Values in Romantic Relationships

There are substantive theoretical questions about whether personal values affect romantic relationship functioning. The current research tested the association between personal values and romantic relationship quality while considering potential mediating mechanisms related to pro-relational attitudes, communal strength, intrinsic relationship motivation, and entitlement. Across five studies using different measures of value priorities, we found that the endorsement of self-transcendence values (i.e., benevolence, universalism) was related to higher romantic relationship quality. The findings provided support for the mediating roles of pro-relational attitudes, communal strength, and intrinsic relationship motivation. Finally, a dyadic analysis in our fifth study showed that self-transcendence values mostly influence a person's own relationship quality but not that of their partner. These findings provide the first evidence that personal values are important variables in romantic relationship functioning while helping to map the mechanisms through which this role occurs.

Perceiving greater commitment increases selfishness among disagreeable people

Perceiving that a partner is highly committed tends to benefit close relationships. However, there may be relational drawbacks to perceiving high commitment. In particular, given that high commitment may signal that a partner is unlikely to leave the relationship, perceiving that a partner is highly committed might lead people low in agreeableness to feel comfortable behaving more selfishly toward that partner. One correlational study consisting of a highly diverse sample of individuals (n = 307), one observational study of newlywed couples (n = 202), and one experiment with undergraduate couples (n = 252) examined whether the implications of perceived partner commitment for selfish behaviors depend on agreeableness. Results demonstrated that perceiving high commitment resulted in more selfish behavior among disagreeable participants (Studies 1-3), but less selfish behavior among agreeable participants (Studies 1 and 3). Together, these results suggest that signaling commitment to disagreeable partners may backfire in romantic relationships.

How does the status of errant robot affect our desire for contact? - The moderating effect of team interdependence

Technological breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence and sensors make human-robot collaboration a reality. Robots with highly reliable, specialised skills gain informal status in collaborative teams, but factors such as unstructured work environments and task requirements make robot error inevitable. So how do status differences of errant robots affect the desire for contact, and do team characteristics also have an impact? This paper describes an intergroup experiment using the Experimental Vignette Method (EVM), based on the Expectation Violation Theory, 214 subjects were invited to test the following hypotheses: (1) Errant robot status has an influence on employees' desire for contact and support for robotics research through negative emotions; (2) Team interdependence is a boundary condition for the effect of errant robot status on negative emotions. This paper contributes to the literature on employee reactions to robot errors in human-robot collaboration and provides suggestions for robot status design.

Pursuing Safety in Social Connection: A Flexibly Fluid Perspective on Risk Regulation in Relationships

People are fundamentally motivated to be included in social connections that feel safe, connections where they are consistently cared for and protected, not hurt or exploited. Romantic relationships have long played a crucial role in satisfying this fundamental need. This article reconceptualizes the risk-regulation model to argue that people draw on experiences from inside and outside their romantic relationships to satisfy their fundamental need to feel safe depending on others. We first review the direct relational cues (i.e., a partner's affectionate touch, responsive versus unresponsive behavior, and relative power) and indirect cues (i.e., bodily sensations, collective value in the eyes of others, and living conditions) that signal the current safety of social connection and motivate people to connect to others or protect themselves against them. We then review how people's chronic capacity to trust in others controls their sensitivity and reactivity to the safety cues. The article concludes with future research directions.

Regulating relationship risk: Partner responsiveness as a safety signal

People are fundamentally motivated to be included in safe relationships - relationships where they are consistently cared for and protected. Building on the risk-regulation model, this article describes five cues (i.e., affectionate touch, gratitude, acceptance, investments, power) that romantic partners can use to gauge their value to one another, and thus, how safe they are trusting one another to be responsive in specific situations. It also describes how feeling more versus less safe in response to these cues contingently motivates partners to increase connection versus protect themselves against being hurt. The article concludes by describing how people who are chronically less trusting misread these cues, a pessimistic bias that results in them protecting themselves against being hurt unnecessarily, compromising connection.

