1 / 27

Copies of this and related papers are available at: WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

Autonomy and Influence:. Associations Between Observed Romantic Partner Conflict Negotiations & Psychopathology Over Time. Erin M. Miga David Szwedo Joanna Chango Megan Schad Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D.

zuzana
Download Presentation

Copies of this and related papers are available at: WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Autonomy and Influence: Associations Between Observed Romantic Partner Conflict Negotiations & Psychopathology Over Time Erin M. Miga David SzwedoJoanna ChangoMegan Schad Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D. Presentation for the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on AdolescencePhiladelphia, PAMarch 12, 2010 Copies of this and related papers are available at:WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

  2. Why are Relationship Processes Worth Studying? • Poor relationship quality : • weakened immune functioning • heightened stress responses • internalizing symptoms • partner aggression (Barnett, Steptoe, & Garies, 2005; Coan, Babcock, Gottman, & Jacobson, 1997; Whisman & Beach, 2001)

  3. Why are Relationship Processes Worth Studying? • Gottman’s (1994) Four horsemen of the apocalypse: • Divorce • Relationship distress Contempt Defensiveness Stonewalling Belligerence Criticism

  4. Why are Relationship Processes Worth Studying? • Gottman’s models have failed to replicate, in sample of at-risk dating couples (Kim, Capaldi, & Crosby, 2007). • Little research has examined Gottman’s Horsemen in relation to internalizing distress and jealousy • Jealousy: • Particularly prevalent among shorter-term relationships(Knox, Zusman, Mabon, & Shriver, 1999). • Often misconstrued as sign of love • Linked to partner aggression, relationship control

  5. Research Questions • Part 1: Are Gottman’s horsemen predictive of internalizing distress in our young adult dating sample? • Part 2: Are power struggles in the romantic context predictive of internalizing distress over time? • Part 3: Are early adolescent peer autonomy processes predictive of romantic relationship qualities in young adulthood?

  6. Sample • 89 Adolescents, their peers, and romantic partners • 46% male, 54% female, 40% non-white, Median family income:$40-60, 000 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Teens (M age= 22.49) Teens (M age=14.21) Peers (M age=14.22) Friends for avg. of 4.42 years Teens (M age=20.85) Partners (M age=22.18) In relationship for avg. of 22.17 months

  7. Part 1: Measures • Predictors: • Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF)-Teen age 20 • 18 dimensions (Teen and Partner-High and Low Negative/Positive affects) (Coan & Gottman, 2007; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) • Outcomes: • Anxious and Depressive Symptoms- Teen age 22 • Teen report: Adult Self Report (ASR) (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003). • Self Worth • Teen report: Harter (Harter, 1988). • Romantic Jealousy • Teen report: Chronic Jealousy Scale (White, 1989)

  8. Part 1: Intra- psychic Implications of Partner Conflict Teen Age 22 Individual functioning Teen Age 20 Teen- partner conflict Jealous Symptoms + Horsemen + Internalizing Symptoms

  9. Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 .26*** Teen Jealousy1 (R2=.20*) Teen Jealousy .37*** Teen Belligerence -.27* Teen Self Worth2 (R2=.31***) Teen Self Worth .35** Gender Note. * p < .05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline Jealousy 2 results after controlling for baseline self worth Income

  10. Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 Teen Jealousy1 (R2=.16*) Teen Jealousy .26*** Partner Belligerence .33** Gender Note. * p < .05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline jealousy Income

  11. Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 Teen Jealousy1 (R2=.12) Teen Jealousy .26*** Partner Criticism .23* Teen Self Worth2 (R2=.33***) -.30** Teen Self Worth .35** Note. * p < .05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline Jealousy 2 results after controlling for baseline self worth Gender Income

  12. Part 1: Conclusions 2 of the 5 most corrosive affects, Belligerence and Criticism, predict increases in internalizing distress

