The Value of Prospective Reasoning for Close Relationships

Abstract

We examined how adopting a future (vs. present)-oriented perspective when reflecting on a relationship conflict impacts the process of reasoning and relationship well-being. Across two studies, participants instructed to think about how they would feel in the future (vs. present) expressed more adaptive reasoning over a relationship conflict—low partner blame, greater insight, and greater forgiveness, which was then associated with greater relationship well-being—for example, more positive versus negative emotions about the relationship and expectations that the relationship will grow. These findings were driven by a decrease in person-centered language when reflecting on the conflict. Implications for understanding how temporal distance and reasoning impact relationship conflict management are discussed.

Keywords

interpersonal conflicts temporal construal self-distancing prospection reasoning

Dealing with interpersonal conflicts is an inevitable aspect of many social relationships. Whether it is with a friend or a romantic partner, sometimes things can turn sour. Consider Dick, for example, who spends hours preparing a romantic night for his partner Jane. Unfortunately, when Jane comes home from work, she shows no recognition of his gesture. When reflecting on this night, Dick could choose to focus on the present moment, perhaps fixating on his or Jane’s immediate feelings. Alternatively, he could consider what the situation might mean to him in the future, focusing less on their immediate feelings and actions. Should Dick’s choice to focus on the future, rather than the present be the better alternative for handling this interpersonal conflict? The current studies aim to address this question, exploring how temporal orientation toward the future (vs. present) might shape one’s reasoning about interpersonal conflicts, and influence one’s relationship well-being.

Adaptive Responses to Relationship Conflicts

A large body of research on relationship conflicts highlights that the way people respond to conflicts is an essential component for relationship maintenance (e.g., Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009). While accommodative responses (e.g., inhibiting hostile reactions) promote greater relationship satisfaction for both parties (Gottman, 1998; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; cf. Gottman & Krokoff, 1989), destructive responses (e.g., seeking revenge) are associated with lower relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Partner blame, for example, is more common among dissatisfied marital spouses (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), whereas the acceptance of personal blame is more common for those satisfied with their relationships (e.g., Thompson & Kelley, 1981). Conversely, accommodative responses such as forgiveness—which suggest care and commitment—are associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). Inferences about partner blame and forgiveness represent conflict-related reasoning processes. Notably, they can lead to opposing outcomes when one mentally works through the causes and consequences of a conflict. By minimizing blame attributions and reflecting on a conflict’s consequences in terms of forgiveness, one is likely to maintain healthy and satisfying relationships (Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Rusbult et al., 1991). However, finding a way to facilitate these adaptive reasoning processes—that is, reasoning that helps maintain healthy and satisfying relationships—is not always simple. In fact, there is evidence that without time to deliberate over a conflict, reflexive judgments about how to handle a conflict situation tend to be more destructive in nature (e.g., Yovetich & Rusbult, 1994). We propose that one way to promote adaptive reasoning processes is to explore how different temporal construals of a relationship conflict can shape what individuals focus on when reasoning over the conflict.

Temporal Construal and the Process of Reasoning

Temporal construal—that is, the subjective representation of temporal distance from an event—is known to alter one’s response to the event (Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010). Research suggests that this occurs because psychologically distant events are more readily represented by abstract, rather than concrete, details (Soderberg, Callahan, Kochersberger, Amit, & Ledgerwood, 2014). The literature thus far is unclear on whether this effect of temporal distance might foster more adaptive reasoning processes over relationship conflicts. One prediction is that temporal distance would be maladaptive because a reduction in concrete information might increase one’s focus on dispositions and promote partner blaming for the event. Indeed, some studies find that increasing temporal distance from transgressions yields harsher judgment and increases one’s propensity to blame others (Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008; Kyung, Menon, & Trope, 2010). In contrast, other research suggests that reducing concrete information promotes adaptive reasoning because it minimizes visualization of transgressions, reducing harsh judgment, and encouraging forgiveness (e.g., Gong & Medin, 2012). Although these past studies offer contradictory findings, they are also based on hypothetical scenarios and have typically been underpowered.¹ These issues contribute to a lack of clarity on how temporal distance may be related to reasoning over real-life relationship conflicts, calling for further replications and extensions of previous research.

More recently, researchers exploring temporal distance from real adverse events find that distance from a personally stressful event reduces present feelings of distress (Bruehlman-Senecal & Ayduk, 2015) by promoting cognitive reappraisal (i.e., reinterpreting negative events from a broader perspective), ultimately helping individuals recognize that negative events are impermanent. Cognitive reappraisal is often considered adaptive, reducing undesirable experiences while promoting stronger social relations and subjective well-being (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003, studies 5–6). In the context of relationship conflicts, tactics that involve a mix of psychological distancing and reappraisal are shown to promote relationship maintenance. For example, Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, and Gross (2013) demonstrate that adopting “the perspective of a neutral third party who wants the best for all involved” (p. 1597) reduces distress and buffers against marital quality decline. However, in these studies, the underlying nature of the reasoning process and its impact on relationship well-being has remained relatively unexplored.

