Self-criticism and Conflict Resolution in Romantic Couples

1. Self-criticism and Conflict Resolution in Romantic Couples Jess Bandsuh

2. Thesis • Self-criticism (SC) negative relational schemas (-RS) negative cognitive affective reactions (-CAR) overt hostile behavior overt hostile behavior in partner • Purpose: to examine interpersonal correlates of self-criticism in romantic relationships

3. Hypotheses • Self critical young adults would have negative expectations concerning romantic relationships and their relationship would be marred by maladaptive, painful attempts to resolve conflict. • Self-critics would experience more intense negative cognitive-affective ( -CAR) reactions and those reactions could be explained by the mediating variable of negative relational schemas ( -RS). • Negative cognitive-affective reactions were expected to have downstream effects such as higher levels of overt hostility and in turn trigger higher levels of overt hostility and distress in relational partners.

4. Method: Design • Self-report questionnaires • Measuring self criticism: DEQ & DAS • Measuring negativerelational schemas: Exit & Neglect Scales (Self), Attack & Compromise (Partner) • Measuring cognitive-affective reactions: POM & IMI • Video analysis • Measuring overt hostility & negative evaluations both on 5 point scales

5. Self-report Questionnaires (Self-Criticism) • DEQ: Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Blatt et al., 1976) • Assesses a broad range of feelings about the self and others (not the symptoms of depression); predicts vulnerability to dysphoria using hypothetical situations and actual failure situations • Ex: “There is a considerable difference between how I am now and how I would like to be” or “I often feel quilty” • DAS: Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (Weissman and Beck, 1978) • 7 items that correspond to Blatt’s (1974) conceptualization of self-criticism • Ex: “ If I do not do as well as other people, it means I am an inferior human being”

6. Self-report Questionnaires (Negative Relational Schemas) • Exit and Neglect Scales (Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986) • Assesses subjects cognitive representations about their own behavior • Exit: “actively destroying the relationship” • Ex: “When I am unhappy with my partner, I consider breaking up” • Neglect: “passively allowing one’s relationship to deteriorate” • Ex: “When I’m upset with my partner, I sulk rather than confront the issue” • Conflict Resolution Scales (Rands, Levinger, & Mellinger, 1981) • Assesses subjects cognitive representations about their partner’s behavior • Partner attack: “He says or does something to hurt my feelings” • Partner compromise: “He tries to work out a compromise”

7. Self-report Questionnaires (Cognitive-affective Reactions • POM: Profile of Mood States (Lorr & McNair, 1982) • Assesses subject’s mood state at the moment through 12 bipolar adjectives for 6 bipolar mood states • IMI: Impact Message Inventory (Kiesler, 1979) • Assesses subject‘s experiences during an interaction with a target individual on 6 subscales (agreeable, nurturant, affiliative, hostile, mistrusting, and detached) • Ex: “He makes me feel appreciated by him”, “he makes me feel cold”

8. Methods: Participants • 120 heterosexual college couples (mean age = 21.5), in “serious relationships” • Primary language spoken was English, few French • 2/3 recruited through newspaper ads seeking “dating couples” • Others through female psychology students • Dating for at least 3 months • According to women, the mean duration was 21 months with an average of 43 hours a week spent together • Each participant compensated $32

9. Methods: Procedure • Duration: 2 separate days • Day 1: • Informed consent, self-report measures (DEQ, Exit & Neglect) • Acclimatization to lab (“Fun Deck”) • POM • Video examining the social support process (focusing on girlfriend’s personal problems) • Day 2 (scheduled a minimum of 2 days after 1st testing) • Self-report measures (DAS, Conflict Resolution Scales) • Rank 5 areas of conflict (if no agreement, chose off of girlfriend’s list) • Video (discussed areas of conflict for 10 minutes) • POM • IMI

10. Methods: Coders • Who: 25 female undergraduate psychology students • How: groups of 4-6 • Read coding manual • Rated pilot tapes • Practiced with actual subjects • Reliabilities: coefficient alphas calculated using 4 raters • separately for the 1st and 2nd conversation • Separately for males and females • Tested for “halo-effect” • Unaware of self-report measures • French rated by bilingual or Francophone • Focused on 1 participant at a time • Watched entire conversation without interruption • Rated in sequential order designed to minimize “carry over” effects by maximizing the time between ratings

11. Main Results • H1 confirmed: SC associated with -RS • Self-critics perceived partner as prone to attacking and self as likely to engage in destructive responses • Conflict interactions associated with greater distress • H2 confirmed: -RS serve as a mediator predicting -CAR • Significant correlations between negative relational schemas & negative cognitive-affective reactions • H3 partially confirmed: -CAR reactions associated with greater overt hostility; weaker and less consistent with men • Subjects with –RS likely to have partners with –RS • Highly distressed or overtly hostile subjects likely to have partners who are also highly distressed or overtly hostile

12. Research Contributions • The way we view ourselves has effects on the way we handle/manage interpersonal conflict (intrapersonal -> interpersonal) • Gives us the knowledge to identify possible reasons why someone may be overtly hostile toward us in conflict situations • May help us form better reactions to those who exhibit overt hostility, knowing some of their underlying reasons or motivations

13. Limitations • Recruited by female students • Resorted to the female’s problems (ranking) • All female coders • Volunteers • Lab setting • Self-report measures • Generalize based on single occasion • Only romantic relationships • May have different results if males asked girlfriends to participate • If researcher chose to select personal problems of the boyfriends as well as the girlfriends • Female coders may have skewed perception, should have included males as well • This study included participants who volunteered, meaning they had prior interest or just wanted to make a quick buck • Self-report measures are solely subjective • Naturalistic observations along with lab setting may breed more generalizability • No inclination of this phenomenon in other interpersonally close relationships: could have included multiple forms