close rel stars

What causes conflict to arise?

Dissimilarity in temporary moods/preferences or lasting traits/core beliefs; active interference requiring compromise.

Which factor is a major reason for reduced condom use, based on the concept of misperceiving social norms?

Pluralistic ignorance.

According to Self-Determination Theory, which three needs must be fulfilled for the 'best sex' to occur?

Autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Why is conflict inevitable in close relationships?

Intermittent incompatibilities and dialectical tensions (opposing needs that must be balanced).

What are the four major dialectical tensions?

1. Autonomy vs. Connection
2. Openness vs. Closedness
3. Stability vs. Change
4. Integration vs. Separation

Full 7 factors influencing conflict frequency.

Personality (negative emotionality), attachment style (secure vs. anxious/avoidant), life stage, similarity, stress, sleep, alcohol.

What is attributional conflict?

Disagreement over why something happened, not what happened.

How can benevolent attributions (positive interpretations of your partner’s behavior.) improve conflict outcomes?

Viewing partner as well-intentioned reduces anger and increases constructive resolution.

What did research find about dialectical tensions (natural, ongoing push–pull conflicts that exist in close relationships because people have opposing needs that both matter at the same time.)?

These tensions cause about one-third of marital argumentsand persist throughout the relationship lifespan (Baxter, 2004; Erbert, 2000).

How often do conflicts occur?

• Children & parents: every ~3.6 mins

• Dating couples: ~2.3/week

• Married couples: ~7 differences/2 weeks; 1–2 unpleasant/month

• 40% of conflicts go unspoken (Roloff & Cloven, 1990).

Name factors influencing conflict frequency.

• Personality: Neuroticism ↑ conflict; agreeableness ↓ conflict

• Attachment: Secure ↓; anxious/avoidant ↑

• Life stage: Younger couples fight more

• Other: Stress, lack of sleep, alcohol, dissimilarity (Finkel et al., 2013)

What are common conflict triggers?

• Criticism – unfair blame/dissatisfaction

• Illegitimate demands – unreasonable expectations

• Rebuffs – rejection of emotional bids

• Cumulative annoyances – repeated small irritations (Canary et al., 2013)

Evolutionary perspective on conflict?

• Men: Lower parental investment → casual sexual interest.

• Women: Higher investment → prefer commitment before sex.
  → Creates sexual negotiation/conflict.
  Same-sex couples face similar conflicts (Solomon et al., 2005; Buss & Schmitt, 1993).

What is escalation in conflict?

When small issues spiral into disrespect, insults, or threats; often involves “kitchen-sinking” (bringing up old issues - throwing everything at the person)

What is negative affect reciprocity?

Partners mirror each other’s anger or hostility → conflict intensifies (Gottman, 1998).

Rusbult’s four conflict response types?

• Voice – Active constructive

• Loyalty – Passive constructive

• Neglect – Passive destructive

• Exit – Active destructive (Rusbult et al., 1982)

What is accommodation?

• Definition: Choosing to resist the urge to retaliate or respond negatively during conflict; responding constructively instead.

• Study Purpose: To examine how people handle conflict in romantic relationships and whether constructive responses (accommodation) predict satisfaction and stability.

• How they did it:

  1. Participants: Couples in committed relationships.

  2. Data collection: Surveys asking about recent conflicts, how they responded (e.g., retaliating vs. accommodating), and their relationship satisfaction.

  3. Follow-up: Some studies tracked couples over time to see if accommodation predicted stability, commitment, and long-term satisfaction.

• What they found:

  • People who accommodated more (didn’t retaliate, stayed constructive) had higher relationship satisfaction.

  • Couples who used accommodation showed greater stability and were less likely to escalate conflicts.

  • Accommodation is particularly effective when partners are committed and trust each other, acting as a buffer against destructive cycles.

• Why it matters: Accommodation prevents negative reciprocity (escalating conflict) and promotes healthier, longer-lasting relationships.

