Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept [1st ed.] 9783030437466, 9783030437473

Citation preview

Brent A. Mattingly Kevin P. McIntyre Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.   Editors

Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept

Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept

Brent A. Mattingly Kevin P. McIntyre Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. •

•

Editors

Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept

123

Editors Brent A. Mattingly Department of Psychology Ursinus College Collegeville, PA, USA

Kevin P. McIntyre Department of Psychology Trinity University San Antonio, TX, USA

Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. Department of Psychology Monmouth University West Long Branch, NJ, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-43746-6 ISBN 978-3-030-43747-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

In the 1980s, when relationship science was starting to emerge as a significant interdisciplinary field, there was almost nothing directly focused on how adult relationships affect the self-concept. More recently, researchers (most notably some of those with chapters in this book) have built explicitly on some of the early (and still prominent) seminal relationship theories, especially interdependence and attachment theory, to explore ways in which relationships shape the self-concept. However, it was in this early context that I, with Elaine Aron (my life partner, close relationship partner, and collaborator, who definitely shaped my self-concept, all for the better) developed the self-expansion model. This model includes a major explicit focus on relationships’ effect on the self-concept. The model was our attempt to integrate two of my favorite philosophical ideas with our scientific knowledge of social behavioral processes. One of these was the development of the self through love as spelled out in Socrates long quote from Diotima in the Symposium, about how love leads to personal expansion and growth to the highest level. The other philosophical influence was from Eastern philosophy, the section in the Upanishads that describes love as the basis of life, but in a curious way: All love—love of house, love of things, love of spouse, love of child—is directed toward the self (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.V.1). Putting this together with the current social psychology, especially interdependence theory and aspects of evolutionary theories, we developed the self-expansion model’s two key principles: 1. Motivational principle: People seek to expand their potential efficacy, to increase their ability to accomplish goals (whether or not they are aware of ultimate philosophical goals). That is, a fundamental human motive is posited to be what diverse theories have previously described as exploration, effectance, self-improvement, curiosity, competence, or a broadening of one’s perspective. Further, given this motive’s importance, experiencing novelty, interest, and/or challenge (or even experiences typically associated with rapid expansion, such as exciting experiences involving novelty and challenge) should be particularly rewarding.

v

vi

Foreword

2. Inclusion-of-other-in-the-self principle: One way in which people seek to expand the self is through close relationships, because in a close relationship the other’s resources, perspectives, and identities are experienced, to some extent, as one’s own. Both of these principles have seemingly inspired a huge body of research and thinking (for a review see Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013), particularly on the topic of how relationships shape the self-concept, much of which is summarized, and expanded, in this book. Of course, importantly, this book’s focus is not just on the self-expansion model, but as noted, also builds on interdependence theory (e.g., Chaps. 1, 4, and 7), attachment theory (e.g., Chaps. 5 and 8), as well as several other lines of thinking (e.g., Chap. 3 on self-disclosure, Chap. 6 on self-concept clarity, and much more throughout). I have to say that when I was invited to write this Foreword, I sat down with a plan to quickly review the chapter drafts, reading just the abstracts and conclusions, and then get this written quickly to meet a deadline. However, as I started looking at the chapters, I was captivated. I am reasonably knowledgeable about relationship research generally and especially, of course, the work emerging directly from the self-expansion model. But I was blown away in chapter after chapter by interesting new ideas, studies I had not known about, groundbreaking integrations, and really creative new directions. I just could not resist reading this book closely. And for those of you for whom even the basics are new, you will learn so much. Each chapter is done in a way that is scholarly, yet should be very accessible to anyone interested in relationship science, including undergraduates. The book begins with Chap. 1 (by the editors!), laying out the fundamental inclusion-of-other-in-the-self principle of the self-expansion model (along with their important two-dimensional theory that importantly expanded it), as well as how interdependence theory helps us understand the ways relationships change our priorities, goals, and motives. This opening chapter integrates many current studies and diverse measures, laying a foundation for much of the rest of the book. Then, Chap. 2, by Slotter and Hughes, deepens our understanding of including other in the self in another way, focusing on the most early and ongoing relationship stages, especially building on Slotter’s (and others) revolutionary studies showing we include someone in the self even when just romantically attracted to the person, and more striking, even include in the self someone that the one we want is interested in. I found this a really deep and thoughtful chapter that pulls together a lot of diverse theory and research in creative and persuasive ways, with a particularly interesting section on potential future directions. Chapter 3, by Susan Sprecher, builds on her pioneering work, using experimental methods even in diverse real-world contexts (ranging from face-to-face to various online settings). This work significantly advances our understanding of how (and under what conditions optimally) self-disclosure between strangers, or even just being attracted to someone on a dating site, leads us to experience an overlap of the self with the other.

Foreword

vii

Chapter 4, by Hadden and Agnew, focuses on a quite unique element, laying out a very original theoretical perspective and substantial supporting research on readiness to commit to a relationship, including what creates or undermines readiness, and how relationship changes help shape readiness. Chapter 5, by Kumashiro and Arriaga, brings our attention to the role of attachment theory in this context. Specifically, they lay out a theoretical model (the Attachment Security Enhancement Model) that explains how and under what circumstances a partner’s behavior can improve a very key aspect of the self-concept, one’s basic insecure expectations (attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance) about close relationships. They describe the processes, provide supporting studies, and even offer practical advice. Chapter 6, by Emery and Gardner, spotlights the important role of self-concept clarity, integrating it with key ideas from the inclusion-of-other-in-the-self principle. They describe, based on a number of interesting studies (many by them and their collaborators), how self-concept clarity interacts with relationship changes, attachment style, and self-change at various stages and then provide inspiring directions for further research. Chapter 7, by Theresa DiDonato, brings our attention to yet two other important themes: Self-Authenticity and the Michelangelo phenomenon. She first defines self-authenticity, focusing on its positive qualities and emphasizing the importance of considering it as a state (versus just as a trait). She then very nicely explains the Michelangelo effect, in which one can move one’s partner toward his or her ideal self, focusing on the key steps by which it operates (perceptual and behavioral affirmation, and then self-movement to ideal self), providing a strong summary of supporting research and how it bears on various key aspects of this process. Chapter 8, by Jakubiak and Tomlinson, focuses on how self-growth is promoted by our partner’s support (both specific to our goals and more generally providing a secure base). Support includes helping our partner in ways that undermine possible risks for taking on activities that are, for example, self-expanding (and the conditions under which that support has optimal effects) and overall supporting of our partner’s comfort with exploration by providing a secure base—work that builds on an extension of attachment theory, “Relational Catalyst Support.” Chapter 9, by the editors of this great book, Mattingly, McIntyre, and Lewandowski, considers the impact of breakup, emphasizing how it affects and is affected by including other in the self and by self-expansion, summarizing and integrating a growing literature, and ending with exciting possible future directions. Chapter 10, by Xiaomeng Xu, first summarizes the research demonstrating that having a clear sense of self plays a crucial role in maintaining good health and the success of health interventions. She then hones in on important research (much of it by her and her colleagues) showing that experiencing self-expansion (such as from falling in love) promotes important aspect of the self, leading to health benefits such as weight loss and treatment adherence. Chapter 11, by Ketay, Beck, and Welker, takes us beyond romantic relationships to friends, focusing specifically on friendships with people from other groups (which is likely to be especially self-expanding by leading to including the friend’s

viii

Foreword

group in the self). They discuss how such friendships change our attitudes toward those groups (a non-trivial aspect of who I am). At the end, some very interesting new ideas emerge about how self-expansion processes more generally may be affected by the role of cultural differences in self-construal. The last chapter (12), by Cheryl Gray and the editors of this volume, brings in yet another central life aspect, focusing on how self-expansion operates in the work environment. The authors review research showing that good (versus dull, boring) work conditions promote connections with co-workers and others (such as customers), as well as including their organization or profession in the self, thus expanding a positive self-concept, plus other work-related benefits (e.g., less burnout). Clearly, these 12 chapters represent deep and varied scholarship that covers a wide range of ways that relationships change the self. Understanding these processes is crucial to relationship science and beyond. Knowing about anything that shapes who we are is central to understanding all aspects of human experience and behavior, and as elucidated in this book, our relationships play a huge role in shaping who we are. Indeed, who we are also shapes relationships, so there is a major reciprocal pattern of relationships shaping us and us shaping relationships. And of course, to the extent we are aware, consciously or unconsciously, of how relationships can shape us, that influences our decisions and actions regarding relationships. So deepening understanding of these processes has risen to a prominent role in relationship science that is likely to expand and continue in the years ahead. And given the great importance of the topic of this book, I urge you to connect with this book, to have a close relationship with its many chapters, to include them in yourself—and if you do, whether you are new to relationship science or an active researcher, you will find yourself rapidly expanding with great new knowledge and inspirations. Finally, congratulations to Brent, Kevin, and Gary for pulling together these diverse, significant relationship scientists to write such captivating and important chapters, providing a foundation and inspiration for further advancement on this important theme. Arthur Aron Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY, USA

Reference Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Contents

1

2

3

4

5

6

Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change: Theoretical Perspectives and Methodological Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brent A. Mattingly, Kevin P. McIntyre, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators of Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erica B. Slotter and Erin K. Hughes Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance Process on Changes in People’s Self-concept, How People Feel About Themselves, and How People Feel About Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan Sprecher

1

21

37

Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self, and Close Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benjamin W. Hadden and Christopher R. Agnew

53

Attachment Security Enhancement Model: Bolstering Attachment Security Through Close Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madoka Kumashiro and Ximena B. Arriaga

69

Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity and Self-Change in Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lydia F. Emery and Wendi L. Gardner

89

7

Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Theresa E. DiDonato

8

The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development . . . . . . 125 Brittany K. Jakubiak and Jennifer M. Tomlinson

9

Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Brent A. Mattingly, Kevin P. McIntyre, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. ix

x

Contents

10 The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion in Understanding Health and Behavior Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Xiaomeng Xu 11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Sarah Ketay, Lindsey A. Beck, and Keith M. Welker 12 Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences of Workplace Self-expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Cheryl E. Gray, Kevin P. McIntyre, Brent A. Mattingly, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. 13 Summary and Future Directions: Trajectories of Romantic Relationships and Self-concept Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Kevin P. McIntyre, Brent A. Mattingly, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Contributors

Christopher R. Agnew Departmental of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Ximena B. Arriaga Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Lindsey A. Beck Institute for Liberal Arts and Interdisciplinary Studies, Emerson College, Boston, MA, USA Theresa E. DiDonato Department of Psychology, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA Lydia F. Emery Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Wendi L. Gardner Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Cheryl E. Gray Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Benjamin W. Hadden Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA Erin K. Hughes Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Brittany K. Jakubiak Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA Sarah Ketay Department of Psychology, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA Madoka Kumashiro Psychology Department, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

xi

xii

Contributors

Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA Brent A. Mattingly Department of Psychology, Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, USA Kevin P. McIntyre Department of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA Erica B. Slotter Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA Susan Sprecher Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA Jennifer M. Tomlinson Department of Psychology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, USA Keith M. Welker Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA Xiaomeng Xu Department of Psychology, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, USA

Chapter 1

Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change: Theoretical Perspectives and Methodological Approaches Brent A. Mattingly, Kevin P. McIntyre, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.

When two individuals form a romantic relationship, several events typically happen: They fall in love, spend time together, think about planning their futures, and along the way experience changes to their individual senses of self. Because they are a couple and are partners in the relationship together, each individual becomes a different person than who they were before. But, how? To answer this question, researchers seek to understand what is changing (i.e., the self-concept), why it might be changing (i.e., cognitive interdependence, self-expansion), and how to best measure changes in partners’ senses of self. Broadly construed, the self-concept is a vast knowledge structure that encompasses both dynamic and static properties regarding how individuals think about, view, and evaluate aspects of themselves (Cervone, 2004; Kernis & Goldman, 2003; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Mattingly, McIntyre, & Selterman, 2018; Swann, 1990), and is construed at individual, interpersonal, and collective levels (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001; Tice & Baumeister, 2001). The self-concept is a content-based organizational structure replete with selfknowledge that is capable of guiding, directing, and influencing the agentic aspects of the self, such as goal setting, motivation, and emotional and behavioral regulation (e.g., Vohs & Baumeister, 2012). Accordingly, individuals’ self-concepts consist of personality traits, values, and attributes (both actually possessed and ideally sought), B. A. Mattingly (B) Department of Psychology, Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. P. McIntyre Department of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] G. W. Lewandowski Jr. Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_1

1

2

B. A. Mattingly et al.

as well as evaluations regarding the general valence, clarity, and certainty of this content (Mattingly et al., 2018). Moreover, the self-concept consists of interpersonal knowledge regarding how the individual relates to others and the social world more broadly, such as the social roles one fills (e.g., McConnell, 2011) and cognitive representations regarding others’ availability and trustworthiness (e.g., Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Most directly relevant to this chapter and volume as a whole, individuals’ close relationships and romantic partners are integrated into the self-concept in such a manner that individuals’ relationships with others partly define individuals’ identities (e.g., Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; Hatvany, Burkley, & Curtis, 2018). To be certain, high-quality close relationships are vitally important to individuals’ well-being (Agnew & South, 2014; Feeney & Collins, 2015). For example, individuals with high (relative to low)-quality relationships experience greater life satisfaction (Carr, Freedman, Cornman, & Schwarz, 2014), better physical health (Loving & Sbarra, 2015), better mental health (Whisman, 2013), and less loneliness (Flora & Segrin, 2000). Though there are myriad reasons why relationships are beneficial for individuals’ well-being (Agnew & South, 2014), one primary reason is because relationships are important to individuals’ self-concepts. Relationship partners validate and support existing aspects of individuals’ self-concepts, provide opportunities and support for individuals’ self-concept growth, and help individuals shape their identities to become more like their ideal self (e.g., Aron et al., 2013; Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999; Feeney & Collins, 2015; Finkel, 2019). Moreover, close relationships can alter the size, structure, and diversity of individuals’ self-concepts such that self and other become complexly intertwined. In this chapter, we first briefly discuss the primary theoretical perspectives on and consequences of relationship-induced self-concept change and then turn our attention toward the empirical measurement of such self-concept change.

1.1 Theoretical Perspectives on Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change 1.1.1 Cognitive Interdependence One of the most well-developed theoretical perspectives on relationship-induced self-concept change is interdependence theory (Machia, Agnew, & Arriaga, 2020). According to interdependence theory, prior to the development of relationship commitment, individuals approach relationships with a focus on maximizing their own outcomes (e.g., Arraiga, 2013; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). When partners’ goals align—that is, when there is a correspondence of outcomes—the pursuit of selfinterests is potentially mutually beneficial. When partners’ goals are incompatible— that is, there is a noncorrespondence of outcomes—a dilemma arises and the pursuit

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

3

of self-interests potentially threatens the relationship as the partner’s needs are not being satisfied. However, as the relationship develops, individuals become more committed to the partner and the relationship. Because partners are dependent on the relationship as a consequence of being satisfied with, investing in, and having relatively poor alternatives to the relationship (Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult, Agnew, & Arriaga, 2012), individuals’ cognitive and behavioral responses to noncorrespondence begin to prioritize partner interests and those of the relationship as a whole. This is because continued pursuance of solely self-interests would jeopardize the stability of the relationship. In other words, when individuals are in a committed relationship, they put the relationship’s needs ahead of their own and support their partners’ goal pursuits (Hui, Finkel, Fitzsimmons, Kumashiro, & Hofmann, 2014). Accordingly, individuals’ increased commitment to their relationship results in a transformation of motivation in which their orientation toward the relationship becomes more prosocial (Agnew & Le, 2015). One consequence of a transformation of motivation is that individuals begin to think of their partners as part of the self, in part because their orientation toward the relationship has shifted from self-focused to become more collective in nature (e.g., Soulsby & Bennett, 2017; see also Andersen & Chen, 2002). That is, increased commitment leads individuals to experience cognitive interdependence, in which individuals’ self-concepts become more pluralistic and include mental representations of the partner (Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Agnew et al., 1998). By leading individuals to redefine their self-concepts to include the partner’s considerations, a state of cognitive interdependence effectively results in individuals exhibiting a merged self-and-other identity. Consequently, this merged self-and-other identity leads individuals to think and behave in ways that benefit both the self and the partner. For example, individuals who are cognitively interdependent feel interconnected with their partners, view the relationship as more central to their identities, spontaneously generate more plural pronouns (e.g., we, us, our) when describing their relationship, and engage in a wide array of relationship maintenance mechanisms such as greater willingness to sacrifice, reduced likelihood of reciprocating a partner’s negativity, and greater propensity to derogate potential attractive alternatives (e.g., Agnew et al., 1998; Agnew & Le, 2015; Miller, 1997; Van Lange et al., 1997). In turn, the prosocial cognitions and behaviors feedback and strengthen relationship commitment, thereby creating a cycle in which individuals’ merged self-concepts maintain and strengthen a state of cognitive interdependence (Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Agnew et al., 1998).

1.1.2 Self-expansion Model Complementing an interdependence perspective (Mattingly, Tomlinson, & McIntyre, 2020), the self-expansion model provides another theoretical framework for understanding relationship-induced self-concept change. According to the classic theorizing of the self-expansion model, individuals are fundamentally motivated to

4

B. A. Mattingly et al.

enhance their potential self-efficacy and, as such, seek ways to build their psychological resources so that future goal attainment is more likely (e.g., Aron et al., 2013; Aron, Norman, & Aron, 1998). To accomplish this, individuals are oriented toward expanding their perspectives, identities, resources, and capabilities (e.g., Mattingly, McIntyre, & Lewandowski, 2012), either by seeking individual pursuits (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2014a) or by forming close relationships with others (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron et al., 2013). Accordingly, self-expansion is a cognitive reorganization and/or redefining of the self-concept through a process of acquiring new or augmenting existing self-concept content (e.g., Gordon & Luo, 2011; Mattingly et al., 2018; McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2017). Of particular relevance for this volume, these changes to one’s self-concept can be induced by a romantic partner, as partners may introduce individuals to new perspectives, provide tangible and intangible resources for the individual’s pursuits (e.g., social support, financial security), actively assist individuals in adding to or augmenting their self-concepts (e.g., teaching the individual new skills), or share novel and interesting activities with the individual. In each case, the individual directly or indirectly associates the partner with the self-concept changes, and the expansion of the self-concept is thus at least partly attributed to the partner. Within close relationship, there are two primary routes by which self-expansion can occur. First, as relationships develop and partners become psychologically closer, individuals begin to cognitively merge their identity with that of the partner (not unlike the process of cognitive interdependence). In self-expansion terminology, this process of inclusion of other in the self occurs because individuals begin to cognitively bring the partner’s identities, resources, and perspectives into their own self-concepts, thereby viewing the self-concepts of self and other as one (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Aron, Mashek, & Aron, 2004; Mashek, Aron, & Boncimino, 2003). Because merging one’s identity with that of a partner likely results in the acquisition of novel self-concept content, a consequence of inclusion of other in the self is that individuals’ self-concepts grow in size and diversity. Simply put, inclusion of other in the self leads to self-expansion. To be clear, however, inclusion of other in the self is not synonymous with self-expansion; rather, including a partner into one’s self-concept is one potential route (of several) by which self-expansion can occur (Aron et al., 2013; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2014a). The second central way that relationships can lead to self-expansion is when partners engage in novel and interesting activities together. Early-stage relationships are often rife with self-expansion opportunities, as most of the couple’s shared experiences are novel at a relationship’s beginning. For example, the normative self-disclosure that occurs early in relationships provides opportunities for gaining perspectives and identities (e.g., Aron, Melinat, Aron, & Vallone, 1997; see Chap. 3 of this volume), and the process of falling in love leads individuals to experience increases to the size and diversity of the self-concept (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995). However, this flurry of early-stage excitement naturally wanes as relationships progress (e.g., Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2013), and without experiencing relationship excitement, relationships tend to suffer (Tsapelas, Aron, & Orbuch, 2009). Thus,

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

5

when romantic partners engage in activities that simulate the excitement of earlystage relationships—that is, novel and exciting activities (e.g., Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000; Girme, Overall, & Faingataa, 2014; Harasymchuk, Cloutier, Peetz, & Lebreton, 2017; Reissman, Aron, & Bergen, 1993; Tomlinson, Hughes, Lewandowski, Aron, & Geyer, 2019)—continued self-expansion remains viable. In fact, novel and exciting experiences result in individuals experiencing selfexpansion (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013a), as individuals encode these novel experiences as newly possessed identities (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2014b). For example, a couple who tries whitewater rafting together may come to expand their identities to include the trait of adventurous, just as those who vacation together to new destinations may acquire the identity of the traveler. Beyond increasing the self-concept’s size and diversity (Aron et al., 1995; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013a, 2014b), self-expansion results in myriad intraand interpersonal benefits. At the intrapersonal level, individuals who experience self-expansion exhibit clearer self-concepts (Emery, Walsh, & Slotter, 2015; Lewandowski, Nardone, & Raines, 2010), increased positive affect (Graham, 2008; Strong & Aron, 2006), higher self-esteem (Aron et al., 1995), greater self-efficacy (Aron et al., 1995; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b), greater effort exertion on challenging tasks (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013a; Xu, Floyd, Westmaas, & Aron, 2010; Xu et al., 2017), and fewer depressive symptoms (McIntyre, Mattingly, Xu, Loving, & Lewandowski, 2019). Interpersonally, self-expansion is associated with greater relationship satisfaction and commitment (Aron et al., 2000; Cloutier & Peetz, 2017; Coulter & Malouff, 2013; Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014; McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2015; Reissman et al., 1993), less relationship boredom (Aron et al., 2000; Tsapelas et al., 2009), greater companionate and passionate love (Mattingly et al., 2014; Sheets, 2014), greater sexual satisfaction (Frost, McClelland, & Dettmann, 2017; Muise et al., 2019; Shukusky, McIntyre, & Mattingly, 2017), less attention to alternatives (VanderDrift, Lewandowski, & Agnew, 2011), less susceptibility to infidelity (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006; Mattingly et al., 2014; VanderDrift et al., 2011), and more frequent relationship maintenance cognitions and behaviors (Mattingly, McIntyre, Knee, & Loving, 2019; McIntyre et al., 2015).

1.1.3 Two-Dimensional Model of Relational Self-change The self-expansion process represents perhaps the most frequent, and certainly most empirically investigated, form of relationship-induced self-concept change. However, inherent in the process of self-expansion is the notion that the added or augmented self-concept content is positively valenced. In order to increase one’s efficacy through the acquisition or augmentation of self-concept content (i.e., to more effectively accomplish goals because one has a larger, more diverse self-concept), the gained or augmented perspectives, identities, and resources are necessarily positive

6

B. A. Mattingly et al.

in nature. Yet, just as individuals could acquire positive attributes from their partners, they could also acquire negative attributes (e.g., Slotter & Gardner, 2012a; Slotter & Kolarova, 2020). Furthermore, the content may be subtracted or diminished from the self-concept as a result of a relationship, such as losing touch with previous interests (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007), becoming less trusting after a partner’s infidelity (Jones, Couch, & Scott, 1997), or successfully overcoming one’s relationship anxieties (DiDonato & Krueger, 2010). Thus, the two-dimensional model of relational self-change (Mattingly et al., 2014; McIntyre et al., 2015) extends the self-expansion model by proposing that relationships can alter individuals’ self-concepts along two independent dimensions (see Fig. 1.1). First, relationships influence the direction of self-concept change. Individuals may gain new or augment existing self-concept content; conversely, they may lose entirely or diminish existing self-concept content. By itself, the direction of self-concept change is inherently neutral, as the implications of increasing or diminishing self-concept content is dependent upon the second dimension: valence of the self-concept content. That is, individuals may experience changes to either positive or negative self-concept content. The combination of these two dimensions therefore results in four qualitatively unique forms of self-concept change (termed “self-processes”). Self-expansion occurs when there is an addition or augmentation of positive self-concept content (e.g., a partner may teach an individual how to ski, therefore leading the individual to acquire the identity of a skier). Self-contraction occurs when there is a loss or diminishment of positive self-concept content (e.g., an individual may lose touch with some of their hobbies, such as running, and therefore experience a diminishment of the identity marathon runner). Self-pruning occurs when there is a loss or diminishment of negative self-concept content (e.g., a partner may be supportive in helping an individual rid themselves of an undesirable habit). Lastly, self-adulteration occurs when there is an addition or augmentation of negative self-concept content (e.g., a verbally abusive partner may lead an individual to internalize beliefs of unworthiness and incompetence). Self-expansion and self-pruning are improvement processes as the overall positivity of the self-concept increases as a result of both forms of self-change. Conversely, Fig. 1.1 Two-dimensional model of relational self-change

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

7

both self-contraction and self-adulteration are degradation processes as the overall positivity of the self-concept decreases. In general, both improvement processes tend to be positively associated with a wide range of positive relationship outcomes, such as greater satisfaction, commitment, love, relationship maintenance, and fidelity, whereas both degradation processes tend to be negatively associated with these same outcomes (Mattingly et al., 2014; McIntyre et al., 2015); however, the four processes often possess unique predictive abilities (Mattingly et al., 2014) and potentially result in (or are associated with) unique relational outcomes. For example, in one longitudinal study, each of the four self-processes uniquely predicted changes in marital satisfaction over a 6-week period (McIntyre et al., 2015). In a separate study, only self-processes that increased the amount of self-concept content (i.e., self-expansion and self-adulteration) uniquely predicted companionate love (Mattingly et al., 2014). Furthermore, individuals experience self-changes in a manner that is consistent with their self-esteem, such that individuals with high self-esteem are likely to experience self-expansion while avoiding self-adulteration, whereas individuals with low selfesteem are more likely to experience self-adulteration while simultaneously missing out on self-expansion (Slotter & Kolarova, 2020).

1.1.4 Summary Several theoretical models support the notion of relationship-induced self-concept change. Above, we have introduced the predominant perspectives, and much of this volume examines these perspectives in greater focus and detail. Moreover, additional chapters in this volume explore complementary frameworks through which we can examine relationship-induced self-concept change (e.g., working models of self and other, understanding one’s own readiness for self-concept change). Next, we next turn our attention to various ways researchers measure relationship-induced self-concept change.

1.2 Measurement of Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change Table 1.1 presents two sets of different measures assessing how relationships impact the self-concept. The first set of approaches that we discuss seeks to measure the size and diversity of the self-concept within individuals (e.g., assessing the content of the self-concept), whereas the second set of approaches focuses on the dynamic interplay between self and other (e.g., assessing self-other integration). Additionally, researchers have utilized various methods, such as self-report, open-ended responses, response latencies, and symbolic representations of the self-concept.

8

B. A. Mattingly et al.

Table 1.1 Overview of measures of self-concept content and relationship-induced self-concept change Measure

Citations

Structure/format

Construct measured

Attribute generation (who are you today?)

