Complaint Avoidance and Complaint-Related Appraisals in Close Relationships

Abstract

This study explored the role of decision-making power in withholding communicating about relational complaints. A total of 350 participants (nested in 175 couples) completed surveys about the balance of decision-making power in their relationship, complaint avoidance, and complaint-related appraisals. Decision-making power had a curvilinear association with avoidance, such that individuals engaged in the least complaint avoidance when they were relatively equal to their partners in power. For complaint-related appraisals, problems were perceived as least severe, and outcome expectancies and communication efficacy assessments were most positive, when power was equal. Furthermore, severity appraisals and outcome expectancies mediated the curvilinear association of power with complaint avoidance. Results provided support for Dyadic Power Theory outside of laboratory contexts, and highlight cognitive mechanisms through which decision-making power may influence communication in close relationships.

Keywords

power complaint avoidance dyadic power theory appraisals chilling effect

Power represents one of the fundamental realities shaping human communication (Burgoon & Hale, 1984; Dillard, Solomon, & Palmer, 1999). Power refers to the ability of one individual to influence another’s decisions and outcomes, even in the face of resistance (Dunbar, 2004; Huston, 1983). Although relational closeness is often associated with open communication about relational concerns (Brandau-Brown & Ragsdale, 2008; Caughlin & Golish, 2002), at times power dynamics inherent in close relationships may make individuals reticent to discuss problematic issues with a partner (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). While downplaying minor complaints may sometimes facilitate relational harmony (Baxter & Dindia, 1990; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovick, & Lipkus, 1991), withholding complaints can also have negative implications for individual and relational well-being. Avoiding communication about important relational topics has been linked to such outcomes as relational dissatisfaction (Merrill & Afifi, 2012), heightened physiological stress (Slatcher, Robles, Repetti, & Fellows, 2010), and negative rumination about relational problems (Cloven & Roloff, 1991). Furthermore, when individuals avoid expressing relational concerns to a partner, they forfeit opportunities to positively influence their partner or relationship, as well as to improve their own understanding of the problem (Cloven & Roloff, 1991).

In light of the links between communication avoidance and relational and physical health outcomes, better understanding of factors associated with partners’ (un)willingness to discuss complaints may be an important step in helping to alleviate the potentially negative effects of such avoidance. Past research has identified several factors associated with complaint avoidance, including relational dependence (Roloff & Cloven, 1990), a partner’s anticipated aggression (Cloven & Roloff, 1993), commitment to a partner (Roloff & Solomon, 2002), appraisals of problem severity (Solomon & Samp, 1998), and appraisals of efficacy and projected outcomes for complaint expression (Makoul & Roloff, 1998). In particular, work on the “chilling effect” has observed that a partner’s power derived from aggressive potential (Cloven & Roloff, 1993), or one’s dependence on that partner (Roloff & Cloven, 1990), may encourage the withholding of complaints due to fear of negative consequences.

While prior work has provided valuable insights into influences on complaint avoidance, a newer theoretical perspective has recently emerged which we believe may offer additional insights into the association of power and complaint avoidance. Dyadic Power Theory (DPT; Dunbar, 2004) theorizes the role of decision-making power in influence-seeking processes in close relationships. We recognize at the outset that power is a multi-faceted construct which may derive from multiple bases and take other forms besides decision making (French & Raven, 1959). Nevertheless, research from a variety of domains has identified decision-making power as a highly consequential form of power in interpersonal relationships (e.g., Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Dunbar, 2004; Huston, 1983; Madden, 1987; Neff & Suizzo, 2006; Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, & Rothman, 2014). In particular, decision-making power is important to examine because it frequently represents a “softer” form of power than power exercised through coercion or intimidation (Blood & Wolfe, 1960). As such, we considered decision-making power an appropriate focus of the current study, given our interest in examining the potential role of decision-making power in complaint avoidance.

DPT’s interest in decision-making power represents a unique focus from that provided by past work on dependence and/or aggressive potential as predictors of avoidance (e.g., Cloven & Roloff, 1993). Whereas dependence and aggressive potential serve as possible sources of relational power (e.g., Emerson, 1962; Gelles & Straus, 1988), factors such as relational satisfaction and investment (Rusbult, Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982) or a partner’s supportiveness (Roloff & Solomon, 2002) may at times encourage individuals to confront a partner about problematic behavior despite the partner’s possession of these power bases. We suggest decision-making power may serve as a more proximal influence on communication about relational irritations. Providing indirect support for this proposition, research by Blood and Wolfe (1960) suggested that one spouse’s economic and social dependence served as a source of the other spouse’s decision-making power. Similarly, research on intimate partner violence has observed that aggression may confer decision-making power on the aggressive relational partner (Frieze & McHugh, 1992; Wright & Benson, 2011). Thus, whereas much of the prior work on complaint avoidance has focused on antecedents of decision-making power (e.g., Cloven & Roloff, 1993), our study focuses on decision-making power itself. In the section that follows, we describe in greater detail the goals of our study.

Applying DPT to Complaint Avoidance

The original articulation of DPT (Rollins & Bahr, 1976) proposed a positive linear association between individuals’ relative relational power and attempts to influence a partner. However, Dunbar’s (2004) updated articulation of DPT specifies a curvilinear relationship between relative power and influence attempts. When individuals have less power than their partners, DPT predicts that they will avoid communicating in dominant ways, due to under-empowered individuals’ perceived lack of efficacy for successfully influencing their partners. However, DPT also predicts that individuals will engage in less dominant communication when they have substantially more power than their partners, though for different reasons than their under-empowered counterparts. High-power individuals’ position grants them implicit control of the relationship. Dunbar and colleagues argue that this implicit control may render overt influence attempts less necessary (Huston, 1983), as well as providing motivation to maintain the relational status quo by keeping hidden power implicit. Indeed, Dunbar (2004) argued that over-empowered individuals may be reticent to engage in dominant communication because they perceive that expressing their power may open the door for acknowledgement and potential re-negotiation of power discrepancies in the relationship. Thus, according to DPT, individuals should engage in the most dominant communication when they are relatively equal in power to their partners, as they have more to potentially gain from their influence attempts.

