Journal of Social and Personal Relationships-2014-Borelli-0265407514558960

Article

Relational savoring inlong-distance romanticrelationships

Jessica L. Borelli1, Hannah F. Rasmussen1,Margaret L. Burkhart2, and David A. Sbarra3

AbstractRelationship satisfaction is crucial for health and happiness. In the absence of physicalcontact, people in long-distance romantic relationships (LDRs) may use alternate meansof maintaining relationship satisfaction, such as mentally activating feelings of closeness totheir partners. This experiment examined the effects of relational savoring, relative totwo control conditions, on emotion and relationship satisfaction following alaboratory-based stress task, among 533 people in an LDR. Relational savoring yieldedgreater positive emotion among participants, particularly those with medium to highbaseline relationship satisfaction. Further, emotional state mediated the link betweenrelational savoring and post-stressor relationship satisfaction for participants with aver-age or higher baseline satisfaction. Savoring relational memories resulted in short-termbenefits among people in LDRs with average or higher satisfaction. The promise of rela-tional savoring as a brief intervention is discussed as well as the implications of the resultsfor couples in LDRs.

Keywordslong-distance relationships, savoring, emotion, relationship satisfaction, intervention

1 Pomona College, USA2 Claremont Graduate University, USA3 University of Arizona, USA

Corresponding author:

Jessica L. Borelli, Department of Psychology, Pomona College, 647 N College Way, Claremont, CA 91711,

USA.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships

1–26ª The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0265407514558960spr.sagepub.com

J S P R

by guest on March 21, 2015spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spr.sagepub.com

http://spr.sagepub.com/

Long-distance romantic relationships (LDRs), or relationships in which romantic partnersare separated by geographical distance, are surprisingly common (Bergen, Kirby, &McBride, 2007; Stafford, 2005). Estimates suggest that over 3 million Americans liveapart from their spouses for reasons unrelated to conflict or separation (Bergen et al.,2007), amounting to 2.9% of marriages in the U.S. In addition, up to 75% of college stu-dents report having been in an LDR at some point, and at any given time, 35% of collegestudents are currently in an LDR (Stafford, 2005). LDRs are of interest to relationshipresearchers in that they pose a challenge to the ways in which researchers traditionallyconceptualize central constructs in relationship research, such as emotional closeness andrelationship maintenance (Sahlstein, 2010; Stafford, 2005). Intuitively, LDRs seem asthough they would be less satisfying to romantic partners than geographically close rela-tionships (GCRs) simply because face-to-face interaction is scarce, communication maybe more difficult, and the financial burdens associated with the relationship may begreater (Stafford, 2005; Stafford & Merolla, 2007). These stressors have the potentialto generate downstream psychological effects related to the physical separation, suchas concerns regarding loyalty, fidelity, and commitment to the relationship of one’spartner (Pistole, 2010; Roberts & Pistole, 2009; Vormbrock, 1993). And yet, researchsuggests that many LDRs fare well in terms of standard relationship metrics: LDRmem-bers report comparable or even greater satisfaction, trust, stability, and intimacy as com-pared to members of GCRs (Jiang & Hancock, 2013; Roberts & Pistole, 2009; Stafford,2005, 2010).

This mismatch between theory and data inspires relationship scientists to refine the-oretical conceptualizations of factors that strengthen and weaken relationship satisfactionin LDRs. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982 [1969]) is well suited to explain individualdifferences in felt security and relationship stability in LDRs. Bowlby argued that one’sapproach to close relationships throughout the life span is an outgrowth of his/herinteractions with primary caregivers during infancy and childhood (Bowlby, 1982[1969]). These experiences inform the development of an internal working model, aschema comprised of one’s thoughts, feelings, and expectations regarding close rela-tionships (Bowlby, 1982 [1969]). One of the central tenets of Bowlby’s attachment theoryis that physical separation from the attachment figure is the most salient threat to chil-dren’s attachment relationships, launching an invariant cascade of behavioral and emo-tional reactions (Bowlby, 1960, 1982 [1969]). In adulthood, too, physical separation fromone’s romantic partner is conceptualized as a key attachment stressor (Hazan & Shaver,1987; Vormbrock, 1993; Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Although the length of separationrequired to evoke a distress response may be longer among adults as compared to chil-dren, theorists argue that physical separation from one’s romantic partner has the potentialto undermine felt security among adults in a manner similar to what transpires amongchildren experiencing prolonged separations from caregivers (Hazan & Shaver, 1987;Vormbrock, 1993). The physical absence of the romantic partner threatens adults’ sense ofsafety because their secure base is not available (Bowlby, 1988; Vormbrock, 1993).Further, the temporary lapse in partner availability may raise the threat of permanent lossof the relationship, which could permanently destabilize one’s security in the relationshipand promote psychological distress (Bowlby, 1973; Cameron & Ross, 2007; Guldner,1996; Maguire & Kinney, 2010; Pistole, 2010; Sahlstein, 2010; Vormbrock, 1993).

2 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships



In order for an LDR to be stable, adults must be able to maintain feelings of securityvis-à-vis their romantic partner despite long stretches of physical separation (Vormbrock,1993). Differences in coping with relationship stress secondary to physical separation arelikely to emerge. Relationship satisfaction, itself thought to result from the interactionbetween individual and dyadic factors (e.g., attachment style and relationship quality;Hazan & Shaver, 1987), may be integrally associated with the capacity to maintain feltsecurity in an LDR. Adults who are highly satisfied with their romantic relationship maybe able to construe the physical separation as unrelated to the overall stability of therelationship itself and may thereby be able to weather the challenges of an LDR withintact relationship satisfaction. However, LDR members who are relatively unsatisfiedwith their romantic relationship may have trouble contextualizing insecurity as resultingfrom the physical separation, instead attributing the feelings to integral aspects of therelationship itself, which in turn may lead to less positive feelings about the relationshipand lower relationship stability.

In conclusion, we derive four points from attachment theory and research on LDRs thatare relevant to the current study: (1) the physical separation inherent in LDRs has thepotential to undermine felt security, (2) underscoring LDR members’ feelings of securitymay protect the quality of their relationship from the stresses inherent to LDRs, (3) LDRmembers with higher relationship satisfaction may be more comfortable focusing onfeelings of security vis-à-vis their romantic partner, and (4) protecting relationshipsatisfaction from threats among LDR members is important for ultimately contributing torelationship longevity.

Savoring

Savoring is the process of attending to, intensifying, and prolonging the positive emotionsattached to experiences (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). People can savor past memories ofevents that have actually occurred (retrospective savoring), experiences that are ongoingin nature (concurrent savoring), or even anticipated experiences that may occur in thefuture (prospective savoring; Bryant & Veroff, 2007). As an emotion regulation tool,savoring has the potential to help people find new perspective and gain insight into theirproblems (Bryant, Smart, & King, 2005; Tugade & Frederickson, 2006). Indeed, peoplewho savor report more positive moods as well as less hopelessness, anhedonia, andneuroticism (Bryant, 2003; Gentzler, Morey, Palmer, & Yi, 2012). Furthermore, savoringincreases happiness (Quoidbach,Wood, &Hansenne, 2009) and improves both depressionand negative mood (Hurley & Kwon, 2011; McMakin, Siegle, & Shirk, 2011).

Although existing research demonstrates that relationships are the most commonlyreported focus of savoring (Bryant et al., 2005), few studies have explicitly examined thedifferences between savoring an individual, personal memory (personal savoring) andsavoring one that involves a close emotional connection with another person (relationalsavoring). Relational savoring is defined as savoring an experience that occurs in physicaland temporal conjunction with another person with whom one is emotionally close(Borelli et al., 2014). In contrast to relational savoring, personal savoring involvesreflecting on a memory of an individual or personal positive experience. Theoretically, thegoal of engaging in relational savoring is to activate mental representations of one’s

Borelli et al. 3



relationship as providing a sense of security, safety, and adoration— in essence, bringingto mind a secure attachment representation of one’s partner (Borelli et al., 2014). Our goalin this investigation is to examine whether, relative to control conditions, relationalsavoring of retrospective events by LDR members results in better emotional states andprotects against relationship threats.

