Romantic attraction and conflict negotiation among late adolescent and early adult romantic couples (original) (raw)
Related papers
Individual differences and disagreement in romantic relationships
Personality and Individual Differences
We developed and validated the Reasons for Disagreement in Romantic Relationships Scale (RDRRS). We conducted act nomination (Study 1), investigated the items' component structure in a sample of newlywed couples (Study 2), and compared responses in the newlywed year to responses three years later (Study 3). First, we identified 82 reasons for disagreement. Second, 214 participants (107 couples) reported how frequently they disagreed about each issue in the past six months. The RDRRS contains 30 items organized into Inadequate Attention/Affection, Jealousy/Infidelity, Chores/Responsibilities, Sex, Control/Dominance, and Future Plans/ Money. Finally, we reassessed 138 participants three years later. The associations between disagreement and relationship satisfaction decreased over time. We recommend the RDRRS for assessing reasons for disagreement in romantic relationships.
Conflict resolution patterns and longevity of adolescent romantic couples: A 2-year follow-up study
Journal of Adolescence, 2006
This study examined the predictors of longevity among 40 late adolescent romantic couples (mean age males ¼ 17.71 years; mean age females ¼ 17.18 years). Subjects were given a revealed differences task where they were asked to solve their disagreements. The joint task was recorded, transcribed and analysed by two raters. At 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after this procedure, partners were contacted by telephone and asked whether their relationship was still intact. A cluster analysis was performed on couples' interaction indices and yielded three distinctive conflict resolution patterns. The Downplaying pattern was characterized by a high tendency to minimize the conflict. The relationships of the adolescents displaying this pattern stayed intact for a period of 9 months. Half of them were still together after 24 months. The adolescents displaying the Integrative pattern, which shows a good ability to negotiate differences tended to stay together over a period of 24 months. Those showing the Conflictive pattern, characterized by a confrontative interaction, were separated by the 3 months follow-up. Results are discussed within the context of developmental perspectives of conflict resolution tendencies and adolescent romance.
Conflict Beliefs, Goals, and Behavior in Romantic Relationships During Late Adolescence
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2008
Little is known about social cognition regarding conflict in romantic relationships during late adolescence. The current study examined beliefs, social goals, and behavioral strategies for conflict in romantic relationships and their associations with relationship quality among a sample of 494 college students. Two dimensions of conflict beliefs, constructive and destructive, were identified. Constructive conflict beliefs were associated with relationship-oriented conflict goals and negotiation strategies during romantic conflict. Destructive conflict beliefs were associated with conflict goals focused on revenge or individual needs (self or partner) and with destructive conflict behavior (aggression and compliance). Conflict goals partially mediated links between general conflict beliefs and specific conflict strategies. Conflict beliefs, goals, and behavior also uniquely predicted the degree of conflict and intimacy in romantic relationships.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2006
The study was designed to explore qualitatively developmental differences in disagreement negotiation and resolution skills between adolescent and young adult romantic partners. Twenty adolescent and 20 young adult couples participated in the study. The Knox inventory was used to measure the level of disagreement between partners on ten domains (e.g., friends or money). Partners were asked to discuss and resolve their greatest disagreement. Joint discussions were recorded and transcribed. A qualitative analysis of interactions revealed major differences between the two age groups, in discussion management and in strategies for resolution. Adolescents' interactions were concrete, concise, and brief. Their resolution of disagreements was based on superficial agreements or coercion of one partner. Young adults' interactions were more rich and developed, disagreements were understood as metaphors for the relationship, and resolution was accomplished by the two partners as a result of discussion. These differences are discussed in light of the theories on the development of romantic relationships.
How do couples disagree? An analysis of conflict resolution profiles and the quality of romantic relationships, 2019
This study aimed to identify conflict resolution profiles and assess relationship quality levels associated with each pro- file. The participants were 750 heterosexual couples living in southern Brazil. They filled out measures about conflict resolution strategies, relationship quality, and sociodemographic data. A latent profile analysis was conducted in order to classify participants regarding conflict resolution.Variance and association analyses were also conducted in order to exa- mine relationships between the resolution profiles and other study variables. Four profiles were identified: Low Conflict/ Withdraw, Validator, Hostile, and Volatile. The Validator profile showed higher relationship quality, followed by Low Conflict/Withdraw and Volatile profiles, which did not differ from each other, and the Hostile, which showed low levels of relationship quality. We conclude that even though validation and negotiation are desirable, emotionally intense stra- tegies may also be beneficial for couples in some contexts.
