2021
DOI: 10.1037/fam0000802
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A replication and extension of the interpersonal process model of demand/withdraw behavior: Incorporating subjective emotional experience.

Abstract: The demand/withdraw (D/W) interaction pattern is a maladaptive cycle of behavior that is associated with a wide range of deleterious individual and relational outcomes. Partners' emotional responding during couple conflict has long been theorized to play a central role in the occurrence of D/W. The interpersonal process model of D/W behavior suggests that each partner's emotional responses are associated with their own as well as the other partner's behavior in the D/W cycle and that the nature of these associ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two independent yet complementary coding systems are used to characterize participants’ communicative behaviors and affective expressions captured during the 15-min couple conversations: (1) the Asymmetric Behavior Coding System ( Leo et al, 2020 ) and (2) the Relational Affective Topography System ( Leo et al, 2020 ). Drawing from the Valence Affective Connection model ( Leo et al, 2019 ), the systems delineate communicative behavior and affect as positive or negative and as promoting togetherness or engagement with the partner vs. individuation or separation from the partner.…”
Section: Methods and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Two independent yet complementary coding systems are used to characterize participants’ communicative behaviors and affective expressions captured during the 15-min couple conversations: (1) the Asymmetric Behavior Coding System ( Leo et al, 2020 ) and (2) the Relational Affective Topography System ( Leo et al, 2020 ). Drawing from the Valence Affective Connection model ( Leo et al, 2019 ), the systems delineate communicative behavior and affect as positive or negative and as promoting togetherness or engagement with the partner vs. individuation or separation from the partner.…”
Section: Methods and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) the Asymmetric Behavior Coding System (Leo et al, 2020) and (2) the Relational Affective Topography System (Leo et al, 2020). Drawing from the Valence Affective Connection model (Leo et al, 2019), the systems delineate communicative behavior and affect as positive or negative and as promoting togetherness or engagement with the partner vs. individuation or separation from the partner.…”
Section: Observational Codingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observational coding of the video-recorded conversation tasks was conducted after enrollment was completed. In Study 1, two independent teams of research assistants, supervised by the fourth author, were trained to reliability in the Asymmetrical Behavioral Coding System (Leo et al, 2020). For Study 2, two independent teams of research assistants, supervised by the second author, were trained to reliability in the Coding System for Dyadic Coping (Bodenmann, 2000) and the Social Support Interaction Coding System (Bradbury & Pasch, 1992).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, future studies are needed to examine individual difference variables that might moderate the associations found in this investigation (e.g., support providers' physiology might predict goal progress more strongly when both couple members are high in attachment security). Second, future research is needed to examine whether the coregulatory dynamics (Butler & Randall, 2013;Leo et al, 2021) between support providers' and targets' cardiovascular challenge-threat responses are associated with the goal and thriving outcomes; testing this possibility was beyond the scope of the current investigation. Third, our measure of goal progress (i.e., self-reported progress) was relatively crude.…”
Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%