Feeling loved as a strong link in relationship interactions: Partners who feel loved may buffer destructive behavior by actors who feel unloved.

Feeling loved (loved, cared for, accepted, valued, understood) is inherently dyadic, yet most prior theoretical perspectives and investigations have focused on how actors feeling (un)loved shapes actors' outcomes. Adopting a dyadic perspective, the present research tested whether the established links between actors feeling unloved and destructive (critical, hostile) behavior depended on partners' feelings of being loved. Does feeling loved need to be mutual to reduce destructive behavior, or can partners feeling loved compensate for actors feeling unloved? In five dyadic observational studies, couples were recorded discussing conflicts, diverging preferences or relationship strengths, or interacting with their child (total N = 842 couples; 1,965 interactions). Participants reported how much they felt loved during each interaction and independent coders rated how much each person exhibited destructive behavior. Significant Actors' × Partners' Felt-Loved interactions revealed a strong-link/mutual felt-unloved pattern: partners' high felt-loved buffered the damaging effect of actors' low felt-loved on destructive behavior, resulting in actors' destructive behavior mostly occurring when both actors' and partners' felt-loved was low. This dyadic pattern also emerged in three supplemental daily sampling studies. Providing directional support for the strong-link/mutual felt-unloved pattern, in Studies 4 and 5 involving two or more sequential interactions, Actors' × Partners' Felt-Loved in one interaction predicted actors' destructive behavior within couples' subsequent conflict interactions. The results illustrate the dyadic nature of feeling loved: Partners feeling loved can protect against actors feeling unloved in challenging interactions. Assessing Actor × Partner effects should be equally valuable for advancing understanding of other fundamentally dyadic relationship processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Actor and partner power are distinct and have differential effects on social behavior.

Interpersonal power involves how much actors can influence partners (actor power) and how much partners can influence actors (partner power). Yet, most theories and investigations of power conflate the effects of actor and partner power, creating a fundamental ambiguity in the literature regarding how power shapes social behavior. We demonstrate that actor and partner power are distinct and have differential effects on social behavior. Six studies (total N = 1,787) tested whether actor and partner power independently predicted behavioral inhibition (expressive suppression) and communal behavior (prioritization of partners' needs) within close relationships, including during couples' daily life (Study 1), lab-based social interactions (Studies 1-5; 1,012 dyadic interactions), and general responses during conflict (Studies 5 and 6). Actor power was negatively associated with behavioral inhibition, indicating that actors' low power prompts self-focused inhibition to prevent negative outcomes that low power actors are unable to control. Partner power was positively associated with actors' communal behavior, indicating that high partner power prompts other-focused behavior that prioritizes partners' needs and goals. These differential effects of actor and partner power replicated in work-based relationships with bosses/managers (Study 6). Unexpectedly, partner power was negatively associated with actors' behavioral inhibition within close relationships, consistent with a desire to prevent negative outcomes for low power partners. We present a framework that integrates the approach-inhibition and agentic-communal theories of power to account for the differential effects of actor and partner power. We describe the implications of this framework for understanding the effects of power in both close and hierarchical relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Conflict-coparenting spillover: The role of actors' and partners' attachment insecurity and gender.

The current research applied a dyadic perspective to examine conflict-coparenting spillover by examining (a) whether actors' or partners' hostility during couples' conflict discussions predicted greater hostility in a subsequent play activity with their child and (b) whether these actor and partner effects were moderated by two factors that prior theory and research suggest may shape conflict-coparenting spillover: attachment insecurity and parent gender. Cohabiting or married couples were video recorded discussing their most serious conflict while their 4-5-year-old child was in a separate room (N = 94 families). Immediately following their conflict discussions, couples were reunited with their child to participate in a semistructured family activity. Independent teams of observational coders rated how much each partner displayed (a) hostility during the conflict discussion (conflict hostility) and (b) hostility during the family activity (coparenting hostility). The results provide novel evidence that conflict-coparenting spillover is a dyadic process shaped by actors' and partners' attachment insecurity and gender. Men exhibited greater conflict-coparenting spillover even if they were low in attachment anxiety, but men's conflict-coparenting spillover was lower when their partners were lower in attachment anxiety and avoidance. Women's lower attachment anxiety also was associated with women's own lower conflict-coparenting spillover. This pattern suggests that men are more vulnerable to conflict-coparenting spillover, whereas women lower in attachment anxiety and avoidance appear able to contain both their own and their partners' conflict hostility from spilling over to family interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Sexist attitudes predict family-based aggression during a COVID-19 lockdown.

