men, 240 women) were recruited from the University 212), and Am Introductory Psychology students at the beginning of each semester as part of their course requirements. MTurk pa rticipants completed the measures via the MTurk interface and were paid 26¢ upon completion. Age ranged from 18 to 66 years (M = 24.1, SD = 9.8). The majority of participants were White or Caucasian (62.4%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (10.2%), Asian o r Pacific Islander (8.2%), Black or African American (7.7%), biracial or multiethnic (6.0%), Participants were required to be in a monogamous romantic relationship to participate. Due to measur ement restrictions in the prescreening questionnaire, I assessed relationship length categorically: 40.8% had been in their relationship for more than two years, 20.1% for one to two years, 16.3% for six months to one year, 12.7% for three to six months, 5 .8% for one to two months, 2.8% for two to four weeks, and 1.7%
22 exclusively heterosexual; 4.7% were predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual; 2.2% were pred ominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual; 1.7% were equally heterosexual and homosexual; .3% were predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual; .3% were predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual; 1.9 % were exclusively homosexual; and .6% identified as non sexual. Distribution of sexual orientation was similar in both the SONA and MTurk samples. Measures First, participants completed the Informed Consent (see Appendix A) and a demographic questionnair e (i.e., age, sex, sexual orientation, relationship length). Next, participants reported on their chronic approach and avoidance goals with an 8 item measure that was developed for relationships more generally (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006), but has been a dapted for romantic relationships by Gable (2006; see Appendix happens in my romantic r point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree Participants reported on their self image and compassionate goals using a 14 item measure developed by Canevello and Crocker (2010), adapted for romantic relationships (f rom roommate relationships; see Appendix C). The measure assesses self goals with seven items inclu
23 using seven point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). I av eraged the items to create self Last, participants completed the outcome measure, the Perceived Relationship Quality Component Inventory (PRQC; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Appendix D). The PRQC ( item inventory that includes assesses much do yo point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Descriptive statistics and zero order correlations for all Study 1 measures are presented in Table 2 1 and 2 2, respectively. Table 2 1. Descriptive statistics for Study 1 Overall Sample SONA Sample MTurk Sample Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Age 24.12 9.75 18.65 1.05 31.76 11.25 Approach 5.93 1.06 5.91 1.00 5.97 1.14 Avoid 5.28 1.27 5.14 1.33 5.48 1.15 Self image 6.01 0.95 4.18 0.92 4.45 1.07 Compassionate 4.29 0.99 6.01 0.97 6.00 0.93 PRQC composite 5.90 1.07 5.92 0.99 5.87 1.17 PRQC satisfaction 5.80 1.33 5.78 1.35 5.81 1.32 PRQC commitment 6.19 1.25 6.16 1.27 6.24 1.23 PRQC intimacy 6.03 1.13 6.11 1.04 5.91 1.23 PRQC trust 6.00 1.21 6 .03 1.20 5.96 1.22 PRQC passion 5.26 1.44 5.30 1.35 5.20 1.57 PRQC love 6.09 1.31 6.08 1.29 6.09 1.34
24 Table 2 2. Zero order correlations for Study 1 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Age 2. Sex .05 3. S exual orientation .36** .03 4. Relationship length .37** .04 .00 5. Approach .00 .02 .02 .05 6. Avoid .10 .05 .08 .03 .47** 7. Compassionate .02 .01 .04 .03 .80** .51** 8. Self image 03 .06 .02 .01 .10 .36** .08 9. PRQC composite .05 .06 .03 .04 .67** .26** .60** .06 10. PRQC satisfaction .01 .05 .03 .06 .59** .25** .54** .06 .89** 11. PRQC commitment .03 .00 .04 .11* .63** .26** .56** .05 .85** 76** 12. PRQC intimacy .10 .05 .04 .03 .62** .20** .55** .06 .91** .77** .72** 13. PRQC trust .01 .09 .08 .48** .48** .17** .48** .08 .80** .72** .57** .70** 14. PRQC passion .14** .10 .03 .43** .43** .13* .31** .02 .72** .51* .44** .68** .43** 15. PRQC love .00 .01 .02 .67** .66** .31** .60** .03 .87** .71** .81** .75** .61** .50** -Note ** p < .01, p < .05.
25 Results Factor Structure I conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the four trait goals (i.e., avoid ance, approach, self image, and compassionate) to determine whether they represent four unique constructs. The fit of the four factor model was poor: 2(203) = 932.1, p < .001; CFI = .84, TLI = .82; RMSEA = .099, 90% CI [.093, .106], pclose < .001; SRMR = .128 ( Figure 2 1a). The poor fit was largely due to the self low correlations with the other three factors (rs = .08, .30, and .07 for approach, avoidance, and compassion, respectively). In contrast, the correlations among the other three factors were .54 (approach avoidance), .92 (approach compassion), and .57 (avoidance compassion). Because of this pattern, I removed the self image factor and items and conducted a second CFA using the remaining three factors. Model fit was acceptable: 2( 87) = 328.2, p < .001; CFI = .93, TLI = .92; RMSEA = .087, 90% CI [.077, .098], pclose < .001; SRMR = .062 (Figure 2 1a). Next, because the approach and compassionate factors were highly correlated, I conducted a hierarchical three factor CFA (again withou t the self image factor) with a second order approach compassionate factor. Model fit was acceptable and identical to that of the three factor model described above ( Figure 2 1b). Last, I conducted an additional CFA to determine whether a one factor model would fit the data better than either the three factor or hierarchical models. Model fit was poor: 2(90) = 633.0, p < .001; CFI = .84, TLI = .82; RMSEA = .129, 90% CI [.120, 0.138], pclose < .001; SRMS = .078 ( Figure 2 1c). Moreover, the three factor and
26 hierarchical model fit the data significantly better than the one factor model, 2(3) = 304.8, p < .001. Given these CFAs and the pattern of correlations among the four constructs, I chose to combine the approach and compassionate scales. I did this by s tandardizing ( z scoring) the approach and compassionate scales and calculating their average. I used standardized (vs. raw) scores to equate for differences in variance and numbers of items across the two component scales. This procedure ensured that the c ombined measure approach compassionate goals contained an equal weighting of both app roach and compassionate scales. Multiple Regression To examine whether the factors uniquely predicted scores on the PRQC and thus uniquely predicted perceptions of relat ionship quality, I conducted seven regressions, one for each of the six PRQC subscales and its composite. The predictor variables in each regression were the approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image factors. Results for each regression appear in T able 2 3. Each regression revealed the same pattern: approach compassionate goals were positively and significantly associated with higher scores on the PRQC and its subscales. Avoidance and self image goals were not related to scores on the PRQC or any of its subscales, except for the Intimacy subscale, where avoidance goals were negatively associated with feelings of intimacy (b = 0.15, t(358) = 2.67, p < .01, rp = .14).
27 Figure 2 1. Schematic confirmatory factor analysis models for Study 1. Individ ual items, errors, and loading have been omitted for greater clarity. Panel a s hows the four (solid and dotted lines) and three (solid lines) factor models. Panel b shows the hierarchical or second order factor model. Panel c shows the one factor model, in which the 15 items load onto a global goals factor.
28 Table 2 3. Approach Compassionate, Avoidance, and Self Image goals predicting perceived relationship quality in Study 1 Goals Approach Compassionate Avoidance Self image Variable b t 358 r p b t 35 8 r p b t 358 r p PRQC composite 0.82 17.28*** .67 0.08 1.74 .09 0.07 1.62 .08 Satisfaction subscale 0.88 13.09*** .57 0.04 0.59 .03 0.11 1.92 .10 Commitment subscale 0.88 14.65*** .62 0.07 1.06 .06 0.07 1.40 .07 Intimacy subscale 0.83 1 5.39*** .63 0.15 2.67** .14 0.06 1.21 .06 Trust subscale 0.72 11.16*** .51 0.11 1.61 .08 0.08 1.42 .07 Passion subscale 0.67 7.92*** .39 0.13 1.49 .08 0.01 0.17 .01 Love subscale 0.93 15.27*** .63 0.00 0.03 .00 0.08 1.47 .08 N ote. *** p <.001, ** p <.01 Next, I examined the effect of relationship length as a moderator of the association between relationship goals and perceptions of relationship quality. Longer relationships were characterized by more commitment (b = 0.02, t(354) = 3.04, p < .01, rp = .16) and love (b = 0.02, t(354) = 4.39, p < .001, rp = .23). No significant interactions emerged (all ps > .08). On an exploratory basis, I also examined sample differences as moderators in the association of relationship goals on rel ationship satisfaction in all seven regressions. Out of 21 tests (i.e., three interactions multiplied by seven dependent variables), only one was significant. The relationship between approach compassionate goals and the Passion subscale was moderated by s ample differences (b = 0.39, t(352) = 2.26, p < .05, rp = .12). The association between approach compassionate goals and relationship satisfaction was positive for both samples, but significantly more positive for participants recruited from MTurk. Overall because only 1 of 21 interaction effects was significant (which would be expected by chance), the effects were remarkably consistent across samples.
29 Discussion The results of Study 1 showed differences in goal structure and in the effectiveness of each goal in predicting relationship outcomes. Specifically, CFAs showed that treating approach, avoidance, self image, and compassionate goals as four unique constructs provided a poor reflection of the underlying data. The self image goal items did not form a cohesive factor, and the self image factor was not highly correlated with the others. Thus, the self image factor was removed from the measurement model. The resulting three factor and hierarchical models provided a better fit to the underlying data, and the hierarchical model suggested that the approach and compassionate scales could be combined to create an approach compassionate second order factor. Although the self image factor was not included in the model of best fit, I examined whether the self i mage factor along with the approach compassionate and avoidance factors was associated with perceptions of relationship quality, as measured by the PRQC composite and its six subscales. Multiple regression results suggested that positive relationship outco mes are most closely associated with the approach compassionate factor. The avoidance factor was not associated with most relationship outcomes, but was negatively associated with feelings of intimacy toward image factor di d not predict any relationship outcomes. In sum, results for Hypothesis 1 were mixed. On the one hand, all four goals could not be subsumed by a single factor; on the other hand, the approach and compassionate goals correlated so highly that they were best combined into a single measure. Thus, the results refute prior literature suggesting that each of the four goals is a unique construct. Regarding Hypothesis 2, each of the goals did not independently predict
30 perceptions of relationship quality. Indeed, on ly the approach compassionate composite measure related positively and significantly to the relationship outcomes.
