The dyadic construction of romantic conflict recovery sabotage

Abstract

This longitudinal study of 100 couples assessed individual and dyadic processes associated with romantic conflict recovery, or how couples behave in the moments following conflict. Couples completed measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance; a conflict discussion during which affect, behavior, and conflict resolution were coded; a cool-down discussion during which post-conflict behavior was coded; and measures of relationship satisfaction and stability one year later. Recovery sabotage (negative behavior and perseveration on conflict in the moments following conflict) was associated with high attachment anxiety and low avoidance. Recovery sabotage was unrelated to affect expressed during conflict and was instead tied to whether partners aired or suppressed grievances. Consistent with the demand-withdraw conflict pattern, recovery sabotage was associated with lower actor conflict avoidance but higher partner conflict avoidance. These effects were independent of conflict resolution, which was not significantly associated with recovery sabotage when other features of conflict were controlled. Recovery sabotage and conflict resolution also differentially predicted satisfaction and stability one year later. Findings suggest recovery sabotage is a distinct, developmentally organized relationship process tied to attachment history and behavioral, rather than affective, transactions between partners during conflict.

All's well that ends well? A test of the peak‐end rule in couples’ conflict discussions

“…Previous research has already established that distressed couples convey more negative and fewer positive behaviors and expressions, and experience more negative sentiment during a conflict (for an overview, see e.g., Fincham, 2003); our study adds to this by showing that, at least to some extent, the intensity of emotions experienced during a conflict in turn predicts how well couples feel after a conflict. This complements research showing that negative expressions and behaviors during a conflict predict more negative behaviors, more physiological changes, and less relationship satisfaction later on (Fincham & Beach, 1999;Haydon et al, 2016;Kiecolt-Glaser et al, 1993). It is remarkable that the effects of the positive peak held up better than the effects of the negative peak.…”

“…Specifically, distressed couples show greater drops in mood upon a conflict interaction than satisfied counterparts (Sayers, Kohn, Fresco, Bellack, & Sarwer, 2001;Whisman, Weinstock, & Uebelacker, 2002), and express less positive and more negative affect during a rebound conversation (Gottman & Levenson, 1999a). Having a partner that displays more positive behavior during a cool-down task also goes together with greater relationship satisfaction, and predicts relationship satisfaction longitudinally in interaction with attachment security (Haydon et al, 2016;Salvatore et al, 2011).…”

“…Recently, the topic of post-conflict affect has been gaining attention, and it has now been shown that people who show fewer negative feelings after a conflict, or have a partner that does, demonstrate greater relationship satisfaction and stability on the long term (Gottman & Levenson, 1999a;Haydon, Jonestrak, Guhn-Knight, & Salvatore, 2016;Salvatore et al, 2011). Specifically, distressed couples show greater drops in mood upon a conflict interaction than satisfied counterparts (Sayers, Kohn, Fresco, Bellack, & Sarwer, 2001;Whisman, Weinstock, & Uebelacker, 2002), and express less positive and more negative affect during a rebound conversation (Gottman & Levenson, 1999a).…”

“…With regard to its facilitators or obstructers, research up to now has focused on individual differences in partners' attachment style and intimacy (Prager et al, 2015;Salvatore et al, 2011) and on partners' behaviors during the conflict. Specifically, related research on conflict interactions has shown that partners' negative behaviors and expressions during a conflict predict more negative behaviors in a next conversation (Haydon et al, 2016), more immunological downregulation over the next 24 hours (Kiecolt-Glaser et al, 1993), and less relationship satisfaction on the long term (for overviews, see Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000;Fincham & Beach, 1999). Further, partners' specific repair attempts during a conflict predict less experienced negative and more positive affect in the last 3 minutes of the conflict discussion (Gottman, Driver, & Tabares, 2015).…”

Who’s the boss? How and when process power moderates partner regulation of attachment defenses

“…With respect to partner regulation, we focused on negative engagement (i.e., instances of attack, criticism, or blame; Haydon et al, 2017) because strong negative engagement enacted by partners should dysregulate highly anxious and avoidant people, but for different reasons. For highly anxious targets, attack, criticism, and blame may convey that their partners view them negatively or that their relationships are on thin ice, heightening abandonment concerns.…”