Attachment Avoidance and Amends-Making: A Case Advocating the Need for Attempting to Replicate One’s Own Work

Attachment avoidance is typically associated with negative behaviors in romantic relationships; however, recent research has begun to uncover circumstances (e.g., being in high-quality relationships) that promote pro-relationship behaviors for more avoidantly attached individuals. One possible explanation for why more avoidant individuals behave negatively sometimes but positively at other times is that their impulses regarding relationship events vary depending on relationship context (e.g., relationship satisfaction level). An initial unregistered study found support for this hypothesis in an amends-making context. We then conducted three confirmatory high-powered preregistered replication attempts that failed to replicate our initial findings. In our discussion of these four studies we highlight the importance of attempting to replicate one’s own work and sharing the results regardless of the outcome

Are you coming on to me? Bias and accuracy in couples' perceptions of sexual advances

How accurately do romantic partners perceive each other’s sexual advances? Two preregistered studies investigated whether perceivers over- or underestimate the specific behaviors their partner uses to indicate sexual interest (directional bias), as well as correctly detect the particular pattern of those behaviors (tracking accuracy). We also tested if biased and accurate perceptions were moderated by gender and explored how bias and accuracy predicted relational outcomes. Results revealed strong evidence for tracking accuracy in judgments of sexual advances overall, and mixed results for directional bias. Gender moderated only directional bias, such that women consistently overestimated their partner’s sexual advances, whereas men underestimated or showed no bias. Finally, biased sexual advance perceptions were associated with sexual satisfaction and love for both perceivers and partners. Implications for relationship functioning are discussed. </jats:p

Panel Discussion on Open Access: What’s in it for me?

Background The 2016 Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications is a landmark for the open access movement in Canada. It stipulates that peer-reviewed journal publications arising from Tri-Agency funded research must be made freely accessible within 12 months of publication. This and other open access policies emphasize the societal advantage of openly accessible research, but how does the researcher benefit? Summary Panelists will highlight the benefits of open access as well as other open research practices, with a focus on the perspective of graduate students and early career researchers. One benefit is the increased impact of open access publications compared to subscription-based publications, as shown in citation-based studies as well as altmetrics such as download reports available through Western’s institutional repository, Scholarship@Western. Another benefit is enhanced collaboration, encompassing not only open access publishing but also open data practices, both of which enable researchers to more readily learn from and build off of each other’s work. Finally, authors benefit from retaining rights to their work, which includes various open access publishing options as well as negotiating greater control over their research post-publication. Interdisciplinary Reflection Open access is particularly valuable for interdisciplinary researchers insofar as it makes research easily discoverable. This allows for cross-fertilization across disciplines, since researchers are more easily able to access, read, and build on work in other areas. Librarians often select journal subscriptions that support active research in a particular discipline, but open access journals are available to all, regardless of an institution’s research focus

Self-esteem, relationship threat, and dependency regulation:Independent replication of Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) Study 3

Across three studies, Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) found that low self-esteem individuals responded in a negative manner compared to those high in self-esteem in the face of relationship threat, perceiving their partners and relationships less positively. This was the first empirical support for the hypothesized dynamics of a dependency regulation perspective, and has had a significant impact on the field of relationship science. In the present research, we sought to reproduce the methods and procedures of Study 3 of Murray et al. (2002) to further test the two-way interaction between individual differences in self-esteem and situational relationship threat. Manipulation check effects replicated the original study, but no interaction between self-esteem and experimental condition was observed for any primary study outcomes

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES Adult Attachment, the Transition to Parenthood, and Depressive Symptoms

Testing a model suggested by J