31 CHAPTER 3 STUDY 2: GOAL EFFECT S ON RELATIONSHIP OU TCOMES In Study 2, I examined the extent to which the three relationship goals extracted from Study 1 predicted state and trait level relationship outcomes. Method Participants I recruited participants who were currently in a romantic relationship (N = 128; 76 pool. Participants received partial course credit for their participation (i.e., 8 participant pool credits). Age ranged from 18 to 29 years (M = 19.0, SD = 1.5). The majority of the sample identified as White/Caucasian (65.4%), followed by Hispanic/Latin o (13.5%), Asian/South Pacific Islander (12.5%), Biracial/Multiethnic (5.8%), Black/African follows: 94.2% were exclusively heterosexual; 1.0% were predominantly heterose xual, only incidentally homosexual; 1.9% were predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual; 1.0% were predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual; 1.0% were predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual ; and 1.0% were exclusively homosexual. Participants were required to be in a committed romantic relationship to partake in the study. Relationship length ranged from two weeks to 5.7 years (M = 1.4 years, SD = 1.3). Median relationship length was 11 month s. To increase validity of results, I included only those participants (82%) who completed at least half (7 of 14) of the daily surveys in the analyses below. I examined differences between participants with fewer than seven days versus seven or more days
32 by conducting independent samples t tests on 23 pretest trait level variables, including all relationship goals and subscales of the PRQC, as well as each covariate listed below. Only one test reached significance. Scores on the Passion subscale of the PRQ C were higher for those who did not complete at least seven days (M = 5.75, SD = 1.03) than for those who completed seven or more days (M = 5.11, SD = 1.26), t(125) = 2.27, p < .05, d = 0.41. Given that I tested 23 variables using an alpha level of .05, ho wever, it is unsurprising that at least one test reached significance. Overall, there was little evidence of differences between these two groups of participants. Thus, the sample for all further analyses included 105 participants (59 men and 46 women) wit h a total of 1,424 daily measurements. Procedure Participants first attended an in lab instruction session where they completed their informed consent form (see Appendix E) and pretest measures (described below). Between pretest and posttest, participants were queried daily for two weeks. Previous daily diary studies of relationship goals suggests that 14 days is sufficient for observing effects of relationship goals on relationship outcomes (e.g., Impett et al., 2010). Participants received their daily sur veys at 7 p.m., and were required to complete the survey each night before bed. Following the two week period, participants received a link to the posttest measure via email. They were debriefed upon completion. If a participant did not complete the postte st survey within two days, they received a reminder email. If the participant did not complete the posttest within a week, he or she received the debriefing and course credit was applied.
33 Pretest and Posttest Measures At pretest, participants completed a d emographics questionnaire (e.g., age, sex, measures of covariates that have been related to goal use in prior research. For instance, participants completed measures of psychological entitlement and attachment style because entitlement and avoidant attachment have been shown to be negatively associated with compassionate goal use (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). They completed measures of personality because agreeableness and extraversion have been positively associated with compassionate goal use (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). Last, they reported on their rejection sensitivity, as this sensitivity has previously been linked with less approach goal use and more avoidance goal use (Gable, 2006; see Appendix F for covariates). Participants completed measures of trait level relationship goals and outcomes at both pretest and posttest. Unless noted otherwise, participants responded using 7 point Likert scales (1 = disagree strongl y, 7 = agree strongly) for all measures. Participants completed the Psychological Entitlement Scale (Campbell, Bonacci, own needs are more important than the needs of others. Example items include, Participants completed the 36 item Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire Revised (ECR R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) to assess attachment style. The ECR R measures anxious attachme
34 Participants completed the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008) to assess personality across five dimensions. This 44 item assessment includes o Participants completed the 18 item Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; orrow his/her how concerning each situation would be to them on a 7 point scale (1 = very unconcerned to 7 = very concerned). At both pretest and posttest, participa nts completed the Perceived Relationship lationship quality across six dimensions: participants completed the In clusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; see Appendix G). The IOS assesses the degree to which romantic concept through the presentation of seven increasingly overlapping Venn diagrams. Last, using the 8 and 14 item measures used in Study 1, I assessed trait
35 Daily Measures I assessed state le vel relationship goals with the same measures given at pretest and posttest, modified for short term administration as in previous daily diary studies of .91, avoidance I assessed daily relationship sat isfaction and closeness with two items taken using seven point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). These three items assessing daily satisfaction were combined into a composite satisfaction variable for anal .89). Additionally, I assessed daily mood with the 10 item International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form (Thompson, 2007; Appendix H). Participants indicated whether or not they experienced each of the ten mood using a seven poi nt scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very). Five of the items compose the positive affect subscale .28). Results Variance Decomposition and State Trait Convergent Validity A substantial amount of variability in relationship goal use and relationship satisfaction existed at the between and within person levels ( Table 3 1 ). The same
36 measures of relations hip goals were given at both the state and trait levels, which allowed for testing convergent validity. Trait level measurements were significantly correlated with each of their respective state measures, showing cross level convergent validity. Table 3 1 Variance decomposition for Level 1 and 2 variables in Study 2 Variance Proportion Validity statistics Variable Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2 r b t (97) p Relationship satisfaction 0.80 1.29 .38 .62 Goals Approach 1.10 1.21 .48 .5 2 .60 0.81 6.15 < .001 Avoid 0.76 1.24 .38 .62 .48 0.53 5.30 < .001 Self image 0.57 0.96 .37 .63 .47 0.47 5.15 < .001 Compassionate 0.63 1.14 .36 .64 .58 0.93 8.40 < .001 Note N = 105 with 1,424 daily assessments. See Nezlek & Gable, 2001; Ne zlek & Plesko, 2001. Trait Level Relationship Goals Predicting Relationship Outcomes To determine whether trait level goals and trait level perceptions of relationship quality were stable across time, I conducted paired samples t tests with the pretest a nd posttest measures of each goal and relationship outcome. Scores on the PRQC composite and five PRQC subscales were consistent across both measurements, indicating no significant change from Time 1 to Time 2 (ts = 0.55 to 1.65, ps > .10), although s cores on the Trust subscale did show a significant increase at posttest (t = 2.96, p < .01). Use of avoidance and self image goals decreased from pretest to posttest (t = 5.76, p < .001 and t = 5.88, p < .001 respectively), but use of approach compassionate goals held across both time points (t = 0.14, p = .89). Descriptive statistics for trait level relationship goals, perceptions of relationship quality,
37 and covariates are presented in Table 3 2 Zero order correlations for all trait leve l and state level variables appear in Table 3 3 To determine whether relationship goals predict relationship outcomes at the trait level, I examined the association between pretest goals and pretest outcomes, as well as the association between pretest go als and posttest outcomes. For each set of analyses, I conducted seven regressions. Pretest measures of approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image goals served as predictor variables in each regression. The criterion variables were the composite PRQ C scale, and each of the six PRQC subscales, measured at either pretest or posttest. Additionally, when examining posttest relationship outcomes, I entered the pretest measure of each criterion variable to control for baseline levels of each outcome. For i nstance, I entered the pretest measure of PRQC relationship satisfaction to control for baseline levels when predicting posttest relationship satisfaction. The association between pretest goals and outcomes were straightforward: across all seven regressio ns, greater use of approach compassionate goals were associated with higher scores on the relationship outcome measures at pretest. Use of avoidance or self image goals was not associated with relationship outcomes at pretest. Regression results for the ef fect of pretest goals on pretest outcomes are presented in Table 3 4
38 Table 3 2 Descriptive statistics for trait level measures in Study 2 Variable Mean SD Age (years) 19.00 1.50 Relationship length (years) 1.40 1.30 Pretest Approach goals .83 6.00 0.82 Avoidance goals .68 5.46 1.03 Self image goals .69 4.50 0.97 Compassionate goals .76 5.99 0.69 PRQC composite .92 5.9 3 0.72 PRQC satisfaction .93 5.91 1.00 PRQC commitment .94 6.14 1.02 PRQC intimacy .69 5.99 0.86 PRQC trust .73 6.23 0.75 PRQC passion .79 5.11 1.26 PRQC love .84 6.18 0.85 Psychological entitlement .86 3.02 1.17 Anxious att achment .91 2.80 1.14 Avoidant attachment .94 2.40 1.03 Extraversion .87 4.33 1.21 Agreeableness .76 5.26 0.86 Conscientiousness .81 4.87 0.89 Openness to experience .84 4.75 0.99 Neuroticism .80 3.92 1.03 Rejection sensitivity .87 3.77 0.96 Posttest Approach goals .89 5.78 0.97 Avoidance goals .75 4.88 1.22 Self image goals .85 3.83 1.24 Compassionate goals .88 5.76 0.89 PRQC composite .95 5.85 0.95 PRQC satisfaction .96 5.92 1.19 PRQC commit ment .95 6.09 1.17 PRQC intimacy .87 5.86 1.11 PRQC trust .82 5.98 0.97 PRQC passion .79 5.16 1.31 PRQC love .88 6.05 1.07
39 Table 3 3 Zero order correlations for all variables used in Study 2 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Demographics 1. Age 2. Sex .22* 3. Ethnicity .05 .15 4. Sexual orientation .02 .08 .07 5. Relationship length .14 .11 .04 .03 Time 1 variables 6. Approach compassionate .37** .14 .08 .18 .17 7. Avoidance .07 .14 .02 .02 .04 .32** 8. Self image .07 .11 .12 .01 .16 .14 .38** 9. PRQC .27** .16 .13 .06 .10 .65** .16 10. PRQC satisfaction .05 .01 .12 .00 .00 .46** .22* 11. PRQC commitment .06 .04 .08 .01 .12 .49** .18 12. PRQC intimacy .37** .17 .12 .03 .11 .63** .10 13. PRQC trust .16 .10 .15 .05 .03 .38** .08 14. PRQC passion .29** .19 .05 .16 .01 .39** .01 15. PRQC love .24* .20* .09 .01 .24* .60** .17 Time 2 variables 16. Approach compassionate .11 .06 .20 .01 .07 .66** .18 17. Avoidance .01 .26** .01 .19 .05 .12 .59** 18. Self image .16 .23* .21* .07 .03 .13 .22* 19. PRQC .09 .13 .13 .10 01 .56** .07 20. PRQC Satisfaction .01 .05 .13 .04 .01 .51** .12 21. PRQC Commitment .02 .08 .08 .10 .00 .47** .08 22. PRQC Intimacy .15 .16 .13 .04 .02 .55** .03 23. PRQC Trust .04 .02 .19 .07 .05 .32** .02 24. PRQC Passion .17 .21* .04 .18 .08 .39** .04 25. PRQC Love .08 .13 .08 .04 .12 .57** .14 Covariates 26. Psychological entitlement .15 .15 .10 .07 .19 .18 .05 27. Anxious attachment .14 .09 .18 .11 .23* 06 .12 28. Avoidant attachment .29** .20* .29** .11 .03 .53** .06 29. Extraversion .26** .08 .08 .16 .06 .19 .06 30. Agreeableness .08 .02 .16 .01 .04 .18 .15 31. Conscientiousness .13 .20* .04 .14 .03 .23* .13 32. Openness to experience .14 .13 .04 .01 .24* .19 .16 33. Neuroticism .03 .35* .25* .01 .03 .11 .13 34. Rejection sensitivity .28** .15 .16 .15 .12 .17 .05 Note. ** p < .01, p < .05
