Social allergies in romantic relationships: Behavioral repetition ...

Personal Relationships, 12 (2005), 273–295. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright Ó 2005 IARR. 1350-4126=05

Social allergies in romantic relationships: Behavioral repetition, emotional sensitization, and dissatisfaction in dating couples

MICHAEL R. CUNNINGHAM, a STEPHEN R. SHAMBLEN, b ANITA P. BARBEE, a AND LARA K. AULT c a University of Louisville; bTNS-NFO; cHoly Family University

Abstract A social allergy is a reaction of hypersensitive annoyance or disgust to a repeated behavior. Two studies were conducted on the social allergen categories of uncouth habits, inconsiderate acts, intrusive behaviors, and norm violations. Study 1 focused on hypothetical male and female partner behaviors at 2 and 12 months in a dating relationship. Study 2 obtained reports of social allergens performed by the individual and partner in dating couples, as well as the individual’s emotional responses and relationship outcomes. Social allergens were perceived to increase in frequency over time in both studies, with some indications that men were more uncouth and norm violating and women were more inconsiderate and intrusive. Study 2 also found that the more often that the partner performed an allergenic behavior, the stronger was the individual’s negative emotional reaction. Further, frequent and emotionally intense social allergens were associated with relationship dissatisfaction, and with termination assessed a year later.

It’s inevitable . Sudenly, all you’re aware of is that there are too many wet towels on the floor, he’s hogging the remote, and he’s scratching his back with a fork. Finally, you come face to face with the immutable truth that it’s virtually impossible to French-kiss a person who takes the new roll of toilet paper and leaves it resting on top of the empty cardboard roll. God forbid he takes the two seconds to replace it. Does he not see it? DOES HE NOT SEE IT? (Reiner, 2000) The Story of Us

This work was supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Development grant (HD042245-01A2) to the first author, and University of Louisville research grant to the first and third authors. Thanks to Alice Edwards for her help with Study 2. Correspondence should be addressed to Michael R. Cunningham, University of Louisville, Department of Communication, Louisville, KY 40292, e-mail: michael. [email protected].

The closeness and familiarity of a romantic relationship can create a range of emotions, from contentment to contempt. As romantic relationships develop, partners generally spend more time together, and disclose more, both verbally and nonverbally (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Knapp & Vangelisti, 1996; Tolhuizen, 1989). Learning about the partner’s hopes and dreams, and exchanging support, kindness, and affection, can lead to love and commitment. But the process of going backstage and learning everything there is to know about the other person’s private self can also lead to some undesirable surprises (Miller, 1997). The cherished partner may possess some uncouth habits, such as those noted in the film quote, that are aversive. Repetition-sensitization and social allergies Relatively minor unpleasant behaviors appear to affect a person’s emotions in a manner that resembles how physical allergens function

273

274

immunologically. The first experience with a physical allergen, such as poison ivy, is likely to produce a small negative reaction. With repeated contact with poison ivy, however, sensitivity tends to increase, and the negative response is stronger. The same repetitionsensitization response appears to occur in emotional reactions following a partner’s unpleasant behavior. The first time that an individual discovers that the radio buttons have been reprogrammed following the use of the car by a romantic partner, the individual is likely to experience mild irritation. Each additional time that such behaviors occur, the individual’s emotional reaction may become a bit stronger. We describe social behaviors that grate on people’s emotions like a pebble in a shoe as ‘‘social allergens’’ (Cunningham, Barbee, & Druen, 1997). A social allergen is defined as an emotion-arousing behavior or situation created by another person that is seen as unpleasant, but not as unbearably aversive, by objective observers. Through repeated exposure at periodic intervals, or through prolonged initial contact, a social allergen may produce a social allergy in the individual. A social allergy is defined as a reaction of hypersensitive annoyance or disgust to a social allergen. The repetition-sensitization mechanism proposed in social allergies is consistent with established principles of mood-congruent memory (Blaney, 1986). When a partner performs an annoying behavior, that behavioral stimulus may activate memories of similar prior incidents, including the emotions associated with those incidents. The emotion currently generated by the annoying behavior, the recalled prior emotions, plus any other negative emotion from the events of the day may combine to produce a feeling of more intense negative affect than was originally produced by the behavior alone. The allergenic behavioral stimulus then becomes associated with the individual’s total negative affect to produce a stronger conditioned negative emotional response to the allergen in the future. Individuals may be unaware of the summation of diverse sources of affect (Martin & Clore, 2001). Social allergies seem to be common experiences. We surveyed 150 university student

M. R. Cunningham et al.

respondents, asking about ‘‘people whom you cannot stand to be around, who drive you crazy without them necessarily intending to do so. We are particularly interested in situations in which you have such strong feelings toward a person that it takes very little for the person to irritate, offend you, or cause physical symptoms’’ (Cunningham et. al., 1997). Every respondent was able to name at least one person who got under his or her skin; the average was one relative and three nonrelatives. When asked to identify the one person who generated the strongest negative feelings, 18% of the nominations were for romantic partners, 30% were for friends, 18% were for coworkers, 17% were for supervisors or teachers, and 14% were for family members or other relatives. Such data are useful to demonstrate that social allergies are not restricted to one type of relationship, but should not be taken as the likelihood of a given relationship producing a social allergy, because some respondents had not been in romantic relationships, or had not held full-time jobs. It is understandable that relationships that are largely involuntary, such as with supervisors, coworkers, and relatives, could be irritating (Hess, 2000). It is less obvious why a partner would engage in allergenic behaviors that cause annoyance, especially when the irritated individual could simply terminate the relationship. We suggest that a series of interrelated processes, which includes changes within the individual in the buffering impact of passion and changes within the partner in terms of impression management and self-restraint, contributes to the development of social allergies in romantic relationships. Reduced passion, disenchantment, and social allergies Early in a romantic relationship, the individual may experience a certain level of blissful ignorance about the partner. Individuals may initially see their partners as being better than they really are due to individuals possessing more romantic beliefs and idealization (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Sprecher & Metts, 1999) and greater passionate love (Rubin, 1970; Walster & Walster, 1978) in the first few

Social allergies in romantic relationships

months of the relationship compared to later. This idealization and passion may prevent individuals from recognizing or feeling unpleasant affect from a dating partner’s negative behaviors (Cunningham et al., 1997). Commitment may develop before the individual is sensitized to the partner’s aversive behaviors. Lacking feedback, the partner may be unaware that some behaviors are aversive. Davis and Schmidt (1977) suggested that obnoxious people do not believe that they are persecuting others, even when they are. Further, Baumeister, Stillwell, and Wotman (1990) found that when people were perpetrators of provocative acts, they tended to see their behavior as meaningful and justifiable. They also saw such actions as isolated events that did not have lasting implications. Increasing exposure may cause a more realistic perception of the partner, and some disenchantment. Further, as romantic passion dissipates with time, there are weaker positive feelings to buffer the impact of the partner’s negative behaviors, even if the frequency of such behaviors does not change. Felmlee’s (1995, 1998, 2001) studies of fatal attractions, in which the same quality that attracted individuals to partners was later seen negatively, are congruent with the notion that individuals change their reaction over time to the partner’s consistent behavior. Fatal attractions, such as a partner who was first seen as desirably laid back was later seen as annoyingly irresponsible, or a partner who was first seen as commendably strong was later seen as irritatingly stubborn, were reported by 27% of respondents in one sample (Felmlee, 1995) and 44% in a second sample (Felmlee, 2001). Fatal attractions were more likely the more dissimilar, unique, or extreme the partner’s characteristics (Felmlee, 1998). Such results suggest that while some stimuli may become more likeable with increased exposure, others may become more boring (Bornstein, Kale, & Cornell, 1990) or more irritating with repetition. Deromantization and social allergen performance A second cause of social allergies is the partner’s gradual reduction in impression man-

