Contact With an Ex-Partner Is Associated With Psychological Distress After Marital Separation

Abstract

In this study, we examined the association between naturalistically observed in-person contact with an ex-partner and separation-related psychological distress (SRPD). One hundred twenty-two recently separated adults were assessed using the Electronically Activated Recorder on three occasions across 5 months. The association between in-person contact with an ex-partner, as a between-person variable, and concurrent SRPD was not reliably different from zero, nor was the time-varying effect of in-person contact. However, more frequent in-person contact with an ex-partner predicted higher SRPD 2 months later, above and beyond the variance accounted for by concurrent in-person contact, demographic, relationship, and attachment factors. Follow-up analyses showed that this effect was present only for people without children; a 1 SD increase in in-person contact offset and slowed the predicted decline in SRPD over 2 months by 112%. In our discussion, we emphasize new ways to think about the role of in-person contact in shaping adults’ psychological adjustment to separation over time.

‘Personality in its Natural Habitat’ Revisited: A Pooled, Multi–sample Examination of the Relationships between the Big Five Personality Traits and Daily Behaviour and Language Use

“…three weekends, each separated by 2 months) with a recording rate of 30 seconds every 12 minutes. For more details on this sample, see Hasselmo et al (2018), Bourassa, Tackman, Mehl, and Sbarra (2019), and O'Hara, Grinberg, Tackman, Mehl, and Sbarra (2020).…”

Understanding Personality through Patterns of Daily Socializing: Applying Recurrence Quantification Analysis to Naturalistically Observed Intensive Longitudinal Social Interaction Data

“…Overall, our results suggest that just analysing the average amount of time a person spends talking can miss important relationships between personality and style of socializing. Our work adds to the growing literature on personality dynamics (Hopwood, Zimmermann, Pincus, & Krueger, 2015; Robinson & Gordon, 2011; Read et al, 2010; Sosnowska, Kuppens, De Fruyt, & Hofmans, 2019; Wright, Hopwood, & Simms, 2015) and the dynamics of socializing (Dishion & Snyder, 2004; Hollenstein, 2007; Lavictoire, Snyder, Stoolmiller, & Hollenstein, 2012; Schelling, 1998). We present the first instance (to the best of our knowledge) of relating non–linear socializing dynamics assessed through ambulatory assessment to personality traits (but see Gundogdu et al, 2017 and Wang et al, 2018, for related analysis strategies, and Stachl et al, 2020, for some linear dynamic measures).…”

“…Person and situation are in continual interaction, forming a feedback loop. These dynamics allow for self–regulation and the pursuit of key goals (Read, Smith, Droutman, & Miller, 2017). For example, recent research has found that personality states ‘enacted’ at a given moment were related to the goals individuals were pursuing at that moment (McCabe & Fleeson, 2016).…”

“…The average age was 43 years old ( SD = 10.7); 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men; and 62.5% were White, 21.3% were Hispanic or Latino, 5.1% were Black or African American, 2.2% were Asian, and 2.2% were Native American or Alaskan Natives. For more details on the sample, please see Bourassa et al (2019), Hasselmo et al (2018), and O'Hara, Grinberg, Tackman, Mehl, and Sbarra (in press).…”

“…Socializing is thought to serve a basic need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and needs are commonly conceptualized as fluctuating in strength over time, based on how they have been satisfied (e.g. Read et al, 2010). Social behaviour can therefore be conceptualized as a system where the prior state—whether or not the person was socializing or felt that social needs were being met—influences the next state.…”