Aron, Paris, and Aron (1995)

Open-ended trait listing

Self-concept content

Attribute identification (me/not me)

Mattingly and Lewandowski (2013b)

Checklist of attributes

Self-concept content

Attribute ratings

Slotter and Gardner (2009)

Likert-type ratings of attributes

Self-concept content

Pictorial measure

Mattingly and Lewandowski (2013b)

Drawing a circle

Self-concept content

Behavioral traces

Carpenter and Spottswood (2013); Slotter, Gardner, and Finkel (2010)

Number of interests on social media

Self-concept content

Inclusion of other in the self (IOS) Scale

Aron, Aron, and Smollan (1992)

Single-item pictorial measure

Relationship-induced self-concept change

Plural pronoun usage

Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, and Langston (1998)

Coding of open-ended responses

Relationship-induced self-concept change

Self-Expansion Questionnaire (SEQ)

Lewandowski and Aron (2002)

Likert-type scale (14 items)

Relationship-induced self-concept change

Relational self-change scale

Mattingly, Lewandowski, and McIntyre (2014)

Likert-type scale (12 items)

Relationship-induced self-concept change

Perceived change in relationships scale

Slotter and Lucas (2013)

Likert-type scale (10 items)

Relationship-induced self-concept change

Forecasted self-concept change

Slotter and Gardner (2012b)

Likert-type scale (5 items)

Relationship-induced self-concept change

Response latencies

Aron, Aron, Tudor, and Nelson (1991)

Quick decision me/not me task

Relationship-induced self-concept change

1.2.1 Self-concept Content One way in which researchers examine relationship-induced self-concept change is to focus on the size and diversity of individuals’ self-concepts. Such methodologies are, at their core, largely context-neutral and thus allow researchers to purposefully contextualize the methodologies (e.g., as a result of relationship processes) to examine whether individuals undergo specific changes to the content in their self-concepts. Attribute Generation (“Who Are You Today?”) One of the original methods of measuring self-concept size in the relational self-change literature is Aron et al.’s (1995) open-ended measure. In this paradigm, participants receive the prompt “Who are you today?” and write down as many responses as possible within a short amount

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

9

of time (e.g., 3 min). The strength of this paradigm is that it allows researchers to measure both the size and diversity of the self-concept, whereas a limitation is that it requires extensive coding and thus is relatively labor-intensive. To assess self-concept size, independent raters read through participants’ responses and identify the number of non-redundant traits (e.g., “extroverted” and “outgoing” would be coded as redundant, as they are synonyms). The number of self-concept traits can then be summed to create a measure of current self-concept size (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b), or trait-by-trait comparisons can be made between the current list and a previous or subsequent list to assess changes to the self-concept (Aron et al., 1995). To assess self-concept diversity, independent raters assign each non-redundant self-concept attribute to one of 19 categories (e.g., occupations, social roles, anxiety/stress, confusion, love, selfness/personhood) and tally the number of populated categories (Aron et al., 1995; Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006). Attribute Identification (Me/Not Me) Perhaps, the most straightforward measure of self-concept size involves individuals viewing a set of attributes and indicating whether the trait is (i.e., “me”) or is not (i.e., “not me”) contained within the selfconcept. Originally, such tasks were developed as a way of collecting individuals’ response latencies to various self-concept attributes (described in more detail below; Aron et al., 1991). More recently, however, researchers have used such measures (presented to participants as part of a large checklist or sequentially) to quantify the size of individuals’ working self-concepts by summing the number of “me” responses (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b, 2014b). A higher frequency of “me” responses indicates a larger working self-concept. Importantly, when using this methodology, Mattingly and Lewandowski (2014b) recommend also including a second checklist-type measure (e.g., identifying items that belong in a well-stocked kitchen) to statistically account for participants’ acquiescence response bias. Attribute Ratings Both paradigms of attribute identification and attribute generation quantify self-concept content in all-or-nothing terms; individuals either possess the attribute or they do not. One potential limitation to this approach is that it may obscure the level of the attribute that individuals possess. An individual may only slightly possess one attribute (e.g., organized) and very strongly possess a different attribute (e.g., sociable), yet in an all-or-nothing paradigm, both traits are considered equal (i.e., the individual possesses both attributes). To account for this limitation, some researchers have turned to Likert-type ratings of attributes (e.g., not at all characteristic of me to extremely characteristic of me). This methodology, derived from classic research on trait theory (Anderson, 1968), is particularly fruitful when examining subtle changes in the endorsement of self-concept content. For example, Slotter and Gardner (2009) had participants first rate self-concept attributes on seven-point Likert scales during a pretest phase, then after an experimental manipulation (i.e., viewing online profiles for either a dating or job search website), rate the attributes a second time during a posttest phase (see also Slotter, Emery, & Luchies, 2014; Slotter & Gardner, 2012a, 2012b). The repeated measures nature of such a paradigm enables researchers to observe specific and idiosyncratic self-concept shifts over time (cf. Gore & Cross, 2011, who recommend the use of intraclass correlations to assess

10

B. A. Mattingly et al.

self-concept change), though practical considerations generally limit researchers to collecting information about fewer attributes than in the me/not me paradigm. Pictorial Measure One potential limitation of verbal measures of self-concept size is that they may be confounded with individual competencies. That is, the number of attributes an individual lists may correlate with the size of their vocabulary, linguistic proficiency, or ability to distinguish among similar, but distinct, traits (e.g., jealous vs. envious). To account for this possible limitation, researchers have developed a nonverbal pictorial measure of self-concept size (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b). Specifically, participants are first instructed to consider how they might respond if asked Aron et al.’s (1995) “Who are you today?” question. In particular, participants are asked to consider the number of adjectives, characteristics, and attributes that come to mind. Then, using a drawing compass, participants draw a circle that best represents the quantity of attributes that come to mind. The diameter of the circle in centimeters is the measure of self-concept size (i.e., larger circles represent larger self-concepts). Notably, this indirect measure of self-concept size moderately correlates with Aron et al.’s “Who are you today?” measure, suggesting that the pictorial measure assesses a conceptually similar construct. Behavioral Traces Because individuals’ self-concepts are exclusively cognitive, behavioral measures of self-concept size are relatively uncommon. However, with the emergence of social media over the past decade and a half, researchers have developed creative methods to utilize social media platforms’ diary and journaling attributes to quantify aspects of individuals’ psychological experiences that otherwise may be unobservable or susceptible to memory biases (Anderson, Fagan, Woodnutt, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2012; Kern et al., 2014). One such way to measure selfconcept content, albeit indirectly, is to measure the number of listed interests on individuals’ social media profiles, such as Facebook (Carpenter & Spottswood, 2013). Presumably, as individuals develop new identities and perspectives, they may be more likely to symbolically connect themselves to such interests. Thus, this method allows researchers to quantify a proxy for self-concept size. In a similar vein, we can measure the specific content of individuals’ self-concepts by content-analyzing content from individuals’ social media posts (Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). Beyond simply measuring the size of the self-concept, this methodology allows for coding the diversity of the self-concept (similar to Aron et al., 1995) and tapping into evaluative aspects of the self-concept (e.g., self-esteem, self-concept clarity).

1.2.2 Influence of Relationships on the Self-concept Next, we examine various measures that more directly assess self-other connections. Whereas the previous measures examine the contents of the self-concept without

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

11

specifying the origins of the attributes (and could be utilized in a variety of nonrelationship contexts), the following measures more directly examine self-concept changes as a result of partner and relationship influences. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale By far, the most widely used measure of relationship-induced self-concept change has been the single-item Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Originally designed as a measure of interpersonal closeness, the IOS Scale is a Venn diagram-style measure that consists of seven pairs of increasingly overlapping circles in which one circle represents self and the other circle represents other (e.g., romantic partner). As the circles overlap more, they increase in size to ensure the overall area is constant (though some scholars have modified the IOS to keep the size of circles constant, e.g., Mashek, Cannaday, & Tangney, 2007). This conceptually corresponds to inclusion of other in the self as one of the mechanisms by which self-expansion occurs; however, the IOS Scale is only moderately associated with measures specifically designed to assess self-expansion (e.g., Acri & Lewandowski, 2015; Dys-Steenbergen, Wright, & Aron, 2016; Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006; Sprecher, Treger, Fisher, Hilaire, & Grzybowski, 2015), suggesting that the IOS Scale may be insufficient for measuring the broader self-expansion process. Nevertheless, the IOS Scale is a straightforward measure that has been used to assess both the inclusion of other in the self-process (Aron et al., 1992) as well as cognitive interdependence (Agnew et al., 1998). Moreover, participants interpret the IOS Scale as more indicative of interpersonal connectedness than simply closeness (Aron et al., 1992), further providing support that the measure efficiently taps into the complex construct of self-other integration. Partly due to the efficient nature of the measure, the IOS Scale has also been adapted to assess individuals’ desired level of self-other integration. In particular, individuals are presented with the same set of overlapping circles but are instructed to choose which set of circles represents their desired relationship with their partner. When measured in conjunction with individuals’ perceptions of their actual inclusion of other in the self, researchers have been able to test research questions regarding whether individuals desire more (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b) or less (Mashek, Le, Israel, & Aron, 2011) self-other integration with their romantic partners, and how the movement toward or away from one’s ideal self-other integration predicts relationship well-being and mental health (Frost & Forrester, 2013). First-Person Plural Pronoun Usage Another way in which researchers have measured self-other integration, specifically cognitive interdependence, has been to use a measure of pronoun usage that is less transparent to participants than the IOS Scale. Specifically, participants are instructed to list various thoughts they have about their relationship in an open-ended format. These responses are then later coded by independent raters or computerized linguistic analysis programs for the frequency of first-person plural usage (e.g., “we”, “us”, “ours”; Agnew et al., 1998). This more implicit measurement of self-other integration significantly correlates with the IOS Scale (e.g., Agnew et al., 1998; Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004) and has shown similar patterns of results with other constructs as the IOS Scale (e.g., Karremans & Van Lange, 2008). Furthermore, individuals’ use of first-person plural pronouns predicts patterns

12

B. A. Mattingly et al.

of relational behaviors that suggest the individual is treating the partner’s outcomes as one’s own (e.g., forgiving transgressions, finding positive solutions to relationship conflict; Karremans & Van Lange, 2008; Simmons, Gordon, & Chambless, 2005). Self-Expansion Questionnaire The aforementioned IOS Scale assesses one of the multiple mechanisms by which self-expansion can occur and does not directly assess the self-expansion experience. Researchers interested in more directly measuring self-expansion may consider the Self-Expansion Questionnaire (SEQ; Lewandowski & Aron, 2002). The SEQ consists of 14 Likert-type items (e.g., “How much does being with your partner result in your having new experiences?”, “How much does your partner help to expand your sense of the kind of person you are?”) and regularly demonstrates high internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s A > 0.85; Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006; Lewandowski et al., 2006; Mattingly et al., 2012, 2019; VanderDrift et al., 2011). The SEQ can also be adapted to examine self-expansion in nonromantic (e.g., McIntyre, Mattingly, Lewandowski, & Simpson, 2014; Schellenberg & Bailis, 2015; Shedlosky-Shoemaker, Costabile, & Arkin, 2014) and individual contexts (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013a; but see Gordon & Luo’s, 2011, Personal Expansion Questionnaire). Additionally, similar to the IOS Scale being adapted to assess desired self-other integration, the SEQ has also been adapted to assess individuals’ desire and preference for future self-expansion (Emery et al., 2015; see also Hughes, Slotter, & Lewandowski’s, in press, Self-Expansion Preference Scale). Relational Self-change Scale Developed to assess all four self-processes identified by the two-dimensional model of relational self-change (i.e., self-expansion, selfcontraction, self-pruning, and self-adulteration), the 12-item Relational Self-Change Scale (Mattingly et al., 2014) was modeled after Lewandowski and Aron’s (2002) SEQ. The stem “By being with my romantic partner…” precedes each of the 12 Likert-type items. Three items assess each self-process [e.g., “I have added positive qualities to my sense of self” (self-expansion); “positive qualities about myself have been diminished” (self-contraction); “I have decreased my number of negative attributes” (self-pruning); “I have more negative qualities” (self-adulteration)], and each subscale demonstrates strong internal consistency (Mattingly et al., 2014; McIntyre et al., 2015). Though the two improvement processes tend to be moderately to strongly correlated with one another, as do the two degradation processes, the processes still tend to be uniquely associated with relationship quality (Mattingly et al., 2014) and inclusion of other in the self (Dincer, Eksi, & Aron, 2018). Perceived Change in Relationships Scale Whereas most relationship-induced selfconcept change scales focus on the dynamics within existing relationships, the Perceived Change in Relationships Scale (Slotter & Lucas, 2013) is a more general measure of how individuals change within their relationships (as well as how individuals’ partners tend to change). This scale consists of two five-item subscales: (1) self-change, which is the degree to which individuals view their self-concepts as malleable when in romantic relationships (e.g., “When I am in romantic relationships, I tend to take on the worldviews or opinions that are important to my partner”)

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

13

and (2) partner-change, which is the degree to which individuals perceive their partners’ self-concepts as malleable (e.g., “In romantic relationships, my partners seem to change to be more similar to me that they were when we first started dating”). Both subscales show strong internal consistency and are only moderately correlated with one another. Furthermore, individuals higher (vs. lower) in general self-change are more likely to spontaneously acquire the attribute of a potential romantic partner (Slotter & Lucas, 2013), thus providing criterion validity for the scale. Forecasted Self-Concept Change An indirect way to assess the degree to which individuals’ self-concepts are interconnected with and influenced by their romantic partners is to measure individuals’ forecasted self-concept change upon a hypothetical dissolution. That is, individuals who anticipate a greater self-concept change when imagining dissolution likely possess self-concepts that integrate aspects of the partner to a greater degree. Accordingly, Slotter and Gardner (2012b) developed a five-item Likert-type scale of forecasted self-concept change (e.g., “If my current relationship were to end, my values and beliefs would change”) that demonstrates strong internal consistency and predicts self-relevant outcomes (i.e., self-concept confusion). This scale has also been adapted to assess retrospective reports of actual self-concept change upon dissolution (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b; Slotter et al., 2010). Response Latencies Beyond strictly self-report measures, researchers have also turned to a variety of implicit measures to measure self-other overlap, most commonly response latencies tasks. Premised upon the notion that individuals should respond faster to a quick decision me/not me task when they are certain that they possess (or do not possess) a self-concept attribute, researchers have employed such quick decision tasks to examine how individuals’ identities are influenced by the real or imagined presence of a close other. An early usage of this paradigm in this context was by Aron et al. (1991), who demonstrated that individuals were quicker to respond on a me/not me task when the traits being rated were previously determined to be similar (vs. dissimilar) to their romantic partners. Aron and Fraley (1999) later showed that these slower reaction times correlate with individuals’ IOS ratings, indicating that individuals who feel more included with their partners have a more difficult time differentiating between the self-concepts of self and other (see also Smith, Coats, & Walling, 1999). Subsequent research using this methodology has shown that individuals are slower to respond to attributes after perceiving that a current or potential romantic partner possesses (vs. does not possess) the trait (Slotter & Gardner, 2009, 2012a, 2012b)—suggesting that they are open to acquiring the trait—or if a potential romantic rival possesses the trait (as a proactive form of mate-guarding; Slotter, Lucas, Jakubiak, & Lasslett, 2013).

1.2.3 Summary Research examining relationship-induced self-concept change has implemented a multitude of measures and paradigms, including those that assess changes to the

14

B. A. Mattingly et al.

self-concept size and content, as well as measures that assess self-other integration. Researchers should carefully consider what aspects of relationship-induced selfconcept change they are investigating and select measures that most directly assess those aspects. For example, researchers interested in measuring self-expansion may be better served using the SEQ than the IOS, because as we note above, while the IOS captures self-other integration, the SEQ more fully assesses the experience of self-expansion.

1.3 Conclusion Close relationships are capable of changing individuals’ self-concepts such that individuals’ identities change in size, diversity, and structure as a result of relationship formation, functioning, and dissolution (e.g., Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Agnew et al., 1998; Aron et al., 2013; Mattingly et al., 2014). In this chapter, we provided an overview of various theoretical frameworks on relationship-induced selfconcept change: cognitive interdependence, the self-expansion model, and the twodimensional model of relational self-change. Rather than providing contrasting perspectives on the ways in which relationships affect individuals’ self-concepts, these various frameworks complement one another to provide a complex and nuanced view of relationship-induced self-concept change. Further, there are various ways in which these self-concept changes can be measured, ranging from explicit attribute ratings to more implicit response latency tasks. Given this overview of the various theoretical issues and methodological perspectives, the remainder of this volume explores the recent developments and advances in the literature on relationship-induced self-concept change.

References Acri, L. M., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). The influence of the self in partner behavior interpretation. Modern Psychological Studies, 20(2), 15–30. Agnew, C. R., & Etcheverry, P. E. (2006). Cognitive interdependence: Considering self-inrelationship. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Agnew, C. R., & Le, B. (2015). Prosocial behavior in close relationships: An interdependence approach. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 362–375). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Agnew, C. R., & South, S. C. (2014). Interpersonal relationships and health: Social and clinical psychological mechanisms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

15

Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook psychology: Popular questions answered by research. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1, 23–37. Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 159–168. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of the self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including others in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253. Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self: Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140–160. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including others in the self. In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 27–41). Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., & Vallone, R. (1997). The experimental generation of closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377. Aron, A., Norman, C. C., & Aron, E. N. (1998). The self-expansion model and motivation. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22, 1–13. Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112. Arraiga, X. B. (2013). An interdependence theory analysis of close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 39–65). Oxford: New York, NY. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. L. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Carpenter, C. J., & Spottswood, E. L. (2013). Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1531–1537. Carr, D., Freedman, V. A., Cornman, J. C., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Happy marriage, happy life? Marital quality and subjective well-being in later life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 930–948. Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111, 183–204. Cloutier, A., & Peetz, J. (2017). People, they are a changin’: The links between anticipating change and romantic relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 676–698. Coulter, K., & Malouff, J. M. (2013). Effects of an intervention designed to enhance romantic relationship excitement: A randomized-control trial. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2, 34–44. DiDonato, T. E., & Krueger, J. I. (2010). Interpersonal affirmation and self-authenticity: A test of Rogers’s self-growth hypothesis. Self and Identity, 9, 322–336. Dincer, D., Eksi, H., & Aron, A. (2018). Two new scales in the field of couples and marriage counseling: The inclusion of other in the self scale and Turkish self-change in romantic relationships scale. SHS Web of Conferences, 48, 01053. Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close relationships as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323. Dys-Steenbergen, O., Wright, S. C., & Aron, A. (2016). Self-expansion motivation improves crossgroup interactions and enhances self-growth. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 60–71.

16

B. A. Mattingly et al.

Emery, L. F., Walsh, C., & Slotter, E. B. (2015). Knowing who you are and adding to it: Reduced selfconcept clarity predicts reduced self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 259–266. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. Finkel, E. J. (2019). Complementing the sculpting metaphor: Reflections on how relationship partners elicit the best or the worst in each other. Review of General Psychology, 23, 127–132. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 547–557. Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (2000). Relationship development in dating couples: Implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 811–825. Frost, D. M., & Forrester, C. (2013). Closeness discrepancies in romantic relationships: Implications for relational well-being, stability, and mental health. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 456–469. Frost, D. M., McClelland, S. I., & Dettmann, M. (2017). Sexual closeness discrepancies: What they are and why they matter for sexual well-being in romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 2353–2364. Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Faingataa, S. (2014). “Date nights” take two: The maintenance function of shared relationship activities. Personal Relationships, 21, 125–149. Gordon, C. L., & Luo, S. (2011). The Personal Expansion Questionnaire: Measuring one’s tendency to expand through novelty and augmentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 89–94. Gore, J. S., & Cross, S. E. (2011). Defining and measuring self-concept change. Psychological Studies, 56, 135–141. Graham, J. (2008). Self-expansion and flow in couples’ momentary experiences: An experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 679–694. Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of self and others: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430–445. Harasymchuk, C., Cloutier, A., Peetz, J., & Lebreton, J. (2017). Spicing up the relationship? The effects of relational boredom on shared activities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 833–854. Harasymchuk, C., & Fehr, B. (2013). A prototype analysis of relational boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 627–646. Hatvany, T., Burkley, E., & Curtis, J. (2018). Becoming part of me: Examining when objects, thoughts, goals, and people become fused with the self-concept. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12369. Hughes, E. K., Slotter, E. B., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (in press). Expanding who I am: Validating the self-expansion preference scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. Hui, C. M., Finkel, E. J., Fitzsimmons, G. M., Kumashiro, M., & Hofmann, W. (2014). The Manhattan effect: When relationship commitment fails to promote support for partners’ interests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 546–570. Jones, W. H., Couch, L. L., & Scott, S. (1997). Trust and betrayal: The psychology of trust violations. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 466– 482). New York, NY: Academic Press. Karremans, J. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). The role of forgiveness in shifting from “me” to “we”. Self and Identity, 7, 75–88. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Kern, M. L., Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Dziurzynski, L., Ungar, L. H., Stillwell, D. J., et al. (2014). The online social self: An open vocabulary approach to personality. Assessment, 21, 158–169.

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

17

Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2003). Stability and variability in self-concept and self-esteem. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 218–238). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something’s missing: Need fulfillment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 389–403. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Aron, A. (2002, February). The self-expansion scale: Construction and validation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, Savannah, GA. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317–331. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Bizzoco, N. M. (2007). Addition through subtraction: Growth following the dissolution of a low quality relationship. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 40–54. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Nardone, N., & Raines, A. J. (2010). The role of self-concept clarity in relationship quality. Self and Identity, 9, 416–433. Loving, T. J., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Relationships and health. In J. A. Simpson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 151–176)., Interpersonal relations Washington, DC: APA Press. Machia, L. V., Agnew, C. R., & Arraiga, X. B. (Eds.). (2020). Interdependence, interaction, and close relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337. Mashek, D. J., Aron, A., & Boncimino, M. (2003). Confusions of self with close others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 382–392. Mashek, D., Cannaday, L. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). Inclusion of community in the self scale: A single-item pictorial measure of community connectedness. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 257–275. Mashek, D., Le, B., Israel, K., & Aron, A. (2011). Wanting less closeness in romantic relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 333–345. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013a). The power of one: Benefits of individual self-expansion. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 12–22. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013b). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 12, 621–634. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2014a). Broadening horizons: Self-expansion in relational and non-relational contexts. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 30–40. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2014b). Expanding the self brick by brick: Nonrelational self-expansion and self-concept size. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 484–490. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176– 190. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Knee, C. R., & Loving, T. J. (2019). Implicit theories of relationships and self-expansion: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1579–1599. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2012). Approach motivation and expansion of the self in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 19, 113–127. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., & Selterman, D. F. (2018). Individual differences and romantic relationships: Bidirectional influences on self and relational processes. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences (Vol. 2, pp. 402–430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18

B. A. Mattingly et al.

Mattingly, B. A., Tomlinson, J. M., & McIntyre, K. P. (2020). Advances in self-expansion. In L. V. Machia, C. R. Agnew, & X. B. Arriaga (Eds.), Interdependence, interaction, and close relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McConnell, A. R. (2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 3–27. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857–878. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2017). Self-concept clarity and romantic relationships. In J. Lodi-Smith & K. DeMarree (Eds.), Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications (pp. 107–124). New York, NY: Springer. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Simpson, A. (2014). Workplace selfexpansion: Implications for job satisfaction, commitment, self-concept clarity, and self-esteem among the employed and unemployed. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 59–69. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., Xu, X., Loving, T. J., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2019). New, improved, and psychologically healthy: Examining the association between self-expansion and depression symptomology. Unpublished manuscript. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766. Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 237–258. Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal directions and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243–254. Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The Investment Model of Commitment Processes. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 218–231). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Schellenberg, B. J. I., & Bailis, D. S. (2015). Predicting longitudinal trajectories of academic passion in first-year university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 149–155. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. New York, NY: Routledge. Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R., Costabile, K. A., & Arkin, R. M. (2014). Self-expansion through fictional characters. Self and Identity, 13, 556–578. Sheets, V. L. (2014). Passion for life: Self-expansion and passionate love across the lifespan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 958–974. Shukusky, J., McIntyre, K. P., & Mattingly, B. A. (2017, November). Those who play together, stay together: Self-expansion predicts sexual satisfaction. Presentation at the 2017 annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Atlanta, GA. Simmons, R. A., Gordon, P. C., & Chambless, D. L. (2005). Pronouns in marital interaction: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health? Psychological Science, 16, 932–936. Slotter, E. B., Emery, L. F., & Luchies, L. B. (2014). Me after you: Partner influence and individual effort predict rejection of self-aspects and self-concept clarity after relationship dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 831–844. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1137–1151. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012a). The dangers of dating the bad boy (or girl): When does romantic desire encourage us to take on the negative qualities of romantic partners? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1173–1178.

1 Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change …

19

Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012b). How needing you changes me: The influence of attachment anxiety on self-concept malleability in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 11, 386–408. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160. Slotter, E. B., & Kolarova, L. (2020). Making sure you see the real me: The role of self-esteem in spontaneous self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 46–55. Slotter, E. B., & Lucas, G. M. (2013). Validating a measure of self and partner change in romantic relationships: The Perceived Change in Relationships Scale. Self and Identity, 12, 177–185. Slotter, E. B., Lucas, G. M., Jakubiak, B., & Lasslett, H. (2013). Changing me to keep you: State jealousy promotes perceiving similarity between the self and a romantic rival. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1280–1292. Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 873–882. Soulsby, L. K., & Bennett, K. M. (2017). When two become one: Exploring identity in marriage and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 358–380. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Fisher, A., Hilaire, N., & Grzybowski, M. (2015). Associations between self-expansion and actual and perceived (dis)similarity and their joint effects on attraction in initial interactions. Self and Identity, 14, 369–389. Strong, G., & Aron, A. (2006). The effect of shared participation in novel and challenging activities on experienced relationship quality: Is it mediated by high positive affect? In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 259–342). New York, NY: Guilford. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adorned or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and selfverification. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 408–448). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). The primacy of the interpersonal self. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self. New York, NY: Routledge. Tomlinson, J. M., Hughes, E. K., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., & Geyer, R. (2019). Do shared self-expanding activities have to be physically arousing? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 2781–2801. Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science, 20, 543–545. Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395. VanderDrift, L. E., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). Reduced self-expansion in current romance and interest in relationship alternatives. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 356–373. Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Self and identity (Vols. 1–4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Whisman, M. A. (2013). Relationship discord and the prevalence, incidence, and treatment of psychopathology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 163–170. Xu, X., Floyd, A. H. L., Westmaas, J. L., & Aron, A. (2010). Self-expansion and smoking abstinence. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 295–301. Xu, X., Leahey, T. M., Boguszewski, K., Krupel, K., Kent, K. A., & Wing, R. R. (2017). Selfexpansion is associated with better adherence and behavioral weight loss in adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 51, 13–17.

Chapter 2

You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators of Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change Erica B. Slotter and Erin K. Hughes

A person’s self-concept refers to their sense of identity and includes everything that a person can claim as “me” or “mine” (James, 1890). People’s self-concepts are created and maintained not only by their own personal experiences out in the world, but also by their social experiences (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002; Cooley, 1902). Although a wide variety of social others influence people’s identities, romantic partners play an especially important role in the lives of most adults, and thus in shaping how they see themselves (e.g., Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Aron & Aron, 1997; Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Evidence for the impact of romantic partners on the self is abundant in the social–psychological literature pertaining to both the self and relationships. This relationship-induced self-change can occur in the initial attraction phase of a relationship, during ongoing relationships, and when relationships end. The current chapter’s goals are to detail various impacts that close relationships, particularly romantic relationships, have on people’s identities during the early and ongoing phases of romantic relationships, to highlight motivating antecedents and moderating factors of these impacts and to discuss remaining questions and directions for future research.

E. B. Slotter (B) Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. K. Hughes Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_2

21

22

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

2.1 Relationship-Induced Self-change Initial Attraction Contexts Initial attraction is often marked by excitement, novelty, and joy. People are encountering new, potential partners to whom they are attracted. During this time, new partners exert powerful influences on people’s selves via a process called self-expansion. As described in Chap. 1, self-expansion is a process wherein people add novel attributes to their self-concept such as new knowledge, or social roles, often by taking on these novel attributes from the self-concepts of close others (Aron & Aron, 1997; Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013). Even before potential partners have ever interacted, romantic desire can drive relationship self-change via self-expansion. When presented with a potential romantic partner, simply by viewing an online dating profile, people are willing to adopt characteristics of that potential partner as part of their own self-concepts, but only when they are romantically interested in the potential partner (Slotter & Gardner, 2009, 2012a, 2012b; Slotter & Kolorova, 2020). Thus, romantic attraction appears to drive relationship-induced self-change in initial attraction contexts. This spontaneous self-expansion, occurring without the traditionally researched predictor of shared experience with a partner, is evidenced both in people’s explicit self-report ratings of the attributes they possess and also in their reaction times when deciding whether or not a particular characteristic is descriptive of them (e.g., Slotter & Gardner, 2009). People are slower to decide whether an attribute that is true of the desired partner is true of them as well compared to attributes belonging to potential partners they are not interested in, or to others who do not represent potential romantic interests. This latter finding suggests that self-expansion in initial attraction contexts is not necessarily a calculated endeavor, but more likely a natural part of the relationship initiation process that occurs without much awareness or active control. Furthermore, people will adopt novel characteristics from desired partners even when they are informed that no one will see their responses, and thus, are free from self-presentation pressures (Slotter & Kolarova, 2020). Furthermore, it also appears that people’s implicit theories about relationships also impact their self-change and relational outcomes (Mattingly, McIntyre, Knee, & Loving, 2019). Those who hold greater growth beliefs, meaning they believe relationships can change and improve, had greater relationship satisfaction. However, this was mediated by self-expansion, indicating that those who have growth beliefs may be more likely to experience relational self-change and thus have greater relational satisfaction. The same mediation was not found for those who held destiny beliefs, which is the idea that relationships either work or do not work. This suggests that one’s beliefs about relationships may impact the amount of change to one’s self-concept. Also, it seems that how attracted one is to the individual impacts their desire to take on the potential romantic partner’s characteristics. Fledgling Relationships Once a fledgling relationship develops out of initial attraction, the self-expansion process rapidly continues as partners are exposed to all the novel potential resources, perspectives, and identities that their new love interest

2 You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators …

23

brings to the table. Self-expansion in these early days of a relationship is typically attributed to the shared time, experiences, resources, and perspectives that partners expose one another to and include one another in (e.g., Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). Thus, as two people get to know each other better and develop their romantic bond, their selves are altered to be more similar to each other. This early rapid self-expansion is generally perceived as a positive process often associated with the honeymoon aspects of a relationship (Aron et al., 2013). There are many benefits of experiencing self-expansion at the beginning of a relationship for both individual and relational reasons. Incorporating the partner’s characteristics into the self-concept makes new partners more like one another and may help to bring them closer together as well as fuel the passion felt in fledgling relationships. Falling in love has also been associated with an expanded self-concept (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995). A study following undergraduate students for 10 weeks found that participants who fell in love had an increase in non-redundant terms they used to describe themselves, as well as increased self-esteem and self-efficacy. This means that not only do people gain other qualities via self-expansion, but they may also feel better about who they are and what they can accomplish. The benefits of self-concept change in the beginning of a relationship suggest the importance of examining how this type of change can be used in ongoing relationships. Established Relationships As romantic relationships progress beyond the early stages, they continue to influence people’s selves. As people discover new characteristics that current romantic partners possess, they self-expand to adopt them as part of their own identity just as they do in the early stages of relationships (Slotter & Gardner, 2009). However, this characteristic discovery type of self-expansion may slow down over time as partners know each other better, and thus there are fewer new characteristics to adopt. Unfortunately, this means that the relationship benefits of rapid self-expansion—closeness, passion, etc.—also plateau. This can be problematic for ongoing relationships as perceiving a partner as not offering many self-expansion opportunities is associated with reduced relationship satisfaction, and even an increased risk of infidelity (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006). Thankfully, a secondary pathway to self-expansion emerges during established relationships that focuses on changing the self together rather than partners adopting each other’s characteristics. Specifically, the activities that established couples engage in together can further alter and expand their self-concepts (Aron et al., 2013). When people engage in novel and exciting activities with a partner, they satisfy both the motivation to diversify their sense of self (Aron, 2003) and the motivation to draw closer to and enhance perceived similarity to their partner (e.g., Murray et al., 2002). For example, if romantic partners learn how to water-ski together, this allows for “water skier,” a new identity, to be incorporated into the already existing cognitive structure of identities. Romantic partners that engage in such self-expanding activities together are often closer than those who do not engage in these activities together (Frye, 2016). Since this is something the partners engaged in together, it also creates a connection such that they both now have this new, similar identity. By

24

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

engaging in self-expanding activities together, romantic partners can reap many benefits. One such benefit is that engaging in self-expanding activities together, in both longitudinal studies (Reissman, Aron, & Bergen, 1993) and laboratory studies (Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000), results in increased relationship satisfaction, passion, and love. Romantic partners who engage in self-expanding activities express greater feelings of sexual desire, which in turn predicts greater relationship satisfaction (Muise et al., 2019). Being close and intimate with one’s partner also allows for structural changes to the self-concept beyond simply adopting new content, or characteristics, as one’s own via self-expansion. People also create cognitive representations of themselves as members of a dyad—a relational version of themselves (i.e., Andersen & Chen, 2002; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). According to interdependence theory, people do not act solely as individuals when in a romantic relationship, but develop representations of themselves as part of a couple as well, giving rise to a construct termed cognitive interdependence (Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998). As relationships progress, partners come to see part of their self-concepts overlapping with their partner’s and vice versa. Highly committed relationship partners use more pluralistic pronouns (i.e., we, us) rather than singular pronouns (i.e., I, he, she) when describing upcoming plans, endorse greater mental overlap between partners’ self-concepts, and tend to regard the relationship as more, compared to less, central to their life (Agnew et al., 1998). This overlapping mental representation of the self and partner, which is perhaps driven by self-expansion, predicts elevated relationship quality (Lewandowski, Nardone, & Raines, 2010; Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004). Another possible driving factor to greater commitment and cognitive interdependence is relational-interdependent self-construal (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). Relational-interdependent self-construal is the idea that people often define themselves in terms of their relationships, roles, or groups. This is evident in how people with relational-interdependent self-construal will act in ways that not only connect, but also strengthen their relationships with others. Due to this, it seems plausible that individuals who understand their self-concept through others would be more likely to take on their partners’ qualities as well as change for the benefit of their relationship. Across the course of relationships, relational bonds influence people’s identities. These changes may result in benefits for both the individual and for the relationship in terms of intimacy, closeness, and longevity. Ultimately, relationships seem to be defined by how we alter, how we incorporate, and how we manage the changes we experience through relational self-concept transformation. However, these changes our selves experience depend largely on the presence of particular precursors required for self-expansion to occur and can vary based on a variety of moderators.