275

agement efforts to be romantically appealing, a process that we term ‘‘deromantization.’’ Close relationship partners strive to be on their best romantic behavior in the beginning of close relationships (cf. Rose & Frieze, 1993). For example, dating partners tend to spend more time preening in the bathroom (Ekman et al., 1999), and women tend to eat less on first dates (Pliner & Chaiken, 1990) than they do later. But it requires effort to present a positive face and be attractive and self-controlled, and such efforts are in conflict with negative face motives, or the desire to be unconstrained and assert one’s real self (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Over time, circumstances may facilitate deromantization or a shift from positive to negative face concerns. Once the individual has invested time and other resources in a romantic relationship, termination of the relationship would produce a wasteful loss of investment (Rusbult, 1983). Further, once the individual has become committed, there is a tendency to lose touch with other attractive alternatives (cf. Felmlee, Sprecher, & Bassin, 1990). If a partner recognizes the individual’s predicament, finds maintaining a positive face to be taxing after passion has waned, and has some desire to express negative face, then the partner could engage in deromantization as a mild variety of rational selective exploitation (Rusbult, Campbell, & Price, 1990). This could take the form of partners reducing the romantic effort that they devote to their relationships, including the self-control of personal traits and emotions and the selfmonitoring of opinions and preferences. Such deromantization could result in a higher frequency of partner allergenic behaviors, which the individual has little choice but to accommodate (Miller, 1997). Several longitudinal studies demonstrated that negative behaviors increase over time in close relationships, although the foci of such studies tended to be on major forms of aversive behavior. Sprecher and Felmlee (1993) examined changes in behaviors over 3 months and found that conflict increased over time in dating relationships that dissolved. Increases in conflict were not detected over

276

2 months in a very small dating sample (Berg & McQuinn, 1986), but relationship costs were found to increase in dating couples over the course of an academic semester (Rusbult, 1983). Lloyd and Cate (1985) examined retrospective reports of individuals’ levels of conflict and reported that it steadily increased at each of five relationship stages. Increasing negativity was particularly evident in troubled marriages. Lindahl, Clements, and Markman (1998) examined conflict in couples over a 9-year period, beginning prior to marriage, and couplesÕ negative behavior during a problem-solving task was found to increase over time. Gottman and Levenson (1992) also found increases in negativity among couples who were on the road to dissolution, as did Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, and George (2001). Although most of the foregoing studies did not focus on the causes of increased negative behavior, such as deromantization, reduced impression management between romantic partners has been observed. Birchler and his colleagues had spouses resolve issues for which they disagreed (Birchler, Weiss, & Vincent, 1975; Vincent, Weiss, & Birchler, 1975). These same spouses were then asked to resolve a conflict with a stranger. Interaction responses were coded for positivity (agreement, approval, humor, ascent, laughter, positive physical contact, smiling), negativity (complaining, criticizing, denying responsibility, excuses, putting down, interrupting, disagreeing, ignoring, inattention, turning off), and problem solving (offering a solution, accepting responsibility, compromise). Spouses were found to display more negative and fewer positive behaviors toward one another than toward strangers, suggesting a reduction in impression management toward intimates. Categories of social allergens Allergenic behaviors may take a number of forms. Cunningham et al. (1997) suggested that allergenic behaviors varied on the two dimensions of personalism (Jones & Davis, 1965) and intentionality (Heider, 1958). Personalism refers to whether the partner’s behaviors are personally directed toward the


individual, as opposed to behaviors that are performed by the partner without focusing on the individual. Intentionality concerns behaviors that are done on purpose, as opposed to behaviors that are performed habitually, accidentally, or without thinking about the consequences. The intersection of personalism and intentionality produces four categories of allergens. Uncouth habits are partner behaviors that are neither intentional nor personally directed, such as displaying poor grooming, failing to clean up the bathroom after oneself, or displaying poor manners at the dinner table. Inconsiderate acts are partner behaviors that are unintentional but are personally imposing, such as expecting disproportionate attention, being chronically late for appointments, or being self-preoccupied in conversations with the individual. Intrusive behaviors are partner actions that are both intentional and personally directed, such as frequently criticizing, giving commands without having legitimate authority, acting jealously possessive and controlling, or behaving in a threatening manner. Norm violations are intentional partner behaviors that violate the individual’s standards of propriety but are not personally directed, such as the partner drinking to excess, avoiding work, or flirting with other people. Note that the partner’s norm violations may cause intense personal hurt, but the actions are not personally focused on the individual. Initial efforts to classify allergenic behaviors were conducted using theoretical analyses followed by the assessment of interrater reliability on qualitative data (Cunningham et al., 1997). We subsequently conducted principal components analyses on perceptions of social allergen behaviors in three samples (n ¼ 151, n ¼ 260, and n ¼ 266) and found consistent support for a four-factor model (Shamblen, 2004). Converging evidence for the prototypicality of the four allergen categories may be derived from work on related issues. Miller (2000) studied what he termed ‘‘breaches of propriety,’’ which were defined as behaviors that were seen as violating rules for social behavior. He asked 64 undergraduates to


indicate improprieties and the bothersomeness of those improprieties. The improprieties that occurred most frequently in Miller’s data also were evident in the social allergy typology, with the allergy terms indicated in brackets on first use. These included (a) control of body (e.g., picking scabs, flatulating) [uncouth habits], (b) rudeness [uncouth habits or intrusive behavior], and (c) selfishness [inconsiderate acts]. The top three improprieties that were found to be the most bothersome were (a) maliciousness [intrusive behavior], (b) rudeness, and (c) other’s sensitivity (being thin skinned, being uptight) [inconsiderate acts]. The top three impact ratings (bothersomeness frequency) were (a) rudeness, (b) selfishness, and (c) insufficient manners [uncouth habits]. The allergy behaviors in norm violations were not included in Miller’s breaches of propriety, although they might qualify. Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, and EvansÕ (1998) work on hurt feelings focused on behaviors that implied devaluation of the relationship by the partner. The behaviors that caused hurt feelings also overlapped with the social allergen categories, including being unappreciated [inconsiderate acts]; criticism, being teased, active dissociation [intrusive behaviors]; infidelity and passive dissociation [norm violations]. The allergy behaviors in uncouth habits were not listed among those that caused hurt feelings, although a partner’s failure to maintain customary standards of personal decorum could imply that the partner is taking the individual for granted. Gender and allergen performance As deromantization occurs, the negative behaviors expressed by a partner may differ as a function of gender-based behavioral patterns. Historically, women had a greater need than did men to rely on their appearance and on their romantic relationships for tangible resources (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Miller, Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Pedersen, 2002; Shackelford & Buss, 1997). By contrast, men cross-culturally were assigned such dirty and demanding tasks as hunting, mining, and

277

warfare, in part because men were less likely to be interrupted by mobility restrictions due to pregnancy and lactation (Rosenblatt & Cunningham, 1976). Once males had been slated for such roles, they also may have been trained to be task focused and indifferent to dirt and slime, and be emotionally constricted when confronting distress in peers, rather than attentive and considerate. Consistent with this analysis, a study of gender stereotypes found that men were seen to enact more boorish and domineering behaviors, whereas women were perceived to perform more neurotic behaviors (Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan, 1979). Behaviors that are performed at a higher level by the opposite gender than by one’s own gender seem to be a particular source of annoyance. The behaviors that annoyed men the most were women’s moody, sexually withholding, and physically self-absorbed behaviors (Buss, 1989). Women were most annoyed by men’s sexually persistent behaviors, behaviors that insulted their physical appearance, neglectful behaviors, condescending behaviors, and emotionally constricted behaviors. These gender-typed behaviors also were inversely related to marital satisfaction for both women and men, respectively (Buss, 1991). Although such results are intriguing, it should be noted that gender differences in behavior are often a function of the study’s methodology and definition of the behavior. Whereas some social stereotype studies found men to be domineering, direct observational studies, such as Gottman and Levinson (1992, cf. 1999a), found that wives were more likely to display more challenging and derogatory behavior than husbands. In the present context, it might be noted that principal component analyses of social allergen reports indicated that insults and condescension behavior were classified as intrusive behaviors; moody, physically self-absorbed behavior and sexual refusals were categorized as inconsiderate acts; but neglectful behaviors were divided between inconsiderate acts and norm violations, depending on the behavior. Sexually persistent behaviors were tested but did not load on a social allergy factor

