Goals, emotions, and the effort to be responsive during couple interactions
- 185 Downloads
Previous research has shown that perceived responsiveness benefits psychological and relationship well-being. Perceived responsiveness is, at least partly, a function of how responsiveness the partner intended to be during the interaction. Relatively little is known about what factors make people intend to be more or less responsive to their partners. In two studies, we examined whether individuals’ experienced emotion and underlying relationship goals were linked to their intended responsiveness. Across two studies, both experienced positive emotion and approach goals predicted higher intended responsiveness, whereas experienced negative emotions predicted lower intended responsiveness. In addition, Study 2 also showed that people with strong approach goals intended to provide more responsiveness when they experienced more positive emotions. In contrast, the negative association between experienced negative emotions and intended responsiveness was stronger for low avoidance individuals than for high avoidance individuals. Our findings highlight that experienced positive and negative emotions may provide different information relavant to an individuals’ intended responsiveness depending on their relationship goals.
KeywordsApproach and avoidance motivation Close relationship Emotions Responsiveness
Funding was provided by Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (Grant No. 0444129).
- Courtright, J. (2013). Observing and analyzing communication behavior. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
- Impett, E. A., Gordon, A. M., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., Gable, S. L., & Keltner, D. (2010). Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long-term consequences of approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 948–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3522.214.171.1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Raudenbush, S. W., Byrk, A. S., Chenong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
- Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), The handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck & D. F. Hay (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 367–389). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar