Enduring COVID-19 lockdowns: Risk versus resilience in parents' health and family functioning across the pandemic.

Have the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic risked declines in parents' health and family functioning, or have most parents been resilient and shown no changes in health and family functioning? Assessing average risk versus resilience requires examining how families have fared across the pandemic, beyond the initial months examined in prior investigations. The current research examines changes in parents' health and functioning over the first 1.5 years of the pandemic. Parents (N = 272) who had completed general pre-pandemic assessments completed reassessments of psychological/physical health, couple/family functioning, and parenting within two mandatory lockdowns in New Zealand: at the beginning of the pandemic (26 March-28 April 2020) and 17 months later (18 August-21 September 2021). Parents exhibited average declines in psychological/physical health (greater depressive symptoms; reduced well-being, energy and physical health) and in couple/family functioning (reduced commitment and family cohesion; greater problem severity and family chaos). By contrast, there were no average differences in parent-child relationship quality and parenting practices across lockdowns. Declines in health and couple/family functioning occurred irrespective of pre-pandemic health and functioning, but partner support buffered declines in couple/family functioning. The results emphasize that attending to the challenges parents and couples face in the home will be important to mitigate and recover from the impact of the pandemic on parents' and children's well-being.

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).

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).

A dyadic perspective of expressive suppression: Own or partner suppression weakens relationships.

In the current research, we apply a dyadic perspective of expressive suppression (ES) to test whether ES represents a weak link, such that either actors' or partners' ES is sufficient to undermine relationship satisfaction. Our primary aim was to test this weak-link pattern by modeling Actor × Partner ES interactions on relationship satisfaction. To maximize power, we conducted integrative data analyses across four existing dyadic samples (N = 427 couples) that included self-reports of habitual ES and relationship satisfaction. Our second aim was to examine the role of conflict resolution ability as one potential mechanism for the ES weak-link pattern on satisfaction. These integrative data analyses involved two dyadic samples (N = 242 couples) that included self-reports of conflict resolution ability. Significant Actor × Partner ES interactions revealed a weak-link pattern: greater actors' or partners' ES was associated with lower relationship satisfaction. Accordingly, actors' lower ES was associated with higher satisfaction only when partners' ES was also low. This ES weak-link pattern also emerged for conflict resolution ability, which provided evidence that reduced conflict resolution ability is one interpersonal process that contributes to the weak-link pattern on satisfaction. ES likely operates as a weak link because actors' or partners' ES interferes with the coordination, cooperation, and connection needed to manage relationship challenges and sustain healthy relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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).

Parents' distress and poor parenting during a COVID-19 lockdown: The buffering effects of partner support and cooperative coparenting.

The COVID-19 pandemic is placing demands on parents that may amplify the risk of parents' distress and poor parenting. Leveraging a prepandemic study in New Zealand, the current research tested whether parents' psychological distress during a mandated lockdown predicts relative residual changes in poorer parenting and whether partner support and cooperative coparenting buffer this potentially detrimental effect. Participants included 362 parents; 310 were from the same family (155 dyads). Parents had completed assessments of psychological distress and parenting prior to the pandemic and then reported on their distress, parenting, partner support, and cooperative coparenting during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Parents' distress during the lockdown predicted relative residual increases in harsh parenting, but this effect was buffered by partner support. Parents' distress also predicted residual decreases in warm/responsive parenting and parent-child relationship quality, but these effects were buffered by cooperative coparenting. Partner support and cooperative coparenting are important targets for future research and interventions to help parents navigate challenging family contexts, including COVID-19 lockdowns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Emotion regulation and psychological and physical health during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown.

The current research tests the links between emotion regulation and psychological and physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Study 1, parents (N = 365) who had reported on their psychological and physical health prior to the pandemic completed the same health assessments along with their use of emotion regulation strategies when confined in the home with their school-aged children during a nationwide lockdown. In Study 2, individuals (N = 1,607) from a nationally representative panel study completed similar measures of psychological and physical health and use of emotion regulation strategies one-year prior to the lockdown and then again during the lockdown. Accounting for prepandemic psychological health, greater rumination and emotional suppression were independently associated with poorer psychological health (greater depressive symptoms and psychological distress, lower emotional and personal well-being), even when controlling for the emotional challenges of the pandemic (emotion control difficulties, perceived support; Studies 1 and 2) and a range of demographic covariates (Study 2). Greater rumination was also associated with greater fatigue in both studies, but greater rumination and emotional suppression were only independently associated with poorer perceptions of physical health in Study 2. The results for cognitive reappraisal were mixed; positive associations with personal well-being and general health only emerged in Study 2. The results provide evidence that key models in affective science help explain differences in psychological and physical health within the throes of a real-world demanding context and thus offer targets to help facilitate health and resilience during the pandemic (and other crises). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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).

Do habitual emotional suppression measures predict response-focused situational suppression during social interactions?

