The Ups and Downs of Being Us: Cross-Relationship Comparisons in Daily Life

Cross-relationship comparisons are an integral part of relationship processes, yet little is known about the impact of these comparisons in daily life. The present research employed a dyadic experience-sampling methodology ( N = 78 couples) with end-of-day surveys, end-of-week follow-up, and a 6-month follow-up to examine how individuals make cross-relationship comparisons in daily life, the cumulative impact of these comparisons over time, and the dyadic consequences of such comparisons. Participants made more downward than upward comparisons; however, upward comparisons had a more lasting impact, resulting in decreased satisfaction and optimism, and less positive self-perceptions and partner perceptions, at the end of each day and the week. Individuals who made more upward comparisons were also less satisfied 6 months later. Individuals were also affected by their partner’s comparisons: On days when partners made more upward comparisons, they felt less satisfied and optimistic about their relationship and less positive about themselves and their partner.

Childhood Emotional Maltreatment and Romantic Relationships: The Role of Compassionate Goals

Past research indicates that childhood emotional maltreatment (CEM) undermines the quality of adult romantic relationships by fostering negative characteristics in survivors. Two longitudinal studies investigated the hypothesis that decreased compassionate goals toward partners over time explain the association between CEM and declining relationship quality. In Study 1, CEM predicted decreased compassionate goals over time, which in turn predicted decreased relationship quality in individuals in romantic relationships. Study 2 replicated this effect in romantically involved couples and showed that partners’ high compassionate goals attenuated the decline in compassionate goals associated with reported CEM. These results point to the importance of examining how CEM may affect positive relationship processes and the protective roles of partners’ compassionate goals.

Measuring motivational relationship processes in experience sampling: A reliability model for moments, days, and persons nested in couples

The investigation of within-person process models, often done in experience sampling designs, requires a reliable assessment of within-person change. In this paper, we focus on dyadic intensive longitudinal designs where both partners of a couple are assessed multiple times each day across several days. We introduce a statistical model for variance decomposition based on generalizability theory (extending P. E. Shrout & S. P. Lane, 2012), which can estimate the relative proportion of variability on four hierarchical levels: moments within a day, days, persons, and couples. Based on these variance estimates, four reliability coefficients are derived: between-couples, between-persons, within-persons/between-days, and within-persons/between-moments. We apply the model to two dyadic intensive experience sampling studies (n1 = 130 persons, 5 surveys each day for 14 days, ≥ 7508 unique surveys; n2 = 508 persons, 5 surveys each day for 28 days, ≥ 47764 unique surveys). Five different scales in the domain of motivational processes and relationship quality were assessed with 2 to 5 items: State relationship satisfaction, communal motivation, and agentic motivation; the latter consists of two subscales, namely power and independence motivation. Largest variance components were on the level of persons, moments, couples, and days, where within-day variance was generally larger than between-day variance. Reliabilities ranged from .32 to .76 (couple level), .93 to .98 (person level), .61 to .88 (day level), and .28 to .72 (moment level). Scale intercorrelations reveal differential structures between and within persons, which has consequences for theory building and statistical modeling.

The ups and downs of being us: Cross-relationship comparisons in daily life

Cross-relationship comparisons are an integral part of relationship processes, yet little is known about the impact of these comparisons in daily life. The present research employed a dyadic experience sampling methodology (N=78 couples) with end-of-day surveys, end-of-week follow-up, and a six-month follow-up to examine how individuals make cross-relationship comparisons in daily life, the cumulative impact of these comparisons over time, and the dyadic consequences of such comparisons. Participants made more downward than upward comparisons; however, upward comparisons had a more lasting impact, resulting in decreased satisfaction and optimism, and less positive self-perceptions and partner perceptions, at the end of each day and the week. Individuals who made more upward comparisons were also less satisfied six months later. Individuals were also affected by their partner’s comparisons: On days when partners made more upward comparisons, they felt less satisfied and optimistic about their relationship, and less positive about themselves and their partner.

The Current State of Relationship Science: A Cross-Disciplines Review of Key Themes, Theories, Researchers and Journals

This article provides a circumscribed descriptive analysis of the current state of research worldwide related to adult romantic relationship processes and their underlying mechanisms. A scoping review was used to gather data. This yielded 15,418 eligible articles from 1,687 different academic journals. From these, we outline key themes and theories arising in the last seven decades and note the most prolific journals and authors. The study of relational wellbeing has focused on overt behaviors such as communication and commitment, on underlying attitudes and motives such as empathy and contempt, and on substrates and circumstances such as neurobiological functioning and life stressors. The results reveal the strong interdisciplinary research underpinnings of the field of relationship science and show up key influences over its expansion. Results are intended to give an overview of key peer reviewed research that has contributed to the development of current scientific knowledge and theory development in this field.

