Fall 08 Society For Interpersonal Theory And Research 16th .

Personality and Interpersonal Influences on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in CouplesCarolynne E. Baron, Timothy W. Smith, Bert N. Uchino (University of Utah) & Wendy Birmingham(Huntsman Cancer Institute)Research indicates that individual differences in interpersonal style and aspects of negative affect arerisk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Further, few studies have examined effects of both theindividual's own personality characteristics (i.e., actor effects) and the effects of a spouse's personality(i.e., partner effects). This study examined association between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) andself-report measures of affiliation (i.e., warmth vs. hostility) and control (i.e., dominance vs.submissiveness), as well as personality measures of depression anxiety, and anger. Methods: 94married, working couples (mean age 29.2 years) completed the NEO-PI-R, and a 1-day (8 am-10 pm)ABP protocol with random interval-contingent measurements using a Suntech monitor and Palm Pilotbased measures of control variables. Results: Hierarchical analyses were used to accommodatecouples and multiple measurement occasions (Proc Mixed; SAS), and controlled individual differences(BMI, age, income) and potential confounds (e.g., posture, activity). For actor effects, higher levels ofaffiliation were associated with lower levels of ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP), similarly formen and women. Higher levels of control (i.e., dominance) were significantly associated with higherSBP in men but not women. Higher depression was associated with higher SBP and diastolic bloodpressure (DBP) among women but not men. Analyses of partner effects revealed consistent genderdifferences. Higher levels of negative affect reported by women significantly predicted higher levels ofSBP and DBP in their husbands, especially for wives' anger. In contrast, husbands' negative affectivetraits were inversely related to wives' SBP and DBP. Conclusions: In actor effects, self-reports ofdominance and affiliation are related to ABP, demonstrating the value of the interpersonal circumplexin understanding psychosocial risk for CVD. Associations of one partner's depression, anxiety, andanger with the other's ABP demonstrate the importance of interpersonal processes in understandingpsychosocial risk.The Interpersonal Problem Profiles Associated with Rejection SensitivityNicole M. Cain (Long Island University), Chiara De Panfilis (Parma University), Kevin B. Meehan (LongIsland University) & John F. Clarkin (Weill Cornell Medical College)Rejection sensitivity (RS) is a cognitive-affective disposition that predisposes an individual toanxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection. Individuals high in RS typicallyanticipate rejection from others and exhibit maladaptive responses to rejection (e.g., excessiveattempts to ingratiate others, social withdrawal, or hostile behaviors), which in turn may underminesignificant relationships by eliciting further rejection from others (Downey & Feldman, 1996).Increasing evidence indicates that high RS is associated with psychiatric disturbances, such asdepression, social anxiety, and borderline personality disorder (Rosenbach & Renneberg, 2011). Apotential explanation for the association between high RS and diverse psychopathological conditionscould be that RS disrupts interpersonal relationships and impairs social functioning, thus leading toincreased psychopathology. In this regard, a large body of research robustly demonstrates that high RSfosters a self-perpetuating cycle of interpersonal problems and distress, thereby predisposingindividuals to a variety of negative relational outcomes with intimate partners, peers, friends, andfamily members (Romero-Canyas et al, 2010). However, the specific types of interpersonal problemsassociated with high and low RS have not yet been explored. This presentation will report data on theinterpersonal problem profiles associated with high and low RS in a sample of 763 undergraduates atan urban university. Using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems–Short Circumplex (IIP-SC;Hopwood et al., 2008), we will present structural summary data showing that individuals with low RS(n 163) reported vindictive interpersonal problems and low interpersonal distress, while individualswith high RS (n 162) reported socially avoidant interpersonal problems and high interpersonaldistress. In addition, we will present structural summary data exploring the interpersonal problemsassociated with two facets of RS: concerns about rejection and rejection expectations. We will discussclinical implications as well as steps for future research.6

