Murray Once Hurt, Twice Hurtful

7/27/2019 Murray Once Hurt, Twice Hurtful

1/22


2/22

Consistent with this idea, interpersonal theorists on the self

argue that self-esteem acts as a sociometer that gauges the risk of

interpersonal rejection (Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998;

Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Feelings of self-worth

thus reflect a sense of acceptance, whereas feelings of self-doubt

activate the need for approval and interpersonal connections. Ac-

cordingly, people who feel less valued by others, such as those low

in self-esteem, are likely to be reactive to signs of others approval

because they are motivated to enhance feelings of inclusion

(Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins, & Holgate, 1997; Rudich &

Vallacher, 1999). In this way, unfulfilled needs for acceptance

(whether chronic or acute) can sensitize people to social cues,

focusing their mental energies on deciphering the meaning ofevents that might be informative of anothers caring (e.g., Gardner,

Pickett, & Brewer, 2000).

The motivating influence of belongingness needs in shaping

perception and structuring behavior is likely to be particularly

evident in the context of romantic relationships. After all, there

is perhaps no other adult context in which people are so depen-

dent on another person for the satisfaction of their needs

(Braiker & Kelley, 1979; Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). At rela-

tionship inception, perception of anothers attraction to oneself

is a more potent force in triggering attraction and love than are

considerations of this persons qualities per se (Aron, Dutton,

Aron, & Iverson, 1989; Hazan & Diamond, 2000). As new

relationships develop, moreover, intimates actively monitor

their partners behaviors for signs of selflessness and, thus,reason to trust in their partners willingness to respond to their

needs (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Holmes & Rempel, 1989;

Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999). Even in well-

established marriages, intimates still seek their partners admi-

ration and approval, reporting that they want their partner to see

them much more positively than they see themselves (Murray,

Holmes, & Griffin, 2000).

To find this sense of acceptance, low and high self-esteem

people alike need to believe that others see qualities in them worth

valuing (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). For instance, dating and

married intimates report feeling more accepted and loved by their

partner when they believe their partner sees them more positively

on specific interpersonal qualities (Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bel-

lavia, & Rose, 2001). In other words, Sally is not likely to believe

that Harry will always love her if she has trouble pinpointing

specific qualities in her that he values, especially ones he could not

easily find in another (Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). Accordingly, in

the present study, we equate the activation of belongingness needs

with the perception that the partner sees relatively few positive

qualities in the self. Conversely, we equate the relative satiation of

belongingness needs with the perception that the partner sees many

positive qualities in the self.1

Unfortunately, however, attentiveness to a partners behaviors

need not always generate accurate insights into a partners true

sentiments toward oneself. For instance, people with low self-

esteem have difficulty finding evidence of a partners acceptance

in even the most accommodating behavioral realities (despite the

fact that they seem strongly motivated to find signs of acceptance

and caring). In dating and marital relationships, people with low

self-esteem underestimate how positively their partner sees them

on specific traits (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000) and even

underestimate how much their partner loves them (Murray et al.,

2001). People who are chronically sensitive to rejection (and thus

lower in self-esteem) also underestimate their partners satisfaction

and commitment (Downey & Feldman, 1996).

1 In drawing these parallels, we are not trying to argue that feeling

understood by a partner is unimportant to felt acceptance. In fact, Reis

and Shavers (1988) process model of intimacy is based on the assumption

that perceptions of a partners caring depend on the perception of being

understood. Similarly, Swann, Hixon, and De La Ronde (1992) reported

that low self-esteem people report greater intimacy in their marriage when

their partner sees them as negatively as they see themselves. From our

perspective, however, people need to be able to pinpoint particular reasons

why their partner is likely to love and value them before they are likely

to seek a partners understanding or validation of their more negative

qualities.

Figure 1. A situational analysis of felt security regulation.

127PERCEIVED REGARD AND MARITAL INTERACTIONS


3/22

Seeking Acceptance With a Chronically

Activated Sociometer

What are the likely consequences of more or less positive,

chronic perceptions of a partners regard for the meaning that

might be gleaned from daily relationship events (Path A in Figure

1)? People who feel less positively regarded by their partner mayapproach their relationship in a hypothesis-testing fashion, scruti-

nizing their partners behavior for information about caring. In

scanning the available behavioral data, they may hope to soothe

their own insecurities by finding conclusive evidence that their

partner really does value them. However, they are not likely to be

all that evenhanded in this search. Instead, they may process

information in risk-averse ways, too ready to perceive and gener-

alize from signs of rejection and too hesitant to trust signs of

acceptance. Why might such a seemingly counterproductive asym-

metry emerge?

Feelings of uncertainty and consequent concerns about making

incorrect inferences are thought to result in people processing

information in a cautious or risk-averse fashion (Holmes & Rem-

pel, 1989; Taylor, 1991). That is, people may become more hes-itant to believe what they hope to be true as the costs of being

wrong in this inference increase. Even though detecting signs of

rejection might hurt in the short term, such sensitivity may better

protect intimates who feel less valued by their partner against the

greater hurt of inferring acceptance, risking attachment, and then

later reaching the all the more hurtful conclusion that they were

never really accepted after all. In this way, the combination of

relatively negative chronic expectations and risk aversion may

prime intimates who are looking for signs of acceptance to over-

interpret and internalize signs of rejection as they monitor their

partners day to day behaviors.

On the other side of the coin, confident expectations that a

partner sees positive qualities in the self may inoculate intimatesagainst all but the most obvious signs of a partners rejection in

day to day social interactions. For people who feel more positively

regarded, needs for belongingness are likely to be largely satiated

(and thus quiescent). Rather than looking for signs of a partners

approval, such intimates may instead approach their relationship

with an eye toward confirming and maintaining benevolent expec-

tations about a partners caring. When intimates feel valued, then,

a partners positive behaviors may be easily trusted and assimi-

lated to their expectations, and negative behaviors may be more

easily discounted and consequently may hurt less. In fact, inti-

mates who chronically feel more valued might actively compen-

sate for seemingly threatening events by exaggerating or embel-

lishing just how much their partner values and loves them (see

Murray, 1999, for a review of such motivated cognitive processes).In summary, chronic perceptions of a partners regard for the

self may set the activation threshold or set point of a relationship-

specific sociometer at high or low levels. Differing sensitivities to

rejection may then result in intimates processing day to day events

and partner behaviors in ways that are likely only to reinforce

chronic feelings of being more or less valued. Consistent with this

hypothesis, people with lower self-esteem (and thus less confi-

dence in their partners regard) overinterpret their dating partners

(hypothetical) negative moods, seeing them as symptomatic of a

partners ill feelings toward the self (Bellavia & Murray, in press).

They also react to experimentally induced signs of a partners

irritation by anticipating rejection (Murray, Rose, Bellavia,

Holmes, & Kusche, 2002). Similarly, dating intimates who are

high on attachment-related anxiety interpret a partners hypothet-

ical (Collins, 1996) and actual misdeeds in suspicious ways that

are likely to exacerbate hurt feelings (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips,

1996).

The Situational Regulation of Dependency

Thou has not half the power to do me harm as I have to be hurt.

William Shakespeare, Othello

How might chronic feelings of being more or less positively

regarded affect peoples capacity to maintain feelings of connec-

tion to the partner in situations in which they are feeling acutely

hurt or vulnerable (Path B in Figure 1)? Sustaining a sense of felt

security in a partners continued availability and responsiveness

seems to require an inferential leap of faith, putting the best

possible spin on the available evidence (particularly when that

evidence is negative).

For instance, people in committed dating relationships benevo-

lently misconstrue their partners attraction to others (Simpson,Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995). People in satisfying marriages also

generously attribute their partners transgressions to features of the

situation (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), and they inhibit inclina-

tions to respond in kind to a partners misdeeds and, instead,

respond constructively (Rusbult et al., 1991). They also see virtues

in their partner that are not apparent to their friends (Murray,

Holmes, Dolderman, & Griffin, 2000) or their partner himself or

herself (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). And people in more

stable, satisfying marriages see strengths in their partner that they

do not see in the partners of others (Rusbult, Van Lange, Wild-

schut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000; Van Lange & Rusbult, 1995).