2 You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators …

25

2.2 Antecedents of Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change Shared Experiences, Perspectives, and Resources Early research that studied selfexpansion in ongoing relationships and other forms of relational self-change focused on the role that shared experiences play in promoting changes to people’s identities within their relationships. Indeed, early self-expansion is largely driven by the sharing of experiences, perspectives, and resources that naturally occurs in fledgling relationships as two people get to know one another (e.g., Aron, 2003; Aron et al., 2013). The more that people discover about each other, the more characteristics they adopt from their partner into their own self-concept. Even in ongoing relationships, shared experiences such as engaging in new and exciting activities as a couple should promote continued self-expansion (e.g., Aron et al. 1991). Once romantic partners have taken on each other’s characteristics and the novelty has worn off, boredom can plague the relationship. However, couples who are manipulated to recall boring experiences in their relationship are more likely to desire and plan a novel date rather than a familiar one (Harasymchuk, Cloutier, Peetz, & Lebreton, 2017). This indicates that boredom may prompt couples to engage in activities that could create self-concept change. Couples who pursue activities they both are passionate about experience strengthened relationship quality (Rapaport, Carbonneau, St. Louise, Rochette, & Vallerand, 2018). This strengthened relationship quality could possibly result in greater cognitive interdependence. Furthermore, the cognitive interdependence and relational self that arise as relationships progress are due largely to increasing dependence on a partner and greater cognitive overlap between individuals and their significant others (e.g., Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Aron et al., 1992; Andersen & Chen, 2002). Thus, shared experiences with romantic partners represent one important antecedent to relationship-induced self-change. Attachment Theory One area of relationship science that may also impact one’s relational self-concept change is attachment theory. Attachment theory, while large in scope, is often talked about as the pattern of behaviors and expectations toward others, often rooted in one’s early experiences (e.g., Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). The two underlying structures of attachment theory are avoidance and anxiety. The former represents distrust with close others while the latter represents beliefs that close others are unreliable. There are many ways in which attachment influences people’s actions and beliefs in the context of their relationships. For those who are securely attached, it is likely that they should feel comfortable getting close to their partner and thus experience the normative processes of relational self-change (Aron et al., 2013). However, those who are anxious, fearful avoidant, or dismissing avoidant may experience relational self-concept change differently. Those who are anxiously attached seem to have a more malleable self-concept (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b). This leads those individuals, in a bid for closeness with their romantic partner, to be more likely to change their self-concept. Those who are avoidantly attached are less

26

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

likely to take on their romantic partners’ qualities since they often are not as close to their romantic partner (Aron et al., 2013). Those who are fearful avoidant, meaning high in both anxiety and avoidance, do not show the normal commitment and inclusion of the other in the self result (Park et al., 2019). Fearful individuals showed lower levels of commitment despite having high inclusion of the other in the self. This indicates that despite wanting to be close to one’s partner, some individuals may not commit, thus leading to differential self-concept change for these individuals. Motivational Pathways In addition to the traditionally studied pathways to relational self-change, recent work has begun to suggest that some of the self-change that people engage in during their relationships is motivated in nature. When it comes to selfexpansion, people are motivated by both the desire to diversify their selves as well as their desire to draw closer to (or affiliate with) a partner via enhancing perceived similarity (e.g., Aron, 2003; Slotter & Gardner, 2009). People are motivated to add content to their self-concept because more diversified content provides people with a broader set of attributes for creating a meaningful sense of self. A diversified identity also protects people’s sense of self in the face of threat. If one possesses many positive characteristics, failure or other hazard to any one’s self-aspect is generally considered less distressing (e.g., Linville, 1987). Additionally, as romantic partners represent one of the primary sources of selfexpansion, people are also motivated to self-expand to adopt a partner’s characteristics because it enhances their similarity to the desired partner (e.g., Aron, 2003; Slotter & Gardner, 2009). Because similarity between romantic partners is typically perceived to benefit a relationship (e.g., LaPrelle, Hoyle, Insko, & Bernthal, 1990; Murray et al., 2002), people who are motivated to draw closer to a potential, new, or existing partner due to romantic desire are also motivated to self-expand in the interest of furthering their similarity to that partner (Slotter & Gardner, 2009, 2012a, 2012b; Slotter & Kolarova, 2020). Thus, romantic desire is essentially an affiliative motivation in which people promote their relationship by drawing closer to the partner in question. Evidence for this claim is abundant in the existing literature. Indeed, selfexpansion across all phases of relationships is generally considered beneficial for relationships, furthering feelings of closeness and satisfaction (e.g., Aron, 2003). In initial attraction contexts, spontaneous self-expansion occurs only among people who express high, compared to low, levels of romantic interest in a potential partner (e.g., Slotter & Gardner, 2009, 2012a, 2012b; Slotter & Kolarova, 2020). Furthermore, if a novel social target is presented as something other than a potential romantic partner for whom participants should feel no affiliative motive (e.g., a potential job candidate or an acquaintance from class), self-expansion does not occur (e.g., Slotter & Gardner, 2009). In ongoing relationships, learning that a current partner possesses a quality that one was not previously aware of predicts self-expansion to adopt that attribute; however, learning new information about a research confederate does not (Slotter & Gardner, 2009). For couples measured at year 16 in their marriage, excitement in one’s relationship facilitates closeness, which improves relationship satisfaction

2 You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators …

27

(Tsapelas, Aron, & Orbuch, 2009). This indicates that for even established relationships, the motivation to be close to one’s partner is still enabled by self-expanding opportunities. However, the romantic desire may not be the only form of affiliative motivation that promotes relational self-change. The affiliative motivation that romantic desire represents may actually be a more general process that promotes self-change in relational contexts beyond romantic ones. Specifically, when people’s need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) is activated by reliving an experience with social rejection from their past, people engage in spontaneous self-expansion to adopt the characteristics of others that they view as potential new friends, but not of others who are presented in non-friendship relevant contexts (e.g., a potential job candidate; Richman, Slotter, DeWall, & Gardner, 2015). Even when the desire to draw closer to another person is not romantic in nature, general affiliation can promote self-expansion to serve other social goals. It also seems possible that one’s general motivation could impact relational selfchange. It seems likely that those who have an approach, rather than an avoidance, motivation would be more likely to change. Approach motivation is described as trying to move toward positive outcomes while avoidance motivation entails evading negative outcomes (Higgins, 1998). Previous research found that, indeed, greater approach motivation is related to self-expansion as well as attracted to targets that provide self-expanding opportunities (Mattingly, McIntyre, & Lewandowski, 2012). This may indicate that those who have a global approach motivation may be more likely to take on their romantic partners’ qualities. Another social motivator that promotes relationship-induced self-change, this time also in romantic contexts, is the experience of jealousy. Jealousy is a fundamentally social human emotion that arises from the perception that another person’s presence threatens an important relational bond (e.g., Scheinkman & Werneck, 2010). Romantic jealousy, in particular, is a motivational mechanism evolved to monitor the potential of losing a romantic relationship and defend against the threat of loss (Buss & Haselton, 2005). Individuals’ behavioral responses to romantic jealousy, called mate retention tactics, are aimed at protecting their relationship and range from communication with the partner to violence aimed at the partner or perceived rival (e.g., Kaighobadi, Shackelford, & Goetz, 2009). Recent work has demonstrated that the motivation of jealousy can also promote spontaneous self-expansion as a mate retention tactic (Slotter, Lucas, Jakubiak, & Laslett, 2013). In the case of jealousy, however, people do not self-expand to adopt characteristics of their partner, but rather self-expand to adopt characteristics of a perceived romantic rival. Participants who are made to believe that their partner has expressed romantic interest in another person begin to endorse characteristics of that third party as their own, presumably because those characteristics represent something that their partner finds desirable that they do not already possess. The rationale is that by self-expanding, they become more like a rival for their partner’s affections, who likely possesses traits that their partner finds desirable. Thus, by taking on those traits they may increase their likelihood of retaining their mate’s affection. Further research is needed to determine whether this form of self-expansion

28

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

is, in fact, a successful mate retention tactic, but jealousy appears to be an additional relational motivator that promotes self-change. Taken together, the identified antecedents of relationship-induced self-change include shared time and experiences with a partner, attachment style, as well as motivational states that generally center on promoting the relationship in question. People can be motivated by the want to draw closer to, or affiliate with, both desired potential and current romantic partners. They can also be motivated by the desire to protect their relationship from perceived threats by potential rivals for their partner’s affections. Thus, both naturally occurring, passive pathways such as shared experience, as well as active, motivated pathways such as romantic desire or jealousy can promote people’s experiences of self-change in the context of their relationships.

2.3 Moderators of Relationship-Induced Self-concept Change Various factors also moderate people’s tendency to experience relationship-induced self-change during early and ongoing relationships. These factors can arise from individual, relational, or situational constraints and are largely thought to moderate people’s motivations to self-expand, either by altering their desire to diversify their self-content or by altering their desire to affiliate with a romantic partner. Moderators of Self-diversification Motivation At the individual level, general selfconcept malleability moderates the extent to which people’s selves change during all relationship phases (Slotter & Lucas, 2013). People can self-report on the extent to which they generally feel they are shaped by their romantic relationships. Perhaps unsurprisingly, greater perceptions that one is malleable in this way predict greater actual self-change in initial attraction contexts via spontaneous self-expansion, but also greater recalled self-change when reflecting on the end of a recent relationship. People’s levels of self-concept clarity while a relationship is ongoing also moderate their tendency for relationship-induced self-change. Self-concept clarity encompasses people’s subjective sense that their overall identities are clear, cohesive, and consistent over time (e.g., Campbell, 1990). Like self-expansion, high self-concept clarity is related to a host of beneficial psychological outcomes (e.g., Campbell, Assanand, & Di Paula, 2003; Lewandowski et al., 2010). When people engage in self-expansion, people not only take on new characteristics, but must also integrate their newly acquired characteristics into their self-concept in order to maintain consistency (Aron & Aron, 1997). If too many characteristics are added to the self-concept too quickly, the individual may experience a less unified and more fragile understanding of the self. Based on this premise, recent work has investigated how self-concept clarity might moderate people’s willingness to engage in self-change, specifically self-expansion, in both relational and non-relational contexts (Emery, Walsh, & Slotter, 2015). Generally, less self-concept clarity should be

2 You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators …

29

related to less self-expansion as adding more content to an already unstable sense of identity might further cloud people’s views of themselves. The data supported this prediction. At the individual level, dispositional self-concept clarity was correlated with self-expansion, with lower self-concept clarity being associated with less self-expansion. Additionally, situationally reduced self-concept clarity (i.e., asking participants to think about attributes that they possess that conflict with each other) also predicted less self-expansion, including initial attraction contexts. Thus, being unsure of who one is might lessen the motivation to add to who one is. Moderators of Romantic Desire/Affiliation Motivation Those who experience high levels of attachment anxiety also have especially malleable self-concepts in their relationships in general (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Slotter & Gardner, 2012b). Elevated attachment anxiety predicts greater self-change in initial attraction contexts and while the relationship is ongoing in the form of a greater propensity for self-expansion. Additionally, elevated attachment anxiety is associated with greater recalled self-change after the end of a relationship as well as greater post-relationship reductions in self-concept clarity (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b). Presumably, the moderating influence of attachment anxiety is based on the heightened motivation of people high on this construct to affiliate or draw closer to their romantic partners. It essentially represents a heightened state of the romantic desire that is an established driving force behind self-expansion. People who are high in attachment anxiety are highly dependent upon their relationships, and thus strongly motivated to maintain them (e.g., Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2003). As such, they are especially motivated to engage in the self-expansion endeavors that confer benefits in ongoing relationships and are especially impacted if the relationships that they are so dependent upon come to an end. At the relational level, higher levels of commitment to an ongoing relationship predict greater perceptions by individuals that their romantic relationships have changed them, including a greater endorsement of the cognitive independence discussed previously (e.g., Agnew et al., 1998), as well as perceptions that their identity would change to a greater extent should the current relationship end (Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). Thus, commitment, like attachment anxiety, appears to enhance the experience of relationship-induced self-change. Commitment may actually function as an enhancer of the romantic desire or affiliation motivation, discussed previously, that drives relationship-induced self-change. Psychological commitment is considered an index of dependence on a relationship (e.g., Rusbult, 1983); thus, higher levels of commitment should represent a greater desire to remain in an ongoing relationship, which is essentially a heightened affiliative motivation. Thus, commitment heightens people’s propensity to engage in self-expansion in their relationships, presumably because of the higher romantic desire motivation that it represents. Greater commitment to an ongoing relationship also predicts greater use of first-person plural, versus singular, pronouns as well as greater perceptions of mental overlap between the self and the partner. Thus, it seems that higher levels of commitment not only increase the propensity for relationship-induced self-change via self-content

30

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

processes like self-expansion, but also through other self-processes like enhanced relational self-representations and cognitive interdependence. Taken together, several moderators of relationship-induced self-change have emerged from empirical research. Some moderators, such as self-concept malleability or self-concept clarity, appear to drive effects primarily through people’s motivation to diversify and alter their self-content. Other moderators, such as attachment anxiety or commitment, appear to function by increasing or decreasing people’s motivation to self-expand due to romantic desire or affiliation. The presently reviewed literature certainly does not represent an exhaustive list of all potential moderators of relational self-change; however, it does detail the known moderators to date.

2.4 Directions for Future Research and Unresolved Questions Additional Antecedents Despite the research focused on antecedents to self-concept change, there are still various avenues that would benefit from further exploration. One, largely unresearched, possible antecedent for self-concept change is whether naturally occurring similarity positively or negatively impacts this motivation. Previous research has found that similarity breeds attraction (Byrne, 1961). However, in the context of self-expansion, this feature of the romantic relationship literature has been called into question. In particular, previous research has examined whether similarity would allow for less opportunity for self-concept change. When people were made to think that the possibility of a relationship was uncertain, similarity did positively affect liking (Aron, Steele, Kashdan, & Perez, 2006). However, when a relationship was certain, the effect was reduced. However, the study did not include a measure of perceived self-expansion. To further examine this link, participants in another study rated perceived similarity, perceived self-expansion and attractiveness (Sprecher, Treger, Fisher, Hilaire, & Grzybowski, 2015). Perceived similarity was positively associated with attraction, with perceived self-expansion mediating the relationship. This means that believing someone is similar to you allows you to notice self-expanding opportunities, which then increases attractiveness. However, most of the dyads in this study were friendship-based dyads, and attractiveness was measured as how much one liked the other person. Further research could disentangle the link between similarity and self-concept change moving forward to gain a better understanding of a more complex relationship than people seemingly thought. Additional Moderators There are many different variables that either extenuate or attenuate self-concept change within a relationship, however the list of identified moderators is far from exhaustive. Of course, there is a multitude of potential moderators worth investigating. However, one particular moderator that could use further development is partner support for self-concept change. Many of the studies on self-expansion (Aron et al., 2013), motivation (Slotter & Gardner, 2009), and cognitive interdependence (Agnew et al., 1998) have examined self-concept change as

2 You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators …

31

a function of the relationship. Future research should consider seeing how partners supporting self-concept change impacts the desire and ability to do so. One study examined how active and passive support for self-expansion impacted relationship satisfaction (Fivecoat, Tomlinson, Aron, & Caprariello, 2014). Participants were randomly assigned to either do a stressful task or a self-expanding task and received either passive or active support via the computer from their “partner.” The experimenter was sending the messages to the participant engaging in the task. For longer-term relationships, receiving what participants believed to be active support from their partner during a self-expanding task increased relationship satisfaction. This indicates that type of support may impact whether we pursue activities that can change our self-concept. It would be important to understand how partner support can moderate self-concept change, especially in both positively and negatively valenced changes. Valence of Relationally-Induced Self-change Traditionally, self-change in romantic relationships has been viewed as a constructive endeavor, and most of the existing research examined the positive impacts of relationships on people’s identities. Indeed, self-expanding relationships are generally perceived as more satisfying by partners (e.g., Aron et al., 1991), and individuals who feel that their relationship is not providing them with self-expansion opportunities are more likely be unfaithful or even to end their relationship (Tashiro, Frazier, & Berman, 2006). However, recently, Mattingly and colleagues have proposed a theoretical model, detailed in Chap. 1, in which romantic partners can alter the content of individuals’ selves by subtracting, as well adding content, and the content can be negative as well as positive (Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014). Related work of theirs demonstrates that the addition of positive content and subtraction of negative content are generally related to better relationship functioning, whereas the loss of positive content and addition of negative content were related to worse functioning (McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2015). This model is thought to guide self-change in both initial attraction contexts and ongoing relationships. Empirical work has demonstrated that individuals can be motivated to change themselves in negative ways due to their relationship (Slotter & Gardner, 2012a). The notion that people alter their self-concept in unflattering ways seems counterintuitive given research showing that people seek generally positive views of themselves (e.g., Alicke & Sedikides, 2009). Although people generally want others to affirm them as worthy and lovable, they also want others to see them accurately (e.g., Swann, Hixon, & De La Ronde, 1992; Kwang & Swann, 2010), especially in close relationships. When motivated by romantic desire, people are willing to self-expand—or, technically self-adulterate—to adopt negative characteristics of a desired partner as their own (Slotter & Gardner, 2012a; Slotter & Kolarova, 2020). However, this only occurs when the characteristic is something that is likely to remain true of the desired partner—representing a stable characteristic on which individuals enhance similarity with the partner—and is moderately, but not severely, negative in valence—representing a negative addition to the self that will not necessarily make one a less

32

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

desirable partner (Slotter & Gardner, 2012a). Furthermore, this tendency seems to be moderated by people’s dispositional, global self-esteem. This type of self-esteem refers to the value that people place upon themselves and the positivity they generally ascribe to themselves as a stable tendency (e.g., James, 1890). Generally, high levels of self-esteem are associated with having more positive views and endorsing more positive characteristics, of the self, whereas lower self-esteem is associated with more self-related negativity. In initial attraction contexts, people who are higher in self-esteem tend to self-expand to take on more positive, compared to negative, characteristics. In contrast, people who are lower in self-esteem self-expand to take on more negative, compared to positive, characteristics from a desired potential romantic partner (Slotter & Kolarova, 2020). This tendency is, as always, dependent upon people’s motivating romantic desire for the love interest in question. Long-Term Consequences for Identity Another important unanswered question for future work is how relationship-induced identity changes affect us in the long run. For example, no existing research has examined whether the changes people experience in the controlled laboratory settings that examine spontaneous self-expansion in initial attraction contexts carry over into participants’ lives after they leave the laboratory. Additionally, as previously stated, the majority of the research on self-concept change has either examined prospective partners (Slotter & Gardner, 2012a), early-stage relationships (Aron et al., 1995), or ongoing relationships but only up until a point (Aron et al., 2000). In some self-expansion literature, an exclusion criterion for couples has been that they are together for no more than 15 years (Aron et al., 2000; Tomlinson, Hughes, Lewandowski, Aron, & Geyer, 2018). The reasons for this are that older couples may not be able to engage in certain physical manipulations as well as that the majority of identity changes occur toward the beginning of a relationship. It is also why we see a decline in self-expansion engagement as relationships continue. Due to this gap, it would be important to examine how self-concept change plays a role later on in relationships. Awareness of Relationship-Induced Self-change James (1890) described the selfconcept in terms of the “I,” the self who knows who one is and the “me,” as the description of one’s experiences. In this sense, it is possible to have awareness of one’s self-concept change; however, it is unclear how aware people really are of the ways that their relationships impact their identities. For example, research on spontaneous self-expansion in initial attraction contexts has demonstrated that people still adopt the characteristics of desired partners even when they believe the partner will never see their responses; however, the effects are stronger when people believe the desired partner will be made aware of their responses regarding attribute adoption (e.g., Richman et al., 2015; Slotter & Kolarova, 2020). Thus, self-presentation concerns, while not entirely accounting for spontaneous self-expansion, do strengthen people’s tendency to engage in it, suggesting some level of awareness of the benefits of the process. Furthermore, measurement of self-expansion has incorporated both explicit self-rating and implicit reaction time-based tasks (e.g., Aron et al., 1991; Slotter & Gardner, 2009) and found evidence for self-expansion using both approaches. The ability to detect the adoption of novel characteristics via reaction time-based

2 You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators …

33

measures suggests that self-expansion may not be something that people are entirely aware, or in control of. However, the precise extent of people’s awareness and ability to manage their relational self-change is a largely unexplored area for future research to investigate.

2.5 Conclusion In conclusion, our romantic relationships shape our self-concepts through various processes, including self-expansion and cognitive interdependence (e.g., Aron, 2003; Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006). This process of self-concept change can occur from instances of initial attraction through relationship dissolution. There are certain antecedents to relational self-concept change including sharing mutual experiences (Aron & Aron, 2003) and motivational pathways such as romantic desire (Slotter & Gardner, 2009) and jealousy (Slotter et al., 2013). These instances afford the opportunity for self-concept change. There are also moderators that impact willingness to change, such as self-concept malleability (Slotter & Lucas, 2013), self-concept clarity (Emery et al., 2015), and attachment style (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b). Despite the research that has been done, there are still gaps in the literature such as how partner support for self-concept change impacts these processes as well as the valence of these changes. Moving forward, it is important to further examine these diverse processes to better understand relationship developments and outcomes.

References Agnew, C. R., & Etcheverry, P. E. (2006). Cognitive interdependence considering self-inrelationships. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 274–293). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. Alicke, M., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 1–48. Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619. Aron, A. (2003). Self and close relationships. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 442–461). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345–368. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.

34

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Mashek, D., Jr., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112. Aron, A., Steele, J. L., Kashdan, T. B., & Perez, M. (2006). When similar do not attract: Tests of a prediction from the self-expansion model. Personal Relationships, 13, 387–396. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 193–281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 506–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.006. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044721. Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.3.538. Campbell, J. D., Assanand, S., & Di Paula, A. D. (2003). The structure of the self-concept and its relation to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 115–140. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1467-6494.t01-1-0002. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808. https://doi.org/10. 1037//0022-3514.78.4.791. Emery, L. F., Walsh, C., & Slotter, E. B. (2015). Knowing who you are and adding to it: Reduced selfconcept clarity predicts reduced self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614555029. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 546–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262852. Fivecoat, H. C., Tomlinson, J. M., Aron, A., & Caprariello, P. A. (2014). Partner support for individual self-expansion opportunities: Effects on relationship satisfaction in long-term couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514533767. Frye, N. E. (2016). “Let’s do what together?” Shared activity perceptions and relationship closeness. Leaisure Sciences, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2016.1240052. Harasymchuk, C., Cloutier, A., Peetz, J., & Lebreton, J. (2017). Spicing up the relationship? The effects of relational boredom on shared activities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 833–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516660216. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kaighobadi, F., Schackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder: Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men’s partner-directed violence. Review of General Psychology, 13, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017254. Kwang, T., & Swann, W. B. (2010). Do people embrace praise even when they feel unworthy? A review of critical tests of self-enhancement versus self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310365876.

2 You Complete Me: Antecedents and Moderators …

35

LaPrelle, J., Hoyle, R. H., Insko, C. A., & Bernthal, P. (1990). Interpersonal attraction and descriptions of the traits of others: Ideal similarity, self similarity, and liking. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 216–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(90)90018-2. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something’s missing: Need fulfillment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 389–403. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Nardone, N., & Raines, A. J. (2010). The role of self-concept clarity in relationship quality. Self and Identity, 9, 416–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860903332191. Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.52.4.663. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176– 190. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12025. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Knee, C. R., & Loving, T. J. (2019). Implicit theories of relationships and self-expansion: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1579–1599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518768079. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2012). Approach motivation and the expansion of self in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 19, 113–127. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01343.x. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514553334. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 237–258. https:// doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000148. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 563–575. Park, Y., Debrot, A., Spielmann, S. S., Joel, S., Impett, E., & MacDonald, G. (2019). Distinguishing dismissing from fearful attachment in the association between closeness and commitment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1948550618768823. Rapaport, M., Carbonneau, N., St-Louise, A. C., Rochette, S., & Vallerand, R. J. (2018). More than shared love: Does sharing a passionate activity with a romantic partner strengthen the relationship? International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 2, 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042018-0012-8. Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243–254. Richman, S. B., Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & DeWall, C. N. (2015). Reaching out by changing what’s within: Social exclusion increases self-concept malleability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 64–77. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117. Scheinkman, M., & Werneck, D. (2010). Disarming jealousy in couples relationships: A multidimensional approach. Family Process, 49, 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010. 01335.x.

36

E. B. Slotter and E. K. Hughes

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133–161. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. (2009). Where do you and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1137–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013882. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012a). The dangers of dating the “bad boy” (or girl): Romantic desire encourages the adoption of even negative qualities of potential partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1173–1178. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012b). How needing you changes me: The influence of attachment anxiety on self-concept malleability in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 11, 386–408. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0146167209352250. Slotter, E. B., & Lucas, G. M. (2013). Validating a scale of self and partner change in romantic relationships: The Perceived Change in Relationships Scale. Self and Identity, 12, 177–185. Slotter, E. B., Lucas, G. M., Jakubiak, B., & Lasslett, H. (2013). Changing me to keep you: State jealousy promotes perceiving similarity between the self and a romantic rival. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1280–1292. Slotter, E. B., & Kolarova, L. (2020). Making sure you see the real me: The role of self-esteem in spontaneous self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 46–55. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Fisher, A., Hilaire, N., & Grzybowski, M. (2015). Associations between self-expansion and actual and perceived (dis)similarity on attraction in initial interactions. Self and Identity, 14, 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2014.1003592. Swann, W. B., Hixon, J. G., & De La Ronde, C. (1992). Embracing the bitter “truth”: Negative self-concepts and marital commitment. Psychological Science, 3, 118–121. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00010.x. Tashiro, T., Frazier, P., & Berman, M. (2006). Stress-related growth following divorce and relationship dissolution. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 361–384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Tomlinson, J. M., Hughes, E. K., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., & Geyer, R. (2018). Do shared self-expanding activities have to be physically arousing? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518801095. Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science, 20, 543–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02332.x.

Chapter 3

Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance Process on Changes in People’s Self-concept, How People Feel About Themselves, and How People Feel About Others Susan Sprecher

In today’s highly networked and Internet-connected world, people self-disclose to and receive self-disclosure from many others who are strangers or casual acquaintances. Some of these interactions develop into friendships or romantic relationships, whereas others are fleeting acquaintanceships that nonetheless still help meet the human need of belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Fingerman, 2009). Selfdisclosure at the zero-level acquaintance stage, similar to self-disclosure in developed stages of relationships, can have implications for people’s self-concepts. Through the self-disclosure that occurs in the process of becoming acquainted with another, people can experience change in the content of their self-concept, their overall evaluation of the self (self-esteem), and in how they view themselves vis-a-vis the others. In this chapter, the role of self-disclosure in leading to self-changes during the acquaintanceship stage will be discussed. Disclosure-induced self-concept change at the gettingacquainted stage can occur in both face-to-face settings and online settings including in communication to multiple others (e.g., Internet dating profiles). Implications of disclosure for self-changes in both settings are discussed in this chapter.

