1. Copies of this and related papers are available at: WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG Erin M. Miga David Szwedo Joanna Chango Megan Schad Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D. Presentation for the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence Philadelphia, PA March 12, 2010 Associations Between Observed Romantic Partner Conflict Negotiations & Psychopathology Over Time Autonomy and Influence:

2. Why are Relationship Processes Worth Studying?  Poor relationship quality :  weakened immune functioning  heightened stress responses  internalizing symptoms  partner aggression (Barnett, Steptoe, & Garies, 2005; Coan, Babcock, Gottman, & Jacobson, 1997; Whisman & Beach, 2001)

3. Why are Relationship Processes Worth Studying?  Gottman’s (1994) Four horsemen of the apocalypse:  Divorce  Relationship distress Stonewalling Belligerence Contempt Defensiveness Criticism

4. Why are Relationship Processes Worth Studying?  Gottman’s models have failed to replicate, in sample of at-risk dating couples (Kim, Capaldi, & Crosby, 2007).  Little research has examined Gottman’s Horsemen in relation to internalizing distress and jealousy  Jealousy:  Particularly prevalent among shorter-term relationships (Knox, Zusman, Mabon, & Shriver, 1999).  Often misconstrued as sign of love  Linked to partner aggression, relationship control

5. Research Questions  Part 1: Are Gottman’s horsemen predictive of internalizing distress in our young adult dating sample?  Part 2: Are power struggles in the romantic context predictive of internalizing distress over time?  Part 3: Are early adolescent peer autonomy processes predictive of romantic relationship qualities in young adulthood?

6. Sample 89 Adolescents, their peers, and romantic partners 46% male, 54% female, 40% non-white, Median family income:$40-60, 000 Teens (M age= 22.49) Teens (M age=14.21) Peers (M age=14.22) Friends for avg. of 4.42 years Teens (M age=20.85) Partners (M age=22.18) In relationship for avg. of 22.17 months Time 1Time 3 Time 2

7. Part 1: Measures Predictors:  Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF)-Teen age 20  18 dimensions (Teen and Partner-High and Low Negative/Positive affects) (Coan & Gottman, 2007; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) Outcomes:  Anxious and Depressive Symptoms- Teen age 22  Teen report: Adult Self Report (ASR) (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003).  Self Worth Teen report: Harter (Harter, 1988).  Romantic Jealousy  Teen report: Chronic Jealousy Scale (White, 1989)

8. Part 1: Intra- psychic Implications of Partner Conflict Internalizing Symptoms Horsemen Jealous Symptoms Teen Age 20 Teen- partner conflict Teen Age 22 Individual functioning + +

9. Gender Income Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 Note. * p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline Jealousy 2 results after controlling for baseline self worth Teen Belligerence Teen Jealousy 1 (R 2=.20*) Teen Jealousy.26***.37*** Teen Self Worth 2 (R 2=.31***) Teen Self Worth.35** -.27*

10. Gender Income Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 Note. * p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline jealousy Partner Belligerence Teen Jealousy 1 (R 2=.16*) Teen Jealousy.26***.33**

11. Gender Income Teen Age 20 Teen Age 22 Note. * p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline Jealousy 2 results after controlling for baseline self worth Partner Criticism Teen Jealousy 1 (R 2=.12) Teen Jealousy.26***.23* Teen Self Worth 2 (R 2=.33***) -.30**.35** Teen Self Worth

12. 2 of the 5 most corrosive affects, Belligerence and Criticism, predict increases in internalizing distress Part 1: Conclusions

13. Part 2: Intra-psychic Implications of the Demand-Withdraw Pattern

14. Power Struggles  Demand-withdraw pattern:  depressive symptoms  partner aggression  relationship dissolution ( Berns & Jacobson, 1999; Byrne, Carr & Clark, 2004; Christensen & Shenk, 1991).  Specific links found between demands and internalizing distress  Little research on long-term outcomes of withdrawal during relationship conflict

15. Key Question: Who fares worse over time: the demander or the withdrawer?

16. Teen Jealousy 1 (R 2=.29**) Partner Domineering Teen Stonewalling Note. * p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. 1 results after controlling for baseline jealousy Teen Age 20Teen Age 22 Teen Jealousy.26***.42*** Income Gender X

17. Teen Anxious and Depressive Symptoms (R 2=.17*) Partner Domineering Teen Stonewalling Note. * p <.05, p <.01, ***p <.001. Teen Age 20Teen Age 22.33** Gender Income X

18. Teen Internalizing Symptoms (R 2=.21**) Partner Criticism Teen Defensiveness Note. * p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001. Teen Age 20Teen Age 22.33** Gender Income X

19. Part 2: Conclusions  Demand -Withdraw patterns among young adult dating couples predictive of internalizing distress over time.  Does “demander” or “withdrawer” appear to experience more distress over time? Withdrawer

20. Part 3: Precursors of Relationship Qualities Peer relations:  a salient developmental task  play a role in romantic relationship formation in adolescence and emergent adulthood (Collins, 2003) Externalizing, autonomy undermining behaviors in peer relations previously associated with:  Physical and relational partner aggression (Capaldi, Dishion, Dishion, Stoolmiller &Yoerger, 2001; Schad, Szwedo, Antonishak, Hare, & Allen, 2008)

21. Precursors of Relationship Qualities Autonomy Processes Positive and Negative Romantic Qualities Early Adolescent Peer Relations Young Adult Romantic Functioning

22. Measures Predictors:  Autonomy & Relatedness Coding System (Peer AR ) (Allen, Porter, & McFarland, 2001)- Teen age 14 Teen and peer promotion of autonomy  reasoning, confident tone Teen and peer undermining autonomy  overpersonalizing, pressuring) Teen and peer promotion of relatedness  warmth, validation Teen and peer undermining of relatedness  rudeness

23. Measures Outcomes:  Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) (Coan & Gottman, 2007; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) -Teen age 20  18 dimensions (Teen and Partner-High and Low Negative/Positive affects)

24. -.26** Gender Income Teen Age 14 Peer Context Teen Age 20 Romantic Context Note. * p <.05, p <.01, ***p <.001. Teen and peer’s autonomy promoting behavior during conflict predicts lower levels of autonomy undermining affect during partner conflict 6 years later Teen Positive Autonomy & Relatedness Dyadic Belligerence & Stonewalling during Partner Conflict (R 2=.08) Peer’s Use of Reasoning -.26**

25. Conclusions  Adaptive friendship processes may play a role in reducing relationship distress over time.  Some emotions only matter in a dyadic context.  Withdrawal during partner conflict : greater risk factor than demand behavior amongst our dating couples. Copies of this and related papers are available at: WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

26. Limitations & Future Directions  Modest sample size  Community sample  Need to examine specific sequences of teen-partner behavior  Need to more closely examine function of withdrawal behavior Copies of this and related papers are available at: WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

27. Implications  Similar to marital relationships, Demand-Withdraw patterns in dating relationships:  exist  are predictive of distress over time  Intervene with couples during emergent adulthood, before marriage.  Highlights importance of an intervention such as Emotionally Focused Marital Therapy (Johnson & Greenberg, 1985). Copies of this and related papers are available at: WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

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