40 Table 3 3 Continued Variable 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Demographics 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Ethnicity 4. Sexual orientation 5. Relationship length Time 1 variables 6. Approach compassionate 7. Avoidance 8. Se lf image 9. PRQC .17 10. PRQC satisfaction .14 .80** 11. PRQC commitment .13 .78** .72** 12. PRQC intimacy .12 .87** .52** .58** 13. PRQC trust .17 .62** .53** .35** .50** 14. PRQC pas sion .10 .62** .25* .21* .59** .17 15. PRQC love .11 .83** .63** .70** .74** .44** .33** Time 2 variables 16. Approach compassionate .20* .56** .54** .57** .45** .34** .15 17. Avoidance .28** .03 .17 .16 .09 .03 .18 18. Self image .53** .23* .18 .14 .21* .16 .16 19. PRQC .25* .76** .69** .67** .61** .49** .34** 20. PRQC Satisfaction .25* .68** .74** .61** .52** .50** .19 21. PRQC Commitment .22* .64** .61** .81 ** .46** .32** .12 22. PRQC Intimacy .22* .73** .61** .57** .66** .47** .37** 23. PRQC Trust .24* .48** .47** .34** .37** .59** .10 24. PRQC Passion .19 .58** .37** .34** .49** .21* .68** 25. PRQC Love .14 .71** 67** .68** .56** .44** .16 Covariates 26. Psychological entitlement .29** .13 .15 .11 .06 .17 .05 27. Anxious attachment .16 .38** .36** .34** .31** .36** .12 28. Avoidant attachment .39** .61** .43** .41** .57** .47** .36** 29. Extraversion .10 .13 .01 .04 .19 .12 .35** 30. Agreeableness .14 .20* .32** .24* .07 .28* .08 31. Conscientiousness .07 .23* .25* .18 .17 .19 .12 32. Openness to experience .16 .04 .12 .10 .00 .0 3 .06 33. Neuroticism .18 .05 .13 .08 .01 .01 .07 34. Rejection sensitivity .02 .23* .13 .07 .25** .05 .35** Note. ** p < .01, p < .05
41 Table 3 3 Continued. Variable 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Demographics 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Ethnicity 4. Sexual orientation 5. Relationship length Time 1 variables 6. Approach compassionate 7. Avoidance 8. Self image 9. PRQC 10. PRQC satisfacti on 11. PRQC commitment 12. PRQC intimacy 13. PRQC trust 14. PRQC passion 15. PRQC love Time 2 variables 16. Approach compassionate .54** 17. Avoidance .08 .33** 18. Self image .16 .13 .47** 19. PRQC .67** .76** .11 .21* 20. PRQC Satisfaction .57** .71** .17 .16 .90** 21. PRQC Commitment .60** .67** .15 .18 .82** .70** 22. PRQC Intimacy .65** .72** .06 .19 .9 4** .80** .71** 23. PRQC Trust .41** .58** .10 .21* .75** .71** .50** 24. PRQC Passion .38** .40** .10 .20* .71** .51** .43* 25. PRQC Love .74** .72** .18 .12 .89** .81** .76* Covariates 26. Psychological enti tlement .05 .12 .02 .28** .08 .05 .09 27. Anxious attachment .28** .16 .12 .30** .33** .30** .28* 28. Avoidant attachment .55** .45** .12 .45** .58** .45** .48* 29. Extraversion .07 .02 .08 .02 .03 .03 .09 30. Ag reeableness .10 .11 .02 .17 .12 .16 .18 31. Conscientiousness .15 .17 .05 .24* .15 .17 .15 32. Openness to experience .06 .02 .23* .05 .01 .04 .04 33. Neuroticism .08 .18 .01 .05 .10 .10 .08 34. Rejection sensiti vity .10 .02 .12 .32** .12 .08 .02 Note. ** p < .01, p < .05
42 Table 3 3 Continued Variable 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Demographics 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Ethnicity 4. Sexual orientation 5. Relationship le ngth Time 1 variables 6. Approach compassionate 7. Avoidance 8. Self image 9. PRQC 10. PRQC satisfaction 11. PRQC commitment 12. PRQC intimacy 13. PRQC trust 14. PRQC passion 15. PRQC love Time 2 variables 16. Approach compassionate 17. Avoidance 18. Self image 19. PRQC 20. PRQC Satisfaction 21. PRQC Commitment 22. PRQC Intimacy 23. PRQC Trust .66** 24. PRQC Passion .70** .36** 25. PRQC Love .82** .61** .48** Covariates 26. Psychological entitlement .09 .02 .11 .08 27. Anxious attachment .31 ** .42** .11 .27** .22* 28. Avoidant attachment .57** .48** .38** .55** .22* .39* 29. Extraversion .06 .07 .19 .01 .07 .06 .18 30. Agreeableness .07 .17 .10 .15 .27** .36** .33** 31. Conscientiousness .10 .15 .07 .12 .33** .35** .17 32. Openness to experience .00 .01 .04 .02 .07 .04 .09 33. Neuroticism .17 .07 .08 .14 .11 .34** .04 34. Rejection sensitivity .12 .11 .20* .07 .28** .51** .33** Note. ** p < .01, p < .05
43 Tabl e 3 3 Continued. Variable 29 30 31 32 33 34 Demographics 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Ethnicity 4. Sexual orientation 5. Relationship length Time 1 variables 6. Approach compassionate 7. Avo idance 8. Self image 9. PRQC 10. PRQC satisfaction 11. PRQC commitment 12. PRQC intimacy 13. PRQC trust 14. PRQC passion 15. PRQC love Time 2 variables 16. App roach compassionate 17. Avoidance 18. Self image 19. PRQC 20. PRQC Satisfaction 21. PRQC Commitment 22. PRQC Intimacy 23. PRQC Trust 24. PRQC Passion 25. PRQC Love Covariates 26. Psychological entitlement 27. Anxious attachment 28. Avoidant attachment 29. Extraversion 30. Agreeableness .08 31. Conscientiousness .32** .34** 32. Openness to experience .17 .16 .06 33. Neuroticism .14 .22* .17 .05 34. Rejection sensitivity .41 .28** .39** .04 .26** Note. ** p < .01, p < .05
44 Table 3 4 Baseline use of approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image goals predicti ng baseline perceptions of relationship quality in Study 2 Goals Approach Compassionate Avoidance Self image Variable B t 100 r p b t 100 r p b t 100 r p PRQC composite 0.50 7.82*** .62 0.02 0.32 .03 0.05 0.83 .08 Satisfaction subscale 0.42 4.00*** .37 0.15 1.44 .14 0.15 1.48 .15 Commitment subscale 0.51 4.81*** .43 0.06 0.59 .06 0.10 0.93 .09 Intimacy subscale 0.62 7.93*** .62 0.11 1.39 .14 0.01 0.19 .02 Trust subscale 0.29 3.56*** .34 0.00 0.04 .00 0.09 1.17 .12 Passio n subscale 0.61 4.44*** .41 0.19 1.47 .14 0.03 0.81 .08 Love subscale 0.55 6.80*** .56 0.02 0.24 .02 0.02 0.19 .02 Note. *** p <.001 The association between pretest goals and posttest outcomes was more nuanced because there was so little chang e in trait measures over time (i.e., pretest measures explained nearly all the variance in their respective posttest measures, leaving little variance for other measures, such as goals, to explain). When controlling for the pretest level of the outcome var iable, no goal predicted posttest levels of relationship outcomes for the majority of criterion variables (i.e., PRQC composite, commitment, trust, or passion). Use of approach compassionate goals did predict an increase in feelings of relationship satisfa ction (b = 0.28, t = 2.76, p < .01, rp = .27) and intimacy (b = 0.28, t = 2.17, p < .05, rp = .22) at posttest, with a marginal effect for feelings for love (b = 0.21, t = 1.92, p = .06, rp = .19). Regression results for the effect of pretest g oals on posttest outcomes are presented in Table 3 5
45 Table 3 5 Baseline use of approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image goals predicting posttest perceptions of relationship quality in Study 2 Goals Approach Compassionate Avoidance Self i mage Variable b t 95 r p b t 95 r p b t 95 r p PRQC composite 0.13 1.33 .14 0.03 0.45 .05 0.09 1.21 .12 Satisfaction subscale 0.28 2.76** .27 0.06 0.63 .06 0.12 1.27 .13 Commitment subscale 0.15 1.65 .17 0.07 0.88 .09 0.07 0.90 .09 Intimac y subscale 0.28 2.17* .22 0.06 0.60 .06 0.10 1.04 .11 Trust subscale 0.13 1.27 .13 0.00 0.03 .00 0.12 1.24 .13 Passion subscale 0.21 1.68 .17 0.06 0.55 .06 0.11 1.02 .10 Love subscale 0.21 1.92 .19 0.00 0.01 .00 0.05 0.56 .06 No te. ** p < .01, p < .05 State Level Relationship Goals and Relationship Satisfaction Because daily goal usage and relationship satisfaction data were nested within participants, I conducted multilevel modeling using the HLM 7.01 program (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2010). The three item daily relationship satisfaction composite variable was the dependent variable, with daily usage of approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image goals as predictor variables. In the baseline model, results suggested th at daily use of approach compassionate goals predicted higher levels of relationship satisfaction (b = 0.52, t = 13.76, p < .001, rp = .80). Use of avoidance goals marginally predicted higher levels of relationship satisfaction (b = 0.06, t = 1.8 8, p = .06, rp = .18). Daily self image goal usage was not associated with daily relationship satisfaction (b = 0.03, t = 1.27, p = .21, rp = .12). Descriptive statistics for state level goals and relationship satisfaction are presented in Table 3 6
46 T able 3 6 Descriptive statistics for state level measures in Study 2. Variable Mean SD Approach goals .91 4.77 1.49 Avoidance goals .79 4.28 1.40 Self image goals .82 3.37 1.22 Compassionate goals .92 4.97 1.31 Relationship satisfaction .89 5. 06 1.43 Next, because there were significant between person differences in the association between approach compassion goal use and relationship satisfaction ( 2 = 216.15, p < .001), I examined several individual difference variables as moderators o f this association. Potential moderators included participant sex, relationship length, attachment style, rejection sensitivity, psychological entitlement, and Big Five personality traits. Following this investigation, I examined daily reports of positive and negative mood as potential covariates. Results for the baseline model and potential moderators appear in Table 3 7
47 Table 3 7 Baseline model and potential moderators of the association between state level daily relationship goal use and relationship satisfaction in Study 2 Goals Approach Compassionate Avoidance Self image Variable df b t r p b t r p b t r p Baseline model 103 0.52 13.68* .80 0.06 1.87 .18 0.03 1.27 .12 Moderators Participant sex 102 0.12 1.54 .15 0. 01 0.20 .02 0.07 1.32 .13 Avoidant attachment 95 0.00 0.17 .02 0.03 1.18 .12 0.00 0.12 .01 Anxious attachment 95 0.08 2.08* .21 0.05 1.86 .19 0.00 0.26 .03 Rejection sensitivity 96 0.03 0.88 .09 0.01 0.26 .03 0.02 0. 76 .08 Psychological entitlement 96 0.00 0.08 .01 0.05 1.39 .14 0.01 0.27 .03 Extraversion 96 0.02 0.47 .05 0.04 1.62 .16 0.01 0.30 .03 Neuroticism 96 0.02 0.50 .05 0.04 1.20 .12 0.04 1.52 .15 Conscientiousness 96 0 .05 1.00 .10 0.02 0.55 .06 0.01 0.18 .02 Openness to experience 96 0.01 0.30 .03 0.01 0.25 .03 0.05 1.79 .18 Agreeableness 96 0.09 2.03* .20 0.03 1.05 .11 0.02 0.67 .07 Note p < .05
48 The within person association betwee n approach compassionate goals and relationship satisfaction was moderated by between person differences in anxious attachment (b = 0.08, t = 2.08, p < .05, rp = .21) and agreeableness (b = 0.09, t = 2.03, p < .05, rp = .20; Table 3 7 ). I condu cted simple effects tests at 1 SD above three cross level interactions (see Judd, McClelland, & Ryan, 2009). First, for participants who were more anxiously attached to their partners, daily association between approach compassionate goals and relationship satisfaction was strongly positive (b = 0.58, t = 11.17, p < .001, rp = .75); for participants who were less anxiously attached to their partners, the same association re mained positive, but was comparatively weaker (b = 0.40, t = 7.87, p < .001, rp = .63; Figure 3 1 ). For more agreeable participants, the daily association between approach compassionate goals and relationship satisfaction was positive (b = 0.42, t = 7.65, p < .001, rp = .62); for participants who were less agreeable, the same association was even stronger and more positive (b = 0.58, t = 10.84, p < .001, rp = .74; Figure 3 2 ). Participant sex, relationship length, avoidant attachment, rejection sensitivity, psychological entitlement, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness to experience were unrelated to the impact of relationship goals on relationship satisfaction at the state level (ps > .07).