The current research examined whether men's hostile sexism was a risk factor for family-based aggression during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in which families were confined to the home for 5 weeks. Parents who had reported on their sexist attitudes and aggressive behavior toward intimate partners and children prior to the COVID-19 pandemic completed assessments of aggressive behavior toward their partners and children during the lockdown (N = 362 parents of which 310 were drawn from the same family). Accounting for pre-lockdown levels of aggression, men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism reported greater aggressive behavior toward their intimate partners and their children during the lockdown. The contextual factors that help explain these longitudinal associations differed across targets of family-based aggression. Men's hostile sexism predicted greater aggression toward intimate partners when men experienced low power during couples' interactions, whereas men's hostile sexism predicted greater aggressive parenting when men reported lower partner-child relationship quality. Novel effects also emerged for benevolent sexism. Men's higher benevolent sexism predicted lower aggressive parenting, and women's higher benevolent sexism predicted greater aggressive behavior toward partners, irrespective of power and relationship quality. The current study provides the first longitudinal demonstration that men's hostile sexism predicts residual changes in aggression toward both intimate partners and children. Such aggressive behavior will intensify the health, well-being, and developmental costs of the pandemic, highlighting the importance of targeting power-related gender role beliefs when screening for aggression risk and delivering therapeutic and education interventions as families face the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Relationship problems, agreement and bias in perceptions of partners' parental responsiveness, and family functioning.

The current study examined whether couples' relationship problems negatively influenced perceptions of partners' parenting and, in turn, undermined family functioning. Couples (N = 96) completed assessments of relationship problems and family chaos before participating in a family play activity with their 4- to 5-year-old child. Parents reported on their own and their partner's responsiveness toward their child and how much the interaction was a positive and connected family experience. Objective observers also rated each parent's responsiveness toward their child. Parents completed measures assessing family chaos 1 year later. Perceptions of partners' parental responsiveness were significantly associated with both partners' self-reported and observers' ratings of partners' parental responsiveness, but such levels of relative agreement were modest. After accounting for agreement, perceptions of parental responsiveness was shaped by 2 sources of bias: (a) Parents who felt that they were less versus more responsive to their child viewed their partners as less versus more responsive as a parent (assumed similarity), and (b) parents who experienced greater relationship problems perceived their partner to be less responsive as a parent (relationship bias). Perceiving partners to be a less responsive parent, in turn, predicted (a) feeling less connected as a family during the interaction and residual increases in family chaos 1 year later. The results indicate that couples' relationship problems spill over to bias perceptions of parenting, which interferes with couples' ability to provide a connected, stable, and secure family environment. The results highlight that perceptual processes are important in understanding and addressing the ways couples' problems spill over across family subsystems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

An interdependence account of sexism and power: Men's hostile sexism, biased perceptions of low power, and relationship aggression.

Protecting men's power is fundamental to understanding the origin, expression, and targets of hostile sexism, yet no prior theoretical or empirical work has specified how hostile sexism is related to experiences of power. In the current studies, we propose that the interdependence inherent in heterosexual relationships will lead men who more strongly endorse hostile sexism to perceive they have lower power in their relationship, and that these perceptions will be biased. We also predicted that lower perceptions of power would in turn promote aggression toward intimate partners. Across 4 studies, men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism perceived lower power in their relationships. Comparisons across partners supported that these lower perceptions of power were biased; men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism underestimated the power they had compared with their partners' reports of that power (Studies 1 and 2). These lower perceptions of power, in turn, predicted greater aggression toward female partners during couples' daily interactions (Study 1), observed during couples' video-recorded conflict discussions (Study 2), and reported over the last year (Studies 3 and 4). Moreover, the associations between hostile sexism, power, and aggression were specific to men perceiving lower relationship power rather than desiring greater power in their relationships (Studies 3 and 4), and they were not the result of generally being more dominant and aggressive (Studies 3 and 4), or more negative relationship evaluations from either partner (Studies 1-4). The findings demonstrate the importance of an interdependence perspective in understanding the experiences, aggressive expressions, and broader consequences associated with hostile sexism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Emotion regulation, conflict resolution, and spillover on subsequent family functioning.