Greater habitual emotional suppression (ES)-assessed by the suppression subscale of the emotion regulation questionnaire (ERQ-ES; Gross & John, 2003) and the Courtauld emotion control scale (CECS; Watson & Greer, 1983)-is associated with a range of negative outcomes, which are assumed to arise because habitual ES measures capture the tendency to use ES in response to emotions. The current studies directly test whether habitual ES measures actually capture the response-focused use of ES when emotions arise within social interactions. We conduct these validation tests by integrating measures of habitual ES with naturalistic assessments of negative emotions and the situational use of ES during emotionally relevant interactions with romantic partners (Study 1, N = 200; Study 3, N = 170) and social interactions with close others in daily life (Study 2, N = 430). Greater ERQ-ES and CECS scores predicted greater average levels of situational ES, but only greater scores on the ERQ-ES consistently predicted greater situational ES in response to negative emotions, including greater situational ES for people who experienced more negative emotions than others and when people experienced greater negative emotions than their own average. These results support that the ERQ-ES captures a response-focused pattern of situational ES that is sensitive to varying negative emotions within specific interactions. The CECS may capture a more pervasive, consistent use of ES across situations. Our novel tests offer an important framework for how to validate emotion regulation assessments to advance both theory and methodology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 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).

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).

Expressive suppression tendencies, projection bias in memory of negative emotions, and well-being.

The current research extends prior research linking negative emotions and emotion regulation tendencies to memory by investigating whether (a) naturally occurring negative emotions during routine weekly life are associated with more negatively biased memories of prior emotional experiences-a bias called projection; (b) tendencies to regulate emotions via expressive suppression are associated with greater projection bias in memory of negative emotions; and (c) greater projection bias in memory is associated with poorer future well-being. Participants (N = 308) completed a questionnaire assessing their general tendencies to engage in expressive suppression. Then, every week for 7 weeks, participants reported on (a) the negative emotions they experienced across the current week (e.g., "This week, I felt 'sad'"), (b) their memories of the negative emotions they experienced the prior week (e.g., "Last week, I felt 'sad'"), and (c) their well-being. First, participants demonstrated significant projection bias in memory: Greater negative emotions in a given week were associated with remembering emotions in the prior week more negatively than those prior emotions were originally reported. Second, projection bias in memory of negative emotions was greater for individuals who reported greater tendencies to regulate emotions via expressive suppression. Third, greater projection bias in memory of negative emotions was associated with reductions in well-being across weeks. These 3 novel findings indicate that (a) current negative emotions bias memory of past emotions, (b) this memory bias is magnified for people who habitually use expressive suppression to regulate emotions, and (c) this memory bias may undermine well-being over time. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Perceived regard, expressive suppression during conflict, and conflict resolution.

The way emotions are expressed during relationship conflict should play an important role in facilitating conflict resolution, but the risk of rejection that conflict poses may promote expressive suppression, which could impede conflict resolution. In the current research, the authors applied a risk regulation perspective to understand when expressive suppression will occur during conflict. They predicted that (a) perceiving lower regard from the partner during conflict would predict greater expressive suppression, and (b) greater expressive suppression would undermine conflict resolution. In Study 1, individuals engaged in a conflict discussion with their romantic partner (N = 180 couples) and then reported the degree to which they felt regarded by their partner and generated a solution to the conflict during the discussion. Independent coders rated how much individuals attempted to suppress their emotional expressions during the conflict. In Study 2, individuals reported on their relationship conflict, perceived regard, expressive suppression, and conflict resolution every day across a 3-week period (N = 73 couples). In both studies, perceiving lower positive regard during conflict was associated with greater expressive suppression. Greater expressive suppression was, in turn, associated with lower conflict resolution. These associations were not due to greater stress/upset or negative emotions, greater withdrawal, greater attachment insecurity, or lower positive regard for the partner. These within-situation associations suggest that expressive suppression may often arise to bypass the risk of rejection that occurs when people feel less positively regarded by their partner, but expressive suppression may also put relationships at further risk by undermining conflict resolution. (PsycINFO Database Record

Emotional suppression during personal goal pursuit impedes goal strivings and achievement.

Prior research indicates that emotional suppression exacerbates distress and reduces cognitive performance and self-control. We extend this prior work in the current studies by examining whether emotional suppression in specific goal-relevant contexts impedes people's goal strivings and progress. In Study 1, participants (N = 146) provided reports every 2 weeks across a 2-month period reporting the degree to which they engaged in emotional suppression during goal pursuit and reported important goal-related outcomes, including depressed mood, perceived support/closeness, goal effort, goal-related competence, and goal success. In Study 2, participants reported on the degree to which they engaged in emotional suppression while discussing a personal goal with their romantic partner (N = 100 heterosexual couples) and reported on the same outcomes as in Study 1 prior to, immediately following, and then 1 month after couples' discussions. In both studies, greater use of emotional suppression predicted increased depressed mood, reduced perceived support/closeness, and reduced goal effort, competence, and success across time. Corroborating individuals' self-reports, participants who engaged in emotional suppression were also perceived by their partners to experience greater depressed mood and lower feelings of support and closeness, and be less competent with regard to their goal (Study 2). The effects of emotional suppression were robust when controlling for a range of alternative explanations. These goal hindering effects are likely one important reason emotional suppression is linked with poorer psychological and health outcomes and extend our understanding of the detrimental impact that emotional suppression can have in people's everyday lives. (PsycINFO Database Record