What are Gottman’s four couple types?

• Volatile: Passionate, frequent fights but affectionate.

• Validators: Calm, understanding, respectful discussions.

• Avoiders: Downplay issues, minimal confrontation.

• Hostiles: Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling (Gottman, 1994).

What are Peterson’s (2002) five conflict outcomes?

1. Separation

   • Definition: One or both partners withdraw from the conflict without resolution.

   • Example: Partner leaves the room or stops discussing an issue, avoiding confrontation.

   • Impact: Conflict remains unresolved; may reduce immediate tension but can build resentment over time.

2. Domination

   • Definition: One partner wins the conflict at the expense of the other.

   • Example: One partner insists on their way and forces the other to give in.

   • Impact: Immediate solution, but can breed resentment, power imbalance, and decreased relationship satisfaction.

3. Compromise

   • Definition: Both partners partially give in, finding a middle ground.

   • Example: “I’ll go to your choice of restaurant this time, you pick next time.”

   • Impact: Conflict is managed, but neither partner may be fully satisfied; works best for minor disagreements.

4. Integrative Agreements

   • Definition: Both partners collaborate to find a solution that meets both their needs.

   • Example: Negotiating a chore schedule that accommodates both partners’ preferences and strengths.

   • Impact: Win-win outcome; strengthens relationship trust and cooperation.

5. Structural Improvement

   • Definition: Conflict leads to long-term positive changein the relationship structure or dynamics.

   • Example: A fight about finances leads to creating a shared budget system that improves communication and planning.

   • Impact: Not only resolves the conflict but improves the relationship’s overall functioning and resilience.

How do early experiences affect conflict management?

Childhood models shape adult conflict style — boys who witness violence often use sarcasm or withdrawal (Whitton et al., 2018).

What Whitton et al. (2018) studied

Researchers followed young adults and collected data on their childhood family environments, especially whether they witnessed interparental violence or destructive conflictgrowing up.

They then assessed the adults’ current romantic conflict behaviors using:

• surveys

• observational tasks (conflict discussions)

• partner reports

What they found

• People (especially men) who witnessed violence or destructive conflict as children were more likely to use maladaptive conflict strategies later — such as withdrawal, sarcasm, stonewalling, or hostility.

• Childhood exposure predicted avoidant and aggressive conflict styles in adult romantic relationships.

What is the Fight Effects Profile (Bach & Wyden, 1983)?

Tool for evaluating if fights result in resolution and trust (positive) or resentment and revenge (negative).

• Couples report on recent arguments and indicate how the fight affected them and their partner.

• The FEP evaluates several dimensions, including:

  • Resolution: Did the argument lead to problem-solving or compromise?

  • Trust: Did it strengthen or weaken feelings of security and reliance on the partner?

  • Negative aftermath: Did it generate resentment, lingering anger, or thoughts of revenge?

  • Emotional tone: Did it involve hostility, withdrawal, or constructive engagement?

• Researchers then score these dimensions to determine whether the conflict had a positive or negative impact on the relationship.

Key findings / outcomes:

• Positive fights: Lead to increased understanding, stronger trust, and better conflict resolution skills.

• Negative fights: Lead to resentment, desire for revenge, decreased trust, and potential escalation of future conflicts.

• The FEP allows couples and therapists to identify patterns of destructive conflict and guide interventions to encourage healthier interaction.

What is the Openness vs. Closedness tension?

The conflict between wanting honesty and transparency, and wanting privacy or emotional space. Sharing builds trust, but everyone needs some personal boundaries.

• Example: One partner wants to discuss everything, while the other prefers to keep some feelings private.

• Study: Erbert (2000) found couples who balance openness and privacy report higher trust and satisfaction.

What is the Stability vs. Change tension?

The desire for security and predictability versus excitement and novelty. Too much stability can lead to boredom, while too much change causes chaos or insecurity.

• Example: Partners who always follow the same routine may crave new experiences.

