Remaining in a situationally aggressive relationship: The role of relationship self‐efficacy

Baker, Levi R.; Cobb, Rebecca A.; McNulty, James K.; Lambert, Nathaniel M.; Fincham, Frank D.

doi:10.1111/pere.12145

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current results continue this tradition by additionally demonstrating that some dissatisfied intimates may remain in unsatisfying relationships because they optimistically believe that the relationship will be satisfying in the future. Consistent with this idea, Baker and colleagues (Baker, Cobb, McNulty, Lambert, & Fincham, 2016) demonstrated that victimization was associated with relationship dissolution among victims who did not optimistically believe they were capable of resolving their relationship conflicts but unassociated with dissolution among victims who optimistically believed they were capable of resolving their relationship conflicts. The current studies join these in highlighting perceptions of the future as a key target for interventions aimed at either encouraging, or discouraging, relationship stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Expectations for future relationship satisfaction: Unique sources and critical implications for commitment.

Baker¹,

McNulty²,

VanderDrift³

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary perspectives on relationship commitment posit that intimates decide whether or not to maintain a relationship based on their commitment to that relationship, and that they base such commitment partially on their current satisfaction with that relationship. Nevertheless, given that ending a relationship requires knowing about both the current state of the relationship and the likely future state of the relationship, we propose that people base their commitment to a relationship more on their expected future satisfaction with the relationship than on their current satisfaction with that relationship. Six studies provided evidence for these ideas. Study 1 demonstrated that expected satisfaction is shaped by not only current satisfaction but also several unique indicators of the likelihood of future satisfaction, including anticipated life events, plans to improve the relationship, and individual differences. Then, using a combination of cross-sectional, experimental, and longitudinal methods, Studies 2–6 demonstrated that (a) expected satisfaction was a stronger predictor of relationship commitment, maintenance behaviors, and/or divorce than was current satisfaction and (b) expected satisfaction mediated the association between current satisfaction and these outcomes. These findings highlight not only the need to incorporate expected satisfaction into extent perspectives on commitment, but also the importance of expectations for decision-making processes more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Expectations for future relationship satisfaction: Unique sources and critical implications for commitment.

Baker¹,

McNulty²,

VanderDrift³

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, they highlight the necessity of considering contextual factors when examining the consequences of interpersonal behaviors. Although several theoretical perspectives (Overall & McNulty, 2017; Zayas et al, 2002) suggest that the implications of interpersonal behavior should be determined by qualities of the partner, only a handful of studies (e.g., Baker, Cobb, McNulty, Lambert, & Fincham, 2016; Baker & McNulty, 2015; McNulty & Russell, 2016) have examined this idea, and those studies examined the effects of interpersonal behavior for the partner rather than the actor. For example, Baker and McNulty (2015) demonstrated that confrontation increased the motivation to reduce problematic behavior among partners low in depressive symptoms but decreased motivation among partners high in depressive symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partners’ depressive symptoms moderate the effects of expressive suppression.

Weckbacher¹,

Baker²

2018

Journal of Family Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suppressing emotional expressions can hide one’s needs from relationship partners and thus prevent partners from providing support. Nevertheless, suppressing expressions may help people maintain more favorable evaluations of partners who are ultimately unsupportive because people may attribute a lack of support to partners being unaware of their needs. Thus, given that depressive symptoms reduce provisions of support, people with partners experiencing depressive symptoms may remain more satisfied to the extent that they previously suppressed emotional expressions. We tested these ideas in 1 experiment, 1 cross-sectional study, and 1 longitudinal study. In Study 1, participants imagined either expressing or suppressing their emotions, imagined their partner was either supportive or unsupportive to their needs, and reported their perceptions of their partner. In Studies 2 and 3, newlywed couples reported their depressive symptoms, their marital satisfaction, and the extent to which they suppressed their emotional expressions cross-sectionally (Study 2) or every year for 2 years (Study 3). Results revealed that people with unsupportive partners or partners high in depressive symptoms made more benevolent attributions for their partners’ unsupportive behavior and remained more satisfied with their partners to the extent that they suppressed their emotional expressions; however, people with supportive partners or partners low in depressive symptoms became more dissatisfied with their partners to the extent that they suppressed their emotional expressions. These results highlight the benefits of dyadic theoretical perspectives by revealing that qualities of the partner moderate the effects of expressive suppression.

show abstract

“…In particular, given ample evidence suggests that people low in self-efficacy tend to be less motivated to identify solutions to their problems (e.g., Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984;Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) and implement those solutions (Bandura, 1977(Bandura, , 1986Schunk, 1991;, oppositional behaviors (e.g., criticism, blame) that decrease targets' self-efficacy should also decrease their motivation to identify and implement solutions to their problems (Stages 2 and 3). Consistent with these ideas, research on close relationships has demonstrated that people who doubt their ability to resolve their relationship problems work less to maintain those relationships than do people who believe they have the ability (Baker, Cobb, McNulty, Lambert, & Fincham, 2017;Baker & McNulty, 2010.…”

Section: Oppositional Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Relationship Problem Solving (RePS) Model: How Partners Influence One Another to Resolve Relationship Problems

Baker

McNulty

2019

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we synthesize existing literatures across numerous domains to introduce a novel model—the Relationship Problem Solving (RePS) model—for understanding the process through which romantic partners influence one another to resolve relationship problems. The first section briefly describes the key constructs and stages of the model. The second section details the interpersonal behaviors that influence various intrapersonal factors (e.g., affect, self-efficacy) that ultimately influence partners’ motivation and ability to progress through the stages of the model. The third section uses the model to generate novel predictions that suggest that the effectiveness of these interpersonal behaviors often depends on contextual factors. Finally, the fourth section discusses the implications of this model for understanding relationship problem solving, highlights the need to consider the role of context in the problem-solving process, and offers numerous specific predictions to be addressed by future research.

show abstract

Remaining in a situationally aggressive relationship: The role of relationship self‐efficacy

Cited by 13 publications

References 59 publications

Expectations for future relationship satisfaction: Unique sources and critical implications for commitment.

Expectations for future relationship satisfaction: Unique sources and critical implications for commitment.

Partners’ depressive symptoms moderate the effects of expressive suppression.

The Relationship Problem Solving (RePS) Model: How Partners Influence One Another to Resolve Relationship Problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About