Speech Is Silver, Nonverbal Behavior Is Gold: How Implicit Partner Evaluations Affect Dyadic Interactions in Close Relationships

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that the seeds of relationship decay can be detected via implicit partner evaluations even when explicit evaluations fail to do so. However, little is known about the concrete daily relational processes that explain why these gut feelings are such important determinants of relationships’ long-term outcomes. The present integrative multimethod research yielded a novel finding: that participants with more positive implicit partner evaluations exhibited more constructive nonverbal (but not verbal) behavior toward their partner in a videotaped dyadic interaction. In turn, this behavior was associated with greater satisfaction with the conversation and with the relationship in the following 8-day diary portion of the study. These findings represent a significant step forward in understanding the crucial role of automatic processes in romantic relationships. Together, they provide novel evidence that relationship success appears to be highly dependent on how people spontaneously behave in their relationship, which may be ultimately rooted in their implicit partner evaluations.

Forecasting a Fatal Decision: Direct Replication of the Predictive Validity of the Suicide–Implicit Association Test

“…The present findings challenge the common assumption that implicit associations, and implicit bias more generally, have poor predictive validity (Jost, 2018). On the contrary, these findings add to recent research, showing that indirect measures of implicit cognition predict real-world behavior better than explicit measures (Faure et al, 2018;Kurdi et al, 2018;Nock & Banaji, 2007;Roland et al, 2018;Serra et al, 2019). The present findings also have clear clinical implications.…”

“…From a theoretical viewpoint, Nock et al's (2010) findings are important, because they contributed to a growing body of work showing that the implicit association test (IAT) has good predictive validity (Faure, Righetti, Seibel, & Hofmann, 2018;Glenn, Werntz et al, 2017;Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009;Kurdi et al, 2018;Nock & Banaji, 2007;Roland, Mierop, Frenay, & Corneille, 2018;Serra et al, 2019). The question of whether the IAT can predict complex behavior over and above existing measures has generated considerable debate and controversy in social psychology (for a recent review, see Jost, 2018), where the test was initially proposed (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003).…”

The Case for Studying Implicit Social Cognition in Close Relationships

“…Consistent with these ideas, existing work has provided evidence that automatic partner attitudes predominantly drive responding when people are less willing or less able to engage in effortful processing-either because of the nature of behavior (e.g., nonverbal communication, Faure et al, 2018), the condition in which it is enacted (e.g., stress, Hicks et al, 2020), or the dispositions pertaining to the actor (e.g., working memory capacity, Murray et al, 2012;self-esteem, Murray et al, 2015; perceived barriers to exit the relationship, Scinta & Gable, 2007). For instance, Hicks and colleagues (2020) demonstrated that although automatic partner attitudes tended to be unrelated to self-reported relationship satisfaction in a meta-analysis and several direct tests, these attitudes were positively associated with deliberate judgments about the relationship when people were financially incentivized to be accurate about their gut feelings toward their partner or if their relationship had dissolved (i.e., reduced motivations) or when they experienced higher stress (i.e., reduced opportunities).…”

“…Further, what is critical to note is that researchers can directly examine any contextual factors-whether they be cultural or relationship-specific-that do influence automatic partner attitudes. Because relationships have their own contexts that can be measured and tracked over time through videotaped problem-solving interactions (Faure, Righetti, Seibel, & Hofmann, 2018), diary studies (Murray, Gomillion, Holmes, & Harris, 2015), and longitudinal designs (McNulty et al, 2014), researchers can use such methods to directly assess contextual factors (e.g., work, stress, children, cultural beliefs, etc.) and examine the extent to which automatic attitudes change in response to environmental versus relationship experiences.…”

“…Dual-process theories predict that people's implicitly assessed partner attitudes, most of which, as previously noted, contain at least some negative elements (McNulty et al, 2019;Zayas & Shoda, 2015), will affect behavior when opportunities or motivations to engage in controlled processing are limited (Fazio & Olson, 2014). Crucially, over the course of their relationship, there are many naturally occurring internal (e.g., intrinsic motivation, type of behavior) and external factors (e.g., household, children, work, or stress; e.g., Buck & Neff, 2012) that can temporarily constrain people's ability to engage in controlled processing, allowing automatic partner attitudes to have substantial real-life implications for downstream processes and relationship maintenance (e.g., Faure et al, 2018;LeBel & Campbell, 2013;Murray et al, 2011;Murray, Lupien, & Seery, 2012;Murray, Gomillion, Holmes, Harris, & Lamarche, 2013;Murray et al, 2015;Scinta & Gable, 2007).…”