278

(Shamblen, 2004). Regardless, such results suggest the likelihood of gender differences in the frequency of social allergenic behavior and in the emotional responses to them. Cognitive symbolic dynamics and social allergies Although simple repetition may be the primary cause of behaviors becoming increasingly aversive, symbolic dynamics also may be involved. Individuals may react with particular aversion to the sex-typed social allergens of their partners because they were discouraged by both training and temperament to perform such behaviors themselves. Women may find some stereotypically male behaviors, such as uncouth habits, to be aversive because their socialization strenuously discouraged such actions. Conversely, men may find some stereotypically female behavior, such as moody complaining, to be annoying because it was sanctioned during their own upbringing. Gender-congruent behaviors may be annoying, but partner behaviors that violate sex-role stereotypes also may be distasteful to the perceiver. In mixed-sex interactions, male confederates who behaved submissively and female targets who behaved in a dominant manner were perceived as less likeable (Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, & Pascale, 1975). Women also disliked male confederates who exhibited an unmasculine fear response to horror films (Zillman, Weaver, Mundorf, & Aust, 1986). It may be difficult to symbolically incorporate into the self a person who displays stigmatized behaviors (cf. Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). In addition to the foregoing, the partner’s frequent performance of allergenic behaviors may cause the individual to make a negative dispositional attribution about the partner, such as believing that the allergenic behaviors are intentional or due to a stable internal character flaw (Jones & Davis, 1965; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Finally, if the individual asked the partner to control the allergenic behavior but it continues to occur, then the behavior may acquire additional negativity as a symbol of an unresolved problem, reduced


closeness, and diminished respect (Barbee, Cunningham, Druen, & Yankeelov, 1996). Reports that allergenic behaviors may be perceived as breaches of propriety (Miller, 2000) and may cause hurt feelings (Leary et al., 1998) also are consistent with this reasoning. The current studies To recapitulate, the decline of initial passion and disillusionment may cause the individual to notice and experience negative emotions following partner behaviors that were previously overlooked. Further, deromantization, or the decline of the partner’s positive impression management efforts, may cause an increase in the frequency of the partner’s negative behaviors, including gender-stereotypical behaviors that were previously suppressed. An additional element in the allergy process is repetitionsensitization, in which the increasingly frequent behaviors cause escalating emotions through affect-memory dynamics. Finally, cognitive symbolic processes, such as attributions that the partner possesses stigmatized traits, is intentionally irritating, or devalues the relationship, may exacerbate allergic feelings. The current studies were designed to advance our understanding of the social allergy process by examining perceptions of changes in the likelihood of unpleasant behaviors in close relationships in Study 1 and the impact of allergenic behaviors on emotions, dissatisfaction, and relationship dissolution in Study 2. Study 1 focused on deromantization, the perception of social allergens becoming more prevalent over time. More specifically, in Study 1, we asked respondents about the frequency that they believed typical males and females performed specific behaviors, either in the first 2 months of a dating relationship or after a year. By focusing on general social perceptions, Study 1 allowed assessment of deromantization independently of disenchantment, or the potentially biased perception of a specific dissatisfying partner. Based on past findings, we predicted that (a) social allergens would increase over time in a romantic relationship, (b) men would be seen as engaging in more masculine gender-role stereotypic negative behaviors, such as uncouth


behaviors and norm violations, and (c) women would be seen as engaging in more feminine gender-role stereotypic behaviors, such as inconsiderate acts, the longer they had been dating. An increase in the frequency of aversive behavior contributes to social allergies but does not demonstrate the repetition-sensitization dynamic of allergens becoming more aversive over time. Study 2 provided information relevant to repetition-sensitization, by examining the relation between behavior frequency and affect intensity, and the relation between relationship length and allergen impact. In Study 2, both members of dating couples reported on the frequency of their partner’s and their own allergenic behaviors, the valence and intensity of emotion that they experienced when the partner performed each behavior, and their satisfaction with the relationship. A year later, we evaluated whether the couple was still together or had separated. We expected that (a) partner perceptions and individual self-reports of social allergens would be correlated, (b) greater perceived frequency of partner allergens would be associated with stronger negative emotions in the individual, (c) greater perceived frequency and impact of social allergens would be associated with reduced relationship satisfaction, and (d) greater social allergen impact would predict relationship dissolution. Study 1 Method Participants One hundred and sixty-one introductory psychology students (79 men and 82 women) from a Southeastern university voluntarily completed the study to fulfill a research participation requirement. All participants provided their informed consent to participate in the study. The mean age of these participants was 19.96 years (M men ¼ 19.91; M women ¼ 20.00). The majority of the participants were Caucasian (85%), with African Americans (8%), Latinos (2%), and other racial groups (5%) also participating in the study.

279

Measures The Romantic Relationship Act Inventory (RRAI) consists of 42 allergenic behaviors that were extracted from a larger pool of 83 possible social allergens that were drawn from Cunningham et al. (1997), the causes of upset and anger reported by Buss (1989), and items generated by the authors, seven graduate students, and 31 upper-level undergraduate students who were asked to list behaviors that may change as close relationships progress. Item selection was based on principal components analyses replicated across three samples, including the present Studies 1 and 2, and a third longitudinal sample of dating couples, the details of which are reported in Shamblen (2004). Consistent support was found for four categories of social allergens, and no support was found for coherent fifth or higher factors. Uncouth habits (behavior not intentional or personally directed, 8 items, a ¼ .84): partner noisily belches, shows a lack of concern for being clean, uses a lot of profanity, wears old tattered clothing. Inconsiderate acts (behavior not intentional but personally imposing, 12 items, a ¼ .85): the partner frequently asks the individual about his or her appearance, takes too many things when traveling, keeps the individual out shopping too long, expresses excessive needs for emotional support. Intrusive behavior (behavior intentional and personally imposing, 11 items, a ¼ .92): partner demands that the individual do things, complains about individual’s actions that disappointed or angered in the distant past, is rude, insulting, impolite, or disrespectful to the individual. Norm violations (behavior intentional but not personally directed, 11 items, a ¼ .85): partner does not work hard at job or school, gambles, goes out with friends instead of individual, and flirts with members of the opposite sex.

Procedure Approximately half of the participants (n ¼ 82, 39 men and 43 women) were asked to indicate how often they thought the typical man and the typical woman performed each behavior after they had been dating for

.61 .72 .34 .56 .51 .37 .96 2.59 .04 .03 .08 2.05 .13 1.62 .11 .03 .40 .69 .02 .27 .79 .05 .66 .51 .59 9.25 ,.001 .00 .02 .98 .11 1.34 .18 .07 .89 .37 .06 .82 .43 2.08 2.96 .34 .14 1.75 .08 .15 1.96 .05 2.02 2.27 .79 .07 .86 .389 .06 .72 .48 .05 .63 .53 Note. n men ¼ 79; n women ¼ 82.

.05 .58 .57 .22 2.91 .004 .17 2.20 .03 .18 2.32 .02 Uncouth habits .64 10.52 ,.001 Inconsiderate acts 2.71 212.75 ,.001 Intrusive behaviors 2.07 2.84 .40 Norm violations .41 5.60 ,.001

p t b p t r t

p

r

t

p

r

t

p

t

p

t b b

p

Target Perceiver Gender Relationship Stage Perceiver Relationship Stage Target Relationship Stage Target Perceiver Gender

r

Displays of uncouth habits were seen as the most common allergenic behaviors, followed by inconsiderate acts, 3.10 versus 2.64, t(160) ¼ 4.90, p ,.0001. Inconsiderate acts were perceived to occur more frequently than intrusive behaviors, 2.64 versus 2.39, t(160) ¼ 4.26, p ,.0001. Intrusive behaviors were believed to occur with roughly the same frequency as norm violations, 2.38 versus 2.43, t(160) ¼ 21.04, ns. A 2 (sex of target) 2 (2 month vs. 12 month) 2 (sex of perceiver) repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to examine the impact of gender and relationship stage on perceived allergen frequency. To facilitate comparison with the results of Study 2, F ratios were converted to Student’s t statistics, and effect size correlations (Rosenthal, 1991) also are reported. As evident in Table 1, the sexes differed in the frequency that they were seen as performing social allergens. Men were seen as engaging in more uncouth behavior, 3.67 versus 2.58, t(159) ¼ 10.52, r ¼ .64, p ¼ .007, and norm violations, 2.68 versus 2.27, t(159) ¼ 5.60, r ¼ .41, p , .0001, than

Relationship stage

Overall and gender differences in the frequency of social allergens

Perceiver gender differences

Results

Target gender differences

2 months, on a scale ranging from 1 ¼ less than once a month or never, to 9 ¼ 4 or more times per day. The order of presentation of the genders was counterbalanced. The other half of participants (n ¼ 79, 40 men and 39 women) indicated how often they thought the typical man and the typical woman performed each behavior after couples had been dating for 1 year. Thus, all participants responded about the typical man’s and the typical woman’s behavior, and approximately half of the sample responded about each hypothetical time period, 2 or 12 months. Making length of relationship a between-subjects variable increased variance and reduced the likelihood of obtaining a relationship length effect but had the advantage of eliminating any experimental demand for respondents to report changes in behavior across time.


