1. Erin N. Burdwood & Robert F. Simons For further information
Neural Correlates of Relationship Quality Factors in Individuals Processing Faces of Their Romantic Partners
Erin N. Burdwood & Robert F. Simons
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE
Introduction
Facial processing studies are often used to assess a person’s immediate response to a given stimulus1
These studies typically lump romantic partners together in a single “loved person” category without considering relationship quality factors that might influence neural responses to that loved person2
Studies of other types of relationships (e.g., parent/child) have found that factors including positive orientation towards the relationship and perceived relationship significance influence neural responses to the significant other’s face3
Goal: Examine the influence of relationship quality factors on an individual’s neural response to his or her romantic partner
It was predicted that better relationship and communication quality would be associated with more positive ERPs, in line with similar studies1, 2
Results
Components
N100
Time window: 80 – 130 ms
ROI: Fz, Cz, FC1, FC2
VPP
Time window: 175 – 195 ms
ROI: Cz
Main effect of face type for all 4 components: overall greater positivity to partner face than celebrity or stranger faces (N100 F(1, 39) = 3.878, p = .050; VPP F(1, 39) = 7.436, p = .010; P300 F(1, 38) = , p < .001; LPP F(1, 38) = , p = .001)
For females,
N100 amplitude was more positive at higher levels of interactional reactivity (F(1, 21) = , p = .002) and submission during conflict (F(1, 21) = 8.505, p = .008)
VPP amplitude was more positive at higher levels of submission during conflict (F(1, 21) = 8.759, p = .007) and less positive with better relationship quality (F(1, 21) = 8.902, p = .007)
P300 amplitude was less positive with better relationship quality (F(1, 20) = , p < .001) and more positive at higher levels of interactional reactivity (F(1, 20) = , p = .003)
LPP amplitude was less positive with better relationship quality (F(1, 20) = , p = .003)
For males,
P300 amplitude was more positive with higher levels of compromise during conflict (F(1, 14) = , p = .004)
Conclusions
Findings suggest that females focus more on negative aspects of their romantic relationships, attending more to their partners when relationship and communication quality is worse
Conversely, men were shown to allocate more attention to their romantic partners when communication quality was better, perhaps viewing their girlfriends more as partners and thus more salient or personally significant
This may be due to Tannen’s (1991) notion that women tend to view conflict as a threat to intimacy, whereas men consider it a necessary part of the relationship8
Similarly, women have been shown to have more integrative views of relationships, with both relationship and communication quality factoring into overall satisfaction, whereas men view these facets more separately9 and may consider productive conflict and compromise to be most important
Overall, results indicate that men and women differ in the aspects of romantic relationships considered to be the most salient or attentionally-demanding
Figure 2. Grand Average ERPs across Cz, CP1, CP2, and PZ.
P300
Time window: 300 – 475 ms
ROI: Cz, Pz
LPP
Time window: 550 – 700 ms
ERN
FRN
VPP
N100
P300
LPP
Figure 1. Grand Average ERPs averaged from Fz, Cz, FC1 and FC2.
Figure 2. Head Plots for the ERN and FRN. Plots are of “Error” and “Lose 25” Conditions at 50 and 284 ms respectively.
Method
Participants
41 undergraduate students (23 female) currently in a romantic relationship
Recruited from the UD PSYC100 participant pool
Measures
Relationship quality
Quality of Marriage Index4
Investment in relationship
Investment Model Scale5
Communication patterns
Romantic Partner Conflict Scale6
Romantic love
Romantic Love Scale7
Task
Facial processing task (120 trials)
3 faces: partner, celebrity, stranger
Indicate which face was presented to ensure task attentiveness
Literature Cited
Guerra, P., Rafaela, R.C., Vico, C., Volchan, E., Anllo-Vento, L., & Vila, J. (2011). Filial versus romantic love: Contributions from peripheral and central electrophysiology. Biological Psychology, 88,
Langeslag, S.J.E., Jansma, B.M., Franken, J.H.A., & Van Strien, J.w. (2007). Event-related potential responses to love-related facial stimuli. Biological Psychology, 76,
Grasso, D.J., Moser, M., & Simons, R. (2009). ERP correlates of attention allocation in mothers processing faces of their children. Biological Psychology, 81,
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45,
Rusbult, C.E., Martz, J.M., & Agnew, C.R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5,
Zacchilli, T.L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (2009). The Romantic Partner Conflict Scale: A new scale to measure conflict in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16,
Tannen, D. (1991). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. London: Virago.
Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1),
Acknowledgments
We thank Emily Stanley and Kathryn Roberts for their assistance and support with this project.
Time
Fixation
[ ms]
Face
[1000 ms]
Response + +
For further information
Please contact:
John Ryan Daniel