However, the capacity to defend the relationship in the face of

threat appears to be constrained by the perceived risks of suchgenerosity (Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998;

Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000; Murray et al., 2001). In forgiv-

ing Sallys transgression, for instance, Harry protects a sense of

felt security but leaves himself especially vulnerable to future hurt

if his attributional charity proves to be unfounded. It would not be

surprising, then, if Harry only forgave Sally when he felt confident

of her reciprocated tolerance. Supporting this dependency regula-

tion hypothesis, dating and married intimates are more likely to see

the best in their partners traits when they feel confident that their

partner also sees the best in them (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,

2000) and when they feel more loved by their partner (Murray et

al., 2001).

In specific situations, then, the tendency to read rejection and

hurt into daily events may make it difficult for intimates whochronically feel less valued by their partner to respond construc-

tively to difficulties. Instead, they might react to the acute pain of

rejection with anger and by taking the defensive step of actively

distancing from the source of the hurtthe partner or relationship.

After all, devaluing the partner, lashing out behaviorally, or re-

ducing feelings of closeness likely all function to lessen the acute

threat to the self posed by feeling hurt or rejected (Murray et al.,

1998). In a sense, then, intimates who chronically feel less valued

may settle for a sense of safety or felt security that comes from

avoiding situations that put the self at risk for further harm a kind

of prevention motivation (see Higgins, 1996).

128 MURRAY, BELLAVIA, ROSE, AND GRIFFIN


4/22

Supporting this hypothesis, more anxiously attached women

display greater anger toward their partner in situations in which

their partner may not have been as responsive as they hoped

(Rholes, Simpson, & Orina, 1999). Women who chronically an-

ticipate rejection in relationships also behave more negatively

toward their partner during conflicts (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis,

& Khouri, 1998). Low self-esteem people also respond to inducedanxieties about rejection by self-protectively derogating their part-

ner (Murray et al., 1998; Murray et al., 2002). To return to the

sentiment from Othello, intimates who chronically feel less valued

by their partner may react to acute feelings of vulnerability and

hurt by distancing and thus giving their partner less power to hurt

them.

The idea that intimates who chronically feel less valued react to

acute feelings of rejection by finding fault in their partner and

engaging in overtly rejecting behaviors may seem inconsistent

with a basic tenet of the sociometer model. Namely, feelings of

rejection are thought to function as an alarm system that activates

compensatory processes and approach behaviors aimed at securing

acceptance (Leary et al., 1995; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2001;

Williams & Sommer, 1997). Following threatening feedback abouttheir intellectual abilities, for instance, people with low self-esteem

are liked more by strangers in a novel interaction than are people

with high self-esteem, suggesting that lows were more worried

about rejection and took steps to avoid this outcome (Heatherton &

Vohs, 2000; Vohs & Heatherton, 2001).

Given this evidence that rejection concerns activate approach

motivations, why would we expect those intimates who feel less

positively regarded and thus are in most need of acceptance to

think and behave in ways that are likely to lead to a partner s

irritation and disinterest? Interactions with an intimate partner are

unique in that the partner is both the source of rejection and the

desired target of approach behaviors. In routine social interactions,

however, people need not seek acceptance from someone whoappears to be rejecting. Instead, they may readily alleviate feelings

of rejection by approaching novel others (as they did in the

research described above). In romantic relationships, people may

not have this luxury, as they are often caught in the position of

feeling hurt by the very person whose acceptance they most need.

It is for this reason that we believe that a sense of acceptance needs

to be secured in romantic relationships before intimates are likely

to be willing to respond to acute feelings of hurt and vulnerability

by behaving constructively, drawing closer, and thus approaching

the source of that hurt. When people question their partners

acceptance, then, even their best attempts to elicit reassurance or

comfort might be cloaked in blame and criticism of the partner.

For people who feel more valued in their partner s eyes, resilient

expectations of acceptance may lessen the momentary sting ofrejection in ways that allow them to put affirming the relationship

ahead of defending against a perceived slight or hurt to the self. In

response to feeling hurt by a badly behaving partner, for instance,

such people may more readily counteract such specific rejection

experiences by reminding themselves of their partners past good

will and caring or by drawing on the protective resource of feeling

generally accepted. As a result, people who feel more positively

regarded may more readily compensate for signs of difficulty by

drawing closer, emphasizing the strengths of their partner and

relationship. In a sense, intimates who feel more valued may find

a sense of felt security in their relationship through approach

behaviors aimed at enhancing the value of the relationshipa kind

of promotion motivation (see Higgins, 1996).

Consistent with the idea that felt acceptance fosters generosity,

unconsciously primed thoughts of security and acceptance dimin-

ish peoples normal tendencies to derogate out-group members

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001) and increase peoples desire to seek

support from others in dealing with a personal crisis (Pierce &Lydon, 1998). Similarly, consciously activated feelings of being

unconditionally accepted reduce peoples tendency to disparage

others in response to a threat to the self (Schimel, Arndt,

Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 2001).

Summary of the Hypotheses

The current daily diary study presents the first empirical test of

how feeling more or less positively regarded in a partners eyes

shapes the day to day regulation of felt security and thus structures

the momentary feelings, thoughts, and behavioral interactions of

married couples.

We hypothesized that the chronic activation of belongingness

needs would predispose intimates to actively but cautiously hy-pothesis test and, consequently, read too much into negative but

not positive events in their relationship (the moderation of Path A).

Accordingly, we expected people who felt less positively regarded

in their partners eyes to read more into potentially threatening

events, such as conflicts or a partners bad moods or transgres-

sions, than people who felt more valued. Specifically, we expected

intimates who felt less valued to feel less accepted, more hurt and

rejected, and more anxious about their partners acceptance on

days after they detected reasons to doubt their partner. However,

we expected intimates who felt more positively regarded to more

readily compensate for such perceived slights and difficulties on

one day by reaffirming their partners love and acceptance on

subsequent days.

As intimates who are operating at a chronic inclusion deficithave greater needs for a partners acceptance, acute feelings of hurt

and vulnerability should be particularly painful and, thus, activate

the need to protect the self against further hurt. Accordingly, we

expected people who felt less positively regarded to respond to

feelings of vulnerability by rejecting their partner in advance and,

thus, devaluing what they fear they might lose (the moderation of

Path B). Specifically, we expected people who felt less valued in

their partners eyes to respond to feeling hurt, rejected, or anxious

about a partners acceptance one day by engaging in criticizing,

cold, demanding, and otherwise negative behaviors on subsequent

days. Ironically, then, people who feel less valued may actually

ensure that their partner does evaluate them more negatively, as we

expected the partners of such intimates to report greater feelings ofannoyance and frustration with the partner on days after such

events. However, we expected people who felt more positively re-

garded to more readily resist the temptation to lash out in response to

vulnerability. Instead, we expected these intimates to actively draw

closer to their partner on days after they felt more hurt or rejected,

thereby reaffirming feelings of acceptance and belongingness.

Method

Overview

This research was designed to examine how chronic perceptions of a

partners regard affect the way intimates interpret and then respond to daily



5/22

events in marriage. At an initial laboratory session, both members of each

couple completed a background questionnaire tapping perceptions of their

partners regard for them and perceptions of themselves, their partner, and

their relationship. Both members of the couple then completed a 15-min

daily experiences record (DER) each day for 21 days. Each DER asked

participants first to indicate which positive and negative self- and

relationship-relevant events had occurred that day and then to describe

their feelings and thoughts about themselves, their partner, and theirrelationship that day.

Participants

One hundred seventy-three couples involved in marital or cohabiting

relationships participated in a study on Daily Experiences in Marriage

held at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Nineteen

couples were not included in data analysis because they completed fewer

than 14 diaries (12 couples), because they had language difficulties (5

couples), or because they provided suspicious records (2 couples). Of the

remaining 154 couples, 152 couples were married, and 2 couples were

cohabiting. Their mean age was 34.4 years. The average duration of their

marriage was 7.6 years. The majority of the couples (89) had at least one

child from the current relationship. The sample was fairly well educated(44% had a high school diploma, 42% had a college/university degree, and

14% had a graduate/professional degree) and in the middle to upper class

(33% had a combined income less than $40,000, 62% had a combined

income between $40,000 and $100,000, and 5% had a combined income

greater than $100,000). Each couple received $90 payment and a chance to

win $100 in a lottery for participation.

