Impact of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships.

Abstract

A theory of couple patterns of problem solving that involves the Rusbult and Zembrodt (1983) exitvoice-loyalty-neglect typology of problem-solving responses is advanced and tested in a sample of dating relationships. Destructive problem-solving responses (exit and neglect) were more powerfully predictive of couple distress/nondistress than were constructive problem-solving behaviors (voice and loyalty). Tendencies to react with voice to mild relationship problems were also signihcantly predictive of couple functioning. Partner perceptions of one another's problem-solving styles were also related to couple distress/nondistress: Distress was greater to the extent that individuals perceived that their partners exhibit greater tendencies to engage in exit and neglect while showing lower levels of voice and (perhaps) loyalty. Certain interdependent patterns of partner problem solving were effectively predictive of couple health: Couple distress was greater to the degree that individuals reacted destructively and failed to respond constructively when their partners engage in destructive problem-solving responses. Reactions to partners' constructive responses were less effectively predictive of couple functioning. Thus it is the way in which partners react in response to destructive behaviors from their partners that is best predictive of relationship health. Lastly, in comparison with men, women engage in somewhat higher levels of voice and loyalty, and may behave less neglectfully. What determines whether a relationship will function successfully? Are certain couple patterns of problem solving more promotive of healthy functioning than others? One of the most important goals in the study of close relationships is to understand how couples react to inevitable, perhaps reparable, periodic decline and to identify the patterns of response that produce the most favorable consequences. Unfortunately, despite the abundance of theory and research devoted to understanding the development and deterioration of relationships (Altman & Taylor,

Age Differences in Exposure and Reactions to Interpersonal Tensions: A Daily Diary Study.

“…As means of validating the constructive-destructive dimension, Rusbult, Johnson, and Morrow (1986) found that destructive behaviors lead to poor relationship outcomes whereas constructive behaviors lead to better relationship outcomes. However, because the present study does not include assessments of relationship functioning, we can only assume that these behaviors are constructive or destructive for relationships.…”

Partner enhancement versus verification and emotional responses to daily conflict

“…More specifically, research shows that negative relationship events like conflict tend to have a larger impact than positive events (Gottman, 1994;see Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001 for review), and conflict interactions are often used in lab-based studies of relationship functioning to infer relational health (e.g., Gottman, 1994;Levenson & Gottman, 1985;Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009). Conflict can be detrimental to individual (Burman & Margolin, 1992;Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006) and relationship (Gottman & Levenson, 2000;Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986) health when not handled effectively. Whether or not a conflict is destructive may partly depend upon its immediate emotional impact.…”

Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes.

“…Perhaps even more common than attractive alternatives, relationship conflict is a threat that many, if not all, couples experience. How individuals react to relationship conflict will influence the quality of the relationship (Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986), as the more destructively a partner reacts, the less satisfied and committed the partners will be . Reacting in an accommodative, constructive fashion, on the other hand, has been shown to curb the spiral of negativity that often results from the "tit for tat" behaviour that characterizes couple conflict, and is predicted by commitment (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991) and self-regulatory strength (Finkel & Campbell, 2001).…”