While research focused on dependence and aggressive potential (e.g., physical and symbolic aggression) has generally observed a linear association between these power sources and complaint avoidance (e.g., Cloven & Roloff, 1993; Solomon & Samp, 1998), we believe that decision-making power may have a non-linear association with avoidance. Past work on DPT has observed curvilinear associations between decision-making power and verbal and non-verbal dominance (Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar, Bippus, & Young, 2008; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005). We consider complaint expression to be an instance of influence seeking (Cloven & Roloff, 1993), and note that verbosity in conflict is associated with perceptions of dominance (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005), while verbal avoidance has been associated with perceptions of non-dominance (Rogers & Farace, 1975). As DPT predicts a curvilinear relationship between decision-making power and dominant influence-seeking processes, we anticipate that this association may also extend to verbal complaint avoidance. However, no prior work has examined the applicability of DPT to the realm of complaint expression and avoidance. Accordingly, the first goal of our study was to understand the potential for decision-making power to impact complaint avoidance.

Second, prior research on complaint withholding (Cloven & Roloff, 1993; Makoul & Roloff, 1998; Solomon & Samp, 1998) suggests that cognitions (e.g., fear of conflict, outcome and efficacy assessments, etc.) may be influenced by relational power dynamics. While the aforementioned research focused on dependence and coercive power, DPT similarly implies connections between decision-making power and cognitions. Specifically, DPT is rooted in the assumption that decision-making power shapes individuals’ cognitive appraisals of their prospects for successfully influencing a partner (Dunbar, 2004). Yet DPT’s tacit assumption that the association of decision-making power with influence attempts is mediated by cognitive appraisals remains untested to date. In an effort to test these assumptions, we examine complaint-related appraisals (namely, severity appraisals, outcome expectancies, and communication efficacy) that may influence complaint expression, and explore the role dyadic decision-making power may play in shaping these appraisals. In doing so, we also test the proposition that complaint-related appraisals mediate the association of dyadic power with complaint expression.

A final goal of our study was to examine the predictions of DPT beyond the laboratory. Prior DPT research has examined the association of power and communication in light of researcher-induced discussions in laboratory settings (e.g., Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar et al., 2008; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005; Dunbar & Mejia, 2013). While this research has been instructive, the validity of DPT in more naturally occurring communicative contexts has received little attention to date (though see Dunbar & Johnson, 2015). Therefore, we assessed the relation between dyadic decision-making power and individuals’ retrospective reports of actual complaint expression in their relationships. This approach allows for an appraisal of DPT’s usefulness in explaining everyday communication challenges as they arise naturally in close relationships. In the section that follows, we propose hypotheses relating dyadic decision-making power to complaint avoidance and complaint-related appraisals.

Dyadic Power, Complaint Avoidance, and Complaint-Related Appraisals

We propose that the association between relative dyadic decision-making power and complaint avoidance will be curvilinear. Reflecting the logic of DPT, we predict that individuals will express complaints most freely at relatively equal levels of dyadic power, as conditions of balanced power are likely to be associated with perceiving greater opportunity for successful influence. Conversely, we believe individuals will be more likely to withhold complaints to the extent that they perceive themselves as either more or less powerful than their partners. Under-powered individuals are likely to perceive that complaints will be unsuccessful or lead to undesirable consequences, while over-powered individuals are likely to perceive complaints as both less necessary and as opening the door for renegotiating the balance of dyadic power. Providing indirect support for this proposition, Neff and Harter (2002) observed that relational mutuality (which was empirically related to shared decision-making power in their study) was associated with greater willingness to voice one’s opinions to a partner. Accordingly, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Individuals engage in less complaint avoidance when they perceive themselves and their partners as relatively equal in decision-making power, than when they perceive themselves to be substantially more or less powerful than their partners.

While DPT locates the influence of decision-making power on communication in individuals’ appraisals of their prospects for influencing a partner (Dunbar, 2004), no known work to date has directly investigated the role of cognitive appraisals in the theory. To review, the logic of DPT holds that under-empowered individuals will communicate in less dominant ways, due to their perceived inability to influence a partner and/or the perceived negative consequences of influence attempts (cf. Cloven & Roloff, 1993). Conversely, over-empowered individuals are predicted to appraise influence attempts, such as complaints, as potentially threatening a favorable relational status quo (Dunbar, 2004). If these DPT assumptions are correct, relative decision-making power should be associated not only with complaint avoidance (H1) but also with cognitive appraisals related to the act of complaining.

Prior research on the associations among power, appraisals, and communication provides a basis for this portion of our investigation. Solomon and Samp (1998) observed that a partner’s dependence-related power was associated with perceiving that partner’s problematic behaviors as less severe, and that appraisals of problem severity were negatively associated with withholding complaints. As argued below, we believe that a link between power and severity appraisals may also be observed in the realm of decision-making power. In addition, past research has identified outcome expectancies and communication efficacy as influences on avoiding communication about sensitive topics such as secrets (T. D. Afifi, Olson, & Armstrong, 2005), divorce (W. A. Afifi & Afifi, 2009), and complaints (Makoul & Roloff, 1998). Outcome expectancies refer to individuals’ appraisals of the likelihood that communicating about a topic will lead to a desirable outcome. Communication efficacy refers to individuals’ appraisal of their ability to successfully achieve their aims via communication. We propose that relative decision-making power will be associated with these appraisal processes. As DPT posits that partners perceive the greatest opportunity for successful relational influence when power is balanced, we predict that individuals will perceive issues as least severe, while holding the most positive outcome expectancies and communication efficacy appraisals, when they perceive decision-making power as relatively equal.

