It's complicated: The good and bad of ambivalence in romantic relationships.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Emotion Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1037/emo0001340
Giulia Zoppolat, Francesca Righetti, Mirna Đurić, Rhonda Balzarini, Richard Slatcher
{"title":"It's complicated: The good and bad of ambivalence in romantic relationships.","authors":"Giulia Zoppolat, Francesca Righetti, Mirna Đurić, Rhonda Balzarini, Richard Slatcher","doi":"10.1037/emo0001340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People often feel mixed and conflicting feelings (i.e., ambivalence) toward their romantic partner. So far, research has primarily shown that ambivalence is linked to negative outcomes in relationships, but is this always true? Building off the affect, behavior, cognition model of ambivalence, the present work tests the idea that, when ambivalent, individuals can experience both positive and negative cognitive and behavioral responses toward their partner. This idea was tested in three different studies with people in romantic relationships: a cross-sectional international study (<i>n</i> = 665), a 10-day daily diary study (<i>n</i> = 171), and a 12-day daily diary study with two follow-ups (<i>n</i> = 176 couples and nine individuals). Across studies, when people experienced greater subjective ambivalence (i.e., explicitly reported feeling mixed and conflicted) toward their partner, they spent more time thinking about the difficulties they faced in their relationship but also about ways in which they can make it better and, in turn, engaged in both constructive (e.g., wanting to spend more time with the partner) and destructive (e.g., ignoring or criticizing the partner) behaviors toward their partner. Ambivalence was also associated with greater fluctuations in both constructive and destructive behaviors daily and over time. This work advances the current knowledge about ambivalence in romantic relationships and further demonstrates that individuals can experience both positive and negative cognitions and behaviors toward a partner when ambivalent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48417,"journal":{"name":"Emotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001340","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People often feel mixed and conflicting feelings (i.e., ambivalence) toward their romantic partner. So far, research has primarily shown that ambivalence is linked to negative outcomes in relationships, but is this always true? Building off the affect, behavior, cognition model of ambivalence, the present work tests the idea that, when ambivalent, individuals can experience both positive and negative cognitive and behavioral responses toward their partner. This idea was tested in three different studies with people in romantic relationships: a cross-sectional international study (n = 665), a 10-day daily diary study (n = 171), and a 12-day daily diary study with two follow-ups (n = 176 couples and nine individuals). Across studies, when people experienced greater subjective ambivalence (i.e., explicitly reported feeling mixed and conflicted) toward their partner, they spent more time thinking about the difficulties they faced in their relationship but also about ways in which they can make it better and, in turn, engaged in both constructive (e.g., wanting to spend more time with the partner) and destructive (e.g., ignoring or criticizing the partner) behaviors toward their partner. Ambivalence was also associated with greater fluctuations in both constructive and destructive behaviors daily and over time. This work advances the current knowledge about ambivalence in romantic relationships and further demonstrates that individuals can experience both positive and negative cognitions and behaviors toward a partner when ambivalent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

这很复杂:恋爱关系中矛盾的好与坏。
人们经常会对自己的恋爱伴侣产生混杂而矛盾的感觉(即矛盾心理)。迄今为止,研究主要表明矛盾心理与恋爱关系中的负面结果有关,但事实是否总是如此呢?根据矛盾心理的情感、行为和认知模型,本研究检验了这样一种观点,即当个人处于矛盾心理时,他们对伴侣的认知和行为反应既可能是积极的,也可能是消极的。我们在三项不同的研究中测试了这一观点:一项横断面国际研究(n = 665)、一项为期 10 天的每日日记研究(n = 171)和一项为期 12 天的每日日记研究(n = 176 对情侣和 9 个人)。在所有的研究中,当人们对伴侣的主观矛盾感更强(即明确报告感觉复杂和矛盾)时,他们会花更多的时间思考他们在关系中面临的困难,同时也会思考如何使他们的关系变得更好,进而对伴侣采取建设性的行为(如希望花更多的时间与伴侣在一起)和破坏性的行为(如忽视或批评伴侣)。矛盾心理还与每天和随着时间的推移建设性行为和破坏性行为的更大波动有关。这项研究增进了人们目前对恋爱关系中矛盾心理的了解,并进一步证明了当个人处于矛盾心理时,会对伴侣产生积极和消极的认知和行为。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emotion
Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
325
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Emotion publishes significant contributions to the study of emotion from a wide range of theoretical traditions and research domains. The journal includes articles that advance knowledge and theory about all aspects of emotional processes, including reports of substantial empirical studies, scholarly reviews, and major theoretical articles. Submissions from all domains of emotion research are encouraged, including studies focusing on cultural, social, temperament and personality, cognitive, developmental, health, or biological variables that affect or are affected by emotional functioning. Both laboratory and field studies are appropriate for the journal, as are neuroimaging studies of emotional processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信