Drawing from these past studies, we propose and test a process model unpacking how temporal distance affects different aspects of the reasoning process and their association with relationship well-being. As shown in Figure 1, temporal orientation shapes one’s attentional focus over a conflict. To the extent that adopting a future orientation promotes a broader perspective on the conflict, it may draw attention away from the person-centered features of a conflict (cf. correspondence bias; Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Thus, a future orientation may promote a reduced focus on the individual agents—one’s own and partners’ feelings and behavior in relation to the conflict (person-centered focus from here on). Prior theories suggest that attention informs cognitive processes involved in working through emotional experiences (e.g., Ellsworth, 1994; Gross, 1998; Grossmann, Ellsworth, & Hong, 2012). Therefore, we proposed that the type of attentional focus (nonperson centered vs. person centered) informs conflict-related cognitions, including blame attributions and forgiveness. In turn, this process of reasoning about the conflict may impact inferences about relationship well-being.

Figure 1.
Proposed process model of relationship conflict reasoning following a shift in temporal orientation. Temporal orientation impacts the process of reasoning, including attentional focus on person-centered characteristics and conflict-related inferences. This is in turn is associated with relationship well-being indicators. As operationalized in this particular model, the process of reasoning involves a feedback loop with a negative relationship. Theoretically, the influence of the person-centered focus on adaptive reasoning should be the stronger casual direction as attention tends to inform and precede conflict-related cognition.

Research Overview

The present research aimed to conceptually replicate prior work, suggesting that greater temporal distance promotes adaptive reasoning about a relationship conflict. We test the role of person-centered focus in this process and the relationship of this process with relationship well-being. Across two studies, participants reflected upon recent conflicts with a romantic partner or a close friend and either describe how they would feel about it in 1 year (i.e., future oriented) or right now (i.e., present oriented). Utilizing participant’s narratives, we assessed linguistic focus on person-centered characteristics and participants’ postconflict reasoning (e.g., partner-blame attributions and forgiveness). Subsequently, participants reported their relationship well-being (e.g., positive emotions toward their relationship and future expectations).

Study 1

Method

Sample

Based on previous effect sizes between temporal distance and relationship reasoning (e.g., Bruehlman-Senecal & Ayduk, 2015), a GPower analysis suggested a sample of approximately 130 participants to capture a small-to-medium effect of temporal distance on reasoning. Because of the initial interest in exploring romantic relationships and friendship conflicts separately, we recruited 337 undergraduates participants from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (197 = female; M _age = 19.50, SD _age = 1.67) who participated in exchange for course credit. Those who failed to recall an unresolved conflict or incorrectly answered attention check questions were excluded from analyses (N _excluded = 15, N _included = 322). Participants reported whether or not they were in a romantic relationship and depending upon their response, recalled a recent unresolved conflict with either their romantic partner (n = 135) or a close friend (n = 187). The average romantic relationship length was 1.33 years (SD = 1.35), whereas the average friendship length was 3.92 years (SD = 4.22).

Procedure

Participants were guided through written instructions on a computer. Participants provided the name of a close friend or their romantic partner and were instructed to recall a “recent event in which things were going truly badly between you and your romantic partner [close friend].” After being told that most people can usually remember at least one such incident within the last month, participants were then randomly assigned into either a present-oriented condition (n = 162) or a future-oriented condition (n = 160). As part of the manipulation, participants were instructed to think about their experiences
from a present [future] perspective, that is, right now [one year from now]. At this time, we would like for you to take this perspective when describing your thoughts about the conflict. Specifically, right now [one year from now] when you think of this event, what thoughts [would] come to your mind?
Participants were instructed to write about their thoughts for a few minutes.² To assess whether any effects might be driven by beliefs about one’s future relationship status, all participants also answered: “Do you think one year from now, you and [partner’s name] will still be [together/your close friend]?” on a scale from 1 (definitely not) to 5 (definitely yes).

Person-Centered Focus

To assess person-centered focus in participant’s narratives, we analyzed each response using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker, Francis, & Booth, 2001), a text analysis program which indiscriminately categorizes words under validated psycholinguistic categories. Categorized words are reported as a proportion of total words. We targeted two categories from Pennebaker, Francis, and Booth (2001)’s English-language dictionary: (i) first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me, mine) and (ii) third-person singular pronouns (e.g., he, she, hers). Prior research suggests that first-person and third-person singular pronouns reflect individuated experiences and a focus on individual agents (Ellis & Hamilton, 1985) and have been used in the literature to represent psychological experiences (e.g., DeWall, Pond, Campbell, & Twenge, 2011; Seider, Hirschberger, Nelson, & Levenson, 2009). Thus, we summed the proportion of these categories together (M = 12.00, SD = 5.81) as a measure of person-centered focus.³

Conflict Reasoning

To circumvent potential biases that arise when considering interpersonal relationships (e.g., biased perceptions; Overall, Fletcher, Simpsons, & Fillo, 2015), we concentrated on participants’ spontaneous narratives describing the conflict. Drawing from prior research on relationship conflicts (e.g., Finkel et al., 2002), we assessed narratives for expressions of partner blame* (destructive) and forgiveness (constructive), both of which are considered relevant for relationship maintenance (Rusbult et al., 1991).