49 Figure 3 1 The effect of anxious attachment style on the association between daily relationship satisfaction and daily approach compassionate goal use in Study 2. For participants who were more anxiously attached to their partners, daily association between approach compassionate goals and relationship satisfaction was strongly positive (b = 0.58, t = 11.17, p < .001, rp = .75); for participants who were less anxiously attached to their partners, the same association remained positive, but was com paratively weaker (b = 0.40, t = 7.87, p < .001, rp = .63).
50 Figure 3 2 The effect of agreeableness on the association between daily relationship satisfaction and daily approach compassionate goal use in Study 2. For more agreeable participants, th e daily association between approach compassionate goals and relationship satisfaction was positive (b = 0.42, t = 7.65, p < .001, rp = .62); for participants who were less agreeable, the same association was even stronger and more positive (b = 0.58, t = 10.84, p < .001, rp = .74). State Level Mood and Relationship Satisfaction On an exploratory basis, I also examined the associations among daily positive and negative mood and daily relationship satisfaction. Daily positive and negative mood both a ffected daily relationship satisfaction. Positive mood was associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction (b = 0.07, t = 2.72, p < .01, rp = .26), and between person variance was non that this positive relationship was consistent across people. Conversely, negative mood
51 was associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction (b = 0.18, t = 7.11, p < .001, rp = .58) with significant between < .001), suggesting that the negative mood relationship satisfaction link was heterogeneous across people; for some it was more negative than others. Discussion Study 2 provided a view into the impact of relationship goals on relationship outcomes, and th e stability of that association at the trait versus state levels. At the trait level, baseline measures of certain goal use collected at pretest baseline perception of relationship quality. Specifically, participants who used more approach compassionate goals at the beginning of the study believed themselves to be in a higher quality relationship at baseline. Avoidance and self image goals were unrelated to baseline perceptions of relationship quality. As would be expected and hoped for in t rait level measurements, paired samples t tests showed that most trait perceptions of relationship quality were stable over time. Although the trait level variables showed little change over time, state level measurements showed some fluctuation in goal u se and satisfaction. In particular, on days when participants used more approach compassionate goals, they reported more satisfaction. Conversely, on days when participants used less of these approach compassionate goals, they reported less satisfaction wi th their relationship. Because there was significant between person variability in the association between using approach compassionate goals and relationship satisfaction, I examined several individual difference variables as moderators. The positive effe ct of approach compassionate goal use on relationship satisfaction appeared to hold constant across participant sex and most personality variables, with an even more positive effect for those participants with anxious attachment styles or lower levels of a greeableness.
52 Such an effect could be indicative of approach compassionate goals creating a buffering effect on relationship satisfaction for those who may have more difficult relationship interactions (e.g., those who are disagreeable or needy in relation ships). Use of avoidance or self image goals was not associated with daily reports of relationship satisfaction. In sum, support for Hypotheses 3 and 4 was mixed. At the trait level (Hypothesis 3), perceptions of relationship quality were associated with r elationship goal use, but only approach compassionate goals. Similarly, at the state level (Hypothesis 4), higher levels of daily relationship satisfaction were predicted by the use of more approach compassionate goals, but use of avoidance and self image goals were ineffective.
53 CHAPTER 4 GENERAL DISCUSSION In the current research, I merged two literatures to examine whether four previously investigated relationship goals had unique effects on relationship quality and satisfaction. In Study 1, using CFAs I determined that the relationship goals included in this assessment did not represent four disparate constructs. Instead, high correlation between the approach and compassionate goal sets justified their combination into one factor: approach compassiona te goals. Thus, Hypothesis 1 which predicted that each of the four goals was a unique construct was not supported. With the new three factor model, I examined the extent to which approach compassionate, avoidance, and self image goals each predicted perce ptions of relationship quality. Use of approach compassionate goals was associated with perceptions of greater relationship quality across all subscales of the PRQC. Use of avoidance goals was negatively associated with feelings of intimacy, but was unrela ted to any other perceptions of relationship quality. Use of self image goals was wholly unrelated to perceptions of relationship quality. Hypothesis 2 that all goals would uniquely predict perceptions of relationship quality was not supported. In Study 2, using a pretest posttest design with 14 daily measurements in between, I further observed the importance of approach compassionate goal use and the general unimportance of avoidance and self image goal use on perceptions of relationship quality and sati sfaction. At the trait level, baseline levels of approach compassionate goal use related to baseline levels of relationship quality. Participants who typically used more approach compassionate goals reported higher levels of relationship quality at the beg inning of the study. Use of avoidance and self image goals were unrelated to levels of relationship quality at pretest. Hypothesis 3 that
54 relationship goals would predict perceptions of relationship quality at the trait level was partially supported. The same pattern of results emerged at the state level. Use of approach compassionate goals was associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction, such that on days when participants used more approach compassionate goals, they reported feeling more s atisfied with their relationship. Alternatively, when participants reported using less approach compassionate goals in a day, they also reported feeling less satisfied. Use of avoidance and self image goals were unrelated to feelings of relationship satisf action at the daily level. Hypothesis 4 that relationship goals would predict relationship satisfaction at the state level was partially supported. Overall, the current research provided evidence that the two disparate literatures on relationship goals s hare common ground. Specifically, the approach and compassionate goal sets should likely be treated as one type of motivation, rather than two. Combining these two goal sets allows for predicting positive relationship outcomes with goal use. Findings from the current study also suggest that less emphasis should be placed on avoidance goals, as they were unsuccessful at predicting perceptions of relationship quality or satisfaction. These findings contradict the prior literature. Note, however, that prior e xaminations of approach and avoidance goal use has focused on specific behaviors within a relationship, such as the types of goals underlying the sacrifices partners make for one another, or the goals driving sexual interaction. Each of these prior studies has shown that avoidance goal use predicts dissatisfaction or dysfunction. As in the context of the current studies, however, broad use of avoidance goals across situations may be less impactful on global relationship satisfaction and quality. Indeed, Stu dy 2 captured a significant decrease in avoidance goal use from
55 pretest to posttest. As participants reported their goal use and global relationship satisfaction daily for two weeks, they may have become aware of the ineffectiveness of these goals on posit ive relationship outcomes, resulting in less use. Conversely, avoidance goals may in fact have the potential to negatively affect relationship outcomes, but the impact may be softened by how well couples cope with undesired events. Avoidance goals are und ertaken to allow users to evade negative outcomes, and thus evade the consequences associated with those outcomes. For to avoid the resulting negative emotions. Ironi cally, research has shown that heavier use of avoidance goals tends to backfire, with the user inadvertently creating the relationship environment he or she was attempting to circumvent. That is, with increased use of avoidance goals, the user experiences more negative affect (e.g., anxiety), more relationship dissatisfaction, and more conflict with the relationship partner. While each of these consequences could certainly lead to negative evaluations of the relationship, effectively coping with undesired e vents could serve as a buffer. Coping skills were not assessed in the current research, but future research may benefit from assessing the coping behaviors of both partners. Furthermore, the results of the current research also suggest that less emphasis be placed on the use of self image goals, as they were unrelated to perceptions of relationship quality and satisfaction. Participants in Study 2 even reported a decrease in use of self image goals over the course of two weeks, perhaps because they became conscious of their own goal selection and the nonexistent impact their self image goals had on their desired relationship states. Literature on the use of self image goals does provide evidence for a link between their use and lower levels of reciprocal re sponsiveness, trust, and support with a partner, however. While the current research
56 does not support the prior findings, the contradiction may be evidence of overextension. All known work on the negative effects of self image goal usage has focused on the impact of such goals on same sex roommate dyads in the very early stages of their relationship (i.e., immediately after meeting one another). Participants in the current research did report using self image goals, but perhaps the association between self image goals and negative relationship outcomes is inconsistent across relationship type (e.g., friendships vs. intimate relationships) or perhaps they are only powerful in the beginning of a relationship. Self image goals are focused on cultivating a posit ive view of oneself, which may hold great importance when we are trying to attract a partner, but may become less important as the partner comes to know us better. Because the current studies required participants to be beyond the stages of initial attract ion and relationship formation, this research may not have provided the appropriate forum to observe the effects of such goals. Future research should focus on changes in goal effectiveness over the course of a relationship, and should focus on various typ es of relationships Limitations The current research is not without limitations. The absence of dyads that is, the recruitment of two partners with prior connections to one another is one limitation. Recruitment of dyads posed challenges for the current research that could not be overcome easily. Specifically, recruiting couples would likely require a much longer data collection phase because attrition rates often increase with the inclusion of both partners, and recruiting partners who are not in the Uni versity of Florida Psychology Department participant pool would require monetary compensation. Nonetheless, dyadic data would provide an informative test of the effects of goals on outcomes and would allow for testing both actor and partner effects.
57 The current research is also limited in that young adults composed the majority of the sample in Study 1, and the entirety of the sample in Study 2. All young adult participants were involved in dating relationships (vs. engaged or married) and had been with t heir partners for a relatively short time (about one year, on average). As relationships progress, the effects of approach compassionate goals may wane. For instance, couples that have been together for longer periods of time may form perceptions of relati past behaviors than on their current goal states. Additionally, it is possible that avoidance and self image goals are more important in the very beginning of relationships when favorable i nitial impressions are desired, or in times of turmoil. That is, it may be beneficial to adopt self image or avoidance goals when our relationships begin to fail in an effort to present ourselves to our partners in a positive light and evade negatively val enced interactions. Such goal use, if effective at leading to more positive outcomes, could serve to salvage relationship ties. Because both samples had high levels of relationship satisfaction, I was unable to examine this potential effect. Similarly, th behavior with their partners. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relationship satisfaction (Brunell & Webster, 2013), and sexual behaviors can be motivated by approach or avoidanc e goals (Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005). Thus, it is likely that sexual behavior could impact the effect of goal use on relationship satisfaction, potentially mediating the association. Future research would benefit from assessing sex related variables, f rom the inclusion of older samples in more established relationships or at varying stages of their relationships and from observing participants across a greater time span to capture more instances of conflict and decline in satisfaction.