3.1 What Is Self-disclosure? Self-disclosure is the process of revealing personal information to others and is an important element for becoming acquainted and developing intimacy (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Finkenauer, Kerkhof, S. Sprecher (B) Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_3

37

38

S. Sprecher

& Pronk, 2018). Most self-disclosure theorists also refer to it as intentional (vs. unintentional) and verbal (vs. nonverbal) revelation of personal information (Dindia, 2000). Self-disclosure varies in content and includes both descriptive self-disclosure (which consists of facts about oneself) and evaluative self-disclosure (which refers to feelings and opinions). Self-disclosure generally tends to grow gradually in the acquaintance process, as noted in several theoretical models. For example, according to the social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), at the beginning of relationships, people typically talk about only a few topics and superficially. As relationships develop, however, self-disclosure increases in both breadth (number of topics discussed) and depth (intimacy level of topics discussed). Greater breadth and depth of self-disclosure are associated with increases in attraction, closeness, and intimacy (Collins & Miller, 1994; Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004). Furthermore, there are two sides or roles to self-disclosure, and either side of selfdisclosure can induce a change in an aspect of the self, including self-concept and self-esteem. First, there is the process of self-disclosing, or being in the disclosure role. The process of self-disclosing to others, regardless of whether it occurs in a dyadic, face-to-face context or in an asynchronous context such as online dating profiles with many others as the recipients, can lead to changes in one’s self-views. How others respond to one’s disclosures can also influence change in one’s self-views (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). The other role in the self-disclosure process is being the self-disclosure recipient. Information received from others through their disclosures, and regardless of context (e.g., dyadic and faceto-face vs. one-to-many and online), can be particularly influential in changing one’s self-views. The next section considers what views of the self change as a result of self-disclosure in initial interactions with strangers and includes speculation about how self-disclosure facilitates these changes.

3.2 What Views of the Self Change as a Result of Self-disclosure in Early Interactions? Most theory and research on relationship-induced self-concept change has focused on relationships beyond the initiation stage (e.g., McIntyre, Mattingly, and Lewandowski, 2015). A smaller amount of scholarship has focused specifically on how self-views change in the earliest stage of relationship development. This is the stage, however, when self-disclosure is likely to be the most intense because two people are getting to know each other for the first time. The self-expansion model (Aron & Aron, 1986)—the major theory on relationship-induced self-concept change—argues that self-concept change (and self-expansion, more specifically) will be greatest at the beginning of a relationship. The main principle of this theory is that as two people develop their relationship, they incorporate the perspectives and characteristics of each other into their self-definition (Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996). Furthermore, the

3 Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance …

39

main way that people learn about the perspectives and characteristics of others is through their self-disclosure. The first study that most directly examined how self-views change with the start of a relationship was conducted by Aron, Paris, and Aron (1995), who focused specifically on how elements of the self change when falling in love, which is the period during which self-disclosure is likely to be high and intimate. Aron et al. had students complete surveys five times, for a ten-week period. In the survey, participants were asked, “Who are you today?” and were given three minutes to list as many words and phrases as they could, which were later coded for different content areas. The researchers found that those who fell in love over the ten-week period of the study, relative to those who did not fall in love, had greater increases in the number of and diversity in content domains of the self-concept. In a follow-up study, Aron et al. found that those who fell in love during the period of the longitudinal study had greater increases in self-esteem and general self-efficacy than did those who did not fall in love. This research, then, indicates that self-concept complexity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy increase in the process of falling in love, when self-disclosure levels are often high. The process of becoming acquainted with another through intense self-disclosure, including receiving affirmation from the other, can lead to these enhanced feelings and beliefs about the self. Self-expansion and change in other aspects of the self can also occur from the development of nonromantic relationships. The influence that new friendships can have on spontaneous self-concept in the first few months of college was examined in a recent study (Gore & Tichenor, 2018). At Wave 1 of the study, college freshmen in the first eight weeks of college completed the Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) and other items to measure their spontaneous self-concept. Participants also rated the closeness [including Aron, Aron, and Smollan’s (1992) Inclusion of Other in Self Scale, to be further discussed below] that they experienced for several relationships, including new friends (e.g., roommate, a close friend made in college). Then, at Wave 2, which was conducted eight weeks later, participants were given their prior responses to the self-concept measures and asked to add statements that they believed were relevant to their current self-concept (and delete any items no longer relevant). The researchers found that the participants’ closeness to new relationships in college was associated positively with the experience of selfexpansion. Although self-disclosure was not measured in this study, the implication is that the self-disclosure that occurs in the process of becoming close to a new friend enhances self-expansion. The above studies (Aron et al., 1995; Gore & Tichenor, 2018) suggest that there is self-concept expansion at the start of a relationship (which is also when selfdisclosure is highest). This prior research, however, did not investigate whether the specific self-changes were in the direction of becoming similar to the other. Other research, though, suggests that the self-concept can change at the start of a relationship through the incorporation of specific traits of other into one’s self-concept. For example, when people view the profile disclosures from an attractive other, they incorporate characteristics of the other into the self (Slotter & Gardner, 2009). This

40

S. Sprecher

research will be described in more detail in a section below that discusses self-change that occurs based on self-disclosure through Internet dating profiles. In early acquaintanceship, when there is generally a high level of reciprocal selfdisclosure (Altman & Taylor, 1973), the self may change in ways that increase similarity to the other beyond incorporating specific traits of the other. In particular, the other can become part of the self. The main principle of the self-expansion model (Aron & Aron, 1986) is the “inclusion-of-other-in-the-self.” The model argues that people incorporate the resources, perspectives, attitudes, and identities of the other into the self, a self-expansion process that is described in the following way: “the content of the cognitive structure of the self literally overlaps with that of a close other” (Acevedo, Xu, Lewandowski, & Aron, 2017, p. 247). Similarly, according to interdependence theory, cognitive interdependence occurs in the development of a relationship, such that (potential) close others restructure their self-concepts and begin to view themselves and the other as a collective unit (Agnew, Loving, Le, & Goodfriend, 2004; Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998). To measure self-other overlap (and closeness), Aron et al. (1992) created a singleitem pictorial measure, the Inclusion of Other in Self (IOS) scale. The IOS scale has seven pairs of circles representing self and other that overlap to varying degrees. Therefore, this item can measure in a global way the degree to which the partner is perceived to be part of the self. Although the item has been used in several studies with existing relationships (e.g., Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), it is also a measure of closeness and self-other overlap experienced in initial interactions in gettingacquainted pairs (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator, 1997; Sprecher, Treger, & Wondra, 2012). As will be further discussed in a section below, strangers who have the opportunity to self-disclose in an initial interaction have an increase in their selfother overlap (i.e., closeness), as measured by the IOS scale. In a study that examined how people interpret the overlapping circles of the IOS scale, Aron et al. found that people reported that the overlapping circles represent all of the following and more: closeness, including the other in self, the self being included in the other, and expanding the self through the relationship (see also Helgeson & Van Vleet, 2019). Although Aron et al. did not directly address the role of self-disclosure, the selfdisclosure process is what is likely to create the self-other overlap. Incorporating the other into one’s self-concept is made possible through the reciprocal self-disclosure process. People’s views of self can change in additional ways at the start of a relationship. One content area of the self-concept is one’s social roles and identities (e.g., daughter, partner). At the beginning of a relationship, people’s spontaneous self-concepts are likely to change to include the new social role of being a relational partner. The degree to which this occurs may depend not only on the level and content of self-disclosure in the nascent relationship but also on the degree to which social network members disclose their positive reactions to the relationship (Lewis, 1973). However, network members’ willingness to disclose their reactions to a relationship would likely depend on the disclosure of the relational partners to their network about the relationship (Agnew, Loving, & Drigotas, 2001).

3 Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance …

41

3.3 What Motivates Self-change Early in the Relationship? There may be several reasons that people are motivated to change their self-concept at the beginning of a relationship and more specifically in response to the selfdisclosure that occurs in the process of becoming acquainted. According to selfexpansion theory (Aron & Aron, 1986), people are motivated to expand the self in order to achieve future potential goals. The theory further states that the best way to expand the self—and more specifically to acquire new perspectives, social statuses, identities, knowledge, resources, and so forth—is through relationships with others. As noted above, a related but distinct motive (referred to as a principle in the SelfExpansion model) is to incorporate aspects of the other into the self. It is defined more specifically as “integrating, to some extent, other’s resources, perspectives, and characteristics into the self” whereby “the self is therefore expanded” (Aron et al., 1995, p. 1103). This process of including the other in the self can occur because of the motivation for self-expansion. However, the process of including the other in the self may occur for other reasons as well. In particular, the motivation to become close to another can lead individuals to include the attributes of the other into one’s self-concept (Richman, Slotter, Gardner, & De Wall, 2015; Slotter & Gardner, 2009, 2012a). Relatedly, incorporating the other’s attributes into one’s self-concept, even before meeting the other, can occur in order to increase perceived similarity, which can be an important goal for a developing relationship (Slotter & Gardner, 2009). People may also desire to change their self-concept to be similar to a new acquaintance because of a prior rejection. In research on social exclusion (Richman et al., 2015), people who have been recently socially excluded tried to enhance a social connection with a new potential acquaintance by molding the self to be similar to the other referred to as exclusion-induced self-concept malleability. These motives for self-change early in the relationship may affect the type of disclosure made and the questions that are asked to solicit certain types of self-disclosure, through a reciprocal process. Although many factors may motivate self-change at the start of a relationship, there are also factors that decrease the motivation for self-change. Research on selfconcept clarity suggests that people with a low self-concept clarity—who do not have a clear and coherent sense of self—may find self-expansion and the inclusion of the new traits of another into one’s self-concept to be risky (Emery, Walsh, & Slotter, 2015). Relatedly, such people may find self-disclosure in the initial interaction to be risky.

3.4 Research Evidence of Self-concept Change from Self-disclosure in Initial Interactions According to social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), self-disclosure is the key ingredient to the development of a relationship. A relationship develops

42

S. Sprecher

through the “gradual overlapping and exploration of their mutual selves by parties to a relationship” (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 15). Although this theory predicts that self-disclosure is a gradual process, increasing in both depth (intimacy) and breadth (number of topics) as the relationship develops, other theories predict that high levels of self-disclosure can occur early in the relationship (as summarized in Derlega, Winstead, & Greene, 2008). For example, according to Berg and McQuinn’s (1986) “clicking model,” people can make an assessment soon after they meet another about whether that person could be a potential friend or partner. If the other is assessed as a potential close other, certain relationship behaviors (including self-disclosure) may be accelerated. Another related theory (Derlega et al., 2008) is predicted outcome value theory (Sunnafrank, 1986), which states that people predict the potential outcomes (rewards vs. costs) of a potential relationship with another, and this projected outcome will determine the amount of early self-disclosure (e.g., Sunnafrank & Ramirez, 2004). Thus, self-change due to self-disclosure with a potential close other can occur very early in the relationship, even in first interactions in response to intense “clicking” and/or to the prediction of a future rewarding relationship. Self-change induced from early self-disclosure in a potential relationship is difficult to study in natural settings. However, researchers have studied aspects of selfchange using a structured self-disclosure task for developing temporary closeness between strangers. Most notably, Aron et al. (1997) developed a procedure for developing closeness and interconnection in getting-acquainted dyads in a laboratory or classroom setting. The procedure involves several self-disclosure topics divided into three sets that escalate in intimacy and personalism. The first set contains questions such as, “Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?” and “What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?” Questions in the second set include, “If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future, or anything else, what would want to know?” and “What does friendship mean to you?” Finally, the third set contains the most intimate questions including, “If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know” and “What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?” As evidence of the validity of the closeness-generating task, Aron et al. (1997; Study 1) found that student dyads who were randomly assigned to engage in the closeness-inducing task reported higher scores on Aron et al.’s (1992) IOS scale and another measure of closeness than did dyads randomly assigned to engage in a procedure that mimicked small talk. The small talk task was also divided into three sets, with such questions as: “Describe the last pet you owned,” “What did you do this past summer?,” and “What foreign country would you most likely to visit and what attracts you to this place?” Other self-disclosure tasks have also been developed for the purpose of generating closeness between strangers via self-disclosure in a laboratory setting. For example, Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, and Elliot (1999) created a structured closenessinducing task for laboratory research that involves three lists of reciprocal and escalating topics of self-disclosure. Example items in their closeness task include: “What do you think you might major in?” (Set 1), “What is one thing happening in your life

3 Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance …

43

that makes you stressed out?” (Set 2), and “What is your happiest early childhood memory?” (Set 3). With my students, I have conducted several studies to examine the get-acquainted process between strangers in a laboratory setting. Most of the studies involved a structured closeness-generating task that combined disclosure topics from Aron et al.’s (1997) and Sedikides et al.’s (1999) procedures. Among the dependent variables completed by the participants after the interaction was Aron et al.’s (1992) IOS scale. Therefore, the research provides insight into how self-other overlap (and other affiliative outcomes, such as closeness) change in early interaction that is characterized by intense self-disclosure. In our first social interaction study (Sprecher et al., 2012), differential effects were examined of the two sides of self-disclosure (giving/disclosing vs. receiving/listening) on various reactions to the interaction, which included self-other overlap, closeness, and other positive outcomes. One member of each dyad was randomly assigned to the disclosure role for a first 12-min segment, and therefore, the other member of the dyad was automatically placed in the recipient role. The two participants in each dyad then switched roles in a second (12-min) interaction. The interactions occurred over Skype from two different university rooms, and the pair members could see and hear each other over a webcam. After each of the interactions, the participants provided their reactions to each other and the interaction, including completing the IOS (Aron et al., 1992). In the reaction measures completed after the first segment of interaction, participants in the recipient role of disclosure reported greater self-other overlap (i.e., closeness) and other outcomes (such as liking) than did participants in the discloser role. After the dyad members switched roles in the second segment of interaction, the differences diminished although did not disappear completely. Initial disclosers who became recipients experienced moderate-size increases in their reaction scores, which included scores on the IOS scale, whereas the increase was smaller for those in the initial recipient role who then became disclosers. Although both sides of self-disclosure (giving and receiving)—as manifested in a structured self-disclosure task—can lead to greater self-other overlap and closeness more generally, the process of receiving disclosure leads to knowledge and information-based familiarity of the other, which may be the essence to the development of a close relationship and self-other overlap more specifically. In a second study on the get-acquainting process (Sprecher, Treger, Wondra, Hilaire, & Wallpe, 2013), we manipulated whether the stranger–stranger dyads engaged in the structured self-disclosure task in an immediate turn-taking way [similar to how the closeness induction tasks were designed (e.g., Aron et al., 1997) and how they are used in most studies] or as sequential self-disclosure (similar to Sprecher et al., 2012). We found that the dyads who engaged in (immediate) turn-taking reciprocity had a higher score on a composite measure of closeness and other affiliative outcome measures that included Aron et al.’s IOS scale than did the dyads who engaged in extended (sequential) reciprocity. Furthermore, in a subsequent study (Sprecher & Treger, 2015) that was conducted in a similar way, we found that perceived responsiveness, enjoyment of the interaction, and perception of

44

S. Sprecher

being liked each uniquely mediated the effect of the pattern of reciprocity (immediate vs. extended) on an index of attraction that included the IOS scale and other affiliative outcomes. These results suggest that immediate reciprocity (turn-taking self-disclosure), characteristic of the original closeness-inducing task (Aron et al., 1997), is more conducive to generating self-other overlap and other affiliative outcomes than is a modification of it that includes taking longer turns at self-disclosure. However, when there are long turns in self-disclosure in the get-acquainted process, the receipt of self-disclosure leads to greater perceptions of self-other overlap than the giving of self-disclosure. In the get-acquainted process, people are likely to experience more self-other overlap as the interaction continues. In one social interaction study (Sprecher, 2014), dyads were randomly assigned to engage in the structured self-disclosure task over Skype for either 6 min or 12 min. Results indicated that dyads in the 12-min condition had higher scores on a composite index that included the IOS scale than did the dyads in the 6-min interaction. Further, evidence that the length of the structured self-disclosure task engaged in during initial interaction affects perceptions of selfother overlap and other reactions comes from a study by Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel (2011). Reis et al. randomly assigned stranger–stranger dyads to discuss either two or six topics [from the Aron et al. (1997) and the Sedikides et al. (1999) closeness-generating tasks], with each topic discussed by each dyad member for 30 s (thus, the procedure lasted 2 min or 6 min). Dyads in the six-topic condition had higher scores on a composite measure of attraction [which included the Aron et al. (1992) IOS Scale as an item of closeness] and partner responsiveness than the dyads in the two-topic condition. Furthermore, in studies in which the IOS scale and other measures of affiliative outcomes have been administered multiple times across a getting-acquainted interaction—such as after each segment of interaction— scores on interconnectedness (including Aron et al.’s IOS Scale) have been found to significantly increase over the segments of the interaction (e.g., Lundy & Drouin, 2016; Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008; Sprecher et al., 2012, 2013). Thus, the degree to which the other is included in the self is found to increase with more interaction, even within the initial acquaintance process. Evidence also indicates that people report self-expansion after an initial, getacquainted interaction that involves high levels of self-disclosure. In a social interaction study which focused on the effect of similarity, we assessed the degree of self-expansion experienced after dyads became acquainted (Sprecher, Treger, Fisher, Hilaire, & Grzybowski, 2015). The dyads interacted for 15 min and were randomly assigned to either discuss political views (it was just prior to a US President Election), leisure interests, or were a control group (discussing any topics) to become acquainted. Among the reaction measures to the interaction were measures of selfexpansion, both experienced during the brief interaction and forecasted if they were to become friends. Overall, the participants reported a moderate degree of both selfexpansion in the interaction and self-expansion forecasted for the future. Greater attraction to the other was associated with greater perceived self-expansion, both in the interaction and forecasted. The perception of being similar to the other was

3 Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance …

45

also associated with perceived self-expansion (see also Hampton, Fisher Boyd, & Sprecher, 2019).

3.5 Self-change Through Self-disclosure in Internet Dating Profiles Many relationships begin in face-to-face settings (Sassler & Miller, 2015). However, increasingly, people are meeting online, such as through internet dating services (Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, & Sprecher, 2012; Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). Although there are many different types of online dating services, most involve the relationship-seekers creating profiles about themselves that they know will be viewed and evaluated by others, while they simultaneously view the profile disclosures of others. Thus, disclosure (through the online profiles) is asynchronous and one-tomany. Once mutual interest is expressed by two members of a dating service based on what they learn about each other through disclosures in their dating profiles, what follows is typically personal, one-to-one, text-based communication through the website’s communication service before there is an initial face-to-face meeting (Finkel et al., 2012). A person’s self-concept (and self-esteem) may change based on all stages of the process—viewing a prospective match’s disclosures in a dating profile, creating a dating profile, and then communicating in the text-based system of the dating website. Unlike the process of self-disclosure in initial face-to-face meetings, where selfdisclosure is typically gradual in both depth and breadth (Altman & Taylor, 1973), dating profiles posted online allow considerable information to be revealed, particularly in breadth of self-disclosure. The posting of a dating profile to other members of a dating site involves features such as disclosure to many simultaneously (Joinson, Reips, Buchanan, & Paine Schofield, 2010) and the affordances of asynchronicity and editability which give the discloser time to think about what to disclose and the ability to refine it (Toma & D’Angelo, 2017). Through their disclosures in a dating profile, people can maximize the salience of desirable attributes and minimize the salience of undesirable attributes of self (de Vries, 2016) as a way to make the self more attractive to others. This information, revealed and read in dating profiles, can have implications for changes in the self. The evidence for this comes primarily from laboratory studies that have focused more generally on how the self can change in anticipation of meeting a potential romantic partner. More specifically, several laboratory studies have been conducted in which participants are presented with information about a prospective dating partner or friend and then the researcher examines whether the participants experience self-changes after they view the profile information. In a common paradigm (e.g., Slotter & Gardner, 2009), participants are told that the researchers are testing aspects of a new online dating service, and the participants’ task is to look at a dating profile and rate it on several dimensions. Prior to viewing the target’s profile, the participants complete a

46

S. Sprecher

self-rating instrument in which they indicate how characteristic several traits are of them. The researchers then select one characteristic that the participants indicated were not characteristic of them and include it in the target’s profile as characteristic of the target. Participants are then asked to complete the same self-rating form again, and changes are examined in self-ratings (particularly of the participants’ “not me characteristic” incorporated into the target’s profile) from before to after viewing the profile information. For example, Slotter and Gardner (2009) were interested in whether participants’ motivation to be romantically involved with a prospective partner would lead them to add characteristics of the other (presented in a dating profile) in their self-concept. Their experiment manipulated the type of website being pretested with targets’ profile coming from a university dating website (and the target person was a fellow student interested in forming a relationship) or from a nonromantic website (and the target person was presented as interested in running for a student government position). In the romantic context only, the participants (who were all single and unattached) had an increase in their ratings of the “not me” characteristic from before to after viewing the target’s profile. Similar results have been found in additional studies (e.g., Slotter & Gardner, 2009, Study 4; Slotter & Lucas, 2013). In addition, the researchers (Slotter & Gardner, 2009, Study 5) found that the more romantic interest the participants reported for the other, the greater the likelihood they rated their original “not me” attribute (that was presented in the other’s profile) as characteristic of them. Incorporating a prospective partner’s traits (as revealed through the selfdisclosure of a dating profile) into one’s self-concept is not limited to positive traits; it can also occur for negative traits (Slotter & Gardner, 2012a, 2012b). There are limits in the degree to which people will integrate attributes of a potential new partner into their self-concept. Some people have self-concepts that are more malleable than others and thus more affected by the disclosures of the other. As noted above, individuals who are more interested in entering a relationship are more likely to change their self-concept to be more similar to an attractive other (Emery et al., 2015; Slotter & Gardner, 2009). In addition, those who have higher levels of attachment anxiety—who likely have more motivation to become close to others— are more likely to have a malleable self-concept that changes to be similar to the desired other (Slotter & Gardner, 2012a). Research has also shown that those with high (rather than low) self-concept clarity are more capable of self-expansion through others and likely to include attributes of a potential romantic partner into the self (Emery et al., 2015). Thus, people vary in the degree to which they are attuned to another’s self-disclosure in order to increase self-other integration. Reading the online dating profiles created by others is one side of the selfdisclosure process that can affect self-change in online dating platforms. The other side of the self-disclosure process in this online venue is creating a profile and thus disclosing about oneself to prospective matches, which can also affect self-views. People who disclose about themselves through a dating profile may anticipate what types of responses they will receive, which could impact their self-esteem. In one study, participants created a dating profile which included information about themselves (hobbies, interests, personality) (de Vries, 2016). They were told that the

3 Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance …

47

research team’s computer program would identify a match in a few weeks and they would then have the opportunity to get-acquainted with their match. After the participants completed the task of creating a profile, they responded to a few questions, including the expected impression that they would make (i.e., how they believed that a match would view them on 13 positive attributes) and romantic self-esteem (a four-item measure that included items such as “others fall in love with me easily”). In support of predictions, de Vries found that the participants who expected that the match would form a positive impression of them also reported higher romantic selfesteem. Although change in romantic self-esteem was not examined in this study (a measure of romantic self-esteem was not administered prior to completing the profile exercise), the results suggest that the process of disclosing through an Internet profile can attenuate feelings about the self. Participants who have a positive self-image may have an enhanced self-esteem after constructing a profile (and thinking about how others will respond) whereas those who have a negative self-image may have a diminished self-esteem after creating the profile. In addition, the process of creating a dating profile may lead people to become more aware of their ideal self and therefore try to refine the self to be closer to that self. As noted by Ellison, Heino, and Gibbs (2006), as online daters disclose about themselves in a dating profile, they are motivated to be as attractive as possible to prospective matches. At the same time, however, they want to be authentic because there is a chance that they will eventually meet the other and they want to be understood for who they really are. The online daters interviewed by Ellison et al. (2006) reconciled the two desires by presenting aspects of their “ideal selves” in their profiles. They referred to attributes that they wished they had and that they could possibly develop in the future. They believed that when they described (in their profile) a future ideal version of their self, they were not being deceptive because it represented a self they hoped to develop. Thus, the process of constructing an Internet dating profile and disclosing to prospective matches may lead individuals to become more aware of their ideal self and to refine themselves over time to become more like their ideal self. In the real world of online dating, people communicate with each other within the dating website’s system before meeting each other. This initial communication can contain highly personal self-disclosure, which can also have implications for changes in self-concept. Similar to disclosure in a dating profile, this asynchronous communication allows for editability and selective (positive) self-presentation (Ellison et al., 2006; Walther, 2007), also contributing to change in one’s self-concept in the process of enhancing one’s attractiveness to the other.

3.6 Conclusions This chapter summarized various lines of research that presented insight into how self-disclosure that occurs early in relationship development, both in face-to-face contexts and online, contribute to change in self-views. Research was reviewed that

48

S. Sprecher

focused on how initial getting-acquainted self-disclosures can affect self-expansion, self-esteem, specific content of the self-concept, and self-other overlap. There are several ways that research on this topic, however, could be expanded. One gap in the literature is how self-change experienced in early gettingacquainted interactions affects the likelihood that the relationship develops. Research on existing relationships indicates that improvements in the self-concept (such as self-expansion) are associated with increases in relationship satisfaction and commitment in existing relationships (McIntyre et al., 2015). However, what has not been examined is how the content and direction of self-change in the very earliest stages of a relationship (i.e., first interactions) affects the likelihood that the relationship actually develops. Another fruitful area for future investigations is to examine how the changes in self-views in early relationship development may be occurring at the same time as other relationship transitions that also influence changes in selfviews. For example, a person could be dissolving one relationship with implications for self-change (Lewandowski Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006; Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010) while at the same time entering a new relationship with simultaneous influences on self-change. Although much of the research summarized in this chapter was focused on selfchange as a consequence of relationship processes (self-disclosure) that occur early in relationship development, the reverse causal direction could also operate. That is, it is also likely that people’s desire to experience self-change—such as the motivation to self-expand and the drive to enhance self-esteem—may motivate people to enter certain relationships and then put effort into their development. Future research could examine relationship development as an outcome of the desire for self-changes. In examining the reciprocal link between self-change and self-disclosure early in the relationship, many diverse methods (e.g., diary studies, laboratory interaction studies, assessments of actual online daters before and after they go on a first date) are needed in order to obtain data from both partners and across the entire phase of relationship development.

References Acevedo, B., Xu, X., Lewandowski, G. W., & Aron, A. (2017). Love and self-expansion. In J. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Foundations for couples’ therapy (pp. 245–255). New York, NY: Routledge. Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042–1047. Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., Le, B., & Goodfriend, W. (2004). Thinking close: Measuring relational closeness as perceived self-other inclusion. In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 103–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

3 Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance …

49

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of the self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers Inc. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325–344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). The Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and noncontinuing dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 942–952. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 102–115. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Greene, K. (2008). Self-disclosure and starting a close relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 153–174). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. de Vries, D. (2016). Meeting expectations: The effects of expectations on self-esteem following the construction of a dating profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 44–50. Dindia, K. (2000). Self-disclosure, identity, and relationship development: A dialectical perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 147–162). New York: Wiley. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415–441. Emery, L. F., Walsh, C., & Slotter, E. B. (2015). Knowing who you are and adding to it: Reduced selfconcept clarity predicts reduced self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 259–266. Fingerman, K. L. (2009). Consequential strangers and peripheral ties: The importance of unimportant relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1, 69–86. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: Critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66. Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., & Pronk, T. (2018). Self-disclosure in relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 271–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gore, J., & Tichenor, D. (2018). Out with the old, in with the new: How changes in close relationships change the self. Journal of Relationships Research, 9, E13. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2018.12. Hampton, A. J., Fisher Boyd, A. N., & Sprecher, S. (2019). You’re like me and I like you: Mediators of the similarity–liking link assessed before and after a getting-acquainted social interaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 2221–2244. Helgeson, V. S., & Van Vleet, M. (2019). Inclusion of other in the self scale: An adaptation and exploration in a diverse community sample. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 0265407519848491. Joinson, A. N., Reips, U. D., Buchanan, T., & Paine Schofield, C. B. (2010). Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human-Computer Interaction, 25, 1–24.

50

S. Sprecher

Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68–76. Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317–331. Lewis, R. A. (1973). Social reaction and the formation of dyads: An interactionist approach to mate selection. Sociometry, 409–418. Lundy, B. L., & Drouin, M. (2016). From social anxiety to interpersonal connectedness: Relationship building within face-to-face, phone and instant messaging mediums. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 271–277. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857–878. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my crossgroup friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094. Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 367–389). Chichester, England: Wiley. Richman, S. B., Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & De Wall, C. N. (2015). Reaching out by changing what’s within: Social exclusion increases self-concept malleability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 64–77. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2015). The ecology of relationships: Meeting locations and cohabitors’ relationship perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 141–160. Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). The relationship closeness induction task. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4. Sharabi, L. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2019). Deception in online dating: Significance and implications for the first offline date. New Media & Society, 21, 229–247. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1137–1151. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012a). How needing you changes me: The influence of attachment anxiety on self-concept malleability in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 11, 386–408. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012b). The dangers of dating the “bad boy” (or girl): When does romantic desire encourage us to take on the negative qualities of potential partners? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1173–1178. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160. Slotter, E. B., & Lucas, G. M. (2013). Validating a measure of self and partner change in romantic relationships: The perceived change in relationships scale. Self and Identity, 12, 177–185. Sprecher, S. (2014). Initial interactions online-text, online-audio, online-video, or face-to-face: Effects of modality on liking, closeness, and other interpersonal outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 190–197.