Regarding severity appraisals, DPT predicts that unequal decision-making power is dissatisfying, for both under- and over-empowered partners (Dunbar, 2004). This coheres with research from an equity theory perspective documenting that both under-benefited (i.e., those who receive less than they contribute to their relationships) and over-benefited relational partners (i.e., those who receive more than they contribute to their relationships) frequently experience negative affect and relational dissatisfaction (Sprecher, 1986; Utne, Hatfield, Traupmann, & Greenberger, 1984; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Most germane to the current investigation, Krueger (1985) found that equitable marital decision making was positively associated with relational satisfaction. In turn, relational dissatisfaction has been linked to more negative and relationship-damaging attributions for partners’ problematic behaviors (e.g., Fincham & Bradbury, 1989, 1993). In light of these considerations, we believe that distress and dissatisfaction related to imbalanced decision-making power may encourage greater cognitive reactivity in evaluations of a partner’s negative behaviors. Following this logic, we propose that imbalanced decision-making power (i.e., both under-empowerment and over-empowerment) will be associated with appraising a partner’s problematic behaviors as more severe, compared to instances in which decision-making power is balanced.

Accordingly, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Severity appraisals will be lower when individuals perceive themselves and their partners as relatively equal in decision-making power, than when they perceive themselves to be substantially more or less powerful than their partners.

Concerning outcome expectancies, individuals in lower-power positions, relative to their partners, are likely to perceive that voicing complaints may lead to undesirable consequences due to a partner’s negative reaction (Roloff & Cloven, 1990). Conversely, over-empowered individuals may fear that engaging in influence attempts via complaining may highlight implicit power inequalities and open the door for renegotiating the balance of power (Dunbar, 2004). This is congruent with work illustrating that both individuals who sacrificed their own goals in favor of a partners’ goals, and those who emphasized their own goals to the exclusion of a partner’s goals, perceived their partners as less responsive to voiced opinions than did individuals who emphasized mutual concern for each partner’s goals (Neff & Harter, 2002). In light of these theoretical and empirical considerations, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Outcome expectancies for complaint expression are more positive when individuals perceive themselves and their partners as relatively equal in decision-making power, than when they perceive themselves to be substantially more or less powerful than their partners.

In regard to efficacy assessments, we believe on the basis of prior research that efficacy will be associated with the likelihood of expressing complaints (e.g., Makoul & Roloff, 1998). However, the precise association between decision-making power and efficacy is not immediately clear. On one hand, individuals who perceive themselves as under-empowered relative to their partners may be apt to appraise their communication skills as insufficient for persuading a more powerful partner. Individuals do not develop efficacy appraisals in a vacuum, but form appraisals of their efficacy for carrying out a particular action (e.g., talking to a partner about a complaint) in light of the anticipated obstacles and perceived likelihood of success associated with that act (Williams, 2010). This is congruent with the notion of relative power forwarded by DPT; regardless of how “good” individuals’ communication skills may appear in the abstract, under-empowered partners may appraise their communicative repertoire as less efficacious for confronting a partner, compared to those who perceive themselves as their partners’ equals.

On the other hand, there is also research that suggests the association of decision-making power with efficacy assessments may not be strictly curvilinear. Falbo and Peplau (1980) observed that while individuals who were under-empowered or equal in power to their partners preferred to use unilateral and indirect influence strategies (such as withdrawal), over-empowered individuals utilized more bilateral and direct influence strategies (e.g., reasoning and persuading). They suggested that high-powered individuals may be more confident in their ability to achieve their aims communicatively than equal or under-empowered individuals. However, their analyses focused on general social influence rather complaint expression per se, so it is not clear to what extent their results might extend to complaint expression. Accordingly, we propose the following research question:

Research Question 1: What is the association between relative decision-making power and communication efficacy for complaint expression?

Finally, we propose that the association of dyadic decision-making power with complaint avoidance will be mediated by complaint-related appraisals. Given the implicit role of influence-related cognitions in mediating links between power and influence processes in DPT (Dunbar, 2004), it is important to examine whether influence-related appraisals do indeed serve such a mediational role. Testing this proposition will help to clarify DPT’s scope conditions in regard to the role of cognitions in the theory (i.e., whether dyadic decision-making power influences appraisals) and potentially advance understanding of the mechanisms by which decision-making power may influence communication in close relationships. Accordingly, we hypothesize that severity appraisals, outcome expectancies and communication efficacy will mediate the hypothesized curvilinear association between dyadic power and complaint avoidance.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The curvilinear association of decision-making power and complaint avoidance will be mediated by (a) severity appraisals, (b) outcome expectancies, and (c) communication efficacy.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 175 heterosexual couples (350 total participants), all of whom defined themselves as currently involved in a romantic relationship with one another, as they defined “romantic.” Participants were recruited from the undergraduate research pool in the communication department at a large southeastern university. Eligible participants received credit toward a research requirement for communication courses (other research and non-research options were also available to fulfill this course component). Age of participants ranged from 18 to 45 (M = 20.17, SD = 2.81).

Procedures

While the laboratory-based nature of prior DPT investigations (Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar et al., 2008; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005) has allowed researchers to observe communication dynamics as they unfold during interactions, it is unclear to what extent the experimentally induced nature of the interactions in prior DPT work reflects naturally occurring communication as it unfolds in everyday interactions. This is particularly so in the context of complaint expression. Real-life relational complaints may emerge unexpectedly, at times and in ways that are difficult to predict or stimulate in a laboratory. As such, retrospective accounts of relational complaints and complaint expression were solicited, as a useful manner of assessing the contribution of relative decision-making power to complaint avoidance, while providing an opportunity to validate DPT’s claims outside of the laboratory.

Participants were emailed surveys, which they were instructed to complete separately from their partner. Participants’ partners were also contacted separately, and received a separate email with a link to the survey. As a means of prompting reflection on relational complaints, participants were first instructed to create a list of up to five complaints they currently had about their partners’ behavior, or had had at some time in the past. Participants were instructed that these could be issues of which both partners were aware, or issues of which only one partner was aware. If participants were unable to think of five issues, they were instructed to list as many as they could recall. Following this task, participants completed a survey designed to assess perceptions of complaint avoidance and power. The data reported here are part of a larger project; however, these specific data here have not been reported in prior research.

Measures

Complaint avoidance

Complaint avoidance was assessed using a four-item measure, adapted from Solomon and Samp (1998). Participants responded to the following prompt, “In my relationship with my romantic partner,” using a four-item Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Participants reported on the following statements: (a) I voice my opinion to my partner about problematic issues (reverse scored); (b) I express my feelings to my partner about problematic issues (reverse scored); (c) I avoid talking to my partner about problematic issues; and (d) I “hold my tongue” rather than telling my partner what I really think about problematic issues. This scale had high reliability (M = 2.74, SD = 1.23, α = .87).

Decision-making power

In light of our hypotheses, decision-making power was assessed via a visual measure developed by Neff and Harter (2002; also employed by Dunbar & Abra, 2010) to assess participants’ perceptions of the symmetry/asymmetry of decision-making power in their relationship (see Figure 1). The measure presented participants with a set of diagrams and verbal interpretations reflecting various levels of power mutuality/non-mutuality. As relative decision-making power (M = 2.86, SD = 0.76) was assessed by a single-item measure, it was not possible to calculate its reliability. However, the use of single-item visual power mutuality measures has been validated in past research; Dunbar and Abra (2010) illustrated that ratings on their visual power mutuality measure reflected interactants’ objective power positions in a dyadic bargaining experiment. In addition, in the present study, partners’ perceptions of relative decision-making power within each dyad were negatively correlated (r = −.29, p < .001), which is consistent with the zero-sum conceptualization of relative power and provides further validation of the utility of this measure.

Figure 1.

Power mutuality measure.

Problem severity

Participants’ assessments of problem severity were assessed using a 7-point, six-item Likert-type measure (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) adapted from Samp and Solomon’s (1999) event severity measure: (a) This issue is very serious in my relationship; (b) My image suffers as a result of this issue; (c) This issue threatens my self-esteem; (d) This issue makes me concerned I could be seen in a negative light by my partner; (e) My partner’s image suffers as a result of this issue; and (f) This issue causes me to view my partner in a negative light. The problem severity scale had good reliability (M = 2.68, SD = 1.39, α = .88).

Outcome expectancies

Outcome expectancies of expressing complaints to a partner were measured using three items adapted from W. A. Afifi and Afifi (2009): (a) Talking to my partner about this issue would produce; (b) Discussing this complaint with my partner would produce; and (c) Approaching my partner to express my complaint would produce. The response scale ranged from −3 (a lot more negatives than positives) to +3 (a lot more positives than negatives), with 0 representing about as many positives as negatives. The outcome expectancy scale had excellent reliability (M = 0.61 SD = 1.61, α = .94).

Communication efficacy

To measure individuals’ appraisals of communication efficacy for discussing complaints with a partner, we adapted four items reported by T. D. Afifi et al. (2005). Using a four-item, 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree), individuals responded to the following items: (a) I didn’t know what to say if I tried to tell my partner my complaint; (b) I didn’t even know how to begin telling my partner my complaint; (c) I couldn’t think of any way to tell my partner my complaint; and (d) I didn’t know how to even approach the issue with my partner. As T. D. Afifi et al.’s original measure reflected inefficacy, we reverse scored the measure to reflect efficacy. The efficacy scale had good reliability (M = 5.15, SD = 1.48, α = .86).

Results

Analytic Procedures

Because responses were collected from both members of each dyad, partners’ scores were likely to be non-independent. We estimated non-independence using the Pearson product-moment coefficient, which is an appropriate measure of interdependence for distinguishable dyads (Cook & Kenny, 2005). Inspection of the correlations indicated modest interdependence between males’ and females’ score on complaint avoidance (r = .20, p < .01). To account for non-independence in partners’ scores, we used dyadic analytic techniques described by Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006). We tested our hypotheses using multi-level modeling (MLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), which allowed us to model the interdependence between partners’ scores within each dyad. Perceptions of decision-making power were modeled as Level 1 fixed effects, and dyadic intercepts were modeled as Level 2 random effects. All predictor variables were grand-mean centered prior to model estimation (Kenny et al., 2006).

In preliminary analyses, an independent samples t test indicated a near-significant difference in men’s (M = 2.86, SD = 1.20) and women’s (M = 2.60, SD = 1.26) reports of complaint avoidance, t(340) = 1.96, p = .05. In addition, there was a near-significant difference in men’s (M = 2.79, SD = 0.68) and women’s (M = 2.93, SD = 0.79) perceptions of decision-making power, t(340) = 1.84, p = .07. Due to the near significance of sex in these preliminary analyses, participant sex was entered as a covariate in all models.

Tests of Hypotheses

H1 predicted a curvilinear association between individuals’ relative decision-making power and their complaint avoidance, such that individuals would engage in the least complaint avoidance when they perceived themselves as relatively equal in power to their partners. This curvilinear hypothesis was tested by squaring individuals’ centered relative power scores. We tested our curvilinear hypothesis in two steps (Aiken & West, 1991). The first step involved testing a model with the linear power term only, and the second step involved testing a model with the linear and the squared terms. While inclusion of the linear term is necessary for testing the curvilinear association, only the significance of the curvilinear model is relevant to the evaluation of our hypothesis (Pedhazur, 1997). A significant increase in model fit from the inclusion of the squared term indicates support for the curvilinear hypothesis. Model comparison was based on the significance of the terms in the models, and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) values for each model. All else equal, the model with the smaller AIC and BIC values is considered to provide a better fit to the data.

In the first-step linear model, decision-making power was not significantly associated with complaint avoidance, B = .09, p = .29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−.07, .26], AIC = 1,114.10, BIC = 1,121.74. As hypothesized, in the second-step curvilinear model, the squared relative power term was a significant predictor of complaint avoidance, B = .20, p = .01, 95% CI = [.05, 0.36], AIC = 1,110.96, BIC = 1,118.59. There was also a near-significant couple effect, B = .23, Wald Z = 1.95, p = .05, 95% CI = [.08, .62]. The AIC and BIC values indicated that the curvilinear model provided a better fit to the data, compared with the linear model.