• Study: Baxter (2004) noted couples need both predictability and novelty to maintain satisfaction.

What is the Integration vs. Separation tension?

Balancing time with others (friends, family, community) and time as a couple. Too much integration can blur couple boundaries, while too much separation can cause isolation.

• Example: One partner wants more family time, the other wants more one-on-one couple time.

• Study: Baxter (2004) found these social-connection tensions account for about one-third of recurring fights.

How do life stage and similarity affect conflict frequency?

• Life stage: Young couples argue more about chores, independence, and money; older couples argue less but about deeper emotional issues.

• Similarity: Partners with similar values, humor, and goals argue less and resolve issues faster.

Non-Attributional (Behavioral/Objective) Conflict

Partners agree on the cause and focus on what happened or how to solve it, not assigning blame.

• Attributional conflict escalates anger; non-attributional conflict allows constructive problem-solving.

• Study: Fincham (2001) – Attributions and Conflict

  • Purpose: Examine how attributions about a partner’s behavior affect conflict, satisfaction, and intensity.

  • Method: Married and dating couples reported recent conflicts and how they interpreted partner behavior:

    • Benevolent: behavior seen as situational/well-intentioned (“traffic made them late”).

    • Malevolent: behavior seen as intentional/negative (“they don’t respect me”).

  • Findings: Benevolent attributions → higher satisfaction, lower conflict intensity, more constructive problem-solving. Malevolent attributions → escalated anger and conflict.

  • Implication: Focusing on what happened rather than who is to blame (non-attributional conflict) promotes healthier, more constructive relationships.

Physiological Research (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2003)

Kiecolt-Glaser et al. (2003) found that couples with stronger physiological stress responses during conflict healed wounds 40% slower and were less likely to be happily married a decade later — linking conflict physiology to health outcomes.

Long-Term Impact of Childhood Conflict Exposure

Halford et al. (2000)What they studied

Researchers examined how exposure to destructive parental conflict in childhood affects later romantic relationships.

How the study was conducted

• They surveyed young adult men about:

  • how much violent or aggressive conflict they witnessed between their parents while growing up.

• Then they assessed the men’s current relationship conflict styles using:

  • partner reports

  • self-reports

  • observational coding during conflict discussions

What they found

• Boys who grew up with violent, hostile, or aggressive parental conflict were more likely to use:

  • sarcasm

  • hostility

  • withdrawal

  • verbal aggression
    in their adult relationships.

• Essentially, they learned conflict scripts in childhood and repeated them later.

Bottom line

Early exposure to destructive conflict → replicated destructive conflict patterns in adulthood.

---

Whitton et al. (2018)What they studied

How childhood family conflict shapes adult romantic functioning, especially emotional regulation and conflict behavior.

How the study was conducted

• Participants reported on their childhood home environment (quiet vs. hostile vs. violent conflict).

• The researchers then measured:

  • how participants handled conflict with partners,

  • their emotional reactivity,

  • and sometimes observed couple interactions during structured arguments.

What they found

• People exposed to destructive conflict as children:

  • had poorer emotion regulation,

  • reacted more strongly during arguments,

  • used more maladaptive conflict behaviors (sarcasm, stonewalling, aggression).

• Early conflict teaches children implicit “rules” about how conflict works, which they carry into adulthood.

Bottom line

Childhood conflict → shapes adult conflict style and emotional regulation, making destructive patterns more likely

What is dialectical tension?

• Definition: A natural, ongoing conflict between two opposing needs or desires that exist in a relationship.

• Key idea: In close relationships, people often want two things at the same time that contradict each other — for example, independence and closeness.

• Example: You want to spend time with your partner (connection) but also need time alone to recharge (autonomy).

Malevolent attributions

• Definition: Interpreting partner behavior as intentional, selfish, or hostile.

• Purpose: Often reflects suspicion or negative bias; escalates conflict.

• Example: “They were late because they don’t respect me.”

Volatile Couples (Gottman)

• High-energy couples who fight frequently but also show strong affection, passion, and warmth.

Characteristics:

• Expressive, emotional, animated

• Disagreements are loud, intense, but not mean

• Use humor, affection, touching during arguments

• Value honesty, openness, and expressing feelings

• Conflict seen as a way to engage and connect

Outcome:

• Stable as long as positivity outweighs negativity

• High passion = high conflict but also high intimacy

Validator Couples (Gottman)

• Couples who communicate with calmness, empathy, and respect.

Characteristics:

• Use active listening, compromise, validation

• Moderate emotionality during conflict

• Try to understand before responding

• Focus on solving the problem, not attacking the person

• Both partners feel heard and appreciated

Outcome:

• Very stable

• Seen as the “classic healthy communication” type

• Balanced between emotional expression and self-control

Avoider Couples (Gottman)

• Couples who minimize conflict and avoid confrontation.

Characteristics:

• Prefer peace, stability, harmony

• Agree to disagree rather than debate

• Downplay problems; may sweep issues aside

• Focus on common ground and long-term compatibility

• Often have strong independence and low need for emotional intensity

Outcome:

• Can be stable if both partners avoid equally

• Problems may build silently over time if ignored

• Risk = emotional distance

Hostile Couples (Gottman)

• Couples who consistently use the Four Horsemen during conflict.

Characteristics:

• Criticism (“You always…”)

• Contempt (sarcasm, mockery, eye-rolling)

• Defensiveness (victim stance, counterattacks)

• Stonewalling (shutting down, withdrawing)

Style:

• Conversations filled with negativity

• Little warmth, empathy, or validation

• Feel stuck in toxic cycles

• Often mismatch in goal = attacking vs retreating

Outcome:

• Most unstable & highest risk of divorce

• Hostile couples deteriorate quickly

• Gottman (1994) → hostility predicts long-term relationship breakdown

What is Coercion in direct communication?

A negative direct style where a partner uses criticism, blame, pressure, or threats to control the other person.

What is Autocracy in direct communication?

A negative direct style where a partner speaks from superiority or authority, demanding the other think or behave a certain way.

What is Manipulation in indirect communication?

A negative indirect style using guilt, emotional pressure, or leveraging past favors to influence the partner’s behavior.

What is Supplication in indirect communication?

A negative indirect style where someone plays helpless, self-deprecates, or expresses exaggerated hurt to gain sympathy or shape the partner’s response.

What is “permissiveness with affection”?

Casual sex acceptable in a committed relationship. Occurs in a caring and committed relationship.

What is alloparenting?

Helping raise relatives’ children; evolutionary benefit in same-sex sexuality context.

What are motives for sex?

• Emotional: Love, commitment, intimacy

• Physical: Pleasure, arousal

• Pragmatic: Goal-oriented, practical reasons

• Insecure: Boost self-esteem, retain partner
  Note: Men report more pragmatic and insecure motives than women.

What is sociosexuality?

persons willingness & openness to having sex outside of a committed relationship and or marriage

Comfort with casual sex; unrestricted → more partners

extradyadic sex; restricted → prefer committed, affectionate relationships.

What predicts infidelity?

• Men: More likely to cheat for sexual variety.

• Women: More likely to cheat for emotional connection.

• Sociosexual (persons willingness to have sex w/o commitment) Orientation:

  • Unrestricted (comfortable with casual sex) → strong predictor of infidelity.

  • Restricted → less likely to cheat.→ prefer sex only in committed, emotionally close relationships

• Relationship Factors:

  • Low satisfaction, low commitment, high conflict, emotional disconnection.

• Individual Factors:

  • Impulsivity, narcissism, attachment anxiety/avoidance.

• Opportunity:

  • More chances (travel, work, online access) → higher risk of cheating.

Prevalence & attitudes of CNM?

~20% tried CNM; 4% currently; 12% ideal. Students mostly unwilling: 84% women, 68% men.