3 Influence of Self-disclosure in the Acquaintance …

51

Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 836–856. Sprecher, S., & Treger, S. (2015). The benefits of turn-taking reciprocal self-disclosure in getacquainted interactions. Personal Relationships, 22, 460–475. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Fisher, A., Hilaire, N., & Grzybowski, M. (2015). Association between self-expansion and actual and perceived (dis)similarity and their joint effects on attraction in initial interactions. Self and Identity, 14, 369–389. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Wondra, J. D. (2012). Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 497–514. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 860–866. Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 13, 3–33. Sunnafrank, M., & Ramirez, A., Jr. (2004). At first sight: Persistent relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 361–379. Toma, C. L., & D’Angelo, J. D. (2017). Connecting profile-to-profile: How people self-present and form impressions of others through online dating profiles. In N. M. Penyanunt-Carter & J. S. Wrench (Eds.), The impact of social media in modern romantic relationships (pp. 147–162). Laham, MD: Lexington Books. Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538–2557.

Chapter 4

Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self, and Close Relationships Benjamin W. Hadden and Christopher R. Agnew

Imagine that you meet up with an old friend whom you have not seen in years, and you spend time catching up on events in each other’s lives. You remember your friend as having been involved with a number of different partners over the years, but now they are in a committed relationship. When you ask about their current commitment, your friend replies, “I just felt ready to be in a long-term relationship. The timing just felt right.” This example captures the central idea behind relationship receptivity theory: that timing matters for relationships (Agnew, 2014; Agnew, Hadden, & Tan, 2019; Agnew, Hadden, & Tan, in press; Hadden, Agnew, & Tan, 2018). According to relationship receptivity theory, at any given time, a person may be more or less open or receptive to romantic involvement, in the moment and throughout the life course. People can feel that now is a good or bad time to be in a committed relationship, and that perceived timing has important implications for relationship cognition, behavior, and stability. In this chapter, we focus specifically on perceived readiness for a long-term committed relationship—which we term commitment readiness—as a state of the social self that plays a role in influencing processes as a relationship develops over time. One’s sense of commitment readiness is not yoked to a particular partnership; rather, it exists outside a given relationship but is simultaneously influenced by and influences relationship processes. We begin by outlining the bases of relationship receptivity theory prior to moving on to focus on commitment readiness in particular. We then review the implications of commitment readiness for relationship processes, including pursuit, formation, maintenance, and stability. Finally, we touch on the situational B. W. Hadden (B) Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. R. Agnew Departmental of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_4

53

54

B. W. Hadden and C. R. Agnew

nature of commitment readiness, using relationship breakup as an example of how commitment readiness can ebb and flow over time and have significant consequences for one’s interpersonal life and sense of self over time.

4.1 Relationship Receptivity Relationship scientists and psychologists generally view motivation to seek social connection as relatively universal. Feelings of belongingness have clear effects on both mental and physical health (e.g., Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010), which has led to a general consensus that belongingness is a fundamental psychological need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000) with profound implications for self-worth (Leary, 2005) and general sense of well-being (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001). Romantic relationships in particular often function as people’s primary social relationship (Day, Kay, Holmes, & Napier, 2011; De Paulo & Morris, 2006), and individuals increasingly view romantic partners as the primary, optimal, or sometimes even their only means to fulfill belongingness needs (Finkel et al., 2014). Nevertheless, people differ in terms of how receptive they are to serious, long-term, or committed romantic involvements. Several lines of research suggest important differences in people’s receptivity to romantic relationships, largely focusing on individual difference factors that affect how open people are to various aspects of romantic relationships. For instance, one’s attachment orientation influences how comfortable people are with intimacy and with relying on close others (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1994). Research has also focused on differences in how much anxiety people feel about the prospect of being single in the future, and how this anxiety may result in lower standards for selecting potential dating partners (Spielmann et al., 2013). Romantic relationships are also not necessarily beneficial for everyone, such as people who are motivated to avoid conflict experience (Girme, Overall, Faingataa, & Sibley, 2016). Collectively, these perspectives suggest that, although the need to belong is strong, people exhibit differences in how receptive they are to romantic relationships at any given time. However, until recently, the vast majority of work in this area has either implicitly or explicitly assumed that differences in receptivity are dispositional, individual differences, or developmental processes that follow relatively stable, long-term trajectories. At the very least, it seems uncontroversial to claim that little empirical or theoretical thought has been given to the idea that people’s receptivity to committed romantic relationships fluctuates over time and across relationships.

4 Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self …

55

4.2 Commitment Readiness In order to fill this gap, we recently put forth commitment readiness—feeling ready to commit to a relationship with a given partner for the foreseeable future—as one critical component of relationship receptivity that captures this perceived timing aspect of relationships. According to relationship receptivity theory, a person may feel at any given time more or less ready to be involved in a relationship with someone else “for the long haul.” As a state of the social self, commitment readiness reflects an orientation of the self toward being open to the different qualities of longterm relationships and may even be a marker that signifies an individual is “ready” to experience relationship-induced self-concept change. That is, because committed relationships result in cognitive interdependence (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998) and self-expansion (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991), an individual who is willing to commit may be explicitly or implicitly acknowledging that they are interested in self-other integration. This would be consistent with the work that shows individuals low in self-concept clarity are hesitant to engage in selfexpansion (Emery, Walsh, & Slotter, 2015) and as a result try to prevent their partners from changing, which undermines relationship quality (Emery, Gardner, Finkel, & Carswell, 2018). In identifying readiness as a potentially important component of relationship development processes, we were inspired by a number of psychological theories that explicitly identify readiness as an important feature of decision making and behavioral persistence. For instance, readiness has been proposed as a component of learning in several theories, such as Thorndike’s theory of learning (1932), Bruner’s theory of instruction (1966), and Bandura’s social learning theory (1986), whereby relative readiness or unreadiness for a behavior or response predicts the likelihood of that response. Readiness has also been a central component within theories of health psychology. For instance, the Stages of Change Model (also referred to as the Transtheoretical Model; Prochaska & Di Clemente, 2005) posits that people go through different stages with respect to their own sense of readiness before enacting a health-relevant behavior. Commitment readiness, according to relationship receptivity theory, is a crucial precursor to action and maintenance, yet surprisingly little consideration had been given to this notion in the context of romantic relationships, especially regarding the role of commitment readiness in accounting for relational pursuit and (eventual) maintenance of future relationships. How is commitment readiness distinct from other psychological phenomena that reflect differences in receptivity to committed romantic relationships, such as discomfort with intimacy (i.e., low avoidance) or fear of being single? In short, the primary contribution of relationship receptivity theory is the focus not just on trait differences in receptivity, but on the idea of state receptivity that fluctuates as a matter of timing. In this vein, commitment readiness denotes feeling particularly able (or unable) to handle committed relationships at a given point in time. Whereas, for example, avoidant attachment reflects an overall aversion to and discomfort with

56

B. W. Hadden and C. R. Agnew

intimacy in general, feeling unready does not necessarily denote such negative models of relationships. Similarly, readiness does not necessarily entail an anxiety about being single. Feeling more or less ready is theorized to be based on a holistic assessment that one is prepared for, and that their life-situation is perceived as conducive to, maintaining a committed relationship at any given time (Agnew, Hadden, & Tan, in press). As such, an individual who is both ready and single does not necessarily feel anxiety over their relationship status nor does an individual low in readiness necessarily dislike close emotional ties. Moreover, in conceptualizing commitment readiness, we specifically sought to account for the notion that receptivity can and does fluctuate, and as such, emphasize that commitment readiness (and receptivity more broadly) is a function of both dispositional, long-term developmental changes and short-term situational factors.

4.3 Commitment Readiness and Relationship Development The notion of timing in relationships, although only recently examined within the empirical literature, has certainly been of interest to people for some time. There is no shortage of online blogs and popular magazines running advice columns on how to tell if you are “ready for a relationship” (e.g., Garapick, 2013; Gunther, 2016; Sama, 2014). Indeed, feelings of readiness are part of our intuitive narratives about relationships. That is, people seem to perceive timing as particularly important for their romantic lives. Work by Aron and colleagues focusing on the retrospective narrative experience of falling in love (Aron, Dutton, Aron, & Iverson, 1989; Riela, Rodriguez, Aron, Xu, & Acevado, 2010) found that readiness was among a host of factors reported by research participants (including college undergraduates and married couples) as an antecedent to falling in love with a given partner. In fact, when reflecting upon why they fell in love, between a third to two-thirds of participants mentioned timing and readiness as a factor that led them to fall in love with their partner. These qualitative findings suggest that commitment readiness is potentially an important part of relationship formation (or at least of our narratives of why we think a relationship worked), wherein people who feel the time is right are able and willing to fall in love. It also suggests that commitment readiness may be especially important for maintaining relationships, as individuals reflect on readiness as a component of why their relationship has been successful over time. We now turn to a discussion of commitment readiness’ role in these two processes: initial formation and maintenance/stability.

4 Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self …

57

4.3.1 Commitment Readiness and Initial Relationship Formation What role does timing play in starting a relationship, and how is this related to our self-concept? We explored this question in one of our first empirical forays into this topic. Focusing on currently single people—that is, people not in a committed romantic relationship (Hadden et al., 2018)—we found that when people feel ready to be in a committed relationship, they tend to be more likely to possess particular relationship cognitions about forming and maintaining a close romantic relationship (including relationship-induced self-concept change) and pursue relationships. Regarding perceptions of relationship-induced self-concept change, when single people feel more ready for a committed relationship, they contemplate dating more and hold more positive views about closeness with a potential romantic partner (Hadden et al., 2018; Studies 1 and 2). In particular, feelings of commitment readiness are positively correlated with more desired self-partner overlap, reflecting higher valuation of experiencing cognitive interdependence. Why is this the case? Drawing on models of readiness in other domains (e.g., Prochaska & Di Clemente, 2005), we suggest that the more ready an individual is for a committed relationship, the more perceived benefits than costs they associate with the interdependence inherent in romantic relationships. People who perceive themselves as less ready for a committed relationship, on the other hand, are more likely to perceive conflict between their personal and relational goals or that being close to a romantic partner will result in a loss of personal control (Aron et al., 2004; Mashek & Sherman, 2004), which results in more negative perceptions of self-other overlap with a potential romantic partner. Using a daily diary approach (Hadden et al., 2018; Study 2), we also found that readiness was associated with a variety of relationship pursuit behaviors. On days when participants felt more ready (compared to other participants, and compared to days when they felt less ready), they reported paying more attention to their appearance and having the intention to form a relationship. They also reported a diverse set of behaviors such as expressing romantic desire, maintaining close physical contact, playfully teasing, or overtly flirting with someone with whom they are interested, behaviors that have previously been shown to facilitate relationship formation (Buss, 1989; Clark et al., 1999; Lemay & Wolf, 2016). Beyond pursuit of relationships, feeling more ready for a committed relationship predicted higher likelihood that one would actually enter a romantic relationship within the next several months and higher commitment level among those who entered relationships (Hadden et al., 2018; Study 3). More specifically, we found that individuals who reported feeling more ready while single experienced higher satisfaction with a later relationship and invested more into it than those who were less ready, which, in turn, predicted higher commitment. These findings in particular dovetail nicely with the narratives reported in Aron et al. (1989) retrospective narrative study on falling in love. Although we did not address falling in love, per se, that readiness at one-time point is associated with higher subsequent levels of relationship satisfaction, investments, and commitment suggests that perceiving that

58

B. W. Hadden and C. R. Agnew

“the time is right” is an important feature of both whether people will start a relationship to begin with, and how much they will let themselves invest in, appreciate, and feel interdependent in a relationship. Essentially, readiness plays a role in the extent to which people will engage in the type of self-concept change needed to give a relationship a chance to succeed.

4.3.2 Commitment Readiness, Relationship Maintenance, and Stability Commitment readiness also continues to play a role once people are in committed romantic relationships. At first glance, it may be difficult to distinguish commitment readiness from commitment level itself, at least among those already in a relationship. After all, how could one be highly committed to a partner while feeling unready for a committed relationship? Commitment level refers to the extent to which one intends to maintain a relationship with a partner, has a long-term orientation toward a relationship, and feels attached to a partner (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001). Related to, but distinct from, the construct of commitment level, commitment readiness does not assess the degree to which an individual is committed to a given partnership. Rather, readiness assesses the extent to which a person feels that they are prepared and equipped at the moment for a committed involvement more generally. In other words, commitment level is specific to the relationship, whereas commitment readiness is a function of the social self. It is necessarily intertwined with perceptions of ongoing relationships but is more closely aligned with one’s current self-concept in relation to intimate partners. In our conceptualization, commitment readiness can be thought of as the “right time” whereas commitment level refers to the “right person.” To appreciate the distinction, consider a person who feels ready to be involved in a committed relationship, is involved in one, but is not particularly committed to it (perhaps, for example, because they do not find time with their current partner to be particularly rewarding). In this case, the person still feels that it is the right time to be a relationship, they are just with the wrong person. Alternatively, it is possible to imagine a person who does not feel particularly ready to be involved in a committed relationship but finds themselves in a relationship with a great partner. In this case, despite not being ready, they may still be highly committed (cf. Tan, Arriaga, & Agnew, 2018). Importantly, these situations demonstrate that feeling commitment toward a relationship partner is not isomorphic with feeling ready to be in a committed relationship. Although one might reasonably expect commitment level and readiness to be strongly associated, with many people following through with their sense of readiness via active relationship involvement, these differing kinds of interpersonal situations illustrate the distinctness of these constructs. What implications does commitment readiness have for relationship maintenance and stability? Previous research (e.g., Agnew & Van der Drift, 2015, 2018) has found

4 Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self …

59

that commitment level predicts the enactment of various relationship maintenance behaviors that encourage increasing interdependence between one’s self and one’s partner, which, in turn, serve to keep a relationship intact. By considering commitment readiness we can think of successful relationships as being a function of being both with the right person and at the right time. That is, it is not enough for a person to be in a highly committed relationship, nor is it enough for it to simply to feel like the right time. Rather, both need to be true to maximize the probability of the enactment of various relationship maintenance behaviors and, consequently, relationship stability. As evidence of this, recent work examined how the combination of commitment readiness and commitment level predicted relationship maintenance in the form of self-disclosure and accommodating responses to conflict (Agnew et al., 2019; Studies 1 & 3). We found that commitment readiness moderated the association between commitment level and both forms of relationship maintenance. When individuals were low in commitment readiness, their commitment level did not matter for relationship maintenance. Vice versa, when commitment level was low, it did not matter if a person was reported being highly ready. In other words, both commitment level and commitment readiness are vital ingredients for enacting relationship maintaining behaviors that are known to increase interdependence. Perhaps unsurprisingly then, commitment readiness was similarly necessary for relationship stability—whether partners would break up in the following months. That is, at high levels of readiness, commitment more strongly predicted the likelihood that individuals would still be in the relationship, roughly six months later (Agnew et al., 2019; Study 4). Low readiness appears to undermine the effects of commitment level on relationship stability, whereas high feelings of readiness bolster the effects of commitment. Thus, although commitment to a specific partner is necessary for successfully maintaining a relationship, a sense of timing, that one is ready, is also important for relationship maintenance over time.

4.4 Relationship Transitions and Changes in Commitment Readiness Having reviewed evidence suggesting the importance of feeling ready for commitment in understanding various relationship processes, an obvious question arises: How do relationship events affect our feelings of timing and readiness? As mentioned previously, part of what makes relationship receptivity theory unique is that it draws on developmental, dispositional, and situational perspectives to posit that people have a sense of whether or not they are ready to be in a romantic relationship at any given time. Although people may be dispositionally high or low in readiness— for example, people may have a history of challenging or unhealthy relationships that results in dispositionally low readiness—perhaps the primary contribution of relationship receptivity theory is the temporal component of receptivity, and the idea that commitment readiness is also a function of situational factors that affect individuals’

60

B. W. Hadden and C. R. Agnew

sense of personal timing and lead to relatively temporary changes in readiness. What sort of situational factors would shape an individual’s sense that now is (or is not) the right time for a committed relationship? Given the relational nature of commitment readiness as a state of the social self, romantic relationship breakup is likely one such potent event that results in a period of, especially, low feelings of commitment readiness. Romantic relationships form a crucial aspect of people’s identities, involving cognitive interdependence and the integration of one’s partner into one’s own self-concept (Agnew et al., 1998; Arnett, 2014; Aron et al., 1991). A considerable amount of research outlines the oftentimes negative effects of the end of a romantic relationship on health, well-being, and identity (Agnew, 2000; Kendler et al., 2003; Sbarra, 2006; Slotter et al., 2010). For instance, breakup is associated with acute increases in emotional distress (Rhoades et al. 2011; Slotter et al., 2010), sadness, and anger (Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Research has also found breakup effects on people’s self-concept, finding that people experience a profound loss of self following romantic relationship dissolution (Lewandowski et al., 2006; Slotter et al., 2010). It is clear that breakup causes immediate and often drastic changes in people’s emotions and self-concepts that require time to recover. Despite our understanding of how people’s emotions and sense of self are affected by romantic breakup, we know less about the temporal process of receptivity and openness to subsequent committed romantic relationships in the wake of breakup, particularly regarding their perceptions of personal timing and readiness for a new committed relationship. It makes good sense to think that breakups would have a similar effect on readiness feelings of readiness. In other words, breakup is likely a potent situational factor that leads to temporarily low feelings of receptivity for a new committed romantic relationship, such that people experience acute decreases in commitment readiness following breakup that subsequently recovers over time. Why would we expect a period following breakup in which people feel temporarily low levels of readiness for a new committed relationship? At first glance, it may be tempting to suggest that individuals may be motivated to seek a new romantic relationship or to reunite with their partner after breakup in order to alleviate the negative emotional experience and loss of self (Dailey, Brody, Le Febvre, & Crook, 2013; Dailey, Crook, Brody, & LeFebre, 2017; Rhoades et al., 2011; Slotter et al., 2010; Sbarra & Emery, 2005). Although individuals are certainly motivated to reduce their distress, and social connections in general can alleviate such negative experiences (e.g., Moller, Fouladi, McCarthy, & Hatch, 2003), such relief is likely sought through relationships that are not committed in nature, such as short-term sexual encounters. For example, there is evidence that some individuals are particularly motivated to seek out casual sexual encounters following breakup in order to relieve negative affect (Barber & Cooper, 2014), and that people turn to their social networks (e.g., friends) as a source of support (Sprecher, Felmlee, Schmeeckle, & Shu, 2006). As such, although people are motivated to reduce their negative affect following breakup, we still expect they will be hesitant regarding forming new committed romantic relationships in particular. First, because of the acute negative effects on emotions and self-concept caused by the end of a romantic relationship, people will likely hesitate to put themselves

4 Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self …

61

in a situation that may cause more self-concept change. That is, they will likely experience aversion to the intimacy and vulnerability involved with closer romantic relationships while they experience emotional distress associated with a failed romance. There is some indirect evidence for this perspective which suggests people attempt to cope with breakup by relying on other forms of relationships or activities. For instance, people with more robust social networks composed of friends and family recover better from breakup (Moller et al., 2003; Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, & Vann, 1998), indicating that those who rely on other relationships cope better with romantic breakup. Research has also found that people are more likely to seek casual sexual encounters (i.e., not with a committed romantic partner) after a breakup (Barber & Cooper, 2014). These encounters are denoted by strong motivations to cope with distress, to get over former partners, and to get back at former partners immediately following breakup, and such motivations tend to decline over time post-breakup (Barber & Cooper, 2014). Although not directly related to feelings of commitment readiness, this research does suggest that people may seek non-committed sexual relationships or rely on platonic relationships rather than seek serious romantic connections following a breakup. Second, breakup does not necessarily signal the end of feelings and psychological attachment to romantic partners (e.g., Agnew, Arriaga, & Wilson, 2008; Agnew & Van der Drift, 2015; Tan, Agnew, Van der Drift, & Harvey, 2015). Indeed, it is common for people to maintain contact with a former partner without necessarily having the intention of reuniting (Kellas et al., 2008; Schneider & Kenny, 2000) and it is natural for people to experience emotional longing, psychological attachment to former partners, and even feelings of anger and desire for revenge after relationships have ended (e.g., Barbara & Dion, 2000; Barber & Cooper, 2014; Davis et al., 2003; Saffrey & Ehrenberg, 2007; Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Spielmann et al., 2009; Tan et al., 2015). Importantly, such lingering feelings exist among both those who broke up with their partner (the “leavers”) and were broken up with (the “abandoned”), albeit to somewhat different degrees and intensities (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976; Sbarra, 2006). It is reasonable to expect that such feelings interfere with individuals’ feelings of readiness to commit to a new relationship. Third, as individuals who have broken up experience confusion and loss regarding their sense of self (Slotter et al., 2010) and given the trade-offs people often have to make between personal and relational goals in romantic relationships (Kumashiro, Rusbult, & Finkel, 2008; Van der Drift & Agnew, 2014), people may feel they need time being single to rebuild their sense of self and pursue personal goals before focusing on building a new partnership with another. This is especially likely given that previous research has noted a pervasive theme throughout modern popular culture— including self-help books (e.g., Sussman, 2011), online advice columns, and dating websites such as eharmony (Garapick, 2013)—that people need to know and love themselves before they can successfully enter and maintain a committed romantic relationship (Barber & Cooper, 2014; Spielmann et al., 2009). This ties directly to the notion that people are reluctant to engage in more self-concept change. That is, while experiencing such turmoil within their self-concept, people may be reluctant to engage in romantic relationships that will cause even more change. Indeed, it has

62

B. W. Hadden and C. R. Agnew

been shown previously that individuals low in self-concept clarity are hesitant to engage in self-expansion (Emery et al., 2015). Of course, the nature of a given relationship and of breakup itself should both also play a role in the trajectory of commitment readiness following breakup. For example, when people go through a particularly difficult or rough breakup, one might reasonable surmise that they will have fewer emotional resources to put into a new relationship. As a result, they will be more wary of entering a new relationship immediately following breakup. Similarly, people who are more committed to their partner are more psychologically attached, experience higher levels of cognitive interdependence (Agnew et al., 1998; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and identity-overlap with their partner (Aron et al., 1992). As a result, people who are more committed to a relationship experience more disruption and change in their self-concept, resulting in less self-concept clarity (Slotter et al., 2010), greater cognitive-emotional disorganization (Parkes, 2001; Weiss, 1975), and experience stronger emotional connection to their former partner (Tan et al., 2015) following breakup. This may make them feel especially unready to start a new relationship immediately after breakup, which would involve continued self-concept change that carries the potential to reduce self-concept clarity even more. Indeed, prior research has shown that individuals who were more committed to a relationship before breakup and who were broken up with take longer to enter into a new relationship (Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2015) and experience steeper spikes in distress post-breakup (Gilbert & Sifers, 2011; Sprecher et al., 1998).

4.5 Future Directions Given the importance of commitment readiness for relationship processes, there are a number of important directions for future work. Experiencing self-expansion with a partner or growth toward one’s ideal self (e.g., Michelangelo effect; Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999) may increase commitment readiness, especially for individuals who may have had low self-concept clarity, as they see the positive aspects of relationship-induced self-concept change and greater levels of interdependence. On the other hand, it is important to note that not all relationship-induced selfconcept change is positive. Self-adulteration (gaining negative traits from partners) may reduce commitment readiness, as people see higher costs to interdependence that may have previously been unconsidered. What gives rise to a sense of being ready for a relationship? Relationship receptivity theory provides several suggestions for answering this important question, emphasizing the potential role of dispositional, developmental, and situational factors that may influence feelings of commitment readiness. Indeed, we have already spent some time discussing breakup as one situational factor that leads to a period of especially low readiness. We have also begun to outline a general map of possible factors (Agnew, Hadden, & Tan, in press) that includes past and current experiences in close relationships, social norms and expectations (e.g., are others in one’s

4 Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self …

63

social circle coupling up?), and life circumstances such as the degree to which personal goals conflict with relational goals. Such factors may all play prominently in perceptions of one’s own commitment readiness, altering how open people are to relationship-induced self-concept change at any given time. The antecedents underlying readiness are also likely to be important themselves. For instance, individuals may feel highly ready for a commitment because they have developed over time an understanding of what a relationship needs to survive and believe they are capable of successfully navigating a committed involvement. When they start a relationship in this light, they may be better prepared to put the requisite effort into balancing their own versus their partner’s needs (Kumashiro, Rusbult, & Finkel, 2008) or in recognizing that their new partner does not necessarily perfectly match their ideals (Fletcher & Simpson, 2000; Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2001). At the same time, an individual who thinks they are ready for a relationship but has inaccurate expectations of the degree to which a relationship will alter their self-concept, the costs associated with a sacrifice, or the nutriments required for a successful relationship, may not be able to handle such challenges. Beyond general feelings of commitment readiness, readiness may be applicable to a number of more specific behaviors that likely correspond to increasing inclusion of partner’s within self-concept. For example, what are the implications of feeling more or less ready to engage in various events that are part of the normative sequence of relationships, such as saying “I love you,” meeting family/friends, or moving in together (Eastwick, Keneski, Morgan, McDonald, & Huang, 2018)? In this sense, relationships can be conceptualized as a series of decisions and interactions in which one may be more or less ready to enact. What makes individuals more or less ready for any individual event, and how does readiness for the event build over time? Does readiness to say “I love you” to a partner mean that individuals are more likely to engage in that behavior? This sequence of relationship events may nonetheless unfold even if someone is not ready. For instance, a partner may say “I love you,” prompting the person to say it back before they may have thought they were ready to do so. In these cases, does level of readiness for the event have implications for whether it has positive or negative effects on the relationship?

4.6 Conclusions Emphasizing that timing has marked implications for relationship processes, commitment readiness is an important yet previously unconsidered aspect of relationships. According to relationship receptivity theory, at any given time, people may feel more or less ready for a long-term committed relationship, which plays an important role in facilitating the formation and maintenance of romantic relationships (Agnew et al., 2019; Agnew et al., in press; Hadden et al., 2018). Unique to relationship receptivity theory is the notion that receptivity, and commitment readiness particularly, can fluctuate as a function of various situational factors such as breakup. As such, receptivity

64

B. W. Hadden and C. R. Agnew

to relationships is not simply a dispositional trait, but rather a state of the social self that ebbs and flows throughout the course of one’s life.