Inferences about interdependence shape cooperation

During social interactions in daily life, people possess imperfect knowledge of their interdependence (i.e., how behaviors affect each person's outcomes), and what people infer about their interdependence can shape their behaviors. We review theory and research that suggests people can infer their interdependence with others along several dimensions, including mutual dependence, power, and corresponding-versus-conflicting interests. We discuss how perceptions of interdependence affect how people cooperate and punish others' defection in everyday life. We propose that people understand their interdependence with others through knowledge of the action space, cues during social interactions (e.g., partner behaviors), and priors based on experience. Finally, we describe how learning interdependence could occur through domain-specific and domain-general mechanisms.

Understanding the Influence of Initial Values of College Students in Shaping Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intention

Pro-environmental behaviors are rooted in values, and understanding the initial values among college students is pivotal in developing educational strategies to improve their pro-environmental behavior. However, most pro-environmental behavior studies fail to consider the social values and personal values as different dimensional or even conflicting values. This study integrated two distinct values, namely perceived social values and perceived personal values, with the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine how different values shape college students' pro-environmental behavioral intentions. The proposed model was then empirically validated using survey data from 245 responses from freshmen students at a University in Chongqing. The findings reveal that while perceived social values and perceived personal values are both positively related to behavioral intention, the effect sizes of the former are much larger. Our findings highlight that higher institutions and instructors should continue shaping the prosocial values among college students and create personal values from pro-environmental behavior to reduce the detrimental impact on the environment and achieve sustainability.

Revisiting the Power to Forgive: A Dyadic Approach for Determining the Relations Between Power, Self-Esteem, and Forgiveness in Romantic Relationships

Power pervades interpersonal relationships and can impact relationship-related outcomes (e.g., forgiveness). Here, we expected a positive association between power and forgiveness in two studies involving German and Israeli couples ( N = 149/174 couples). Actor–partner interdependence mediator models showed the expected positive associations of actor’s power with both actor’s forgiveness and partner’s forgiveness. Independent self-esteem partially mediated and interdependent self-esteem completely mediated the power–forgiveness link for actors. Also, high experienced power was associated with high self-esteem, which in turn was positively related to benevolence motivation and negatively related to revenge and avoidance motivation. The implications of these findings are relevant for couple’s therapy and advance our understanding of associations between power and relationship variables. Future research may distinguish between authentic and instrumental forgiveness and use experimental settings.

Sexual Desire Mediates the Relationship-Promoting Effects of Perceived Partner Mate Value

Although sexual desire for one's partner is theorized to serve as a gut-level indicator of partner mate value that motivates investment in valued partners, there is scant empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. Five studies addressed this possibility, examining whether experiencing sexual desire encouraged the enactment of relationship-promoting behaviors and whether perceptions of partner mate value motivated this proposed process. In a pilot study and Study 1, participants relived an activity they experienced with their partner, which was either sexual or non-sexual. Then, participants rated their desire to engage in sex and other non-sexual relationship-promoting activities with their partner (pilot study) and their partner's responsiveness to personal disclosures. Participants' enacted responsiveness was also evaluated by judges (Study 1). Results showed that experiences of desire enhanced relationship-promoting tendencies. Using experimental, daily experiences, and longitudinal methods, Studies 2-4 extended these findings, indicating that both manipulated and perceived partner mate value predicted desire, which, in turn, was associated with engagement in relationship-promoting behaviors. These findings demonstrate that sexual desire functions as a mechanism encouraging investment in partners who are perceived to be worth pursuing and retaining.

Elucidating the Effect of Perceived Power on Destructive Responses during Romantic Conflicts