Within the context of the current study, we define relational savoring as savoring amemory or experience that occurred with one’s LDR romantic partner. Borelli and col-leagues (2014) used a similar approach to study a small sample of non-deployed spouses(wives) of military service members before and during a military deployment. Amongnon-deployed spouses with low attachment avoidance, relational savoring completed dur-ing the deployment reduced negative emotion in the short term. In other words, relationalsavoring had positive short-term benefits only among women reporting low levels ofbaseline attachment avoidance, which according to the authors, may occur because adultslow in avoidance are relatively comfortable with focusing on attachment-related thoughtsand feelings while undergoing an attachment-related threat, whereas those high in avoid-ance tend to turn their attention away from such topics during relationship threats (Borelliet al., 2014). Our work builds upon Borelli and colleagues’ (2014) study by (1) evaluatingwhether this intervention works among a larger sample of adults, (2) testing the efficacy ofthe intervention in a different sample (adult members of LDRs), (3) comparing relationalsavoring to two as opposed to one control condition, and (4) examining whether the inter-vention protects relationship satisfaction from a simulated relationship threat. This projectis well positioned to speak to the utility of a brief relational savoring intervention for thispopulation as well as to inform models of the mechanisms underlying relational savoring.

Current investigation

Given that adult members of LDRs have less frequent face-to-face contact with their part-ners than adults in GCRs (Sahlstein, 2010), it may be especially necessary for them to relyupon nonphysical means of activating feelings of security in their relationship in order topreserve closeness and emotional connection vis-à-vis their partners. Accordingly,encouraging the practice of routine relational savoring may be especially importantamong this population. It is possible that committed and satisfied LDR partners naturallyengage in relational savoring independently or conjointly with their romantic partners on aregular basis, however, whether this happens remains largely unknown, as does theimpact of relational savoring on the individual.

Therefore, our primary goal in conducting the current study is to address this questionexperimentally by evaluating whether relational savoring improves LDR members’emotional states. Specifically, we predict that participants completing a relationalsavoring task will report greater positive and lower negative emotions following the taskas compared to participants completing a personal savoring and a neutral control con-dition task, and that participants completing personal savoring will report greater positiveand lower negative emotions as compared to participants completing the control task(Hypothesis 1). Confirmation of our hypothesis would support the notion that briefinterventions can enhance emotional states (Layous, Nelson, & Lyubomirsky, 2013;Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009).




Second, following Borelli and colleagues (2014), we seek to identify whether baselinerelationship satisfaction predicts differential responsiveness to relational savoring. Wesuspect that LDR members who report higher levels of baseline relationship satisfactionwill be more comfortable reliving positive relational memories in our relational savoringtask. Further, people with higher baseline relationship satisfaction may also have morepositive relational memories to draw upon in completing the task. As a result, theirengagement in the reflection task may be deeper and may result in a superior emotionalstate. Thus, we hypothesize that baseline levels of relationship satisfaction will moderatethe association between experimental condition and post-task emotional state such thatrelational savoring will have the most pronounced impact (i.e., greatest positive emotion,lowest negative emotion) on individuals who began the study with high levels of relation-ship satisfaction (Hypothesis 2).

Our final goal in conducting the current study is to assess whether emotional stateselicited by the mental reflection task serve to buffer individuals against the effects of asimulated relationship stress task. The answer to this question has relevance for ourunderstanding of LDR longevity—if we demonstrate that relational savoring elicitsmore favorable momentary emotional responses among LDR members, then the logicalnext step is asking whether this emotional response translates into a meaningful rela-tional outcome for the individual. Studies consistently document that relationshipsatisfaction declines over time among married couples (Glenn, 1998; VanLaningham,Johnson, & Amato, 2001). Given the robust association between relationship satis-faction and myriad indicators of psychological and physical health (King & Reis, 2012;Myers, 2000; Parker-Pope, 2010; Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014), iden-tifying ways to protect relationship satisfaction from the normative decline observedamong members of long-term relationships is crucial. Herein we aim to contribute tothe literature documenting the effects of brief, theoretically informed social psycholo-gical interventions on relationship satisfaction (cf. Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, &Gross, 2013).

We accomplish this goal by presenting participants with a simulated, laboratory-basedrelationship stressor designed to imply a threat to the partner’s availability. Following thistask, we again assess their relationship satisfaction. Here, we predict that post-mentalreflection task emotion will mediate the link between reflection task condition andpost-stressor relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). This hypothesis is consistent withthe finding from a study examining the efficacy of a brief relationship event reappraisaltask among married adults on marital satisfaction over the course of the following year:Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, and Gross (2013) found that the protection againstdeclines in relationship satisfaction was mediated through reductions in conflict-relateddistress.

Finally, we use a moderated mediation framework in an effort to examine how thesedifferent aspects of our study might operate as an integrated whole. Specifically, wepredict that the degree to which condition affects post-stressor relationship satisfactionindirectly through post-task emotional state will depend on pre-task relationship satisfac-tion, such that post-task emotion will act as an indirect effect on post-stressor relationshipsatisfaction only among LDR members with high baseline relationship satisfaction(Hypothesis 4).

Borelli et al. 5



Method

Adult members of long-distance relationships, defined as romantic relationships of at least6 months old in which partners are separated by 100 or more miles, were invited to par-ticipate in the study via internet postings on Craigslist in cities in California, Colorado,Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia. TheCraiglist postings stated that the purpose of the study was to understand how adults copewith long-distance relationships. A total of 533 (65.1% female) adults,Mage = 28.75, SDage

= 9.99 participated in the study. Most (96.1%) lived within the U.S. (31.6% California,6.3% Florida, 6.3% Illinois, 5.9% New York, 5.1% Pennsylvania, and the remaining44.8% from 41 different states). The sample was ethnically (56% Caucasian, 19% AsianAmerican, 12.5% Hispanic, 6% African American, 5% other, and 1% Native American)and socioeconomically diverse (49% reported annual income <US$40,000). On average,the sample was educated (40% reported having obtained a bachelor’s degree and 41%reported having earned an associate’s degree or fewer years of education), worked outsidethe home (70%), and did not have children (84%). Participants lived relatively far awayfrom their partners as a result of enrollment in college (31.5%), military employment(2.1%), or an unspecified reason (66.4%), Mdistance = 1,027.24 miles, SDdistance = 935.55miles. On average, study participants had known, Mknown = 4.83 years, SDknown = 1.96years, been romantically involved with,Mdated = 3.77 years, SDdated = 5.18 years, and hadbeen physically separated from their partners for several years,MLD = 2.68 years, SDLD =1.38 years.

Procedure

All data were collected using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT), an online data collectiontool. Prior to beginning the survey, participants completed informed consent. Participantsthen completed baseline assessments, including reporting on their relationship satisfactionand providing information about their romantic relationships. Qualtrics randomlyassigned participants to one of three mental reflection tasks (control, personal savoring,relational savoring), which participants completed next. Following the mental reflectiontask, participants completed the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS; Watson,Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants then completed the relationship stressor task andsubsequently rated their relationship satisfaction.

Measures

Relationship satisfaction. The Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale (KMS; Schumm, Nichols,Schectman, & Grinsby, 1983) is a brief, 3-item measure of marital satisfaction. The KMShas excellent internal consistency and concurrent validity and is highly correlated with theDyadic Adjustment scale and the Quality of Marriage Index (Schumm et al., 1986). It isfocused on the satisfaction dimension of marital or relationship quality. There is a prece-dent in the literature of using the KMS with partners in unmarried couples (Paap &Gardner, 2011); in fact, a meta-analysis suggests it may produce more reliable scoresin unmarried rather than married couples (Graham, Diebels, & Barnow, 2011; Rochlen




& Mahalik, 2004). Similar to the protocol followed in the previous research, the scalewas modified for use in our study by replacing “spouse” with “partner” and “marriage”with “relationship.” Participants rate each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale withscores ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). In our sample,Cronbach’s α was .91 for baseline relationship satisfaction and .94 for post-stressor rela-tionship satisfaction.

Emotional state. The PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) is a 20-item measure comprised of twoscales: one assessing positive affect (PA) and the other assessing negative affect (NA). Weused the PANAS as a measure of emotional state immediately following the experimentalreflection task. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (1 = very slightly ornot at all, 2 = a little, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite a bit, 5 = extremely) the extent to whichthey felt 20 different emotions at that moment (e.g., Excited, Scared, Irritable, Proud).Cronbach’s α in this sample was .90 for both PA and NA.

Mental reflection task. We developed the mental reflection tasks for the purposes of thecurrent investigation, though the design and the structure of the personal and relationalsavoring tasks were adapted from the previous work (Borelli et al., 2014; Borelli,McMakin, & Sbarra, 2010). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three condi-tions, each of which involved reading instructions and writing out responses to a series ofquestions. Our first experimental condition (neutral control) was intended to evoke aneutral emotional response and to serve as complete control (on both the impact ofpositive emotion activation and relational content). We intended our second control task(personal savoring) to serve as a control for positive emotion activation. We expected thatparticipants in the personal savoring condition would show higher positive emotion andlower negative emotion as compared to participants in the neutral control condition, butgiven that relational memories are commonly the focus of savoring (Bryant et al., 2005),we expected that the personal savoring would not evince as positive an emotionalresponse as the relational savoring task.

In the neutral control condition, participants were asked to think about their morningroutine, spend 1 min focusing on it, and then answer a series of questions regarding detailsof the experience. After answering the questions, participants were asked to spend 2 minmentally replaying the experience (see Figure 1A for a sample response to the controlcondition reflection task).

In the personal savoring condition, participants were asked to focus on a personalpositive experience they had, which could range from something relatively simple ormundane to something profound or deeply meaningful. Participants were asked to focuson a single memory or incident, spend 1 min reflecting on it, then answer a series ofquestions, which, among other things, prompted them to describe sensory aspects of theexperience (e.g., What was the air like? What were you wearing?) and to describe howthey were thinking or feeling. After writing answers to the questions, participants wereasked to spend 2 min mentally replaying the experience (see Figure 1B for an example ofa personal savoring response).

In the relational savoring condition, participants were prompted to “think about apositive experience (they) had with (their) partner.” They were instructed to select any

Borelli et al. 7



kind of experience, no matter how minor or major, when they felt especially “cherished,protected, or accepted” by their partner (Borelli et al., 2010, 2014), which was designed toevoke feelings of attachment security. Just as in the personal savoring condition, parti-cipants reported on the details of the event, as well as their thoughts and feelings, and then

‘‘Please think about your morning routine from the time you wake up until the time you leavefor work/school.’’

Prompt Participant Response

Using as much detail as possible, describewhat normally happens during yourmorning routine.

My alarm goes off. I usually snooze for 1-2 cycles,which is 5-10 minutes. I get ready for work inthe bathroom with a shower and brush myteeth, and other grooming. I get dressed forwork. I go to the kitchen where I occasionallywill eat breakfast. I get coffee or tea or at leastjuice everyday. I pack my lunch and head outthe door to work.

What is your room/apartment like in themorning?

Sometimes it is hectic because I snoozed or takesome time to eat in the morning. I lay myclothes out the night before so that is one lessthing I have to do in the morning.

What time do you normally start yourmorning? What do you wear?

6:30 AM. Business attire. Typically dress pants ora skirt and a dressy top. I lay my outfit out thenight before so it is quicker in the morning forme.

What do you eat? Sometimes I have cereal if I have milk, sometimes Ijust have it dry if I have any. Sometimes I skipbreakfast and just have something to drink liketea or coffee or juice. Sometime I have oatmealor Greek yogurt.

How do you normally feel in the mornings? Tired. I feel like I didn’t get enough sleep and I justwant to stay in bed longer. On the weekends Ilike to sleep in and try to catch up on sleep. Iknow I should get up at the same time everydayeven on the weekends though but it is hardsince I don’t get enough sleep during the week.

What do you think about during yourmorning routine?

I typically and thinking about what a busy day Ihave ahead of me. I try to move as fast aspossible so that I am not late. I try to pack ahealthy lunch. Sometimes I wonder if myhusband is eating breakfast and taking care ofhimself or if he is really lonely too.

What thoughts are you having now aboutyour morning routine?

I need to get up earlier so it is easier for me in themorning, I should go to bed sooner, I should eatbreakfast everyday.

Figure 1A. Sample response from the control condition. Participants were asked to thinkabout the prompt and respond to the following questions.




were asked to spend 2 min mentally reliving the event (see Figure 1C for an example of arelational savoring response).

Relationship stressor. For the purpose of this study, after conducting focus group brain-storming sessions with adult members of LDRs, we developed a vignette presenting anambiguous situation that our focus group members suggested could be interpreted asthreatening the integrity of the relationship. Participants were asked to imagine that theirpartners were supposed to call them at a certain hour in the evening after they had returnedhome from a work function but had not yet called and it was 2 hr past the agreed upon timefor the phone call. Immediately following the vignette, they answered a series of questions

‘‘Please think about a positive personal experience you have had. This could be something assimple as enjoying a good meal or taking a nice walk, or it could be something as major asgetting a promotion or accomplishing a big task. Try to focus on a single memory of a timewhen things seemed at their best for you.’’


Using as much detail as possible,describe what happened.

I was checking my college admissions status for [NAME OFUNIVERSITY] back in high school, nervous if I would getin or not. When I checked, I felt a huge sense of relief inmy admission. I had been waiting all month for this, as itwas the last school to release their admission.

What was the air like? What was theweather like?

It was a normal room temperature day. Air wasn’t cool orhot. Was inside the house, so it was just normal indoor air.

What time of day did the momentoccur?

The moment occurred in the evening. I’m guessing it wasaround 6 or 7pm, though it could have been earlieraround 5pm.

What were you wearing? Probably sweat pants and a sweater. I was at home, so Iwear comfortable clothes at home. I think I might havehad a turtleneck on. I’m not sure.

How did you feel at the time?(excited, proud, calm, relaxedetc.)

Excited, relieved, happy. I was excited to be going to a greatcollege, proud of my achievements, relieved because Igot into a good school, happy because it was a proudachievement.

What thoughts did you have at thetime?

I’m so glad I got in and that I would have a good future. Ifelt proud of myself. Maybe emotional too and almostteared up.

What thoughts are you having now? I’m glad I haven’t had to do that in a while. It’s always veryexciting when you anticipate something and you getgreat news from it. However, I’m sure if it was bad news,it would’ve been a "meh" moment. I think that it’s alwaysvery fulfilling when you are able to achieve your goals.

Figure 1B. Sample response from the personal savoring condition. Participants were asked tothink about the prompt and respond to the following questions. Other example topics includepassing an important exam, spending time with friends, going to a favorite place, remembering asuccessful job interview, and overcoming a physical test.

Borelli et al. 9



regarding their reactions to the hypothetical situation (e.g., What are the reason(s) whyyour partner has not called? How does this make you feel about your partner?), whichwere designed to help participants focus on their (presumably negative) emotionalreaction to the scenario (see Figure 2 for a sample response to the vignette). Pilot testing,as well as the examination of transcripts from the actual test sample, suggested that thevignette evoked strong feelings (including threat) from a majority of participants.

Language analysis. In order to establish the validity of both our mental reflection tasks andour simulated relationship stressor, we conducted a linguistic analysis on the transcriptsparticipants produced using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (Pennebaker, Francis,& Booth, 2001). Specifically, to evaluate whether our mental reflection task conditions

‘‘Think about a positive emotional experience you have had with your partner. This could besomething as simple as taking a walk together or laughing over a funny joke, or it could be some-thing as major as taking a vacation or accomplishing a big task together. Try to focus on a singlememory of a time when you felt especially cherished, protected or accepted by your partner.’’


Using as much detail as possible, describewhat happened.

We were walking back to his room from a date andhe stopped me on the sidewalk and pulled meinto a hug. He held me tightly, and told me thatno matter what happened in the future he’dalways remember that moment as being soperfect. We stood there holding each other forseveral minutes, looking at the stars as peoplewalked past us.

What was the air like? What was theweather like?

The weather was cool and crisp, and the skies wereclear. It was in early spring, and the nights tendedto get chilly.

What time of day did the moment occur? It was later in the evening, after dark.What were you wearing? I was wearing a lavender button-up shirt, but don’t

remember whether I was wearing a jacket. Idon’t remember what else I was wearing.

What was your partner wearing? [Partner] was wearing a black pea coat with a longsleeved t-shirt underneath. I don’t remember theother things he was wearing.

How did you feel at the time? (excited,proud, calm, relaxed etc.)

I felt happy and I didn’t want the night to end. Iremember feeling slightly self-conscious aspeople I knew walked past us.

What thoughts did you have at the time?About your partner? About yourrelationship?

I was taken aback by the intensity he showed, butfelt really confident about our relationship andwhere we were.

What thoughts are you having now aboutyour partner and about yourrelationship?

I’m glad that I feel just as appreciated andcherished by my partner now as I did during thatmoment.

Figure 1C. Sample response from the relational savoring condition. Participants were asked tothink about the prompt and respond to the following questions.




functioned as they were intended, we examined the frequency of first person plural (“we,”“us,” and “our”) and first person singular (“I,” “me,” and “my”) pronoun use based on theargument that greater first person plural and lower first person singular pronoun usesuggests a greater relational focus (Borelli et al., 2014; Rohrbaugh, Mehl, Shoham, Reilly,& Ewy, 2008; Rohrbaugh, Shoham, Skoyen, Jensen, & Mehl, 2012). Further, we eval-uated frequency of positive emotion (e.g., “love,” “sweet,” “joy”) based on the assumptionthat more frequent positive emotion word use would suggest a greater degree of positiveemotion experienced during the mental reflection task.

In order to evaluate whether our relationship stressor task functioned as it was intended,we compared participants’written responses to the post-stressor questions to their responseson the neutral control mental reflection task only. We analyzed frequency of negative emo-tion words, reasoning that if our stressor worked as intended, it would produce a higherfrequency of negative emotion words (e.g., “worried,” “crying,” and “sad”) on the post-stressor questions as compared to the narratives participants produced in response to theneutral control task. We based our hypothesis on the assumption that greater negative emo-tion word use would signify more pronounced negative emotional experience in response to

‘‘Your partner calls you to tell you he/she is going to an office function on Friday after work.The function will be held at a hotel and will include dinner and cocktails for the entire staff;there will be around 30 people in attendance. Your partner says he/she plans to be home at9PM if you want to talk. After work, your partner text messages you at 6PM to tell you he/sheis headed to the event. You respond telling your partner to let you know when he/she is home.By 11PM you have not heard from him/her.’’


What are the reason(s) why yourpartner has not called?

He got held up at the event or went out for a drink withcolleagues afterward. He forgot that he said he would behome.

How do you feel about thissituation?

I feel mad and annoyed and betrayed and sad. I am frustratedthat I am waiting around when I could have made otherplans.

How does this make you feelabout yourself?

It makes me feel really bad that he forgot about me or doesn’tcare enough to make time for me. It makes me feel lessconfident.

How does this make you feelabout your partner?

It makes me question whether he cares about me, and itmakes me feel angry and annoyed with him.

What do you think your partneris thinking or feeling?

He’s just out with friends having fun and isn’t bothered by notgetting to talk to me. He’s forgotten he said he would behome.

How do you feel about yourrelationship?

I feel really dissatisfied and wonder whether it’s worth thehassle. It feels one-sided, like I am the only one who cares.

How will you handle thissituation?

I will feel progressively sadder and angrier as the night goes onand will probably cry. I will have a glass of wine and distractmyself with television.

Figure 2. Sample response to the relationship stressor. Participants were asked to imagine thevignette was happening to them and respond to the following questions.

Borelli et al. 11



the task. Although we expected that the relationship stressor would increase negative emo-tion word use frequency relative to mental reflection task word usage among participantswho had completed both the personal and relational savoring tasks as well, we believed thiswould provide us with less information about the relationship stressor itself than if we com-pared word use among participants completing the neutral control only.

Data analytic plan

Prior to evaluating our hypotheses, we first conducted validity checks to enhance ourconfidence that participants engaged in the mental reflection tasks in the way that weintended. We next evaluated the main effect of the experimental conditions on emotionfollowing the mental reflection tasks. When evaluating the moderation, mediation, andmoderated mediation hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical linear regressions using thePROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2012). When conducting tests of moderation andmoderated mediation involving continuous moderator variables, to facilitate interpreta-tion of the results, PROCESS automatically provides estimates of simple slopes at low (1SD below the mean), medium (the mean), and high (1 SD above the mean) levels of thecontinuous moderator variable. Consistent with research recommendations (Hayes, 2009;Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010), we assessed for the presence of indirect effects even whenno direct effects were found.

Results

Table 1 reports mean and standard deviations for all the primary study variables for thesample as a whole and by condition. The mental reflection groups did not differ on any ofthe demographic or relationship-specific outcomes.1 Male participants, Asian Americanparticipants, and participants having completed graduate education reported significantlylower baseline relationship satisfaction as compared to the rest of the sample, ps < .05.Baseline relationship satisfaction did not significantly differ from relationship satisfactionmeasured post-stressor, t =�.50, p = .61. Zero-order correlations revealed that participantage was negatively associated with baseline relationship satisfaction, that post-task

Table 1. Mean values (standard deviations) of affect and relationship satisfaction variables bycondition.

Total Control Personal Relational

Measures N ¼ 533 n ¼ 190 n ¼ 177 n ¼ 166

Age 28.75 (9.99) 28.95 (8.49) 28.82 (11.95) 28.46 (9.30)Sum pos affect 30.43 (8.98) 28.66 (8.83) 30.28 (8.83) 32.63 (8.89)Sum neg affect 15.93 (6.97) 16.86 (7.46) 16.28 (7.12) 14.47 (5.96)KMS T1 5.70 (1.03) 5.67 (1.04) 5.68 (1.04) 5.77 (1.01)KMS T2 5.72 (1.16) 5.67 (1.21) 5.68 (1.18) 5.81 (1.07)

Note. pos affect¼ positive affect; neg affect¼ negative affect; KMS¼ Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale; KMS T1¼relationship satisfaction before intervention; KMS T2 ¼ relationship satisfaction after stressful vignette.




positive and negative affect were inversely related, and that post-task emotion was associ-ated with both baseline and post-stressor relationship satisfaction (see Table 2).