Access to the codebook detailing how conflict reasoning variables were rated is available online at https://osf.io/csiv4. In the interest of assessing how participants interpreted the event, we included a third category measuring the extent to which participants expressed insight into the conflict—that is, reinterpreted the conflict as a constructive and positive experience. Reinterpretations of negative events toward more positive ones correspond with decreased negative affect (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003) and lower physiological arousal (Kross & Ayduk, 2011).

Coded responses

Table 1 provides exemplary responses of each of these categories. We coded narratives in two steps. During the first step, two hypothesis-blind research assistants independently coded romantic relationship responses for each reasoning category on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 3 (a lot). Due to the ordinal nature of coding, we assessed interrater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).⁴ The interrater agreement was good, with discrepancies resolved through a discussion between coders (ICC_blame = .82, ICC_forgiveness = .71, and ICC_insight = .83). Due to a loss of contact with initial coders, friendship conflicts were coded by two additional hypothesis-blind research assistants. To ensure reliability was consistent with the initial coders, the second set of research assistants coded a random subsample (n = 50) of the romantic relationship responses. Interrater agreement between the two groups of coders was good (ICC_blame = .89, ICC_forgiveness = .90, and ICC_insight = .83). Therefore, the second set of coders coded friendship conflicts using the same method described for romantic relationships (ICC_blame = .96, ICC_forgiveness = .98, ICC_insight = .95).

Table 1.
Example Narratives of High Scores for Each Individual Reasoning Category.

Reasoning Category Example

1. Partner blame When I think of the conflict that I had, I think of how selfish he was in his actions. He made a promise to my face that I thought he would honor, but in the end, he didn’t and that upset me

2. Forgiveness He always puts so much time into playing his video games and it really upset me when I needed his help … even though I was pretty angry, I decided to let it go and move on. I realized that he probably wasn’t purposely ignoring me

3. Conflict insight The experience really helped us bond … it was really troublesome at the moment, but I will definitely see it as a deeper moment between us … allowing us to get to know each other and to learn how we both deal with hard situations

Note. Italics are added for emphasis.

Across conflicts with both romantic partners and close friends, we conducted a principal components analysis (PCA) of the three reasoning categories and found that they loaded into a single-factor component. The resulting component scores were taken as a measure of adaptive reasoning, with higher scores representing greater adaptive reasoning (see Table 2).

Table 2.
Results of Principal Component Analyses for Conflict Reasoning and Relationship Well-Being in Studies 1 and 2.

Variables Study 1 Loadings Study 2 Loadings

Conflict reasoning variables

Variance explained 55.91% 61.29%

Partner blame −0.68 −0.77

Forgiveness 0.72 0.77

Conflict insight 0.82 0.82

Relationship well-being variables

Variance explained 56.03% 56.86%

Positive emotions 0.86 0.92

Negative emotions −0.86 −0.85

Expectation of relationship growth versus decline 0.77 0.80

Relationship Well-Being

In prior research (e.g., Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005), scholars have conceptualized relationship well-being as the reported quality of the relationship with their partner and positivity toward the future their relationship. Accordingly, we operationalized relationship well-being as a measure of participant’s emotions toward the relationship and their self-reported expectations regarding the growth versus decline of their relationship following the conflict.

Relationship emotions were assessed with the following prompt: “Based on the event, how much of the following emotions do you feel toward [partner’s name] at this moment?” Participants were provided with four positive emotion items (warm, trustful, liking, content; M = 4.31, SD = 1.81; α = .92) and three negative emotion items (angry, frustrated, upset; M = 3.19, SD = 1.79; α = .92)⁵ and rated each item on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Positive emotions were significantly inversely related to negative emotions, r = −.68, p < .001.

We assessed relationship expectations with the following prompt: “Considering the conflict, how likely do you think the future relationship between you and [partner’s name] will become better, worse, or remain the same?” Participants indicated percentage points for each outcome (out of 100 in total). Growth and decline expectations were significantly inversely related, r = −.56, p < .001. We computed a measure of growth versus decline expectations by subtracting the percentage of negative forecast from percentage of positive forecast. Responses suggesting that their relationship would stay the same were excluded from our analyses because they did not fit with our conceptualization of relationship well-being.⁶ Similar to our measure of adaptive reasoning, we submitted the index of positive emotions, negative emotions, and growth versus decline expectations to a PCA analysis, which yielded a single component solution (see Table 2).

