Search

Women and men are particularly vulnerable to the costs of sexism in intimate relationships, which may override relationship enhancement motives that produce positive biases. Inspired by error management principles, we propose that women and men should make biased judgments of intimate partners’ sexist attitudes to help avoid the harmful costs of sexism that occur within mixed-gender relationships. Women may overestimate partners’ hostile sexism because failing to detect men’s hostile sexism should render women especially vulnerable to the risk of maltreatment, whereas women may underestimate partners’ benevolent sexism because expecting special treatment that is unavailable is more costly than receiving unexpected benevolence. By contrast, men may overestimate partners’ benevolent sexism because failing to prevent women’s dissatisfaction and anger when men do not fulfill gallant gender roles would be most costly than providing more benevolence than expected. Comparing perceptions of partners’ attitudes to partners’ actual sexist attitudes in two studies of mixed-gender couples (N = 91 and 84 dyads) confirmed this gender-differentiated pattern. On average, women overestimated their partners’ hostile sexism and underestimated their partners’ benevolent sexism, whereas men overestimated their partners’ benevolent sexism. Although we did not make predictions about judgments of women’s hostile sexism, analyses also revealed that men underestimated their partners’ hostile sexism. The pattern of bias has important implications for understanding the ways sexist attitudes affect intimate relationships and sustain gender inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do people use ideal standards to evaluate and regulate their best friends? The current research examines whether the Ideal Standards Model captures dynamics in friendships, and what role attachment orientations play in these dynamics. Greater discrepancies between perceptions of best friends and ideal standards (low ideal-perception consistency) on the warmth/trustworthiness (Studies 1–3) and status/resources (Study 2) dimensions were associated with greater regulation attempts of best friends on these dimensions. Low ideal-perception consistency on the attractiveness/vitality dimension was not associated with regulation on this dimension (Study 2). Additionally, all studies illustrated that attachment avoidance was associated with lower ideal-perception consistency and, in turn, greater regulation attempts. By contrast, attachment anxiety was associated with higher regulation attempts of best friends, not because of lower ideal-perception consistency, but because of greater relationship maintenance motivations (Study 2) and an acute sensitivity to daily reductions in ideal-perception consistency (Study 3). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This diary study examined situational dependence within daily interactions with family members and close friends over a 2-week period. Experiencing low personal control (high situational dependence) when interacting with family members and friends was associated with lower perceived regard and intimacy. Participants generally regulated felt dependence by derogating and withdrawing from their interaction partner (self-protective dependence regulation) and exhibiting lower levels of positive behavior, such as expressing thoughts and feelings or trying to improve the interaction (relationship-promotive dependence regulation). Furthermore, higher rejection sensitivity (but not low self-esteem) was associated with more negative evaluations of perceived regard and intimacy, greater self-protective dependence regulation, and lower relationship-promotive dependence regulation within low control interactions. These results identify dependence as a key element of rejection risk contexts and support the situation-specific nature of rejection sensitivity. Keywords: dependence regulation; rejection sensitivity; self-esteem; family and friends; multilevel mediation

This study tested the success of communication strategies used by relationship partners (N = 61 romantic couples) who were videotaped while trying to produce desired changes in each other. Strategies varying in valence (positive vs. negative) and directness (direct vs. indirect) were differentially associated with postdiscussion perceptions of success as well as ratings of demonstrated change in targeted features gathered at 3-month intervals during the following year. Direct strategies (positive and negative) were initially perceived as relatively unsuccessful but predicted increased change over the next 12 months as reported by the targeted partners and (for positive-direct strategies) as perceived by female agents. Positive-indirect strategies, in contrast, were associated with higher concurrent perceived success but did not predict later change. Increases in problem severity also forecasted lower relationship quality over time. These findings indicate that one mechanism through which regulation strategies impact relationship outcomes is the extent to which engaged strategies are successful at producing desired change. Keywords: communication strategies, regulation, conflict behavior, relationship change

This research investigated the consistency between partner perceptions and ideal standards (ideal-perception consistency) and the partner regulation attempts of 200 individuals involved in relationships (Study 1) and 62 heterosexual couples (Study 2). As predicted, greater regulation attempts were associated with lower ideal-perception consistency, and these links operated within 3 pivotal mate-evaluation dimensions and were moderated by perceived regulation success. Ideal-perception consistency also mediated the relation between partner regulation and relationship quality, and cross-lagged analyses suggested that ideal consistency and regulation influenced each other over time. Finally, stronger partner regulation was generally associated with more negative self-evaluations and more self-regulation by the targeted partner. These novel results support and extend the Ideal Standards Model (J. A. Simpson, G. J. O. Fletcher, & L. Campbell, 2001). Keywords: partner regulation, relationship improvement, ideal standards, ideal discrepancy

This study compared three models of how attachment working models might be cognitively represented. Model 1 posits that attachment representations consist of a single global working model summarizing attachment across specific relationships and domains. Model 2 proposes three independent working models for the relationship domains of family, platonic friendships, and romantic partners. Model 3 postulates that specific relationship models are nested under relationship domain representations that are, in turn, nested under an overarching global working model. Participants completed standard attachment scales for the relationship domains of family, platonic friendships, and romantic partners and also provided attachment ratings for three specific relationships within each domain. As expected, confirmatory factor analyses showed that Model 3 attained the best fit, regardless of analysis strategy, measurement strategy, gender, and relationship status. Implications are discussed. Keywords: attachment; working models; relationships; domains; representations