Procedure

In recruiting our sample, we placed advertisements promoting the study

in the classified sections of local newspapers, in public service announce-

ments on local radio stations, and on community bulletin boards in grocery

stores, churches, bars, and restaurants. Interested couples contacted our

laboratory by telephone and were screened for their eligibility (i.e., at

least 18 years of age, married 15 years or less or cohabiting at least 2 but

no more than 15 years, and living in the same residence, i.e., not commut-

ing). Couples who met these criteria were then scheduled for a 1.5- to 2-hr

orientation session at our laboratory.

At this orientation session, the research assistant first seated the mem-

bers of the couple at separate desks and then asked each participant to

complete the background questionnaire package. The research assistant

then introduced the daily diary form and described the procedures for

completing it. Specifically, the research assistant emphasized that partici-

pants should begin completing their diaries the following day, that they

should complete the diaries before going to bed, that they should return

their diaries biweekly by mail on specified days, that their responses were

anonymous and confidential, that they should not discuss their diaries with

their partner, and that if they happened to miss a day, they should leave that

record blank.

Both members of the couple then completed a practice diary describing

the events and feelings they had experienced in their relationship that day

(prior to arriving at the lab). The research assistant then answered any

questions that participants had about the format of the diary or about the

wording or meaning of any individual item. The couple then set up a

follow-up appointment for at least 3 weeks after the orientation session.

Both members of the couple left the laboratory with a personalized daily

diary package that contained an instruction sheet, a calendar specifying the

biweekly dates for submitting the diaries, 22 numerically coded diary

records (1 record was provided as a spare), and addressed, stamped, and

dated return envelopes.2

At the 45- to 60-min follow-up session, both members of the couple

completed measures tapping their self-, partner, and relationship evalua-

tions. They then completed a further questionnaire assessing their experi-

ences in completing the DERs. The research assistant then described the

broad purposes of the study to participants, paid them, and thanked both

members of the couple for their participation.

Background Measures

The first page of each background questionnaire asked participants forbasic demographic information (i.e., gender, age, ethnicity, highest level of

education attained, annual salary). The remainder of the questionnaire

contained measures of self-esteem, perceptions of the partners regard,

perceptions of the partner, and overall evaluations of the relationship

(among other measures). We describe below only those measures relevant

to the aims of the current article.

Global self-esteem. Rosenbergs (1965) 10-item measure ( .88)

assessed global self-evaluations (e.g., I feel that I am a person of worth,

at least on an equal basis with others). Participants responded on 7-point

scales (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree).

Perceptions of the self. This 20-item interpersonal qualities scale

(Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; .80) contained positive and

negative attributes from the interpersonal circle, a model based on the

primary dimensions of warmth hostility and dominancesubmissiveness

(see Murray et al., 1996, for further details). Example attributes includekind and affectionate, open and disclosing, responsive to my needs,

tolerant and accepting, understanding, patient, warm, critical and

judgmental, controlling and dominant, thoughtless, distant, com-

plaining, moody, and irrational. Participants rated how well each of

the traits described themselves on a 9-point scale (1 not at all charac-

teristic, 9 completely characteristic). In computing an overall score, we

reverse scored negative traits, such that higher scores represented more

favorable perceptions.

Perceptions of the partners regard for the self. Participants also

described how they thought their partner saw them on the identical 20

interpersonal qualities to index the extent to which they felt valued when

they imagined themselves through their partners eyes ( .85).

Perceptions of the partner. Participants also described their partner on

the same 20 attributes to index their perceptions of their partner s basic

goodness and value ( .88).

Satisfaction. This four-item scale (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996;

.92) assessed global evaluations of the relationship (e.g., I am

extremely happy with my current romantic relationship, I have a very

strong relationship with my partner, I do not feel that my current

relationship is successful, My relationship with my partner is very

rewarding, i.e., gratifying, fulfilling). Participants responded to these

items on 9-point scales (1 not at all true, 9 completely true).

The DERs

Each DER contained two sections. The first section asked participants to

complete a 103-item event inventory, checking off those positive and

negative events that had occurred that day. General categories of events

included successes or failures at work, interactions with the spouse, man-

aging household and family responsibilities, interactions with friends and

extended families, and interactions with children. The second section asked

participants to complete a 54-item feelings inventory, rating how much of

each emotion they experienced that day. Emotional reactions centered

around self-evaluations, perceptions of the partners regard for the self,

perceptions of the partner, and overall evaluations of the relationship. We

describe below the categories of events and feelings relevant to the current

article.

2 Participants also completed separate open-ended weekly diaries in

which they wrote about the best and worst events that happened in their

relationship that week.



6/22

Own negative behaviors. This five-item measure indexed how often

participants described themselves as engaging in negative behaviors to-

ward their partner that day (i.e., criticized or complained about my

partner, insulted my partner, ignored my partner, was inconsiderate

or selfish, snapped or yelled at my partner). For this (and all following)

behavior composites, we assigned a 1 to checked events and a 0 to

nonchecked events and then summed these scores to provide a continuous

index of the behavior in question on each day.Partners (perceived) negative behaviors. This seven-item measure

indexed how often participants perceived their partner as engaging in

negative behaviors toward them on each day (i.e., partner was irritated or

angry with me, partner criticized or complained about me, partner

insulted me, partner ignored me, partner was inconsiderate or selfish,

partner snapped or yelled at me, partner embarrassed or made fun of me

in public).

Own positive behaviors. This six-item measure tapped how often par-

ticipants described themselves as engaging in positive behaviors toward

their partner each day (i.e., made time to be with my partner, did

something thoughtful for my partner, shared private thoughts with my

partner, changed my behavior for partner, told my partner I loved

him/her, forgave my partner).

Partners (perceived) positive behaviors. This 10-item measure tapped

how many positive behaviors participants perceived in their partner each

day (e.g., partner told me he/she loves me, partner praised me, partner

was physically affectionate, partner did something thoughtful for me,

partner listened to me, partner made time to be with me).

Conflict. This two-item measure assessed the occurrence of overt

conflict between the spouses each day (e.g., we had a minor disagree-

ment, we had a serious argument).

Mood. This six-item measure ( .82) tapped daily mood and self-

evaluation (i.e., unsure of myself, anxious, sad/depressed, unlik-

able, lonely, I wanted to be left alone). Participants rated their

experience of these (and all following) feelings on 7-point scales (1 not

at all, 7 especially). Responses to each item were averaged (for this and

all following daily feelings measures) to create overall scores for each day.

Felt rejection/hurt. This six-item measure ( .91) tapped how

rejected or hurt by their partner participants felt each day (i.e., rejected orhurt by partner, partner doesnt understand me, partner wasnt there for

me, partner was angry with me, partner was irritated with me,

partner doesnt really care what I think).

Felt acceptance. This seven-item measure ( .94) tapped how

accepted, validated, or affirmed participants felt by their partner each day

(e.g., partner loves me, partner accepts me as I am, partner sees the

best in me, partner overlooks my faults, comforted or reassured by

partner, partner is proud of me).

Anxiety about acceptance. This five-item measure ( .86) tapped

feelings of concern about the continued availability of the partners accep-

tance and love each day (i.e., worried about disappointing partner,

unsure whether partner is happy in our relationship, partner is pulling

away from me, partner is bored with me, I care more about this

relationship than my partner).

Anger toward partner. This two-item scale ( .88) tapped feelings

of anger or irritation toward the partner each day (i.e., irritated or annoyed

with my partner, angry with my partner).

Perceptions of partners traits. This four-item scale ( .84) tapped

more global negative evaluations of the partner, focusing on the extent to

which participants thought their partner was being overly demanding,

clingy, or selfish each day (i.e., my partner is selfish, my partner is too

dependent on me, my partner is taking me for granted, my partner nags

me too much).

Closeness. This four-item scale ( .87) tapped how close, con-

nected, and happy intimates felt in their relationship each day. Two of these

items asked participants to rate how in love with their partner they were

and how happy they were in their relationship using the 7-point scale

described above. The remaining two items asked participants to describe

their overall evaluations of their relationships that day (1 terrible, 7

terrific) and to describe how close or connected they felt to their partner on

seven progressively overlapping circles (Aron et al., 1989).