References Agnew, C. R. (2000). Cognitive interdependence and the experience of relationship loss. In J. H. Harvey & E. D. Miller (Eds.), Loss and trauma: General and close relationship perspectives (pp. 385–398). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge. Agnew, C. R. (2014). Relationship receptivity: Commitment in a changing world. Melbourne, Australia: Keynote address presented at the International Association for Relationship Research. Agnew, C. R., Arriaga, X. B., & Wilson, J. E. (2008). Committed to what? Using the bases of relational commitment model to understand continuity and change in social relationships. In J. P. Forgas, J. Fitness, J. P. Forgas, & J. Fitness (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 147–164). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. Agnew, C. R., Hadden, B. W., & Tan, K. (2019). It’s about time: Readiness, commitment and stability in close relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 1046–1055. Agnew, C. R., Hadden, B. W., & Tan, K. (in press). Relationship receptivity theory: Timing and interdependent relationships. In L. V. Machia, C. R. Agnew, & X. B. Arriaga (Eds.), Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. Agnew, C. R., & Van der Drift, L. E. (2015). Relationship maintenance and dissolution. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 581–604)., Interpersonal relations Washington, D.C., USA: American Psychological Association. Agnew, C. R., & Van der Drift, L. E. (2018). Commitment processes in personal relationship. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 437–448). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood. Boston, MA: Pearson. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253. Aron, A., Dutton, D. G., Aron, E. N., & Iverson, A. (1989). Experiences of falling in love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 243–257. Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright, S. C., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101–132. Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barbara, A. M., & Dion, K. L. (2000). Breaking up is hard to do, especially for strongly “preoccupied” lovers. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 5, 315–342. Barber, L. L., & Cooper, M. L. (2014). Rebound sex: Sexual motives and behaviors following a relationship breakup. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 251–265. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

4 Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self …

65

Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Too fast, too soon? An empirical investigation into rebound relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 99–118. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 707–720. Day, M. V., Kay, A. C., Holmes, J. G., & Napier, J. L. (2011). System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 291–306. Dailey, R. M., Brody, N., LeFebvre, L., & Crook, B. (2013). Charting changes in commitment: Trajectories in on-again/off-again relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1020–1044. Dailey, R. M., Crook, B., Brody, N., & LeFebvre, L. (2017). Fluctuation in on-again/off-again romantic relationships: Foreboding or functional? Personal Relationships, 24, 748–767. Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, environmental involvement, and attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 884–971. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. De Paulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2006). The unrecognized stereotyping and discrimination against singles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 251–254. Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323. Eastwick, P. W., Keneski, E., Morgan, T. A., McDonald, M. A., & Huang, S. A. (2018). What do short-term and long-term relationships look like? Building the relationship coordination and strategic timing (ReCAST) model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 747–781. Emery, L. F., Gardner, W. L., Finkel, E. J., & Carswell, K. L. (2018). “You’ve changed”: Low selfconcept clarity predicts lack of support for partner change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 318–331. Emery, L. F., Walsh, C., & Slotter, E. B. (2015). Knowing who you are and adding to it: Reduced selfconcept clarity predicts reduced self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 259–266. Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41. Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105. Garapick, J. (2013). Eight signs you may not be ready for a relationship [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.eharmony.com/dating-advice/about-you/eight-signs-you-may-notbe-ready-for-a-relationship/#.WXTxCYgrJPY. Gilbert, S. P., & Sifers, S. K. (2011). Bouncing back from a breakup: Attachment, time perspective, mental health, and romantic loss. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 25, 295–310. Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Faingataa, S., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Happily single: The link between relationship status and well-being depends on avoidance and approach social goals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 122–130. Gunther (2016). 10 questions to help you tell if you’re ready to commit [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rediscovering-love/201602/10questions-help-you-tell-if-youre-ready-commit. Hadden, B. W., Agnew, C. R., & Tan, K. (2018). Commitment readiness and relationship formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1242–1257. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

66

B. W. Hadden and C. R. Agnew

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1–22. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7, 1–20. Kellas, J., Bean, D., Cunningham, C., & Cheng, K. Y. (2008). The ex-files: Trajectories, turning points and adjustment in the development of post-dissolutional relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 23–50. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Kendler, K. S., Hettema, J. M., Butera, F., Gardner, C. O., & Prescott, C. A. (2003). Life event dimensions of loss, humiliation, entrapment, and danger in the prediction of onsets of major depression and generalized anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 789–796. Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808–819. Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Navigating personal and relational concerns: The quest for equilibrium. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 94–110. Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 75–111. Lemay, E. P., & Wolf, N. R. (2016). Projection of romantic and sexual desire in opposite-sex friendships: How wishful thinking creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 864–878. Lewandowski, G. J., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317–331. Mashek, D. J., & Sherman, M. D. (2004). Desiring less closeness with intimate others. In D. J. Mashek, A. P. Aron, D. J. Mashek, & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 343–356). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Moller, N. P., Fouladi, R. T., McCarthy, C. J., & Hatch, K. D. (2003). Relationship of attachment and social support to college students’ adjustment following a relationship breakup. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 354–369. Parkes, C. M. (2001). A historical overview of the scientific study of bereavement. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, W. Stroebe, & H. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care (pp. 25–45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Prochaska, J. O., & Di Clemente, C. C. (2005). The transtheoretical approach. In J. C. Norcross & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (2nd ed., pp. 147–171). New York: Oxford University Press. Rhoades, G. K., Kamp Dush, C. M., Atkins, D. C., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). Breaking up is hard to do: The impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 366–374. Riela, S., Rodriguez, G., Aron, A., Xu, X., & Acevedo, B. P. (2010). Experiences of falling in love: Investigating culture, ethnicity, gender, and speed. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 473–493. Saffrey, C., & Ehrenberg, M. (2007). When thinking hurts: Attachment, rumination, and postrelationship adjustment. Personal Relationships, 14, 351–368. Sama, J. M. (2014). 10 ways to know you’re ready for a relationship [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-michael-sama/10-ways-to-know-yourerea_b_5316997.html. Sbarra, D. A. (2006). Predicting the onset of emotional recovery following nonmarital relationship dissolution: Survival analyses of sadness and anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 298–312.

4 Commitment Readiness: Timing, the Self …

67

Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12, 213–232. Schneider, C. S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners: Are they platonic friends now? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 451–466. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–339. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160. Spielmann, S. S., Macdonald, G., & Wilson, A. E. (2009). On the rebound: Focusing on someone new helps anxiously attached individuals let go of ex-partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1382–1394. Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., et al. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1049–1073. Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 791–809. Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Schmeeckle, M., Shu, X., Fine, M. A., & Harvey, J. H. (2006). No breakup occurs on an island: Social networks and relationship dissolution. Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 457–478). Sussman, R. (2011). The breakup bible: The smart woman’s guide to healing from a breakup or divorce. New York, NY: Random House Inc. Tan, K., Agnew, C. R., Van der Drift, L. E., & Harvey, S. M. (2015). Committed to us: Predicting relationship closeness following nonmarital romantic relationship breakup. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(4), 456–471. Tan, K., Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2018). Running on empty: Measuring psychological dependence in close relationships lacking satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 977–998. Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Van der Drift, L. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2014). Relational consequences of personal goal pursuits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 927–940. Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Chapter 5

Attachment Security Enhancement Model: Bolstering Attachment Security Through Close Relationships Madoka Kumashiro and Ximena B. Arriaga

The enduring appeal of fairy tales in which the power of love transforms the main protagonists suggests a cultural appetite for the belief that a romantic partner can change the self for the better. Interestingly, unlike older fairy tales where a beautiful princess passively awaits a kiss from a prince, modern fairy tales (e.g., Shrek, Aladdin) feature transformations that are a byproduct of protagonists needing to depend on each other as they overcome external challenges, while also managing misunderstandings and conflicts within their relationship. The lessons from such stories are that in order to transform oneself and thrive, certain situations need to occur that require the protagonists to step outside of their comfort zones and gain keen insights about themselves and their relationships. Such transformations are thus not portrayed as easy or simple processes; typically they involve challenging experiences that revise deeply entrenched beliefs about oneself, other people, and the situation. Such transformations are not restricted to fairy tales. The current chapter will focus on close relationship partners’ role in fostering attachment security over time. Similar to a child-parent attachment bond that profoundly affects the child’s development across a wide array of activities, a growing literature points to the importance of romantic involvements that profoundly affect adult attachment bonds and development (see Fraley, 2019; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016 for a review). Thus, there is interest in understanding how people can become more secure in their attachment orientations.

M. Kumashiro (B) Psychology Department, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] X. B. Arriaga Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_5

69

70

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

Although much of the literature examines how relatively stable dispositional attachment orientations affect personal and relational outcomes, attachment orientations shift over time and vary across relationships (cf., Fraley, 2019). Other than in clinical settings focused on distressed couples (e.g., Johnson, 2004), less is known about how people can become more secure in their interpersonal attachment bonds. Our work on the Attachment Security Enhancement Model (ASEM; Arriaga, Kumashiro, Simpson, & Overall, 2018) seeks to address this gap by proposing to leverage the power of close relationship partners to help revise specific internal working models (i.e., mental representations) of the self and others, resulting in greater interpersonal security over an extended period of time. In the current chapter, we first begin with a brief review of attachment theory. We next describe the ASEM, an interpersonal process model that stipulates different partner processes for bolstering attachment security based on individuals’ attachment orientations (anxiety, avoidance). We describe a dual-process model predicting change over time, in which partners need to strike a balance between buffering destructive effects of insecurity (e.g., calming escalating anxiety, keeping avoidant individuals engaged) and introducing behaviors designed to revise internal working models (e.g., encouraging independent pursuits in anxious people and positive interdependence in avoidant people). This chapter also provides new insights into promoting new experiences as effective means for revising working models, paying particular attention to challenges in reducing attachment avoidance.

5.1 Attachment Theory The attachment behavioral system was first proposed by John Bowlby (e.g., Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1982, 1988) as an evolutionary process designed to maximize the survival of infants and to promote protection from danger and mastery of the environment through proximity to a primary caregiver. Caregivers can function as a safe haven from distress and serve as a support system (e.g., secure base) from which to safely and autonomously explore the environment. Since the publication of a seminal paper (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), a growing body of research robustly supports the assertion that in adulthood, close relationship partners serve as attachment figures, providing a safe haven in which to seek solace and serving as a secure base for adult ‘exploratory’ or goal-directed activities (Feeney, 2004). However, relationships vary in their ability to offer effective attachment bonds, and repeated exposure to certain types of caregiving can result in the development of different types of stable attachment patterns. These patterns are thought to arise from the formation of ‘internal working models’, or mental representations of beliefs and expectations about the self and others, with can be represented by two dimensions: attachment anxiety involving fear of abandonment and avoidance involving discomfort with dependence (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Secure individuals display low levels of both anxiety and avoidance.

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

71

5.1.1 Origins of Internal Working Models Internal working models are thought to initially arise from interactions with primary caregivers, which results in children constructing beliefs, expectations, and ‘scripts’ for how they should behave and think about themselves and their social world (Bowlby, 1973; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). When children encounter stressful or challenging situations that inevitably occur, having primary caregivers who show that they are available and respond sensitively results in the development of positive expectations about themselves (e.g., that they are capable and will be valued personally) and others (e.g., that others will be available and can be counted on). These key experiences in the early formation of one’s self-concept afford a sense of ‘felt security’ (Stoufe & Waters, 1977), which encourages children to explore their environment with autonomy, engage in goal-pursuit activities, and manage challenges on their own, with the confidence of having a supportive ‘base’ for emotional reinforcement. Receiving inconsistent, neglectful, or overly-stern caregiving disrupts the attachment system and results in children making sense of their world by adopting different “secondary” attachment strategies (e.g., Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Attachment anxiety arises out of receiving inconsistent caregiving (e.g., sometimes available and other times not, or sometimes appropriate and other times overly intrusive), which leads to dependence and hyperactivation of the attachment system. Anxiously-attached individuals adopt intense behavioral responses to get the caregiver’s attention and cajole the caregiver into providing care or proximity; such hyperactivated efforts are not easily turned off even after receiving care. Such moments of needing to “protest” in order to obtain care raises questions about one’s self-worth in the eyes of others and leaves little time to engage in exploratory activities that bolster self-confidence. Exposure to such repeated situations then gives rise to a negative working model of the self (e.g., that the self is not worthy or competent) and an ambivalent model of others (e.g., unsure of others’ availability and positive regard). As adults, the hyperactivation of the attachment system results in relationships characterized by dissatisfaction and conflict (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). On the other hand, attachment avoidance arises out of receiving consistently poor caregiving, leaving little doubt that others are not reliable or caring. This results in the deactivation of the attachment system and the construction of a narrative that the self can survive without the support of others (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). The child learns to minimize attachment longings and to instead face challenges without support, sometimes engaging in compulsive goal-related activities as a means of asserting independence and providing distraction from the lack of care. This results in a negative working model of others (e.g., that others cannot be counted upon) as well as an ambivalent and sometimes inflated model of the self (e.g., that the self is self-reliant). As adults, deactivating strategies result in relationships characterized by lack of warmth, support, closeness, and commitment (Li & Chan, 2012).

72

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

5.1.2 Changing Attachment Patterns Working models are by definition subject to revisions and updates (i.e., “working”) as a result of interactions in other close relationships throughout the lifespan (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1994). Although there are mixed results regarding the stability of attachment patterns across the lifespan, findings from longitudinal studies suggest that attachment patterns may be more prone to socialization influences early in life but become relatively more set later in life as individuals seek out relationships that reinforce their working models, making it more difficult to revise set patterns (cf., Fraley & Roisman, 2019). Nevertheless, some longitudinal studies reveal specific features of romantic involvements that can predict changes in attachment orientations in adulthood (Arriaga, Kumashiro, Van der Drift, & Luchies, 2014; Simpson, Rholes, Campbell, & Wilson, 2003). Given that individuals with secure attachment patterns tend to thrive (see the broaden-and-build cycle of attachment security, Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), researchers are trying to find ways to bolster attachment security in non-clinical settings.1 Most such efforts involve repeated priming of attachment security words or secure attachment figures over time, which show promising signs for reducing attachment anxiety (Gillath & Karantzas, 2019; Hudson & Fraley, 2018). As for avoidance, there is preliminary evidence of one-month reductions in avoidance when couples take part in fun, intimacy building activities during a lab session (Stanton, Campbell, & Pink, 2017). However, for both priming security and intimacy-building activities, the mechanism for ensuring lasting effects remains uncertain. Thus, existing research suggests that ongoing experiences with close relationships can change attachment patterns but the underlying mechanisms are unclear.

5.2 Attachment Security Enhancement Model The novel dual-process model, the Attachment Security Enhancement Model (ASEM; Arriaga et al., 2018), seeks to provide a theoretically-derived roadmap for how attachment security can be enhanced in close relationships as individuals revise their self-concept and mental models of others. This section first provides a brief overview of the model featured in Fig. 5.1 and then elaborates on each of the two parts of the model. The ASEM leverages theory about the interpersonal origins of chronic attachment patterns to suggest ways in which relationship experiences can challenge and revise working models of the self and others (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). Although individuals often experience momentary feelings of security or insecurity in any given relationship, once established, working models can 1 This

chapter will address issues related to non-clinical samples of adults. Clinical interventions aimed at distressed couples or individuals require substantial resources, such as long-term therapy, and are beyond the scope of the current chapter focused on normative changes.

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

73

Fig. 5.1 The attachment security enhancement model (ASEM)

become self-fulfilling: Positive expectations about the self and others lead to positive interactions that reinforce lasting and gratifying relationships, whereas negative expectations result in hyperactivation or deactivation of attachment responses that undermine relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Nevertheless, even deeply-entrenched beliefs are subject to revision when individuals encounter new situations that run counter to their expectations. In particular, concepts derived from interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)—such as diagnostic or “strain test” situations, trust, and positive regard (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Murray & Holmes, 2009; Simpson, 2007)—offer useful insights into how the self-concept may be revised. Interactions that reveal a partner’s positive motives, trustworthiness, positive regard, and confidence in a person’s abilities offer opportunities to bolster working models about both the self and others. These moments are “diagnostic” in that they uncover true intentions about what partners want and can offer in a relationship (Beck & Clark, 2009; Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Reis & Arriaga, 2015; Reis & Holmes, 2012; Simpson, 2007). For example, if Amy discovers that Sam declined a promising job and chose to move with her for her job, it highlights to Amy how much Sam values her and believes in her career. The benefits of such relationship-oriented behavior are two-fold: Amy will revise her negative expectations about romantic partners and eventually trust Sam, and Amy will gain confidence in her career skills. The ASEM relies on the interplay between diagnostic situations and different working models of self and others to offer separate pathways for enhancing security for anxious and avoidant individuals (see Fig. 5.1). A major premise of the model is that security-enhancing processes are most likely to occur when partners are not burdened by the frequent and immediate manifestation of insecurity that erodes relationships. One part of the model suggests partner responses tailored to counter

74

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

anxious or avoidant behaviors as a means of mitigating in-the-moment insecurity (Arriaga et al., 2018; See Table 5.1; details of the strategies discussed later). As seen on the left hand side of the model, partners can enact ‘safe’ strategies (e.g., offer reassurance) to buffer anxiety and use ‘soft’ strategies (e.g., non-critical requests for more involvement) to buffer tensions caused by avoidance (Overall & Simpson, 2015). Safe strategies convey to a person experiencing anxious thoughts and feelings that they are supported, and that things may be less dire than they seem in the moment. Soft strategies convey to a person who wishes to withdraw from a perceived attachment-threat interaction that the issue at hand does not detract from their value as a relationship partner and does not threaten their positive connection. Although these are labeled strategies, partners of individuals experiencing insecurity may not be consciously or intentionally using these tactics. Such ‘safe’ or ‘soft’ tactics may prevent immediate insecurity from spiraling into major conflicts and help stabilize a relationship. The tactics provide momentary responses to address immediate distress. However, such behaviors may not necessarily address chronic feelings of insecurity, including deeply-seated feelings of personal inadequacy for anxious individuals or firmly rooted expectations of others’ unavailability for avoidant individuals (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016, on mental representations of self and others). Moreover, partners eventually tire of repeated efforts to buffer insecurity (Lemay & Dudley, 2011), and their exasperation may reinforce the other’s insecure working models. Thus, the second major premise of the ASEM stipulates that security can be bolstered over time during ongoing non-distressing moments, in which partner behaviors Table 5.1 Sample features of attachment insecurity and associated partner buffering strategies Features of insecurity

Effective partner buffering strategies

Attachment anxiety

– Negative model of self – Ambivalent models of others – Fear relationship threats, and hyperactivate efforts to assert dependence – Prone to negative attributions and affect, emotional intensity and increased drama in interactions

Sample “safe” partner behaviors – Providing reassurance when negative emotions are triggered – Conveying commitment, reasserting a strong and intimate emotional bond – Deescalating heightened negative emotions; using touch

Attachment avoidance

– Fragile model of self – Negative models of others – Deactivation of the attachment system: Disengaged when others are emotional, dependent, or attempt to change them – Prone to discomfort with closeness and low commitment in relationships

Sample “soft” partner behaviors – Regulating other’s desire to avoid emotionally-charged interactions – Conveying how and why certain requests and needs in relationships are reasonable – Avoiding emotional, demanding, or critical tones

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

75

can help induce changes to the self-concept by encouraging positive working models of the self and others. As seen in the right-hand side of Fig. 5.1, different strategies may address chronic feelings of anxiety or avoidance (Arriaga et al., 2018; see Table 5.2). Although both anxious and avoidant individuals harbor more negative working models of the self and others relative to their secure counterparts, the ASEM suggests targeting specific models to revise the self-concept, leading to enhanced security. Table 5.2 Processes that promote a recipient’s movement toward secure working models General process

Situations that foster security

Attachment anxiety

Confidence-building processes to foster a secure model of self – Feeling increasingly worthy and capable in personal domains – Increased comfort with autonomy and independence

Sample situations that instill confidence and foster a secure model of self – Being complimented and appreciated (e.g., partner lauds recipient, helps recipient set achievable personal goals that gradually become more challenging) – Deriving a sense of self-efficacy during challenging or distressing personal situations (e.g., partner provides praise or encouragement as recipient handles a problem/issue) – Being encouraged (and learning) to attribute personal accomplishments to one’s own efforts – Providing encouragement and autonomous support for new independent experiences

Attachment avoidance

Positive dependence processes to foster secure models of others – Feeling increasingly valued and capable in interpersonal domains – Increased comfort with dependence

Sample situations that create positive dependence and foster secure models of others – Experiencing fun or positive interdependence, which creates positive associations with closeness (e.g., fun activities with a partner) – Feeling unexpectedly positive in interpersonal or caregiving situations assumed to be aversive – Inadvertently attaining benefits from partner support, which weakens negative associations with dependence

76

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

To reverse a negative model of the self that is a signature characteristic of attachment anxiety, partners need to promote experiences in anxious individuals that foster greater self-confidence and self-worth, which combined with ‘safe’ strategies during moments of threat will then likely reduce the need for the hyperactivation of the attachment system. To reverse the negative model of others that is a signature characteristic of attachment avoidance, partners need to introduce experiences that create positive associations for dependence. Combining these with ‘soft’ strategies in minimizing tensions will then likely lower defensive mechanisms that suppress the innate need for attachment bonds. Given that insecure working models of the self and others tend to reinforce each other (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; also see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016, on mental representations of self and others), bolstering one model is likely to spill-over into bolstering the other as well. Finally, the model recognizes that partners differ in their ability to offer a sense of security (Feeney, 2004; Overall & Simpson, 2015; Simpson & Overall, 2014). The ASEM captures a long-term and challenging process, and partners need to skillfully work both parts of the model in tandem. Efforts to bolster security may inadvertently trigger relationship threats that activate the attachment system. For example, when partners encourage individuals to pursue independent skills that will foster selfconfidence, anxious individuals may interpret this as evidence of the partner seeking greater distance (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016); avoidant individuals may balk at their partner’s efforts to engage in new shared activities. Other factors that could interfere with the process include a partner lacking the motivation (Rusbult, Agnew, & Arriaga, 2012; Tran & Simpson, 2009) or ability to offer effective support (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Thrush, 2010; Jayamaha, Girme, & Overall, 2017), or an insecure individual having elevated levels of dispositional insecurity or confronting high external stressors (e.g., conflict between personal and relational domains; Kumashiro, Rusbult, & Finkel, 2008). Unless particularly salient diagnostic situations (e.g., a major partner sacrifice) occur that lead to active contemplation of self and partner motives (Beck & Clark, 2009), any initial revisions to working models are likely to be small or fleeting even if an experience was regarded positively. Nevertheless, as positive experiences give way to incremental revisions to working models, instances of attachment insecurity causing tensions may become less frequent. Partners may then be given a reprieve from having to continuously engage in ‘safe’ or ‘soft’ strategies (Lemay & Dudley, 2011), and may become more motivated to encourage experiences that lead to attachment security. Across time and experience, partners may become more effective as they learn the specific behaviors and activities that yield positive outcomes in their own relationship, and as they create situations with their partner that afford those positive outcomes (Arriaga, 2013).

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

77

5.3 Buffering In-the-Moment Attachment Insecurity This section offers a brief summary of the first part of the ASEM (Fig. 5.1) on ‘safe’ and ‘soft’ strategies for managing momentary insecurity (for a full review, see Arriaga et al., 2018).

5.3.1 Safe Strategies for Buffering Attachment Anxiety When individuals feel anxious about their partner’s commitment, they seek reassurance and love from the partner (e.g., Lemay & Dudley, 2011). As shown in the top half of Table 5.1, skilled partners can diffuse anxious concerns by using strategies that convey that their relationship is ‘safe’ and secure (Arriaga et al., 2018; Feeney, 2004; Overall, Girme, & Simpson 2016). Skilled partners can do this by conveying strong reassurances of commitment and closeness (Murray et al., 2011), even exaggerating expressions of affection or expressing guilt, and taking care to avoid criticism (Lemay & Dudley, 2011; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000; Overall, Girme, Lemay, & Hammond, 2014). Partners can also deescalate intense negative emotions by being soothing, calm, not minimizing issues, attempting to resolve issues in a constructive manner, using touch, or enacting positive sexual experiences (Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006; Kim, Feeney, & Jakubiak, 2018; Little, McNulty, & Russell, 2010). Thus, ‘safe’ strategies allow partners to mitigate potentially destructive consequences of anxious thoughts and dealings that can erode relationship quality and further reinforce negative working models. Such responsive behaviors may even begin to help strengthen the working model of the partner as being dependable and trustworthy, but such dependence on a partner for feelings of self-worth does not encourage the autonomy and independence that ultimately may boost confidence and self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Hepper & Carnelley, 2012). Safe strategies thus may not be sufficient to encourage the belief that the self is capable, effective, and worthy independent of any one person’s assessment.

5.3.2 Soft Strategies for Buffering Attachment Avoidance When individuals feel burdened by dependence and seek distance from a partner, partners often seek more closeness and involvement (Hunt et al., 2018). As shown in the bottom half of Table 5.1, partners can use strategies to regulate the other’s avoidant responses (Overall et al., 2016). Skillful partners need to be sensitive and respectful of an avoidant individual’s desire to disengage from emotionally-laden interactions; thus, partners are effective when they soften their demands, maintain an optimistic

78

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

tone, convey value for the person’s autonomy needs, and show appreciation (Overall, Simpson, & Struthers, 2013) or use humor, fun, sex or other tactics to diffuse the situation (Birnbaum et al. 2006; Little et al., 2010). In making requests for change or involvement, skillful partners can convey in a positive and matter-of-fact way why certain requests and needs are reasonable and acknowledge the scope of the sacrifice, without being accusatory or demanding (e.g., Farrell, Simpson, Overall, & Shallcross, 2016; Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, & Collins, 2011). Such soft strategies reduce the need for avoidant responses, and may even prevent negative associations with dependence. For example, there is some evidence that these ‘soft’ strategies may help avoidantly-attached individuals become more trusting over time (Farrell et al., 2016). However, partners may begin to resent the frequent need to honor avoidant individual’s desire for greater distance, and may tire of “tiptoeing” softly around normal relationship requests so as to not trigger avoidance. Thus, soft strategies may not be sufficient to encourage positive dependence or alter deeply entrenched beliefs that others cannot be counted on.

5.4 Bolstering Attachment Security This section offers a brief summary of the second part of the ASEM (Fig. 5.1) on processes that may foster attachment security for anxious or avoidant individuals through revisions to the self-concept (for a fuller review, see Arriaga et al., 2018). This chapter provides new considerations into the role of novel experiences for bolstering attachment security and highlights particular challenges in trying to reduce attachment avoidance. Although the use of ‘safe’ and ‘soft’ strategies to buffer insecurity were based on empirical findings (cf. Simpson & Overall, 2014), what is less established is how to enhance attachment security over time. The lack of understanding on how to enhance attachment security may also be due to the relatively little attention paid to the role of exploration and personal development in adult attachment research. Although Bowlby (1969) proposed exploration as an important part of the attachment system, this was theorized to occur once caregivers satisfied proximity needs and safe haven functions during moments of distress. Individuals could only turn to exploration once they surmounted perceived threats. Research on the different functions of attachment suggests that the secure base function indeed comes after the core attachment behavioral functions of proximity seeking and safe haven are satisfied (Heffernan, Fraley, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2012). Exploration nevertheless plays a large role in the attachment system and contributes to self-concept formation, as having a secure base enables children to learn to confidently navigate the complex world and master challenges on their own (Feeney & Thrush, 2010). Adult self-concept development continues to benefit from having close relationships that facilitate exploration and goal-directed activities (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Collins, 2015). For example, secure individuals are more likely to

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

79

be intrinsically engaged in their leisure activities and be successful at work compared to their insecure counterparts (Carnelley & Ruscher, 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Parallel literature to attachment reveals the importance of close relationships for supporting goal directed motives and behaviors (see Finkel & Fitzsimons, 2011 for a review), affirming one’s ideal self (Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro, 2009), capitalizing on good news to make it more meaningful (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004), and providing the strength to face failures for self-improvement (Caprariello & Reis, 2011; Kumashiro & Sedikides, 2005). Research on adult attachment has examined exploration in various contexts, including work (Hazan & Shaver, 1990), achievement motives (Elliot & Reis, 2003), pursuit of autonomous goals (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016), leisure activities (Carnelley & Ruscher, 2000), and interest in exploring physical, social, and intellectual environments (Green & Campbell, 2000). We will especially focus on the role of new experiences in contributing to self-concept development. There may be key experiences that work differently to reduce attachment anxiety versus avoidance. Anxious individuals may benefit from being able to use their partners as a secure base for independent pursuits, whereas avoidant individuals may benefit from shared experiences that provide opportunities to associate dependence with more positive thoughts and feelings than they had anticipated. The next sections will emphasize these processes to enhance attachment security, but the ASEM also suggests other ways for bolstering security through self-concept change (see Table 5.2; for a fuller review, see Arriaga et al., 2018).

5.4.1 Enhancing Attachment Security in Anxious Individuals Attachment anxiety stems from a history of receiving inconsistent caregiving that leads to preoccupation with maintaining attachment bonds, leaving little room for goal directed experiences that enable self-confidence and autonomy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Thus, anxiously-attached individuals are likely to benefit from partners who can help bolster self-confidence and strengthen the working model of the self. The top half of Table 5.2 summarizes the process. Partners can do this by encouraging independent pursuit of activities, affirming the self’s strengths and positive qualities, and by helping individuals recognize the intrinsic value in pursuing independent goals (see Feeney & Collins, 2015, for other ways to encourage thriving). These behaviors will then help individuals feel valued and capable in their personal domains and increase comfort with autonomy and independence. Indeed, a longitudinal study found that attachment anxiety declined a year later when individuals reported receiving responsive support and validation of their independent goal pursuits from their partners (Arriaga et al., 2014). In order for anxious individuals to revise their working model of the self, it is important that success in specific situations generalize to broader beliefs of self-value and competence. The process is gradual and may occasionally result in setbacks. Partners must encourage activities in which individuals are likely to succeed and can

80

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

attribute success to their own competence, as failures may reinforce feelings of inadequacy. Anxiously-attached individuals often feel indebted when partners encourage them (Gable & Gosnell, 2013), and may struggle to accept positive feedback from others (Gibson-Beverly & Schwartz, 2008). Partners, thus, must use skill in providing encouragement after successes and promoting resilience after setbacks. One strategy is to amplify the meaning of specific situations. Amplifying the positive meaning of partner compliments can increase self-confidence for low self-esteem individuals (Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007, 2010), and as such, is likely to help anxious individuals gain self-confidence. In addition, the self-expansion literature suggests that anxiously-attached individuals may be able to incorporate partner’s resources and strengths into the self-concept, enabling anxious individuals to feel more competent and capable of handling distress (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Such acceptance of skill or success in a personal endeavor should strengthen the model of self, and lead to increased comfort with autonomy and independence. The gradual shift in self-perception is also consistent with the literature on reflected appraisals, where individuals whose partners see them positively or in line with their ideal selves experience revisions to their self-perceptions to match their partner’s perceptions (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; Rusbult et al., 2009), though this process may be more challenging for individuals with negative self-perceptions (Murray et al., 2000). Moreover, the gradual acceptance that partners can be counted on for support as well as perceive them as capable and worthy, coupled with the use of safe strategies to offer reassurances when anxiety related insecurities lead to tension, also strengthen models of relationship partners. Self-confidence building strategies thus can result in revised working models of both the self and others that foster attachment security.

5.4.2 Enhancing Attachment Security in Avoidant Individuals The challenges in enhancing attachment security in avoidantly-attached individuals lies in convincing these individuals that dependence has benefits, as they have learned to function, if not happily, without depending on others. This challenge raises questions about why avoidantly-attached individuals even want to be in long-term relationships (Edelstein & Shaver, 2004), especially when cultural acceptance is gaining toward remaining single (Kislev, 2019).2 Notably, the deactivation of the attachment system does not reflect lacking an innate need for forming attachment bonds. For example, dismissive avoidants reported higher levels of positive affect 2 Although

the ASEM stems from robust theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence, much of what we know about avoidance in relationships relies on studies with romantically involved avoidant individuals who agree to take part in studies on relationships. There is preliminary evidence to suggest difficulties in recruiting avoidant individuals for this type of research or keeping them engaged (e.g., Kumashiro, Arriaga, & Hunt, 2019), and findings may not generalize.

