The doormat effect: When forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity.

We build on principles from interdependence theory and evolutionary psychology to propose that forgiving bolsters one's self-respect and self-concept clarity if the perpetrator has acted in a manner that signals that the victim will be safe and valued in a continued relationship with the perpetrator but that forgiving diminishes one's self-respect and self-concept clarity if the perpetrator has not. Study 1 employed a longitudinal design to demonstrate that the association of marital forgiveness with trajectories of self-respect over the first 5 years of marriage depends on the spouse's dispositional tendency to indicate that the partner will be safe and valued (i.e., agreeableness). Studies 2 and 3 employed experimental procedures to demonstrate that the effects of forgiveness on self-respect and self-concept clarity depend on the perpetrator's event-specific indication that the victim will be safe and valued (i.e., amends). Study 4 employed a longitudinal design to demonstrate that the association of forgiveness with subsequent self-respect and self-concept clarity similarly depends on the extent to which the perpetrator has made amends. These studies reveal that, under some circumstances, forgiveness negatively impacts the self

Trust and biased memory of transgressions in romantic relationships.

Relative to people with low trust in their romantic partner, people with high trust tend to expect that their partner will act in accordance with their interests. Consequently, we suggest, they have the luxury of remembering the past in a way that prioritizes relationship dependence over self-protection. In particular, they tend to exhibit relationship-promoting memory biases regarding transgressions the partner had enacted in the past. In contrast, at the other end of the spectrum, people with low trust in their partner tend to be uncertain about whether their partner will act in accordance with their interests. Consequently, we suggest, they feel compelled to remember the past in a way that prioritizes self-protection over relationship dependence. In particular, they tend to exhibit self-protective memory biases regarding transgressions the partner had enacted in the past. Four longitudinal studies of participants involved in established dating relationships or fledgling romantic relationships demonstrated that the greater a person's trust in their partner, the more positively they tend to remember the number, severity, and consequentiality of their partner's past transgressions—controlling for their initial reports. Such trust-inspired memory bias was partner-specific; it was more reliably evident for recall of the partner's transgressions and forgiveness than for recall of one's own transgressions and forgiveness. Furthermore, neither trust-inspired memory bias nor its partner-specific nature was attributable to potential confounds such as relationship commitment, relationship satisfaction, self-esteem, or attachment orientations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved

An unclear self leads to poor mental health: Self-concept confusion mediates the association of loneliness with depression

Past research has established that loneliness is associated with both self-concept confusion and depression. The present work ties these disparate lines of research together by demonstrating that self-concept confusion mediates the relationship between loneliness and depression. Three studies, one cross-sectional and two longitudinal, supported this hypothesis. Moreover, the model was supported both in samples of dating and married couples and in samples of noncouples. This research contributes to a greater understanding of why people who feel socially disconnected have poor mental health. Understanding this mechanism has important implications for strategies targeting the early prevention of depression and improving mental health outcomes

Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies

Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner’s ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person’s own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships

Me after you: Partner influence and individual effort predict rejection of self-aspects and self-concept clarity after relationship dissolution

Individuals in ongoing romantic relationships incorporate attributes from their partner into their own self-concepts. However, little research has investigated what happens to these attributes should the relationship end. Across three studies, the present research sought to examine factors that predicted whether individuals retain or reject attributes from their self-concept that they initially gained during a relationship. We predicted that individuals would be more likely to reject attributes from their self post-dissolution if their ex-partner was influential in them adding those attributes to the self in the first place. However, we expected this effect to be moderated such that individuals who exerted greater, versus lesser, effort in maintaining relevant attributes would retain them as part of the self, regardless of whether the attribute originated from the partner. In addition, in two of our three studies, we explored the roles of partner influence, effort, and attribute rejection on individuals\u27 post-dissolution self-concept clarity. © 2014 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc

The many voices of darwin\u27s descendants: Reply to schmitt (2014)

© 2014 American Psychological Association. This article elaborates on evolutionary perspectives relevant to the meta-analytic portion of our recent review (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, 2014). We suggested that if men and women evolved sex-differentiated ideals (i.e., mate preferences), then they should exhibit sex-differentiated desires (e.g., romantic attraction) and/or relational outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction) with respect to live opposite-sex targets. Our meta-analysis revealed no support for these sex-differentiated desires and relational outcomes in either established relationship or mate selection contexts. With respect to established relationships, Schmitt (2014) has objected to the idea that relationship quality (one of our primarily romantic evaluation dependent measures) has functional relevance. In doing so, he neglects myriad evolutionary perspectives on the adaptive importance of the pair-bond and the wealth of data suggesting that relationship quality predicts the dissolution of pair-bonds. With respect to mate selection, Schmitt (2014) has continued to suggest that sex-differentiated patterns should emerge in these contexts despite the fact that our meta-analysis included this literature and found no sex differences. Schmitt (2014) also generated several novel sex-differentiated predictions with respect to attractiveness and earning prospects, but neither the existing literature nor reanalyses of our meta-analytic data reveal any support for his proper function-related hypotheses. In short, there are diverse evolutionary perspectives relevant to mating, including our own synthesis; Schmitt\u27s (2014) conceptual analysis is not the one-and-only evolutionary psychological view, and his alternative explanations for our meta-analytic data remain speculative

Is a meta-analysis a foundation, or just another brick? Comment on Meltzer, mcnulty, Jackson, and Karney (2014)

In a longitudinal data set of married couples, Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, and Karney (2014) reported that partner physical attractiveness is more strongly associated with relationship satisfaction for men than for women. Although a recent meta-analysis (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, in press) provided no support for this sex difference across 97 samples and ~30,000 participants, Meltzer et al. (2014) responded by outlining 7 criteria required for an appropriate test of the sex difference; these criteria eliminate all but 1 study from the meta-analysis. In this commentary, we raise 3 concerns about Meltzer et al.\u27s contribution. First, there is weak theoretical and empirical support for the criteria they used to dismiss the relevance of the meta-analysis studies. Second, if one adds Meltzer et al.\u27s data to the meta-analysis, all the sex differences remain extremely small and nonsignificant, even if one focuses only on studies that best conform to Meltzer et al.\u27s criteria (i.e., married samples, objective attractiveness measures). Third, a new data set meeting all 7 criteria fails to replicate the Meltzer et al. sex difference; in contrast, data revealed that physical attractiveness is, if anything, more strongly associated with the trajectory of relationship satisfaction for women than for men. As noted by Eastwick, Luchies, et al. (in press), in paradigms where participants evaluate partners they have (at a minimum) met face-to-face, the sex difference in the association of physical attractiveness with romantic evaluations is (a) extremely small on average and (b) unlinked to all cross-study characteristics identified to date. © 2014 American Psychological Association

Psychological Science-2013-Finkel-0956797612474938-1.pdf

Abstract Marital quality is a major contributor to happiness and health. Unfortunately, marital quality normatively declines over time. We tested whether a novel 21-min intervention designed to foster the reappraisal of marital conflicts could preserve marital quality in a sample of 120 couples enrolled in an intensive 2-year study. Half of the couples were randomly assigned to receive the reappraisal intervention in Year 2 (following no intervention in Year 1); half were not. Both groups exhibited declines in marital quality over Year 1. This decline continued in Year 2 among couples in the control condition, but it was eliminated among couples in the reappraisal condition. This effect of the reappraisal intervention on marital quality over time was mediated through reductions in conflict-related distress over time. This study illustrates the potential of brief, theory-based, social-psychological interventions to preserve the quality of intimate relationships over time