Table 1. Study 1. Perceived gender differences in social allergens as a function of perceiver gender and relationship stage (2 vs. 12 months in relationships)

280


281

Table 2. Study 1. Perception of the frequency of male and female partner’s social allergens at two relationship stages 2 Months

Male behavior Uncouth habits Inconsiderate Intrusiveness Norm violations Female behavior Uncouth habits Inconsiderate acts Intrusive behaviors Norm violations

12 Months

M

SD

M

SD

t

p

d

r

2.92 1.99 2.23 2.59

1.29 .85 1.16 1.02

4.45 2.03 2.51 2.77

1.28 .92 1.25 1.12

7.54 .27 1.48 1.06

.001 .788 .140 .289

1.19 .05 .23 .17

.51 .02 .12 .08

1.97 3.14 2.27 2.22

.87 1.24 1.13 1.02

3.21 3.37 2.60 2.31

1.14 1.24 1.26 .95

7.84 1.17 1.77 .59

.001 .244 .079 .558

1.23 .19 .28 .09

.53 .09 .14 .05

Note. n men ¼ 79; n women ¼ 82.

women, and women were seen as engaging in more inconsiderate acts than men, 3.25 versus 2.01, t(159) ¼ 12.75, r ¼ 2.71, p , .001. Men were not seen as significantly more intrusive than women overall, 2.32 versus 2.44, t(159) ¼ 2.84, r ¼ .07, ns. Instead, male perceivers saw female targets as engaging in more intrusive behaviors than female perceivers saw female targets enacting, 2.71 versus 2.17, t(160) ¼ 2.20, r ¼ .17, p ¼ .05. Male perceivers also saw both genders as performing more inconsiderate acts, 2.82 ver-

sus 2.46, t(160) ¼ 2.91, r ¼ .22, p ¼ .004, and norm violations than did female perceivers, 2.58 versus 2.29, t(160) ¼ 2.32, r ¼ .18, p , .02. Perceived changes over time The impact of relationship stage on the performance of social allergens was tested by comparing the perceived frequencies of behavior at 2 months versus 1 year. Both men, 2.92 versus 4.45, t(159) ¼ 7.54, r ¼

Table 3. Study 2. Reliabilities for individual and partner reports of social allergen frequencies, and comparability of reports

apartner aself M partner M self SD partner SD self Men’s behavior Uncouth habits Inconsiderate acts Intrusive behavior Norm violations Women’s behavior Uncouth habits Inconsiderate acts Intrusive behavior Norm violations

Partner Partner Partner versus versus versus self, t self, r self, r att

.71 .66 .89 .69

.60 .70 .80 .65

3.23 1.62 1.65 1.70

3.29 1.79 1.78 1.82

1.53 1.03 1.38 .99

1.49 1.20 1.12 1.00

2.39 21.37 2.94 2.93

.42** .39** .42** .18y

.64** .57** .50** .26*

.64 .74 .83 .67

.67 .68 .89 .63

2.80 2.70 2.06 1.54

2.75 2.48 1.85 1.49

1.33 1.42 1.26 .92

1.32 1.18 1.42 .86

.31 1.52 1.47 .46

.47** .35** .43** .13

.71** .49** .50** .20*

Note. N ¼ 102–104.*p , .05. **p , .01. y p , .10; subscript att indicates attenuation-corrected correlation.

282

Table 4. Study 2. Comparison of individual’s report of the partner’s behavior frequency, and the partner’s report of his or her own behavior frequency, as predictors of the individual’s satisfaction Individual’s report of the partner’s behavior Perceived women’s behavior and men’s satisfaction

Satisfaction Uncouth habits Inconsiderate acts Intrusive behaviors Norm violations

Partner’s self-report of own behavior

Perceived men’s behavior and women’s satisfaction

Women’s self-reported behavior and men’s satisfaction

Men’s self-reported behavior and women’s satisfaction

r

M

SD

r

M

SD

r

M

SD

r

M

SD

— .03 .04 2.32** 2.33**

4.07 2.80 2.70 2.06 1.54

.68 1.33 1.42 1.26 .92

— .12 2.01 2.29** 2.40**

4.14 3.23 1.62 1.65 1.70

.55 1.53 1.03 1.38 .99

— .03 .03 2.11 -.13

4.07 2.75 2.48 1.85 1.49

.68 1.32 1.18 1.42 .86

— .14 .03 -.17 2.13

4.14 3.29 1.79 1.78 1.82

.55 1.49 1.20 1.12 1.00

Men

Women

— — .00 2.16 2.08 2.36 22.07* 21.16 21.60y 22.29* M. R. Cunningham et al.

Note. N ¼ 102–104. **p , .01. *p , .05. y p , .15. à Test of significant difference between two dependent correlations were performed in these analyses.

Differences in correlationsà


283

Table 5. Study 2. HLM analyses of allergen emotional impact as predictors of couple’s relationship satisfaction Relationship satisfaction Individual tests

Uncouth habits Inconsiderate acts Intrusive behaviors Norm violations Days seen per week

Gender

Simultaneous tests

Effect sizes

t

p

Effect sizes

t

p

.24 .35 .27 .19 .21 .20 .20 .19 .11 .08 .09 .07

2.49 3.71 2.82 1.93 2.99 2.94 2.90 2.76 1.51 1.08 1.24 .93

.01 .0001 .005 .05 .003 .004 .004 .006 .13 .28 .21 .35

.07 .23 .17 .01 .21

.68 2.36 1.72 .14 3.09

.50 .02 .09 .89 .001

.09

1.34

.18

Note. n couples ¼ 101. Individual tests indicate that each allergen, plus days seen per week, gender, relationship length, and the interaction of gender and allergen impact were used to predict satisfaction in four separate analyses. Relationship length and the interaction term did not produce any significant effects and are not reported. Simultaneous tests involved the entry of all four allergens, plus gender, days seen per week, and relationship length, in the same model. Because HLM does not produce standardized coefficients, multivariate effect size rs were estimated from t values.

.51, p , .001, and women, 1.97 versus 3.21, t(159) ¼ 7.80, r ¼ .53, p , .001, were perceived as more likely to engage in uncouth behavior at 12 months compared to at 2 months in the romantic relationship. A Perceiver Relationship Stage trend suggested that women saw marginally more change in both genders over time in uncouth habits than did men (r ¼ .13, p ¼ .11). A negligible Target Relationship Stage effect did not provide compelling support that men were seen as changing more in uncouth habits over time than women (r ¼ .11, p ¼ .18). There also was a trend for a perceived change in intrusive behavior over time (r ¼ .14, p , .08), suggesting that both men, 2.23 versus 2.51, t(159) ¼ 1.48, r ¼ .23, p ¼ .14, and women, 2.27 versus 2.61, t(159) ¼ 1.76, r ¼ .28, p ¼ .08, were marginally more likely to be seen as engaging in intrusive behaviors at 12 months compared to 2 months. There were no significant increases in the perceived frequency of inconsiderate acts, 2.59 versus

2.69, t(159) ¼ .81, ns, or norm violations, 2.39 versus 2.48, t(159) ¼ .66, ns. Discussion Consistent predictions based on deromantization and uncouth habits were perceived to increase over time in a relationship. In addition, men were seen as engaging in more uncouth habits than women, although both men and women were seen as more likely to engage in such behaviors at 12 months compared to 2 months. As a consequence, women may see the grooming and manners of men as somewhat boorish after 2 months and barely tolerable after a year. Meanwhile, men may feel that their dating partners have become indifferent in the realm of personal deportment and be unaware that their own backstage behavior is uncouth and offensive. Men saw women as more intrusive than women saw men, with a trend for intrusive behavior to be seen as more frequent over time.

284


Table 6. Study 2. HLM Bernoulli analyses of allergen emotional impact as predictors of relationship termination Relationship termination Individual tests

Uncouth habits Inconsiderate acts Intrusive behaviors Norm violations Days seen per week

Gender

Simultaneous tests

Effect sizes

t

p

Effect sizes

t

p

2.22 2.07 2.32 2.40 2.11 2.09 2.09 2.08 2.10 2.06 2.08 2.15

21.36 2.46 22.09 22.69 2.96 2.77 2.79 2.73 2.86 2.55 2.68 21.32

.18 .65 .04 .008 .34 .45 .44 .47 .39 .58 .50 .19

2.12 .10 2.23 2.22 2.09

2.72 .60 21.44 21.39 2.83

.47 .55 .15 .16 .41

2.13

21.15

.25

Note. n couples ¼ 40. Individual tests indicate that each allergen, plus days seen per week, gender, and relationship length were used to predict satisfaction in four separate analyses. Relationship length did not produce any significant effects and is not reported. Simultaneous tests involved the entry of all four allergens, plus gender, days seen per week, and relationship length, in the same model. Because HLM does not produce standardized coefficients, multivariate effect size rs were estimated from t values.

