How do implicit and explicit partner evaluations update in daily life? Evidence from the lab and the field.

Evidence suggesting that implicit partner evaluations (IPEs), but not explicit evaluations (EPEs), can predict later changes in satisfaction and relationship status has led researchers to postulate that IPEs must be especially sensitive to relational reward and costs. However, supporting evidence for this assumption remains scarce, and very little is known regarding how IPEs versus EPEs actually update in everyday life. Two studies (one in-lab dyadic interaction study, N = 255, and one 14-day dyadic diary study, N = 348) investigated updating in IPEs and EPEs in the context of real-life relationship experiences. Study 1 revealed that the level of positive and negative experiences that a couple encountered while discussing a divergence of interests in their relationship predicted pre-to-post changes in EPEs, but not in IPEs. Study 2 revealed that IPEs showed less sensitivity to everyday relationship experiences across multiple metrics over the course of 14 days. Specifically, compared with EPEs, IPEs fluctuated less at the within- (vs. between-) person level, showed less-abrupt changes from day-to-day, and had a substantially weaker relationship with same-day positive and negative experiences. Rather than covarying with same-day experiences, IPEs appeared sensitive to relationship experiences aggregated across multiple prior days as well as to highly diagnostic relationship experiences, such as breakup. Consistent with recent advances in social-cognitive research, these findings support a modified account of IPE sensitivity, according to which IPEs show only gradual shifts under everyday circumstances, but more-dramatic shifts under highly diagnostic circumstances. Implications of these findings for close relationships and implicit social cognition research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Mixed and conflicted: The role of ambivalence in romantic relationships in light of attractive alternatives.

People in romantic relationships tend to have positive feelings toward their partner and want their relationship to last. However, maintaining a romantic relationship over time is challenging, and people can often experience mixed and conflicting feelings (i.e., ambivalence) toward their significant other. While research has identified the serious consequences that ambivalence can have for personal and relational well-being, very little is known about the factors that can lead people to experience ambivalence in relationships. The present work examines how extradyadic desire (i.e., desire for someone other than the partner), a common difficulty people face in the context of monogamy, is a situation in which people feel more ambivalent toward their partner. In three studies (N = 1,178) using experimental, daily diary, and longitudinal approaches, we find that feelings of desire for an attractive alternative increase ambivalence toward the current partner, above and beyond how much people actually value their partner, and that this has short- and long-term negative consequences for personal and relational well-being. Furthermore, while most people could identify an attractive alternative in their life, desire for the alternative-rather than just their presence-seems to play a stronger role in increasing ambivalence. This work highlights the emotional processes through which attractive alternatives pose a threat to romantic relationships and the role that ambivalence plays in daily life and over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Do people realize how their partners make them feel? Relationship enhancement motives and stress determine the link between implicitly assessed partner attitudes and relationship satisfaction.

Do people realize the evaluative feelings that are spontaneously activated by their partner? If so, do they use those evaluations when judging their romantic relationships? To answer these questions, we investigated the association between automatic partner attitudes and judgments of relationship satisfaction in 7 studies. Study 1 was a meta-analysis of 86 correlations that revealed a very weak association between implicitly and explicitly assessed relationship evaluations, and Studies 2a-2c revealed that people failed to accurately report their automatic partner attitudes even when specifically asked to do so. Consistent with the idea that such inaccuracy emerged in part because motivational factors led people to override their automatic attitudes, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that automatic partner attitudes better aligned with relationship judgments when people were incentivized with money (Study 3) and had dissolved their relationship (Study 4). Nevertheless, consistent with the idea that overriding automatic attitudes requires the opportunity to deliberate, Studies 4 and 5 demonstrated that automatic partner attitudes better aligned with relationship judgments when people experienced more stress at the daily level (Study 4) and yearly for two years (Study 5). In Study 5, the interaction between stress and automatic attitudes emerged controlling indicators of negativity and was further moderated by relationship enhancing motivations among wives. These studies (a) help explain why automatic partner attitudes predict self-reported relationship satisfaction over time and (b) provide support for theories of social cognition suggesting that people have access to implicitly assessed attitudes that is obscured by motivations and opportunities to deliberate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Fostering Attachment Security: The Role of Interdependent Situations.

This work adopts an Interdependence Theory framework to investigate how the features of interdependent situations that couples face in their daily life (i.e., situations in which partners influence each other's outcomes) shape attachment security toward their current partners. An experience sampling study examined attachment tendencies and features of interdependent situations that people experience with their partner in daily life to predict satisfaction and trust in their relationship, and changes in attachment avoidance and anxiety toward their partner over time. Results revealed that encountering situations with corresponding outcomes (i.e., situations in which both partners have the same preferences) and with information certainty (i.e., situations in which there is clear knowledge of each partner's preferences) assuage people's insecurity. On the contrary, situations of mutual current and future interdependence (i.e., situations in which each person's current or future outcomes are dependent on their partner's behavior) undermined security for anxiously attached individuals. Power (i.e., the asymmetry in partners' dependence) was not related to attachment security. This work underscores the importance of studying the role of the situations that partners experience in their daily life and the way they are related to relationship feelings and cognitions.

The link between sacrifice and relational and personal well-being: A meta-analysis.

Prosocial behavior is often thought to bring benefits to individuals and relationships. Do such benefits exist when prosocial behavior is costly for the individual, such as when people are sacrificing for their partner or relationship? Although different theoretical accounts would predict that sacrifice is either positively or negatively associated with personal and relational well-being, empirical work in this regard has been inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analytic synthesis of 82 data sets and 9,547 effect sizes (N = 32,053) to test the link between sacrifice and both personal and relationship well-being for both the individual who performs the sacrifice and their romantic partner. We examined four different facets of sacrifice (i.e., willingness to sacrifice, behavioral sacrifice, satisfaction with sacrifice, and costs of sacrifice). Results revealed that these facets were differently associated with well-being. Specifically, an individual's willingness to sacrifice was positively associated with their own personal and relationship well-being and with their partner's relationship well-being (.09 < rs < .27). However, behavioral sacrifice was negatively associated with own personal well-being (r = -.07). Satisfaction with sacrifice was positively associated with individual and partner well-being (.11 < rs < .43). Costs of sacrifice were negatively related to one's own personal and relationship well-being and to the partner's relationship well-being (-.10 < rs < -.26). Some moderators were also identified. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on prosocial behavior and relationships, address the implications of the methodologies used to study prosocial behavior, and suggest directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies.

Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner's ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person's own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships.

Speech Is Silver, Nonverbal Behavior Is Gold: How Implicit Partner Evaluations Affect Dyadic Interactions in Close Relationships.

Growing evidence suggests that the seeds of relationship decay can be detected via implicit partner evaluations even when explicit evaluations fail to do so. However, little is known about the concrete daily relational processes that explain why these gut feelings are such important determinants of relationships' long-term outcomes. The present integrative multimethod research yielded a novel finding: that participants with more positive implicit partner evaluations exhibited more constructive nonverbal (but not verbal) behavior toward their partner in a videotaped dyadic interaction. In turn, this behavior was associated with greater satisfaction with the conversation and with the relationship in the following 8-day diary portion of the study. These findings represent a significant step forward in understanding the crucial role of automatic processes in romantic relationships. Together, they provide novel evidence that relationship success appears to be highly dependent on how people spontaneously behave in their relationship, which may be ultimately rooted in their implicit partner evaluations.