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).

Depressive symptoms, stress, and poorer emotional support when needed by intimate partners.

Intimate relationships are a principal source of emotional support, which fosters recipients' health and well-being. Yet, being in a position to provide support can be stressful, particularly if people are burdened with their own emotional difficulties, and such stress may interfere with people's ability to behave in emotionally supportive ways. Three dyadic studies tested whether greater depressive symptoms were associated with experiencing stress when in a position to provide support to intimate partners, and whether greater stress in turn predicted partners receiving less emotional support. Greater depressive symptoms were associated with experiencing greater stress during couples' discussions about partners important personal goal (Study 1) or significant personal challenge (Study 2) and on days when partners reported needing greater support (Study 3). Greater stress when in a position to provide support to partners was, in turn, associated with partners reporting they received lower emotional support (Studies 1 through 3). The results replicated when examining providers' own reports of emotional support (Studies 1 through 3), were specific to depressive symptoms and not due to other factors shown to undermine support (low self-esteem and higher attachment insecurity; Studies 1 through 3), were not simply due to low mood or sadness (Study 3) and occurred irrespective of the importance or severity of the topic discussed (Studies 1 and 2). These results highlight an important emotional process central to effective support provision: being in a position to provide support can be stressful, especially when people lack the emotional resources and capacity to be emotionally supportive toward their partners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

When attachment anxiety impedes support provision: The role of feeling unvalued and unappreciated.

Two studies examined whether concerns of relational value interfere with the ability of individuals higher in attachment anxiety to provide responsive support to their partner. In both studies, heterosexual couples engaged in 2 video-recorded discussions about each other's most important personal goal. Support recipients (the person whose goal was discussed) reported on how distressed they felt during the discussion. Support providers (the partner who was in the position to provide support) reported on how valued and appreciated they felt during the discussion. Independent observers coded the degree to which support providers exhibited critical and derogating behaviors versus warmth and understanding during the discussion. The results were consistent across both studies, with the exception that the predicted effects only emerged for male providers in Study 2. First, more anxious support providers felt less valued and appreciated when support recipients reported greater distress. Second, lower feelings of value/appreciation were associated with more anxious providers exhibiting greater negative support behavior. These results illustrate how the concerns of relational value central to attachment anxiety impede effective support provision, which should have detrimental effects for relationships. Indeed, consistent with prior research, greater negative behaviors by support providers predicted declines in recipients' relationship quality over time. (PsycINFO Database Record