When do people express their emotions to other people and when do they choose not to do so? Emotional experience-positive or negative-often leads people to reveal their feelings to others, especially to close relationship partners. Although emotional expression has been incorporated into recent dyadic models of emotion regulation, little research has examined the specific interpersonal processes responsible for facilitating or inhibiting emotional expression. This article reports results from a pair of methodologically distinct studies examining the impact of perceived partner responsiveness (PPR) on emotional expression. The results of Study 1, a 2-week daily diary study, demonstrated that within-person variations in the perceived responsiveness of a close partner were associated with corresponding day-to-day variations in emotional expression to that partner. In Study 2, in the context of a stressful situation, we manipulated perceptions of a romantic partner's responsiveness and then measured emotion expression toward that partner. Higher levels of experimentally induced PPR causally led to greater expression of anxiety. Together, these studies identify PPR as an important interpersonal mechanism underlying emotional expression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Can I tell you how I feel? Perceived partner responsiveness encourages emotional expression.

Research on close relationships has frequently contrasted one’s own interests with the interests of the partner or the relationship and has tended to view the partner’s and the relationship’s interests as inherently aligned. The present article demonstrated that relationship commitment typically causes people to support their partner’s personal interests but that this effect gets weaker to the extent that those interests misalign or even threaten the relationship. Studies 1a and 1b showed that (a) despite their strong correlation, partner-oriented and relationship-oriented concerns in goal-directed behaviors are separable and (b) relationship commitment strengthens only the link between relationship-oriented motivation and the goal pursuit (not the link between partner-oriented motivation and the goal pursuit). The remaining 7 studies zero in on circumstances in which the partner’s and the relationship’s interests are in conflict, demonstrating that (c) relationship commitment reliably increases the tendency to support the partner’s personal interests when those interests do not pose a strong threat to the relationship but that (d) this effect becomes weaker—and even reverses direction—as the relationship threat posed by the partner’s interests becomes stronger. The reduction or reversal of the positive link between relationship commitment and propartner behaviors in such situations is termed the Manhattan effect. These findings suggest that the partner-versus-relationship conflicts provide fertile ground for novel theorizing and empirical investigations and that relationship commitment appears to be less of a partner-promoting construct than relationship science has suggested; instead, its role appears to be focused on promoting the interests of the relationship.

/pdf/the-manhattan-effect-when-relationship-commitment-fails-to-14np2lmbt2.pdf

The Manhattan effect: When relationship commitment fails to promote support for partners’ interests

Perceived responsiveness in text messaging: The role of emoji use

Forgiveness often is discussed as a release of negative emotions or intentions for revenge against a transgressor. Given this focus, some may forget the profound benefits that forgiveness may hold for personal well-being. The current chapter reviews the literature on forgiveness and subjective well-being, in order to help motivate a new model that advances our understanding of why forgiveness can prove beneficial to the self. Our model focuses on how forgiveness helps to scaffold one’s social systems and self-concept, which then may portend greater subjective well-being. Given the relative paucity of extant work, compared to the literature on how forgiveness attenuates the “bad,” we discuss a number of future directions for the field emanating from our proposed model.

Forgiveness and Subjective Well-Being: Discussing Mechanisms, Contexts, and Rationales

Forgiveness is frequently investigated, and many methods of assessment have been used. However, discerning which methods of assessment to use for which purposes has generally not been based on systematic analysis. We searched four databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO. Forgiveness measures were grouped into Forgiveness Scales (i.e., Dispositional Forgiveness, Episodic Forgiveness, and Dyadic Forgiveness) and Other Measures of Forgiveness (i.e., implicit, behavioral, and biological measures). We reviewed original articles that describe the development of 45 measures and compiled psychometric information (including instrument language and availability, original samples, instrument composition, estimated reliabilities of scores, evidence of construct validity, and an evaluation of each measure). Also, our review suggests a nomological network of associations regarding the construct validity of interpreting scores as forgiveness. Those associations inform the concept of forgiveness, describing which and how variables are associated with this construct. We evaluate the level of sophistication of research in forgiveness assessment and offer suggestions to consider when choosing specific instruments to assess dispositional and episodic forgiveness.

Measuring forgiveness: A systematic review.

In a sample of 188 people currently in a romantic relationship, the authors examined the extent to which perceiving a partner as responsive and sincere in making amends relates to participants' forgiveness of a partner after a real-life hurtful event. Specifically, it was predicted that sincere amends would be associated with greater forgiveness because it conveys that one's partner has understood and validated one's experience of the hurtful event. Results supported this mediational model. Further, exploratory analyses suggested that this meditational model is moderated by event severity and relationship satisfaction. Discussion focuses on understanding how this work might help to inform the dynamic process of forgiveness in couples.

Carolina Pansera

Papers

The role of sincere amends and perceived partner responsiveness in forgiveness

Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale