The current research tested whether individuals high in attachment anxiety react to relationship threats in ways that can help them feel secure and satisfied in their relationship. Individuals higher in attachment anxiety experienced greater hurt feelings on days they faced partner criticism or conflict (Study 1) and during observed conflict discussions (Study 2). These pronounced hurt feelings triggered exaggerated expressions of hurt to induce guilt in the partner. Partners perceived the hurt feelings of more anxious individuals to be more intense than low anxious individuals' hurt and, in turn, experienced greater levels of guilt (Study 1). More anxious individuals were also rated by objective coders as exhibiting more guilt-induction strategies during conflict, which led to increases in partner guilt (Study 2). Moreover, partner guilt helped anxious individuals maintain more positive relationship evaluations. Although greater partner guilt had detrimental effects for individuals low in anxiety, more anxious individuals experienced more stable perceptions of their partner's commitment and more positive relationship evaluations when their partner felt more guilt. Unfortunately, these benefits were accompanied by significant declines in the partner's relationship satisfaction. These results illustrate that anxious reactions to threat are not uniformly destructive; instead, the reassuring emotions their reactions induce in relationship partners help anxious individuals feel satisfied and secure in their partner's commitment.

Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner’s ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person’s own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships.

People high in attachment avoidance typically respond more negatively to partner support, but some research suggests they can be calmed by high levels of practical support. In the present research, we attempted to reconcile these inconsistencies by modeling curvilinear associations between romantic partners' support and support recipients' outcomes and testing whether these curvilinear associations were moderated by recipients' degree of attachment avoidance. We examined the effect of partner support during support-relevant discussions (Studies 1-3) and in daily life (Study 4) on support recipients' distress (Studies 1-4), self-efficacy (Studies 2 and 3), perceived partner control/criticism (Studies 2 and 4), and distancing from the partner (Study 4). The results and a meta-analysis across all four studies (N = 298 couples) demonstrated that the curvilinear effect of practical support on recipients' outcomes was moderated by attachment avoidance. Highly avoidant recipients exhibited more negative responses as their partner provided them low-to-moderate levels of practical support, including increasing distress, perceived partner control/criticism and distancing, and decreasing self-efficacy. However, as partners' practical support shifted from moderate to high levels, highly avoidant recipients experienced more positive outcomes, including decreasing distress, perceived partner control/criticism and distancing, and increasing self-efficacy. Less avoidant individuals were resilient and experienced better outcomes regardless of the level of partner support they received. These results demonstrate the utility of curvilinear models in reconciling the costs and benefits of support, and indicate that high levels of practical support can overcome the defenses of highly avoidant individuals by offering undeniable evidence of the partner's availability.

No abstract

Prior research indicates that emotional suppression exacerbates distress and reduces cognitive performance and self-control. We extend this prior work in the current studies by examining whether emotional suppression in specific goal-relevant contexts impedes people's goal strivings and progress. In Study 1, participants (N = 146) provided reports every 2 weeks across a 2-month period reporting the degree to which they engaged in emotional suppression during goal pursuit and reported important goal-related outcomes, including depressed mood, perceived support/closeness, goal effort, goal-related competence, and goal success. In Study 2, participants reported on the degree to which they engaged in emotional suppression while discussing a personal goal with their romantic partner (N = 100 heterosexual couples) and reported on the same outcomes as in Study 1 prior to, immediately following, and then 1 month after couples' discussions. In both studies, greater use of emotional suppression predicted increased depressed mood, reduced perceived support/closeness, and reduced goal effort, competence, and success across time. Corroborating individuals' self-reports, participants who engaged in emotional suppression were also perceived by their partners to experience greater depressed mood and lower feelings of support and closeness, and be less competent with regard to their goal (Study 2). The effects of emotional suppression were robust when controlling for a range of alternative explanations. These goal hindering effects are likely one important reason emotional suppression is linked with poorer psychological and health outcomes and extend our understanding of the detrimental impact that emotional suppression can have in people's everyday lives. (PsycINFO Database Record