58 The current rese arch employed only self report measures in assessing goal use. While asking people about their behavior is common practice and tends to be accurate, misreporting due to memory error may occur. This is especially true for daily diaries because participants were asked to remember everything that happened over the course of a day. Future research would benefit from taking a multimethod approach and incorporating experiential sampling (e.g., multiple assessments per day). Last, beyond methodological issues, th e current research also presents a conceptual limitation. The current research draws on two divergent literatures and provides further evidence of a link between the use of approach compassionate goals and positive relationship outcomes. Future research sh ould extensively examine this relationship and its boundary conditions, but should also consider modifications to the proposed structure of the relationship. That is, the current work and prior research conceptualizes goals as affecting relationship outcom es. This may be incorrect, or may influence the types of goals chosen in future interactions. Those feeling dissatisfied with their relationships may be more likel y to adopt certain goals over others, which may in turn perpetuate dissatisfaction or bring about a more desired state. Additionally, the link between goal use and relationship outcomes may be due to a third variable that influences both. Mood or mental he alth variables may lead one to navigate relationships differently. In particular, these individual differences could evoke different motives for satisfaction. These variables may also exert a direct influence on relationship outcomes. For instance, those with poorer mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety) may interpret their relationships as less satisfying or as being of lower quality. Because the current
59 research was corre lational, these questions cannot be answered presently. Future research would need to incorporate an experimental aspect to examine directionality. Future Directions and Implications The current research provided a view into the effects of approach compass ionate goals on relationship quality and satisfaction. I plan to build off this foundation, examining goal usage as a moderator of other correlates of relationship satisfaction. Specifically, I plan to investigate whether increased use of approach compassi onate goals increases relationship satisfaction when sexual satisfaction a positive predictor of relationship satisfaction is low. In a longitudinal study, I will query participants daily about their perceptions of their partner and their relationship, inc luding assessments of their sexual interactions. I will also collect motivations behind such interactions. Significant results would implicate a buffering effect of approach compassionate goal usage, which may be helpful in relationships in which sexual ac tivity is impeded (e.g., for health reasons). While it is important to bear in mind that the current research only assessed reports of daily goal use rather than actual behaviors that participants engaged in, such results as well as the results of the curr ent research could have implications in mental health and relationship counseling settings if approach compassionate goal use was associated with positive, altruistic mental and physical health benefits, the use of approach compassionate goals could being. Additionally, because use of approach compassionate goals were associated with more positive perceptions of relationship quality and sati sfaction, unhappy couples could benefit from analyzing their interactions with one another and creating a more positive relationship environment by incorporating more approach compassionate goals in their future interactions.
60 Conclusions The current resea rch demonstrates how we may create our own relationship experiences through the goals we hold for interactions with our relationship partners. Specifically, use of approach or compassionate goals can enhance our relationships by increasing perceptions of r elationship quality and satisfaction. Incorporating more frequent usage of approach compassionate goal use and perhaps less frequent avoidance and self image goal use may help to create good relationship environments, which have been shown to contribute to good mental and physical health outcomes.
61 APPENDIX A STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT Protocol Title: Examining Relationship Goals Purpose of this study: This study assesses romantic and sexual relationship experiences and attitudes of Americans. What you w ill be asked to do in this study: You will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire related to your experiences in your current romantic relationship. Participation should take no longer than 10 minutes. Benefits, Compensation, and Risks: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. You will receive 1 credit through the Psychology Department SONA system or 26 While there are no foreseen risks, there is a minimal risk that security of any onli ne data collection may be breached. Because (1) no identifying information will be collected, (2) the online host (Qualtrics) uses several layers of encryption, and (3) your data will be removed from the server soon after you complete the study, it is high ly unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequence for you. All study data will be collected through Qualtrics, a secure site with SAS 70 certification for rigorous privacy standards. Any data that you provide thro ugh this program will be encrypted for security purposes using Secure Socket Layers (SSL). To protect your privacy, all IP addresses will be masked by Qualtrics and will be unavailable to, and unidentifiable by, the study investigators. Only the study inve stigators will have access to the data on Qualtrics, and once the data has been removed from the server, it will be stored on encrypted and password http://www.qualtrics.com/security sta tement Confidentiality: Your identity will be unknown to the researchers and your responses will be anonymous. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You do not have to answe r any question that you do not want to answer. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Amanda N. Gesselman, Graduate Student; Dep artment of Psychology, P.O. Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: If you have any concerns or questions about your rights as a res earch participant, you may contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; Phone: (352) 392 0433
62 AGREEMENT : I have read the procedure described above. By checking the box below, I am voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study as described, and am confirming that I am at least 18 years old. K Agree to participate Do not agree to participate
63 APPENDIX B APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE GOALS Instructions : Please indicate your a greement with each item using the scale provided. Scale: 1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree 1. Deepen my relationship with my partner. 2. Avoid disagreements with my partner. 3. Strengthen the intimacy in our relationship. 4. Avoid be ing embarrassed, betrayed, or hurt by my partner. 5. Have fun experiences with my partner. 6. Make sure nothing bad happens in our relationship. 7. Avoid conflicts with my partner. 8. Help our relationship grow.
64 APPENDIX C SELF IMAGE AND COMPASSIONATE GOALS Instruc tions : Please indicate your agreement with each item using the scale provided. Scale: 1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree 1. Be supportive of my partner 2. 3. Be aware o 4. 5. Avoid neglecting my relationship with my partner 6. Be constructive in my comments to my partner 7. rtner 8. Avoid showing my weaknesses 9. Avoid being selfish or self centered 10. Avoid revealing any shortcomings or vulnerabilities 11. Avoid the possibility of being wrong 12. Convince my partner that I am right 13. Get my partner to do things my way 14. Avoid being blamed or cri ticized
65 APPENDIX D PERCEIVED RELATIONSH IP QUALITY COMPONENT ( PRQC ) INVENTORY Instructions : Please answer each question below using the scale provided. Scale: 1 = not at all 7 = extremely 1. How satisfied are you with your relationship? 2. How content ar e you with your relationship? 3. How happy are you with your relationship? 4. How committed are you to your relationship? 5. How dedicated are you to your relationship? 6. How devoted are you to your relationship? 7. How intimate is your relationship? 8. How close is your r elationship? 9. How connected are you to your partner? 10. How much do you trust your partner? 11. How much can you count on your partner? 12. How dependable is your partner? 13. How passionate is your relationship? 14. How lustful is your relationship? 15. How sexually intense is y our relationship 16. How much do you love your partner? 17. How much do you adore your partner? 18. How much do you cherish your partner?
66 APPENDIX E STUDY 2: INFORMED CO NSENT Protocol Title: Relationship Experiences Purpose of this study: This study assesses dai ly relationship experiences and attitudes. What you will be asked to do in this study: In this session, you will be asked to complete questionnaires about yourself, your partner, and your relationship. After today, you will complete a very brief survey a bout your daily relationship experiences and attitudes for 14 consecutive days (2 weeks). You may complete them anywhere so long as you have internet connectivity. After the 14 days, you will be emailed a final brief survey about your relationship. Partici an hour. Participation in the daily surveys will take approximately 10 minutes. The final survey will take 25 minutes or less. Compensation and Risks: Compensation is 8 credits through SONA There are no other benefits. While there are no foreseen risks, the surveys you will complete do focus on topics that may be considered personal or sensitive in nature. The UF Counseling and Wellness Center is available to UF students in the event that you feel distr essed or would like to discuss with a counselor any personal issues that you may have. The Counseling and Wellness Center is located at 3190 Radio Rd. on campus, and you may contact them at 352 392 1575. Their website is http://www.counseling.ufl.edu/ Additionally, there is a minimal risk that security of any online data collection may be breached. Because (1) no identifying information will be collected, (2) the online host (Qualtrics) uses several layers of encryption, and (3) your data will be removed from the server soon after you complete the study, it is highly unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequence for you. All study data will be collected through Qualt rics, a secure site with SAS 70 certification for rigorous privacy standards. Any data that you provide through this program will be encrypted for security purposes using Secure Socket Layers (SSL). To protect your privacy, all IP addresses will be masked by Qualtrics and will be unavailable to, and unidentifiable by, the study investigators. Only the study investigators will have access to the data on Qualtrics, and once the data has been removed from the server, it will be stored on encrypted and password http://www.qualtrics.com/security statement. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in t his study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You do not have to answer any question that you do not want to answer. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
67 Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Amanda N. Gesselman, Graduate Student, Department of Psychology, Email: email@example.com Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: If you have any concerns or questions a bout your rights as a research participant, you may contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; Phone: (352) 392 0433 Agreement: I have read the procedure described ab ove. By signing below, I am voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study as described, and am confirming that I am at least 18 years old. Signature:
68 APPENDIX F COVARIATES USED IN STUDY 2 Psychological Entitlement Scale Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman (2004) Instructions : Please respond to the following items using the number that best reflects your own beliefs. Please use the following 7 point scale: 1 = strong disagreement 2 = moderate disagreement 3 = slight disagreement 4 = ne ither agreement nor disagreement 5 = slight agreement 6 = moderate agreement 7 = strong agreement 1. 2. Great things should come to me. 3. If I were on the Titanic, I would deserve to be on the first lifeboat 4. 5. I do not necessarily deserve special treatment. 6. I deserve more things in my life. 7. People like me deserve an extra break now and then. 8. Things should go my way. 9. I feel entitled to more of everything.
69 Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire Revised Fraley, Waller, & Brennan (2000) Instructions : Please rate your agreement with each statement using the scale provided. Scale: 1 = disagree strongly 7 = agree strongly 1. 2. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me. 3. 4. them. 5. e as strong as my feelings for him/her. 6. I worry a lot about my relationships. 7. When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he/she might become interested in someone else. 8. sa me about me. 9. I rarely worry about my partner leaving me. 10. My romantic partner makes me doubt myself. 11. I do not often worry about being abandoned. 12. 13. Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason. 14. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away. 15. 16. partner. 17. 18. 19. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. 20. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner. 21. I find it difficu lt to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. 22. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners. 23. 24. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners. 25. I get uncomfortable when a romantic part ner wants to be very close. 26. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner. 27. 28. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. 29. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. 30. I tell my partner just about everything. 31. I talk things over with my partner. 32. I am nervous when partners get too close to me. 33. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners. 34. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners. 35. e with my partner. 36. My partner really understands me and my needs.
70 Big Five Inventory (BFI) John, Naumann, & Soto (2008) Instructions : Please rate your agreement with each statement using the scale provided. Scale: 1 = disagree strongly 7 = agree s trongly 1. Is talkative 2. Tends to find fault with others 3. Does a thorough job 4. Is depressed, blue 5. Is original, comes up with new ideas 6. Is reserved 7. Is helpful and unselfish with others 8. Can be somewhat careless 9. Is relaxed, handles stress well. 10. Is curious about many different things 11. Is full of energy 12. Starts quarrels with others 13. Is a reliable worker 14. Can be tense 15. Is ingenious, a deep thinker 16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm 17. Has a forgiving nature 18. Tends to be disorganized 19. Worries a lot 20. Has an active imagination 21. Tends to be quiet 22. Is generally trusting 23. Tends to be lazy 24. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset 25. Is inventive 26. Has an assertive personality 27. Can be cold and aloof 28. Perseveres until the task is finished 29. Can be moody 30. Values artistic, aesthetic e xpe riences 31. Is sometimes shy, inhibited 32. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone 33. Does things efficiently 34. Remains calm in tense situations 35. Prefers work that is routine 36. Is outgoing, sociable 37. Is sometimes rude to others 38. Makes plans and follows through with them 39. Gets nervous easily 40. Likes to reflect, play with ideas 41. Has few artistic interests 42. Likes to cooperate with others 43. Is easily distracted 44. Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature
71 Rejection Sensitivity Scale Downey & Feldman (1996) Instructions : Please ra te how concerned or anxious you would be over the following situations using the scale provided. Scale : 1 = very unconcerned; 7 = very concerned 1. You ask someone in class if you can borrow his/her notes. 2. You ask your boyfriend/girlfriend to move in with y ou. 3. You ask your parents for help in deciding what programs to apply to. 4. 5. Your boyfriend/girlfriend has plans to go out with friends tonight, but you really want to spend the evening with him/her and you te ll him/her so. 6. You ask your parents for extra money to cover living expenses. 7. After class, you tell your professor that you have been having some trouble with a section of the course and ask if he/she can give you some extra help. 8. You approach a close frie nd to talk after doing or saying something that seriously upset him/her. 9. You ask someone in one of your classes to coffee. 10. home for a while. 11. You ask a friend to go on vacatio n with you over Spring Break. 12. You call your boyfriend/girlfriend after a bitter argument and tell him/her you want to see him/her. 13. You ask a friend if you can borrow something of his/hers. 14. You ask your parents to come to an occasion important to you. 15. You ask a friend to do you a big favor. 16. You ask your boyfriend/girlfriend if he/she really loves you. 17. You go to a party and notice someone on the other side of the room, and then you ask them to dance. 18. You ask your girlfriend/boyfriend to come home to meet yo ur parents.