Pre-hypothesis testing validity check one: language use on mental reflectiontasks

We were interested in examining whether language use on the written mental reflectiontasks varied as a function of the experimental task condition. Using an analysis of cov-ariance (ANCOVA), we found that after controlling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 1.03,p = .31, and sex, F(1, 530) = 0.24, p = .63, condition was associated with first personplural word use, F(1, 530) = 154.10, p = .000001, ήp

2 = .38. The results of least sig-nificant difference (LSD) post hoc tests revealed that the three conditions were all sig-nificantly different from one another—participants in the relational savoring conditionused significantly more first person plural words than participants in either control con-dition and participants in the personal savoring condition used significantly more firstperson plural words than participants in the neutral control condition, all ps < .001. Wewitnessed the reverse pattern with respect to first person singular word use—after con-trolling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 4.40, p = .03, ήp

2 = .01, and sex, F(1, 530) =13.39, p = .0001, ήp

2 = .03, condition was associated with first person singular word use,F(1, 530) = 92.78, p = .0001, ήp

2 = .27. LSD post hoc tests indicated that participants inthe neutral control condition used significantly more first person singular words thanparticipants in either savoring condition and that participants in the personal savoringcondition used significantly more first person singular pronouns than participants in therelational savoring condition, ps < .0001. As expected, all three groups differed in pro-noun use indicative of relational content, such that participants in the personal savoringcondition used fewer relationally oriented pronouns than participants in the relationalsavoring condition but more than participants in the neutral control condition. Further, aglobal examination of the memories generated among participants in the personalsavoring condition suggested that although many (56% of participants) mentioned theirpartner, none of the personal savoring memories were explicitly about emotional close-ness in the romantic relationship.

Next we evaluated participants’ use of positive emotion words. After controllingfor participant age, F(1, 530) = 0.06, p = .81, and sex, F(1, 530) = 0.44, p = .51,condition was associated with positive emotion word use, F(1, 530) = 98.72, p =

Table 2. Correlation matrix for key variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1 Participant age —2 Sum positive emotion .10* —3 Sum negative emotion .05 �.12** —4 Relationship satisfaction T1 �.09* .29** �.34** —5 Relationship satisfaction T2 �.06 .34** �.36** .85** —

*p < .05 (two-tailed); **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Borelli et al. 13



.0001, ήp2 = .28. LSD post hoc tests indicated that participants in the neutral control

condition used significantly fewer positive emotion words than participants in eithersavoring condition, ps < .0001, but that positive emotion word use did not differbetween the personal and relational savoring conditions, p = .49. Therefore, asexpected, the two savoring conditions yielded comparable linguistic evidence ofpositive emotion and greater linguistic evidence of positive emotion compared to theneutral control condition.

Pre-hypothesis testing validity check two: language use on relationship stressor

To test whether our relationship stressor task elicited negative emotion, we examineddifferences in negative emotion word use among participants in the neutral controlcondition only (n = 190). Using a paired samples t-test, we found that participants’negative emotion word use increased significantly in response to the relationship stressorquestions as compared to the control mental reflection task, t(189) = −10.54, p = .0001(Mmental reflection = 1.01, SDmental reflection =1.05; Mstressor = 3.11, SDstressor = 3.05). Theresults confirmed our hypotheses that neutral control participants’ negative emotion worduse was significantly higher in their written responses to the post-stressor questions rela-tive to their responses collected during the mental reflection task.

Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis 1: Main effects of mental reflection task condition on emotional state.

Controlling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 4.47, p = .04, and sex, F(1, 530) = 1.67,p = .20, condition was significantly associated with self-reported positive emotion,F(2, 530) = 9.11, p = .0001, ήp

2 = 0.03. LSD post hoc tests revealed that partici-pants in the relational savoring condition reported more positive emotion immediately fol-lowing the task as compared to both participants in the control, t(354) = 3.96, p = .0001,d = 0.45, and the personal savoring conditions, t(341) = 2.34, p = .01, d = 0.27. Older par-ticipant age and engaging in relational savoring predicted greater positive emotion (seeTable 1 for means by experimental group).

We next conducted a univariate ANCOVA, with negative emotion as the dependentvariable: controlling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 0.88, p = .35, and sex, F(1, 530) =15.11, p = .0001, condition was significantly associated with negative emotion, F(2, 530)= 5.94, p = .001, ήp

2 = 0.02. The results of LSD post hoc tests revealed that participants inthe relational savoring condition reported less negative emotion as compared to bothparticipants in the control, t(354) = −2.39, p = .01, d = 0.35, and the personal savoringconditions, t(341) = −1.82, p = .03, d = 0.28.

Hypothesis 2: Interaction between pre-task relationship satisfaction and post-taskemotion.

After conducting our preliminary analyses, we observed that the relational savoring groupdiffered from the two other conditions across all of the main outcomes, but the neutral




control and the personal savoring conditions did not differ. Therefore, for the sake ofsimplicity, in the remainder of this paper we present all analyses examining differencesbetween the relational savoring condition and the control conditions (neutral control pluspersonal savoring).2

To test Hypothesis 2, we conducted a hierarchical linear regression3 to evaluatewhether baseline relationship satisfaction moderated the association between condition(relational savoring versus controls) and post-task positive and negative emotion. Aftercontrolling for covariates, the interaction between condition and baseline relationshipsatisfaction was significant (see Table 3). Conditional effects analyses revealed that forpeople reporting low levels of baseline relationship satisfaction (1 SD below the mean),the relational savoring condition did not have an effect on positive emotion relative to thecontrol conditions (see Figure 3; low relationship satisfaction: b = .56, p = .62); however,for participants reporting medium and high levels of baseline relationship satisfaction(mean and 1 SD above the mean, respectively), relational savoring produced greaterpost-task positive emotion as compared to the control conditions (medium relationshipsatisfaction: b = 2.86, p = .0001, high relationship satisfaction: b = 5.17, p = .00001). Fur-ther, when we reversed the pairwise comparisons to treat the savoring condition as themoderator (and baseline relationship satisfaction as the focal predictor), we observed thatbaseline relationship satisfaction was associated with post-task positive emotion in bothreflection task conditions but the relationship was stronger among participants in the rela-tional savoring condition (control conditions: b = 2.02, p = .00001, relational savoring:b = 4.26, p = .000001).

When evaluating whether baseline relationship satisfaction moderated the associationbetween condition and post-task negative emotion, we found that after controlling forcovariates, the interaction between condition and baseline relationship satisfaction inter-action was not significant (see Table 3). In other words, relational savoring reduced neg-ative emotion for participants relative to the control conditions regardless of baselinerelationship satisfaction.

Table 3. Summary of the interaction between relationship satisfaction and condition predictingpositive and negative emotions.

Dependent Variables

Positive Emotion Negative Emotion

b CI b CI

Step 1 R2 .15*** .14***Relationship satisfaction �0.21 [�2.28, 1.86] �1.44 [�3.05, 0.17]Condition �9.90* [�18.69, �1.11] 1.01 [�5.83, 7.84]Age 0.12** [0.04, 0.19] .01 [�0.05, 0.06]Sex �1.89* [�3.39, �0.39] 1.81** [�2.98, �0.65]

Step 2 DR2 .01** .00Condition � rel. satisfaction 2.24** [0.73, 3.75] �0.51 [�1.68, 0.67]

Note. CI ¼ 95% confidence interval; Rel. ¼ relationship.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Borelli et al. 15



Hypothesis 3: Mediation of link between condition and post-stressor relationshipsatisfaction by post-task emotion.

We conducted a linear regression to test for statistical mediation.4 Evaluating mediationinvolves assessing the indirect effect of the independent variable (X) on the dependentvariable (Y) through the mediatorM. PROCESS tests the significance of the indirect effectthrough bootstrapping. The indirect effect is calculated by multiplying the unstandardizedregression coefficients resulting from X predicting M and from M predicting Y (Baron &Kenny, 1986). The point estimate and confidence interval (CI) are established through theuse of bootstrapping: if the 95% CI does not include 0, this signifies that the point estimateis significant at the p < .05 level.

