Gender, Power and Attachment Processes:

Multiple Contextual Considerations in the Study of Couple Power Dynamics over Time

Erin M. Miga, M.A., Joanna Chango , M.A, & Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D.

University of VirginiaSociety for Research in Child Development

04.02.2011

www.teenresearch.org

What are romantic power dynamics and why do they matter?

Negotiation between: emotional closeness vs. distance intimacy vs. isolation

Common to most couples, yet pervasive in distressed relationships

What are power dynamics and why do they matter?

Power imbalances have been directly linked to partner violence, divorce, and depressive symptoms (Babcock, Waltz,

Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993; Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen, 1999; Uebelacker, Courtnage, & Whisman, 2003).

Research on power and pathology in dating relationships have been limited, results mixed(Bentley, Galliher, & Ferguson, 2007; Chung, 2005 , Kim, Capaldi, & Crosby, 2007).

Power Patterns

Christensen’s Demand Withdraw:

Gottman’s Rejection of Influence:

Demands(Domineering, Criticism) met with

Withdrawal(Stonewalling, Defensiveness)

D: “ You never help me out around the house! You never take out the trash, or cook for us, or clean up, ever!

W: “ I do too, I do too! Besides, I’ve been busy and you never notice when I help out”

Attempts to Influence(Whining, Sadness) met with

Rejection of Influence (Belligerence or Contempt)

A: “ Baaaaby.. We don’t go out anymooooreee…”

R: “ What, do you think the bills are going to pay themselves? I have to work, I don’t have time or money to make you happy 24/7”

Sample

87 target participants and their romantic partners, socioeconomically and racially diverse

Young adults &Partners

One year later

Young adults (M age=21)Partners (M age=22)Partners for avg. of

1.79 years

Time 1 Time 2

MeasuresPredictors:

Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF)-Teen age 21 18 dimensions (Teen and Partner-High and Low Negative/Positive affects)

(Coan & Gottman, 2007; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989)

Outcomes: Anxious Symptoms- Teen age 22

Participant report: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

Romantic Jealousy Participant report: Chronic Jealousy Scale (White, 1989)

Relationship Dissolution-Teen age 22 Participant self report

Part 1: Key Questions

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

Part 1: Power Dynamics & Pathology: Main Effects

Relationship Break up

Demand -Withdraw

Jealous Symptoms

Age 21 Participant- partner conflict

Pcpt Age 22 Individual functioning

AnxiousSymptoms

Part 1: Rejection of Influence & Pathology: Main Effects

Relationship Break up

Rejection of Influence

Jealous Symptoms

Age 21 Participant- partner conflict

Pcpt Age 22 Individual functioning

AnxiousSymptoms

Non-significant links between power dynamics and pathology

Key Questions

1. Are these power patterns predictive of subsequent pathology amongst a sample of young adults?No, power struggles do not directly predict increased risk for psychopathology or relationship break-up over time.

2. What moderating factors might interact with these power dynamics to predict relative change in pathology over time?

Part II: Contextual Considerations

Examine the moderating effects of:

Romantic Attachment Anxiety Gender

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Rel

ativ

e Inc

reas

es in

Par

ticip

ant J

ealo

usy

Partner Attempt to Influence-Participant Rejection of Influence

High Low

-.11

Low Participant Attachment Anxiety

Low High

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Rel

ativ

e Inc

reas

es in

Par

ticip

ant J

ealo

usy

Partner Attempt to Influence-Participant Rejection of Influence

-.11

.49**

Low Participant Attachment Anxiety

High Participant Attachment Anxiety

Low High

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Rel

ativ

e Inc

reas

es in

Par

ticip

ant J

ealo

usy

Partner Attempt to Influence-Participant Rejection of Influence

-.11

.49**

Low Participant Attachment Anxiety

High Participant Attachment Anxiety

Low High

Rejection of influencewas associated with relative increases in participant jealousy

over time for those withhigh attachment anxiety.

Relationship Break-UpMale Attempt

to Influence

Female Rejection of Influence

Note. * p < .05.

Teen Age 20

Teen Age 22

.33*

Income

Gender

Male attempt-female rejection of influence patterns were associated

with increased likelihood of relationship break-ups.

Take Home Points…

Power dynamics alone (Demand-Withdraw(DW), Rejection of Influence(RI)) are generally not major risk factors for future psychopathology.

Context matters: Power dynamics predict risky outcomes when coupled with relevant sub-contexts, such as gender and attachment dynamics.

Power patterns do not consistently predict internalizing and relationship distress over time.

Clinical Implications

As a couples clinician, pick your battles Power dynamics are not harmful to all couples, all of the

time!

Partners fall into specific roles in the power dynamics for a reason: Examine the function in these “dysfunctional” patterns.

Help partners give voice to the needs and motivations underlying the specific roles they adopt.

Limitations & Future Directions

Assess partner’s self perceptions of their respective “roles” in the power struggle; will enhance understanding of the mechanisms that link power struggles to pathology.

Examine associations between power dynamics and offspring functioning.

Extend investigations of power dynamics and attachment styles to same-sex couples.

Acknowledgments

I’d like to thank my collaborators:

Joseph P. Allen Jim Coan J.P. Laurenceau

Joanna Chango Megan Schad Amanda HareMegan Ice Emily Marston Dave SzwedoAlex Carroll Joanna Stokes Amanda LetardGW Garrett Sam Breslin Mandy Daily

Katy Higgins Jen Heliste Allison KneeCaroline White Ann Spilker

I would also like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health ( Grant # R01-MH58066) and the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (Grant # 9R01HD058305-11A1) for funding awarded to J.P. Allen, Principal Investigator to conduct and write –up this research project.