1. Gender, Power and Attachment Processes: Multiple Contextual Considerations in the Study of Couple Power Dynamics over Time Erin M. Miga, M.A., Joanna Chango, M.A, & Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D. University of Virginia Society for Research in Child Development 04.02.2011 www.teenresearch.org

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

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

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

5. Sample 87 target participants and their romantic partners, socioeconomically and racially diverse Young adults & Partners One year later Young adults (M age=21) Partners (M age=22) Partners for avg. of 1.79 years Time 1Time 2

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

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

8. Part I: Hypotheses  Demands predict increases in anxiety/jealousy over time for the demander  More frequent demand-withdraw and increased break up likelihood  Rejection of influence and jealousy  Attempts to influence and anxiety  More frequent rejection of influence and increased break up likelihood Demand Withdraw Rejection of Influence

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

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

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

12. Part II: Contextual Considerations  Examine the moderating effects of:  Romantic Attachment Anxiety  Gender

16. -.11 Low Participant Attachment Anxiety LowHigh

17. -.11.49** Low Participant Attachment Anxiety High Participant Attachment Anxiety LowHigh

18. -.11.49** Low Participant Attachment Anxiety High Participant Attachment Anxiety LowHigh Rejection of influence was associated with relative increases in participant jealousy over time for those with high attachment anxiety.

19. Relationship Break-Up Male Attempt to Influence Female Rejection of Influence Note. * p <.05. Teen Age 20Teen Age 22.33* Income Gender Male attempt-female rejection of influence patterns were associated with increased likelihood of relationship break-ups.

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

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

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

23. Acknowledgments I’d like to thank my collaborators: Joseph P. Allen Jim Coan J.P. Laurenceau Joanna Chango Megan Schad Amanda Hare Megan Ice Emily Marston Dave Szwedo Alex Carroll Joanna Stokes Amanda Letard GW Garrett Sam Breslin Mandy Daily Katy HigginsJen Heliste Allison Knee Caroline WhiteAnn Spilker I would also like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health ( Grant # R01-MH58066) and the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (Grant # 9R01HD058305-11A1) for funding awarded to J.P. Allen, Principal Investigator to conduct and write –up this research project.