Table 4 presents results of hierarchical linear regressions testing the hypothesis thatpositive (upper half of Table 4) and negative (lower half) post-task emotion mediated theassociation between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction. After control-ling for participant age and gender in a first step, relational savoring was associated withgreater positive emotion. After controlling for participant age and gender, positive emo-tion was significantly associated with post-stressor relationship satisfaction. Next, weexamined whether post-task positive emotion acted as an indirect effect in explaining thenon-significant association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction.We controlled for the same set of covariates included in previous analyses. The indirect

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

Control Relational Savoring

Pos

itiv

e A

ffec

t (P

AN

AS)

Mental Reflection Task Condition

Low Baseline RS

Medium Baseline RS

High Baseline RS

Figure 3. Interaction between relationship satisfaction pre-task and condition (control: neutraland personal savoring; relational savoring) predicting positive emotion measured by the positiveand negative affect schedule (PANAS) post-task. RS ¼ relationship satisfaction.




Table

4.Regressionsexam

iningpost-taskem

otionas

amediatoroftheassociationbetweenconditionandrelationship

satisfaction.

Model1:PredictingDV(noM)

Model

2:PredictingM

Model3:predictingDV(w

ithM)

DependentVariable:

Relationship

Satisfaction

Positive

Emotion

Relationship

Satisfaction

PredictorVariables

bSE

CI

bSE

CI

bSE

CI

Constant

25.72

2.05

[21.69,29.76]

25.55

2.13

[21.38,29.73]

3.99

0.29

[3.42,4.56]

Age

0.09

0.04

[0.01,0.16]

0.87

0.04

[0.01,0.16]

–0.01

0.00

[�0.02,0.00]

Sex

�1.00

0.80

[1.06,2.90]

–1.09

0.80

[�2.67,0.49]

0.38

0.10

[�0.18,0.57]

Condition

1.98

0.47

[1.06,2.90]

3.20

0.83

[1.57,4.82]

–0.01

0.10

[�0.21,0.19]

Positive

emotiona

–—

–—

–—

–—

–—

–—

0.05

0.01

[0.36,0.06]

DependentVariable:

Relationship

Satisfaction

NegativeEmotion

Relationship

Satisfaction

PredictorVariables

bSE

CI

bSE

CI

bSE

CI

Constant

21.51

1.59

[18.39,24.63]

21.80

1.64

[18.57,25.03]

6.40

0.30

[5.81,6.99]

Age

0.03

0.03

[�0.03,0.09]

0.03

0.03

[�0.03,0.09]

0.00

0.00

[�0.01,0.00]

Sex

�2.44

0.62

[�3.67,�1

.22]

�2.40

0.62

[�3.61,-1.18]

0.19

0.10

[�0.00,0.39]

Condition

�1.21

0.36

[�1.92,�0

.50]

–2.10

0.64

[�3.35,-0.84]

0.02

0.10

[�0.19,0.22]

Negativeem

otionb

–—

–—

–—

–—

–—

–—

–0.06

0.01

[�0.07,�0

.04]

Note.DV¼

dependentvariable;M

¼mediator;CI¼

confidence

interval.Boldface

values

highlightchange

inindependentvariabledueto

inclusionofthemediatorin

themodel.

a Indirecteffect

inthispathway

was

significant,pointestimate¼

.5;95%CI[0.07,0.24].

bIndirecteffect

inthispathway

was

significant,pointestimate¼

.12;95%CI[0.05,0.21].

17



effect in this pathway was significant, point estimate = 0.15; 95% CI [.07, .24], suggestingthat positive emotion acted as an indirect-only mediator of the link between conditionand post-stressor relationship satisfaction. In other words, after controlling for baselinerelationship satisfaction, there was no direct effect between condition and post-stressorrelationship satisfaction. However, positive emotion was an indirect effect in the non-significant association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction.

Similarly, after controlling for participant age and gender in a first step, relational savoringwas associatedwith lower negative emotion.After controlling for participant age and gender,negative emotion was significantly associated with post-stressor relationship satisfaction.Next, we examinedwhether post-task negative emotion acted as an indirect effect in explain-ing the non-significant association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfac-tion. We controlled for the same set of covariates included in previous analyses. The indirecteffect in this pathwaywas significant, point estimate=0.12; 95%CI [.05, .21], suggesting thatnegative emotion acted as an indirect-only mediator of the link between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction. Similar to the above finding, this finding can be interpretedto mean that when there is an association between condition and post-stressor relationshipsatisfaction, it is partially explained by post-reflection task negative emotion.

Hypothesis 4:Moderated mediation of the link between condition and post-stressorrelationship satisfaction.

Our final goal was to examine the moderating and mediating processes in combination byassessing whether post-task emotion mediated the link between experimental conditionand post-stressor relationship satisfaction to different degrees based on pre-task relation-ship satisfaction. We posited that pre-task relationship satisfaction would moderate thelink between condition and post-task emotion, which in turn would mediate the linkbetween condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction (see Figure 4).

Post-Task Emotion(PA and NA)

Post-StressorRelationshipSatisfaction

Pre-taskRelationshipSatisfaction

ExperimentalCondition

Figure 4. Visual depiction of the proposed moderated mediation: post-task emotion mediates thelink between experimental condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction to differentdegrees based on pre-task relationship satisfaction.




In the first linear regression model,5 we examined positive emotion as the mediator andfound that after controlling for participant age and sex, the degree to which experimentalcondition affects post-stressor relationship satisfaction indirectly through post-task posi-tive emotion depends on pre-task relationship satisfaction. Table 5 displays the condi-tional indirect effects of experimental condition on post-stressor relationshipsatisfaction through positive emotion based on various levels of relationship satisfaction.For individuals reporting low levels of baseline relationship satisfaction, positive emotiondid not explain the link between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction. Pos-itive emotion acted as a mediator only among participants reporting medium and high lev-els of baseline relationship satisfaction. In other words, for those with medium and highlevels of baseline relationship satisfaction, higher levels of post-reflection task positiveemotion explained the link between the relational savoring condition assignment andpost-stressor relationship satisfaction.

In the second model, we examined negative emotion as the mediator: after controllingfor participant age and sex, we found that the degree to which condition affects post-stressor relationship satisfaction indirectly through post-task negative emotion dependson pre-task relationship satisfaction. Table 5 displays the conditional indirect effects ofexperimental condition on post-stressor relationship satisfaction through negative emo-tion based on various levels of relationship satisfaction. Similar to the findings describedearlier, negative emotion acted as an indirect effect only among participants reportingmedium and high levels of baseline relationship satisfaction. In other words, for thosewith medium and high levels of baseline relationship satisfaction, lower levels of post-

Table 5. Regressions examining the moderated mediation model: Baseline relationship satisfac-tion as a moderator of the mediation of the condition to post-stressor relationship satisfaction linkby positive and negative emotions.

Positive Emotion as a Mediator

Dependent Variable: Post-stressor Relationship Satisfaction

Predictor Variables b SE CI

ConstantLow-baseline RS 0.03 0.05 [�0.06, 0.14]Medium-baseline RS 0.13 0.04 [0.06, 0.21]High-Baseline RS 0.24 0.05 [0.14, 0.34]

Negative Emotion as a Mediator

Dependent Variable: Post-stressor Relationship Satisfaction

Predictor Variables b SE CI

ConstantLow-baseline RS 0.08 0.06 [�0.05, 0.21]Medium-baseline RS 0.11 0.03 [0.05, 0.18]High-baseline RS 0.13 0.04 [0.06, 0.22]

Note. RS¼ relationship satisfaction; SE ¼ standard error; CI ¼ confidence interval.

Borelli et al. 19



reflection task negative emotion explained the link between the relational savoring con-dition assignment and post-stressor relationship satisfaction.6

Discussion

Given that LDRs are quite common (Bergen et al., 2007) and that studies reliably report alink between relationship satisfaction and health (Robles et al., 2014), understandingfactors that promote satisfaction in LDRs is of primary importance to the field of rela-tionship science. In line with recent work suggesting that brief theory-driven social psy-chological interventions can profoundly influence relational and individual well-being inan iterative way (Finkel et al., 2013; Layous et al., 2013; Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013;Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), our study adapted a brief relational savoring task (Borelliet al., 2010, 2014) for administration over the internet among adult members of LDRs;as primary outcomes, we assessed emotional reactions and relationship satisfaction fol-lowing a simulated relationship stressor.