Results

There was no effect of temporal orientation on the number of words participants wrote, t(319) = 1.03, p = .300. Temporal orientation did not predict reports that the relationship would be ongoing in a year, t(318) = 1.29, p = .199. Relationship type did not significantly moderate adaptive reasoning or relationship well-being, Fs < 1.00, ns, but it did significantly moderate person-centered focus, F(1, 318) = 4.84, p = .039. See Supplemental Online Material for further details⁷ and the descriptives and correlations between our measures of interest (Table S1).

Person-Centered Focus

Narratives of future-oriented participants were significantly less person-centered (M = 5.44, SD = 2.54) than those of the present-oriented participants (M = 6.55, SD = 3.14), F(1, 320) = 12.24, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2} = .04$ , 95% confidence interval (CI) = [.01, .09]. Person-centered focus was significantly inversely related to adaptive reasoning, r(322) = −.33, p < .001. Descriptives and correlations between measures of person-centered focus are present in the Supplemental Online Material (Table S3).

Conflict Reasoning

Participants in the future-oriented condition expressed greater levels of adaptive reasoning (M = .25, SD = 1.06) than participants in the present-oriented condition (M = −.24, SD = .88), F(1, 320) = 20.26, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = .06$ , 95% CI = [.02, .12]. As depicted in Table 3, the condition effect was significant for each of the three components of reasoning. See Table S4 in the Supplemental Online Material for a breakdown of the reasoning components by relationship type.

Table 3.
Individual Conflict Reasoning as a Function of Temporal Orientation for Studies 1 and 2.

Study 1 Study 2

Reasoning categories Present Future F $η_{p}^{2}$ Present Future F $η_{p}^{2}$

Partner blame 2.20 (.78) 1.88 (.84) 12.69* .04 2.22 (.81) 1.82 (.80) 11.18 .06

Forgiveness 1.47 (.69) 1.70 (.78) 7.11 .02 1.36 (.67) 1.56 (.69) 3.79^† .02

Conflict insight 1.30 (.57) 1.57 (.73) 13.96* .04 1.37 (.64) 1.62 (.76) 5.57* .03

Note. Present and future values represent mean coded scores for participant’s narratives. Coding was performed on a scale from (1) not at all to (3) a lot. Parentheses represent standard deviation.

^† p < .10. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Relationship Well-Being

There was no effect of temporal orientation on participant’s representation of relationship well-being, F < 1.00, p = .753. Relationship well-being was negatively related to person-centered focus, r(322) = −.18, p = .001, and positively related to adaptive reasoning, r(322) = .30, p < .001.

Mediation

We performed a series of mediation analyses to assess whether temporal orientation influenced relationship well-being through person-centered focus and adaptive reasoning. The indirect effects for all mediation analyses were determined to be significant if 0 did not fall between the bootstrapped CIs (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Table 4 presents the results of our tests. A test for serial mediation (future orientation → fewer person-centered words → adaptive reasoning → relationship well-being) was significant, 95% CI [.01, .07], while a test of the serial mediation with a reversed order of person-centered focus and adaptive reasoning was not significant, 95% CI [−.01, .04].

Table 4.
Serial Mediation Pathways for Studies 1 and 2.

Model pathways Study 1 Study 2

B (SE) 95% CI B (SE) 95% CI

Direct paths

Cond → person-centered focus −1.11 (.32) [−1.75, −.47] −1.31 (.44) [−2.22, −.47]

Cond → adaptive reasoning .48 (.11) [.28, .72] .50 (.15) [.20, .78]

Cond → RWB −.04 (.11) [−.25, .19] .10 (.15) [−.21, .38]

Person-centered focus → RWB −.06 (.02) [−.10, −.02] −.03 (.03) [−.09, .02]

Indirect paths

Cond → person-centered focus → adaptive reasoning .11 (.04) [.05, .20] .10 (.05) [.02, .21]

Cond → person-centered focus → RWB .08 (.03) [.03, .16] .05 (.04) [−.005, .15]

Cond → adaptive reasoning → RWB .15 (.05) [.08, .26] .11 (.05) [.04, .23]

Person-centered focus → adaptive reasoning → RWB −.03 (.01) [−.05, −.02] −.02 (.01) [−.04, −.01]

Cond → person-cent. Focus → adaptive reasoning → RWB .03 (.01) [.01, .07] .02 (.01) [.005, .06]

Reversed indirect path

Cond → adaptive reasoning → person-centered focus → RWB .01 (.01) [−.01, .04] .01 (.01) [−.003, .05]

Note. Condition was dummy coded (0 = present orientation; 1 = future orientation). Higher scores for person-centered focus reflect greater usage of singular pronoun language. Parentheses represent standard error, and brackets represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from a 5,000 sample bootstrap test. RWB = Relationship well-being.

Study 2

Study 2 sought to replicate and extend Study 1 results. Study 2 included a measure of conflict severity and explored our manipulation in an age-heterogeneous sample with more extensive relationship experiences than those familiar to undergraduates (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). In Study 2, we also tested the robustness of our manipulation by including a retrospective instruction to draw participant’s focus to the conflict itself.