Hookup statistics?

75% of college students have had hookups; 50% in past year; condoms ~50% of time.

Implicit Egocentrism / Similarity Effects (Pelham et al., 2002)

Purpose: To examine whether people are unconsciously drawn to others who share similarities with themselves (implicit egocentrism) and how this affects relationships and choices.

Method: Participants’ preferences were studied in scenarios involving attraction to people with similar names, birthdays, backgrounds, or traits.

Findings:

• People favor others who share values, traits, or quirks.

• Similarity increases attraction and reduces conflict.

• Effects extend beyond relationships to choices like jobs, cities, and social groups.

Conclusion: Unconscious self-similarity strongly influences attraction and decision-making.

Conley et al. (2011) — Casual Sex Study

Purpose: To examine why men and women differ in willingness to engage in casual sex—whether due to morality or perceived sexual quality and safety.

What they did: Participants were presented with scenarios about casual sex opportunities and asked whether they would accept. The researchers manipulated factors like expected sexual pleasure, safety (STI risk, emotional safety), and assessed moral reasoning.

Outcome:

• Women generally declined casual sex not due to moral objections, but because they anticipated lower pleasure, higher risk, and lower safety.

• When women believed the sexual encounter would be pleasurable and safe, their willingness was similar to men’s.

• Suggests gender differences in casual sex acceptance are more about perceived quality and risk than morality.

Gottman (1994–present) — The Four Horsemen STUDY

What he did:
Observed thousands of married couples, measured interactions, physiological stress, and predicted divorce.

Outcome:

• Contempt is the #1 predictor of divorce (worst horseman).

• Criticism → defensiveness → stonewalling also harmful, but contempt is most toxic.

Whitton et al. (2018) — Conflict and Relationship Outcomes

What they did:
Studied how couples handle disagreements and how early family experiences shape conflict behavior.

Methods:

• Assessed couples’ conflict behaviors through questionnaires and/or observations of disagreements.

• Measured relationship outcomes (satisfaction, stability, breakup risk).

• Collected information on participants’ early family experiences, like parental conflict styles.

Outcome:

• People repeat conflict styles they observed growing up.

• Constructive conflict styles → stable, satisfying relationships.

• Poor conflict skills → more breakup risk.

Gottman’s Couple Typologies Study

What they did:
Observed couples’ conflict behaviors → classified them as:

• Volatile

• Validators

• Avoiders

• Hostiles

Outcome:

• First three can be stable + healthy if balanced.

• Hostile couples ← unstable, highest breakup risk.

What is social power in relationships?

Ability to influence partner’s thoughts/feelings/behaviour AND resist their influence.

Interdependence Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)

• What they did: Studied how people influence each other by observing interactions and using questionnaires about preferences, satisfaction, and dependence. They looked at situations where partners depended on each other for valued outcomes (like affection, support, or attention).

• Key idea: Power comes from controlling access to resources the other partner values.

• Outcome: The more someone depends on their partner for a desired outcome, the less power they have; the less dependent partner can influence decisions and behavior.

• Example: If Partner A wants affection and Partner B controls when it happens, Partner B holds more power.

Principle of Lesser Interest (Waller & Hill, 1951)

The partner who is less invested holds more power.
Example: Person who cares less about the relationship usually “wins” conflicts.

Fate vs. Behavior Control

Fate Control: One partner unilaterally determines outcomes (e.g., refusing sex, withholding resources).
Behavior Control: Changing your own behaviour to influence theirs (e.g., offering incentives).

type of power : Reward Power

Give something wanted / remove something disliked.

Type of power: coercive power

Punishing or threatening.

type of power: Legitimate power

Authority from social norms, rules, or agreed roles. People comply because they recognize the right to give requests or orders, often from formal positions or relationship expectations.

Type of power: Referent Power

Comes from love/admiration; someone has power because others admire, respect, or want to be like them.