To further probe this association, we categorized individuals into equal, unequal-low, and unequal-high power categories using effect coding. Individuals reporting the midpoint on the visual power measure received a code of 0 (i.e., equal power; n = 197; 56%). Individuals reporting below the midpoint were coded as −1 (n = 97; 28%), and individuals reporting above the midpoint were coded as +1 (n = 55; 16%). We then plotted the estimated marginal means for each power group to visually ascertain the trend in the data. Visual inspection of the plot confirmed the curvilinear nature of the association (see Figure 2). In light of the positive (i.e., U-shaped) curvilinear association between relative decision-making power and complaint avoidance, H1 received full support.

Figure 2.

Estimated marginal means of complaint avoidance by power group.

H2 hypothesized a positive curvilinear association of decision-making power with severity appraisals. This was assessed using the approach described in H1. On the first step, the linear power term was not associated with severity appraisals, B = −.03, p = .72, 95% CI = [−.20, .14], AIC = 1,115.05, BIC = 1,122.66. As hypothesized, in the second-step curvilinear model, the squared power term was positively associated with severity appraisals, B = .34, p < .000, 95% CI = [.17, .50], AIC = 1,115.05, BIC = 1,122.66. Plots of the marginal means for the unequal-low, equal, and unequal-high power groups confirmed the curvilinear nature of this relationship (see Figure 3). H2 was fully supported.

Figure 3.

Estimated marginal means of severity appraisals by power group.

H3 proposed a negative curvilinear association of decision-making power with outcome expectancies for complaint avoidance. This was tested as above. On the first step, the linear power term was not associated with outcome expectancies, B = −.13, p = .25, 95% CI = [−.34, .09], AIC = 1,307.18, BIC = 1,314.86. However, as hypothesized, in the second-step curvilinear model, the squared power term was negatively associated with outcome expectancies, B = −.24, p = .02, 95% CI = [−.44, −.04], AIC = 1,102.35, BIC = 1,109.96. In addition, the plot of estimated marginal means for the three power groups was consistent with our curvilinear hypothesis (see Figure 4). H3 received full support.

Figure 4.

Estimated marginal means of outcome expectancies by power group.

Research Question 1 inquired about the association of decision-making power with communication efficacy. This was examined as above. On the first step, the linear power term was not associated with communication efficacy, B = −.15, p = .16, 95% CI = [−.36, .06], AIC = 1,253.39, BIC = 1,261.06. In addition, on the second step, the squared power term was not associated with efficacy, B = −.05, p = .59, 95% CI = [−.24, .14], AIC = 1,255.91, BIC = 1,263.61. In answer to our research question, decision-making power was not associated with communication efficacy.

H4a posited that severity appraisals would mediate the curvilinear association between decision-making power and complaint avoidance. We tested this prediction using multi-level mediation techniques described by Krull and MacKinnon (2001). We first utilized the results from H2 to obtain the coefficient (B_a) relating the squared power term to severity appraisals expectancies (controlling for sex and the linear power term). We next regressed complaint avoidance on severity appraisals (controlling for sex and the linear and squared power terms) to obtain the coefficient (B_b) relating the mediator (severity appraisals) to complaint avoidance. This association was significant, B_b = .16 (SE = .05), p < .001. Following Krull and MacKinnon, we quantified the magnitude of the indirect effect as (B_a) × (B_b) = .06. Sobel’s (1982) test indicated the indirect effect was significant, z = 2.44, p = .01. Thus, H4a was supported: Severity appraisals mediated the curvilinear association between decision-making power and complaint expression.

H4b posited that outcome expectancies would mediate the curvilinear association between decision-making power and complaint avoidance. We tested this prediction using the method above. We first utilized the results from H3 to obtain the coefficient (B_a) relating the squared power term to outcome expectancies (controlling for sex and the linear power term). We then regressed complaint avoidance on outcome expectancies (controlling for sex and the linear and squared power terms) to obtain the coefficient (B_b) relating the mediator (outcome expectancies) to complaint avoidance. This association was significant, B_b = −.27 (SE = .04), p < .001. The indirect effect (B_a × B_b = .06) was significant, Sobel’s z = 2.20, p = .03. Accordingly, H4b was supported: Outcome expectancies mediated the curvilinear association between decision-making power and complaint expression.

H4c predicted that communication efficacy would mediate the curvilinear association between decision-making power and complaint avoidance. We examined this using the methods described above. Although power had a significant curvilinear association with avoidance (H1), and efficacy had a significant negative association with avoidance (B_b = −.42, SE = .04, p < .001,), the H4 results indicated power was not significantly associated with efficacy (B_a = −.05, SE = .10, p = .59). Furthermore, the Sobel test of the indirect effect (B_a × B_b = .02) was non-significant, z = .55, p = .59. Thus, although both the squared power term and efficacy were associated with complaint avoidance, the effect of decision-making power on avoidance was not mediated through efficacy. Therefore, H4c was not supported.

Discussion

This study investigated the associations between relative decision-making power and complaint avoidance in intimate relationships. Drawing on DPT, we proposed that relative decision-making power would have a curvilinear association with the expression of complaints toward romantic partners. Specifically, we predicted that individuals would engage in the least complaint avoidance when they perceived themselves as relatively equal to their partners in decision-making power, compared with when they perceived themselves and their partners as unequal in power. We also proposed that complaint-related appraisals (i.e., severity, outcome expectancies and communication efficacy) would be associated with individuals’ relative power, and would mediate the influence of power on individuals’ willingness to voice concerns.