72 APPENDIX G INCLUSION OF OTHER I N THE SELF (IOS) SCA LE Instructions : Please circle the picture below that best describes your relationship with your your partner.
73 APPENDIX H INTERNATIONAL POSITI VE AND NEGATIVE AFFE CT SCHEDULE SHORT FORM Instructions : Please use the scale provided to indicate how you felt today. Scale: 1 = not at all; 7 = very 1. Upset 2. Hostile 3. Alert 4. Ashamed 5. Inspired 6. Nervous 7. Determine d 8. Attentive 9. Afraid 10. Active
74 LIST OF REFERENCES Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 596 612. Aron, A., Melina t, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 363 377. Atkinson, J. W., Heyns, R. W., & Veroff J. (1954). The effects of experimental arousal of the affiliation motive on thematic apperception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49, 405 410. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment s as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117, 497 529. the marital relationship predict depressive symptomatology? Journal of Social and Personal Rela tionships, 10, 405 420. Bersheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Interpersonal attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4 th Edition, pp. 193 281). New York: Random House. Brunell, A. B., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Self determination and sexual experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970 987. Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 1061 1070. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment 83, 29 45. Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99, 78 106. Cantor, N. (1994). Life task problem solv ing: Situational affordances and personal needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20, 235 243. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319 333.
75 Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instruc tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 464 478. Coats, E. J., Janoff Bulman, R., & Alpert, N. (1996). Approach versus avoidance goals: Differences in self evaluation and well being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1057 1 067. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, S. (2005). Psychosocial predictors of susceptibility to respiratory infectious illness. International Journal of Behavioral Medicin e, 12, 123 131. Cramer, D. (2002). Satisfaction with romantic relationships and a four component model of conflict resolution. In S. P. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in psychological research (Vol. 16, pp. 129 137). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA Science Publishers. Cro cker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self image goals. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes 95, 555 575. Crocker, J., Canevello, A., Breines, J. G., & F lynn, H. (2010). Interpersonal goals and change in anxiety and dysphoria in first semester college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98, 1009 1024. DeCharms, R. C. (1957). Affiliation motivation and productivity in small groups. Jou rnal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 222 226. Downey, G. & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 1327 1343. Eaker, E. D., Sullivan, L. M., Kelly (2007). Marital status, marital strain, and risk of coronary heart disease or total mortality: The Framingham offspring study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 509 513. achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 243 279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Elliot, A. J. & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review 13, 73 92.
76 Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social P sychology Bulletin 26, 340 354. Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., & Church, M. A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and subjective well being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 915 927. Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach t o personality and subjective well being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1058 1068. Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. New York: Guilford Press. Fletcher, G. J. O., S impson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, 340 356. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 72 89. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personali ty and Social Psychology 78, 350 365. Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality 74, 175 222. Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Social and P ersonality Psychology Compass, 6, 95 108. Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Evidence for bivariate systems: An empirical test of appetition and aversion across domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37, 349 372. Gosling, S. D., R entfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37, 504 528. Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2 nd edition). New York: Cambridge University Pres s. Holt Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality: A meta analysis. PLOS Medicine 7, 1 20. Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes 89, 327 344.
77 Impett, E. A., Gordon, A. M., Kogan, A., Oveis, C ., Gable, S. L., & Keltner, D. (2010). Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long term consequences of approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99, 948 963. Impett, E. A., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well being. Personal Relationships 12, 465 482. Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 97 106. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3 rd ed.) (pp. 114 158). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., & Ryan, C. S. (2009). Data analysis: A model comparison approach (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kenny, D. A. (1998). Soremo [computer program]. http://davidakenny.net/srm/srmp.htm Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2 006). Dyadic data analysis New York, NY: Guilford Press. Klinger, E. (1977). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lackenbauer, S. D., & Campbell, L. (2012). Measuring up: The unique emotional and regulatory outcomes of different perceived partner ideal discrepancies in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103, 472 488. Lemay, E. P. Jr., & Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, 647 671. Lemay, E. P. Jr., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfyi ng communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, 834 853.
78 Mehrabian, A. (1976). Questionnaire measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Psychological Reports 38, 199 209. Mehrabian, A. & Ksionzky, S. (1 974). A theory of affiliation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event and interval contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 771 785. Nezlek, J. B., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Depression as a moderator of relationships between positive daily events and day to day psychological adjustment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1692 1704. Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M (2001). Day to day relationships among self concept clarity, self esteem, daily events, and mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 201 211. Reblin, M., Uchino, B. N., & Smith, T. W. (2010). Provider and recipient factors that may moderate the effectiveness of received support: Examining the effects of relationship quality and expectations for support on behavioral and cardiovascular reactions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 423 431. Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Bersheid, E. (2000) The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin 126, 844 872. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handboo k of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research, and Interventions (pp. 367 389). Oxford, England: Wiley. Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1978). Approach avoidance and affiliation as functions of the emotion eliciting quality of an environment. Environmen t and Behavior, 10, 355 387. Schnbrodt, F. D., Back, M. D., & Schmulke, S. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round robin designs. Behavior Research Methods 44, 455 470. Shipley, T. E. & Veroff, J. (1952). A proje ctive measure of need for affiliation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 349 356. Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 1660 1672.
79 Uchino, B. N. (2013). Understanding the links between social ties and health: On building stronger bridges with relationship science. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 155 162. Uchin o, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488 531. Wieselquist J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942 966. Wilcox, V. L., Kasl, S. V., & Berkman, L. F. (1994). Social su pport and physical disability in older people after hospitalization: A prospective study. Health Psychology, 13, 170 179.
80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Amanda Gesselman graduated from Columbus State Uni versity in 2009 with a Bachelor of Science in psychology. doctoral program, Amanda interned at the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences at Fort Benning, where she assisted Army r esearch p sychologists on various projects r elating to institut ional tr aining and instructive techniques. Amanda received her Master of Science from the University of Florida in the fall of 2011 and received her PhD from the University of Florida in the spring of 2014
http://spr.sagepub.com/Relationships Journal of Social and Personal http://spr.sagepub.com/content/30/2/155 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0265407512458659 October 2012 2013 30: 155 originally published online 8 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Bert N. Uchinostronger bridges with relationship science Understanding the links between social ties and health : On building Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: International Association for Relationship Research can be found at: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Additional services and information for http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: What is This? Oct 8, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record Feb 21, 2013 Version of Record >> at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