In combination, the above daily indices allow us to explore the day to

day causal links depicted in Figure 1. Using the indices labeled own

negative behavior and felt rejection, for instance, we can link Sallys

self-professed rejecting behavior to Harrys subsequent feelings of hurt orvulnerability (Path A), and we can link Sallys own feelings of hurt to her

subsequent negative behaviors (Path B). Using the indices labeled own

positive behavior and felt acceptance, we can link Sallys self-described

positive behaviors to Harrys subsequent feelings of acceptance (Path A),

and we can link Sallys own feelings of acute acceptance to her subsequent,

self-described positive behavior toward her partner (Path B). Using the

indices labeled partners perceived negative behaviors and anxiety over

acceptance, we can link Sallys perceptions of Harrys negative behaviors

to her subsequent feelings of vulnerability (Path A), and we can link Sallys

acute feelings of anxiety to Harry subsequently describing her as engaging

in negative behaviors (Path B).

Results

We first examine whether perceptions of a partners regard forthe self govern how hurt or rejected intimates feel in response to

negative events in their relationship (the moderation of Path A).

We then examine whether perceptions of a partners regard also

control how intimates respond to feeling hurt and rejected by their

partner (the moderation of Path B). Such hypotheses postulate

cross-level interactions: Within-person effects, such as the link

between the perception of conflict on one day and feelings of

rejection on the next, are moderated by a between-persons effect,

feeling valued by ones spouse.

Testing cross-level hypotheses requires multilevel data-analytic

procedures (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998; Nezlek, 2001). To

simplify things for a moment, imagine that our data structure was

reduced and we just had mens responses to the DERs each dayfor 21 days. This data structure would contain two levels of

analysis (day and person), and we would specify equations repre-

senting the relations among variables at each level of analysis.

Level 1 equations specify the links between variables at a daily

level and yield slope and intercept coefficients to index these

relations (e.g., Do men feel more hurt on days after high conflict

days?; a Level 1 slope coefficient). Level 2 equations specify the

relation between these within-person coefficients and between-

persons variables (e.g., Is the tendency to feel more rejected on

days after high conflict days weaker for men who feel more

positively regarded?i.e., are the Level 1 slopes smaller for men

who believe they are more positively regarded?). Because we

have daily diary reports on both members of each couple, we have

a three-level data structure: Individuals (classified by gender) arenested within couple, and day is nested within individuals. This

allows us to test whether the observed relations at the daily level

and the cross-level relations vary across gender.

Using the multivariate feature of the multilevel modeling pro-

gram MlwiN (Goldstein et al., 1998), we modeled our data as a

three-level nested structure with within-person across-day effects

making up the lowest level, between-persons effects making up the

second level, and a variable representing gender within couple

making up the highest level. This approach is essentially identical

to the data structure used in the classic studies by Barnett and

colleagues (e.g., Barnett, Marshall, Raudenbush, & Brennan, 1993;



7/22

Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennan, Pleck, & Marshall, 1995; Rauden-

bush, Brennan, & Barnett, 1995), except that it exchanges the use

of multiple dummy variables to indicate gender for the use of a

multivariate command that controls how effects are estimated

simultaneously for men or women within a couple.3 This approach

simultaneously estimates two regression equations, one for

women, and one for men, controlling for the interdependencebetween measures taken on two individuals within a dyad. The

multivariate approach instantiated within MlwiN also allows

straightforward tests of the equality of coefficients across men and

women (i.e., tests of gender differences).

The first stage of analysis required assessing whether within-

person effects of interest (i.e., Level 1 slopes and intercepts) varied

significantly across people. For example, significant variation in

the slopes between conflict yesterday and felt rejection today

would indicate that such slopes (computed for each person) differ

significantly between persons. Such a finding then leads to a

search for variables at the level of the person that might moderate

the Level 1 effects. Significant variation in the within-person

coefficients thus justifies further examination of whether between-

persons effects, such as feeling valued by a partner, moderate thesize of the within-person effects.4 A prototype set of equations for

testing this condition is below:

YWt B0W B1WYt1 B2WCt1 v0W uW (1)

YMt B0M B1MYt1 B2MCt1 v0M uM. (2)

Equation 1 represents the effects for women (subscript W);

Equation 2 represents the effects for men (subscript M). In each

case, we predicted the value of the dependent variable (Y) on a

given day for a given couple from an average level term (B0, the

intercept that varies across individuals and is thus a random

coefficient); the value of Yon the previous day (the coefficient B1

represents a fixed effect, essentially the average within-personslope across all individuals); the value of the independent variable,

such as conflict, on the previous day (B2

, also a fixed effect in this

preliminary model); an error term (v0

) that reflects how much each

persons average deviates from the overall average; and an error

term (u) that reflects each persons daily deviation from his or her

own mean on Y. The within-person variables representing the

lagged stability effect (Yt1) and the independent variable (Ct1)

are centered around each persons mean for that variable. Signif-

icant coefficients for such variables are thus interpreted in terms of

the effects of a person being high or low on a given day relative to

his or her own mean for that variable across days.5

When these equations were initially fit as fixed effects, a devi-

ance statistic was computed that represented the badness of fit of

the model to the data. In a second step, the model was fit with theindependent variable (e.g., conflict) set as a random coefficient;

that is, it was allowed to vary across individuals. We then com-

pared the deviance of the fixed effects model with that of the

random effects model. The deviance should decrease significantly

from the fixed to random effects model if the slopes have signif-

icant random variance across people (a seven degrees of freedom

test).6

If the deviance tests reveal a significant fit improvement with

the random slopes, we then add moderating variables to the equa-

tions above to try to capture the between-persons variation in the

Level 1 slopes or intercepts. A prototype set of resulting equations

is below and includes one random intercept (B0

) and one random

slope (B2):

YWt B0W B1WYt1 B2WCt1 B3WZ

B4WZC v0W v2W uW (3)

YMt B0M B1MYt1 B2MCt1 B3MZ

B4MZC v0M v2M uM. (4)

In this next stage of analysis, we predicted the value of the

dependent variable (Y) on a given day from the randomly varying

intercept term (B0

), the fixed effect of Y on the previous day (B1

),

the random effect of the independent variable on the previous day

(B2

), the between-persons moderator (B3

), the interaction between

the between-persons moderator and the within-person effect (B4),

an error term (v0

) that reflects the deviation of each persons

average from the overall average, an error term (v2

) that reflects

the deviation of each persons slope from the average slope for

Ct1

, and an error term (u) that reflects each persons daily

deviation from his or her own mean on Y. The values of the

3 At the time Barnett et al. (1993, 1995) initially published their work,

multilevel modeling programs such as HLM (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002)

only allowed for two levels of analysis. Thus, researchers with nested

couple data had to manipulate the program into implicitly allowing a

three-level data structure. They did this by including dummy vectors

representing gender in their Level 1 equations and then using cross-product

terms to separate out the regression equations for men and women. What

this dummy vector approach effectively did was create an additional two

levels at Level 1 and, thus, allow the researchers to estimate two simulta-

neous regressions. Now, however, multilevel modeling programs, includ-

ing HLM and MlwiN, can accommodate many levels of data. Although the

conceptual structure of our design puts couple at the top level, MlwiN

efficiently accommodates simultaneous analyses across gender by treatingmens and womens dependent variables as multivariate outcomes at

Level 1 (and that is what we did in our analysis). Our approach and the

Barnett et al. approach, then, are identical in their multilevel structure

both create simultaneous regression lines for men and women. (To some

extent, the specific description of the nested structure is an arbitrary part of

the terminology: i.e., is gender best thought of as the top level, above

individual, or as the bottom level, nested within each day?) It is important

to note that our approach differs from the Barnett et al. approach, as these

researchers examined growth curves (i.e., how one variable changes over

time). We are interested in whether the relationship between variables

differs across time (i.e., whether one days events predict the next days

feelings for some people but not others).4 We used a logically parallel set of analyses to test whether the intercept

terms were significantly random across couples. The intercepts were sig-

nificantly random in all of the models, and, thus, we assumed randomintercepts as our starting point for presentation.

5 In centering the daily variables around each persons mean, we are

following the recommendations of Barnett et al. (1993, 1995). Centering

the X variables in this way breaks responses at a daily level into two

components: (a) the average level, and (b) changes on each day from the

average level. The dependent variable in any given equation, then, reflects

changes on each day from each persons average level. As a result, this

means of centering the data allows us to examine whether between-persons

differences in mean levels moderate responses at a daily level.6 It is a seven degrees of freedom test because allowing these coeffi-

cients to be random adds two variance terms (the variance in womens and

mens slopes) and five covariance terms to the model.



