Gender Power and Attachment Processes Multiple Contextual Considerations

Gender, Power and Attachment Processes: Multiple Contextual Considerations in the Study of Couple Power Dynamics over Time Erin M. Miga, M. A. , Joanna Chango , M. A, & Joseph P. Allen, Ph. D. University of Virginia Society for Research in Child Development 04. 02. 2011 www. teenresearch. org

What are romantic power dynamics and why do they matter? Negotiation between: emotional closeness vs. distance intimacy vs. isolation Common to most couples, yet pervasive in distressed relationships

What are power dynamics and why do they matter? Power imbalances have been directly linked to partner violence, divorce, and depressive symptoms (Babcock, Waltz, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993; Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen, 1999; Uebelacker, Courtnage, & Whisman, 2003). Research on power and pathology in dating relationships have been limited, results mixed(Bentley, Galliher, & Ferguson, 2007; Chung, 2005 , Kim, Capaldi, & Crosby, 2007).

Power Patterns Christensen’s Demand Withdraw: Gottman’s Rejection of Influence: D: “ You never help me out around the house! You never take out the trash, or cook for Demands(Domineering, us, or. Criticism) met with clean up, ever! A: “ Baaaaby. . We don’t go out anymooooreee…” W: “ I do too, I do too! Besides, Withdrawal(Stonewalling, I’ve been busy and you never notice. Defensiveness) when I help out” have to work, I don’t have time or money to make you happy 24/7” Rejection of Influence Attempts to R: “ Influence(Whining, bills What, do you think the are going to pay themselves? I Sadness) met with (Belligerence or Contempt)

Sample 87 target participants and their romantic partners, socioeconomically and racially diverse Time 1 Young adults (M age=21) Partners (M age=22) Partners for avg. of 1. 79 years Time 2 Young adults & Partners One year later

Measures Predictors: Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF)-Teen age 21 18 dimensions (Teen and Partner-High and Low Negative/Positive affects) (Coan & Gottman, 2007; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) Outcomes: Anxious Symptoms- Teen age 22 Romantic Jealousy Participant report: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Participant report: Chronic Jealousy Scale (White, 1989) Relationship Dissolution-Teen age 22 Participant self report

Part 1: Key Questions 1. Are these power dynamics predictive of subsequent pathology amongst a sample of young adults?

Part 1: Power Dynamics & Pathology: Main Effects Pcpt Age 22 Individual functioning Age 21 Participant- partner conflict Jealous Symptoms Demand -Withdraw Anxious Symptoms Relationship Break up

Part 1: Rejection of Influence & Pathology: Main Effects Pcpt Age 22 Individual functioning Age 21 Participant- partner conflict Jealous Symptoms Rejection of Influence Non-significant links between power dynamics and pathology Anxious Symptoms Relationship Break up

Key Questions 1. Are these power patterns predictive of subsequent pathology amongst a sample of young adults? No, power struggles do not directly predict increased risk for psychopathology or relationship break-up over time. 2. What moderating factors might interact with these power dynamics to predict relative change in pathology over time?

Part II: Contextual Considerations Examine the moderating effects of: Romantic Attachment Anxiety Gender

Low Participant Attachment Anxiety -. 11 Low High

High Participant Attachment Anxiety. 49** Low Participant Attachment Anxiety -. 11 Low High

Rejection of influence was associated with relative increases in participant jealousy over time for those with high attachment anxiety. High Participant Attachment Anxiety. 49** Low Participant Attachment Anxiety -. 11 Low High

Teen Age 20 Male Attempt to Influence Female Rejection of Influence Teen Age 22 Relationship Break-Up. 33* Male attempt-female rejection of Gender influence patterns were associated with increased likelihood of Income Note. * p <. 05. relationship break-ups.

Take Home Points… Power dynamics alone (Demand-Withdraw(DW), Rejection of Influence(RI)) are generally not major risk factors for future psychopathology. Context matters: Power dynamics predict risky outcomes when coupled with relevant sub-contexts, such as gender and attachment dynamics. Power patterns do not consistently predict internalizing and relationship distress over time.

Clinical Implications As a couples clinician, pick your battles Power dynamics are not harmful to all couples, all of the time! Partners fall into specific roles in the power dynamics for a reason: Examine the function in these “dysfunctional” patterns. Help partners give voice to the needs and motivations underlying the specific roles they adopt.

Limitations & Future Directions Assess partner’s self perceptions of their respective “roles” in the power struggle; will enhance understanding of the mechanisms that link power struggles to pathology. Examine associations between power dynamics and offspring functioning. Extend investigations of power dynamics and attachment styles to same-sex couples.

Acknowledgments I’d like to thank my collaborators: Joseph P. Allen Jim Coan J. P. Laurenceau Joanna Chango Megan Schad Amanda Hare Megan Ice Emily Marston Dave Szwedo Alex Carroll Joanna Stokes Amanda Letard GW Garrett Sam Breslin Mandy Daily Katy Higgins Jen Heliste Allison Knee Caroline White Ann Spilker I would also like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health ( Grant # R 01 -MH 58066) and the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (Grant # 9 R 01 HD 058305 -11 A 1) for funding awarded to J. P. Allen, Principal Investigator to conduct and write –up this research project.