Hierarchy and Health: Effects of Relative Status, Partner Dominance, and Evaluative Threat onPsychophysiological Response during Social InteractionJenny M. Cundiff & Timothy W. Smith (University of Utah)There is a robust inverse relationship between social status and health, and this relationship is notfully accounted for by differences in access to medical care or health behaviors (Matthews, Gallo, &Taylor, 2010). Further, measures of perceived relative status are often more closely associated withdeath and disease than are measures of objective resources (e.g., income), and these associationsremain after controlling for Neuroticism (Kraus, Adler, & Chen, 2012). Given the incremental utility ofperceptions of relative status and the fact that social status is lost, gained, and maintained throughinterpersonal interactions, psychophysiological stress processes associated with the interpersonalexperiences of perceiving oneself to be 'one down' may be one important pathway linking lower statusto poorer health. In the current study, we examine the effects of experimental manipulations ofrelative social status, dominant versus submissive behavior of an interaction partner, and the threat ofnegative social evaluation on cardiovascular stress responses. Participants were 160 undergraduatemen and women randomized to one of eight study conditions in this 2 (Status: higher or lower) x 2(Partner Behavior: dominant or submissive) x 2 (Evaluative threat: high vs. low) design. Resultsprovide support for the viability of interpersonal interactions as one mechanism through which lowersocial status may 'get under the skin,' in that lower perceived relative status was associated withgreater reactivity and less efficient functioning of the heart. Additionally, perceiving oneself to belower in relative status appears to potentiate the negative effects of exposure to dominance fromothers and threat of negative social evaluation, interpersonal experiences which may also occur moreoften for lower status individuals.Mind-body Perspectives on Differences Between Same-Sex and Other-Sex Couples: Gender,Emotion Regulation, and Interpersonal ProcessesLisa M. Diamond (University of Utah)Extensive research demonstrates that individual differences in physiological capacities for emotionregulation, typically measured via autonomic nervous system functioning assessed at rest and duringstress, relate to the quality of individuals’ intimate relationships. Specifically, these individualdifferences are thought to influence individuals’ abilities to regulate their own emotional states in theservice of day-to-day interpersonal processes such as support provision and conflict resolution. In thepresent research, I present data examining how these processes may differ across gay male, lesbian,and heterosexual couples. Two key factors which differentiate same-sex couples are (1) the fact thatthese couples combine two men or two women, therefore magnifying the well-documented genderdifferences that have been observed regarding conflict behavior and reactivity, and (2) same-sexcouples’ chronic exposure to social marginalization, which may tax their self-regulatory capacities. Ipresent evidence for important differences, especially regarding gay male couples, in theirphysiological capacities for emotion regulation and their physiological reactivity to conflict. Yetnotably, few differences are found between couple types regarding conflict behavior (such as displaysof hostility), suggesting that same-sex couples may succeed in “protecting” their relationships frompotential deficits in emotion regulation. The findings suggest new directions for investigating andinterpreting the individual-level and couple-level challenges facing same-sex couples and the physicalhealth implications of these challenges. I discuss the potential mechanisms underlying thesedifferences, and their implications for both research and clinical practice.7

What Do Others –And Only Others– Know About Us?Anne-Marie B. Gallrein, Erika N. Carlson & Daniel Leising (Technische Universität Dresden)This presentation deals with “Blind Spots” in interpersonal perception, that is, views of a target personthat others share with each other, but which the respective target person is not aware of. Sixty-fivetarget persons rated their own personalities and their supposed reputation with others. Furthermore,they recruited as many informants (e.g., spouses, friends) as possible (N 682) who also rated thetargets’ personalities. Using profile analysis we discovered both (a) a normative blind spot (i. e.characteristics that the informants, but not the targets, attributed to the average target) and (b)distinctive blind spots (i. e. unique characteristics that the informants, but not the targets, attributed toparticular targets). The respective effects sizes were substantial as compared to typical levels ofprofile agreement in personality research (e. g. consensus). The normative blind spot mainlycomprised socially desirable personality characteristics, suggesting that typical informants view“their” targets more positively than the targets view themselves. In contrast, distinctive blind spotswere evaluatively neutral. The average person is not aware of all the personality characteristics thatare attributed consensually to him or her by other people. I discuss the question of whether suchconsensual other-perceptions are necessarily more “accurate” than the targets’ self-views, and of howpeople may benefit from gaining access to the “knowledge” that only others have about them (e.g. byobtaining systematic feedback).Agency and Communion Themes in Personal Narratives: New Dictionaries for Text AnalysisMichael B. Gurtman & Angela Hellstrom (University of Wisconsin-Parkside)Agency and Communion are the fundamental modalities of interpersonal life. Agency connotesconcepts of power, mastery, and individuation, while Communion connotes ideas of closeness toothers, unity, togetherness, and belonging. Several coding systems requiring human judgment havebeen developed to assess these themes in autobiographical accounts and other personal narratives. Inour research, we present an automated text-analysis approach for assessing these themes in personaltexts, most suitable for large data sets. More specifically, we developed new dictionaries for Agencyand Communion intended to be used in conjunction with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count(LIWC) program. The results are word counts (as percentages) in the text. Dictionary creation beganwith the verbatim descriptions of Agency and Communion from noted theorists; initial word lists wereexpanded with the help of a thesaurus. The preliminary lists were independently reviewed by the twoauthors, and then refined jointly by including words and word tenses for which we had consensus.The final lists consisted of 128 unique words (plus variations) for each theme. Using the LIWCprogram, we tested our dictionaries by analyzing various text sources drawn from public internetsites. These included: core belief essays, personal memoirs of famous (and infamous) public figures,life story blogs, political speeches, and eulogies. Correlations between Agency and Communion scoreswithin text sources were low, as would be expected. As part of a descriptive analysis, we identified thehighest and lowest scoring texts on Agency and Communion, which will be highlighted in ourpresentation. We will also discuss the strengths and limitations of this word counting method forassessing Agency and Communion themes, and discuss future directions of our research program.An Integrative Model for Conceptualizing Personality PathologyChris Hopwood (Michigan State University), Aaron L. Pincus (Pennsylvania State University)& Alytia A. Levendosky (Michigan State University)Ruptures and divisions in personality science were exposed during controversies about how toconceptualize personality pathology in the DSM-5. In these debates, advocates of competing modelsmostly made arguments or conducted studies oriented toward proving the value of their ownperspective. It was rare for researchers to consider alternative perspectives or developing a modelthat could help more clinicians better understand how to interact therapeutically with more patients.Ironically, or perhaps consequently, the integrative model proposed by the DSM-5 Personality and8