Type of power: expert power

Your skills/knowledge influence decisions

4 Dimensions of Equality

• Status — whose preferences count?

• Attention — who notices whose needs?

• Accommodation — who adjusts more?

• Well-being — whose happiness is prioritized?

Effects of Power on People

Powerful people:
– More positive mood
– Think they have more control than they do
– Act on desires quickly
– Less perspective-taking (draw “E” backwards)
– More adultery + moral hypocrisy

Low-power people:
– More depression + fear
– More compliance
– More cautious

Power in Conversation

– Men interrupt more → signals dominance
– More interruptions = more perceived power
– Even in Supreme Court, women interrupted 3× more

Nonverbal Sensitivity

– Women decode cues better
– High-power people decode cues worse
– Subordinates track moods → gives them subtle influence

Power Strategies

Direct = clear request → HIGH satisfaction
Indirect = hinting → LOW satisfaction
Bilateral = negotiate together
Unilateral = act alone (used by lower-power partner)

Sexual Negotiation / Condom Use

• Direct request works best
• Lesser interest partner usually wins
• Women historically indirect → shifting to direct strategies
• Avoid assuming partner has more control → increases success

Subtle Asymmetry - outcome of power

Even in “equal” couples, male dominance sneaks in through who speaks first or sets tone.

Mate Guarding

Using surveillance, threats, intimidation, or coercion to control a partner’s behaviour and prevent real or imagined infidelity.

When threats increase violence

Jealousy + possessiveness + controlling behaviour → biggest predictor of serious harm.

I³ Model (Finkel, 2014)

Violence happens when:

1. Instigation (trigger)

2. Impelling forces (things pushing you toward aggression)

3. Inhibiting forces are weak (things stopping aggression)

impelling influences of couple violence

Distal: childhood abuse, witnessing violence, culture
Dispositional: anger, impulsivity, low agreeableness
Relational: poor communication, attachment mismatch
Situational: alcohol, heat, noise, stress

inhibiting influences of couple violence

• Conscientiousness
• Strong morals
• Gender-equal cultures
• Stable society
• Self-control

Power Strategies: direct

• Asking clearly (“Can you please do X?”)

• Most honest and efficient

• Linked to HIGH relationship satisfaction

• Used more by higher-power partners

power strategies: indirect

• Hinting, sulking, passive comments

• Avoids direct confrontation

• Leads to LOWER satisfaction

• Used more by lower-power partners or avoidant styles

power strategies: bilateral

• Partner says: “Let’s talk about this,” or proposes joint problem-solving

• Involves the partner’s input

• Shows respect + teamwork

power strategies: unilateral

• Acting alone without consulting partner (“I just did it myself”)

• Often used by people with less power because they feel they can’t negotiate

• Can create distance or resentment

IPV Prevalence (Slight Expansion)

U.S. severe IPV - intimate partner violence:

• 23% of women

• 14% of men
  (severe = beating, choking, threats with weapon)

Worldwide:

• 30% of women experience physical or sexual IPV in their lifetime

Custody disputes:

• 75% involve allegations or evidence of physical abuse
  (violence tends to escalate around separation)

study of types of Violence (Johnson, 2017)

• What he studied: Large-scale surveys and interviews with couples, coding partner violence by context, motives, gender, and escalation patterns.

• How he studied it:

  1. Questionnaires about conflict and aggression.

  2. Interviews with victims and perpetrators.

  3. Analysis to classify violence types based on frequency, intent, and control.

• Findings / Outcomes:

  • Situational Couple Violence (SCV): Impulsive, situational, often mutual, usually mild.

  • Intimate Terrorism (IT): Coercive control, escalating, mostly men, goal is power/control.

  • Violent Resistance (VR): Victim fights back, mostly women, reactive rather than initiating.

• Key point: Types are empirically supported; context, control, and gender explain different patterns of violence in intimate relationships.

Who was Harry Harlow and what did he study?

behavior psychologist in the late 1950s who studied learning in rhesus monkeys. He bred monkeys to study attachment and social behavior.