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

81

upon receiving positive social feedback (Carvallo & Gabriel, 2006). Just as avoidant infants need to maintain proximity with their primary caregiver for survival but do not turn to them for comfort, avoidant adults may desire to be in relationships but deactivate attachment needs in threatening situations (Edelstein & Shaver, 2004). Unlike relationships with an anxious partner, relationships involving avoidant partners are less satisfying compared to secure relationships but feature less overt conflict (Li & Chan, 2012). Much of the tensions that avoidant individuals experience in their relationships stem from their partners instigating relationship threats (Hunt et al., 2018). Thus, avoidant individuals who remain in romantic relationships may have partners who already effectively use ‘soft’ strategies (Overall et al., 2016) or forego attempts to request changes.3 So how can security be enhanced for individuals who may be fine with the status quo? The two parts of ASEM may be even more intertwined for avoidance rather than anxiety-related insecurity, as attempts to enhance security may involve using ‘soft’ strategies to make requests seem reasonable. Trust figures prominently in reducing avoidance. As described previously, attachment avoidance decreases a year later when individuals expressed trust in their partner (Arriaga et al., 2014), but the study did not reveal how partners instilled trust. Some likely mechanisms include unexpected positive feelings from new interdependent activities. For example, avoidance levels decreased a month later for avoidantlyattached individuals who were guided through activities akin to exploration—novel couples yoga involving touch (versus no-touch individual yoga on separate mats) and fun intimacy-inducing activities (e.g., engaging in a quick quiz to learn more about each other; Stanton et al., 2017). The ASEM posits that the key to reducing attachment avoidance is through shared experiences that allow individuals to revise their negative model of others and learn the benefits of positive dependence. This can occur through feeling increasingly valued and capable in interpersonal domains and through new perceptions of rewards associated with being in relationships. The bottom half of Table 5.2 highlights the process. Partners can help create opportunities for new shared activities that are enjoyable, or amplify interactions that show benefits of dependence for issues beyond the relationship. As with attachment anxiety, the process is likely to be long-lasting when avoidant individuals learn to generalize their perceptions of specific situations into broader inferences, helping them realize that dependence in a relationship may actually be positive. In particular, engaging in new, fun, shared positive experiences under nonthreatening circumstances may update beliefs that closeness can be rewarding. Such activities also enhance relationship quality (Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; Girme, Overall, & Faingataa, 2014) that may boost partner motivations to engage with the process, as partners often feel dissatisfaction in a relationship with an avoidant partner (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). 3 Societal norms may play a large part, where it is widely believed that men will engage in behaviors

associated with avoidance (e.g., Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). While interesting, discussion around gender roles is beyond the scope of this paper.

82

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

Learning to associate the partner with positive and rewarding experiences may then help lower defensive reactions to receiving support for issues arising from nonrelational contexts. Avoidant individuals tend to tackle personal issues independently (Collins & Feeney, 2004; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992) and react negatively to emotional support (Girme, Overall, Simpson, & Fletcher, 2015; Simpson et al., 2007). However, research findings suggest benefits when partners provide either instrumental or practical support (Overall et al., 2016), or when partners convey strong, genuine support when avoidant individuals are unable to rely on their regular defenses to regulate their emotions and they experience high distress (Girme et al., 2015; Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009). Such experiences reveal benefits of dependence and help weaken negative associations of dependence (Feeney, 2007). Finally, partners can amplify situations where individuals may unexpectedly find that providing care can be rewarding and acknowledge the value that avoidant individuals bring to the relationship (Carvallo & Gabriel, 2006). For example, avoidant fathers became less avoidant after providing support to their spouses (Simpson et al., 2003). Such repeated positive experiences that run counter to their expectations may promote feelings of competence in social domains and help promote more confidence in dealing with new interdependent situations. Thus, learning to associate dependence with positive experiences may reduce the need to deactivate the attachment system and bolster trust. In turn, individuals may even learn to use partners as a secure base for other goal-related and novel experiences, which could lead to a more genuine enjoyment of these experiences that contribute to authentic self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Hepper & Carnelley, 2012). Nevertheless, such processes are not likely to be easy and may hinge on encountering repeated situations that reveal positive benefits of dependence, which allows them to feel increasingly comfortable with dependence. Avoidantly-attached individuals may resist overt attempts for any change, so partners may have to be subtle in their efforts (cf. Howland & Simpson, 2010, on invisible support; Wood & Neal, 2007) and use ‘soft’ strategies if conflicts arise. These experiences also convey being valued and capable in interpersonal domains, which may lead avoidantly-attached individuals to replace defensive self-views with a more authentic and positive model of the self. Coupled with the use of ‘soft’ strategies in managing tensions arising from avoidance tendencies, such revisions to working models should foster greater attachment security over the long run.

5.5 Summary and Conclusions There is widespread interest in understanding how attachment security can be enhanced in non-clinical contexts. The ASEM (Arriaga et al., 2018) provides a roadmap for how relationships can be leveraged to revise deeply-entenched beliefs about the self and others to achieve interpersonal security over time. The key lies in understanding orientation-specific responses (i.e., anxious, avoidant) that need to

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

83

be managed in tense situations, and introducing specific experiences in mundane (non-tense) moments that can revise existing beliefs. Partners of anxiously-attached individuals can apply ‘safe’ strategies that buffer hyperactivated efforts to protect attachment bonds, and at other times they can encourage experiences that build self-confidence and enhance self-worth. On the other hand, partners of avoidantly-attached individuals can help promote shared experiences that lead to positive associations with dependence, and use ‘soft’ strategies to manage any tension caused by resistance to becoming more engaged or to being asked to change their behaviors. Both processes—mitigating momentary insecure responses and fostering secure working models—are likely to work in tandem. This may be particularly true as partners respond to the demands that arise from anxious and avoidant insecurities. Partners of individuals experiencing anxiety invariably may feel compelled to respond to demands for reassurance of love and commitment. Even when the use of safe strategies quells momentary anxiety, chronically anxious individuals may balk at confidence-building pursuits, which will compel their partners to reenact safe strategies. The dynamics of avoidance are different. Avoidantly-attached individuals resist others’ influence, disengage from conflicts or emotional interactions, or react with anger when partners attempt to change them (Overall et al., 2016; Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes, & Oriña, 2007); using ‘safe’ strategies may backfire for avoidantlyattached individuals if partners expand their presence or provide constant reassurance when avoidant individuals seek greater distance. Relationship conflicts involving chronically avoidant individuals mainly occur as their partners desire greater intimacy and engagement (Hunt, Arriaga, & Kumashiro, 2018). Therefore, even in trying to promote positive interdependence, partners may come to feel that they are causing conflicts when they opt to seek greater involvement or interdependence. Partners thus must exercise caution as they balance a desire for closeness and security-enhancing strategies. Although the ASEM provides a roadmap of the underlying processes that enhance attachment security, the expression of these processes may vary. Partners must find specific strategies that work for their own relationships. The ASEM stipulates a long and sometimes uncomfortable journey for partners as they learn to manage tensions arising from insecurity and go out of their comfort zone to try new experiences. It likely takes a skilled and highly motivated partner with time and patience to be able to find the optimal means for promoting interpersonal security. Partners must also derive benefits from the process in order to sustain their pro-relationship motivation and good will; particularly if they become frustrated by security-enhancing processes, some partners may even discover that they occasionally appreciated an avoidant partner’s extreme self-reliance or miss the feeling of being so needed by an anxious partner. The ASEM ultimately is a model about self-transformation via relationship processes. Bolstering working models of the self and others directly affects important self-constructs (e.g., self-esteem), contributes to fundamental human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2014), and may lead to expansion

84

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

of the self (Aron et al., 2013). Achieving greater interpersonal security is a challenging and long-term journey. Those couples willing to embark on ASEM processes may even enjoy the journey, perhaps edging closer to a fairytale-esque ending. Acknowledgments The writing of this paper was supported by funding to both authors from the Economic and Social Research Council (No. ES/N013182/1) and the National Science Foundation (No. 1531226).

References Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Arriaga, X. B. (2013). An interdependence theory analysis of close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 39–65). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E. J., Van der Drift, L. E., & Luchies, L. B. (2014). Filling the void: Bolstering attachment security in committed relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 398–405. Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 71–96. Beck, L. A., & Clark, M. S. (2009). Choosing to enter or avoid diagnostic social situations. Psychological Science, 20, 1175–1181. Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety, and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1982/1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guilford. Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver, J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 102–127). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2011). Perceived partner responsiveness minimizes defensive reactions to failure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 365–372. Carnelley, K. B., & Ruscher, J. B. (2000). Adult attachment and exploratory behavior in leisure. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 153–165. Carvallo, M., & Gabriel, S. (2006). No man is an island: The need to belong and dismissing avoidant attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 697–709. Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

85

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363–383. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 644–663. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593– 623. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships motivation theory. In N. Weinstein (Ed.), Human motivation and interpersonal relationships: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 53–73). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 23–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Edelstein, R. S., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Avoidant attachment: Exploration of an oxymoron. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 397–412). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317–331. Farrell, A. K., Simpson, J. A., Overall, N. C., & Shallcross, S. L. (2016, February 25). Buffering the responses of avoidantly attached romantic partners in strain test situations. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 580–591. Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648. Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268–285. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 57–76. Finkel, E. J., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2011). The effects of social relationships on self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 390–406). New York: Guilford Press. Fraley, R. C. (2019). Attachment in adulthood: Recent developments, emerging debates, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 401–422. Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26–30. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. Gable, S. L., & Gosnell, C. L. (2013). Approach and avoidance behavior in interpersonal relationships. Emotion Review, 5, 269–274. Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245. Gibson-Beverly, G., & Schwartz, J. P. (2008). Attachment, entitlement, and the impostor phenomenon in female graduate students. Journal of College Counseling, 11, 119–132. Gillath, O., & Karantzas, G. (2019). Attachment security priming: A systematic review. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 86–95. Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Faingataa, S. (2014). ‘Date nights’ take two: The maintenance function of shared relationship activities. Personal Relationships, 21, 125–149.

86

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Fletcher, G. J. (2015). “All or nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 450–475. Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 452–461. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270–280. Heffernan, M. E., Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2012). Attachment features and functions in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 671–693. Hepper, E. G., & Carnelley, K. B. (2012). The self-esteem roller coaster: Adult attachment moderates the impact of daily feedback. Personal Relationships, 19, 504–520. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220). London: Sage. Howland, M., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Getting under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible support. Psychological Science, 21, 1878–1885. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2018). Moving toward greater security: The effects of repeatedly priming attachment security and anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 147–157. Hunt, L., Arriaga, X. B., & Kumashiro, M. (2018, July). “Tell me what you want, what you really, really want”: Preferences within attachment-relevant situations. Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship Research, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2016). Daily goal progress is facilitated by spousal support and promotes psychological, physical, and relational well-being throughout adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 317–340. Jayamaha, S. D., Girme, Y. U., & Overall, N. C. (2017). When attachment anxiety impedes support provision: The role of feeling unvalued and unappreciated. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 181–191. Johnson, S. M. (2004) [1996]. The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection. Basic principles into practice series (2nd ed.). New York: Brunner-Routledge. Kim, K. J., Feeney, B. C., & Jakubiak, B. K. (2018). Touch reduces romantic jealousy in the anxiously attached. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1019–1041. Kislev, E. (2019). Happy singlehood: The rising acceptance and celebration of solo living. California: University of California Press. Kumashiro, M, Arriaga, X. B., & Hunt, L. (2019). Seeking avoidants: Issues in recruiting and engaging avoidants in longitudinal attachment studies on couples. Unpublished manuscript, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK. Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Navigating personal and relational concerns: The quest for equilibrium. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 94–110. Kumashiro, M., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Taking on board liability-focused information: Close positive relationships as a self-bolstering resource. Psychological Science, 16, 732–739. Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Dudley, K. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 681–702. Li, T., & Chan, D. K. S. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationships quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 406–419. Little, K. C., McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). Sex buffers intimates against the negative implications of attachment insecurity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 484–498. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66–104.

5 Attachment Security Enhancement Model …

87

Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words: Reframing compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 232–248. Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2010). Fostering relationship resilience: An intervention for low self-esteem individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 624–630. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 53–152. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139–156. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivationmanagement theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116, 908–928. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurances: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 485–502. Murray, S. L., Pinkus, R. T., Holmes, J. G., Harris, B., Gomillion, S., Aloni, M., et al. (2011). Signaling when (and when not) to be cautious and self-protective: Impulsive and reflective trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498. Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., 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. Overall, N. C., Girme, Y. U., Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Hammond, M. T. (2014). Attachment anxiety and reactions to relationship threat: The benefits and costs of inducing guilt in romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 235–256. Overall, N. C., Girme, Y. U., & Simpson, J. A. (2016). The power of diagnostic situations: How support and conflict can foster growth and security. In C. R Knee & H. T Reis (Eds.), Positive approaches to optimal development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). Attachment and dyadic regulation processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 61–66. Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 854–871. Pietromonaco, P. R., & Carnelley, K. B. (1994). Gender and working models of attachment: Consequences for perceptions of self and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 63–82. Reis, H. T., & Arriaga, X. B. (2015). Interdependence theory. In B. Gawronski & G. Bodenhausen (Eds.), Theory and explanation in social psychology (pp. 305–327). New York: Guilford Press. Reis, H. T., & Holmes, J. G. (2012). Perspectives on the situation. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 64–92). New York: Oxford University Press. Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309.

88

M. Kumashiro and X. B. Arriaga

Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The investment model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 218–231. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S. I., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2011). Recovering from conflict in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Psychological Science, 22, 376–383. Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 264–268. Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2014). Partner buffering of attachment insecurity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 54–59. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Campbell, L., & Wilson, C. L. (2003). Changes in attachment orientations across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 317–331. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. (1992). Support-seeking and support-giving within couples within an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446. Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A., Rholes, W. S., & Oriña, M. M. (2007). Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466–477. Stanton, S. C., Campbell, L., & Pink, J. C. (2017). Benefits of positive relationship experiences for avoidantly attached individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 568–588. Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 1184–1199. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Tran, S., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). Prorelationship maintenance behaviors: The joint roles of attachment and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 685–698. Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114, 843–863.

Chapter 6

Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity and Self-Change in Relationships Lydia F. Emery and Wendi L. Gardner

Was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I’m not the same, the next question is, Who in the world am I? Ah, that’s the great puzzle!—Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Change can unfold gradually, “feeling a little different” from day to day, or change can unfold dramatically, radically eclipsing the person we used to be. People tend to experience both forms of change throughout their lives, and romantic relationships are an especially fertile ground for encouraging self-change, for better or worse (e.g., Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014; McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2015; see Chap. 1 for an overview). A growing body of research suggests that the ways people understand their own self-concepts play a crucial role in relationshipinduced self-change. Self-concept clarity, the extent to which a person has a clear and coherent sense of self (Campbell, 1990; Campbell et al., 1996), predicts people’s likelihood of changing due to their relationships and can be influenced by people having experienced these kinds of changes. This chapter explores the bidirectional links between self-concept clarity and self-change in relationships and how the interplay between these processes predicts well-being.

L. F. Emery (B) · W. L. Gardner Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] W. L. Gardner e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_6

89

90

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

6.1 Self-Concept Clarity People’s self-concepts include the various content that defines who they are, including personality traits, personal goals, individual preferences, and social roles (James, 1890; McConnell, 2011). People organize this content in different ways; for example, some people have self-concepts that are more complex than others or find different aspects of themselves to be more cognitively accessible (Linville, 1985; McConnell, 2011). People also reflect on their self-concepts, making subjective evaluations of whether they understand who they are (i.e., self-concept clarity; Campbell, 1990; Campbell et al., 1996). Specifically, self-concept clarity captures whether people feel that the diverse aspects of their self-concept make sense together and are relatively consistent over time (Campbell, 1990; Campbell et al., 1996; Lodi-Smith & DeMarree, 2017). Self-concept clarity broadly enhances people’s well-being. Those with higher selfconcept clarity are less neurotic, less socially anxious, less stressed, less depressed, perceive more meaning in their lives, have higher self-esteem, and feel more satisfied with their lives—to name just a few examples (Bła˙zek & Besta, 2012; Campbell et al., 1996; Ritchie, Sedikides, Wildschut, Arndt, & Gidron, 2011; Stopa, Brown, Luke, & Hirsch, 2010; Treadgold, 1999). Most research focusing on self-concept clarity examines individual outcomes. However, despite capturing people’s understanding of their individual self-concepts, self-concept clarity also shapes people’s relationships and vice versa.

6.1.1 Self-Concept Clarity in Relationships The relational roots of self-concept clarity run deep (see McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2017, for a review). Self-concept clarity itself is intergenerational— adolescents whose parents have high self-concept clarity are more likely to achieve high self-concept clarity themselves (Crocetti, Rubini, Branje, Koot, & Meeus, 2016). Within romantic relationships, people with high self-concept clarity report being more satisfied and committed, and experimentally threatening people’s self-concept clarity can undermine satisfaction and commitment (Lewandowski, Nardone, & Raines, 2010). The existing literature identifies a number of possible reasons why self-concept clarity might enhance people’s relationships (see McIntyre et al., 2017, for a review). People with higher self-concept clarity tend to have higher self-esteem (Campbell et al., 1996), which partly explains the link between self-concept clarity and relationship quality (Lewandowski et al., 2010). Those with higher self-concept clarity may also make better choices in their romantic partners and, as discussed further in this chapter, more successfully expand their identities (see McIntyre et al., 2017). At the same time, relationship dynamics can alter self-concept clarity. Feeling lonely in a relationship, for example, predicts lower self-concept clarity two years

6 Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity …

91

later (Richman et al., 2016). Transgressions and forgiveness in relationships also have implications for self-concept clarity, based on whether people feel as though they have stood up for themselves or feel like a doormat (Luchies, Finkel, McNulty, & Kumashiro, 2010). People who forgive a partner who has attempted to atone experience increases to their self-concept clarity; however, forgiving a partner who has not attempted to atone results in diminished self-concept clarity (Luchies et al., 2010). Thus, just as self-concept clarity can influence relationships, relationships, in turn, can influence self-concept clarity. Overall, self-concept clarity and relationship dynamics appear to work in positive, stable concert. Yet, relationships can also catalyze changes to people’s self-concepts. People can change, for better or worse, as a result of their relationships, and they can change due to their partners or on their own (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013; Mattingly et al., 2014; McIntyre et al., 2015; Muise et al., 2019; see Chap. 1, this volume). What, then, is self-concept clarity’s role when people’s selves are not stable in their relationships, but instead undergo changes to who they are? Extant research suggests that self-concept clarity predicts the likelihood that people will change as a result of their relationships; changing due to a relationship also predicts people’s self-concept clarity.

6.1.2 Self-Concept Clarity Predicting Self-Change in Relationships Relationship Formation The beginnings of a romantic relationship are exciting and often spark self-expansion, taking on attributes from new romantic partners and including them in the self-concept (Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; see Chap. 1 in this volume). After falling in love, the size of people’s self-concepts becomes larger (Aron et al., 1995). Moreover, single people presented with a prospective romantic partner will spontaneously take that person’s attributes and incorporate them into their own self-concept (Slotter & Gardner, 2009). For example, if someone who does not consider herself to be artistic views the online dating profile of someone who loves visiting art museums, she may suddenly consider herself to be slightly artistic. People have been theorized to have a general motivation to self-expand (Aron & Aron, 1997), and in fact, self-expansion is not limited to positive qualities—people will also take on negative attributes from a romantic interest (Slotter & Gardner, 2012a). However, there are also individual differences in people’s interest in selfexpanding (Hughes, Slotter, & Lewandowski, 2019). Indeed, not everyone does selfexpand with a potential romantic partner—people with low self-concept clarity in particular may self-expand less than do those with high self-concept clarity. After people self-expand, they must integrate their new attributes within the larger structure of their self-concept (Aron & Aron, 1997; McConnell, 2011). For people with low self-concept clarity, then, self-expanding is a risk (Emery, Walsh, & Slotter,

92

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

2015). They are already confused about who they are and struggling to reconcile the various attributes that define their existing self-concepts. Adding even more content to the self risks even further self-concept confusion. As a result, those with lower self-concept clarity may resist self-expanding, even with an appealing new romantic partner. Conversely, for those with high self-concept clarity, self-expansion carries little risk. In fact, people with low self-concept clarity do report less interest than people with high self-concept clarity in self-expanding on their own, assessed either through people’s self-reported self-concept clarity or through experimental manipulations of self-concept clarity (Emery et al., 2015). Does this resistance to self-expansion extend to relationships? In one study, single participants completed a self-concept clarity manipulation. They then viewed a fictitious online dating profile belonging to someone who had an attribute that the participant did not. For example, a participant who initially rated themselves as not athletic saw a prospective partner who asserted, “I am very athletic. I ran track in high school and run 5 k’s now. I am also training for a marathon.” Participants who had experienced the self-concept clarity threat manipulation were less likely to self-expand after viewing this profile, compared to those who completed a self-concept clarity affirmation or control prime. Consistent with previous research (Slotter & Gardner, 2009), those who reported more interest in the prospective romantic partner were especially likely to self-expand in the affirmation or control conditions. However, for people whose self-concept clarity was threatened, it did not matter how interested they were in the prospective partner—they did not self-expand (Emery et al., 2015). Thus, a lack of self-concept clarity may interfere with the kinds of self-change that help to deepen closeness and intimacy in fledgling relationships. Ongoing Relationships As relationships develop over time, partners have fewer opportunities to self-expand by taking on attributes from each other. However, partners can experience self-change by having new and exciting experiences together or by self-expanding on their own (Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000; Muise et al., 2019). A person with low self-concept clarity can certainly choose not to pursue self-change within the context of a long-term, existing relationship. But, if their partner starts to change, they must then decide whether or not to support that change. Supporting a partner’s self-change can help that partner achieve those changes (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999; Overall, Fletcher, & Simpson, 2010). Moreover, partners are more satisfied with their relationships when people support their changes (Drigotas et al., 1999; Fivecoat, Tomlinson, Aron, & Caprariello, 2015; Overall et al., 2010). Why, then, might someone attempt to sabotage a partner’s self-change? For people with low self-concept clarity, a changing partner is risky. Recall that those with low self-concept clarity resist their own self-change, as it theoretically risks even further confusion to their self-concepts. Thus, people with low self-concept clarity may attempt to undermine their partner’s self-change, due to fears that if their partner is changing, they may also have to change.

6 Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity …

93

In fact, people with low self-concept clarity do try to prevent their partners from changing (Emery, Gardner, Finkel, & Carswell, 2018). They report engaging in the kinds of behaviors that might prevent their partner from changing; for example, if their partner decided to take up art as a hobby, they might schedule other activities at the same time as their partner’s art classes. Moreover, the concern that their partner’s change might result in them having to change, too, accounts for the association between self-concept clarity and undermining a partner’s change. People with low self-concept clarity are especially likely to undermine their partner’s change when their partner is changing more, as these are the kinds of changes that they might also have to adopt. However, these attempts to undermine a partner’s change result in both members of the couple feeling less happy and less committed to the relationship in the long run (Emery, Gardner, Finkel, & Carswell, 2018). And, these attempts do not even appear to be successful at stopping a partner’s change (Emery, Gardner, Carswell, & Finkel, 2019). The prospect of a changing partner appears to threaten people with low self-concept clarity, but their attempts to stop that change only seem to result in unhappiness for both members of the couple. Relationship Dissolution Experiencing the end of a relationship can bring a range of changes to the self—people often feel like they have lost part of themselves, especially when their former relationship provided opportunities for self-expanding (Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006; see Chap. 9 of this volume). To date, existing research has not directly examined how self-concept clarity influences self-change after the end of a relationship. However, previous research might yield two predictions. First, on average, people with lower self-concept clarity should be more likely to experience breakups in their relationships. As discussed earlier, lower self-concept clarity predicts lower relationship satisfaction and commitment (Lewandowski et al., 2010). These relationship evaluations, in turn, robustly predict likelihood of breakup (Le & Agnew, 2003; Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010). Second, losing a self-expanding relationship generally appears harmful for the selfconcept (Lewandowski et al., 2006). However, people with lower self-concept clarity may actually be more likely to break up with a partner who provides self-expansion opportunities, given their resistance to self-change. We return to this possibility in the future directions.

6.1.3 Self-Change in Relationships Predicting Self-Concept Clarity Relationship Formation Entering into a new relationship, almost by definition, can change people’s self-concepts. But does relationship formation influence selfconcept clarity? To the best of our knowledge, existing research has not directly examined this question. However, uncertainty is a hallmark of early stages of relationships (Tennov, 1998). Limerence theory focuses on uncertainty stemming from

94

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

the possibility that a partner might not return one’s feelings, which catalyzes passion (Tennov, 1998). To our knowledge, this theoretical perspective has not been extended to self-uncertainty. Yet, it seems plausible that this time, filled with changes and uncertainty, might also diminish self-concept clarity. We elaborate on this idea in the future directions. Long-Term Relationships Once people are in existing relationships, they still continue to change, both inside their relationships and outside of them. In general, the link between self-change and self-concept clarity appears to have some key moderators. First, people’s feelings about the change matter. In one study, people listed the three biggest ways they had changed as a result of their current relationship and how positively they felt about these changes (Slotter & Walsh, 2017). People who felt better about the ways they had changed in their relationships reported higher self-concept clarity 6 months later than did those who felt less positively about their changes. These results suggest that it is not simply changing in a relationship that influences self-concept clarity, but how people evaluate the ways that they have changed. Second, some clues in the literature suggest that self-concept clarity outcomes may depend on having a partner who verifies the ways a person has changed. Consistent with the logic of self-concept clarity, self-verification theory argues that people are motivated to maintain a stable sense of self and that having close others affirm our self-views is one means of preserving this stability (Swann & Read, 1981; Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989). And indeed, when people are at risk of losing a key identity, self-verification from a friend can repair their self-concept clarity (Slotter & Gardner, 2014). Thus, self-verification enhances self-concept clarity and may especially help when a person has changed or is at risk of changing. Are there individual differences in who is likely to benefit from self-verification when they change? Although this idea has not, to our knowledge, been tested directly, research has examined how self-verification influences self-concept clarity in relationships and who is unlikely to receive it (Emery, Gardner, Carswell, & Finkel, 2018). People high on attachment avoidance find it difficult to trust others and tend to keep their distance from romantic partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012). Therefore, it is possible that avoidant people do not receive selfverification from their partners, which in turn predicts lower self-concept clarity. In one test of this hypothesis (Emery et al. 2018), both members of romantic couples came into the laboratory and, separately, listed 10 responses each to the questions “Who are you?” and “Who is your partner?” This technique enabled researchers to compare, for example, Harry’s description of Sally to Sally’s description of herself. Avoidant people tended to have lower self-concept clarity. Moreover, objective coding revealed avoidant people tended to have partners who really did not know them as well (as compared to less avoidant people, whose partners knew them fairly accurately). This lack of self-verification, in turn, was associated with lower self-concept clarity for those avoidant people. Avoidant people received less self-verification, in part, because they were less likely to share information about themselves with their partners. Thus, it is entirely conceivable that if avoidant people change over the

6 Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity …

95

course of their relationships, they may not tell their partners, in turn contributing to lower self-concept clarity. Relationship Dissolution Of the various links between self-change in relationships and self-concept clarity, the ways that breakups influence self-concept clarity have perhaps received the most empirical attention. Leaving social roles in general can threaten self-concept clarity (Light & Visser, 2013), and after a romantic breakup, people tend to experience significant decays in their self-concept clarity (Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). However, there are some key moderators of this effect. Breakups do not always harm self-concept clarity—the answer depends on (a) attachment style, (b) whether people were able to self-expand in the former relationship, and (c) whether people change after the breakup. First, individual differences appear to shape breakup’s effect on self-concept clarity. Specifically, people high on attachment anxiety yearn for extreme closeness with their partners but also fear rejection (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012). Anxiously attached people are especially likely to experience low self-concept clarity after a breakup (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b). Moreover, they also are particularly susceptible to self-concept change following breakup (e.g., changes in their values and beliefs), which partly accounts for the association between attachment anxiety and lower self-concept clarity after a breakup (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b). Self-expansion opportunities in a previous relationship may also predict selfconcept clarity after breakup (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007). People who reported having a partner who provided them with abundant opportunities to self-expand in their previous relationship were more likely to also report loss of self after the breakup. Although not exactly self-concept clarity, loss of self has substantial overlap, including items like “I do not know who I am” (Lewandowski et al., 2006). On the other hand, people who had been in a relationship that did not provide them with opportunities to self-expand were more likely to report self-growth after the end of their relationship (Lewandowski & Bizzocco, 2007). Thus, breakup’s effects on self-concept clarity appear to depend partly on whether the former relationship was able to nourish people’s self-change. On average, people who change more after the end of a relationship experience lower self-concept clarity, especially if they are not feeling positively about the breakup (Slotter & Walsh, 2017). However, in some circumstances, not changing can actually lead to lower self-concept clarity (Slotter, Emery, & Luchies, 2014). After a breakup, people tend to retain self-concept elements that were due to their former partner, but only if they had put substantial effort into those self-concept changes. For example, someone who took up running marathons with his former partner and spent months training for them would be likely to keep this new selfattribute after a breakup. However, retaining self-concept changes that came from an ex-partner is associated with lower self-concept clarity. In other words, people are reluctant to abandon aspects of their self-concept that came from their former relationship if they put substaintial work into them, but having part of their selfconcept so tied to their former partner makes them feel confused about who they are.

