Data AnalysisData Analysis

HOW RELATIONAL VIEWS INFLUENCE ADOLESCENTS’ SUBJECTIVE UNDERTSANDING OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP INTERACTIONS

Justin D. Smith, Deborah P. Welsh, & Paula J. Fite - University of Tennessee KnoxvilleDiscussion

Hypothesis: Possessing a more Vulnerable Relational View is associated with greater negativity in

adolescents’ interpretations. Relational Views significantly influence the way in which adolescent

romantic couple members make sense of their interactions.

Implications:

Attachment Theory

Supports previous studies finding that Relational Views influence behaviors during

interactions (i.e., Campbell, et al., 2001; Furman & Simon, 2006; Treboux, et al., 2004).

Relational Views also effect how adolescents interpret their interactions. A theoretical tenet

of attachment theory proposed by Bowlby (1982).

Relational Views and Adolescent Romantic Relationships

Vulnerable Relational Views lead to perceiving more negativity above and beyond the ratings

of the observers.

Clinical Implications:

Both behaviors and the meanings attributed to them need to be targeted for change

Affect is more open to the influence of relational views than concrete behaviors

Why are Relational Views so influential in Adolescent Romantic Relationships?

1. Adolescents enter into romantic relationships with preconceptions based on previous

experiences in similar relationships.

2. Adolescents’ have certain expectations regarding the relationship and their partner, which

includes explanations of their partner’s feelings and behaviors.

3. The novelty of this domain provides little previous experience from which to draw

conclusions about the current situation increasing reliance on their previous

experiences.

4. The ambiguous nature of the dimensions examined in this study also play a role in the influence

of the relational view.

DiscussionHypothesis: Possessing a more Vulnerable Relational View is associated with greater negativity in

adolescents’ interpretations. Relational Views significantly influence the way in which adolescent

romantic couple members make sense of their interactions.

Implications:

Attachment Theory

Supports previous studies finding that Relational Views influence behaviors during

interactions (i.e., Campbell, et al., 2001; Furman & Simon, 2006; Treboux, et al., 2004).

Relational Views also effect how adolescents interpret their interactions. A theoretical tenet

of attachment theory proposed by Bowlby (1982).

Relational Views and Adolescent Romantic Relationships

Vulnerable Relational Views lead to perceiving more negativity above and beyond the ratings

of the observers.

Clinical Implications:

Both behaviors and the meanings attributed to them need to be targeted for change

Affect is more open to the influence of relational views than concrete behaviors

Why are Relational Views so influential in Adolescent Romantic Relationships?

1. Adolescents enter into romantic relationships with preconceptions based on previous

experiences in similar relationships.

2. Adolescents’ have certain expectations regarding the relationship and their partner, which

includes explanations of their partner’s feelings and behaviors.

3. The novelty of this domain provides little previous experience from which to draw

conclusions about the current situation increasing reliance on their previous

experiences.

4. The ambiguous nature of the dimensions examined in this study also play a role in the influence

of the relational view.

IntroductionIntroduction

Measures

Adolescent Couple’s Issues Checklist (Welsh, Grello, Dickson, Harper, 2001).

Demographic Questionnaire.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).

The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Downey & Feldman, 1996).

The Silencing the Self Subscale (STSS; Jack & Dill, 1992).

Interaction Task and The Video Recall Procedure (Welsh & Dickson, 2005).

Interaction session: 3 8 min 40 sec conversations

- plan a party and two issues of disagreement

The video-recall procedure: each couple member separately views and rates the

conflictual issues conversations in 20-sec segments

- Self then Partner Viewings

- 5-point rating scale, where 0 = Not At All and 4 = Very Much

3 Trained Graduate Student Coders

- same procedure as couple members; counterbalanced

Outcomes: Power Conceding and Persuasion r=.73, a = 0.76

Discomfort Frustration and Uncomfort r=.75, a = 0.80

Measures

Adolescent Couple’s Issues Checklist (Welsh, Grello, Dickson, Harper, 2001).

Demographic Questionnaire.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).

The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Downey & Feldman, 1996).

The Silencing the Self Subscale (STSS; Jack & Dill, 1992).

Interaction Task and The Video Recall Procedure (Welsh & Dickson, 2005).

