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

The Effects of Brief Feedback and Motivation Interventions on Couples’ Empathic Accuracy and Relationship Quality

Empathic accuracy (EA) is the ability to infer another person’s emotions, thoughts, and other mental states, and is related to constructs such as mentalizing and theory of mind. It is associated with more satisfying close relationships and other beneficial outcomes. Several methods have been found to increase people’s EA when inferring emotions in pre-recorded videos of strangers; however, no method has been shown to increase EA when inferring emotions in live interactions with actual relationship partners. In two pre-registered studies, we examined the potential of two brief interventions – increasing motivation and providing feedback - to improve partners’ empathic accuracy. We also examined whether these effects would lead to relational benefits. Study 1 (N=68 couples, 136 individuals) examined the effects of both interventions on EA following lab-based support discussions. Study 2 (N=52 couples, 104 individuals who completed daily diaries every day for three weeks) examined the feedback intervention in daily life. Both interventions significantly increased EA, although the effects of the feedback intervention were more pronounced. The interventions had no significant direct effects on relationship satisfaction and perceived partner responsiveness, but post-intervention EA was associated with increased relationship satisfaction (in Study 1) and perceived partner responsiveness (in both studies), even when controlling for pre-intervention EA. This work introduces simple and replicable interventions which can be used in future studies, demonstrates that empathic accuracy is malleable even within long-term relationships, and suggests possible mechanisms underlying existing couples therapy methods

I wanna hold your hand: Handholding is preferred over gentle stroking for emotion regulation.

Social touch is an important form of interpersonal emotion regulation. In recent years, the emotion regulation effects of two types of touch have been studied extensively: handholding and stroking (specifically of skin with C-tactile afferents on the forearm, i.e. C-touch). While some studies compare their effectiveness, with mixed results, no study to date has examined which type of touch is subjectively preferred. Given the potential bidirectional communication provided by handholding, we hypothesized that to regulate intense emotions, participants would prefer handholding. In four pre-registered online studies (total N = 287), participants rated handholding and stroking, presented in short videos, as emotion regulation methods. Study 1 examined touch reception preference in hypothetical situations. Study 2 replicated Study 1 while also examining touch provision preferences. Study 3 examined touch reception preferences of participants with blood/injection phobia in hypothetical injection situations. Study 4 examined types of touch participants who have recently given birth recalled receiving during childbirth and their hypothetical preferences. In all studies, participants preferred handholding over stroking; participants who have recently given birth reported receiving handholding more than stroking. This was especially evident in Studies 1-3 in emotionally intense situations. These results demonstrate that handholding is preferred over stroking as a form of emotion regulation, especially in intense situations, and support the importance of two-way sensory communication for emotion regulation via touch. We discuss the results and possible additional mechanisms, including top-down processing and cultural priming

I wanna hold your hand: Handholding is preferred over gentle stroking for emotion regulation.

Social touch is an important form of interpersonal emotion regulation. In recent years, the emotion regulation effects of two types of touch have been studied extensively: handholding and stroking (specifically of skin with C-tactile afferents on the forearm, i.e. C-touch). While some studies compare their effectiveness, with mixed results, no study to date has examined which type of touch is subjectively preferred. Given the potential bidirectional communication provided by handholding, we hypothesized that to regulate intense emotions, participants would prefer handholding. In four pre-registered online studies (total N = 287), participants rated handholding and stroking, presented in short videos, as emotion regulation methods. Study 1 examined touch reception preference in hypothetical situations. Study 2 replicated Study 1 while also examining touch provision preferences. Study 3 examined touch reception preferences of participants with blood/injection phobia in hypothetical injection situations. Study 4 examined types of touch participants who have recently given birth recalled receiving during childbirth and their hypothetical preferences. In all studies, participants preferred handholding over stroking; participants who have recently given birth reported receiving handholding more than stroking. This was especially evident in Studies 1-3 in emotionally intense situations. These results demonstrate that handholding is preferred over stroking as a form of emotion regulation, especially in intense situations, and support the importance of two-way sensory communication for emotion regulation via touch. We discuss the results and possible additional mechanisms, including top-down processing and cultural priming

I wanna hold your hand: Handholding is preferred over gentle stroking for emotion regulation

Social touch is an important form of interpersonal emotion regulation. In recent years, the emotion regulation effects of two types of touch have been studied extensively: handholding and stroking (specifically of skin with C-tactile afferents on the forearm, i.e. C-touch). While some studies compare their effectiveness, with mixed results, no study to date has examined which type of touch is subjectively preferred. Given the potential bidirectional communication provided by handholding, we hypothesized that to regulate intense emotions, participants would prefer handholding. In four pre-registered online studies (total N = 287), participants rated handholding and stroking, presented in short videos, as emotion regulation methods. Study 1 examined touch reception preference in hypothetical situations. Study 2 replicated Study 1 while also examining touch provision preferences. Study 3 examined touch reception preferences of participants with blood/injection phobia in hypothetical injection situations. Study 4 examined types of touch participants who have recently given birth recalled receiving during childbirth and their hypothetical preferences. In all studies, participants preferred handholding over stroking; participants who have recently given birth reported receiving handholding more than stroking. This was especially evident in Studies 1–3 in emotionally intense situations. These results demonstrate that handholding is preferred over stroking as a form of emotion regulation, especially in intense situations, and support the importance of two-way sensory communication for emotion regulation via touch. We discuss the results and possible additional mechanisms, including top-down processing and cultural priming

Modulation of information-source recruitment by perceived interpersonal similarity, familiarity, and liking during social inferences

Abstract People constantly make inferences about others’ beliefs and preferences. People can draw on a variety sources of information to make these inferences, including stereotypes, self-knowledge, and target-specific knowledge. However, stereotypes, self-knowledge, and target-specific knowledge are not always relevant or available when making an inference about a target. What leads people to use each of these sources of information over others? The current study examined factors that influences the use of these sources of information, focusing in particular on three interpersonal dimensions – the extent to which people feel familiar with or similar to the target, or simply like the target. In four studies (total N = 1,136) participants inferred the beliefs and preferences of others – celebrities (Studies 1-2), constructed fictional targets (Study 3), and actual acquaintances (Study 4). Participants also rated the extent to felt familiar with, similar to or that they liked the target. Analyses assessed the use of each source of information by comparing inferences with the information provided by those sources. Familiarity was associated with greater use of target-specific knowledge, while similarity and liking were associated with self-knowledge. Low similarity and high liking were associated with increased use of stereotypes. We discuss the implication of these findings and the ways they can apply to unique cases, including inferences about celebrities, public figures, and “model minorities”, in which familiarity, similarity and liking do not perfectly align

I Wanna Hold Your Hand: Handholding is Subjectively Preferred to Stroking in Acute Emotion Regulation

Social touch is an important form of interpersonal emotion regulation. Existing models illustrate that both the toucher and the person being touched should sense each other to provide mutual feedback. We tested the importance of this mutuality using two well-studied types of touch: handholding and stroking (specifically of skin with C-tactile afferents, i.e. C-touch). We hypothesized that to regulate acute emotions, participants would prefer handholding, which allows for better two-way tactile communication than stroking. In four pre-registered studies (total N=287), participants rated handholding and stroking as emotion regulation methods. We examined touch preference in hypothetical emotional and physical situations (Studies 1-2), in hypothetical injection situations using participants with blood/injection phobia (Study 3), and during recalled childbirth situations (Study 4). In all studies, participants preferred handholding over stroking. This was especially evident in Studies 1-3 in emotionally intense situations. These results demonstrate the importance of two-way sensory communication for consoling touch