Consistent with the study predictions, we found that assignment to the relationalsavoring condition (as opposed to either of the two control conditions) resulted in greaterself-reported positive and lower negative emotion. Importantly, the observed effect sizeswere small (ranging from .27 to .45). In future work, it will be important to evaluate thepractical and long-term significance of these effects. Evidence suggests that increasingpositive emotion, in particular, can have significant downstream effects on behavior (seeFredrickson, 2013, for a review), so it may be that a relatively small boost in positive emo-tion will fuel behaviors that in turn further enhance positive emotion. In future work, italso will be important to assess the impact of repeated engagement in relational savoring.It is possible that greater familiarity completing this mental exercise will result in greateryield (more positive emotion); alternatively, over time the intervention could lose itspotency. In sum, although this study suggests small effects on participants’ emotion, fur-ther inquiry is required to appreciate the practical and long-term significance of relationalsavoring for this population.

Of note is that there were no significant differences in emotional states between par-ticipants assigned to complete the personal savoring task and the neutral control task. Thispattern of findings is especially striking in light of the fact that our linguistic analysisrevealed that participants in the two savoring conditions did not differ in the frequency ofpositive emotion words. When people naturalistically savor, they most often choose tosavor relational memories (Bryant et al., 2005) and savoring memories not involvingother people actually may be a difficult task for some adults. It is unknown whether thetypes of memories naturalistically savored by adults in LDRs differs from those savoredby other adults (single people or GCR members), but it may be that for some adults inLDRs, savoring personal memories fails to enhance emotional state because thesememories underscore the fact that they live apart from their romantic partners, which mayevoke feelings of longing or being alone. Future research can examine this issue todetermine whether, for people in an LDR, savoring personal memories yields no emo-tional benefit relative to a control task.

We also found that participants who began the study with medium and high levels ofrelationship satisfaction benefitted the most from the relational savoring in terms of their




reports of positive emotion. Consistent with previous work finding that relational savoringimproves emotional state for women low in avoidance but damages it for those high inavoidance (Borelli et al., 2014), our results suggest that relational savoring only works interms of enhancing emotional states among individuals who begin the task feeling satisfiedwith their relationships. Importantly, unlike Borelli and colleagues’ (2014) previous work,we did not find that the relational savoring task resulted in negative outcomes for peoplewith low relationship satisfaction (relative to completing the control mental reflectiontasks). Therefore, we can conclude that completing a relational savoring task works in termsof generating more positive emotion in the short term for LDR members with medium tohigh baseline relationship satisfaction, suggesting that relational savoring may be aneffective tool for preventing declines in relationship satisfaction. In future work, it will beimportant to develop and test interventions that improve mood and relationship satisfactionamong LDR members with low relationship satisfaction, who are likely more in need ofways to boost their relationship morale. It may be that these people require more intensiveintervention to achieve the same outcomes, or a different approach altogether.

With respect to negative emotion, however, baseline relationship satisfaction did not act as astatistically significant moderator. Whereas focusing on a positive relationship memoryenhanced positive emotion only for people who entered the study relatively satisfied by theirLDR, as compared to the control conditions, completing the relational savoring task decreasednegative emotion regardless of pre-task satisfaction. Perhaps it is the case that reducing nega-tive emotion is easier to accomplish with a brief intervention, but in order to enhance positiveemotionwith a relational savoring task, peoplemust have sufficient access topositive relationalmemories, which presumably would be higher with greater relationship satisfaction.

We also found that when the relational savoring task buffered participants’ relationshipsatisfaction fromsimulated relationship stress, it did so through the improvements in emotionalstates following the mental reflection task. Further, this effect was moderated by baselinerelationship satisfaction, such that post-reflection task emotion (positive and negative emotion)only explained post-stressor relationship satisfaction among adults who began the study withmedium-to-high satisfaction with their LDRs. These findings are consistent with earlier workwithmarried couples suggesting that the prevention of declines in relationship satisfaction as aresult of a brief intervention can be explained by reductions in distress (Finkel et al., 2013).Although both variables were measured within a relatively short span of time (approximately30 min from the start of the mental reflection task), these findings are encouraging in that theysuggest that a relatively minor, albeit targeted intervention can protect relationship satisfactionin response to a simulated stressor. If we conceptualize relationship processes (both thosethat promote relationship function and dysfunction) as iterative, then brief, theoreticallyinformed interventions have the potential to have repeating and cascading effects on rela-tionship processes (Finkel et al., 2013). Similarly, even momentary experiences of pos-itive emotion have the potential to lead to cognitions and behaviors that in turn inspireadditional boosts in emotional state (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002).

This study constitutes one of the first experimental examinations of relational savoringin general and the first conducted among LDR members. Our study improved uponprevious work by including a large sample with sufficient statistical power to detect mainand interactive effects of baseline characteristics. Further, unlike Borelli and colleagues’(2014) initial work, this study included two control groups (personal savoring and neutral

Borelli et al. 21



control). These contributions should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. Inour view, the most significant limitation is the time period spanned by the assessmentsundertaken in this study: we assessed emotional state immediately following the savoringtask and post-stressor relationship satisfaction approximately 15 min afterward. Thus, weare unable to speak to whether this impact has any long-lasting effects on relationshipsatisfaction. In fact, we did not observe a significant decline in relationship satisfactionfrom the baseline to the post-stressor assessment, which is not surprising given the rela-tively short time frame assessed, but this fact undoubtedly limits the variability that ourmodels can explain. Building off of these initial findings, future researchers will be taskedwith examining the duration of the observed effects, particularly in terms of whether ornot they can protect against a decline in relationship satisfaction.

Second, the vignette task we used to simulate relationship-related stress was developedfor the purposes of this study and, as such, does not have a history of extensive researchvalidation. Our linguistic analyses suggest that the relationship stressor worked asintended in that participants in the neutral control condition used significantly more neg-ative emotion words when responding to the post-stressor questions than when complet-ing the neutral mental reflection task; however, we did not obtain data from participantsthat would speak directly to whether or not they found the simulated relationship stressorrealistic or whether it caused a subjective decline in emotional state. This aspect of thestudy could be improved in future work.

Third, all of the data presented here were collected online; it would be advantageous tosupplement these datawith other types of assessments (e.g., non–self-report assessments suchas behavior observation) as well as with brief interventions delivered in-person, which couldhelp insure that the interventions function in the way theywere intended. Fourth, in our workwe focused exclusively on one member of an LDR dyad. Although important in laying thegroundwork for the observed effects, it will be illuminating in futurework to examine dyadiceffects of relational savoring conducted individuallywith eachmember of a couple aswell asconjointly. Finally, in future studies, it would be beneficial to evaluate the effects of relationalsavoring among GCR members. As it currently stands, we are unable to speak to the speci-ficity of these effects onLDRmembers. Itmay be that relational savoring improves outcomesfor adults in GCRs as well, or even for single or divorced adults.

Finally, although we speculate that relational savoring works by activating mentalrepresentations of attachment security, which in turn activates feelings of safety, we didnot have a means to directly assess this in the context of this investigation. In future work,understanding the mechanisms by which relational savoring exerts its impacts on emotionand relationship satisfaction will be important for building both theoretical models ofLDRs specifically and attachment representations in general.

Conclusions

Although the findings from this study should be viewed as preliminary until replicated,our intervention (relational savoring) appears to cause increases in positive emotion anddecreases in negative emotion, as well as post-task relationship satisfaction following asimulated relationship stressor task. In addition, the positive effects on mood are greaterin LDR members with medium-to-high baseline relationship satisfaction. Exploring the




long-term impacts of this brief savoring intervention is promising and has the potential tocontribute to a body of research demonstrating the potent effect of brief interventions(Finkel et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009).