Interaction session: 3 8 min 40 sec conversations

- plan a party and two issues of disagreement

The video-recall procedure: each couple member separately views and rates the

conflictual issues conversations in 20-sec segments

- Self then Partner Viewings

- 5-point rating scale, where 0 = Not At All and 4 = Very Much

3 Trained Graduate Student Coders

- same procedure as couple members; counterbalanced

Outcomes: Power Conceding and Persuasion r=.73, a = 0.76

Discomfort Frustration and Uncomfort r=.75, a = 0.80

Participants Study of Tennessee Adolescent Romantic Relationships (STARR).

209 Adolescent Dating Couples

Ages: 14-21 years, Median= 17.

Length of Relationship: 4 weeks (the minimum for participation) to 260,

Median = 44.54.

Race/Ethnicity: Caucasian (90.5%), African-American (6.2%), Asian (1.2%),

Hispanic (0.7%), Native American (0.5%) and “Other” (0.7%).

Suburban (46.7%), Rural (20.6%) and Urban (31.8%).

The sample is also socioeconomically diverse.

Participants Study of Tennessee Adolescent Romantic Relationships (STARR).

209 Adolescent Dating Couples

Ages: 14-21 years, Median= 17.

Length of Relationship: 4 weeks (the minimum for participation) to 260,

Median = 44.54.

Race/Ethnicity: Caucasian (90.5%), African-American (6.2%), Asian (1.2%),

Hispanic (0.7%), Native American (0.5%) and “Other” (0.7%).

Suburban (46.7%), Rural (20.6%) and Urban (31.8%).

The sample is also socioeconomically diverse.

ResultsResults

Abstract

The purpose of the current study is to examine the influence of relational views

on adolescents’ subjective understanding of interactions in the context of their

romantic relationships. This study included 209 male-female adolescent dating

couples. We hypothesize that adolescents who hold more vulnerable relational

views will interpret their interactions more negatively. Structural equation modeling

(SEM) with latent variables supported our hypothesis. Relational views influenced

adolescent’s interpretations of the interaction above and beyond their behaviors

during the interaction. This study employed an innovative multimodal methodology:

the video-recall system (Welsh & Dickson, 2005). This study is unique in our

inclusion of both adolescent participants’ perspectives of their interactions with

their romantic partner as well as the perspectives of trained coders. Possible

explanations and implications of this finding on the fields of attachment theory and

adolescent romantic relationships are discussed.

Abstract

The purpose of the current study is to examine the influence of relational views

on adolescents’ subjective understanding of interactions in the context of their

romantic relationships. This study included 209 male-female adolescent dating

couples. We hypothesize that adolescents who hold more vulnerable relational

views will interpret their interactions more negatively. Structural equation modeling

(SEM) with latent variables supported our hypothesis. Relational views influenced

adolescent’s interpretations of the interaction above and beyond their behaviors

during the interaction. This study employed an innovative multimodal methodology:

the video-recall system (Welsh & Dickson, 2005). This study is unique in our

inclusion of both adolescent participants’ perspectives of their interactions with

their romantic partner as well as the perspectives of trained coders. Possible

explanations and implications of this finding on the fields of attachment theory and

adolescent romantic relationships are discussed.

ReferencesArmsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachmnent: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678.Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships: The Role of Attachment Anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510-531.Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situation: An application of the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships(6), 821-843.Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343.Furman, W., & Simon, V. A. (2006). Actor and Partner Effects of Adolescents' Romantic Working Models and Styles on Interactions with Romantic Partners. Child Development, 77(3), 588-604.Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships. In R. Montemayor, Adams, G., & Gullotta, T.P. (Ed.), Advances in adolescent development; An annual book series (Vol. 6, pp. 168-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Harper, M. S., & Welsh, D. P. (2006). Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with realtional and individual functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97-106.Roisman, G. I., Collins, W. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors of young adults' representations of and behavior in their current romantic relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment and Human Development, 7(2), 105-121.Thompson, J. M. (1995). Silencing the self: Depressive symptomatology and close relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(3), 337-353.Thompson, J. M., Whiffen, V. E., & Aube, J. A. (2001). Does self-silencing link perceptions of care from parents and partners with depressive symptoms? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 503-516.Treboux, D., Crowell, J. A., & Waters, E. (2004). When "New" Meets "Old": Configurations of Adult Attachment Representations and Their Implications for Marital Functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 295-314.Welsh, D. P., & Dickson, J. W. (2005). Video-Recall Procedures for Examining Subjective Understanding in Observational Data. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 62-71.Welsh, D. P., Grello, C. M., Dickson, J. W., & Harper, M. S. (2001). The adolescent couples' issues checklist. Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee.

ReferencesArmsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachmnent: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678.Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships: The Role of Attachment Anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510-531.Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situation: An application of the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships(6), 821-843.Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343.Furman, W., & Simon, V. A. (2006). Actor and Partner Effects of Adolescents' Romantic Working Models and Styles on Interactions with Romantic Partners. Child Development, 77(3), 588-604.Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships. In R. Montemayor, Adams, G., & Gullotta, T.P. (Ed.), Advances in adolescent development; An annual book series (Vol. 6, pp. 168-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Harper, M. S., & Welsh, D. P. (2006). Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with realtional and individual functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97-106.Roisman, G. I., Collins, W. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors of young adults' representations of and behavior in their current romantic relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment and Human Development, 7(2), 105-121.Thompson, J. M. (1995). Silencing the self: Depressive symptomatology and close relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(3), 337-353.Thompson, J. M., Whiffen, V. E., & Aube, J. A. (2001). Does self-silencing link perceptions of care from parents and partners with depressive symptoms? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 503-516.Treboux, D., Crowell, J. A., & Waters, E. (2004). When "New" Meets "Old": Configurations of Adult Attachment Representations and Their Implications for Marital Functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 295-314.Welsh, D. P., & Dickson, J. W. (2005). Video-Recall Procedures for Examining Subjective Understanding in Observational Data. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 62-71.Welsh, D. P., Grello, C. M., Dickson, J. W., & Harper, M. S. (2001). The adolescent couples' issues checklist. Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee.

.041** .641** .026**

.049** .521** .448** .641** .054**

.125 .286**

.336** Figure 2.

Self-Silencing

Rejection Sensitivity

Attachment Style

Relational View

Observer ‘s Rating of Discomfort

Adolescents’ Interpretation of Discomfort

Purpose: Examine the influence of adolescents’ Relational Views on adolescents’

interpretations of interactions with their romantic partner.

Definition: Relational Views refer to the preconceptions, expectations, and

perceptions held by each individual about certain relationships (Furman &

Wehner, 1994).

Elements of the Relational View Construct

Attachment Style: Previous studies have demonstrated the influence of attachment styles on

behaviors in romantic relationships, both adolescent and adult (I.e., Furman & Simon, 2006).

Campbell, et al. (2005) and Roisman, et al.,(2005) and others have also demonstrated the

influence of attachment styles on the interpretations about romantic relationship interactions.

However, behavior and interpretations have not been examined in the same study along with

ratings from trained coders.

Rejection Sensitivity: Downey and colleagues (1996;1998;1999;2000) have demonstrated

Rejection Sensitivity’s influence on interaction behaviors and how those interactions are then

interpreted.

Self-Silencing: Jack and Dill’s (1992) theory posits that Self-Silencing is a specific schema that

affects the behaviors of a member of a couple that is aimed at maintaining the relationship.

Studies demonstrate a relationship between Self-Silencing and negative outcomes on

relationships, particularly depression (Harper, Dickson, Welsh, 2006; Thompson, 1995;

Thompson, et al., 2001).

Hypothesis

Even when controlling for the observer’s ratings of behavior, Adolescents with Vulnerable

Relational Views will interpret their interactions more negatively.

Outcomes

Power - Persuading and Conceding Dimensions

Discomfort - Frustration and Uncomfort Dimensions

AMOS 7.0.

Model Fit: chi-square statistic, CFI, and RMSEA.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the Relational View latent variable.

Hybrid Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Mediation: M test (MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams, 2004)

POWER

For the Power outcome, Relational Views directly influence the

interpretations adolescents make about their interactions even when

controlling for the observer’s ratings of the interaction ((2 (4)=3.2,

CFI=1.00 and RMSEA< .000). This relationship is present above and

beyond the influence of the observer’s ratings (M test = 95% CI = -1.03 to

1.49).

.043** .651** .026**

.057**

.536** .454** .622** .055** .055* .140* .284** .266** Figure 1.

Self-Silencing

Rejection Sensitivity

Attachment Style

Relational View

Observer ‘s Rating of

Power

Adolescents’ Interpretation

of Power

DISCOMFORT

For the Discomfort outcome, Relational Views directly influence the

interpretations adolescents make about their interactions even when

controlling for the observer’s ratings of the interaction (2 (4)=2.2, CFI=1.00

and RMSEA< .000). This relationship is present above and beyond the

influence of the observer’s ratings (M test = 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.10).