The link between sociotropy/autonomy and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay and lesbian couples

The tendency to be excessively concerned about either interpersonal relationships (sociotropy) or self‐reliance (autonomy) has been regarded as increasing one's susceptibility to experience symptoms of depression. In this study, both one's own and one's partner's scores for each tendency were linked to two dimensions of one's own appraisal of relationship commitment (attractions to the relationship and constraints against leaving the relationship) in a sample of both partners from 29 gay and 35 lesbian cohabiting couples. One's own high autonomy was linked to perceiving few attractions to the relationship, whereas one's own high sociotropy was linked to perceiving many constraints to leaving the relationship under two conditions: when one's partner's sociotropy was low or when one regarded the partner as highly dependable. Findings support the view that individual differences variables may serve as either risk factors for or protective factors against difficulties in maintaining a close relationship and underscore the need to examine cross‐partner effects and moderating effects in identifying the individual differences variables linked to relationship functioning.     

Attractions and constraints as determinants of relationship commitment: Longitudinal evidence from gay,lesbian, and heterosexual couples

The proposition that commitment to a relationship is uniquely determined by forces that draw one to the relationship (attractions) and forces that prevent one from leaving the relationship (constraints) was tested with five annual waves of longitudinal data from two samples: both partners from 155 married couples and both partners from 57 gay couples and 50 lesbian couples. Growth curve analyses that controlled for the interdependence of partners' scores indicated that, for both heterosexual and gay/lesbian couples, variability in one's own commitment was uniquely predicted by one's own attractions and one's own constraints, interactions involving one's own attractions and one's own constraints, and one's partner's attractions. It is concluded that attractions and constraints exert unique dynamic effects on maintaining a close relationship.     

RUPTURES IN THE ANALYTIC SETTING AND DISTURBANCES IN THE TRANSFORMATIONAL FIELD OF DREAMS

This paper explores some implications of Bleger's (1967, 2013) concept of the analytic situation, which he views as comprising the analytic setting and the analytic process. The author discusses Bleger's idea of the analytic setting as the depositary for projected painful aspects in either the analyst or patient or both—affects that are then rendered as nonprocess. In contrast, the contents of the analytic process are subject to an incessant process of transformation (Green 2005). The author goes on to enumerate various components of the analytic setting: the nonhuman, object relational, and the analyst's “person” (including mental functioning). An extended clinical vignette is offered as an illustration.