8/22

between-persons variables (ZW

and ZM

) are centered around the

sample mean for women and men, respectively.

Significant effects involving between-persons variables are thus

interpreted as an effect of being high or low on a particular

variable relative to the sample mean.7 Finding a significant inter-

action in the above analysis would mean that the nature of a

cross-day effect, such as the effect of experiencing a higher than

average level of conflict today on tomorrows experience of re-

jection, differed as a function of a between-subjects variable, suchas feeling more or less valued in a partner s eyes than average.

As the last stage of analysis, we tested for gender differences in

the coefficients of interest. We did this by comparing the deviance

of a model that constrained a particular coefficient to be equal for

men and women with the deviance of a model that let this coef-

ficient vary by gender (a one degree of freedom test). The coeffi-

cients for women and men were similar in the large majority of

cases, and, as a result, we typically present coefficients that are

pooled across gender.

The EventFelt Vulnerability Link: Making Mountains out

of Molehills?

We expected perceptions of a partners regard for the self toshape how much (or how little) intimates read into daily negative

but not positive relationship events. Was this the case? Following

the strategy illustrated in Equations 1 and 2, we first tested to see

whether the within-person slopes of interest differed significantly

across individuals.8 That is, we conducted separate analyses pre-

dicting each daily index of felt vulnerability (i.e., felt rejection,

anxiety about acceptance, and felt acceptance) from the prior days

level of felt vulnerability, the prior days events (i.e., conflict, the

partners actual and perceived negative behaviors, the partners

actual and perceived positive behaviors, or the partners negative

mood). (The distinction between the partners actual and perceived

negative and positive behaviors refers to the distinction between

Harrys own description of his own behavior toward Sally and

Sallys perception of Harrys behavior toward her.) These analyses

revealed significant variation in slopes across people for the prior

days conflicts, the partners perceived negative behaviors, and the

partners actual mood on each measure of todays vulnerability

(allowing us to test for the possible moderating effects of per-

ceived regard for these three types of events).9

Accordingly, we then examined whether feeling valued in apartners eyes moderated how vulnerable intimates felt in response

to these events (by inserting the main and interactive effects of

perceived regard into Equations 3 and 4). Table 1 summarizes

these analyses, organizing the equations such that each precipitat-

ing event (i.e., conflict, the partners perceived negative behaviors,

7 In centering womens and mens between-persons variables around

each respective sample mean, we are also following the recommendations

of Barnett et al. (1993, 1995). With this means of centering, the intercept

for women refers to the average level of the dependent variable for women,

and the intercept for men refers to the average level of the dependent

variable for men. The intercepts would not have this easily understood

meaning if we centered around the overall sample mean.8 If every participant completed every diary across the 21 days, we

would have 42 records per couple, for a total of 3,234 records for the

sample. Of course, the number of DERs (and the number of individual

items completed on each record) varied from day to day. As a result, the

number of DERs included in each analysis varies because of missing data

(from 86.4% to 89.1% of all possible records included in the analysis).9 We could not examine whether perceptions of a partners regard

moderated how vulnerable intimates felt in response to the partners actual

(i.e., self-reported) negative behaviors, the partners actual positive behav-

iors, or the partners perceived positive behaviors (because the magnitude

of these cross-day slope coefficients did not vary consistently and signif-

icantly across the sample).

Table 1

Predicting Todays Felt Vulnerability From the Prior Days Events, Perceived Regard, and the Cross-Level Interaction

Todays vulnerability (DV) Intercept (B0)

Prior daysvulnerability

Prior daysevent Perceived regard

Prior DaysEvent

Perceived RegardR2

slopesa

R2

interactionb

B1 SE B2 SE B3 SE B4 SE

IV: ConflictFelt rejection 1.97 .151*** .015 .023 .044 .250*** .041 .090** .035 .037 .075Anxiety over acceptance 1.87 .224*** .014 .006 .029 .304*** .049 .048* .024 .031 .044Felt acceptance 4.73 .227*** .014 .040 .030 .391*** .055 .064* .026 .016 .070

IV: Partners negative behaviorFelt rejection 1.97 .159*** .016 .025 .019 .247*** .041 .028* .014 .028 .093Anxiety over acceptance 1.87 .220*** .014 .013 .011 .304*** .049 .022* .009 .017 .063Felt acceptance 4.73 .231*** .014 .027* .013 .387*** .055 .021 .011 .006 .100

IV: Partners negative moodFelt rejection 1.97 .146*** .013 .042* .018 .262*** .041 .034* .016 .010 .068Anxiety over acceptance 1.87 .208*** .013 .027 .015 .298*** .048 .019 .013 .021 .033

Note. Unless noted otherwise, the coefficients in this table (and all following tables) are pooled across gender. DV dependent variable; IV independent variable.a The R2 for slopes represents the proportional reduction in daily-level variation in the dependent measure associated with specifying the within-person

slopes as random rather than fixed (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).b The R2 for the cross-level interaction represents the proportional reduction in person-level variance across the within-person slopes that is associatedwith perceptions of the partners regard. p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.



9/22

and the partners negative mood) predicts each index of situated

felt vulnerability (i.e., felt rejection, anxiety about acceptance, and

felt acceptance). We present the coefficients and standard errors

for all of the terms in each equation in this table, although we only

discuss the expected interactions in detail. (Dividing each coeffi-

cient by its standard error produces the equivalent of a z statistic as

a test of significance). In most cases, the coefficients are pooled

across gender. When we found significant gender differences, we

note the coefficients for men and women in the tables with sub-

scripts (M and W, respectively).10

Reactions to conflict. As we expected, chronically feeling

valued in a partners eyes did indeed moderate how vulnerableintimates felt in response to more conflict-ridden days. That is, the

pooled, cross-level Perceived Regard Conflict interaction term

was significant, predicting felt rejection, anxiety about acceptance,

and felt acceptance (see the first major section in Table 1). Fig-

ure 2a illustrates the nature of this effect for intimates one standard

deviation above and below the mean on perceived regard. As we

expected, detecting a relationship difficulty one day (in this case,

greater levels of conflict than were customarily experienced)

seemed to exacerbate differences between intimates who felt more

or less valued in terms of how much residual hurt they reported on

subsequent days. The results for anxiety and felt acceptance

yielded similar patterns, although the findings for felt acceptance

were a mirror image of these results. (Incidentally, the strong main

effects of feeling positively regarded on traits in these equations

support our conceptualization of this measure as an index of

belongingness: Intimates who believed their partner saw them

more positively on specific traits felt significantly more loved, less

rejected, and less anxious about acceptance across days. The

opposite was the case for intimate who felt less positively

regarded.)

We then decomposed these interactions into their two compo-

nent sets of simple effects by adapting the general procedures

outlined by Aiken and West (1991). We first examined whether

10 We also examined the level of dependence between partners on a

selected subset of the primary intercept and slope coefficients. We found

moderate levels of dependence in both intercept terms and slope terms. The

between-partners correlations in the average level of felt rejection, felt

acceptance, anxiety over acceptance, self-reported negative behavior, and

closeness, for instance, ranged from .25 to .65. The between-partners

correlations in the effects of conflict, perceived rejecting behavior, and

partners negative mood on felt rejection ranged from .17 to .44. The

between-partners correlations in the effects of felt rejection on self-

rejecting behavior and closeness ranged from .08 to .31.

Figure 2. Predicting felt rejection from the prior days threat, perceived regard, and the cross-level interaction.



10/22

stressful events have different acute effects for intimates who

chronically feel more or less valued. That is, we examined the

simple effect of yesterdays conflicts on todays feelings of vul-

nerability separately for intimates who chronically felt more val-

ued and those who chronically felt less valued by computing two

conditional regression lines. We did this simply by transforming

the perceived regard scores to represent people one standard de-viation above and below the sample mean for each gender. We

then reconducted the original analysis but substituted the condi-

tional terms for the original terms. In these equations, the coeffi-

cient for conflict is the slope of the regression line linking yester-

days conflict and todays vulnerability, which is conditional on

being either chronically low or high on perceived regard.

