Read the emotion lecture article on romantic competence and answer the following questions in 1.5-2pages total:
1. What is romantic competence?
2. why do the authors thinkpositive emotional expression is important for a health relationship?
3. In this study how did gender play a role in how romantic competence andpositive emotional expression functioned in this study?
4. What limitations did the study have scientifically? What should the next study do to counter those limitations?
Also: pleasedontupload .pages files. They can only be graded on a mac, whereas word andpdffiles can be graded on any computer mac or otherwise
Positive Emotional Expression Among Couples: The Role of Romantic Competence Joanne Davila, Haley Wodarczyk, and Vickie Bhatia Stony Brook University We examined the association between romantic competence and positive emotional expressions in a relationship-promoting task serving the dual function of (1) furthering our understanding of the skills needed for adaptive expression of positive emotion that can foster intimacy among couples, and (2) further validating the construct of romantic competence. Eighty-nine emerging adult couples in different-sex relationships were assessed with the Romantic Competence Interview for Emerging Adults and partici- pated in an interaction task, which assessed their ability for adaptive positive emotional expression. Results indicated that women’s romantic competence was positively asso- ciated with both her and her partner’s ability for positive emotional expression, even controlling for relationship satisfaction. Implications for understanding positive emo- tional expression in young couples, as well as the need for increasing romantic competence to facilitate it, are discussed. Keywords: romantic competence, emerging adults, relationship satisfaction, positive emotion, couples The ability to express positive emotion to one’s partner is considered an important aspect of what makes relationships succeed (see Gott- man & Gottman, 2015, for a discussion). The- ory and research in a variety of domains support this notion. For example, research on capitaliza- tion indicates that perceiving one’s partner as responding enthusiastically to the sharing of a positive experience or event is associated with greater satisfaction, trust, and intimacy, and less conflict (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). Having partners talk about the positive aspects of their relationship, often by reminiscing or telling their story of how they got together, is a common technique used in couple interventions to reduce distress and create a platform for increased relationship satisfaction (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992; Christensen, Dimi- djian, & Martell, 2015; Cordova, 2014). Indeed, satisfied couples are more likely than dissatisfied couples to demonstrate more positive affect and intimacy when positively reminiscing (Osgarby & Halford, 2013), and married couples who tell more positive stories about their relationship are less likely to divorce (Buehlman et al., 1992). Positive emotions also can serve to undo the phys- iological arousal effects of negative emotions dur- ing couple conflict interactions (Yuan, McCarthy, Holley, & Levenson, 2010). Despite the apparent importance of positive emotional expression in couples, and as noted by a growing number of researchers (Hershen- berg, Mavandadi, Baddeley, & Libet, 2016; Levenson, Haase, Bloch, Holley, & Seider, 2013; Osgarby & Halford, 2013), the field has largely focused on negative emotion in couples and on interactions that emphasize conflict and problem-solving, and other challenging circum- stances. These researchers are increasingly call- ing for a focus on positive emotions and on methods that can elicit them. Recently, Osgarby and Halford (2013) provided a direct examina- tion comparing behavior in a positive reminis- cence interaction to that in a typical problem- solving discussion task. They found, among satisfied couples, that positive affect and dyadic Joanne Davila, Haley Wodarczyk, and Vickie Bhatia, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University. Haley Wodarczyk is now at the Center for Community Independence in Somerville MA. Vickie Bhatia is now at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC. We thank Katie Chan, Alexandra Byrne, and Nicole Barle for assistance with data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Joanne Davila, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2500. E-mail: joanne.davila@stonybrook.edu T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an Ps yc ho lo gi ca l A ss oc ia tio n or on e of its al lie d pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 6, No. 2, 94–105 2160-4096/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000077 94 mailto:joanne.davila@stonybrook.edu http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000077 intimacy occurred at higher rates in positive reminiscence than in problem-solving, attesting to the fact that traditional types of behavioral interactions used to study couples may not be well-suited to fully understanding positive af- fect and its effects on relationships. As such, it is important that researchers continue to exam- ine the expression of positive emotion in con- texts that are relationship promoting. Furthermore, given the evidence that express- ing positive emotion is healthy for relationships, it is critical that we understand what contributes to partners’ ability to do so. Although there may be a variety of factors involved, we focused on one— romantic competence (RC)—which is defined by a set of skills believed to contribute to a wide range of aspects of healthy relationship function- ing (Davila et al., 2009, 2017). The skills under- lying RC are (1) insight, which reflects awareness of