Men’s perception that women are verbally invasive and controlling is inconsistent with Buss (1989, 1991), who found men to be more intrusive, but is consistent with Gottman and Levenson (1992), who reported that women often initiated conflict spirals, and with Richardson and Green (1999), who found women willing to engage in indirect aggression toward men. It is possible that if men expect women to be intrusive, especially over time, they may misinterpret a woman’s legitimate selfexpression as an indication that she has become less romantically orientated or that she believes that he cannot leave the relationship. That may cause men to feel that their freedom is threatened and induce them to reactively withdraw. Women were seen as engaging in more inconsiderate acts than men, and men were seen as more likely to engage in norm violations than women. Those expectations were consistent with gender stereotypes, and neither of those tendencies was perceived as varying over time. In a sense, women expected some deviant behavior by men, and

men expected some self-absorption from women. The fact that such behaviors were expected did not mean that they were acceptable or would not produce negative emotions. A limitation to Study 1 was that respondents were asked to rate the frequency of behavior of the typical man and woman. The instructions did not specify whether the couple was content or prone to conflict. While that method had the benefit of assessing stereotypes about men and women independent of a specific relationship, more changes over time in the perceived frequency of social allergens might have been observed if we had specified that the couple was on the road to dissolution. But such instructions could have amounted to demand characteristics and undermined the validity of the study. Study 2 was designed to overcome that limitation, as well as the hypothetical nature of the method. Study 2 Study 1 assumed that a partner’s frequency of allergenic behavior would affect the individu-


al’s emotions and feelings of satisfaction with the relationship, but it did not assess such outcomes. Consequently, Study 2 was conducted to assess the impact of social allergen frequency on the emotional reactions, relationship feelings, and outcomes of dating couples. As a secondary goal, Study 2 was designed to determine if the gender-role stereotypic patterns observed in Study 1, of men displaying uncouth and norm-violating behaviors and women expressing inconsiderate behaviors, and possibly intrusive behaviors, would be evident in actual dating couples. To establish the interrater reliability of reports of allergenic behaviors, both individuals in the dating couples were asked to report about the partner’s performance of social allergens and his or her own performance of such behaviors. To examine repetition-sensitization, we asked respondents to indicate the magnitude of emotion that they felt each time the allergenic behavior was performed. We also examined the relation between both allergen frequency and current length of the relationship on such emotional reactions. Finally, the emotional impact of social allergens was assessed both on relationship satisfaction and on relationship maintenance versus termination. Based on prior findings (Cunningham, Ault, & Shamblen, 2001; Cunningham & Mandala, 2004), we expected that intrusions and norm violations would show the strongest relations to relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution. Method Participants One-hundred and thirty-seven dating couples, in which one member was an introductory psychology student who received partial course credit for participating, took part in the study. ParticipantsÕ mean age was 19.47 years (M men ¼ 20.14; M women ¼ 18.83). The majority of the participants were Caucasian (82%), with some African Americans (11%), and other racial groups (7%) also participating. Participants were recruited via experimental sign-ups. Although homosexual couples were not discouraged from volunteering, no

285

same-sex couples participated in the study. Couples dating 1.5 to 2.5 months were particularly encouraged to sign up for the study because they were expected to exhibit the most diverse behaviors and also have the best recollection of their partner’s behavior. This lead to an oversampling of couples with shorter relationship lengths. Couples who were dating longer than 2.5 months were still allowed to participate. The data were screened to eliminate participants who appeared to be impulsive by completing the questions too quickly (n ¼ 12), used a response set by providing the same response to disparate questions (n ¼ 15), or provided unlikely responses, such as extremely positive ratings to negative behaviors (n ¼ 11). This led to a total of 38 participants (14%) who were eliminated from the sample. A couple was eliminated if either member had questionable data, leading to the exclusion of 33 couples. One hundred and four couples with reliable data constituted the primary sample. These participants were dating an average of 12.97 months (Mdn ¼ 3, mode ¼ 2) when they participated in the study (SD ¼ 41.79). Length of relationship had an extreme positive skew; therefore, square root transformations were performed on the length of relationship data for all analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000). Procedure Upon arriving at the lab, participants provided informed consent for their participation and were given a brief explanation of the study. All participants responded on a computer questionnaire administration program (Easy Question: Shamblen, 2001). Men and women were administered the questionnaire in different rooms and were assured that their partners would never see their responses to the questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire, participants were debriefed concerning the hypotheses and were thanked for their participation. Approximately 1 year after these responses were provided, participants were contacted by phone, reminded of their right not to participate in the study, and asked if they were still dating.

286

Measures Participants were administered the following measures in order: 1. The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS, Hendrick, 1988) is a seven-item measure of relationship satisfaction. Participants respond to these questions using a five-point scale. The internal consistency of the RAS in the present sample was a ¼ .79. 2. RRAI measure of social allergens discussed in Study 1 (Shamblen & Cunningham, 2001). For the measure of social allergens, dating couples were first asked to indicate how often they performed each of the allergenic behaviors in the past 2 months, ranging from 0 ¼ never to 9 ¼ 2 or more times per day . Next, participants were asked to indicate how often their partner performed each behavior, using the same scale. Last, participants were asked to indicate how they felt when their partners performed each of the behaviors measured by the RRAI, using a scale ranging from 9 ¼ very pleased, happy, delighted, gratified to 1 ¼ very annoyed, irritated, angry, upset, or disgusted . To increase interpretability, the 129 scale for emotion self-reports was converted to a 24 to +4 scale for the analyses. Analyses were conducted on affect self-reports only when the partner was perceived to have performed the behavior. Given the large number of items to which individuals were asked to respond, participants were not asked to conjecture how their partner felt when they performed a behavior. Cronbach a statistics were calculated to assess the reliability of the individual’s perception of the partner’s frequency of behavior, the individual’s self-reports of his or her own frequency of behavior, and the individual’s affect experienced if the partner performed behavior, respectively.


The calculations were calculated across genders, and all scales demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency, although the norm violations showed a bit lower reliability than the other behaviors due to lower behavioral frequencies. IndividualsÕ self-reports of their own behavior were negligibly less consistent, and individualsÕ self-reports of their own affect were somewhat more consistent, than the other metrics within each of the allergen categories: uncouth habits (a ¼ .74, .73, .83), inconsiderate acts (a ¼ .81, .77, .86), intrusive behavior (a ¼ .86, .85, .91), and norm violations (a ¼ .68, .65, .89). 3. The Frequency Scale of the Relationship Closeness Inventory (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989) measured the frequency of contact between members of a couple during the past 2 months. This scale asks participants to indicate the number of minutes individuals spend with their partner during the morning, afternoon, and evening. An item was also included asking participants ‘‘Please indicate on average, how many days out of the seven days of the week did you usually see your partner in the past two months of your relationship,’’ where participants could indicate 0 through 7. In addition, participants were given the additional option of choosing 8, indicating that they lived with their partners. Preliminary analyses indicated that this single item was more strongly correlated with relationship satisfaction and social allergens than the Frequency Scale of the Relationship Closeness Inventory; therefore, all analyses reporting frequency of contact are based on the single-item measure. 4. Other questions included the length of relationship in months; demographics such as sex, age, and race; and other measures unrelated to the


current study. The relationship termination question simply asked whether the couple was still together or had separated.