Method

Sample

Adopting the method to determine sample size in Study 1, we recruited 183 American participants from a crowdsourcing website with a diverse population (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Participants initially reported whether or not they were in a romantic relationship. Those in a romantic relationship (n = 131) recalled a recent unresolved conflict with their romantic partner, while those not in a romantic relationship (n = 46) reported a recent unresolved conflict with a close friend. Participants who could not recall an unresolved conflict or incorrectly answered attention check questions were excluded from analyses (N _excluded = 6, N _included = 177). The average romantic relationship length was 7.82 years (SD = 8.77), whereas the average friendship length was 11.27 years (SD = 12.75). All participants (95 = female; M _age = 34.28, SD _age = 12.15) received US$0.50 for their participation.

Procedure

Participants recalled a recent unresolved conflict with their romantic partner or close friend, described it with one or two sentences, and then rated the severity of the conflict on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very bad). Participants were then randomly assigned into either a future-oriented condition (n = 82) or present-oriented condition (n = 95). Experimental instructions were modified from Study 1 to ask participants to “look back” at the event. Thus, participants were provided the instruction:
Some people report adopting a present [future] time perspective when thinking about their relationship conflicts. This is what we would like you to do. Looking back at the events right now [one year from now], what thoughts come to your mind?
Similarly to Study 1, participants spent a few minutes writing down their thoughts and then reported their anticipated relationship status.

Person-Centered Focus

Participant narratives were used to assess person-centered focus using methods identical to those in Study 1. The sum of person-centered linguistic cues were comparable to Study 1, M = 11.17, SD = 5.94.

Conflict Reasoning

As with Study 1, narratives for partner- and friend-related conflicts were content analyzed with respect to blame, forgiveness, and insight-related considerations, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 3 (a lot), see Table 1. The same research assistants who coded romantic relationship conflicts in Study 1, also coded Study 2 romantic relationship conflict narratives. Interrater agreement was good: (ICC_blame = .88, ICC_forgiveness = .77, and ICC_insight = .81), with subsequent discrepancies resolved through a discussion between coders. As with Study 1, the second set of hypothesis-blind research assistants coded the friendship conflicts. Interrater agreement for a random subsample of romantic relationship conflicts (n = 50) for the two groups of coders was good (ICC_blame = .90, ICC_forgiveness = .73, and ICC_insight = .83). Thus, the second set of coders proceeded to code the friendship conflicts (ICC_blame = .97, ICC_forgiveness = .91, and ICC_insight = .82). As in Study 1, a confirmatory PCA analysis indicated that the three reasoning categories loaded onto a single-factor component (see Table 2).

Relationship Well-Being

Similar to how relationship well-being was assessed in Study 1, we used participant’s emotion toward the relationship and their self-reported expectations regarding the future of their relationship after the conflict. In addition to the partner-oriented prompt used in Study 1, participants reported: “Based on the event, how much of the following emotions do you feel toward your relationship at this moment?” on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Emotion items were repeated from Study 1. Across emotion ratings toward their partner and their relationship, we computed the average of the positive emotions (M = 4.41, SD = 1.82; α = .96) and negative emotions (M = 3.36, SD = 1.81; α = .94), r _pos–neg = −.71, p < .001. We assessed postconflict relationship expectations using identical methods to Study 1. Growth and decline ratings were significantly negatively correlated, r = −.44, p < .001. As with Study 1, we subtracted the percentage of negative forecast from the percentage of positive forecasts as a measure of growth versus decline expectations. A confirmatory PCA analyses yielded a single-factor component with loadings similar to Study 1 (see Table 2).

Results

There was no effect of temporal orientation on the number of words written, t(175) < 1.00, ns, and no effect on anticipated relationship status, t(175) < 1.00, ns. Conflict severity was not significantly related to person-centered focus or adaptive reasoning, |r| < .11, ps < .161, but was significantly negatively related to relationship well-being, r(171) = −.26, p = .001. The present results did not differ with conflict severity included as a covariate. Results with conflict severity as a covariate in are reported in the Supplemental Online Material, showing identical patterns to those in the main text.

Person-Centered Focus

Narratives of future-oriented participants were less person centered (M = 4.95, SD = 2.68) than those of present-oriented participants (M = 6.13, SD = 3.11), F(1, 175) = 7.12, p = .008, $η_{p}^{2} = .05$ , 95% CI = [.01, .12]. Person-centered focus was significantly negatively related with adaptive reasoning, r(176) = −.27, p < .001.

Conflict Reasoning

Participants in the future-oriented condition expressed greater levels of adaptive reasoning (M = .26, SD = .96) than participants in the present-oriented condition (M = −.22, SD = .99), F(1, 175) = 10.75, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2} = .06$ , 95% CI = [.01, .14]. As Table 3 indicates, this effect was driven by a decrease in partner blame for participants in the future-oriented condition.