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the adults who participated in this project and research assistants in thePomona CARE Lab for their help in collecting and processing the data.

Funding

This work was funded by American Psychoanalytic Association Fund for Research grant awardedto the first author.

Notes

1. We examined group differences in the following participant characteristics: age, partner age,number of children, educational attainment, or baseline levels of relationship satisfaction, parti-cipant race, sex, length of relationship, length of time physically separated from partner, distanceseparating partners, frequency of remote contact (phone, e-mail, text, Skype, letter, etc.), and fre-quency of face-to-face contact.

2. As a follow-up to our preliminary analyses, we conducted a set of additional analyses evaluatingaspects of the LDRs (length of relationship, length of time physically separated from partner,distance separating partners, frequency of remote contact, frequency of face-to-face contact)as well as participant gender or ethnicity moderated any of the observed effects. We also eval-uated whether frequency of synchronous or asynchronous contact moderated the findings. Inclu-sion of these relationship variables in statistical models did not affect the observed pattern ofresults—therefore, we do not report them here.

3. To conduct this analysis, we used Model 1 in the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2012).4. We used Model 4 in the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2012) to conduct this analysis.5. We used Model 7 in PROCESS (Hayes, 2012) to evaluate this hypothesis.6. Following these initial analyses, we evaluated a combined moderated mediation model in which

we included both positive and negative emotions as mediators. The pattern of results remainedthe same—both positive and negative emotions mediated the link between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction among participants with medium and high, but not low, baselinesatisfaction. Thus, positive and negative emotions were independent indirect effects in the asso-ciation between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction among participants report-ing higher levels of relationship satisfaction.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variables distinction in social psy-chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bergen, K., Kirby, E., & McBride, M. (2007). ‘How do you get two houses cleaned?’: Accomplish-ing family caregiving in commuter marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 287–307.doi:10.1080/15267430701392131

Borelli, J. L., McMakin, D., & Sbarra, D. (2010). Mental reflection task manual: Pomona deploy-ment study. Unpublished Manuscript, Pomona College.

Borelli et al. 23



Borelli, J. L., Sbarra, D. A., Snavely, J. E., McMakin, D. L., Coffey, J.K., Ruiz, S. K., . . . Chung,S. Y. (2014, in press). With or without you: Attachment avoidance predicts non-deployedspouses’ reactions to relationship challenges during deployment. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice.

Bowlby, J. (1960). Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of theChild, 15, 9–52.

Bowlby, J. (1982 [1969]). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY:Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. Clinical applications of attachment theory. London, England:Routledge.

Bryant, F. B. (2003). Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs aboutsavoring. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 175–196. doi:10.1080/0963823031000103489

Bryant, F. B., Smart, C. M., & King, S. P. (2005). Using the past to enhance the present: Boostinghappiness through positive reminiscence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 227–260. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3889-4

Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty: Predicting the survival of long-distancerelationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 581–606. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.6.581-606

Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief interventionto promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24,1595–1601. doi:10.1177/0956797612474938

Fredrickson,B.L. (2013).Positive emotions broaden andbuild. InE.AshbyPlant&P.G.Devine (Eds.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotionalwell-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00431

Gentzler, A. L., Morey, J. N., Palmer, C. A., & Yi, C. Y. (2012). Young adolescents’ responses topositive events: Associations with positive affect and adjustment. The Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 33, 663–683. doi:10.1177/0272431612462629

Glenn, N. D. (1998). The course of marital success and failure in five American 10-year marriagecohorts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 569–576. doi:10.2307/353529

Graham, J.M., Diebels, K. J., &Barnow, Z. B. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A relia-bility generalizationmeta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 39–48. doi:10.1037/a0022441

Guldner, G. T. (1996). Long-distance romantic relationships: Prevalence and separation-relatedsymptoms in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 289–296.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analyses in the new millen-nium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 511. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511



http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf


Hurley, D. B., & Kwon, P. (2011). Results of a study to increase savoring the moment: Differentialimpact on positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 579–588. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9280-8

Jiang, L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographicseparation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communica-tion, 63, 556–577. doi:10.1111/jcom.12029

King, K. B., & Reis, H. T. (2012). Marriage and long-term survival after coronary artery bypassgrafting. Health Psychology, 31, 55–62. doi:10.1037/a0025061

Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). What is the optimal way to deliver a positiveactivity intervention? The case of writing about one’s best possible selves. Journal of HappinessStudies, 14, 635–654. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9346-2

Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Cur-rent Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 57–62. doi:10.1177/0963721412469809

McMakin, D., Siegle, G., & Shirk, S. (2011). Positive affect stimulation and sustainment (PASS)module for depressed mood: A preliminary investigation of treatment-related effects. CognitiveTherapy and Research, 35, 217–226. doi:10.1007/s10608-010-9311-5

Maguire, K. C., & Kinney, T. A. (2010). When distance is problematic: Communication, coping,and relational satisfaction in female college students’ long-distance dating relationships. Journalof Applied Communication Research, 38, 27–46. doi:10.1080/00909880903483573

Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55,56–67. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56

Paap, C. E., & Gardner, R. M. (2011). Body image disturbance and relationship satisfaction amongcollege students. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 715–719. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.019

Parker-Pope, T. (2010). For better: The science of a good marriage. New York, NY: Dutton.Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count

(LIWC): A computerized text analysis program. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Pistole, M. (2010). Long-distance romantic couples: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal

of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 115–125. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00169.xQualtrics software, Version 50897 of the Qualtrics Research Suite. Copyright © 2012 Qualtrics.

Provo, UT, USA. http://www.qualtrics.comQuoidbach, J., Wood, A. M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Back to the future: The effect of daily practice

of mental time travel into the future on happiness and anxiety. The Journal of Positive Psychol-ogy, 4, 349–355. doi:10.1080/17439760902992365

Roberts, A., & Pistole, M. (2009). Long-distance and proximal romantic relationship satisfaction:Attachment and closeness predictors. Journal of College Counseling, 12, 5–17. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2009.tb00036.x

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality andhealth: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 140–187.

Rochlen, A. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Women’s perceptions of male partners’ gender role con-flict as predictors of psychological well-being and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men& Masculinity, 5, 147–157. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.147

Rohrbaugh, M. J., Mehl, M. R., Shoham, V., Reilly, E. S., & Ewy, G. (2008). Prognostic signifi-cance of spouse we-talk in couples coping with heart failure. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 76, 781–789. doi:10.1037/a0013238

Borelli et al. 25


http://www.qualtrics.com


Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J. A., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We-talk, commu-nal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health-compromised smo-kers. Family Process, 51, 107–121. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01388.x

Sahlstein, E. (2010). Communication and distance: The present and future interpreted through the past.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 106–114. doi:10.1080/00909880903483615

Schumm, W. R., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L., & Grinsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics ofresponses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psycho-logical Reports, 53, 567–572. doi:10.2466/pr0.1983.53.2.567

Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., &Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfactionscale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381–387. doi:10.2307/352405

Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptomswith positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of ClinicalPsychology: In Session, 65, 467–487. doi:10.1002/jclp.20593

Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Stafford, L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. CommunicationResearch, 37, 275–297. doi:10.1177/0093650209356390

Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance datingrelationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 37–54. doi:10.1177/0265407507072578

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion regulationstrategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 311–333. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9015-4

VanLaningham, J., Johnson, D. R., & Amato, P. (2001). Marital happiness, marital duration, and theU-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79, 1313–1341. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0055

Vormbrock, J. K. (1993). Attachment theory as applied to wartime and job-related marital separa-tion. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 122–144. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.122

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures ofpositive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-351

Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). A process model of adult attachment formation. In S. Duck (Ed.),Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 179–195). Chichester, England: Wiley and Sons.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truthsabout mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257




Journal of Social and Personal Relationships-2014-Borelli-0265407514558960

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Social and Personal Relationships-2014-Borelli-0265407514558960