ArticleUnderstandingthelinks betweensocialtiesand health:Onbuilding strongerbridgeswith relationshipscienceBertN.UchinoUniversityofUtah,USAAbstract Socialrelationshipshavebeenreliablyrelatedtophysicalhealthoutcomes.More specifically,relationshippositivityandnegativityhavebeenassociatedwithdisease morbidityandmortality.Ourprogramofresearchhasalsohighlightedthepotential valueofconsideringbothpositivityandnegativity(ambivalence)inlinkingrelationships tohealth.However,strongerlinksareneededbetweenrelationshipscienceandhealth researchersespeciallytoaskimportant"second-generation"questions.Iarguethat systematicattentiontotwobasicquestionsisofimportance.Firstly,whatarethehealthrelevantantecedentprocessesthatinfluencerelationshippositivityandnegativityfroma relationshipscienceperspective?Secondly,whatarethecoordinatedbiological processesresponsibleforsuchlinks?Futureinterdisciplinarytrainingandresearchin theseareascanhelptostabilizeandstrengthenthecrucialbridgebetweenrelationship scienceandhealth. Keywords Ambivalence,emotions,health,relationships,socialsupport Thequalityofonesrelationshipsisoneofthemostpowerfulpsychosocialpredictorsof physicalhealthoutcomes.However,strongerlinksbetweenrelationshipscienceand Correspondingauthor: BertN.Uchino,DepartmentofPsychologyandHealthPsychologyProgram,UniversityofUtah,SaltLakeCity, 380S.1530E.Rm.502,UT84112,USA. Email:firstname.lastname@example.orgJournalofSocialand PersonalRelationships 30(2)155TheAuthor(s)2013 Reprintsandpermissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI:10.1177/0265407512458659 spr.sagepub.com J S P R at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
healthareneededinordertoaddresscriticalquestionsatdifferentlevelsofanalysis.In thispaper,Ifirstbrieflydiscusstheevidencelinkingrelationshipstohealth,including ourprogramofresearchonambivalenceinrelationships.Inextdiscussimportantfuture directionsbyintroducingabroadmodelthathighlightsatleasttwobasicquestionsthat canhelpinbuildingastronger,moreintegrativebridgebetweentheseareas.SocialrelationshipsandhealthInthemostcompellingevidencetodate,arecentmeta-analysisfoundthatpositive aspectsofrelationships(i.e.,perceivedsocialsupport)wasassociatedwithalowerrisk ofmortality(Holt-Lunstad,Smith,&Layton,2010).Indeed,effectsizesfromthe meta-analysisappearedaslarge,ifnotlarger,thanstandardriskfactorssuchassmoking, exercise,andobesity.However,evenrelationshipsthatarereliedupontobemajor sourcesofsupportarenotuniformlypositiveandcanaddtoapersonsdistressduring theirtimeofneed(e.g.,ineffectiveinformation,feelingfrustratedorletdownbythesupportprovider;Newsom,Nishishiba,Morgan,&Rook,2003).Thisisconsistentwitha smallerbutgrowingepidemiologicalliteraturedocumentingthehealthrisksassociated withnegativesocialties(DeVogli,Chandola,&Marmot,2007). Importantly,mostofthepriorstudiesinthisliteraturehaveexaminedrelationship positivityornegativityinisolation.Thisisasignificantissue,becausepositiveand negativeaspectsofsocialrelationshipstendtobeseparablefactors(Newsometal., 2003).Thesedatasuggestthatrelationshipsmaydifferintheirpositiveandnegative substrates,withsomerelationshipscharacterizedbyrelativelystrongfeelingsof both positivityandnegativity(Uchino,Holt-Lunstad,Uno,&Flinders,2001). Wehavedevelopedamoregeneralmodelforexaminingthehealth-relatedconsequencesofsocialrelationshipsthatincorporatesbothpositiveandnegativeaspects(see Uchinoetal.,2001).Auniquefeatureofourmodelisthespecificationofambivalent relationshipsthatareviewedasrelativelyhighinbothpositivityandnegativity(e.g., overbearingparent,volatileromance,"outoftouch"friend;Fingerman,Hay,&Birditt, 2004).Despitethepositivityinsuchrelationships,wehavehypothesizedthatthecooccurrenceofnegativitymaybeuniquelyassociatedwithworsehealthoutcomes.This maybebecauseambivalenttiesrequireheightenedvigilanceduringsocialinteractions, ormaybefrustratingandineffectivesourcesofsupportduringtimesofneed(Uchino etal.,2001).Inaddition,ambivalenttiesaretypicallydescribedas"close,"andhence thereismoreofanoverlapbetweenselfotherrepresentations(Aron,Aron,Tudor,& Nelson,1991),whichcanexacerbateanyinterpersonalstresswithsuchnetworkties. Infact,ambivalenttiesengageinmorenegativebehaviors(e.g.,criticism)andless emotionallysupportivebehaviorsandthusappearstress-enhancing(Reblin,Uchino, &Smith,2010). Ambivalenttiesarealsonotanisolatedfeatureofmostindividualssocialnetworks. Theycomprisealmost50 % ofimportantnetworkmembersandhencehaveample opportunitytoinfluencehealth-relatedoutcomes(Campoetal.,2009).Infact,wehave foundconsistentevidencethatambivalenttiesarerelatedtoworseoutcomescompared tootherrelationshiptypes(e.g.,primarilypositiveorprimarilynegative),suchas increasedcardiovascularreactivityatbothconsciousandlessconsciouslevelsof156 JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships30(2) at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
processing(Carlisleetal.,2012;Holt-Lunstad,Uchino,Smith,&Hicks,2007),higher ambulatorybloodpressureduringdailylife(Birmingham,Uchino,Smith,Light,& Carlisle,2012;Holt-Lunstad,Uchino,Smith,Cerny,&Nealey-Moore,2003),greater inflammation(Uchino,Bosch,etal.,2012),andevenincreasedcellularaging(Uchino, Cawthon,etal.,2012).Onbuildingstrongerbridgesbetweenrelationshipscience andhealthGiventheevidencetodatelinkingpositiveandnegativeaspectsofrelationshipsto health,whatisneededinordertomovethisresearchforward?Iarguethatweneedto buildstrongerbridgesbetweenrelationshipscienceandhealth.Abroad,simplified modeltofacilitatesuchconnectionsisshowninFigure1.Atabasiclevel,relationship positivity,negativity,andambivalenceinfluencebiologicalprocessesandphysical healthoutcomes.However,therearetwoissuesthatareinneedofgreaterattentionin ordertofacilitateimportantsecond-generationquestions.Firstly,whataretheantecedentprocessesthatarerelatedtorelationshippositivity,negativity,andambivalence fromarelationshipscienceperspectivethatarehealth-relevant?Secondly,whatarethe morecomplex(coordinated)biologicalpathwayslinkingrelationshipstohealthfrom biomedicalandneuroscienceperspectives?Importantly,thesequestionsrepresent criticalbridgeissuesofinteresttobothdisciplinesandcanfacilitatemoreintegrative andstableconnectionsbetweenrelationshipscienceandhealth.Question1:Whatarethehealth-relevantantecedentprocessesthatarelinkedtorelationship positivity,negativity,andambivalencefromarelationshipscienceperspective?Thepastseveraldecadeshaveseendramaticdevelopmentsinthefieldsofrelationship scienceandhealthpsychology.However,thesetwoareashaveadvancedrelatively independentfromeachother(Pietromonaco,Uchino,&Dunkel-Schetter,2012).Thenet effectisthatweknowmuchlessabouttheantecedentprocessesthataredirectlyrelated tophysicalhealthfromarelationshipscienceperspective.Inordertosystematically addressthisquestionandfostertheoreticalmodeling,onestrategyistotestthehealthrelevanceofrelationshipscienceconstructsthathavebeenlinkedtopositivity(e.g., support),negativity(e.g.,tensions),and/orambivalence.Thereareseveralconstructs thatappearrelevant. Firstly,individualdifferencesinattachmentstyleappearimportanttosupportand conflictnegotiation(Pietromonacoetal.,2012).Forinstance,secureindividualsprovide responsivesupportandarebetteratmanagingnegativityintheircloserelationships (Kaneetal.,2007).Althoughthereisaliteraturelinkingattachmentstylestohealth outcomes(e.g.,Gouinetal.,2009),workwouldalsobeneededthatdirectlymodels supportandconflictasmediatorsofanysuchlinks(Pietromonacoetal.,2012).Relationshipgoalshavealsobeenlinkedtosupportandconflict,althoughnoneofthiswork todateappearstohavebeenappliedtothehealthdomain(Canevello&Crocker,2011; Gable,2006).Inaddition,sexualityhasaninfluenceonmultipleinterpersonalprocesses inthemodel,butstrongerdirecttestsofitslinkstohealthareneeded(Diamond&Uchino 157 at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Huebner,2012).Finally,positivityandnegativityincloserelationshipsmaybetheresult ofcomplexinterpersonalemotionregulationpatterns(e.g.,synchrony,reciprocity)that haveimplicationsforhealth(Butler,2011). Onepotentialantecedentprocessfromrelationshipsciencethatwehaverecentlybegun testingisrelatedtopartnerknowledge(Fletcher&Kerr,2010).Wehavebeenexamininga specificformofpartnerknowledgethatwecoinedattitudefamiliarity.Decadesofwork insocialpsychologyhasfoundthatpersonalattitudesarefunctionalinthattheyfacilitate informationprocesses,guidedecisions,andbehaviors(Fazio,1990).Wereasonedthat knowledgeofapartnersattitudesissimilarlyfunctionalinthatitmightenableoneto avoidconflictorprovidemoreresponsivesupport(Neff&Karney,2005).Consistentwith thispossibility,ourinitialstudyshowedthatgreaterattitudefamiliaritywithaspousewas associatedwithgreaterdailylifeperceivedpartnerresponsivenessandinteraction positivity,aswellaslowerperceivedinteractionnegativity(Sanbonmatsu,Uchino,& Birmingham,2011).Importantly,greaterattitudefamiliarityalsopredictedlower ambulatorybloodpressureduringdailylife(Sanbonmatsuetal.,2011).Thispreliminary researchhighlightstheutilityofconceptualizinghowconstructsinrelationshipscience mightbelinkedtohealth-relevantinterpersonalandbiologicaloutcomes.Suchworkcan extendexistingtheoreticalmodelsintermsoftheirdomainsofapplicabilityandfacilitate moreintegrativeconnectionstootherconstructsandprocessesthatneedstrong considerationinahealthcontext(e.g.,dyadiccopingwithchronichealthconditions).Question2:Whatarethemorecomplex(coordinated)biologicalpathwayslinkingrelationshipstohealthfrombiomedicalandneuroscienceperspectives? Physical Health Coordinated Biological Mechanisms:Central Neural, Cardiovascular, Neuroendocrine, Immune Function Antecedent Processes From Relationship Science:Attachment, Relationship Goals, Sexuality, Interpersonal Emotions, Partner Knowledge etc. Basic Relationship Processes: Support, Negativity, Ambivalence Figure1. Broadmodelhighlightingimportant"bridge"topicsthatcanfosterstrongerlinks betweenrelationshipscienceandhealth. 158 JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships30(2) at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Mostofthepriorworkinrelationshipsandhealthhasexaminedalimitednumberof biologicaloutcomes,oftenwithinthesamesystem(e.g.,cardiovascular).However,these biologicalsystemsrepresentedcoordinatedresponsesaimedatfosteringadaptation,but whichmayalsohavelong-termcosts(Miller,Chen,&Cole,2009).Thereiselegant workfromourbiologicalcolleaguesexamininghowthesesystemsarecoordinated,typicallyduringexposuretostress.Thisworkshouldnowbeexpandedtoexaminesimilar coordinatedprocessesasafunctionofourrelationships. Therearemanyopportunitiesformorecomplexbiologicalmodelingbothwithinand acrosssystems.Healthandrelationshipsresearchershavetypicallyexaminedindicesof cardiovascularreactivity,especiallyheartrateandbloodpressure.Heartrateisa functionofbothsympatheticandparasympatheticinfluencesandtherearegoodnoninvasivemeasuresoftheseinputsintermsofpre-ejectionperiodandrespiratorysinus arrhythmia(RSA),respectively(Cacioppoetal.,1994).Inonestudy,wefoundthatthe linksbetweenambivalenttiesandheartrateweremediatedbyRSAchangeswhich mightreflectadisruptioninself-regulatoryprocesses(Carlisleetal.,2012).Bloodpressureissimilarlyamultiply-determinedendpointreflectingbothcardiacoutputandperipheralresistance.Bothofthesecanbeestimatednon-invasivelyusingimpedance cardiography.Itisimportanttomodeltheseunderlyingdeterminants,becauseperipheral resistancechangesaremorecloselylinkedtothreatappraisalsandhencemightbemore health-relevant(Seery,2011). Modelingrelevantbiologicalresponsesacrosssystemsisalsoimportant.Health researchershavefocusedmuchattentionrecentlytoinflammationasitappearsto influencemultiplediseaseendpoints(Hawkley,Bosch,Engeland,Marucha,& Cacioppo,2007).AnimportantcytokinereceivingattentionisIL-6,whichhasbothpro andanti-inflammatoryproperties(Hawkleyetal.,2007).OneimportanttriggerofIL6isactivationofthesympatheticnervoussystem(Soszynski,Lozak,Conn,Rudolph,& Kluger,1996).Oncereleased,IL-6isapotentstimulatorofthehypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal(HPA)axisresultinginthereleaseofcortisol,whichisoftenanattempttocontrolinflammation(Webster,Oakley,Jewell,&Cidlowski,2001).However,underconditionsofchronicstress,cytokine-producingcellscanbecomelesssensitivetothe inhibitoryeffectsofglucocorticoids,hencebypassingoneimportantcontrolmechanism (Miller,Cohen,&Ritchey,2002).Giventhepotencyofsocialprocesses(Milleretal., 2002;Padgettetal.,1998),modelingcoordinatedbiologicalresponsesneedstrongconsiderationinthecontextofoursocialrelationships. Asecondopportunitytomodelresponsesacrosssystemsisrelatedtorecentneuroimagingwork.Exposuretostressreliablyincreasesactivityinthedorsalanterior cingulatecortex(dACC),anteriorinsula,periaqueductalgray(PAG),anddeceases activityintheventromedialprefrontalcortex(vmPFC;Gianaros&OConnor,2011). Thisisimportant,becausethesebrainregionshavedirectandindirectlinkstothe peripheralbiologicalresponsesoftenstudiedbyrelationshipresearchersandthuscan helpusunderstandhowthebraincoordinatestheseresponses.Thereareseveralpredictionsonemightmakebasedonpriorrelationshipwork.Firstly,supportivetiesare associatedwithincreasedactivityinthevmPFC(Eisenbergeretal.,2011),whichmight decreaseperipheralphysiologicalresponsessuchasheartrateandbloodpressure.In comparison,ambivalenttiesappeartoexacerbateinterpersonalstressandhencemightUchino 159 at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