one’s own and one’s partner’s needs, goals, motivations, and effects on others, awareness of causes and consequences of behavior, and ability to learn from experience; (2) mutuality, which involves consideration of the needs of self and other, and attempts to maximize outcomes for both; and (3) emotion regulation, which is the ability to regulate emotions in response to rela- tionship-relevant experiences (Davila et al., 2017). As elaborated in Davila et al. (2009, 2017), the construct of RC, and the three skills under- lying it, was developed from social–cognitive theories of interpersonal problem-solving, at- tachment theory, and theories of emotion regu- lation, and the common themes across them. For example, social–cognitive models of interper- sonal problem-solving stress the importance of mutuality and consequential thinking by em- phasizing the need to think through interper- sonal situations in a way that recognizes conse- quences and respects the needs and outcomes of both people involved (Brion-Meisels & Selman, 1984; Schultz, Yeates, & Selman, 1989; Selman & Demorest, 1984; Spivack, Platt, & Shure, 1976; Yeates, Schultz, & Selman, 1990). Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) stresses that adaptive relational functioning requires insight and the ability to reflect on self and others and to learn from prior experience (Treboux, Crowell, & Waters, 2004). It also stresses the importance of adaptively regulating distress and maintaining self-worth in the face of threats to security (see Cassidy, 1994; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Mi- kulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Theories of emotion regulation similarly emphasize the adap- tive nature of the ability to regulate distress and maintain a coherent and positive sense of self (see Cole, Michel, & Teti, 1994; Salovey, Hsee, & Mayer, 1993). Davila et al. (2017) demonstrated that the three skill domains (insight, mutuality, and emotion regulation) form a valid latent construct of RC, and that RC is associated with key domains of relational and individual well-being, including greater relational security, healthier relationship decision making, greater relationship satisfaction, and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. In view of the fact that it is skill based, RC is a particularly good choice to examine as a correlate and potential predictor of positive emotional ex- pression because it is potentially malleable. Other individual difference variables, such as personal- ity traits or attachment security, which are associ- ated with the propensity for expressing positive emotion (see Livingstone & Srivastava, 2014; Mi- kulincer & Shaver, 2013), may be less open to change. It may be possible to teach people the skills that allow for greater RC, which may then result in more adaptive couple behavior. In the current study, we hypothesized that RC would be associated with the ability to express positive emotion in a relationship-promoting in- teraction task. The task is designed to elicit posi- tive emotional expressions from both members of the dyad by creating a demand for establishing intimacy (see Hershenberg et al., 2011). Behavior in the relationship-promoting task was coded for positivity of verbal expressions and congruence of verbal content and affect displayed. The positivity code reflects a person’s ability to say something positive about the partner. The congruence code reflects their ability to do so while expressing congruent (i.e., matching) emotion. We included a congruence code because how one says something affects its meaning (e.g., giving a compliment while rolling one’s eyes or in a sarcastic tone). One might say positive words, but if the emotion does not match, then the impact may be different. More romantically competent partners should be more appropriately responsive to the demand this task creates owing to their ability to understand and care about their part- ner’s needs (which requires insight and mu- tuality), to be aware of one’s true feelings and how one expresses them, or not (which re- quires insight), to recognize the effects of their behaviors on the partner (which also 95POSITIVE EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION IN COUPLES T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an Ps yc ho lo gi ca l A ss oc ia tio n or on e of its al lie d pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. requires insight), and to adaptively experi- ence and express their emotions when called for and in appropriate situations (which re- quires emotion regulation). As such, more romantically competent partners should ex- hibit more positivity and more congruence than less romantically competent partners. Therefore, we predicted that greater RC would be associated with greater positivity and greater congruence. Examining the association between RC and positive emotional expressions in a relationship- promoting task serves the dual function of (1) furthering our understanding of the skills needed for adaptive expression of positive emotion that can foster intimacy among couples, and (2) further validating the construct of RC. If the skills under- lying competence do form the basis for healthy relationship functioning, then competence should be associated with key behaviors exhibited by partners. Indeed, this is one of the first studies examining RC and observable couple behavior. Using data from this same sample, we have shown that RC is associated with more adaptive social support behavior among couples (Bhatia & Da- vila, 2017), strengthening confidence in the pre- diction that competence also will be associated with positive emotional expression. We also examined whether predicted associ- ations held accounting for relationship satisfac- tion. We have already shown that RC is related