Results Deromantization and emotional sensitization Increased frequency of contact seems like a desirable relationship quality, and a larger number of days seeing the partner per week was associated with greater relationship satisfaction (r ¼ .27, p , .0001). But increased contact can have its drawbacks. Supporting the deromantization prediction that familiarity causes a reduction of behavioral selfrestraint, we found that the longer that the couple had been together, the greater was the perceived frequency of the partner’s uncouth habits (r ¼ .23, p , .001), inconsiderate acts (r ¼ .27, p , .0001), intrusive behavior (r ¼ .35, p , .0001), and norm violations (r ¼ .13, p , .059), with the latter correlation falling just short of conventional levels of significance. In addition, supporting the repetition-sensitization expectation, the more frequently the partner was perceived to perform allergenic behaviors, the more negative the individual reported the emotion that was generated by the partner’s uncouth habits (r ¼ 2.15, p , .03), intrusive behaviors (r ¼ 2.40, p , .0001), and norm violations (r ¼ 2.45, p , .0001). A relation between behavior frequency and emotion extremity was not evident for inconsiderate acts (r ¼ 2.03, ns), perhaps due to high variability in the perception of such acts. Given the capacity of social allergens to produce negative emotions, a closer look at the frequency of allergenic behavior seems warranted. Perceived frequency of partner’s allergenic behavior Based on the individualsÕ reports of their partners, displays of uncouth habits were the most common allergenic behaviors, followed by inconsiderate acts, 3.01 versus 2.16, t(207) ¼

287

2.88, r ¼ .19, p , .01. Inconsiderate acts occurred more frequently than intrusive behaviors, 2.16 versus 1.86, t(207) ¼ 3.41, r ¼ .23, p , .01, and intrusive behaviors occurred more often than norm violations, 1.86 versus 1.62, t(207) ¼ 2.88, r ¼ .19, p , .01. Replicating the results of Study 1, female partners perceived men as engaging in more uncouth behavior than men reported about women, 3.23 versus 2.80, t(206) ¼ 22.19, r ¼ 2.15, p , .01. Also, similar to Study 1, men perceived that women engaged in more inconsiderate acts, 2.70 versus 1.65, t(206) ¼ 6.26, r ¼ .40, p , .001, and intrusive behaviors, 2.06 versus 1.65, t(206) ¼ 2.20, r ¼ .15, p , .05, than women reported about men. No difference in norm violations between men and women was reported, 1.70 versus 1.54, t(206) ¼ 21.23, r ¼ 2.09, ns, perhaps because perceptions of such behavior were quite low. Self-reports of allergenic behaviors Similar to the individual’s perceptions of the partner, men admitted showing more uncouth habits than women, 3.29 versus 2.75, t(206) ¼ 2.77, r ¼ .19, p , .01. Women acknowledged performing more inconsiderate acts than men, 2.48 versus 1.79, t(206) ¼ 4.19, r ¼ .28, p , .001. Self-reported intentional behaviors exhibited a pattern of findings contrary to that of individual perceptions of the partner. Men and women did not differ in their admitted frequency of intrusive behaviors, 1.78 versus 1.85, t(206) ¼ 2.39, r ¼ 2.03, p , .01. But men self-reported that they performed more norm violations, 1.81 versus 1.49, t(206) ¼ 2.57, r ¼ .18, p , .05, than did women, consistent with the perceptions of Study 1. Comparability of partner perceptions and self-reports of allergenic behaviors Individuals and their partners have differential access to the reality of the partner’s behavior (Christensen, Sullaway, & King, 1983). IndividualsÕ estimates of their partnersÕ behaviors are higher than their partnersÕ self-reports

288

because individuals remember allergenic partner behaviors that are unnoticed or ignored by their partners, especially those that are most emotionally upsetting. Conversely, partners may defensively underestimate the frequency of some of their allergenic behaviors. But partners may be aware of some negative behaviors that occurred, but were concealed from the individual. Consequently, we would not expect individual and partner reports of the frequency of the partner’s behaviors to be identical. As noted earlier, the individualsÕ perceptions of the partnersÕ behaviors and the partnersÕ reports of their own behaviors may be differentially reliable. Due to greater restriction of range and a smaller sample, withingender assessments of reliability are lower than cross-gender assessments. Nonetheless, women’s perceptions of men’s uncouth habits (a ¼ .75), inconsiderate acts (a ¼ .72), intrusive behaviors (a ¼ .89), and norm-violating behaviors (a ¼ .69) were similar in their reliabilities to men’s self-reports of their own uncouth habits (a ¼ .74), inconsiderate acts (a ¼ .77), intrusive behaviors (a ¼ .80), and norm-violating behaviors (a ¼ .66). Because reliabilities were less than perfect, correlations between male and female allergen frequency reports were calculated both with and without corrections for attenuation. Men and women’s reports of men’s behavior were significantly correlated for uncouth habits (r ¼ .42; r att ¼ .64, ps , .01), inconsiderate acts (r ¼ .39; r att ¼ .57, ps , .01), and intrusive behaviors (r ¼ .42; r att ¼ .50, ps , .01). Reports by females and males of the male’s norm violations were only marginally correlated prior to correction for attenuation (r ¼ .18, p , .10; r att ¼ .26, p , .05), an outcome that will be addressed below. Findings for the reliabilities and correlations for men’s reports of women’s behavior and women’s reports of their own behaviors were comparable to the findings on men’s behaviors. Men’s reports of women’s uncouth habits (a ¼ .71), inconsiderate acts (a ¼ .81), intrusive behaviors (a ¼ .83), and norm violations (a ¼ .67) were similar in their reliabilities to women’s reports of their own uncouth habits (a ¼ .71), inconsiderate acts


(a ¼ .74), intrusive behaviors (a ¼ .89), and norm violations (a ¼ .63). Men and women’s reports of women’s behavior were also significantly correlated for uncouth habits (r ¼ .47; r att ¼ .71, ps , .01), inconsiderate acts (r ¼ .35; r att ¼ .49, ps , .01), and intrusive behaviors (r ¼ .43; r att ¼ .50, ps , .01). Again, reports of norm violations were only significantly correlated when corrected for attenuation (r ¼ .13 ns; r att ¼ .20, p , .05). Nonetheless, such results suggest that perceptions of partner’s behavior have some conceptual validity. Finally, there were no significant mean differences between the individual’s perceptions of the partner’s behavior and the partner’s self-report of behavior (ps . .15). Partner reports and self-reports of social allergens as predictors of satisfaction The true frequency of a partner’s behavior likely lies somewhere in between the partner’s recall of his or her own behaviors, which may be subject to self-serving biases, and the individual’s perceptions of the partner’s behavior, which may be affected by the individual’s current evaluation of the relationship. Although an average between the two reports may serve as a compromise, the individual’s perceptions of his or her partner’s behavior appear to be more relevant because the partnersÕ admitted allergenic behaviors that are unnoticed by the individual seem unlikely to have a direct impact on the individual’s relationship satisfaction. Correlational analyses were first performed, separately for men and women, to determine the relation between the individual’s reports of the partner’s behavior and the individual’s relationship satisfaction, and the partner’s report of his or her own behavior and the individual’s satisfaction. Tests of significance between two dependent correlations were performed to determine which were more predictive. Both men’s satisfaction, t(99) ¼ 21.60, r ¼ .16, p , .15, and women’s satisfaction, t(99) ¼ 22.29, r ¼ .22, p , .001, were (marginally) more strongly predicted by the individual’s perceptions of his or her partner’s norm violations than by the partner’s self-


reports. Men’s satisfaction also was more strongly predicted by their perceptions of the partner’s intrusive behavior, t(99) ¼ 22.07, r ¼ .20, p , .05, than by the partner’s selfreport. Although many of these contrasts were not significant, seven of the eight comparisons were in the direction of suggesting the individual’s report of the partner’s behavior was a stronger predictor of satisfaction than the partner’s report of his or her own behavior.

289

Women reported more negative emotional impact from uncouth habits than did men, 2.43 versus 1.39, t(101) ¼ 2.37, r ¼ .23, p ¼ .02. Overall, men and women did not differ significantly in the emotional impact they experienced as a result of partner’s inconsiderate (.55 vs. .80), intrusive (24.57 vs. 25.25), or norm-violating (21.74 vs. 22.72, ps . .15) behaviors.

The emotional impact of social allergens

Social allergen impact and relationship satisfaction

We examined the emotional impact of the partner’s allergenic behavior by multiplying the perceived frequency of the partner’s behavior by the individual’s reported emotion for that behavior. Thus, if an allergenic behavior occurred two or more times per day, and produced an emotion that was extremely unpleasant, the allergen impact score would be 236 (9 24), whereas if it occurred only once every 2 months, and was only slightly unpleasant, it would receive a score of 21 (1 21). The allergen impact scales demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency, including uncouth habits (a ¼ .74), inconsiderate acts (a ¼ .67), intrusive behavior (a ¼ .86), and norm violations (a ¼ .66). The mean of the affect behavior scores was calculated for each category of allergen. Because the most aversive impacts have the lowest scores, allergen impact scores were positively correlated with relationship satisfaction in the analyses reported below. Intrusive behaviors had the largest emotional impact of the allergen categories and were more emotionally impactful than uncouth habits, 24.83 versus .30, t(195) ¼ 211.12, r ¼ 2.62, p , .001; inconsiderate acts, 24.92 versus .48, t(194) ¼ 213.64, r ¼ 2.70, p , .001; and norm-violating behaviors, 24.83 versus 22.46, t(194) ¼ 25.18, r ¼ 2.35, p , .001. Norm violations had a larger emotional impact than uncouth habits, 22.20 versus .59, t(203) ¼ 26.24, r ¼ 2.40, p , .001, and inconsiderate acts, 22.23 versus .72, t(202) ¼ 26.63, r ¼ 2.42, p , .001. Inconsiderate acts did not differ significantly in their emotional impact from uncouth habits, .66 versus .54, t(204) ¼ .30, r ¼ .02, p ¼ .767.

