Sense of power and markers of challenge and threat during extra‐dyadic problem discussions with romantic partners.

Power, the capacity to influence others while resisting their attempts at influence, has implications for a wide variety of individual‐ and relationship‐level outcomes. One potential mechanism through which power may be associated with various outcomes is motivation orientation. High power has been linked to greater approach‐oriented motivation, whereas low power has been linked to greater avoidance‐oriented motivation. However, current research has mostly relied on artificially created relationships (and the power dynamics therein) in the lab to assess the associations between power and motivation orientations. Utilizing the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat framework, the current study examined how power is related to physiological responses indicative of psychological challenge (i.e., approach) and threat (i.e., avoidance) during discussions of problems outside of the relationship between romantic partners. The primary hypothesis that higher power would be associated with more approach‐oriented challenge and less avoidance‐oriented threat was supported via self‐reports, but not via physiological assessments. Instead, physiological assessments revealed that for those disclosing problems to high‐power partners, greater power was associated with reactivity consistent with more avoidance‐oriented threat and less approach‐oriented challenge. This is the first research to examine associations between power and in vivo indices of challenge and threat during interactions between romantic partners. It advances our understanding of how power elicits motivation orientations and influences the stress response system by highlighting the importance of situational attributes (e.g., role during a conversation) that may undermine power during disclosures with a high‐power partner. This study incorporates the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat with the Approach‐Inhibition Theory of Power using a dimensional, dyadic approach to assess power in pre‐existing relationships. We highlight the importance of co‐examining self‐report and physiological markers of stress. Despite self‐reports suggesting people high in power appraised a conversation as challenging, physiological findings revealed a specific context during which greater power was unexpectedly associated with physiological markers of threat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]