Relationship Well-Being

Temporal orientation did not significantly predict relationship well-being, F(1, 175) < 1.00, p = .447. Relationship well-being was marginally related to less person-centered focus, r(176) = −.13, p = .076, and was significantly related to more adaptive reasoning, r(176) = .24, p = .002.

Mediation

We performed a series of mediation analyses identical to Study 1. A test of the serial mediation (future orientation → fewer person-centered words → adaptive reasoning → relationship well-being) was significant, 95% CI [.006, .06]. Reversing the order of person-centered focus and adaptive reasoning in the serial mediation was not significant, 95% CI [−.003, .05].

Meta-Analysis

We performed a meta-analysis across Studies 1 and 2 to test the effect of temporal orientation on relationship well-being (N = 499). As depicted in Figure 2, a significant serial mediation through person-centered language and adaptive reasoning emerged between the relationship of temporal orientation and relationship well-being, 95% CI [.005, .06], suggesting that adopting a future orientation resulted in a less person-centered focus, which was associated with greater adaptive reasoning and subsequently greater relationship well-being⁸.

Figure 2.
Meta-analysis of studies 1 and 2 examining a serial mediation testing the effects of temporal orientation on reasoning change, and relationship well-being. Numbers represent standardized coefficiants. Parenthesis represent the association between temporal-orientation on relationship well-being while controlling for person-centered focus and adaptive reasoning. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals from a 5000 sample bootstrap test. ^† p < .10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001

Discussion

The present research demonstrates that adopting a future-oriented perspective promotes more adaptive postconflict reasoning—fewer partner blame attributions, greater realization of insight, and forgiveness. In turn, adaptive reasoning was associated with greater relationship well-being—more positive emotions about one’s relationship and expectations that the relationship will get better. These effects were driven by a decrease in person-centered focus, operationalized through person-centered language in postconflict narratives. Building on prior the mechanisms that explain how temporal orientation can promote beneficial outcomes over conflicts (e.g., impermanence focus; Bruehlman-Senecal & Ayduk, 2015), these results suggest that attenuation of person-centered focus may play an important part in the adaptive postconflict reasoning process, orienting people to relationship maintenance and well-being.

The present research contributes to a large body of research on what could be considered adaptive forms of reasoning following relationship conflicts. As evidenced through decades of research, the way individuals respond in the face of relationship conflicts plays a pivotal role in the conflict’s impact on one’s overall relationship quality (Rusbult et al., 1991; Overall et al., 2009). To the degree that feeling one’s relationship will get better and feeling more positive emotions toward one’s relationship are beneficial for relationship maintenance, the present work suggests that reducing partner blame, increasing forgiveness, and reinterpreting conflicts are adaptive aspects of reasoning (Grossmann, Gerlach, & Denissen, 2016). It is worth noting, however, that these responses may not always be adaptive. In instances where partner blame can reflect commitment and produce desirable changes, blame is found to produce beneficial outcomes (Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995). Likewise, forgiveness has been shown to be beneficial for relationship quality but not for those whose partner’s frequently engage in negative behavior (McNulty, 2008).

In the domains of temporal construal and self-distancing, our findings replicate prior findings that adopting a future orientation can aid in regulating emotions and lead to adaptive self-reflection (Bruehlman-Senecal & Ayduk, 2015; also see Grossmann & Kross, 2010, 2014). Our results extend these findings by introducing person-centered, agentic focus as a key part of the reasoning process. Our findings also extend prior work on the benefits of reappraisal strategies over suppression strategies (e.g., Gross, 1998), finding that individuals who reinterpret interpersonal conflicts to reduce their emotional impact (i.e., express conflict insight), receive emotional and cognitive benefits toward their relationship.

Limitations and Future Directions

A few caveats are in order before concluding. Although our measures of person-centered focus and adaptive reasoning shared only approximately 10% of the statistical variance in common, they were both derived from participants’ narratives, limiting the ability to disentangle them as distinct variables. Future studies could benefit from further methodological differentiation of these aspects of the reasoning process. Also, our results suggest that temporal orientation may promote relationship well-being in the moment, but this result may not generalize to long-term relationship well-being that relies on different processes.

One important question for future research concerns the conditions for when temporal distance might be adaptive versus maladaptive. Prior work found that temporally distant, hypothetical transgressions may be judged more harshly than temporally close hypothetical transgressions (Eyal et al., 2008), whereas the present work suggests that temporal distance attenuates maladaptive reflections on real interpersonal conflicts. Thus, it may be the case that people are more readily able to distance themselves from actual conflicts in their past but are less able to do so over hypothetical, future-oriented transgressions. Such differences in methodology may be responsible for these contradictory findings.⁹

Finally, the present studies offer evidence for the benefits of temporal distance within specific temporal boundaries (i.e., now vs. 1 year from now). Notably, a recent meta-analysis suggests that temporal distance has a curvilinear effect on levels of abstraction (i.e., greater increases of abstraction as temporal distance increases; Soderberg et al., 2014). Thus, while an orientation toward the tangible future (i.e., 1 year from now) promotes beneficial relationship outcomes, an uncertain future (e.g., 30 years from now) may promote heuristic processing that could be maladaptive (Caruso, 2010; Gilbert, Gill, & Wilson, 2002). Future research on this topic would be of considerable value for providing a clearer picture of how temporal orientation can influence reasoning processes.