b e associatedwithgreateractivityinthedACC,anteriorinsula,andPAG,whichinturn wouldpotentiateperipheralphysiologicalresponses(Wageretal.,2009).ConclusionsRelationshipscientistshavemadetremen dousprogressinunderstandingtheprocessesunderlyingrelationshipformation, maintenance,anddissolution.Atthesame time,healthpsychologistshavedocume ntedthehealthconsequencesofbasic relationshipprocesses,suchassupport,negativity,andambivalence.Inorderto moveworkonrelationshipsandhealthforward,greaterintegrationofthesetwo areasisrequired.Ihighlightedtwopoten tialbridgeareasofinteresttoboth disciplines,buttherearecertainlyoth ersthatmightbegleanedfromthebroad model.Giventhedynamicnatureofrelationships(Butler,2011),theantecedent processesdepictedinFigure1mayalsoser veasdirectmediatorsoflinksbetween basicrelationshipprocessesandhealth,asverylittleworkexistsonthisquestionas well(Pietromonacoetal.,2012).Forinsta nce,relationshipsar estronglylinkedto theexperienceofemotions(e.g.,Bersch eid&Ammazzalorso,2001)and,hence, mightbeimportantmediatorsoflinkstohealth.Thepursuitofsuchintegrative questionsislikelytobefosteredby(a)br oadeningthetrainingofresearchersin bothareas(e.g.,postdocs,sabbaticals)an d/or(b)teamsofinterdisciplinaryexperts. Ibelievesuchintegrativeworkwillplayac entralroleinhelpingusunderstandwhy relationshipsarehealth-relevantandwhatmightbedoneaboutit. AcknowledgmentsIwouldliketothankEmilyButler,DavidSbarra,andtheorganizingcommitteefortheopportunity topresentthisworkatthe2011IARRconferenceonHealth,Emotions,andRelationships(Tucson, AZ).Iwouldalsoliketothankmywonderfulcollaboratorswhohavecontributedtothisprogram ofresearch,especiallyTimothyW.Smith.Ialsoappreciatethehelpfulcommentsmadeby McKenzieCarlisleandKimberlyBowen,whoreadadraftofthispaper.FundingThisworkwassupportedbytheNationalInstituteofMentalHealth(MH58690),NationalInstitute ofAging(AG029239),andNationalHeart,Lung,andBloodInstitute(HL085106).ReferencesAron,A.,Aron,E.N.,Tudor,M.,&Nelson,G.(1991).Closerelationshipsasincludingotherin theself. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology 60 ,241-253. Berscheid,E.,&Ammazzalorso,H.(2001).Emotionalexperienceincloserelationships.InG.J. O.Fletcher&M.S.Clark(Eds.), Blackwellhandbookofsocialpsychology:Interpersonalprocesses (pp.308-330).Malden,MA:BlackwellPublishers. Birmingham,W.,Uchino,B.N.,Smith,T.W.,Light,K.C.,&Carlisle,M.(2012). Spousalambivalenceandambulatorybloodpressureduringdailylife .Manuscriptinpreparation. Butler,E.A.(2011).Temporalinterpersonalemotionsystems:TheTIESthatformrelationships. PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview 15 ,367-393. 160 JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships30(2) at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Cacioppo,J.T.,Berntson,G.G.,Binkley,P.F.,Quigley,K.S.,Uchino,B.N.,&Fieldstone,A. (1994).Autonomiccardiaccontrol.II.Noninvasiveindicesandbaselineresponseasrevealed byautonomicblockades. Psychophysiology 31 ,586-598. Campo,R.A.,Uchino,B.N.,Holt-Lunstad,J.,Vaughn,A.A.,Reblin,M.,&Smith,T.W.(2009). Theassessmentofpositivityandnegativityinsocialnetworks:Thereliabilityandvalidityof thesocialrelationshipsindex. JournalofCommunityPsychology 37 ,471-486. Canevello,A.,&Crocker,J.(2011).Interpersonalgoalsandcloserelationshipprocesses:Potential linkstohealth. SocialandPersonalityPsychologyCompass 5 ,346-358. Carlisle,M.,Uchino,B.N.,Sanbonmatsu,D.M.,Smith,T.W.,Cribbet,M.R.,Birmingham,W., ... Vaughn,A.A.(2012).Subliminalactivationofsocialtiesmoderatescardiovascularreactivityduringacutestress. HealthPsychology 31 ,217-225. DeVogli,R.,Chandola,T.,&Marmot,M.G.(2007).Negativeaspectsofcloserelationshipsand heartdisease. ArchivesofInternalMedicine 167 ,1951-1957. Diamond,L.M.,&Huebner,D.M.(2012).Isgoodsexgoodforyou?Rethinkingsexualityand health. PersonalityandSocialPsychologyCompass 6 ,54-69. Eisenberger,N.I.,Master,S.L.,Inagaki,T.I.,Taylor,S.E.,Shirinyan,D.,Lieberman,M.D.,& Naliboff,B.(2011).Attachmentfiguresactivateasafetysignal-relatedneuralregionand reducepainexperience. PNAS 1081 ,11721-11726. Fazio,R.H.(1990).Multipleprocessesbywhichattitudesguidebehavior:TheMODEmodelas anintegrativeframework.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.), Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology (pp.75-109).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress. Fingerman,K.L.,Hay,E.L.,&Birditt,K.S.(2004).Thebestofties,theworstofties:Close, problematic,andambivalentsocialrelationships. JournalofMarriageandFamily 66 792-808. Fletcher,G.J.O.,&Kerr,P.S.G.(2010).Throughtheeyesoflove:Realityandillusioninintimaterelationships. PsychologicalBulletin 136 ,627-658. Gable,S.L.(2006).Approachandavoidancesocialmotivesandgoals. JournalofPersonality 71 175-222. Gianaros,P.J.,&OConnor,M.F.(2011).Neuroimagingmethodsinhumanstressscience.InR. Contrada&A.Baum(Eds.), Handbookofstressscience (pp.543-563).NewYork:Springer. Gouin,J.-P.,Glaser,R.,Loving,T.J.,Malarkey,W.,Stowell,J.,Houts,C.,&Kiecolt-Glaser,J. (2009).Attachmentavoidancepredictsinflammatoryresponsestomaritalconflict. Brain, Behavior,andImmunity 23 ,898-904. Hawkley,L.C.,Bosch,J.A.,Engeland,C.G. ,Marucha,P.T.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(2007). Loneliness,dsyphoria,stressandimmunity:Aroleofcytokines.InN.P.Plotnikoff,R. E.Faith,&A.J.Murgo(Eds.), Cytokines:Stressandimmunity (2nded.).BocaRaton, FL:CRCPress. Holt-Lunstad,J.,Smith,T.B.,&Layton,B.(2010).Socialrelationshipsandmortality:A meta-analysis. PLoSMedicine 7 ,1-20. Holt-Lunstad,J.,Uchino,B.N.,Smith,T.W.,Cerny,C.B.,&Nealey-Moore,J.B.(2003). Socialrelationshipsandambulatorybloodpressure:structuralandqualitativepredictorsof cardiovascularfunctionduringeverydaysocialinteractions. HealthPsychology 22 ,388-397. Holt-Lunstad,J.L.,Uchino,B.N.,Smith,T.W.,&Hicks,A.(2007).Ontheimportanceofrelationshipquality:Theimpactofambivalenceinfriendshipsoncardiovascularfunctioning. AnnalsofBehavioralMedicine 33 ,278-290. Uchino 161 at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Kane,H.S.,Jaremka,L.M.,Guichard,A.C.,Ford,M.B.,Collins,N.L.,&Feeney,B.C.(2007). Feelingsupportedandfeelingsatisfied:Howonepartnersattachmentstylepredictstheother partnersrelationshipexperiences. JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships 24 ,535-555. Miller,G.E.,Chen,E.,&Cole,S.W.(2009).Healthpsychology:Developingbiologicallyplausible modelslinkingthesocialworldandphysicalhealth. AnnualReviewofPsychology 60 ,501-524. Miller,G.E.,Cohen,S.,&Ritchey,A.K.(2002).Chronicpsychologicalstressandtheregulationof pro-inflammatorycytokines:Aglucocorticoidresistancemodel. HealthPsychology 21 ,531-541. Neff,L.A.,&Karney,B.R.(2005).Toknowyouistoloveyou:Theimplicationsofglobaladorationandspecificaccuracyformaritalrelationships. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPersonality, 88 ,480-497. Newsom,J.T.,Nishishiba,M.,Morgan,D.L.,&Rook,K.S.(2003).Therelativeimportanceof threedomainsofpositiveandnegativesocialexchanges:Alongitudinalmodelwithcomparablemeasures. PsychologyandAging 18 ,746-754. Padgett,D.A.,Sheridan,J.F.,Dorne,J.,Berntson,G.G.,Candelora,J.,&Glaser,R.(1998). Socialstressandthereactivationoflatentherpessimplexvirustype1. Proceedingsofthe NationalAcademyofSciences 95 ,7231-7235. Pietromonaco,P.R.,Uchino,B.N.,&Dunkel-Schetter,C.(inpress).Closerelationshipprocesses andhealth:Implicationsofattachmenttheoryforhealthanddisease. HealthPsychology Reblin,M.,Uchino,B.N.,&Smith,T.W.(2010).Providerandrecipientfactorsthatmaymoderatethe effectivenessofreceivedsupport:examiningtheeffectsofrelationshipqualityandexpectationsfor supportonbehavioralandcardiovascularreactions. JournalofBehavioralMedicine 33 ,423-431. Sanbonmatsu,D.M.,Uchino,B.N.,&Birmingham,W.(2011).Ontheimportanceofknowing yourpartnersviews:Attitudefamiliarityisassociatedwithbetterinterpersonalfunctioning andlowerambulatorybloodpressureindailylife. AnnalsofBehavioralMedicine 41 ,131-137. Seery,M.D.(2011).Challengeorthreat?Cardiovascularindexesofresilienceandvulnerabilityto potentialstressinhumans. NeuroscienceandBiobehavioralReviews 35 ,1603-1610. Soszynski,D.,Lozak,W.,Conn,C.A.,Rudolph,K.,&Kluger,M.J.(1996).Beta-adrenoceptor antagonistssuppresselevationinbodytemperatureandincreaseinplasmaIL-6inratsexposed toopenfield. Neuroendocrinology 63 ,459-467. Uchino,B.N.,Bosch,J.,Smith,T.W.,Birmingham,W.,Light,K.C.,Carlisle,M.,&Bowen,K. (2012). Spousalambivalenceandcardiovascularrisk:Atestofdifferentinteractioncontexts anditslinkstoinflammation .Manuscriptinpreparation. Uchino,B.N.,Cawthon,R.M.,Smith,T.W.,Light,K.C.,McKenzie,J.,Carlisle,M., ... Bowen, K.(inpress).Socialrelationshipsandhealth:Isfeelingpositive,negative,orboth(ambivalent) aboutyoursocialtiesrelatedtotelomeres? HealthPsychology Uchino,B.N.,Holt-Lunstad,J.,Uno,D.,&Flinders,J.B.(2001).Heterogeneityinthesocial networksofyoungandolderadults:Predictionofmentalhealthandcardiovascularreactivity duringacutestress. JournalofBehavioralMedicine 24 ,361-382. Wager,T.D.,vanAst,V.,Hughes,B.,Davidson,M.L.,Lindquist,M.A.,&Ochsner,K.N. (2009).Brainmediatorsofcardiovascularresponsestosocialthreat,PartII: Prefrontal-subcorticalpathwaysandrelationshipwithanxiety. Neuroimage 47 ,836-851. Webster,J.C.,Oakley,R.H.,Jewell,C.M.,&Cidlowski,J.A.(2001,June).Proinflammatory cytokinesregulatehumanglucocorticoidreceptorgeneexpressionandleadtotheaccumulation ofthedominantnegativeBisoform:Amechanismforthegenerationofglucocorticoidresistance. ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences 98 ,6865-6870. 162 JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships30(2) at UNIV OF FLORIDA on March 24, 2013 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from