The results of these simple effects tests (see the first two

columns of Table 2) illustrate the buffering effects of belonging-

ness: The pooled simple slopes linking yesterdays conflicts to

todays felt vulnerability were significant and in the anticipated

direction for intimates high on perceived regard. That is, intimates

who chronically felt more valued reported significantly greater

confidence in their partners acceptance and significantly less fear

of rejection after high conflict days than after low conflict days.The opposite tendency emerged for intimates who felt less valued,

although the simple slopes for yesterdays conflicts were not

significant.

We then decomposed the same interaction in a different way by

examining whether stressful events accentuate the link between

chronic perceptions of being valued and the acute experience of

vulnerability. That is, we examined the slope of the regression line

linking chronic feelings of being valued to acute vulnerability

separately for days following low versus high threat events (in this

case, on days after intimates reported less vs. more conflict than

they normally experienced). Again, we computed conditional

terms simply by transforming the conflict scores to represent prior

days one standard deviation below and above the sample mean foreach gender. We then reconducted the original analysis using these

conditional terms in place of the original terms. In these condi-

tional equations, the coefficient for perceived regard is the slope of

the regression line linking chronic feelings of being valued to acute

vulnerability that is conditional on the prior day being high or low

on conflict.

The last two columns of Table 2 contain the results of these

simple slopes tests. Decomposing the interaction in this way re-vealed that all of the simple slopes predicting felt vulnerability

from perceived regard were significant for days following low

threat days. That is, intimates who chronically felt more valued felt

less acutely vulnerable following low threat days. However, the

association between feeling chronically valued and feeling acutely

vulnerable was more pronounced for days following high levels of

conflict. As we expected, then, the protective effect of feeling

valued became all the more apparent on days after intimates

reported unusually high levels of conflict and thus seemed to have

evidence at hand to justify anxiety.

Reactions to an ill-mannered partner. What happened when

we substituted perceptions of a partners negative behaviors as the

potential threat to be detected (or discounted)? As the second

major section in Table 1 illustrates, we found significant PerceivedRegard Partners Negative Behavior interactions predicting felt

rejection and anxiety over acceptance, and we found a marginal

interaction predicting felt acceptance. Figure 2b illustrates the

negative behaviorsfelt rejection link for intimates low and high

on perceived regard as an example of the pattern that emerged.

Further illustrating the buffering effects of belongingness, inti-

mates who felt more valued actually reported feeling significantly

more accepted, less rejected, and less anxious about their partners

acceptance on days after they thought their partner was being

particularly ill-behaved, as compared with low-threat days (see

Table 2). That is, the pooled simple slopes for the partners

negative behavior were significant for highs. The opposite ten-

dency again emerged for intimates who felt less valued, althoughthe simple slopes for the partners negative behavior were not

Table 2

Simple Slopes for the Significant Interactions in Table 1

Todays vulnerability (DV)

Prior days event predictingtodays felt vulnerability

Perceived regard predictingtodays felt vulnerability

Lowperceived regard

Highperceived regard

Lowthreat days

Highthreat days

Simpleslope SE

Simpleslope SE

Simpleslope SE

Simpleslope SE

IV: ConflictFelt rejection .071 .055 .118* .060 .215*** .042 .286*** .044Anxiety over acceptance .045 .037 .056 .040 .285*** .049 .323*** .051Felt acceptance .027 .038 .106* .042 .366*** . 055 .416*** . 057

IV: Partners negative behaviorFelt rejection .004 .022 .055* .026 .219*** .042 .274*** .044Anxiety over acceptance .010 .013 .036* .016 .282*** .049 .326*** .051Felt acceptance .004 .014 .049** .019 .366*** .055 .408*** .057

IV: Partners negative moodFelt rejection .077** .023 .006 .026 .237*** .042 .287*** .042

Note. DV dependent variable; IV independent variable. Low and high refer to one standard deviationabove and below the appropriate sample means.* p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.



11/22

significant for lows. Decomposing the interaction into simple

slopes for perceived regard revealed that the link between chronic

perceptions of the partners regard and acute vulnerability was

again exacerbated on days after intimates perceived a particularly

ill-behaved partner and thus had seemingly greater reason to

question their partners acceptance.11

Reactions to a moody partner. Intimates who chronically felt

less valued even read too much into the most seemingly ambigu-

ous event of allthe partner simply feeling badly about himself or

herself on a particular day. As the last section in Table 1 illustrates,

the Perceived RegardMoody Partner interaction was significant

predicting felt rejection. Figure 2c contains illustrative regression

lines. A parallel but not significant interaction emerged, predictingfelt anxiety. (The within-person slopes were not significantly ran-

dom for felt acceptance.) As Table 2 illustrates, intimates who felt

less valued reported significantly greater feelings of hurt and

rejection on days after their partner reported more than his or her

typical amount of negative mood, as compared with low threat

days. That is, the pooled simple slope for the partners negative

mood was significant for lows. The opposite effect tended to

emerge for intimates who felt more valued, although the simple

slope for the partners negative mood was not significant. More-

over, the link between chronic perceptions of the partners regard

and the acute experience of vulnerability was again exacerbated by

the occurrence of a potentially threatening event. That is, the

simple slopes for perceived regard were consistently stronger

following days when the partner had been in a particularly badmood, as compared with low threat days.

Alternative explanations? The results to this point suggest that

the image of themselves people see in a partners eyes shapes how

much (or how little) they read into events that might seem to give

them reason to doubt a spouses affections. As we expected,

intimates who felt more valued found even greater reason to trust

in a partners acceptance on days following threatening events.

The opposite was true for intimates who felt less valued.

There are at least four alternative explanations for these results

that should be examined. The first stems from the fact that we

specified the stability paths in these equations (i.e., the prior days

vulnerability predicting todays vulnerability) as a fixed rather

than a random effect. We took this step to reduce potential mul-

ticollinearity among the predictors, stabilize the iteration process,

and simplify presentation. But taking this measure raises the pos-

sibility that the apparent role of perceived regard in moderating

reactions to relationship threats might really reflect the fact that the

daily experience of felt vulnerability is more stable for highs than

lows (or vice versa). Accordingly, we estimated all of the models

involving significant interactions, setting the stability lag to be

random rather than fixed. The first column of Table 3 contains the

resulting coefficients for the hypothesized cross-level interactions.

The estimation procedure converged in all but one analysis, and we

continued to find significant interactions between perceived regard

and the prior days events predicting felt vulnerability on subse-

quent days.12

The second alternative stems from the possibility that the dy-

namics we observed might be more a function of event frequency

than the chronic activation of belongingness needs. From this

11 Some readers might be concerned by the fact that partner was

irritated/angry with me was included both as one of the events in the

partner negative behavior composite and as one of the feelings in the felt

rejection composite. (Participants responded to two separate items.) After

all, this kind of item overlap might inflate the association between the

composite measures across days. We are not all that troubled by this

possibility. First, we predicted todays felt rejection simultaneously from

felt rejection on the prior day and the level of negative partner behavior

perceived on the prior day. Any cross-day effect of perceived negative

behaviors thus reflects the unique effects of events on subsequent feelings,

with any initial degree of overlap between the events and the feelings

controlled for. Second, we were predicting cross-level interactions, not

simple cross-day main effects. And third, we found similar support for our

hypotheses on measures, such as the link between perceived rejecting

behavior and felt acceptance, that contained no overlapping item content.12 The model predicting anxiety about acceptance from the prior days

level of negative partner behaviors failed to converge to a reliable solution.

Accordingly, we simplified the model and simply examined whether per-

ceived regard moderated the size of the stability lag. It did not.

Table 3

Exploring Alternative Explanations for the Cross-Level Interactions Presented in Table 1

Todays vulnerability (DV)

Stability lagrandom

Controllingevent

frequency

Controllingpartnersappraisal

Controllingglobal

self-esteem

B4 SE B4 SE B4 SE B4 SE

IV: ConflictFelt rejection .088* .033 .092* .036 .088* .036 .067 .038Anxiety over acceptance .047* .024 .055* .025 .048 .025 .030 .026Felt acceptance .048 .025 .065* .027 .061* .027 .050 .028

IV: Partners negative behaviorFelt rejection .034* .013 .027 .015 .027 .015 .028 .016Anxiety over acceptance .021* .010 .022* .010 .019 .010Felt acceptance .016 .010 .020 .011 .019 .011 .021 .012

IV: Partners negative moodFelt rejection .042** .015 .030 .017 .028 .017 .038* .016

Note. Betas are for the Prior Days Event Perceived Regard interaction. DV dependent variable; IV independent variable. p .10. * p .05. ** p .01.