Personality Disorder work group and approved by the APA Task Force was dismissed by the APABoard of Trustees, in favor of the demonstrably flawed DSM-IV system. In this talk we aim to build onthe potential of interpersonal theory to develop a more integrative solution to the problem ofpersonality disorder nosology. Interpersonal theory has long valued integration, and has directlinkages to the prominent theoretical models of personality disorder: descriptive psychiatry, traittheory, and psychodynamic theory. However, the main measurement model of interpersonal theory,the interpersonal circumplex, is missing clinically important content related to emotional functioning.In this paper we unveil a model-under-development whose aim is to integrate traits andpsychodynamics via interpersonal and affective circles toward a more evidence-based and clinicallyuseful model of the constructs and processes of personality pathology.Sequential Analysis of Couples’ Demand / Withdraw and Demand / Submit Interactions usingStructural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB)Lynne M. Knobloch-Fedders (The Family Institute at Northwestern University) & Kenneth L.Critchfield (University of Utah)The strong links between relationship distress, depression, and the interpersonal behavior of couples,along with limitations in current theory and intervention, point to the need for a comprehensive,integrated system of couples-based interpersonal assessment and treatment. This study compared theinterpersonal behavior of distressed couples diagnosed with current Major Depressive Disorder orDysthymic Disorder in one partner (n 23) to distressed couples without current depression in eitherpartner (n 38). Couples were videotaped discussing the three best things in their relationship.These interactions were coded by trained observers using Structural Analysis of Social Behavior(SASB; Benjamin, 1979, 1987, 2000), a micro-analytic, circumplex-based system for assessinginterpersonal behavior. Results indicate that both relationship distress and depression are associatedwith interpersonal hostility. While depressed participants did not differ from randomly-selected,matched-on-gender nondepressed participants from the control group, partners of depressedindividuals displayed more interpersonal hostility and submissiveness than controls. Resultsunderscore the importance of considering partner effects when conceptualizing the links betweendepression and interpersonal behavior in distressed intimate relationships.How Do Approach/Avoidance Relationship Goals Affect Communication and RelationshipSatisfaction in Dating Couples?Monika Kuster, Sabine Backes & Veronika Brandstatter-Morawietz (Universität of Zurich)It is well established that relationship approach/avoidance goals are related to relationshipsatisfaction in couples. Less is known, however, about how approach/avoidance relationship goalsaffect relationship satisfaction. This study examines communication as potential mediator of thisassociation. While approach/avoidance relationship goals describe an individual disposition for eitherpositive social incentives (approach orientation) or negative social outcomes (avoidance orientation;Gable, 2006), communication patterns are a particular dyadic behavior of core importance forrelationship functioning. There is strong evidence that positive and constructive communication (e.g.empathy, support) is associated with relationship satisfaction, whereas negative communication (e.g.criticism, hostility, withdrawal) is associated with relationship distress (Gottman, 1994). In thepresent study, approach motivation is expected to promote positive and supportive communication,whereas avoidance motivation leads to a relationship communication characterized by withdrawal orhostility. Communication then affects relationship satisfaction. We tested our hypothesis on a dyadiclevel with the Actor-Partner Mediation Model (an extension of the Actor-Partner InterdependenceModel; Kenny & Cook; 1999) using data from 368 heterosexual couples. Results suggest thatapproach/avoidance relationship goals are associated with relationship satisfaction. Furthermore,communication mediates the association between approach/avoidance relationship goals andrelationship satisfaction in couples. These findings advance our understanding of relationshipfunctioning conceptually and methodologically. Gender effects and implications for further researchare discussed.9

Temporal Dynamics of Dyadic Interpersonal Behavior: The Insider's PerspectiveIvana Lizdek, Erik Woody (University of Waterloo) & Pamela Sadler (Wilfrid Laurier University)The aim of the current research was to study romantic partners' views of their own and their partner'sbehavior as they unfold continuously over the course of an interaction. Of particular interest was theaccuracy of such perceptions as compared to a trained observer's accuracy and the extent to whichpartners agree about each other's moment-to-moment behavior. There is reason to believe thatromantic partners may be more accurate at tracking their own behavior and their partner's behaviorthan an outside observer because partners can understand each other's language and behavior inrelatively unique ways that only they have the knowledge to decode fully. However, som

Marriott Hotel, Park City, Utah, 1895 Sidewinder Drive . Hierarchy and Health: Effects of Relative Status, Partner Dominance, and Evaluative Threat on Psychophysiological Response during Social Interaction Jenny M. Cundiff (University of Utah) & Timothy W. Smith