Prior research has indicated that the people one loves the most, such as their romantic partners, ironically, are also the people toward whom they often direct destructive behaviors in times of conflict, and such destructive responses become one of the most challenging relationship problems. Identifying the conditions that promote destructive (vs. constructive) conflict-resolution strategies is a crucial gap requiring study to help individuals build healthier and happier relationships. Across three studies (total N = 728), we examined whether (a) power is related to direct destructive (vs. constructive) responses during romantic conflicts; (b) this effect was moderated by the seriousness of the conflict and the relationship's inclusiveness. In Study 1, participants involved in romantic relationships completed scales assessing interpersonal power, the conflict's seriousness, their relationship's inclusiveness, and conflict-resolution responses. In Studies 2-3, the participants were randomly assigned to complete an essay in which the conflict's seriousness and power were experimentally manipulated. Findings from hierarchical regression analyses consistently showed that power led to destructive (and lower constructive) responses. However, this only occurred when the participants faced severe conflicts and their partner was not central to their self-concept. An internal meta-analysis of the studies confirmed the reliability and significance of these relationships; |r's| =.13-37. Together, these results support the proposition that power asymmetries can threaten relationships by driving destructive responses during romantic conflicts, and untangle the conditions under which this happens. The conflict's seriousness and the inclusiveness of the relationship may be considered to provide skills that help individuals navigate their relationships' life challenges.

Power and social distance

Magee and Smith (2013) theorized that asymmetric dependence creates asymmetric social distance in power relations, and that high-power individuals feel more distant than their low-power counterparts. I review research consistent with, and in some cases possibly inspired by, the social distance theory of power. Four findings emerge from the review. First, in dyadic relationships, the goals of the high-power partner are privileged over those of the low-power partner. Second, higher power reduces attunement and attention to others and also increases the tendency to objectify and dehumanize others. Third, power increases expressions of interpersonal dominance and aggression, particularly when the level of situational power diverges from expectations or norms. Fourth, greater power reduces the harmful psychological effects of social rejection. I conclude that social distance continues to be a useful factor to consider in making predictions and explaining the psychological effects of power.

Powerful Individuals Behave Less Cooperatively in Common Resource Dilemmas When Treated Unfairly

Previous research has suggested that power undermines cooperation in social dilemmas. However, the story may not be so simple. Guided by recent findings that power heightens sensitivity to unfairness, we examined the moderating effect of distributive justice on the association between power and cooperation. Across two experiments, when treated unfairly, high-power (vs. low-power) participants perceived greater unfairness. Moreover, high-power (vs. low-power) participants behaved less cooperatively not only when they interacted with the offender who treated them unfairly (Experiment 1), but also when they interacted with innocent third parties (Experiment 2). However, high-power and low-power participants showed no difference in perceived fairness and cooperation when treated fairly. These findings shed light on the association between power and cooperation by suggesting the modulating role of distributive justice, and they remind us that researchers should take participants' personal sense of power into account when manipulating fairness.

Taming the Lion: How Perceived Worth Buffers the Detrimental Influence of Power on Aggression and Conflict

Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is little empirical evidence that elevated power, by default, fuels conflict and aggression. Instead, previous studies have shown that extraneous factors that decrease powerholders' perceived worth, making powerholders feel inferior or disrespected, seem to be necessary to 'unleash' power's dark side and trigger aggression and conflict. However, this past work has largely neglected that power boosts individuals' perceptions of worth, and as such these variables are not independent. The present research sought to address this oversight, thereby providing a more nuanced account of how perceived worth stifles aggression and conflict tendencies in powerholders. Focusing on self-esteem (Study 1) and status (Study 2) as two interrelated facets of perceived worth, we report primary and secondary data indicating that perceived worth acts as buffer and counters aggression as well as more general conflict tendencies in powerholders. By providing evidence for a suppression effect, the present findings go beyond the moderations identified in prior work and demonstrate that perceptions of worth are critical to understanding the link between power on the one hand, and aggression and conflict on the other. We conclude by discussing the social regulatory function of perceived worth in hierarchical relations.

When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men's aggressive responses to low situational power

When does power in intimate relationships shape important interpersonal behaviors, such as psychological aggression? Five studies tested whether possessing low relationship power was associated with aggressive responses, but (a) only within power-relevant relationship interactions when situational power was low, and (b) only by men because masculinity (but not femininity) involves the possession and demonstration of power. In Studies 1 and 2, men lower in relationship power exhibited greater aggressive communication during couples' observed conflict discussions, but only when they experienced low situational power because they were unable to influence their partner. In Study 3, men lower in relationship power reported greater daily aggressive responses toward their partner, but only on days when they experienced low situational power because they were either (a) unable to influence their partner or (b) dependent on their partner for support. In Study 4, men who possessed lower relationship power exhibited greater aggressive responses during couples' support-relevant discussions, but only when they had low situational power because they needed high levels of support. Study 5 provided evidence for the theoretical mechanism underlying men's aggressive responses to low relationship power. Men who possessed lower relationship power felt less manly on days they faced low situational power because their partner was unwilling to change to resolve relationship problems, which in turn predicted greater aggressive behavior toward their partner. These results demonstrate that fully understanding when and why power is associated with interpersonal behavior requires differentiating between relationship and situational power. (PsycINFO Database Record

