The effects of dispositional restrictiveness on physiological markers of challenge and threat during a hypothetical transitional period in romantic relationships

Abstract

Restrictiveness, a component of relationship dominance associated with monitoring and regulating partners' behavior, is a risk factor and accelerant of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Few studies, however, have examined in vivo physiological responses associated with restrictiveness. Toward this end, 105 romantic couples (N = 210) completed measures of restrictiveness and had their physiological responses recorded in anticipation of and during a dyadic interaction in which they discussed a hypothetical transitional period in which one person (the discloser) revealed to their partner (the responder) that they had just gotten into their dream school or was offered their dream job. Individuals high (vs. low) in restrictiveness exhibited physiological responses indicative of greater psychological challenge (e.g., elevated cardiac output and lower peripheral resistance) in anticipation of and during the conversation. In contrast, their partners exhibited greater physiological indicators of psychological threat in anticipation of (but not during) the conversation, particularly when assigned to the discloser role. Exploratory analyses of communication behaviors corroborated the physiological data. This research integrates the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat with theories of relationship power and dominance to demonstrate the physiological manifestations of a well‐known risk factor for IPV in romantic relationships and interpersonal restrictiveness.

Attachment anxiety and the curvilinear effects of expressive suppression on individuals’ and partners’ outcomes.

“…This sample has been used before to examine how (a) cardiovascular responses indicating threat impact partners’ responsiveness (Peters, Reis, & Jamieson, 2018), and (b) how individuals’ restrictiveness or dominance can exacerbate physiological responses indicating threat (Tudder, Gresham, Peters, Reis, & Jamieson, 2020). However, the linear or curvilinear effects of support providers’ expressive suppression and attachment anxiety on partners’ outcomes has never been reported.…”

Sense of power and markers of challenge and threat during extra‐dyadic problem discussions with romantic partners

“…Our secondary research question focuses on how power is associated with self‐reported appraisals of resources and demands before and after the conversation. Despite past research demonstrating that appraisals of resources and demands do not necessarily occur through conscious processes (Blascovich & Mendes, 2010; Jamieson, 2017) and, therefore, might not be consistent with physiological markers of these appraisals (Peters & Jamieson, 2016; Tudder et al, 2020), research reliably links higher power with more approach‐oriented motivation and behavior (Keltner et al, 2003; Overall et al, 2022) and with reduced fear and anxiety during social stressors (Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013). Therefore, we predicted that higher power would be associated with self‐reported appraisals of greater coping resources relative to situational demands (i.e., greater challenge and less threat).…”

“…For example, if high-power partners typically approach problem-oriented discussions with their partner (i.e., tend to adopt the "discloser" role; Gable & Impett, 2012;Keltner et al, 2003), they may react differently when placed in the responder role than in the discloser role. Indeed, previous research using a similar protocol has found conversation role to be a moderating factor between trait measures of dominance and physiological reactivity (Tudder et al, 2020). However, research by Tudder and colleagues (2020) focused on a discussion between partners involving a hypothetical relationship transition, not an extra-dyadic problem discussion.…”

“…All physiological measures were initiated and recorded from a control room, separate from participants' rooms. This method of dyadic physiological data collection has been used in previous related research (Peters et al, 2014(Peters et al, , 2019Tudder et al, 2020Tudder et al, , 2023. ECG and ICG were scored offline by trained personnel.…”

“…Reactivity scores for the conversation period were computed using a standard method in which scores obtained from the last minute of the baseline period (the most relaxed period) were subtracted from scores during the first minute of the target period (i.e., the most reactive minute of the problem discussion period). This method of using change scores between the last minute of baseline and the first minute of a target task has been psychometrically justified (see Llabre et al, 1991) and used extensively in research using the Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat (e.g., Blascovich et al, 1999;Jamieson et al, 2012Jamieson et al, , 2013Mendes et al, 2001Mendes et al, , 2002Peters et al, 2014;Tudder et al, 2020). 1 2.3.4 | Self-reported appraisals of resources and demands Each participant completed a four-item questionnaire that assessed their appraisals of resources and demands immediately before and after the conversation with their partner (Beltzer et al, 2014;Mendes, Gray, et al, 2007).…”