The behavior of couples is interdependent. As a consequence, multilevel random coefficient analysis (Nezlek, 2001) is a more appropriate data analytic strategy for such nested data than either treating the couple members as independent or averaging the couples data. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) allowed tests of the impact of Level 1 individual variables, such as the emotional impact of allergenic behavior and gender on relationship satisfaction, while controlling for Level 2 variables that differ across couples. Random variation arising due to men and women’s reports of satisfaction being nonindependent was modeled by posing the intercept as a random predictor. To control for contact on reports of allergen impact, the measures of days seen per week, and relationship length, were included as Level 2 variables in the model. Four analyses separately tested the impact of each social allergen, plus the contact variables, on relationship satisfaction. A fifth analysis simultaneously tested all four allergen variables, plus the contact variables. Gender was included in all five analyses. These analyses also included an interaction term consisting of the product of gender with allergen impact, but none of those interaction terms were significant, and will not be reported. HLM produces multivariate models that resemble those of ordinary least squares regression, but HLM does not report standardized coefficients. To enhance comparisons across studies, multivariate effect size rs were estimated from the t values associated with the unstandardized multivariate coefficients (Rosenthal, 1991).

290

Perceptions of high emotional impact from each type of allergen were associated with relationship dissatisfaction, including uncouth habits (effect size r ¼ .24, p , .01), inconsiderate acts (effect size r ¼ .35, p , .0001), intrusive behavior (effect size r ¼ .27, p , .0005), and norm violations (effect size r ¼ .19, p , .0001). When the behaviors were tested simultaneously, inconsiderate acts (effect size r ¼ .35, p , .0001) were significant predictors of dissatisfaction, and intrusive behaviors were marginal predictors of satisfaction (effect size r ¼ .17, p , .09). Thus, the two personally directed allergens were most consequential for satisfaction. Gender was unrelated to relationship satisfaction. Days seen per week, but not relationship length, was a positive predictor of satisfaction in all analyses. Social allergens and relationship termination Data on the current status of the relationship were obtained for 40 of the 104 couples. Participation in the follow-up sample was not significantly related to prior relationship satisfaction, t(203) ¼ 2.39; emotional impact of uncouth habits, t(204) ¼ 2.68; inconsiderate acts, t(203) ¼ 2.88; intrusive behavior, t(195) ¼ 2.99; norm violations, t(203) ¼ 2.91; prior length of relationship, t(196) ¼ 2.91; frequency of contact per week, t(201) ¼ .10; or respondent age, t(198) ¼ 2.75. Thus, there was no evidence to suggest selective attrition. As expected, greater prior relationship satisfaction was marginally related to a lower likelihood of relationship termination (r ¼ 2.20, p , .079). Relationship dissolution was modeled as a nonlinear Bernoulli process, with two possible outcomes, using HLM analyses (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Similar to the analyses for relationship satisfaction, these analyses examined whether the individual’s report of the emotional impact of the partner’s allergenic behavior predicted whether the relationship was maintained or terminated. To control for the couple’s contact on reports of allergen impact, the measures of days seen per week and relationship length were


included in the model. Four analyses tested the impact of each individual social allergen on relationship termination. A fifth analysis simultaneously tested the four allergen variables, plus the contact variables. To be consistent with the prior analyses, gender was included in the model, although breakups, per se, are inherently evenly distributed across males and females in heterosexual couples. Perceptions of high emotional impact from intrusive behavior (effect size r ¼ 2.32, p , .04) and norm violations (effect size ¼ 2.40, p , .008) were individually associated with a greater likelihood of relationship termination. When the behaviors were tested simultaneously, intrusive behaviors (effect size r ¼ 2.23, p ,.15) and norm violations (effect size r ¼ 2.22, p ,.16) were both marginal predictors. Days seen per week and relationship length were unrelated to relationship termination. Thus, unlike the case for relationship satisfaction in which personally focused allergens had the greatest impact, intentional allergens were the most consequential for termination.

General Discussion Similar to other studies of real versus imagined emotion (Robinson & Clore, 2001), Study 2, which was based on perceptions of the behavior of a specific dating partner, produced results that were remarkably similar to those of Study 1, which assessed stereotypes of men and women in dating relationships. In both studies, uncouth habits were seen as the most frequent allergen, followed by inconsiderate acts, intrusive behaviors, and norm violations. Gender difference Studies 1 and 2 also were similar in finding that men were perceived to display more uncouth habits than women. Further, in both studies, women were perceived to engage in more inconsiderate acts than men. Supporting the partner perceptions in Study 2, men selfreported higher frequencies of uncouth habits, and women admitted higher frequencies of inconsiderate acts than did the opposite sex. In Study 2, women did not perceive men


to perform more norm violations, but men self-reported higher levels of norm violations than women self-reported, consistent with the perception of higher male norm violations in Study 1. In Study 2, men perceived their female partners to engage in higher frequencies of intrusive behaviors than women saw men as enacting. But women’s self-reports of intrusive behaviors were no higher than the men’s self-reports. In Study 1, men also saw women engaging in more intrusive behavior than women saw women as enacting. Such results suggest that men may be particularly sensitive to the intrusive behavior of women. Perhaps more important than the behavior of males and females as groups are the specific behaviors that men and women perform within couples. At the couple level, there was significant consensus between men and women concerning women’s intrusive behavior. There also was relative agreement concerning men’s intrusive behavior and the uncouth habits and inconsiderate acts of both genders. Members of couples did not agree in their perception of norm violations, which was partially attributable to the fact that norm violations were both low in frequency and probably concealed from the partner. Relationship satisfaction The individual’s perception of the frequency of the partner’s allergenic behavior was a slightly better predictor of the individual’s relationship satisfaction than the partner’s behavioral self-reports. This was not only due to the former data being reported by the same individual but because the partner’s behavioral self-reports included instances of allergenic behavior that were known to the partner but concealed from the individual, thereby having little impact on the individual’s relationship satisfaction. Nonetheless, the fact that the partner’s self-reports of performing allergens were correlated with the individual’s perceptions suggested that actual, rather than imagined or selectively perceived, behaviors were influencing emotions in the relationship. The number of days that the individual saw the partner per week was associated with

291

relationship satisfaction, but the greater the number of months that the couple had been together, the higher the reported frequency of all four categories of social allergens. And, the higher the frequency of allergenic behaviors, the greater the negative emotions associated with uncouth habits, intrusive behaviors, and norm violations. Thus, in this sample of dating couples, increased familiarity provided the opportunity both for more satisfaction and more negative emotion. Allergen impact The emotional impact of social allergens was assessed in terms of the product of the behavior frequency and reported emotion. Intrusive behavior had the greatest emotional impact, followed by norm violations. Inconsiderate acts and uncouth habits had comparable levels of emotional impact, although women reported more impact from uncouth habits than men, likely because men displayed more of such behaviors. Even when controlling for the frequency of contact and relationship length, couples who had higher allergen impact scores reported lower relationship satisfaction. Each category of social allergen impact was associated with dissatisfaction when tested individually. When all behaviors were tested simultaneously, inconsiderate act allergen impact scores significantly predicted dissatisfaction, and intrusive behavior allergen impact scores were marginally related to dissatisfaction. Inconsiderate acts are personally directed allergens that involve high levels of self-preoccupation and implicit imposition. Intrusive behaviors are personally directed allergens that convey dominance and condescension. It is not surprising that both categories of allergens would undermine relationship satisfaction. Yet, while inconsiderate acts were obnoxious, they did not predict the breakup of the couple. Instead, the intentional allergens of intrusive behaviors and, marginally, norm violations were related to relationship dissolution. Norm violations are not personally directed but convey negative implications about the character of the partner and his or her devotion to the relationship.