Results generally supported our predictions. There was a positive curvilinear (i.e., U-shaped) association between relative decision-making power and complaint avoidance, such that individuals engaged in the least avoidance at relatively equal levels of dyadic power (H1). In addition, appraisals were generally associated with both power and avoidance. Problems were perceived as less severe when decision-making was equal, compared with when individuals had substantially more or less power than their partners (H2). We also observed a negative curvilinear (i.e., inverted U-shaped) association of relative decision-making power with outcome expectancies, such that individuals anticipated the most positive outcomes of complaint expression when power was relatively equal (H3). Furthermore, severity appraisals and outcome expectancies mediated the influence of decision-making power on complaint avoidance (H4). Communication efficacy was also negatively associated with complaint avoidance; however, efficacy was not related to decision-making power (Research Question 1). We now turn to discuss the implications of these results for theories of communication and power.

Relative Decision-Making Power and Complaint Avoidance

The curvilinear association between decision-making power and complaint avoidance has implications for understanding complaint avoidance. Previous research has identified factors such as relational dependence (Roloff & Cloven, 1990), anticipated partner aggression (Cloven & Roloff, 1993), commitment (Roloff & Solomon, 2002), and cognitive appraisals (Makoul & Roloff, 1998; Solomon & Samp, 1998) as influencing the expression of relational complaints. Drawing on DPT, our study advances work on complaint avoidance by elucidating the potential for imbalanced decision-making power to contribute to withholding complaints.¹

Furthermore, these results illustrate that the heightened likelihood of influence attempts at equal levels of power extends beyond verbal and non-verbal dominance in laboratory settings (e.g., Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar et al., 2008; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005), but is also observed in naturally occurring complaint behavior in ongoing relationships. Admittedly, retrospective reports of relational behavior are susceptible to self-report and memory biases. Nevertheless, when taken in the broader context of the DPT research program, our results are congruent with past laboratory-based work. By reporting similar interaction patterns to those observed in laboratory studies, the current results provide real-world evidence for the validity of DPT beyond the laboratory.

Relative Decision-Making Power and Complaint-Related Appraisals

In addition to documenting the curvilinear association of decision-making power to complaint avoidance, this study also contributes a richer understanding of the cognitive mechanisms that may link power to communicative decisions. In general, equal decision-making power appears to encourage individuals to appraise problems as less severe (H2), and appraising problems as less severe encourages freer expression of complaints (H4a). While heightened perceptions of problem severity seem intuitive for low-powered individuals (given the potentially greater subjective implications of relational problems for less-powerful individuals; Roloff & Cloven, 1990), it is interesting that over-empowered individuals also appraised problems as more severe than did equal-power individuals. Ostensibly, these individuals should be better positioned to deal with the repercussions of a partner’s problematic behavior (Cloven & Roloff, 1993). One possibility is that, ironically, over-empowered individuals’ reluctance to discuss complaints may actually contribute to perceiving problems as more severe. Avoiding discussion of relational conflicts has been associated with negative conflict-related rumination, heightened appraisals of problem severity and increased attributions of blame toward a partner (Cloven & Roloff, 1991). Thus, while holding a power advantage relative to one’s partner may offer some protection from the impact of a partner’s problematic behavior, it may also paradoxically serve to heighten the subjective severity of such problems if heightened power leads to communication avoidance. Future research is needed to explore possible bidirectional influences of decision-making power, complaint avoidance, and complaint-related appraisals over time.

In addition to reducing severity appraisals, equal decision-making power was also tied to the most positive outcome expectancies for complaint expression (H3), and these outcome expectancies mediated the curvilinear association of power with complaint avoidance. Reflecting the logic of DPT, individuals tended to be more sanguine about the possibility of effective relational influence when decision-making power was equally balanced. Conversely, both under-empowered and over-empowered individuals were less optimistic that complaining would yield desirable outcomes. In addition, communication efficacy was negatively associated with complaint avoidance (H4c). However, efficacy was not associated with decision-making power (Research Question 1), and accordingly did not mediate the link between decision-making power and avoidance. Perhaps this is due to the fact that while severity appraisals and outcome expectancies are closely tied to a partner’s behavior and predicted response, communication efficacy is determined primarily by one’s own communication skills and traits. Although Falbo and Peplau (1980) inferred that over-empowered individuals might be more confident in their ability to achieve their aims communicatively than equal or under-empowered individuals, they examined general social influence strategies and did not measure efficacy per se. In contrast, our study focused specifically on complaint expression and complaint-related efficacy, which may differ from general communication efficacy, particularly in light of the face-threatening nature of complaining (Cupach, 2007). Thus, while power is likely to encourage general communication efficacy for influence attempts, expressing complaints to a close relationship partner may be more or less equally difficult regardless of one’s decision-making power. While we did not examine face threats, it would be interesting to explore in future work whether these may account for the lack of observed association between power and complaint-related communication efficacy.

We consider our mediation results perhaps the greatest strength of this study. While previous research has observed links between power and appraisals (Solomon & Samp, 1998), and between appraisals and complaint expression (Makoul & Roloff, 1998), our study is the first we know of to offer evidence consistent with the proposition that cognitive appraisals mediate the influence of power on avoidance. Admittedly, these appraisals may or may not necessarily reflect objective “reality.” Nevertheless, to the extent that individuals believe problems to be less severe, and perceive that communication about relational problems will lead to positive outcomes, they are more likely to discuss these issues with their partners. In this way, complaint-related appraisals may serve as a key component determining the contribution of relational power dynamics to open communication about relational concerns.

Limitations and Future Research

As with all studies, this one had several limitations. First, slightly more than half of the participants (56%; n = 197) perceived themselves as equal in decision-making power to their partners. Future research should seek to examine the associations of decision-making power and communicative avoidance in a more diverse, non-student sample incorporating a wider variety of ages and dyadic balances of power. At the same time, we emphasize that the primary aim of this study was to examine theoretical propositions derived from DPT, rather than to generalize about characteristics of a specific population. As such, we consider our study a success in this regard.

An additional limitation concerned our operationalization of relative decision-making power. As the data reported here were part of a larger project examining relational characteristics and communication about complaints, we utilized a single-item measure in the interest of economy. While our results were largely consistent with hypotheses derived from DPT, we recognize that single-item measures are far from ideal. In the future, multi-item measures of decision-making power (e.g., Blood & Wolfe, 1960) are clearly warranted in order to further validate the results observed in this study.

