When accuracy hurts, and when it helps: a test of the empathic accuracy model in marital interactions

This study tested predictions from W. Ickes and J. A. Simpson's (1997, 2001) empathic accuracy model. Married couples were videotaped as they tried to resolve a problem in their marriage. Both spouses then viewed a videotape of the interaction, recorded the thoughts and feelings they had at specific time points, and tried to infer their partner's thoughts and feelings. Consistent with the model, when the partner's thoughts and feelings were relationship-threatening (as rated by both the partners and by trained observers), greater empathic accuracy on the part of the perceiver was associated with pre-to-posttest declines in the perceiver's feelings of subjective closeness. The reverse was true when the partner's thoughts and feelings were nonthreatening. Exploratory analyses revealed that these effects were partially mediated through observer ratings of the degree to which partners tried to avoid the discussion issue.     

Suspicious minds: The motive to acquire relationship‐threatening information

In four studies, we obtained evidence for the reliability and validity of a 21‐item scale designed to measure a new theoretical construct: individual differences in the motivation to acquire relationship‐threatening information (hereafter, MARTI). Study 1 provided evidence for the MARTI scale's reliability and discriminant validity, revealing that it was reliable and not significantly correlated with measures of the Big Five personality traits, adult attachment styles, or more general social orientations. Studies 2 and 3 provided evidence for the scale's convergent and discriminant validity, showing that dating partners with higher MARTI scores (i.e., those who were more motivated to acquire relationship‐threatening information) scored lower in relational trust and reported engaging in more “suspicion behaviors.” Study 4 provided behavioral evidence for the scale's predictive validity, revealing that (a) dating partners with higher MARTI scores were more likely to break up within 5 months, and (b) the breakup rate was most pronounced for dating partners who scored higher on the scale and who also reported being less close. We discuss how this new construct and measure can be used to study important relationship dynamics.

相似文献   

Trait-specific dependence in romantic relationships

ABSTRACT Informed by three theoretical frameworks—trait psychology, evolutionary psychology, and interdependence theory—we report four investigations designed to develop and test the reliability and validity of a new construct and accompanying multiscale inventory, the Trait-Specific Dependence Inventory (TSDI). The TSDI assesses comparisons between present and alternative romantic partners on major dimensions of mate value. In Study 1, principal components analyses revealed that the provisional pool of theory-generated TSDI items were represented by six factors: Agreeable/Committed, Resource Accruing Potential, Physical Prowess, Emotional Stability, Surgency, and Physical Attractiveness. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analysis replicated these results on a different sample and tested how well different structural models fit the data. Study 3 provided evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the six TSDI scales by correlating each one with a matched personality trait scale that did not explicitly incorporate comparisons between partners. Study 4 provided further validation evidence, revealing that the six TSDI scales successfully predicted three relationship outcome measures—love, time investment, and anger/upset—above and beyond matched sets of traditional personality trait measures. These results suggest that the TSDI is a reliable, valid, and unique construct that represents a new trait-specific method of assessing dependence in romantic relationships. The construct of trait-specific dependence is introduced and linked with other theories of mate value.     

Associations between power,stress, and dominance in romantic relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining curvilinear and within-person effects

Two key processes in romantic relationships—power and dominance—can contribute to relationship disruption, but the association between these variables is complex. Elucidating the association between power and dominance during the COVID-19 pandemic is particularly important given the economic, social, and health-related stressors that pose a risk to relationship health. We examined associations between power, stress, and dominance by recruiting 1813 participants to complete an initial online survey at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were contacted 10 and 22 months later to complete follow-up surveys. Results revealed two main effects: individuals who had greater relationship power and experienced more COVID-19-related stressors than other people engaged in more dominance behaviors. A significant curvilinear effect revealed that at low levels of power, power was not associated with dominance behaviors. However, once power surpassed low levels, individuals with more power engaged in more dominance behaviors. Finally, people engaged in more dominance behaviors when they experienced more power and stress compared to their own average (i.e., within-person effects) during the pandemic. Implications for theories of power, dominance, and relationship disruption and distress are discussed.     

Regularity effects in word naming: What are they?

In a word-naming experiment, word-body consistency was crossed with grapheme-to-phoneme regularity to test predictions of current models of word recognition. In the latency and error data, a clear effect of consistency was observed, with the influence of regularity somewhat weaker. In addition, simulation data from three contemporary models of word recognition were obtained for the stimuli used in the experiment in order to compare the models' latencies with those of humans. The simulations showed that the human latency data are most consistent with the parallel-distributed-processing model of Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, and Patterson (1996), less so with the dual-process model (Zorzi, Houghton, & Butterworth, 1998), and least so with the dual-route-cascaded model (Coltheart & Rastle, 1994).     

The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism

During human evolutionary history, there were "trade-offs" between expending time and energy on child-rearing and mating, so both men and women evolved conditional mating strategies guided by cues signaling the circumstances. Many short-term matings might be successful for some men; others might try to find and keep a single mate, investing their effort in rearing her offspring. Recent evidence suggests that men with features signaling genetic benefits to offspring should be preferred by women as short-term mates, but there are trade-offs between a mate's genetic fitness and his willingness to help in child-rearing. It is these circumstances and the cues that signal them that underlie the variation in short- and long-term mating strategies between and within the sexes.     

Regulatory Focus and the Interpersonal Dynamics of Romantic Partners’ Personal Goal Discussions

Guided by regulatory focus theory, we examined how romantic partners’ chronic concerns with promotion (advancement) and prevention (security) shape the interpersonal dynamics of couples’ conversations about different types of personal goals. Members of 95 couples (N = 190) first completed chronic regulatory focus measures and then engaged in videotaped discussions of two types of goals that were differentially relevant to promotion and prevention concerns. Participants also completed measures of goal‐ and partner‐relevant perceptions. Independent observers rated the discussions for support‐related behaviors. Highly promotion‐focused people approached their partners more, perceived greater partner responsiveness, and received more support when discussing goals that were promotion‐relevant and that they perceived as less attainable. When partners’ responsiveness to promotion‐relevant goals was low, highly promotion‐focused people reported greater self‐efficacy regarding these goals. Highly prevention‐focused people perceived more responsiveness when partners were less distancing during discussions of their prevention‐relevant goals, and greater responsiveness perceptions reassured them that these goals are less disruptive to the relationship. These findings suggest that chronic concerns with promotion and prevention orient people to their relationship environment in ways that are consistent with these distinct motivational needs, especially when discussing goals that increase the salience of these needs.