12/22

perspective, intimates who feel more valued may rebound more

quickly from threatening relationship events because such events

are more unusual for them, not because they construe those events

more benignly (a variant on regression to the mean). To examine

this possibility, we added each persons (or partners) mean for the

event category and the interaction between mean levels of the

event category and the prior days level of the event to Equations 3and 4. For example, we added terms indexing the partners mean

reports of negative mood each day and the Partners Mean

Mood Prior Days Mood interaction term to the equations

predicting felt rejection. In these (highly conservative) analyses,

feeling more or less valued in a partners eyes still moderated how

hurt intimates felt on days after threatening events. As the second

column of Table 3 illustrates, all of the observed Event Per-

ceived Regard interactions were still significant or at least mar-

ginally significant.

The third alternative stems from the possibility that the effects

of feeling valued might simply be a proxy for the effects of

possessing a more or less valuing partner. If that were the case,

intimates who felt more valued might rebound more readily from

negative events because their partner actually does see them morepositively and thus values them more (and not because feeling

valued on specific traitsand thus deactivating belongingness

needs confers resilience). On the other side of the coin, intimates

who felt less valued might read more into negative events because

their partner actually does see them more negatively and intended

to convey such rejecting attitudes. Consistent with this possibility,

intimates who felt more valued in this sample were, in fact,

regarded more positively by their partner, r(152)W .57,

r(152)M .54, p .001. To examine this alternative, then, we

added the partners actual appraisal of the participant on the

interpersonal qualities scale and the Partners Actual Appraisal

Prior Days Events interaction term to Equations 3 and 4. Despite

the highly conservative nature of these analyses, all of the Per-ceived Regard Event interactions in these analyses were still

significant (or at least marginally significant), as the third column

of Table 3 illustrates, suggesting that the effects of feeling valued

are not masking the effects of actually being valued by ones

partner.

The fourth alternative is that the apparent benefits of feeling

valued in a partners eyes might actually reflect the benefits of

feeling valuable in ones own eyes. After all, low self-esteem

dating and married intimates underestimate how positively their

partner sees them on the specific traits included in our measure of

perceived regard (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). To explore

this possibility, we added global self-esteem and the relevant

interaction terms to Equations 3 and 4. The final column of Table 3

contains the Event Perceived Regard interactions for theseanalyses. Despite the fact that intimates with higher global self-

esteem believed their partner saw them more positively on these

interpersonal traits, r(152)W .41, r(152)

M .38, ps .001,

these analyses still revealed consistent, albeit marginally signifi-

cant, Event Perceived Regard interactions. The cross-level

Event Global Self-Esteem interactions were not significant. We

even found a parallel pattern of results when we substituted self-

perceptions on the interpersonal qualities scale for global self-

esteeman even more conservative analysis, given how strongly

self-perceptions on these traits colored impressions of a partners

regard for the self, r(152)W .77, r(152)

M .74. These analyses

suggest that feeling valued in a partners eyes confers a resilience

(or vulnerability) that is not simply isomorphic with self-esteem.

The Felt VulnerabilityCloseness Link: Turning Molehills

Into Mountains?

We expected people who chronically felt less valued to respond

to acute feelings of hurt and vulnerability by rejecting their partner

and thus devaluing what they fear they might lose. In contrast, we

expected people who chronically felt more valued to resist this

temptation to lash out and instead to draw closer in response to

feeling acutely vulnerable. Was this the case?

We first examined whether the within-person effects of interest

differed significantly across couples. That is, we conducted sepa-

rate analyses predicting each daily index of approach and avoid-

ance responses (i.e., own negative behaviors, own positive behav-

iors, anger toward the partner, and feelings of closeness) from the

prior days approach and avoidance responses and the prior days

feeling of vulnerability (i.e., felt rejection, anxiety about accep-

tance, and felt acceptance). All but one of these analyses revealedsignificant random variation across people in the size of the slope

coefficients for felt vulnerability. (The magnitude of the cross-day

slope linking anxiety to positive behaviors did not differ signifi-

cantly across people). We then examined whether feeling valued in

a partners eyes moderated whether intimates responded to feeling

vulnerable by drawing closer to their partner or by pushing their

partner away. Table 4 summarizes these analyses, organizing the

equations such that precipitating feeling predicts each type of

approach or avoidance response. Table 5 presents the correspond-

ing simple effects tests. Again, we focus our discussion on the

expected, significant cross-level interactions.

Own negative behaviors. Did intimates who felt less valued

respond to feelings of vulnerability by engaging in cold, hurtful,and otherwise negative behaviors toward their partner (behaviors

that could, ironically, elicit the very rejection they feared)? As

Table 4 illustrates, the Perceived Regard Yesterdays Felt Re-

jection interaction and the Perceived Regard Yesterdays Anx-

iety interaction were both significant, and the Perceived Regard

Yesterdays Felt Acceptance interaction was marginally signifi-

cant. Figure 3a illustrates the link between felt rejection and

consequent negative behaviors for intimates who chronically felt

more and less valued.

Illustrating the ironic consequences of unfulfilled belongingness

needs, intimates who chronically felt less valued were significantly

more likely to behave in an ill-tempered way toward their partner

on days after they had felt particularly rejected or anxious about

acceptance, as compared with low vulnerability days. That is, thesimple slopes for the prior days felt rejection and anxiety were

significant and positive for people low on perceived regard (see

Column 1 of Table 5). Intimates who felt more valued, however,

were able to resist this impulse. That is, the simple slopes for the

prior days rejection and anxiety were not significant for highs,

suggesting that one days hurts need not translate into the next

days retaliatory actions if people are sufficiently confident of their

partners regard. Put in terms of the simple slopes for perceived

regard, the tendency for intimates who felt less valued to behave in

a more cold, critical, and hurtful way after low vulnerability days

was exacerbated on days after they felt most vulnerable and, thus,



13/22

presumably had the greatest need to elicit signs of a partners

approval and affection.

Anger toward the partner. Did intimates who chronically felt

less valued also respond to feelings of vulnerability by finding

greater fault in their partner, effectively blaming them for relation-

ship difficulties? As Table 4 illustrates, the Perceived Regard

Prior Days Felt Rejection interaction was significant for women

but not men. Decomposing the interaction revealed that women

who felt less valued reported significantly greater anger toward

their partner on days after they felt more rejected than usual, as

compared with low vulnerability days. That is, the simple slope for

felt rejection was significant. Decomposing the interaction intosimple slopes for perceived regard, moreover, revealed that the

link between chronic feelings of being valued and anger expres-

sion was exacerbated by the acute experience of heightened hurt

and vulnerability, as we expected.

Feelings of closeness. Did intimates who felt more valued

draw closer to their partner on days after they felt particularly

vulnerable, perhaps as a compensatory defense against feelings of

vulnerability? As we expected, the Perceived Regard Yester-

days Felt Rejection interaction and the Perceived Regard

Yesterdays Anxiety interaction were both significant, predicting

closeness. Figure 3b illustrates the association between the prior

days felt rejection and the next days reports of closeness for

intimates who chronically felt more or less positively regarded. As

the simple slopes in Table 5 illustrate, intimates who chronically

felt more valued actually drew closer to their partner on days after

they felt particularly hurt and sensitized to the possibility of

rejection, as compared with low vulnerability days. That is, the

pooled simple slopes for felt rejection and anxiety were significant

and positive for highs. The opposite tendency emerged for inti-

mates who felt less valued, although the simple slopes for felt

vulnerability were not significant. Put in terms of the simple slopes

for perceived regard, the tendency for intimates who felt more

valued to report greater closeness after low vulnerability days wasexacerbated on days after they had felt most vulnerable to the

possibility of rejection and thus presumably needed the partners

comfort the most.

Own positive behaviors. Although we expected intimates who

felt more valued to also express more caring, affection, and

thoughtfulness toward their partner on days after they felt more

vulnerable, no significant interactions emerged for this variable.