In addition, as noted previously, we based our analyses on participants’ perceptions of decision-making power. We were unable to ascertain the extent to which individuals’ subjective perceptions reflect relational reality. Future examinations should explore more “objective” measures of power (e.g., third-party reports of decision-making power) as potential influences on complaint expression, and relational influence more generally. Nevertheless, as subjective perceptions of relationship characteristics serve as the primary basis for relational communication (Delia, 1977; Solomon & Theiss, 2007), individuals’ perceptions of their relational power are among the most salient factors shaping decisions to express complaints. We also reiterate that relational power is a multi-faceted construct (French & Raven, 1959). While our study focused on decision-making power, other salient bases of relative power (e.g., dependence power, coercive power, etc.) clearly play a role in complaint-related communication and cognitions (Cloven & Roloff, 1993; Solomon & Samp, 1998). In addition, we note that while our study identified associations of decision-making power with complaint-related processes in young adult romantic relationships, our results may not necessarily generalize beyond these contexts. Although evidence is emerging that DPT may apply outside of romantic contexts (Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar et al., 2014), further exploration is needed of the extent to which the relationship of decision-making power to complaint-related processes is relevant in non-romantic settings.

Finally, given the absence of prior research on naturally occurring communication in close relationships within the DPT tradition (though see Dunbar & Johnson, 2015), we consider the use of retrospective reports a strength of our study. Nevertheless, this approach necessarily precluded the ability to study individuals’ complaint-related appraisals as they unfold during dyadic interaction. Research on relational conflict has demonstrated that individuals’ cognitions during interaction may have a substantial influence on conflict processes and outcomes (Keck & Samp, 2007; Vangelisti, Middleton, & Ebersole, 2013). It would be interesting to examine the relationship between dyadic power and individuals’ appraisals (e.g., severity, outcome expectancies, communication efficacy, etc.) during complaint-related communication episodes. Such analyses could be accomplished using techniques such as video-assisted recall (Keck & Samp, 2007), or through having individuals’ voice their thoughts aloud during computer-mediated conversations with a partner (Vangelisti et al., 2013). Given the role of cognitive appraisals in mediating the links between decision-making power and communication in this study, detailed moment-by-moment analysis of individuals’ cognitions during dyadic interaction seems a natural progression for DPT research.

Conclusion

This study aimed to better understand the role of relative decision-making power (i.e., the balance of power between partners) in shaping complaint avoidance and complaint-related appraisals in close relationships. Results provided support for the validity of DPT (Dunbar, 2004) beyond the laboratory, and generally supported DPT’s curvilinear view of the relationship between decision-making power and influence attempts (e.g., complaining). Furthermore, the results described here contribute richer understanding of the conditions undergirding complaint avoidance, by suggesting that complaint-related appraisals may mediate the association of decision-making power with complaining. Given the negative individual and relational outcomes associated with communicative avoidance (Cloven & Roloff, 1991; Merrill & Afifi, 2012; Slatcher et al., 2010), balanced decision-making power may facilitate individual and relational well-being by encouraging more optimistic appraisals concerning complaint expression and promoting greater openness in partners’ communication about relational challenges.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor, Michael Roloff, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this article.

Authors’ Note

The data reported were collected as part of the first author’s comprehensive examination project under the direction of the second author. A version of this article was presented at the 2013 meeting of the Southern States Communication Association, Louisville, KY.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Timothy R. Worley is assistant professor in the Department of Organizational Communication at Murray State University.

Jennifer Samp is associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at The University of Georgia.

References

Afifi

T. D.

Olson

L. N.

Armstrong

(2005). The chilling effect and family secrets: Examining the role of self protection, other protection, and communication efficacy. Human Communication Research, 31, 564-598. doi:10.1093/hcr/31.4.564

Afifi

W. A.

Afifi

T. D.

(2009). Avoidance among adolescents in conversations about their parents’ relationship: Applying the theory of motivated information management. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 488-511. doi:10.1177/0265407509350869

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter

L. A.

Dindia

(1990). Marital partners’ perceptions of marital maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 187-208. doi:10.1177/0265407590072003

Blood

R. O.

Wolfe

D. M.

(1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living. New York, NY: Free Press.

Brandau-Brown

F. E.

Ragsdale

J. D.

(2008). Personal, moral, and structural commitment and the repair of marital relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 68-83. doi:10.1080/10417940701815659

Burgoon

J. K.

Hale

J. L.

(1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214. doi:10.1080/03637758409390195

Caughlin

J. P.

Golish

T. D.

(2002). An analysis of the association between topic avoidance and dissatisfaction: Comparing perceptual and interpersonal explanations. Communication Monographs, 69, 275-295. doi:10.1080/03637750216546

Cloven

D. H.

Roloff

M. E.

(1991). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict: Communicative cures for the mulling blues. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 134-158. doi:10.1080/10570319109374376

10.

Cloven

D. H.

Roloff

M. E.

(1993). The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships. Communication Monographs, 60, 199-219. doi:10.1080/03637759309376309

11.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101-109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405

12.

Cupach

W. R.

(2007). “You’re bugging me!”: Complaints and criticism from a partner. In Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Delia

J. G.

(1977). Constructivism and the study of human communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63, 66-83. doi:10.1080/00335637709383368

14.

Dillard

J. P.

Solomon

D. H.

Palmer

M. T.

(1999). Structuring the concept of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49-65. doi:10.1080/03637759909376462

15.

Dunbar

N. E.

(2004). Dyadic Power Theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235-248. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0403&4_8

16.

Dunbar

N. E.

Abra

(2010). Observations of dyadic power in interpersonal interaction. Communication Monographs, 77, 657-684. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.520018

17.

Dunbar

N. E.

Bippus

A. M.

Young

S. L.

(2008). Interpersonal dominance in relational conflict: A view from dyadic power theory. Interpersona, 2, 1-33. doi:10.2144/00011285

18.