Conclusion

The present studies demonstrate that adopting a future-oriented perspective over a relationship conflict—reflecting on how one might feel a year from now—can shift one’s postconflict reasoning away from individual agents and partner blame to greater insight and forgiveness. This change in reasoning is in turn associated with greater relationship well-being. Returning to our original example, if Dick is still upset that Jane was unappreciative of his gesture, it may be in his best interest to take a step back and consider their future together, recognizing that there is more to their relationship than a single bad night.

Reasoning Category	Example
1. Partner blame	When I think of the conflict that I had, I think of how selfish he was in his actions. He made a promise to my face that I thought he would honor, but in the end, he didn’t and that upset me
2. Forgiveness	He always puts so much time into playing his video games and it really upset me when I needed his help … even though I was pretty angry, I decided to let it go and move on. I realized that he probably wasn’t purposely ignoring me
3. Conflict insight	The experience really helped us bond … it was really troublesome at the moment, but I will definitely see it as a deeper moment between us … allowing us to get to know each other and to learn how we both deal with hard situations

Variables	Study 1 Loadings	Study 2 Loadings
Conflict reasoning variables
Variance explained	55.91%	61.29%
Partner blame	−0.68	−0.77
Forgiveness	0.72	0.77
Conflict insight	0.82	0.82
Relationship well-being variables
Variance explained	56.03%	56.86%
Positive emotions	0.86	0.92
Negative emotions	−0.86	−0.85
Expectation of relationship growth versus decline	0.77	0.80

	Study 1	Study 2
Reasoning categories	Present	Future	F	$η_{p}^{2}$	Present	Future	F	$η_{p}^{2}$
Partner blame	2.20 (.78)	1.88 (.84)	12.69***	.04	2.22 (.81)	1.82 (.80)	11.18**	.06
Forgiveness	1.47 (.69)	1.70 (.78)	7.11**	.02	1.36 (.67)	1.56 (.69)	3.79^†	.02
Conflict insight	1.30 (.57)	1.57 (.73)	13.96***	.04	1.37 (.64)	1.62 (.76)	5.57*	.03

Model pathways	Study 1	Study 2
Direct paths
Cond → person-centered focus	−1.11 (.32)	[−1.75, −.47]	−1.31 (.44)	[−2.22, −.47]
Cond → adaptive reasoning	.48 (.11)	[.28, .72]	.50 (.15)	[.20, .78]
Cond → RWB	−.04 (.11)	[−.25, .19]	.10 (.15)	[−.21, .38]
Person-centered focus → RWB	−.06 (.02)	[−.10, −.02]	−.03 (.03)	[−.09, .02]
Indirect paths
Cond → person-centered focus → adaptive reasoning	.11 (.04)	[.05, .20]	.10 (.05)	[.02, .21]
Cond → person-centered focus → RWB	.08 (.03)	[.03, .16]	.05 (.04)	[−.005, .15]
Cond → adaptive reasoning → RWB	.15 (.05)	[.08, .26]	.11 (.05)	[.04, .23]
Person-centered focus → adaptive reasoning → RWB	−.03 (.01)	[−.05, −.02]	−.02 (.01)	[−.04, −.01]
Cond → person-cent. Focus → adaptive reasoning → RWB	.03 (.01)	[.01, .07]	.02 (.01)	[.005, .06]
Reversed indirect path
Cond → adaptive reasoning → person-centered focus → RWB	.01 (.01)	[−.01, .04]	.01 (.01)	[−.003, .05]

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank John G. Holmes for comments on an earlier draft of the article. We also thank Garrett Shay, Josh Telfor, Kayla Uuldriks, and Becky Zhao for their research assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Insight grant #435-2014-0685 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (to I.G.) and by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, “Prospective Psychology Stage 2: A Research Competition to Martin Seligman” (sub-grant awarded to I.G.). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Supplemental Material

The online data supplements are available at .

Notes

References

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

(1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33.

Bruehlman-Senecal

Ayduk

(2015). This too shall pass: Temporal distance and the regulation of emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 356–375.

Campbell

Simpson

J. A.

Boldry

Kashy

D. A.

(2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531.

Caruso

E. M.

(2010). When the future feels worse than the past: A temporal inconsistency in moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 610–624.

Cicchetti

D. V.

(1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290.

DeWall

C. N.

Pond

R. S.

Jr Campbell

W. K.

Twenge

J. M.

(2011). Tuning in to psychological change: Linguistic markers of psychological traits and emotions over time in popular US song lyrics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 200–207.