292

Although respondents did not show substantial amounts of negative emotion to uncouth habits, this might be an artifact of the sample. Most of the couples in this study were in the early stages of their dating relationships and may not have had sufficient exposure to the unintentional allergens to become irritated or disgusted. Future directions Follow-up studies should survey a broader range of dating couples, with more varying relationship lengths, in order to test the relation between allergen repetition and allergen intensity. A longitudinal study would be helpful to observe changes in allergen emotional impact over time. Such studies might also attempt to distinguish among types of negative emotions. Intentional allergens, such as intrusive behavior and norm violations, may be more likely to produce anger (Vangelisti & Young, 2000; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982) and may stimulate efforts to confront the partner. Unintentional allergens, such as uncouth habits and inconsiderate acts, may be more likely to produce disgust, which could produce avoidance of the partner (Rozin, 1994). If an individual experiences anger with the partner’s allergenic behavior, while the partner is disgusted with the allergenic behavior of the individual, the foundation may be set for the destructive demand-withdraw pattern of conflict (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). Further, the more that the social allergen is perceived as a breach of moral norms, the more that the individual may respond with contempt (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999), which is a mixture of anger and disgust (Ekman & Friesen, 1986), and seems particularly destructive to romantic relationships (Gottman & Levenson, 1999b). It should be noted that the labels of intentional versus unintentional and personal versus nonpersonal allergens were a priori and were not tested against the perceptions of the research participants. Further research might explore the extent to which individuals attribute their partnersÕ allergenic behaviors to intentional and personally directed motives, to stable character traits, to a lack of effort, or to environmental circumstances (Heider,


1958; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). We suspect that after a partner’s allergenic behaviors cause negative emotions a few times, questions arise in the individual about the partner’s character, the partner’s liking and love for the individual, the partner’s willingness to synchronize with the individual in a harmonious interdependent relationship, and the individual’s own capacity to cope with periodically irritating or disgusting behaviors from the partner (Barbee et al., 1996). Consideration of such negative attributions may cause some disengagement from the relationship, plus hypervigilance toward the partner’s behavior to confirm the attribution. This may result in the detection of even more allergens, the experience of even more negative feelings, and the production of a downward spiral that ends in relationship termination. An individual’s willingness to tolerate allergenic behavior from the partner may be counterbalanced, to some degree, by the partner’s performance of positive behaviors, which might emotionally buffer or undo some of the negativity. Similarly, if the partner apologizes and redoubles efforts to control the frequency of the offending allergens, then the individual might forgive the partner (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000) and have the opportunity to undergo a reduction-desensitization process. Reduction-desensitization also might occur if the individual makes a conscious effort to redefine the allergen as tolerable, and emotionally adjust to it as a cost of the relationship. Such proposed dynamics require further exploration. Limitations Both of the studies presented here relied on self-report and suffered from the usual problems that are common to this methodology, including selective attention and memory, biased reporting of the actions of the self and partner, and misunderstanding of instructions. Study 2 also had the limitation of reestablishing contact with less than half of the research participants. Future work could bring couples into the laboratory and examine their overt performance of uncouth, inconsiderate, intrusive, and norm-violating behavior across


multiple sessions. Of course, it is possible that a public setting could cause dating couples to revert to the good behavior that was displayed when they first met. But we suspect that being with a dating partner causes its own situational dynamic, so that allergenic behaviors, and the emotional reactions to them, will leak out. This might be likely with unintentional allergens, such as inconsiderate acts and uncouth habits. Because they don’t see it. THEY JUST DON’T SEE IT. References Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992) Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., Druen, P. B., & Yankeelov, P. A. (1996). Loss of passion, intimacy and commitment: A conceptual framework for relationship researchers. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 1, 93–108. Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 994–1005. Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and noncontinuing relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 942–952. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792–807. Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L., & Vincent, J. P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between martially distressed and nondistressed spouses and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349–360. Blaney, P. (1986). Affect & memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246. Bornstein, R. F., Kale, A. R., & Cornell, K. R. (1990). Boredom as a limiting condition on the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 791–800. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289). New York: Cambridge University Press. Buss, D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 735–747. Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59, 663–688. Christensen, A., Sullaway, M., & King, C. (1983). Systematic error in behavioral reports of dyadic inter-

293 action: Egocentric bias and content analysis. Behavioral Therapy, 5, 129–140. Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereotypes hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 520–530. Cunningham, M. R., Ault, L., & Shamblen, S. R. (2001, July). From impression management to social allergy: Romantic deflation and the emergence of aversive behaviors. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Prescott, AZ. Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1997). Social allergens and the reactions they produce: Escalation of love and annoyance in love and work. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 189–214). New York: Plenum Press. Cunningham, M. R., & Mandala, E. (2005). Social allergies, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intentions. Davis, M. S., & Schmidt, C. J. (1977). The obnoxious and the nice: Some sociological consequences of two psychological types. Sociometry, 40, 201–213. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408– 423. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1986). A new pan-cultural facial expression of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 10, 159–168. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., Angier, N., Daly, J. A., Hogg, E., Sacks, D. et al. (1999). Kinesic cues: The body, eyes, and face. In L. K. Guerrero, J. A. DeVito (Eds.) The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (2nd ed., pp. 48– 89). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demandwithdraw communication during couple conflict: A review and analysis. In P. Noller & J. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 289–322). New York: Cambridge University Press. Felmlee, D. H. (1995). Fatal attractions: Affection and disaffection in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 295–311. Felmlee, D. H. (1998). ‘‘Be careful what you wish for .’’: A quantitative and qualitative investigation of ‘‘fatal attractions.’’ Personal Relationships, 5, 235–253. Felmlee, D. H. (2001). From appealing to appalling: Disenchantment with a romantic partner. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 263–280. Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships: A hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13–30. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999a). Dysfunctional marital conflict: Women are being unfairly blamed. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 31, 1–17. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999b). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of alternative medicine. Family Process, 38, 143–158.

294 Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383–410. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98. Hess, J. A. (2000). Maintaining nonvoluntary relationships with disliked partners: An investigation into the use of distancing behaviors. Human Communication Research, 26, 458–488. Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of martial quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. (1996). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225–1237. Lindahl, K., Clements, M., & Markman, H. (1998). The development of marriage: A 9-year perspective study. In T. N. Bradbury, C. L. Cohan, & B. R. Karney (Eds.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 205–236). New York: Cambridge University Press. Lloyd, S. A., & Cate, R. M. (1985). The developmental course of conflict in dissolution of premarital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 179–194. Martin, L., & Clore, G. (2001). Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Guilford. Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A., & Pedersen, W. C. (2002). Men’s and women’s mating preferences: Distinct evolutionary mechanisms? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 88–93. Miller, R. S. (1997). We always hurt the ones we love: Aversive interactions in close relationships. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 11–29). New York: Plenum Press. Miller, R. S. (2000). Breaches of propriety. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (2nd ed., pp. 29–58). Washington, DC: APA Press. Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785. Pliner, P., & Chaiken, S. (1990) Eating, social motives, and self-presentation in women and men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 240–254. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

M. R. Cunningham et al. Reiner, R. (2000). The story of us. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures. Richardson, D. R., & Green, L. R. (1999). Social sanction and threat explanations of gender effects on direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 425–434. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1520–1532. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509. Rosenblatt, P. C., & Cunningham, M. R. (1976). Sex differences in cross-cultural perspective. In B. Lloyd & J. Archer (Eds.), Exploring sex differences. London: Academic Press. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rozin, P. (1994). Varieties of disgust faces and the structure of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 870–881. Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586. Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265–273. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development and deterioration of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117. Rusbult, C. E., Campbell, M. A., & Price, M. E. (1990). Rational selective exploitation and distress: Employee reactions to performance-based and mobilitybased reward allocations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 487–500. Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Anticipation of marital dissolution as a consequence of spousal infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 793–808. Shamblen, S. R. (2001). Easy Question 0.8.0: A data collection program for the social/behavioral sciences on the Intel x86 and the Macintosh [Computer program]. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville. Shamblen, S. R. (2004). My partner wasn’t so disgusting when we first started dating; what happened? An exploration of change process in close relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. Shamblen, S. R., & Cunningham, M. R. (2001, July). Pleasantries and allergies: Perceptions of changes in behavior over the first year of close relationships. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Prescott, AZ Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationship to self-reports neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682. Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1993). Conflict, love, and other relationship dimensions for individuals in dissolving, stable, and growing premarital relationships. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 21, 115–125.

Social allergies in romantic relationships Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1999). Romantic beliefs: Their influence on relationships and patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 834–851. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Communication strategies for intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use and structure. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 6, 413–434. Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 17, 393–424.

295 Vincent, J. P., Weiss, R. L., & Birchler, G. R. (1975). Dyadic problem solving as a function of marital distress and spousal vs. stranger interactions. Behavior Therapy, 6, 475–487. Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt: An attributional analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226–232. Zillman, D., Weaver, J. B., Mundorf, N., & Aust, C. F. (1986). Effects of an opposite-gender companion’s affect to horror on distress, delight, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 586–594.