gender, power and attachment processes: multiple contextual considerations in the study of couple...
TRANSCRIPT
Gender, Power and Attachment Processes:
Multiple Contextual Considerations in the Study of Couple Power Dynamics over Time
Erin M. Miga, M.A., Joanna Chango , M.A, & Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D.
University of VirginiaSociety for Research in Child Development
04.02.2011
www.teenresearch.org
What are romantic power dynamics and why do they matter?
Negotiation between: emotional closeness vs. distance intimacy vs. isolation
Common to most couples,
yet pervasive in distressed
relationships
What are power dynamics and why do they matter?
Power imbalances have been directly linked to partner violence, divorce, and depressive symptoms (Babcock, Waltz,
Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993; Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen, 1999; Uebelacker,
Courtnage, & Whisman, 2003).
Research on power and pathology in dating relationships have been limited, results mixed(Bentley, Galliher, & Ferguson, 2007; Chung, 2005 , Kim, Capaldi, & Crosby, 2007).
Power Patterns
Christensen’s Demand Withdraw:
Gottman’s Rejection of Influence:
Demands(Domineering, Criticism) met with
Withdrawal(Stonewalling, Defensiveness)
D: “ You never help me out around the house! You never take out the trash, or cook for us, or clean up, ever!
W: “ I do too, I do too! Besides, I’ve been busy and you never notice when I help out”
Attempts to Influence(Whining, Sadness) met with
Rejection of Influence (Belligerence or Contempt)
A: “ Baaaaby.. We don’t go out anymooooreee…”
R: “ What, do you think the bills are going to pay themselves? I have to work, I don’t have time or money to make you happy 24/7”
Sample
87 target participants and their romantic partners, socioeconomically and racially diverse
Young adults &Partners
One year later
Young adults (M age=21)Partners (M age=22)Partners for avg. of
1.79 years
Time 1 Time 2
MeasuresPredictors:
Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF)-Teen age 21
18 dimensions (Teen and Partner-High and Low Negative/Positive affects) (Coan & Gottman, 2007; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989)
Outcomes: Anxious Symptoms- Teen age 22
Participant report: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
Romantic Jealousy
Participant report: Chronic Jealousy Scale (White, 1989)
Relationship Dissolution-Teen age 22
Participant self report
Part 1: Key Questions
1. Are these power dynamics predictive of subsequent pathology amongst a sample of young adults?
Part 1: Power Dynamics & Pathology: Main Effects
Relationship Break up
Demand -Withdraw
Jealous Symptoms
Age 21 Participant- partner conflict
Pcpt Age 22 Individual functioning
AnxiousSymptoms
Part 1: Rejection of Influence & Pathology: Main Effects
Relationship Break up
Rejection of Influence
Jealous Symptoms
Age 21 Participant- partner conflict
Pcpt Age 22 Individual functioning
AnxiousSymptoms
Non-significant links between power dynamics and pathology
Key Questions
1. Are these power patterns predictive of subsequent pathology amongst a sample of young adults?
No, power struggles do not directly predict increased risk for psychopathology or relationship break-up over time.
2. What moderating factors might interact with these power dynamics to predict relative change in pathology over time?
Part II: Contextual Considerations
Examine the moderating effects of:
Romantic Attachment Anxiety Gender
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Rel
ativ
e Inc
reas
es in
Par
ticip
ant J
ealo
usy
Partner Attempt to Influence-Participant Rejection of Influence
High Low
-.11
Low Participant Attachment Anxiety
Low High
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Rel
ativ
e Inc
reas
es in
Par
ticip
ant J
ealo
usy
Partner Attempt to Influence-Participant Rejection of Influence
-.11
.49**
Low Participant Attachment Anxiety
High Participant Attachment Anxiety
Low High
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Rel
ativ
e Inc
reas
es in
Par
ticip
ant J
ealo
usy
Partner Attempt to Influence-Participant Rejection of Influence
-.11
.49**
Low Participant Attachment Anxiety
High Participant Attachment Anxiety
Low High
Rejection of influencewas associated with relative increases in participant jealousy
over time for those withhigh attachment anxiety.
Relationship Break-UpMale Attempt
to Influence
Female Rejection of Influence
Note. * p < .05.
Teen Age 20
Teen Age 22
.33*
Income
Gender
Male attempt-female rejection of influence patterns were associated
with increased likelihood of relationship break-ups.
Take Home Points…
Power dynamics alone (Demand-Withdraw(DW), Rejection of Influence(RI)) are generally not major risk factors for future psychopathology.
Context matters: Power dynamics predict risky outcomes when coupled with relevant sub-contexts, such as gender and attachment dynamics.
Power patterns do not consistently predict internalizing and relationship distress over time.
Clinical Implications
As a couples clinician, pick your battles Power dynamics are not harmful to all couples, all of the
time!
Partners fall into specific roles in the power dynamics for a reason: Examine the function in these “dysfunctional” patterns.
Help partners give voice to the needs and motivations underlying the specific roles they adopt.
Limitations & Future Directions
Assess partner’s self perceptions of their respective “roles” in the power struggle; will enhance understanding of the mechanisms that link power struggles to pathology.
Examine associations between power
dynamics and offspring functioning.
Extend investigations of power dynamics
and attachment styles to same-sex couples.
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
Caroline White Ann Spilker
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.