How does emotion regulation in one social context spillover to functioning in another? We investigate this novel question by drawing upon recent evidence that 3 categories underpin the most commonly assessed emotion regulation strategies: disengagement, aversive cognitive perseveration, and adaptive engagement. We examine how these emotion regulation categories during marital conflict are associated with conflict resolution and assess the associated implications for functioning during a subsequent family activity. We also develop and compare observational and self-report measures of emotion regulation. Couples (N = 101) were video-recorded discussing a major conflict and reported on their emotion regulation during the discussion. Couples then participated in a family activity with their 5-year-old child, and reported on the quality of the family experience and responsiveness toward their child. Observational coders rated how much each participant exhibited each type of emotion regulation during the conflict discussion. Greater disengagement and aversive cognitive perseveration were associated with lower conflict resolution, and in turn, less positive experiences and poorer parental responsiveness during the family activity. Greater adaptive engagement had the opposite effects, but only disengagement and aversive cognitive perseveration had independent effects when controlling for the other emotion regulation categories. Finally, observational and self-report measures were only weakly associated, but illustrated the same pattern of effects. These novel findings suggest that emotion regulation strategies have important flow-on effects beyond the context initially enacted. The results also indicate that self-report versus observed measures of emotion regulation reveal similar patterns, but may capture different intrapersonal and interpersonal elements of emotion regulation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Perceiving Partners to Endorse Benevolent Sexism Attenuates Highly Anxious Women's Negative Reactions to Conflict.

Benevolent sexism prescribes that men are dependent on women in relationships and should cherish their partners. The current research examined whether perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism attenuates highly anxious women's negative reactions to relationship conflict. Greater attachment anxiety was associated with greater distress and insecurity during couples' conflict discussions (Study 1), during daily conflict with intimate partners (Study 2), and when recalling experiences of relationship conflict (Study 3). However, this heightened distress and insecurity was attenuated when women (but not men) perceived their partner to strongly endorse benevolent sexism (Studies 1-3) and thus believed their partner could be relied upon to remain invested (Study 3B). These novel results illustrate that perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism alleviates anxious women's insecure reactions to relationship threat by conveying partner's continued reliability. Implications of these security-enhancing effects are considered in light of the role benevolent sexism plays in sustaining gender inequality.

Internalizing sexism within close relationships: Perceptions of intimate partners' benevolent sexism promote women's endorsement of benevolent sexism.

The current research demonstrated that women's adoption of benevolent sexism is influenced by their perceptions of their intimate partners' agreement with benevolent sexism. In 2 dyadic longitudinal studies, committed heterosexual couples reported on their own sexism and perceptions of their partner's sexism twice across 9 months (Study 1) and 5 times across 1 year (Study 2). Women who perceived that their male partner more strongly endorsed benevolent sexism held greater and more stable benevolent sexism across time, whereas lower perceptions of partners' benevolent sexism predicted declines in women's benevolent sexism across time. Changes in men's endorsement of sexism were unrelated to perceptions of their partner's sexist attitudes. The naturalistic change in sexist attitudes shown in Studies 1 and 2 was supported by experimental evidence in Studies 3 and 4: Manipulations designed to increase perceptions of partner's benevolent sexism led women (but not men) to report greater benevolent sexism. Studies 3 and 4 also provided evidence that perceptions of partner's benevolent sexism fosters perceived regard and relationship security in women, but not men, and these relationship factors enhance attitude alignment. Discriminant analyses demonstrated that these effects were specific to women's perceptions of partner's, rather than societal, levels of sexism. In sum, these studies illustrate that women endorse benevolent sexism when they perceive that the reverence and security that benevolent sexism promises women are accessible in their relationships.