Relational turbulence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal analysis of the reciprocal effects between relationship characteristics and outcomes of relational turbulence

This study offers a longitudinal and dyadic test of relational turbulence theory during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this study highlights the severity of irritations and the aggressiveness and openness of relational communication as outcomes of relational turbulence that both shape and reflect relationship characteristics during this transition. Romantic dyads ( N = 151) completed four weekly surveys during the pandemic’s early stages. We used multilevel modeling to document between- and within-person effects and evaluate reciprocal effects over time. Results indicated that relational uncertainty and partner interference were positively associated with relational turbulence, whereas partner facilitation was negatively associated with turbulence. Relational turbulence was positively associated with the severity of irritations and the aggressiveness of communication, and negatively associated with the openness of communication, above and beyond the effects of the relationship mechanisms. Over-time analyses showed that relational turbulence, severity of irritations, aggressive communication, and open communication predicted subsequent levels of relationship qualities. These findings showcase the theoretical utility of relational turbulence theory for explaining how relationships are affected by the pandemic and highlight relationship processes to target in helping couples manage their relationship during these stressful times.

Examining Whether Social Anxiety Influences Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships

Research investigating social anxiety and the impacts on romantic relationships remains scarce. An online questionnaire examining romantic relationship status, social anxiety and depression symptomology, relationship satisfaction, and several relationship processes was completed by 444 adults. Individuals with higher social anxiety were less likely to be in romantic relationships. For the 188 adults in our sample in current relationships, relationship satisfaction was not influenced by social anxiety when controlling for depression. Although it was proposed that self-disclosure, social support, trust, and conflict initiation might influence romantic relationship satisfaction, none of these mechanisms interacted with social anxiety to explain additional variance in relationship satisfaction. These findings indicate that depression symptomology may be a treatment target for socially anxious individuals wishing to improve romantic relationship satisfaction.

Borderline Personality Traits and Romantic Relationship Dissolution

Many studies have found that borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with romantic relationship instability, with relationship dissolution being a recurring theme. Scant research, however, has examined the dissolution strategies and post-breakup outcomes for individuals with elevated levels of borderline traits. Findings from two studies revealed that there was an association between BPD criteria and tendency to employ less adaptive dissolution strategies when terminating a relationship. Furthermore, elevated levels of BPD traits were associated with less self-concept clarity and more unwanted pursuit of ex-partners. These findings both provide insight into how individuals with BPD traits experience relationship dissolution and suggest possible factors underlying the unstable relationship processes typically associated with borderline traits.

Attachment Style and Jealousy in the Digital Age: Do Attitudes About Online Communication Matter?

Romantic jealousy, a complex response to a real or perceived threat to a romantic relationship, can have serious negative consequences for individuals, partners and perceived rivals. The likelihood of a jealous response is heightened among individuals who experience attachment anxiety, and online communication and social media provide unique fodder for romantic jealousy. The purpose of the current study is to test whether the association between attachment anxiety and online jealousy (jealous response to ambiguous hypothetical online scenarios) is moderated by negative attitudes about online communication. Individuals in dating relationships were asked about attachment anxiety and attitudes about online communication (i.e., apprehension and concern about misunderstandings) as well as emotional, cognitive, and behavioral online jealousy. Hierarchical linear regression revealed an attachment anxiety-attitude interaction, such that the link between attachment anxiety and jealousy was stronger for participants with relatively low levels of negative attitudes about online communication compared to participants with relatively high levels of negative attitudes. The current study expands knowledge about attachment anxiety and jealousy in the context of online communication and social media, and highlights the importance of considering attitudes about online communication when studying relationship processes in the digital arena.

I blame you, I hear you: Couples’ pronoun use in conflict and dyadic coping

In dyadic interaction, a verbal focus on one individual (“you-talk,” “I-talk”), rather than on the couple (“we-talk”) has predominantly been linked to dysfunctional relationship processes. However, context differences in these links have not yet been systematically examined. Is it functional to asymmetrically focus on one partner during support interactions but problematic during conflict? Does a high level of couple-focus represent a resource across contexts? In this preregistered study, we investigated dyad-level pronoun use (we-/I-/you-talk) and their link to situational relationship functioning (SRF) across three interaction tasks (one conflict, two dyadic coping tasks) within couples ( N = 365). More specifically, we examined associations of couple-means, i.e. pronoun use as a shared resource/vulnerability between partners, and couple-differences, i.e. functional/dysfunctional asymmetric pronoun use with observed interaction positivity and relationship climate. Results revealed both context differences and similarities. Asymmetric partner-focus (i.e. you-talk) was dysfunctional in conflict, whereas asymmetric partner- and self-focus (i.e., you-talk/I-talk; focus on the stressed partner) were functional in dyadic coping. Beyond asymmetry, you-talk (couple-mean) showed consistent negative associations with SRF in all tasks studied. We-talk (couple-mean) was positively linked to SRF, but only in conflict interactions. In conflict, couple-focus thus represented a shared resource that can buffer from dysfunctional conflict interaction characterized by partner-focus. In line with conceptual frameworks, the dyadic coping results emphasize the importance of focusing on the partner in need. The study corroborates the prospect of pronoun use as a context-specific indicator of relationship functioning. Gender differences, implications for future research and possible interventions are discussed.