Alternative explanations. Could any of the four alternative

explanations we raised earlier account for the differential re-

sponses to felt vulnerability we observed? When it was possible to

do so, we first estimated random rather than fixed stability paths

Table 4

Predicting Todays Approach and Avoidance Responses From the Prior Days Felt Vulnerability, Perceptions of the Partners

Regard, and the Cross-Level Interaction

Todays response (DV) Intercept (B0)

Prior days DV

Prior days

vulnerability Perceived regard

Prior DaysVulnerability

Perceived

RegardR2

slopesaR2

interactionbB1 SE B2 SE B3 SE B4 SE

IV: Felt rejectionOwn negative behaviors 0.36W .002 .015 .014 .014 .101W*** .024 .034** .012 .027 .130

0.25M .018M .025Anger toward partner 2.0W .013 .020 .110** .032 .227*** .042 .056W* .027 .029 .190W

1.85M .035M .029 .038MCloseness 5.04 .212W*** .020 .012 .018 .204*** .046 .036** .014 .022 .300

.159M*** .020Own positive behavior 1.63 .069*** .014 .021 .018 .145*** .045 .006 .016 .013 .000

IV: Anxiety over acceptanceOwn negative behaviors 0.35W .011 .014 .014 .020 .095W*** .024 .055** .018 .030 .051

0.24M .016M .025Anger toward partner 2.01W .065*** .015 .075 .039 .239*** .041 .037 .031 .025 .030

1.86MCloseness 5.04 .232W*** .020 .053W .034 .210*** .046 .041* .019 .011 .057

.134M*** .020 .045M .031IV: Felt acceptance

Own negative behaviors 0.35W .015W .020 .017 .015 .091W*** .023 .023 .013 .016 .0270.25M .044M* .019 .020M .025

Anger toward partner 2.00W .052*** .015 .090** .029 .224*** .042 .007 .024 .024 .0081.86M

Closeness 5.04 .164W*** .023 .055* .022 .210*** .046 .022 .016 .024 .043.111M*** .023

Own positive behavior 1.63 .066*** .014 .023 .019 .155** .046 .025 .025 .012 .000

Note. Subscripts M and W indicate men and women, respectively. DV dependent variable; IV independent variable.a The R2 for slopes represents the proportional reduction in daily-level variation in the dependent measure associated with specifying the within-personslopes as random rather than fixed (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).b The R2 for the cross-level interaction represents the proportional reduction in person-level variance across the within-person slopes that is associatedwith perceptions of the partners regard.

p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.



14/22

for equations in Table 4. As the first column of Table 6 illustrates,

these analyses continued to yield significant Perceived Regard

Prior Days Vulnerability interactions, predicting anger and close-

ness. (The stability paths for participants own negative behavior

were not significantly random).

We then examined whether intimates who felt more valued

responded more constructively to the acute experience of vulner-ability simply because they experienced lower and, thus, possibly

less threatening levels of vulnerability overall. That is, we added

mean levels of felt rejection (and anxiety) and the appropriate

interaction terms to Equations 3 and 4. These highly conservative

analyses still continued to yield significant (or at least marginally

significant) interactions predicting participants own negative be-

haviors and closeness, as the second column of Table 6 illustrates.

We then examined whether intimates who felt less valued re-

sponded more negatively to the acute experience of vulnerability

because their partner actually did evaluate them more negatively.

That is, we added the partners actual appraisal of the intimate and

the interaction terms to Equations 3 and 4. All of the perceived

regard interactions in the third column of Table 6 remained sig-

nificant. We then examined whether intimates who feel less valuedresponded more hurtfully to feeling hurt because they evaluate

themselves more negatively. All of the perceived regard interac-

tions remained significant when we controlled for the main and

interactive effects of global self-esteem (see Table 6, Column 4).

Parallel results emerged when trait-specific esteem on the IQS

served as our measure of self-esteem.

Our focus on behavioral responses to felt vulnerability raises

three further alternative explanations for the results we observed.

The first is that intimates who feel less valued may respond to

vulnerability with hurtful actions because they are defending them-

selves against a battery of real criticisms and complaints (not

because they are overly sensitized to rejection). We conducted a

further set of analyses, in which we added each partners mean

level of self-confessed rejecting behavior and the appropriate in-

teraction terms to Equations 3 and 4 to examine this possibility. As

the fifth column of Table 6 illustrates, we still found significant

perceived interactions in these analyses, suggesting that the retal-

iatory strike that lows take in response to acute vulnerability islargely unwarranted by their partners actual behavior.13

Alternatively, intimates who feel less valued may respond to

acute vulnerability by distancing because they are involved in less

satisfying relationships marked by habitual patterns of recipro-

cated negativity (e.g., Gottman, 1994). After all, our prior search

suggests that intimates who feel less valued report less satisfaction

in their marriage (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000), and this

dynamic emerged again in the present sample, r(151)W .57,

r(152)M .58. To explore this possibility, we conducted a further

set of analyses, in which we added satisfaction and the Satisfac-

tion Acute Vulnerability interaction to the equations predicting

approach and avoidance responses. The last column of Table 6

contains the coefficients for the perceived regard interactions forthese highly conservative analyses. We still found Felt Vulnera-

bility Perceived Regard interactions predicting reports of inti-

mates negative behaviors toward their partner and their reports of

13 A related possibility is that intimates who feel more valued might

draw closer to their partner on days after they felt more hurt because their

partner is more likely to apologize and engage in reparative behavior when

he or she has behaved badly. This possibility seems unlikely. We did not

find any evidence that people generally behave better on days after they

behaved badly or that the partners of highs behave better on days after

highs felt more hurt.

Table 5

Simple Slopes for the Significant Interactions in Table 4

Todays response (DV)

Prior days felt vulnerabilitypredicting todays response

Perceived regard predictingtodays response

Low

perceived regard

High

perceived regard

Low

threat days

High

threat days

SimpleSlope SE

SimpleSlope SE

SimpleSlope SE

SimpleSlope SE

IV: Felt rejectionOwn negative behaviors .050** .016 .021 .020 .069

W** .025 .134

W*** .028

.010M .026 .046M .028Anger toward partner .149W*** . 042 .016W .054 .192W** .056 .302W*** .059

.093M

* .044 .173M

** .051 .232M

*** .060 .170M

* .067Closeness .026 .021 .050* .025 .172*** .047 .237*** .048

IV: Anxiety over acceptanceOwn negative behaviors .071** .024 .043 .031 .061

W* .027 .129

W*** .026

.018M .025 .050M .029Closeness .010W .079 .097W* .043 .186*** .048 .235*** .048

.088M

** .034 .002M

.039IV: Felt acceptance

Own negative behaviors .041* .018 .008 .021 .073W** .024 .109W*** .026.003

M.027 .036

M.027

Note. Low and high refer to one standard deviation above and below the sample means. Subscripts M and Windicate men and women, respectively. DV dependent variable; IV independent variable. p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.



15/22

closeness. These analyses, then, suggest that feeling valued in a

partners eyes and the sense of acceptance or inclusion it reflects

may play a unique role in governing how intimates respond to the

acute experience of vulnerability.

The final possibility is that intimates who feel less valued may

behave in a more cold and rejecting way in response to particularly

hurtful days because hurtful days contain more threatening events.

In other words, the apparent effect of perceived regard in buffering

Figure 3. Predicting approach and avoidance responses from the prior days felt vulnerability, perceivedregard, and the cross-level interaction.

Table 6

Exploring Alternative Explanations for the Cross-Level Interactions Presented in Table 4

Todays response (DV)

Stability lagrandom

Controllingmean

vulnerability

Controllingpartnersappraisal

Controllingglobal

self-esteem

Controllingpartnersbehavior

Controllingsatisfaction

B4

SE B4

SE B4

SE B4

SE B4

SE B4

SE

IV: Felt rejectionOwn negative behaviors .021 .012 .033** .012 .031* .013 .022 .012 .030* .014Anger toward partner .060* .027 .038 .027 .055* .027 .063* .029 .051 .027 .045 .030Closeness .035* .013 .031* .015 .032* .014 .043** .015 .037* .014 .028 .015

IV: Anxiety over acceptanceOwn negative

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ximena-delgado-osorio
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

Murray Once Hurt, Twice Hurtful

Documents