Search results

Prior research has indicated that the people one loves the most, such as their romantic partners, ironically, are also the people toward whom they often direct destructive behaviors in times of conflict, and such destructive responses become one of the most challenging relationship problems. Identifying the conditions that promote destructive (vs. constructive) conflict-resolution strategies is a crucial gap requiring study to help individuals build healthier and happier relationships. Across three studies (total N = 728), we examined whether (a) power is related to direct destructive (vs. constructive) responses during romantic conflicts; (b) this effect was moderated by the seriousness of the conflict and the relationship's inclusiveness. In Study 1, participants involved in romantic relationships completed scales assessing interpersonal power, the conflict's seriousness, their relationship's inclusiveness, and conflict-resolution responses. In Studies 2-3, the participants were randomly assigned to complete an essay in which the conflict's seriousness and power were experimentally manipulated. Findings from hierarchical regression analyses consistently showed that power led to destructive (and lower constructive) responses. However, this only occurred when the participants faced severe conflicts and their partner was not central to their self-concept. An internal meta-analysis of the studies confirmed the reliability and significance of these relationships; |r's| =.13-37. Together, these results support the proposition that power asymmetries can threaten relationships by driving destructive responses during romantic conflicts, and untangle the conditions under which this happens. The conflict's seriousness and the inclusiveness of the relationship may be considered to provide skills that help individuals navigate their relationships' life challenges. ; Spanish Government FPU16/03023 ; Spanish Ministerio de Industria, Economía y Competitividad [MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE] PSI-2017-83966-R PSI2017-84703-R

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a complex and multidimensional construct, encompassing both independent objective characteristics (e.g., income or education) and subjective people's ratings of their placement in the socioeconomic spectrum. Within the growing literature on subjective SES belongingness and psychological well-being, subjective indices of SES have tended to center on the use of pictorial rank-related social ladders where individuals place themselves relative to others by simultaneously considering their income, educational level, and occupation. This approach, albeit consistent with the idea of these social ladders as summative or cognitive SES markers, might potentially constrain individuals' conceptions of their SES. This research (N = 368; Mage = 39.67, SD = 13.40) is intended to expand prior investigations on SES and psychological well-being by revisiting the role of subjective SES. In particular, it (a) proposes an innovative adaptation of the traditional MacArthur Scale of subjective SES to income, education, and occupation, thus resulting in three separate social ladders; and (b) tests the empirical contribution of such three social ladders to psychological well-being. Overall, our findings showed that the novel education and occupation ladders (excluding the income ladder) are predictive of a significant part of the variance levels of psychological well-being that is not due to canonical objective metrics of SES (i.e., income, education, and occupation), or to the conventional MacArthur Scale of subjective SES. Although preliminary, these results underscore the need to further reconsider (subjective) SES-related conceptualization and measurement strategies to gather a more comprehensive understanding of the SES-psychological well-being link. ; Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness for the R&D project "Macrosocial realities (economic crisis and social class) and psychosocial processes: Trust, welfare, altruism, and politics" PSI-2017-83966-R