How do infants react to separation from caregivers according to Bowlby?

Protest → Despair → Emotional detachment.

What are internal working models?

Experience-based beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about self and others.

• Model of self: “Am I worthy of love?”

• Model of others: “Can I rely on others to be responsive and dependable?”

What are the three main aspects of Bowlby’s theory?

• Sensitivity: responsive caregiving → secure attachment.

• Secure base: secure attachment promotes exploration.

• Social competence: secure attachment leads to better social skills later.

What is Bartholomew’s new typology?

Definition

Bartholomew’s (1990/1991) model describes four adult attachment stylesbased on two dimensions:

• Model of Self (positive vs. negative)

• Model of Others (positive vs. negative)

The Two Dimensions

• Model of Self: Am I worthy/lovable? (maps onto anxiety)

• Model of Others: Are others trustworthy? (maps onto avoidance)

The Four Attachment Types

1. Secure ( + Self / + Others )

• Comfortable with intimacy; trusting; healthy self-worth.

2. Preoccupied ( – Self / + Others)

• Needs closeness; anxious; fears rejection; clingy.

3. Dismissive-Avoidant ( + Self / – Others )

• Self-reliant; emotionally distant; avoids dependence.

4. Fearful-Avoidant ( – Self / – Others )

• Wants closeness but fears it; trauma-linked push-pull.

What did MLSRA study? - minnestota longitudinal study

Followed 174 babies from 1976 to adulthood: measured attachment, social skills, friendships, romantic conflict resolution.

Secure attachment at age 1 (by using strange situation) predicted:

• Better social skills - used teacher reports (teachers at age 6–8)

• Better friendships - interviewed teens/parents and observed interactions with friends (age 16)

• More constructive conflict resolution in romantic relationships - brought couples into labs and asked them to bring up a conflict/disagreement so they could walk through it (age 20–21)

Collins et al., 2006 findings:

Highly anxious people:

• Make negative attributions

• Feel more distressed

• Expect more conflict

Participants completed established measures (like the ECR) to determine levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance.

Participants were given situations such as:

• a partner not texting back

• a partner seeming distant

• a disagreement or misunderstanding

They were asked:

• Why do you think your partner did this? (attributions)

• How upset would you feel? (distress)

• What do you expect will happen next? (future conflict expectations)

Researchers could directly see how attachment anxiety shaped interpretation.

What is the communication challenge in relationships?

Communication involves an encoder (expressing something) and a decoder (interpreting meaning). Sensitivity and accuracy predict relationship well-being, but errors in encoding/decoding can occur.

How did Noller study message encoding/decoding in married couples, and what were the findings?

• Purpose: Examine how accurately spouses encode and decode messages and the influence of relationship quality.

• Method: 48 married couples took turns expressing (encoding) and interpreting (decoding) everyday messages (e.g., “I feel cold,” “You really surprised me this time”). Accuracy was measured by comparing intentions vs. interpretations.

• Findings:

  • Encoding issues → both spouses and observers sometimes inaccurate.

  • Decoding issues → spouses less accurate than strangers.

  • Marital dissatisfaction worsened decoding accuracy; deficits were relationship-specific.

• Conclusion: Communication accuracy depends on relationship dynamics, not just skill.

How did Noller assess communication accuracy in encoding & decoding?

What was the purpose?
To see whether communication problems in couples come from poor encoding (sending unclear messages) or poor decoding (misinterpreting messages).

What did they do?

• Couples sent ambiguous messages to each other.

• Spouses decoded the message.

• Stranger observers also decoded the same message as a benchmark.

What did they find?

• Encoding problem: If no one understood the message → sender unclear.

• Decoding problem: Spouses were often less accurate than strangers → partners misinterpret each other due to bias/assumptions.

Key takeaway:
Many communication issues come from misreading a partner, not unclear messages.

Gender differences in communication accuracy?