I Gave Too Much

Low self-esteem is often related to interpersonal difficulties. In fact, low self-esteem people fear rejection and tend to adopt self-protection goals. In the present work, we tested the idea that when low self-esteem individuals decide to sacrifice personal preferences for their relationship, they come to regret those actions, with further consequences for their well-being. We conducted a study with 130 couples, using experience sampling, daily diary, and a 1-year follow-up assessment. Results showed that low self-esteem is related to greater regret of past sacrifices, which, in turn, affects negative mood, stress, and life satisfaction. Furthermore, mediation analyses revealed that low self-esteem individuals feel less supported by the partner after they sacrifice, which helps explaining why they come to regret their sacrifices.

The consequences of having a dominant romantic partner on testosterone responses during a social interaction

Testosterone reactivity has been conceptualized as a marker of social submission at low levels and social dominance at high levels. However, hormonal fluctuations in response to romantic partners remain largely unknown. Towards this end, 88 couples (N=176) discussed an emotional video. Prior to the conversation, one member of the dyad (the "agent") was instructed to regulate affective displays in a specific way (express or suppress). The other dyad member (the "partner") was given no special instruction and was unaware of regulation instructions given to the agent. Agents who regulated affective displays were expected to exhibit decreased testosterone from baseline because they were prevented from tuning their emotional responses to their partners. Furthermore, we expected declines in testosterone would be moderated by partners' authoritativeness: People would be particularly submissive to more dominant partners. Predictions were supported for females and partially supported for males. Agents exhibited decreases in testosterone from baseline relative to partners. For females, this main effect was moderated by partners' trait-level authoritativeness: Females interacting with partners higher in authority exhibited larger decreases in testosterone when instructed to restrict their emotion regulation strategies. This research is the first to document testosterone reactivity in existing romantic relationships and underscores the importance of taking into account social and relational contexts when examining hormonal regulation.

How Power Affects People: Activating, Wanting, and Goal Seeking

Sociocognitive research has demonstrated that power affects how people feel, think, and act. In this article, I review literature from social psychology, neuroscience, management, and animal research and propose an integrated framework of power as an intensifier of goal-related approach motivation. A growing literature shows that power energizes thought, speech, and action and orients individuals toward salient goals linked to power roles, predispositions, tasks, and opportunities. Power magnifies self-expression linked to active parts of the self (the active self), enhancing confidence, self-regulation, and prioritization of efforts toward advancing focal goals. The effects of power on cognitive processes, goal preferences, performance, and corruption are discussed, and its potentially detrimental effects on social attention, perspective taking, and objectification of subordinates are examined. Several inconsistencies in the literature are explained by viewing power holders as more flexible and dynamic than is usually assumed.

Functional Interdependence Theory: An Evolutionary Account of Social Situations

Social interactions are characterized by distinct forms of interdependence, each of which has unique effects on how behavior unfolds within the interaction. Despite this, little is known about the psychological mechanisms that allow people to detect and respond to the nature of interdependence in any given interaction. We propose that interdependence theory provides clues regarding the structure of interdependence in the human ancestral past. In turn, evolutionary psychology offers a framework for understanding the types of information processing mechanisms that could have been shaped under these recurring conditions. We synthesize and extend these two perspectives to introduce a new theory: functional interdependence theory (FIT). FIT can generate testable hypotheses about the function and structure of the psychological mechanisms for inferring interdependence. This new perspective offers insight into how people initiate and maintain cooperative relationships, select social partners and allies, and identify opportunities to signal social motives.