Ellis

D. G.

Hamilton

(1985). Syntactic and pragmatic code usage in interpersonal communication. Communications Monographs, 52, 264–279.

Ellsworth

P. C.

(1994). Levels of thought and levels of emotion. In Ekman

Davidson

R. J.

(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. Series in affective science (pp. 192–196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Eyal

Liberman

Trope

(2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204–1209.

10.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

11.

Finkel

E. J.

Campbell

W. K.

(2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277.

12.

Finkel

E. J.

Rusbult

C. E.

Kumashiro

Hannon

P. A.

(2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956–974.

13.

Finkel

E. J.

Slotter

E. B.

Luchies

L. B.

Walton

G. M.

Gross

J. J.

(2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24, 1595–1601.

14.

Gilbert

D. T.

Gill

M. J.

Wilson

T. D.

(2002). The future is now: Temporal correction in affective forecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 430–444.

15.

Gilbert

D. T.

Malone

P. S.

(1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.

16.

Gong

Medin

D. L.

(2012). Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 628–638.

17.

Gottman

J. M.

(1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169–197.

18.

Gottman

J. M.

Krokoff

L. J.

(1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47–52.

19.

Gross

J. J.

(1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237.

20.

Gross

J. J.

John

O. P.

(2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.

21.

Grossmann

Ellsworth

P. C.

Hong

Y.-y.

(2012). Culture, attention, and emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 31–36.

22.

Grossmann

Gerlach

T. M.

Denissen

J. J.

(2016). Wise reasoning in the face of everyday life challenges. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550616652206

23.

Grossmann

Kross

(2010). The impact of culture on adaptive vs. maladaptive self-reflection. Psychological Science, 21, 1150–1157.

24.

Grossmann

Kross

(2014). Exploring “Solomon’s paradox”: Self-distancing eliminates the self-other asymmetry in wise reasoning about close relations in younger and older adults. Psychological Science, 25, 1571–1580.

25.

Hallgren

K. A.

(2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 23–34.

26.

Heavey

C. L.

Christensen

Malamuth

N. M.

(1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 797–801.

27.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

28.

Kross

Ayduk

(2011). Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 187–191.

29.

Kyung

E. J.

Menon

Trope

(2010). Reconstruction of things past: Why do some memories feel so close and others so far away? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 217–220.

30.

McNulty

J. K.

(2008). Forgiveness in marriage: Putting the benefits into context. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 171–175.

31.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Fillo

(2015). Attachment insecurity, biased perceptions of romantic partners’ negative emotions, and hostile relationship behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 730–749.

32.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Sibley

C. G.

(2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 620–639.

33.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188.

34.

Paul

E. L.

McManus

Hayes

(2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

35.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Francis

M. E.

Booth

R. J.

(2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 71, 2001.

36.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.

37.

Rusbult

C. E.

Verette

Whitney

G. A.

Slovik

L. F.

Lipkus

(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.

38.

Seider

B. H.

Hirschberger

Nelson

K. L.

Levenson

R. W.

(2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24, 604–613.

39.

Soderberg

C. K.

Callahan

S. P.

Kochersberger

A. O.

Amit

Ledgerwood

(2014). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 525–548.

40.

Thompson

S. C.

Kelley

H. H.

(1981). Judgments of responsibility for activities in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 469–477.

41.

Trope

Liberman

(2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421.

42.

Trope

Liberman

(2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.

43.

Yovetich

N. A.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138–164.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB

Model pathways	Study 1		Study 2
Model pathways	B (SE)	95% CI	B (SE)	95% CI
Direct paths
Cond → person-centered focus	−1.11 (.32)	[−1.75, −.47]	−1.31 (.44)	[−2.22, −.47]
Cond → adaptive reasoning	.48 (.11)	[.28, .72]	.50 (.15)	[.20, .78]
Cond → RWB	−.04 (.11)	[−.25, .19]	.10 (.15)	[−.21, .38]
Person-centered focus → RWB	−.06 (.02)	[−.10, −.02]	−.03 (.03)	[−.09, .02]
Indirect paths
Cond → person-centered focus → adaptive reasoning	.11 (.04)	[.05, .20]	.10 (.05)	[.02, .21]
Cond → person-centered focus → RWB	.08 (.03)	[.03, .16]	.05 (.04)	[−.005, .15]
Cond → adaptive reasoning → RWB	.15 (.05)	[.08, .26]	.11 (.05)	[.04, .23]
Person-centered focus → adaptive reasoning → RWB	−.03 (.01)	[−.05, −.02]	−.02 (.01)	[−.04, −.01]
Cond → person-cent. Focus → adaptive reasoning → RWB	.03 (.01)	[.01, .07]	.02 (.01)	[.005, .06]
Reversed indirect path
Cond → adaptive reasoning → person-centered focus → RWB	.01 (.01)	[−.01, .04]	.01 (.01)	[−.003, .05]