  13. Part 2: Intra-psychic Implications of the Demand-Withdraw Pattern

  14. Power Struggles • Demand-withdraw pattern: • depressive symptoms • partner aggression • relationship dissolution( Berns & Jacobson, 1999; Byrne, Carr & Clark, 2004; Christensen & Shenk, 1991). • Specific links found between demands and internalizing distress • Little research on long-term outcomes • of withdrawal during relationship conflict

  15. Key Question: Who fares worse over time: the demander or the withdrawer?

  16. Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 .26*** Teen Jealousy1 (R2=.29**) Teen Jealousy Partner Domineering .42*** X Teen Stonewalling Note. * p < .05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline jealousy Gender Income

  17. Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 Teen Anxious and Depressive Symptoms (R2=.17*) Partner Domineering .33** X Teen Stonewalling Gender Note. * p < .05, p <.01, ***p <.001. Income

  18. Part 2: Conclusions • Demand -Withdraw patterns among young adult dating couples predictive of internalizing distress over time. • Does “demander” or “withdrawer” appear to experience more distress over time? Withdrawer

  19. Part 3: Precursors of Relationship Qualities • Peer relations: • a salient developmental task • play a role in romantic relationship formation in adolescence and emergent adulthood(Collins, 2003) • Externalizing, autonomy undermining behaviors in peer relations previously associated with: • Physical and relational partner aggression • (Capaldi, Dishion, Dishion, Stoolmiller &Yoerger, 2001; Schad, Szwedo, Antonishak, Hare, & Allen, 2008)

  20. Precursors of Relationship Qualities Early Adolescent Peer Relations Young Adult Romantic Functioning Autonomy Processes Positive and Negative Romantic Qualities

  21. Measures • Predictors: • Autonomy & Relatedness Coding System (Peer AR) (Allen, Porter, & McFarland, 2001)- Teen age 14 • Teen and peer promotion of autonomy • reasoning, confident tone • Teen and peer undermining autonomy • overpersonalizing, pressuring) • Teen and peer promotion of relatedness • warmth, validation • Teen and peer undermining of relatedness • rudeness

  22. Measures Outcomes: • Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) (Coan & Gottman, 2007; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) -Teen age 20 • 18 dimensions (Teen and Partner-High and Low Negative/Positive affects)

  23. Teen Age 14 Peer Context Teen Age 20 Romantic Context Teen Positive Autonomy & Relatedness -.26** Dyadic Belligerence & Stonewalling during Partner Conflict (R2=.08) -.26** Peer’s Use ofReasoning Teen and peer’s autonomy promoting behavior during conflict predicts lower levels of autonomy undermining affect during partner conflict 6 years later Gender Income Note. * p < .05, p<.01, ***p <.001.

  24. Conclusions • Adaptive friendship processes may play a role in reducing relationship distress over time. • Some emotions only matter in a dyadic context. • Withdrawal during partner conflict : greater risk factor than demand behavior amongst our dating couples. Copies of this and related papers are available at:WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

  25. Limitations & Future Directions • Modest sample size • Community sample • Need to examine specific sequences of teen-partner behavior • Need to more closely examine function of withdrawal behavior Copies of this and related papers are available at:WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

  26. Implications • Similar to marital relationships, Demand-Withdraw patterns in dating relationships: • exist • are predictive of distress over time • Intervene with couples during emergent adulthood, before marriage. • Highlights importance of an intervention such as • Emotionally Focused Marital Therapy (Johnson & Greenberg, 1985). Copies of this and related papers are available at:WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

  27. Acknowledgments I’d like to thank my collaborators: Joseph P. Allen Jim Coan J.P. Laurenceau Joanna Chango Megan Schad Amanda Hare Megan Ice Emily Marston Dave Szwedo Alex Carroll Joanna Stokes Amanda Letard GW Garrett Sam Breslin Mandy Daily Katy Higgins Jen Heliste Allison Knee I would also like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health ( Grant # R01-MH58066) and the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (Grant # 9R01HD058305-11A1) for funding awarded to J.P. Allen, Principal Investigator to conduct and write –up this research project.

More Related