Conflict Negotiation Tactics in Romantic Relationships in High School Students
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1998
To investigate how teenagers deal with conflict in romantic relationships, 869 high school students (mean age 16, range 14–19), experienced in romantic relations, completed a conflict tactic scale (adapted from Rands et al., 1981, and Straus, 1979). A principal components analysis revealed six factors, which in descending frequency of use were Compromise, Distraction, Avoidance, Overt Anger, Seeking Social Support, and Violence. Conflict tactics varied as a function of demographic characteristics. Specifically, older teens used Compromise more than younger; girls used Compromise and Overt Anger more and Distraction less than boys; African-Americans used Violence more and Compromise less than European-Americans, whereas Asian-Americans used Distraction and Avoidance more than European-Americans. To assess predictors of conflict tactics, teens also completed scales assessing self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), immature and mature defense mechanisms (Araujo and Steiner, 1998, under review) and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Achenbach, 1966). Each of these was singly and jointly associated with the use of conflict tactics. In multiple regression analyses, the externalizing problem score best predicted Overt Anger and Violence in dealing with romantic conflict, the internalizing problem score best predicted Avoidance and Distraction; whereas the mature defense mechanism score was the best predictor of seeking Social Support and Compromise.
Improved conflict resolution in romantic couples in mediation compared to negotiation
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Despite the frequency and adverse effects of conflict, randomized controlled studies on interventions that could promote conflict resolution (e.g., among romantic couples) are scarce. One understudied intervention technique is mediation, which is a negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party. To test the impact of a mediator on couple conflict, we conducted a randomized controlled study involving 38 romantic couples who discussed a topic of recurrent disagreement either in the presence of a mediator or by means of a direct negotiation. The results show that romantic couples in the mediation condition, compared with those in direct negotiation, had a probability of reaching an agreement 1.39 times higher and reported higher satisfaction regarding the content and process of their discussions. In addition, the synchronicity of the couple’s skin conductance, a measure of arousal, correlated with the couple’s closeness and with the quality of their relationship. Our findings suggest...
Intimacy Goals and Strategies of Conflict Resolution in Dating Relationships: A Mediational Analysis
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2002
This research examined the associations among intimacy goals in dating, strategies for managing romantic conflict, and relationship satisfaction. One hundred and eighty-nine students completed a questionnaire assessing their intimacy goals and conflict resolution strategies in three distinct ways, namely responses to a general romantic conflict resolution scale, responses to specific hypothetical dating conflicts, and reactions to conflicts experienced in their own relationships. Individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals were more likely to engage in open discussion and compromise, show concern for their partner, and seek social support, whereas they were less likely to deny or ignore the conflict. They were also more likely to successfully resolve the conflict (e.g., maintain the relationship). Moreover, the use of open discussion and concern for one's partner mediated the association between intimacy goals and relationship satisfaction. The discussion focuses on the theoretical and applied implications of these findings.
Journal of Adolescence, 2008
This study examined the association between conflict negotiation and the expression of autonomy in adolescent romantic partners. Thirty-seven couples participated in a globally coded conflict interaction task. Actor-partner interdependence models (APIM) were used to quantify the extent to which boys' and girls' autonomy was linked solely to their own negotiation of the conflict or whether it was linked conjointly to their own and their partners' negotiation style. Combining agentic autonomy theories and peer socialization models, it was expected that boys' and girls' autonomy would be associated only with their own conflict behaviors when they employed conflict styles reflective of their same gender repertoire, and associated conjointly with self and partner behaviors when they employed gender-atypical conflict styles. Instead of an equal, albeit distinct, positioning in the autonomy dynamic, the results suggested that girls' autonomy is associated solely with their own conflict behaviors, whereas boys' autonomy is jointly associated with their own and their partners' conflict behaviors. We discuss the relative power of boys and girls in emergent dyadic contexts, emphasizing how romantic dynamics shape salient abilities. r