Three studies examined the links between attachment insecurity and the use and effectiveness of inducing guilt to produce change in romantic partners (negative-indirect partner regulation strategies). Individuals higher in attachment anxiety engaged in more negative-indirect partner regulation strategies (Studies 1-3), but the effectiveness of negative-indirect strategies depended on targeted partners' attachment avoidance. Targets higher in attachment avoidance reported regulation agents were less successful (Study 1) and reported less motivation to change across time (Study 2) when agents used more negative-indirect regulation strategies. Negative-indirect strategies during couples' conflict discussions were also associated with lower problem resolution when targets were higher in avoidance (Study 3). These results provide the first demonstration that target characteristics moderate the effectiveness of negative-indirect regulation strategies.

Two studies examined whether concerns of relational value interfere with the ability of individuals higher in attachment anxiety to provide responsive support to their partner. In both studies, heterosexual couples engaged in 2 video-recorded discussions about each other's most important personal goal. Support recipients (the person whose goal was discussed) reported on how distressed they felt during the discussion. Support providers (the partner who was in the position to provide support) reported on how valued and appreciated they felt during the discussion. Independent observers coded the degree to which support providers exhibited critical and derogating behaviors versus warmth and understanding during the discussion. The results were consistent across both studies, with the exception that the predicted effects only emerged for male providers in Study 2. First, more anxious support providers felt less valued and appreciated when support recipients reported greater distress. Second, lower feelings of value/appreciation were associated with more anxious providers exhibiting greater negative support behavior. These results illustrate how the concerns of relational value central to attachment anxiety impede effective support provision, which should have detrimental effects for relationships. Indeed, consistent with prior research, greater negative behaviors by support providers predicted declines in recipients' relationship quality over time. (PsycINFO Database Record

The current research tested an important way one person’s self-evaluations could shape their intimate partner’s self-evaluations. We predicted that greater self-esteem would predict greater efficacy and esteem support when partners needed support, which would facilitate greater efficacy and self-esteem in partners. We examined these processes within discussions in which one partner could provide support (support provider) to the other (support recipient). Study 1 illustrated that self-esteem was specifically associated with esteem support. Study 2 demonstrated that support providers higher in self-esteem experienced greater efficacy during couples’ support discussions and thus delivered greater esteem support to their partners. Greater esteem support, in turn, was associated with recipients experiencing greater efficacy within couples’ discussions and greater self-esteem across time. Analyses of alternative explanations indicated these processes were unique to self-esteem and esteem support. The results provide initial evidence that self-esteem and efficacy shape, and are shaped by, esteem-related support processes within relationships.

Prior research suggests that trying to change partner's attitudes and behaviors in hostile and demanding ways can successfully produce desired changes in targeted partners. The current research investigated whether the effectiveness of negative-direct partner regulation strategies depends on the self-esteem of regulation agents. Two longitudinal studies, involving individuals (N = 156) and couples (N = 174) in ongoing relationships, assessed agents' partner regulation attempts, the regulation strategies agents enacted, and the success of regulation attempts across time. Regulation agents who were low in self-esteem and engaged in negative-direct regulation strategies experienced lower regulation success over time. Lower regulation success in turn predicted decreases in relationship quality. These results indicate that negative-direct regulation strategies are not beneficial when engaged by agents low in self-esteem.Partners often possess qualities or enact behaviors that do not match ideal standards, and such discrepancies spur attempts to change partners' dissatisfying attitudes and behaviors-a process called partner regulation (

Interpersonal power involves how much actors can influence partners (actor power) and how much partners can influence actors (partner power). Yet, most theories and investigations of power conflate the effects of actor and partner power, creating a fundamental ambiguity in the literature regarding how power shapes social behavior. We demonstrate that actor and partner power are distinct and have differential effects on social behavior. Six studies (total N = 1,787) tested whether actor and partner power independently predicted behavioral inhibition (expressive suppression) and communal behavior (prioritization of partners’ needs) within close relationships, including during couples’ daily life (Study 1), lab-based social interactions (Studies 1–5; 1,012 dyadic interactions), and general responses during conflict (Studies 5 and 6). Actor power was negatively associated with behavioral inhibition, indicating that actors’ low power prompts self-focused inhibition to prevent negative outcomes that low power actors are unable to control. Partner power was positively associated with actors’ communal behavior, indicating that high partner power prompts other-focused behavior that prioritizes partners’ needs and goals. These differential effects of actor and partner power replicated in work-based relationships with bosses/managers (Study 6). Unexpectedly, partner power was negatively associated with actors’ behavioral inhibition within close relationships, consistent with a desire to prevent negative outcomes for low power partners. We present a framework that integrates the approach-inhibition and agentic–communal theories of power to account for the differential effects of actor and partner power. We describe the implications of this framework for understanding the effects of power in both close and hierarchical relationships.