The economic, social, and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to increase the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. IPV victimization may, in turn, contribute to physical and mental health, substance use, and social distancing behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective of the current study was to understand the extent to which 1) COVID-19 stressors are associated with IPV victimization and 2) IPV victimization is associated with health and health behaviors. Participants ( N = 1,813) completed an online survey between May 15 and 28, 2020 that assessed COVID-19 stressors (financial anxiety, social disconnection, health anxiety, COVID-19-specific stress), IPV victimization, physical and mental health, substance use, and movement outside of the home. Structural equation modeling indicated that greater COVID-19-related stressors were associated with greater IPV victimization during the pandemic, even after controlling for enduring vulnerabilities associated with IPV victimization. Additionally, greater IPV victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with higher levels of substance use and movement outside of the home, but not poorer physical and mental health. COVID-19 stressors may have detrimental relationship effects and health implications, underscoring the need for increased IPV intervention and support services during the pandemic. Findings from the current work provide preliminary correlational evidence for a theoretical model centered on IPV victimization, rather than perpetration.

Co-rumination is a form of interpersonal emotion regulation wherein dyads engage in extensive, cyclical conversations regarding the causes and consequences of problems and associated negative emotions. In the present investigation, we leveraged the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat to elucidate the intrapersonal costs and interpersonal benefits of co-rumination. To do so, we developed the first direct experimental manipulation of co-rumination using a multimethod, dyadic approach to test the effects of co-rumination on both dyad members. Friend dyads (N = 172) engaged in conversation during which one dyad member (i.e., the discloser) divulged and discussed their most stressful, extradyadic problem with their friend (i.e., the responder). Dyads either engaged in co-rumination or talked about the problem as they would naturally. Validating the experimental paradigm, results revealed a pattern of intrapersonal costs (stressed/upset feelings and rumination) and interpersonal benefits (perceived partner responsiveness) of co-rumination that replicated and extended past research. Regarding challenge and threat, results indicated that female disclosers in the co-rumination (vs. natural) condition exhibited physiological responses corresponding to greater psychological threat (i.e., greater total peripheral resistance). This research contributes to a growing body of literature identifying co-rumination as a vulnerability factor that exacerbates stress, potentially leading to poor downstream health outcomes. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance of examining co-rumination from a dyadic perspective, as inter- and intrapersonal effects varied as a function of whether individuals were disclosing or responding during the problem talk discussion.

Restrictiveness, a component of relationship dominance associated with monitoring and regulating partners' behavior, is a risk factor and accelerant of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Few studies, however, have examined in vivo physiological responses associated with restrictiveness. Toward this end, 105 romantic couples (N = 210) completed measures of restrictiveness and had their physiological responses recorded in anticipation of and during a dyadic interaction in which they discussed a hypothetical transitional period in which one person (the discloser) revealed to their partner (the responder) that they had just gotten into their dream school or was offered their dream job. Individuals high (vs. low) in restrictiveness exhibited physiological responses indicative of greater psychological challenge (e.g., elevated cardiac output and lower peripheral resistance) in anticipation of and during the conversation. In contrast, their partners exhibited greater physiological indicators of psychological threat in anticipation of (but not during) the conversation, particularly when assigned to the discloser role. Exploratory analyses of communication behaviors corroborated the physiological data. This research integrates the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat with theories of relationship power and dominance to demonstrate the physiological manifestations of a well‐known risk factor for IPV in romantic relationships and interpersonal restrictiveness.

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.

Two key processes in romantic relationships—power and dominance—can contribute to relationship disruption, but the association between these variables is complex. Elucidating the association between power and dominance during the COVID‐19 pandemic is particularly important given the economic, social, and health‐related stressors that pose a risk to relationship health. We examined associations between power, stress, and dominance by recruiting 1813 participants to complete an initial online survey at the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Participants were contacted 10 and 22 months later to complete follow‐up surveys. Results revealed two main effects: individuals who had greater relationship power and experienced more COVID‐19‐related stressors than other people engaged in more dominance behaviors. A significant curvilinear effect revealed that at low levels of power, power was not associated with dominance behaviors. However, once power surpassed low levels, individuals with more power engaged in more dominance behaviors. Finally, people engaged in more dominance behaviors when they experienced more power and stress compared to their own average (i.e., within‐person effects) during the pandemic. Implications for theories of power, dominance, and relationship disruption and distress are discussed.