Avoidance orientation and the escalation of negative communication in intimate relationships.

Abstract

Avoidance goals heighten the salience of negative social experiences, and in intimate relationships such an orientation may contribute to communication difficulties and the perpetuation of avoidance. We therefore hypothesized that individuals with stronger avoidance goals would be particularly prone to engage in escalating levels of negative communication with their intimate partner, and we tested this prediction by conducting sequential analyses on videotaped observational data (28,470 observations) collected from 365 heterosexual couples engaging in a relationship-related conflict. While less avoidanceoriented spouses showed a decline in their likelihood of negative communication over the course of the 8-min conflict discussion, the likelihood that more avoidance-oriented spouses would display negative communication behaviors remained at a high level. The likelihood of negative communication even increased when avoidance-oriented spouses were confronted with negative communication behavior of their partners. The effects of avoidance orientation were independent of relationship satisfaction and neuroticism. These findings demonstrate that avoidance goals underlie individuals' heightened reactivity to the partner's negative behavior, while also clarifying 1 possible reason why some individuals engage in communication behaviors that may prove maladaptive to their relationship. (

Approach and avoidance relationship goals and couples’ nonverbal communication during conflict

“…This expectation should prevent them from opening up to their partner and creating a situation of mutual understanding (Impett et al, 2010). Building upon findings suggesting an increased reactivity to negative events (Kuster et al, 2015), we expected that individuals with more (vs. fewer) avoidance relationship goals show particularly more avoidant withdrawal when their partner withdraws as well. Building upon findings suggesting an increased reactivity to negative events (Kuster et al, 2015), we expected that individuals with more (vs. fewer) avoidance relationship goals show particularly more avoidant withdrawal when their partner withdraws as well.…”

“…Based on the findings by Kuster et al (2015) and research suggesting an increased sensitivity to social threat among individuals with more (vs. fewer) avoidance relationship goals Strachman & Gable, 2006), we expected that these individuals already enter a conflict in the expectation that the situation likely involves criticism and dismissal by a significant other (Downey & Feldman, 1996). This expectation should prevent them from opening up to their partner and creating a situation of mutual understanding (Impett et al, 2010).…”

“…Conceiving interpersonal communication as a sequence of goal-directed behaviors, the authors examined the link between avoidance relationship goals and the amount of couples' negative verbal communication (e.g., criticism, defensiveness, contempt) while discussing a topic of disagreement in a standardized conflict interaction in the laboratory (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). Moreover, their likelihood of communicating negatively even increased when they were confronted with negative communication by their partner (Kuster et al, 2015). Moreover, their likelihood of communicating negatively even increased when they were confronted with negative communication by their partner (Kuster et al, 2015).…”

“…Studies that do so suggest that approach and avoidance relationship goals are linked to different forms of communication when partners discuss positive and negative events in their relationship (Impett et al, 2010;Kuster et al, 2015). This finding suggests that these individuals were less likely to achieve the conflict resolution that has been identified as adaptive for intimate relationships (Gottman, 1994;Kuster et al, 2015). This finding suggests that these individuals were less likely to achieve the conflict resolution that has been identified as adaptive for intimate relationships (Gottman, 1994;Kuster et al, 2015).…”

Positivity and Negativity in Interparental Conflict

“…Responses were rated every 10 seconds for the occurrence of the categories or subcategories, respectively (0 = did not occur; 1 = did occur). This coding system has been used in previous research, thus supporting its validity (e.g., Kuster et al, 2015). Research assistants were trained for a minimum of 60 hours to master the coding system.…”