Dunbar

N. E.

Burgoon

J. K.

(2005). Perceptions of power and interpersonal dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 207-233. doi:10.1177/0265407505050944

19.

Dunbar

N. E.

Jensen

M. J.

Bessarabova

Burgoon

J. K.

Bernard

D. R.

Harrison

K. J.

. . . Eckstein

J. M.

(2014). Empowered by persuasive deception: The effects of power and deception on dominance, credibility, and decision-making. Communication Research, 41(6), 852-876. doi:10.1177/0093650212447099

20.

Dunbar

N. E.

Johnson

A. J.

(2015). A test of dyadic power theory: Control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4, 42-62.

21.

Dunbar

N. E.

Mejia

(2013). A qualitative analysis of power-based entrainment and interactional synchrony in couples. Personal Relationships, 20, 391-405. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01414.x

22.

Emerson

R. M.

(1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41. doi:10.2307/2089716

23.

Falbo

Peplau

L. A.

(1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.38.4.618

24.

Fincham

F. D.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1989). The impact of attributions in marriage: An individual difference analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 69-85. doi:10.1177/026540758900600105

25.

Fincham

F. D.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1993). Marital satisfaction, depression, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 442-452. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.442

26.

French

J. R. P.

Jr. Raven

B. H.

(1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright

(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

27.

Frieze

I. H.

McHugh

M. C.

(1992). Power and influence strategies in violent and nonviolent marriages. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 449-465. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00268.x

28.

Gelles

R. J.

Straus

M. A.

(1988). Intimate violence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

29.

Huston

T. L.

(1983). Power. In Kelley

H. H.

. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 169-219). New York, NY: Freeman.

30.

Keck

K. L.

Samp

J. A.

(2007). The dynamic nature of goals and message production as revealed in a sequential analysis of conflict interactions. Human Communication Research, 33, 27-47. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00287.x

31.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32.

Krueger

D. L.

(1985). Communication patterns and egalitarian decision-making in dual-career couples. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 126-145. doi:10.1080/10570318509374188

33.

Krull

J. L.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249-277. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3602_06

34.

Madden

M. E.

(1987). Perceived control and power in marriage: A study of marital decision making and task performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 73-82. doi:10.1177/0146167287131007

35.

Makoul

Roloff

M. E.

(1998). The role of efficacy and outcome expectations in the decision to withhold relational complaints. Communication Research, 25, 5-29. doi:10.1177/009365098025001001

36.

Merrill

A. F.

Afifi

T. D.

(2012). Examining the bidirectional nature of topic avoidance and relationship dissatisfaction: The moderating role of communication skills. Communication Monographs, 79, 499-521. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.723809

37.

Neff

K. D.

Harter

(2002). The role of power and authenticity in relationship styles emphasizing autonomy, connectedness, or mutuality among adult couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 835-857. doi:10.1177/0265407502196006

38.

Neff

K. D.

Suizzo

M.-A.

(2006). Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European American and Mexican Americans. Cognitive Development, 21, 441-457. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.008

39.

Pedhazur

E. J.

(1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth.

40.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Rogers

L. E.

Farace

R. V.

(1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00270.x

42.

Rollins

B. C.

Bahr

S. J.

(1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 619-627. doi:10.2307/350682

43.

Roloff

M. E.

Cloven

D. H.

(1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: The reluctance to speak one’s mind. In Cahn

(Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 49-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Roloff

M. E.

Solomon

D. H.

(2002). Conditions under which relational commitment leads to expressing or withholding relational complaints. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 276-391. doi:10.1108/eb022877

45.

Rusbult

C. E.

Verette

Whitney

G. A.

Slovick

L. F.

Lipkus

(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53

46.

Rusbult

C. E.

Zembrodt

I. M.

Gunn

L. K.

(1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230-1242. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.6.1230

47.

Samp

J. A.

Abbott

(2011). An examination of dependence power, father involvement, and judgments about violence in an at-risk community sample of mothers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3682-3698. doi:10.1177/0886260511403746

48.

Samp

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(1999). Communicative responses to problematic events in close relationships: The influence of five features of goals on message structure. Communication Research, 26, 193-239. doi:10.1177/009365099026002005

49.

Simpson

J. A.

Farrell

A. K.

Oriña

M. M.

Rothman

A. J.

(2014). Power and social influence in relationships. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 393-420). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.psych.umn.edu/people/facultyprofile.php?UID=simps108

50.

Slatcher

R. B.

Robles

T. F.

Repetti

R. L.

Fellows

M. D.

(2010). Momentary work worries, marital disclosure, and salivary cortisol among parents of young children. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72, 887-896. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181f60fcc

51.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312. doi:10.2307/270723

52.

Solomon

D. H.

Samp

J. A.

(1998). Power and problem appraisal: Perceptual foundations of the chilling effect in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 191-209. doi:10.1177/0265407598152004

53.

Solomon

D. H.

Theiss

J. A.

(2007). Cognitive foundations of communication in close relationships. In Roskos-Ewoldson

D. R.

Monahan

J. L.

(Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (pp. 117-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54.

Sprecher

(1986). The relation between equity and emotions in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 309-321. doi:10.2307/2786770

55.

Utne

M. K.

Hatfield

Traupmann

Greenberger

(1984). Equity, marital satisfaction, and stability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 323-332. doi:10.1177/0265407584013005

56.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Middleton

A. V.

Ebersole

D. S.

(2013). Couples’ online cognitions during conflict: Links between what partners think and their relational satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 80, 125-149. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.775698

57.

Walster

W. G.

Berscheid

(1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

58.

Williams

D. M.

(2010). Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy: Theoretical implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 417-425. doi:10.1177/1088868310368802

59.

Wright

E. M.

Benson

M. L.

(2011). Clarifying the effects of neighborhood context on violence “behind closed doors.” Justice Quarterly, 28, 775-798. doi:10.1080/07418825.2010.533687