• Wives better encoders than husbands, especially for positive messages.

• Husbands struggled most when expressing positive intent.

• Men who did well → reported higher marital satisfaction.

Are encoding/decoding deficits skill-based or relational?

Study showed deficits were specific to spouse; marital dissatisfaction → worse decoding of spouse, not strangers.

it is relational→ something that comes from the relationship itself, not from the individual person.

Empathetic accuracy procedure?

• Video of target person discussing problem

• Participants infer thoughts/feelings at each shift in emotional state

• Scored for accuracy

MacNeil & Byers (Sexual Self-Disclosure Study)

104 couples (mean relationship length 14.5 years; 84% married).

Sexual self-disclosure questionnaire asked couples how much they shared about:

• Kissing preferences

• Sexual touching

• Intercourse preferences

• Receiving oral sex

• Giving oral sex
  Rating scale: “nothing at all” → “everything”

Participants rated their sexual relationship using items like:

• Good–bad

• Pleasant–unpleasant

• Positive–negative

Key findings

• Most couples don’t fully communicate sexual preferences, even after 14+ years together

• Partners only understood 62% of each other’s likes & 26% of dislikes

• More sexual self-disclosure → greater sexual satisfaction (effect 6x bigger for men)

• Greater inaccuracy in understanding partner → less satisfying sex life and fewer orgasms (women)

Theoretical frameworks for self disclosure & intimacy with the class expeirment (Aron et al)

• Social Penetration Theory: Relationships deepen by increasing breadth (# of topics) and depth (personal meaning of topics)

• Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy: Disclosure alone isn’t enough; must have responsive, understanding, and validating partner

What is partner regulation?

Communication aimed at conveying thoughts & feelings and strategically influencing a partner’s behavior to improve the relationship

How was partner regulation studied?

• Participants: 61 couples (ages 18–43).

• Task: Each partner identified something they wanted the other to change.

• Procedure: Couples discussed the issue on camera (gender pairings counterbalanced).

• Coding: Interactions were coded for behaviors.

• Follow-ups: Couples rated relationship outcomes immediately and every 3 months for 1 year.

What did they find?

• Supportive, constructive behaviors → better relationship outcomesover time.

• Controlling or critical behaviors → worsened satisfaction and more conflict.

• The way partners tried to influence each other during the discussion predicted relationship quality across the year.

communicatin styles identified in partner regulation study

Style	Valence	Description
Coercion	Negative/Direct	Criticizing, blaming, threatening partner
Autocracy	Negative/Direct	Authoritative/demanding partner think/act certain way
Rational Reasoning	Positive/Direct	Logical, clear explanations, respectful discussion
Manipulation	Negative/Indirect	Guilt, past favors, emotional appeals to control
Supplication	Negative/Indirect	Self-deprecation, emotional hurt to gain sympathy/control
Soft Positive	Positive/Indirect	Gentle communication, humor, validating, minimizing problems

Key findings of partner regulation study?

• Women used more negative strategies than men

• Immediately after conversation: negative & direct strategies rated least successful; positive/indirect strategies rated most successful

• One year later: direct strategies (positive or negative) produced greater long-term change; indirect strategies had little effect

How do people use social support when bad things happen?

People often turn to partners for emotional and practical support during stress. This aligns with the stress-buffering hypothesis: social support helps cope with stressors and protects against negative outcomes.

Can social support ever backfire?

Yes. Examples:

• Wives losing more weight when husbands are uninvolved

• Heart attack patients recovering more slowly with supportive partners

• Receiving support can increase stress if perceived as controlling or highlighting incapability

What did the law student daily diary study find about visible vs. invisible support?

• Design: 32 law students tracked daily negative mood & support received/provided for 32 days before the bar exam.

• Findings:

  • Days partners reported giving support → lower negative mood

  • Days students reported receiving support → higher negative mood

• Conclusion: Invisible support (given without being noticed) is more effective than visible support.