Examining Dyadic Stress Appraisal Processes Within Romantic Relationships from a Challenge and Threat Perspective

IF 2.1 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Affective science Pub Date : 2024-01-30 DOI:10.1007/s42761-024-00235-3
Brett J. Peters, Nickola C. Overall, Abriana M. Gresham, Ashley Tudder, Valerie T. Chang, Harry T. Reis, Jeremy P. Jamieson
{"title":"Examining Dyadic Stress Appraisal Processes Within Romantic Relationships from a Challenge and Threat Perspective","authors":"Brett J. Peters,&nbsp;Nickola C. Overall,&nbsp;Abriana M. Gresham,&nbsp;Ashley Tudder,&nbsp;Valerie T. Chang,&nbsp;Harry T. Reis,&nbsp;Jeremy P. Jamieson","doi":"10.1007/s42761-024-00235-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat emphasizes how individuals appraise stress. Close relationship theories emphasize the interpersonal context, communication, and outcomes that arise from stress. We integrate these approaches by examining the individual variability surrounding appraisals of sufficient (more challenge, less threat) or insufficient (more threat, less challenge) resources to cope with demands and examining how these appraisals are associated with couples’ behavior and feelings toward each other. Across three studies, 459 romantic couples (<i>N</i> = 918), and various potentially stressful in-lab conversations (extra-dyadic problem, dislikes about each other, dependability, and relationship conflict), we found evidence that stress appraisals indicative of more challenge and less threat were associated with more approach- and less avoidance-oriented behaviors within interactions. These approach- and avoidance-oriented behaviors were associated with greater feelings of relationship security and well-being after the conversation. However, whose (actors or partners) appraisals and behaviors were associated with security and well-being varied across the three studies. This work provides theoretical and empirical evidence for an interpersonal emphasis on intraindividual stress appraisal processes through a dyadic and close relationships lens. Our integrative theoretical framework breaks away from the idea that stress is inherently “bad” or “maladaptive” to show that appraising stress as more manageable (more challenge, less threat) is associated with more relationship behaviors that approach incentives and less that avoid threats and enhance feelings of relationship security and well-being.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72119,"journal":{"name":"Affective science","volume":"5 2","pages":"69 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s42761-024-00235-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Affective science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42761-024-00235-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat emphasizes how individuals appraise stress. Close relationship theories emphasize the interpersonal context, communication, and outcomes that arise from stress. We integrate these approaches by examining the individual variability surrounding appraisals of sufficient (more challenge, less threat) or insufficient (more threat, less challenge) resources to cope with demands and examining how these appraisals are associated with couples’ behavior and feelings toward each other. Across three studies, 459 romantic couples (N = 918), and various potentially stressful in-lab conversations (extra-dyadic problem, dislikes about each other, dependability, and relationship conflict), we found evidence that stress appraisals indicative of more challenge and less threat were associated with more approach- and less avoidance-oriented behaviors within interactions. These approach- and avoidance-oriented behaviors were associated with greater feelings of relationship security and well-being after the conversation. However, whose (actors or partners) appraisals and behaviors were associated with security and well-being varied across the three studies. This work provides theoretical and empirical evidence for an interpersonal emphasis on intraindividual stress appraisal processes through a dyadic and close relationships lens. Our integrative theoretical framework breaks away from the idea that stress is inherently “bad” or “maladaptive” to show that appraising stress as more manageable (more challenge, less threat) is associated with more relationship behaviors that approach incentives and less that avoid threats and enhance feelings of relationship security and well-being.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从挑战和威胁的角度研究恋爱关系中的双向压力评估过程
挑战和威胁的生物心理社会模型强调个人如何评估压力。亲密关系理论则强调人际环境、沟通以及由压力产生的结果。我们整合了这些方法,研究了个体对应对需求的资源充足(更多挑战,更少威胁)或不足(更多威胁,更少挑战)的评价,并研究了这些评价如何与情侣的行为和对彼此的感觉相关联。通过三项研究、459 对恋爱情侣(N = 918)以及各种潜在的实验室内压力对话(决裂外问题、不喜欢对方、依赖性和关系冲突),我们发现有证据表明,表明挑战多和威胁少的压力评估与互动中更多的接近型行为和更少的回避型行为有关。这些以接近和回避为导向的行为与谈话后更强的关系安全感和幸福感有关。然而,在三项研究中,谁(行为者或伴侣)的评价和行为与安全感和幸福感相关,却各不相同。这项研究从理论和实证角度证明了人际关系的重要性,即通过双人和亲密关系的视角来研究个体内部的压力评估过程。我们的综合理论框架打破了压力本质上是 "坏的 "或 "适应不良 "的观点,表明将压力评价为更容易管理(更多挑战、更少威胁)与更多接近激励的关系行为相关,而与更少的避免威胁、增强关系安全感和幸福感的行为相关。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Introduction to the Special Section Commentaries Affectivism and the Emotional Elephant: How a Componential Approach Can Reconcile Opposing Theories to Serve the Future of Affective Sciences A Developmental Psychobiologist’s Commentary on the Future of Affective Science Emotional Overshadowing: Pleasant and Unpleasant Cues Overshadow Neutral Cues in Human Associative Learning Emphasizing the Social in Social Emotion Regulation: A Call for Integration and Expansion
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1