Who Recognizes and Chooses Behaviors That Are Best for a Relationship? The Separate Roles of Knowledge,Attachment,and Motivation

Abstract

Participants made relationship decisions in several Choose Your Own Adventure—type dating story tasks by choosing between two options at each of 20 points throughout the computerized stories. One option was always the relationship-enhancing option; the other option was detrimental to the relationship. Study 1 included two experimental conditions: Participants were either asked to identify the relationship-enhancing option or to report which option they would actually choose. Individuals high in relationship knowledge were more likely to identify relationship-enhancing behaviors but not more likely to actually choose them. Secure individuals and individuals strongly motivated to have supportive relationships were more likely to identify and to choose relationship-enhancing options. In Study 2 partner supportiveness was manipulated; the fictitious partner was either supportive or nonsupportive. Individuals high in relationship knowledge were better at recognizing when a partner was supportive and when not, whereas attachment anxiety lessened the appreciation of having a supportive partner.

Keywords

relationship knowledge attachment trust KNOWI dating partner selection risk

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abelson, R.P. ( 1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot . Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129-133.

Bowlby, J. ( 1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Collins, N.L. ( 1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71, 810-832.

Collins, N.L. , Guichard, A.C. , Ford, M.B. , & Feeney, B.C. ( 2004). Working models of attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 196-239). New York: Guilford.

Fraley, R.C. , Waller, N.G. , & Brennan, K.A. ( 2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78, 350-365.

Gillath, O. , & Shaver, P.R. ( 2007). Effects of attachment style and relationship context on selection among relational strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 968-976.

Hendrick, S.S. ( 1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 93-98.

Lemay, E.P. , & Clark, M.S. ( 2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 647-671.

Lemay, E.P. , Clark, M.S. , & Feeney, B.C. ( 2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 834-853.

10.

Mikulincer, M. ( 2007). Building personal relationships theory. Personal Relationships, 14, i-iv.

11.

Murray, S.L. , Holmes, J.G. , & Collins, N.L. ( 2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships . Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641-666.

12.

Paulhus, D.L. , & Harms, P.D. ( 2004). Measuring cognitive ability with the overclaiming technique . Intelligence, 32, 297-314.

13.

Prentice, D.A. , & Miller, D.T. ( 1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160-164.

14.

Turan, B. , & Horowitz, L.M. (2007). Can I count on you to be there for me? Individual differences in a knowledge structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 447-465.

15.

Turan, B. , & Horowitz, L.M. (2009). Identifying responsive partners to satisfy the motive for support. Unpublished manuscript .

16.

Vicary, A.M. , & Fraley, R.C. ( 2007). Choose your own adventure: Attachment dynamics in a simulated relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1279-1291.