Agents' self‐esteem moderates the effectiveness of negative‐direct partner regulation strategies

Abstract

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 (

Attachment insecurity and inducing guilt to produce desired change in romantic partners

“…Of importance, these results are both consistent with and advance the wider communication literature. They are consistent with emerging evidence that dispositions of agents and targets can modify the impact of communication strategies (Baker & McNulty, ; Jayamaha & Overall, ), but are the first to illustrate the factors of targeted partners that moderate receptivity to negative‐indirect partner regulation strategies in particular. Moreover, the specific ways in which attachment insecurity is associated with the use and effectiveness of negative‐indirect regulation strategies demonstrates that the factors that modify the impact of specific strategies are those that are relevant to the particular ingredients and working mechanisms of those strategies.…”

“…In contrast, consistent with the effects reported here, resistance to change by targets undermines immediate conflict resolution and predicts less improvement over time (Overall, Sibley, & Tan, ; Overall et al, , ). Lower regulation success is also consistently associated with growing dissatisfaction and negative relationship evaluations (Hira & Overall, ; Jayamaha & Overall, ; Overall et al, , ). Thus, because the negative‐indirect regulation strategies utilized by highly anxious individuals do not generate desired change, and negative‐indirect regulation strategies are particularly ineffective in motivating change by highly avoidant targets, they will play an important role in producing poor downstream outcomes for relationships involving insecure partners.…”

“…This sample was used by Jayamaha and Overall (, Study 2) who reported that the links between negative‐direct partner regulation strategies and targets' motivation across time was moderated by the agents' self‐esteem. Jayamaha and Overall (, Study 2) did not examine: (a) the links between attachment anxiety and negative‐indirect partner regulation strategies, (b) the links between agents' use of negative‐indirect regulation strategies and targets' motivation to change, or (c) the role of targets' attachment avoidance in moderating the effectiveness of agents' negative‐indirect strategies. Thus, the aims and specific hypotheses tested in this article are novel, and all of the results are independent of the prior article.…”

The Relationship Problem Solving (RePS) Model: How Partners Influence One Another to Resolve Relationship Problems

“…With respect to the current focus on affective associations, targets may be more likely to attribute affect resulting from actors' typical partner-regulation behaviors to those actors and more likely to attribute it to something else (e.g., the problem, self) when it is atypical of those actors, and such emerging associations should have important implications for motivation. Research is consistent with these ideas (e.g., Forest, Kille, Wood, & Holmes, 2014;Jayamaha & Overall, 2015). In one study, Jayamaha and Overall (2015) demonstrated that oppositional behaviors motivated less change in targets when enacted by actors with low self-esteem, who tend to overact to problems (e.g., Lemay & Dudley, 2011), than when enacted by actors with high self-esteem.…”

“…Research is consistent with these ideas (e.g., Forest, Kille, Wood, & Holmes, 2014;Jayamaha & Overall, 2015). In one study, Jayamaha and Overall (2015) demonstrated that oppositional behaviors motivated less change in targets when enacted by actors with low self-esteem, who tend to overact to problems (e.g., Lemay & Dudley, 2011), than when enacted by actors with high self-esteem. Similarly, Forest and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that targets are more responsive to the demands of actors who are infrequently negative compared to actors who are chronically negative.…”