Taking stock of the longitudinal study of romantic couple relationships: The last 20 years

Longitudinal dyadic research provides significant benefits for our understanding of romantic couple relationships. In this systematic review, we begin by providing a broad overview of topical trends and approaches in longitudinal couple relationships research from 2002 through 2021. Then, we narrow our review to dyadic relationship quality articles, highlighting key themes as well as noting important gaps in the research. Using an intersectional perspective that acknowledges multiple ways that disadvantage, power, and oppression may be seen in both research and in couples' lived experience, we note prominent paradigms used in examining couple relationships, what types of questions have been most valued, and what groups and approaches are underrepresented in the literature. Most longitudinal couple relationships research is quantitative, relies on self-report approaches from American couples in the early-to-middle years of their relationships, concentrates more on negative aspects of relationships than positives, and takes a communication-satisfaction paradigm in studying couples. We see a clear need to increase the use of methodologies beyond self-report measures, conduct more studies with within-group minority, older adult, culturally-diverse, and context-specific samples to explore the diversity of relationships, and fully consider both strengths and positive processes in relationships as well as the challenges couples experience.     

Pandemic precarity: A multi-level study of neoliberal precarity and COVID-Related outcomes in the United States

Neoliberalism is the political-economic system that has characterized the United States for the past half century. Structurally, neoliberalism has involved privatization, deregulation, and government divestment from public health systems. Cultural psychologists have begun to outline the ways that neoliberalism is reflected in attitudes, ways of being, and ideologies, such as in the form of heightened individualism, justification of inequality, depoliticization, and precarity. We argue that neoliberal structures and psychologies may contribute to deleterious outcomes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We demonstrate that neoliberalism at the US state level (n = 51) is associated with higher COVID mortality and case fatality rates, as well as lower vaccination rates (Study 1). We also demonstrate that individual-level (n = 8280) neoliberal ideology predicts less adaptive beliefs and attitudes such as the belief that the federal response to the pandemic was too fast and belief in COVID-related misinformation (Study 2). We demonstrate using multilevel modeling that state-level neoliberalism predicts individual-level COVID-related attitudes, which is explained in part by heightened neoliberal ideology in more neoliberal states (Study 2). This study contributes to an understanding of the structural and cultural psychological factors that have contributed to the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US.     

Tightness shifts in the U.S. and China: Implications of tightening or loosening norms during the coronavirus pandemic

Emergent research identifies cultural tightness-looseness as an important factor for understanding cross-national outcome differences during the coronavirus pandemic. Because perceived tightness-looseness can be measured as an individual-level difference rather than a nation-level difference, and because tightness-looseness may shift during large-scale crises, we investigated whether such shifts occurred early in the coronavirus pandemic in both China (a relatively tight nation, n = 3642) and the U.S. (a relatively loose nation, n = 3583) across three cohorts. Tightness increased across cohorts in China and reduced across cohorts in the U.S. These changes transmitted corresponding indirect effects whereby compliance and institutional trust (scientific and government) about the pandemic were increased in China across cohorts, but decreased in the U.S. across cohorts. These patterns extend advice that national governments can increase compliance and trust via “tightening” by cautioning against norm-setters signaling the reverse (that norms about compliance are loose) given the outcomes observed in the U.S. samples.     

Reviews of current books

Pastoral Psychology -     

Development of Standard Anchors for Scoring Generic Past-Behaviour Questions in Structured Interviews

A structured interviewing system was developed which included an item bank of pre-written past-behaviour questions. Scoring anchors for each of 168 questions in the item bank were created from analysis of protocols from individual assessments. A concurrent validation study was conducted, focusing on the job of highway patrol sergeant. Job knowledge experts used a job analysis tool to select a subset of twelve questions from the item bank. Panel interviews were conducted with 32 highway patrol sergeants as subjects. Average inter-rater reliability was 0.65 and interview validity was 0.42 for group consensus scores and 0.44 for panel average scores. Discussion focused on practical issues affecting the interviewing system.