Let’s Talk About Money: The Role of Attachment Styles in Couples’ Financial Communication, Financial Management, and Financial Conflict

There are many households with financial problems, but most research on financial management is restricted to individual effects, not taking into account the relationship these individuals are in. The current investigation tests whether a person’s attachment style predicts how comfortable they are talking about financial issues with their partner and how that relates to different financial outcome variables. Two cross-sectional survey studies in the Netherlands and the US, each with more than 100 participants show that a higher score on anxious attachment is related to less communication about money with one’s partner. Less financial communication is related to worse financial management within the couple, which in turn predicts conflicts about money. A third survey with 770 participants shows that less financial communication is related to more financial problems. These findings highlight the need to take relationship variables into account to understand financial processes in couples

Women are better at selecting gifts than men

There is a widespread belief that women are better at selecting gifts than men; however, this claim has not been assessed on the basis of objective criteria. The current studies do exactly that and show that women do indeed make better gift selections for others, regardless of the gender of the receiver and the type of relationship between the giver and receiver. We investigate the mediating role of different aspects of interpersonal sensitivity and reveal that differences in interpersonal interest (measured with an autism questionnaire), but not differences in interpersonal reactivity, explain gender differences in gift selection quality. The current studies thus present the first objective evidence for the claim that women are better in selecting gifts for others and also give an indication of why this is the case

Does attachment style moderate the effect of computer-mediated versus face-to-face conflict discussions?

Successful conflict resolution is important in romantic relationships. With the advent of computer-mediated communication (CMC), partners can resolve conflict using CMC. But is CMC as effective as face-to-face communication for conflict resolution? And does the effectiveness depend on attachment style? We asked 100 romantic couples to discuss a conflict topic and randomly assigned them to do so face-to-face or via CMC. Levels of distress, anger, and conflict resolution did not differ between face-to-face and CMC discussions.Attachment style did not moderate these findings. A more anxious and a more avoidant attachment style were associated with higher levels of distress andanger. We conclude that there is no indication that resolving conflict face-to-face has advantages over resolving conflict via CMC

Brief Report: Examining the Link Between Autistic Traits and Compulsive Internet Use in a Non-Clinical Sample

Individuals with autism spectrum disorders or autistic traits may profit from Internet and computer-mediated interactions, but there is concern about their Internet use becoming compulsive. This study investigated the link between autistic traits and Internet use in a 2-wave longitudinal study with a non-clinical community sample (n = 390). As compared to people with less autistic traits, people with more autistic traits did not report a higher frequency of Internet use, but they were more prone to compulsive Internet use. For women, more autistic traits predicted an increase in compulsive Internet use over time. These results suggest that, despite its appeal for people with autistic traits, the Internet carries the risk of compulsive use

The Misprediction of emotions in Track Athletics.: Is experience the teacher of all things?

People commonly overestimate the intensity of their emotions toward future events. In other words, they display an impact bias. This research addresses the question whether people learn from their experiences and correct for the impact bias. We hypothesize that athletes display an impact bias and, counterintuitively, that increased experience with an event increases this impact bias. A field study in the context of competitive track athletics supported our hypotheses by showing that athletes clearly overestimated their emotions toward the outcome of a track event and that this impact bias was more pronounced for negative events than for positive events. Moreover, with increased athletic experience this impact bias became larger. This effect could not be explained by athletes’ forecasted emotions, but it could be explained by the emotions they actually felt following the race. The more experience athletes had with athletics, the less they felt negative emotions after unsuccessful goal attainment. These findings are discussed in relation to possible underlying emotion regulation processes

Investigating the role of time in affective forecasting: temporal influences on forecasting accuracy.

Using extensive diary data from people taking their driver's license exam, the authors investigated the role of time in affective forecasting accuracy. Replicating existing findings, participants grossly overestimated the intensity and duration of their negative affect after failure and only slightly overestimated the intensity and duration of their positive affect after success. Extending existing findings, participants accurately predicted a decrease of their affective reactions over time but underestimated the speed with which this decrease would occur. In addition, they showed greater forecasting accuracy for positive affect than negative affect when the exam was distant and greater forecasting accuracy for negative affect than positive affect when the exam was close. The motivational processes underlying these findings are being discussed. © 2007 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc

Empathic forecasting: How do we predict other people's feelings?

When making affective forecasts, people commit the impact bias. They overestimate the impact an emotional event has on their affective experience. In three studies we show that people also commit the impact bias when making empathic forecasts, affective forecasts for someone else. They overestimate the impact an emotional event has on someone else's affective experience (Study 1), they do so for friends and strangers (Study 2), and they do so when other sources of information are available (Study 3). Empathic forecasting accuracy, the correlation between one person's empathic forecast and another person's actual affective experience, was lower than between-person forecasting correspondence, the correlation between one person's empathic forecast and another person's affective forecast. Empathic forecasts do not capture other people's actual experience very well but are similar to what other people forecast for themselves. This may enhance understanding between people