96

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

Changing more after a breakup, by discarding pieces of the self that came from the ex-partner, is associated with higher self-concept clarity. These findings, taken together, may seem inconsistent. How can changing after a breakup both predict lower self-concept clarity (Slotter & Gardner, 2012b; Slotter & Walsh, 2017) and higher self-concept clarity (Slotter et al., 2014)? The key distinction may be the nature of those changes. Self-change after breakup can be compared to caring for a houseplant (Slotter & Emery, 2017). Strategically pruning dead leaves (parts of the self that came from an ex-partner; Slotter et al., 2014) will help the plant to thrive or help people achieve high self-concept clarity. However, failing to prune the dead leaves (retaining parts of the self that came from an ex-partner; Slotter et al., 2014) or cutting off entire parts of the plant (making large, negative changes to the self; Slotter & Walsh, 2017) will lead it to decay or low self-concept clarity. Understanding how breakup influences self-concept clarity may illuminate people’s experiences of losing relationships. On average, people tend to experience lower self-concept clarity after a breakup, which in turn predicts symptoms of depression (Slotter et al., 2010). Similarly, having an accessible and vivid “lost self” predicts lower well-being after divorce (King & Raspin, 2004). Yet, reflecting on aspects of the self lost after a breakup may help people regain self-concept clarity and wellbeing over time. Divorced women who write in more detailed ways about the person they could have been view their identities more coherently (akin to self-concept clarity; King & Raspin, 2004). Moreover, people assigned to reflect repeatedly on a breakup tend to report greater recovery of self and less distress, compared to those not assigned to complete this sort of reflection (Larson & Sbarra, 2015). Thus, although the end of a relationship tarnishes self-concept clarity, processing the end of that relationship can help people recover their understanding of themselves and improve well-being. Although people normatively experience distress after the end of a relationship (albeit often less distress than they expect; Eastwick, Finkel, Krishnamurti, & Loewenstein, 2008), the death of a loved one can sometimes induce clinical levels of distress. Prolonged grief disorder features a persistent yearning for the loved one and trouble accepting the loss that continues for longer than six months after the person’s death (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Self-concept clarity and self-change may play a role in prolonged grief disorder. Theoretical work suggests that prolonged grief disorder may stem in part from change due to the loss, as people struggle to integrate who they were before the loss with who they are now (McCallum & Bryant, 2013). Moreover, losing a loved one can spark a decrease in self-concept clarity, which is linked with acute symptoms of prolonged grief disorder (Boelen et al., 2012). People who fail to recover self-concept clarity after this loss are more likely to continue to experience prolonged grief disorder (Boelen et al., 2012). Thus, this research raises the possibility that interventions targeting self-concept clarity may help to ameliorate the symptoms of prolonged grief disorder.

6 Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity …

97

6.2 Future Directions Overall, research has found robust links between self-concept clarity and self-change in relationships. People with higher self-concept clarity are more likely to change in the early stages of their relationships and are more likely to support their partner’s selfchange in ongoing relationships. Changing during a relationship in positive ways is associated with higher self-concept clarity, and people generally experience declines in self-concept clarity after a breakup. This existing work points to several future directions for research on self-concept clarity and self-change in relationships, at all three stages—relationship formation, long-term relationships, and relationship dissolution.

6.2.1 Relationship Formation At the beginning of a relationship, people hope that their romantic partner returns their feelings, but they are often uncertain. This uncertainty is theorized to galvanize romantic passion, which ultimately tapers off once people know that their partner cares for them (Tennov, 1998). Within this theorizing, uncertainty is specific to people’s beliefs about their partner reciprocating how they feel. But perhaps this romantic uncertainty may also relate to self-uncertainty (i.e., self-concept clarity). It could be that this romantic uncertainty causes decreases in self-concept clarity— that people are less certain of who they are when they are unsure whether their partner returns their feelings. It could also be that people who chronically experience low self-concept clarity are more prone to the kinds of romantic uncertainty that characterize limerence. Past work has distinguished between uncertainty about a person’s own feelings about the relationship, uncertainty about a partner’s feelings about the relationship, and uncertainty about the relationship itself (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). It falls to future research to examine whether uncertainty about a partner’s regard intertwines with uncertainty about one’s own identity. Although past research has examined how self-concept clarity shapes changes in the early stages of relationships, research has not focused as much on attraction specifically. As previously discussed, people with low self-concept clarity avoid changing themselves (Emery et al., 2015) and appear to sabotage their relationships by undermining their partner’s attempts to change (Emery, Gardner, Finkel, & Carswell, 2018). The anxiety they experience when considering selfchange may also make them less attractive to prospective partners. In friendships, people are more attracted to those who can be instrumental in helping that person achieve their self-change goals (Slotter & Gardner, 2011). In fact, the most attractive people in any social network are those who could potentially assist in pursuing multiple different goals (Orehek, Forest, & Wingrove, 2018). These people are rare, of course, which is partly why they are so attractive to others. Given that those with low

98

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

self-concept clarity are so demonstrably averse to change, they may be less appealing to others in the stages of initial attraction. People with low self-concept clarity may not only suffer in initial attraction because they resist self-change—they may also seem less authentic. Outside of romantic relationships, authenticity is strongly linked to interpersonal charisma (Gardner et al, 2005; Ibarra, 2015), and self-concept clarity plays a key role in expressive authenticity (Diehl, Jacobs, & Hastings, 2006). Within relationships, a partner’s authenticity is associated with trust and connection (Wickham, 2013). However, people with low self-concept clarity tend to feel less authentic than do those with high self-concept clarity when introducing themselves to someone new (Duffy, 2014). If authentic people are more romantically appealing, then individuals with higher selfconcept clarity may appear more attractive than are those with lower self-concept clarity. This is not to suggest that people with low self-concept clarity always do worse in the dating pool. People who have low self-concept clarity themselves may be more likely to desire a partner who also has low self-concept clarity. Those with high selfconcept clarity are likely to seek a partner who provides them with opportunities to expand and grow, consistent with a general motivation for self-expansion (Aron & Aron, 1997), whereas those with low self-concept clarity may prefer those who also do not want to change. And yet, there are two possible complications. First, people tend to be most attracted to those whom they believe are similar to them, which are not always the people who are similar (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). In other words, a person with high self-concept clarity might assume that a potential partner would also enjoy going on travel adventures, and they may only later find out that their partner is actually a homebody. Second, when presented with a potential partner who offers self-expansion opportunities, people with low selfconcept clarity express no less romantic interest in this person than those with high self-concept clarity (Emery et al., 2015). We hope that future research will examine the interplay between actor and partner self-concept clarity in predicting both initial attraction and later relationship success.

6.2.2 Long-Term Relationships One potential direction for future research centers on the interaction between actor and partner self-concept clarity—in particular, how relationships can thrive between partners with different levels of self-concept clarity. As discussed, people with low self-concept clarity tend to feel threatened by their partners changing, resulting in problems for the relationship (Emery, Gardner, Finkel, & Carswell, 2018). In fact, researchers have hypothesized that people seeing their partners as less conducive to self-growth than an alternative partner may spell danger for the relationship (Orehek, Forest & Barbaro, 2018). How, then, can people maintain a successful relationship with a partner whose self-concept clarity does not match their own?

6 Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity …

99

Work from the emotion regulation literature may provide a hint. People who rely on a wider range of close others within their social networks to regulate their emotions experience higher well-being than do those who concentrate their emotional needs within a more limited set of people (Cheung, Gardner, & Anderson, 2015). In fact, having a broad set of these emotion-regulating relationships (“emotionships”) enhances both a person’s individual well-being and relationship satisfaction. When people rely on a broader range of emotionships (and not simply on their partner), they experience better relationship satisfaction over time and are at lower risk of breakup (Cheung, Carswell, Gardner, & Finkel, 2019). Emotion regulation and supporting self-change are fairly distinct domains, but similar principles apply. People often turn to their romantic partners for support as they strive toward the person they ideally want to become (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999; Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro, 2009). Yet, just as in emotion regulation, romantic partners may sometimes lack the motivation or ability to provide this kind of support. In fact, people do turn to their broader social networks to support their efforts to achieve their ideal selves (Cheung & Gardner, 2016), and people with more supportive relationships in their social networks experience more personal growth (Lee, Ybarra, Gonzales, & Ellsworth, 2018). Based on these literatures, a romantic partner is not the only person who can support self-change. Perhaps, people who have partners with low selfconcept clarity can (a) communicate that they do not expect their partner to change and (b) rely on their broader social networks to facilitate their own self-change. However, these issues also presume that self-change actually does harm people with low self-concept clarity. As discussed, past research has shown that those with low self-concept clarity arduously avoid changing (Emery et al., 2015), going so far as to sabotage their partner’s changes due to the possibility that they might have to change as well (Emery, Gardner, Finkel, & Carswell, 2018). Yet, existing research has not established whether self-expansion actually damages those with low self-concept clarity. Perhaps, it depends on the kind of self-expanding activity; although self-expansion is usually discussed in the context of self-change, not all selfexpanding activities are created equal (Tomlinson, Hughes, Lewandowski, Aron, & Geyer, 2018). It seems possible, for example, that reading new and interesting facts adds more new content to the self-concept than does carrying an object with chopsticks, although both are self-expanding experiences (see Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013). People with low self-concept clarity may be able to enjoy new and exciting activities with their partners that do not change their self-concepts, but nevertheless have salutary benefits to their relationship quality. Future research should also examine effects in the opposite direction—when self-change might diminish people’s self-concept clarity. People with high selfcomplexity, for example, might be especially vulnerable to changes adversely influencing their self-concept clarity. Self-complexity describes the number of domains in the structure of someone’s self and how interconnected these domains are (Linville, 1985). For instance, someone who defines himself as a husband and a hard worker would have lower self-complexity than would someone who construes herself as a sister, a writer, a tennis player, a Canadian, a gardener, and an extravert. Adding new content to the self, for a person with high self-complexity, necessitates integrating it

100

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

within a more elaborate self-concept structure. Just as a cook with a well-organized kitchen may find it more difficult to find space for a new Dutch oven, someone with high self-complexity may risk a decrease in self-concept clarity when trying to incorporate new content into the self-concept.

6.2.3 Relationship Dissolution Low self-concept clarity can both presage and ensue from the end of a relationship. Past research has convincingly documented the ways that breakup can cause self-concept clarity to atrophy. Yet, less work has examined normative timelines in recovering self-concept clarity. Over a 6-month study, those who experienced a breakup did not evince upturns in self-concept clarity following its decline (Slotter et al., 2010). When, then, do people tend to recover their self-concept clarity after a breakup, and what might help people regain it more quickly? It appears that fully reflecting on the breakup may speed this process (Larson & Sbarra, 2015). Preliminary evidence also suggests that some people may need more time to recover their sense of who they are after a breakup. Specifically, when people begin a new relationship too soon after a breakup, they experience reduced self-concept clarity, and people who tend to change substantially in their relationships appear to be especially vulnerable to this loss of self-concept clarity (Slotter & Emery, 2019). Although the literature contains several hints as to when and how people might recover selfconcept clarity after a breakup, there is ample room for future research to delineate these processes more clearly. Future research could also explore the circumstances under which self-concept clarity predicts breakup. As previously discussed, people experience lower selfconcept clarity after losing a relationship that provided them with opportunities to self-expand (Lewandowski et al., 2010). The reverse, however, might also be true—given their reticence to change, people with low self-concept clarity might be especially likely to end a self-expanding relationship. This should be especially likely when people with low self-concept clarity feel pressured to change. We hope that future research will explore these possibilities.

6.3 Conclusion People’s experiences of change weave together with their subjective understanding of themselves across the life span of their relationships. As relationships are forming, people with low self-concept clarity resist changing to become more similar to romantic prospects, even when attracted to them. In ongoing relationships, people with low self-concept clarity also (unsuccessfully) attempt to sabotage their partner’s self-change. Conversely, when people feel good about changes in their relationships, they tend to experience higher self-concept clarity. Those with lower self-concept

6 Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity …

101

clarity may be at higher risk for relationship dissolution, and the end of a relationship tends to undermine self-concept clarity, especially for people high on attachment anxiety or who retain the ways that they had changed in their previous relationship. Although the literature on self-concept clarity and self-change in relationships is relatively nascent, it points to intriguing ways that these two constructs can enhance or undermine one another. We hope that future research will continue to delve into “the great puzzle” of self-change and self-concept clarity. Acknowledgements A National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship awarded to Lydia F. Emery supported the writing of this chapter.

References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). VA: Arlington. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1997). Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (2nd ed., pp. 251–270). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273–284. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1102–1112. Bła˙zek, M., & Besta, T. (2012). Self-concept clarity and religious orientations: Prediction of purpose in life and self-esteem. Journal of Religion and Health, 51(3), 947–960. Boelen, P. A., Keijsers, L., & van den Hout, M. A. (2012). The role of self-concept clarity in prolonged grief disorder. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(1), 56–62. Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 538–549. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141–156. Cheung, E. O., & Gardner, W. L. (2016). With a little help from my friends: Understanding how social networks influence the pursuit of the ideal self. Self and Identity, 6, 662–682. Cheung, E. O., Gardner, W. L., & Anderson, J. (2015). Emotionships: Examining people’s emotion-regulation relationships and their consequences for well-being. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 407–414. Cheung, E. O., Gardner, W. L., Carswell, K. L. & Finkel, E. J. (2019). Emotionship portfolios and romantic relationship well-being. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University. Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., Branje, S., Koot, H. M., & Meeus, W. (2016). Self-concept clarity in adolescents and parents: A six-wave longitudinal and multi-informant study on development and intergenerational transmission. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 580–593. Diehl, M., Jacobs, L. M., & Hasting, C. T. (2006). Temporal stability and authenticity of selfrepresentations in adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 13(1), 10–22.

102

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 293–323. Duffy, C. W. (2014). Why self-concept confusion erodes well-being: The role of self-presentational and social processes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Krishnamurti, T., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Mispredicting distress following romantic breakup: Revealing the time course of the affective forecasting error. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 800–807. Emery, L. F., Gardner, W. L., Carswell, K. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2018a). You can’t see the real me: Attachment avoidance, self-verification, and self-concept clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(8), 1133–1146. Emery, L. F., Gardner, W. L., Finkel, E. J., & Carswell, K. L. (2018b). “You’ve changed”: Low selfconcept clarity predicts lack of support for partner change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 318–331. Emery, L. F., Gardner, W. L., Carswell, K. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2019). Don’t change: Self-concept clarity and partner self-expansion. Unpublished data, Northwestern University. Emery, L. F., Walsh, C., & Slotter, E. B. (2015). Knowing who you are and adding to it: Reduced selfconcept clarity predicts reduced self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(3), 259–266. Fivecoat, H. C., Tomlinson, J. M., Aron, A., & Caprariello, P. A. (2015). Partner support for individual self-expansion opportunities: Effects on relationship satisfaction in long-term couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(3), 368–385. Gardner, W. L., Avoilio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. Hughes, E. K., Slotter, E. G., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2019). Expanding who I am: Validating the preferences for self-expansion scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. Advance online publication. Ibarra, H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 1–9. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. King, L. A., & Raspin, C. (2004). Lost and found possible selves, subjective well-being, and ego development in divorced women. Journal of Personality, 72(3), 603–632. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278. Larson, G. M., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Participating in research on romantic breakups promotes emotional recovery via changes in self-concept clarity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(4), 399–406. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377– 390. Lee, D. S., Ybarra, O., Gonzales, R., & Ellsworth, P. (2018). I-through-we: How supportive social relationships facilitate personal growth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(1), 37–48. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13(3), 317–331. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Bizzoco, N. M. (2007). Addition through subtraction: Growth following the dissolution of a low quality relationship. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(1), 40–54. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Nardone, N., & Raines, A. J. (2010). The role of self-concept clarity in relationship quality. Self and Identity, 9(4), 416–433.

6 Who in the World Am I? Self-Concept Clarity …

103

Light, A. E., & Visser, P. S. (2013). The ins and outs of the self: Contrasting role exits and role entries as predictors of self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 12(3), 291–306. Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3(1), 94–120. Lodi-Smith, J., & DeMarree, K. G. (Eds.). (2017). Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications. New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., McNulty, J. K., & Kumashiro, M. (2010). The doormat effect: When forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 734–749. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013). The power of one: Benefits of individual self-expansion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(1), 12–22. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 176–190. McCallum, F., & Bryant, R. A. (2013). A cognitive attachment model of prolonged grief: Integrating attachments, memory, and identity. Clinical Psychological Review, 6, 713–727. McConnell, A. R. (2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 3–27. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me” The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(7), 857–878. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2017). Self-concept clarity and romantic relationships. In J. Lodi-Smith & K. DeMarree (Eds.), Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications (pp. 107–124). New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 237–258. Orehek, E., Forest, A., & Barbaro, N. (2018a). A people-as-means approach to interpersonal relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 373–389. Orehek, E., Forest, A. L., & Wingrove, S. (2018b). People as means to multiple goals: Implications for interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1487–1501. Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1496–1513. Richman, S. B., Pond, R. S., Jr., Dewall, C. N., Kumashiro, M., Slotter, E. B., & Luchies, L. B. (2016). An unclear self leads to poor mental health: Self-concept confusion mediates the association of loneliness with depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35(7), 525–550. Ritchie, T. D., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., & Gidron, Y. (2011). Self-concept clarity mediates the relation between stress and subjective well-being. Self and Identity, 10(4), 493–508. Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). Attachment theory: The mind viewed in its social-relational context. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 160–179). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Slotter, E. B., & Emery, L. F. (2017). Self-concept clarity and social role transitions. In J. LodiSmith & K. DeMarree (Eds.), Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications (pp. 85–106). New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Slotter, E. B., & Emery, L. F. (2019). Beginning again: Timing of initiating new romantic relationships post-breakup predicts self-concept clarity. Unpublished manuscript, Villanova University.

104

L. F. Emery and W. L. Gardner

Slotter, E. B., Emery, L. F., & Luchies, L. B. (2014). Me after you: Partner influence and individual effort predict rejection of self-aspects and self-concept clarity after relationship dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 831–844. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self-other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1137–1151. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2011). Can you help me become the “me” I want to be? The role of goal pursuit in friendship formation. Self and Identity, 10, 231–247. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012a). The dangers of dating the “bad boy” (or girl): When does romantic desire encourage us to take on the negative qualities of potential partners? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1173–1178. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012b). How needing you changes me: The influence of attachment anxiety on self-concept malleability in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 11(3), 386–408. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Remind me who I am: Social interaction strategies for maintaining the threatened self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(9), 1148– 1161. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 147–160. Slotter, E. B., & Walsh, C. M. (2017). All role transitions are not experienced equally: Associations among self-change, emotional reactions, and self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 16(5), 531– 556. Stopa, L., Brown, M. A., Luke, M. A., & Hirsch, C. R. (2010). Constructing a self: The role of self-structure and self-certainty in social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(10), 955–965. Swann, W. B., Jr., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 782–791. Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our selfconceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 351–372. Tennov, D. (1998). Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. Archdale: Scarborough House. Tomlinson, J. M., Hughes, E. K., Lewandowski Jr, G. W., Aron, A., & Geyer, R. (2018). Do shared self-expanding activities have to be physically arousing? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance Online Publication. Treadgold, R. (1999). Transcendent vocations: Their relationship to stress, depression, and clarity of self-concept. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39(1), 81–105. Wickham, R. (2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 878–887.

Chapter 7

Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon Theresa E. DiDonato

Self-authenticity, a construct that evades simple defining (Baumeister, 2019), reflects an experience of realness or genuineness that has considerable psychological significance (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Sedikides, Lenton, Slabu, & Thomaes, 2019). A growing body of evidence now recognizes the role of self-authenticity in health, relationship functioning, happiness, and general well-being (Brunell et al., 2010; Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Proctor, Tweed, & Morris, 2016; Sedikides, Slabu, Lenton, & Thomaes, 2017). These benefits make the pursuit of self-authenticity a worthy endeavor, yet pathways toward experiencing greater self-authenticity are not clear. Traditional explanations of how individuals engage in goal pursuit emphasize aspects of the self, with goal progress dependent upon individual-level traits, abilities, or resources (Baumeister, Schmeichel, & Vohs, 2007). Humans, however, rarely live in isolation. Locating mechanisms of change exclusively within a person obscures potentially important social contexts that may influence the self. Accordingly, the last couple of decades have witnessed increasing attention to the interpersonal processes that contribute to who a person is and whom he can become (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2010). The current chapter considers growth in self-authenticity from an interpersonal perspective. Specifically, it examines how close relationships—and in particular romantic relationships—can adopt relational patterns that may promote (or inhibit) self-authenticity. Romantic relationships have considerable potential to change the self (Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014), and the interdependence that characterizes certain romantic relationships may provide the structure and dynamic that allow individuals to enhance self-authenticity. More precisely, self-authenticity may be promoted when romantic partners are able to recognize, affirm, and cultivate T. E. DiDonato (B) Department of Psychology, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_7

105

106

T. E. DiDonato

each other’s ideal selves, a process termed the Michelangelo phenomenon (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999; Rusbult et al., 2005). The Michelangelo phenomenon describes how a romantic partner’s perceptions and behaviors can elicit access to an individual’s ideal self. Mounting evidence linking the ideal self with self-authenticity (Gan & Chen, 2017; Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2013) and initial research directly testing the link between movement toward the ideal self and self-authenticity (DiDonato & Krueger, 2010) support the possibility that the Michelangelo phenomenon may be a critical interpersonal mechanism by which individuals can experience enhanced self-authenticity. This chapter begins with a review of how the current literature defines, conceptualizes, and critiques self-authenticity, and how self-authenticity relates to diverse aspects of psychological health and well-being. The chapter then presents a theoretical and empirical review of the Michelangelo phenomenon, followed by a discussion of the Michelangelo phenomenon’s potential to promote selfauthenticity. The chapter concludes by highlighting unanswered questions and current concerns regarding the potential for the Michelangelo phenomenon to promote self-authenticity.

7.1 Self-authenticity Self-authenticity has long captured the attention of philosophers and scholars pursuing the question of how to live life well. Leading minds in Ancient Greece conceptualized authenticity as both self-inquiry and acting in alignment with one’s true self (Harter, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2006); philosophers of the middle ages concerned themselves with false-self behavior (Baumeister, 1987); and existentialists, such as Heidegger and Sartre, emphasized living with choice and freedom (Harter, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). The rise of the humanistic perspective in the mid-1900s further refined these ideas imparting a more contemporary lens. Acting in accordance with one’s inner self was stressed as necessary for healthy psychological functioning (Rogers, 1961) and self-authenticity came to reflect an important growth-related need pursued through self-discovery and self-knowledge (Maslow, 1968). While the late twentieth century saw the introduction of self-determination theory, which advanced the link between authenticity and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985), the positive psychology movement’s emphasis on human strengths (Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004) has encouraged the surge of empirical interest in self-authenticity which the fields of social and personality psychology have witnessed in recent decades. Scholars have approached the study of self-authenticity from diverse theoretical perspectives (Harter, 2002), encountering fundamental challenges in its representation as a psychological and phenomenological experience (Baumeister, 2019). A recent lament that “conceptualizations of authenticity are unclear, inconsistent, and muddled, and serious questions may be raised about all of them” (Jongman-Sereno & Leary, 2019; p. 137) reflects a common concern over the scientific validity of

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

107

self-authenticity, even as its subjective experience appears to have significant psychological value (Lenton et al., 2013; Rivera et al., 2019). Complicating the synthesis of research on authenticity and adding to its ambiguity are the varying definitions used to capture authenticity, which often reflect divergent views on whether selfauthenticity is best described as a trait or state variable (Chen, 2019; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Sedikides et al., 2017). Traditional person-centered approaches view self-authenticity as the “unobstructed operation of one’s true or core self in one’s daily enterprise” (Goldman & Kernis, 2002, p. 18). The multicomponent model of authenticity (Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2006) describes authenticity as comprised of self-awareness, unbiased processing, behavior that is congruent to one’s own internal values, and a relational orientation that emphasizes openness, transparency, and truthfulness. Other models of dispositional authenticity portray an authentic personality as one that emphasizes alignment between conscious awareness and the true self (i.e., the absence of self-alienation), behaving “true to oneself” (i.e., authentic living), and limiting the extent to which one accepts external influence (Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). Theoretical questions regarding the existence of a true self (Baumeister, 2019; JongmanSereno & Leary, 2019; Strohminger, Knobe, & Newman, 2017), a lack of evidence connecting self-authenticity to trait-consistent behavior (Cooper, Sherman, Rauthmann, Serfass, & Brown, 2018; Fleeson & Wilt, 2010; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorn, & Ilardi, 1997), and evidence supporting a multi-faceted self (Markus & Nurius, 1986), provide context for the recent shift in attention toward state authenticity. State self-authenticity concerns a subjective feeling of being one’s genuine self (Sedikides et al., 2017, 2019) or feeling true to one’s working self-concept (Chen, 2019). Evidence suggests that people with high and low trait authenticity experience state authenticity in similar ways (Lenton et al., 2013), which supports the idea that trait and state self-authenticity are separate, if sometimes related (Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, & Chun, 2010; Lenton, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2016; Robinson, Lopez, Ramos, & Nartova-Bochaver, 2013), constructs. By definition, states are more transient than traits, are experienced more uniformly than traits, and reflect direct, felt experiences (Fridhandler, 1986). Accordingly, efforts have been made to characterize the emotional experience of state authenticity. Evidence suggests that state authenticity tends to align most strongly with calm positive emotions (e.g., contentment, calmness), while its counterpart, state inauthenticity, is typically accompanied by anxiety and low-arousal negative emotions (e.g., disappointment, sadness; Lenton et al., 2013). Situations that are familiar, pleasurable, social, and tied to success tend to describe the context individuals often experience authenticity (Lenton et al., 2013), as do experiences that prioritize meaning and purpose (Lenton et al., 2016). Like trait authenticity, state self-authenticity may be comprised of facets, with evidence suggesting both authentic living and (the absence of) self-alienation characterize state self-authenticity (Lenton et al., 2016). Unlike trait authenticity, which suggests that accepting external influence reduces authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood

108

T. E. DiDonato

et al., 2008), state self-authenticity may not require rejection of external social influence (Lenton et al., 2016), and may even reflect alignment with a desired social reputation (Baumeister, 2019). Divergent conceptualizations of self-authenticity as a trait and state might complicate an integration of what we currently know about authenticity, but certain themes are consistent. The hallmark of authenticity across both perspectives is an experience of genuineness or realness, whether this genuineness reflects congruence between behavior and an internal true self (as is suggested in trait models; e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008) or simply feeling like one is being one’s real self (Sedikides et al., 2017, 2019). Self-authenticity also appears to involve a sense of owning one’s experiences (Baumeister, 2019; Vess, 2019), an ownership reflected in the freedom and autonomy valued in trait authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and the self-authorship or self-endorsement of one’s behaviors highlighted in stateoriented perspectives (Ryan & Ryan, 2019). In addition, researchers generally agree that, even as their judgements may be distorted (Baumeister, 2019), people can self-report on their subjective experiences of authenticity or inauthenticity. General consensus among authenticity scholars also converges on the idea that self-authenticity, defined as a trait or state, confers both personal and relational benefits. Self-authenticity predicts life satisfaction (Boyraz, Waits, & Felix, 2014; Brunell et al., 2010), happiness (Koydemir, Simsek, Kuzgun, & Shütz, 2018), self-esteem and positive affect (Heppner et al., 2008; Wood et al., 2008), and achievement of personal goals (Stavrova, Pronk, & Kokkoris, 2018). Mental well-being is related to higher authenticity (Robinson et al., 2013), while depressive symptoms and stress are tied to lower authenticity (Ryan, LaGuardia, & Rawsthorne, 2005; Sheldon et al., 1997). At an interpersonal level, self-authenticity is associated with relationship satisfaction (English & Phillip, 2013; Lopez & Rice, 2006), enacting healthy relationship behaviors (Brunell et al., 2010), and trust, commitment, and basic need satisfaction (Wickham, 2013). While a critique of the way in which self-authenticity has been operationalized (e.g., as confounded with positively valenced behaviors; JongmanSereno & Leary, 2016, 2018) suggests self-authenticity’s links to well-being may reflect its ties to other established beneficial constructs (Jongman-Sereno & Leary, 2019), the experience of self-authenticity is still widely recognized as psychologically important (Rivera et al., 2019; Sedikides et al., 2017). People are strongly motivated toward authenticity and away from inauthenticity (Lenton et al., 2013). This drive, along with its proposed role in healthy human functioning (Proctor et al., 2016), urges the question of how to promote self-authenticity. The idea that self-authenticity can be promoted assumes that it is changeable, that it can vary across time and situation. Although person-centered conceptualizations of authenticity tend to emphasize between-person variation (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), they do allow for within-person change (Rogers, 1961; Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, & King, 2009; Seto & Schlegel, 2018). State-based approaches, meanwhile, are grounded on the premise that individuals’ self-authenticity fluctuates and is contextdependent. Consistent with this idea, individuals tend to experience authenticity differently in different situations (Fleeson & Wilt, 2010). Evidence shows withinperson variation in self-authenticity occurs naturally, at a rate 1.5 times greater than

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

109

variation between individuals (Lenton et al., 2016). Authenticity is not a baseline way of being; rather, individuals strive to experience authenticity and often do, with selfreports indicating that people generally experience self-authenticity about once or twice a week (Lenton et al., 2013). Because even temporary activation of authenticity generates psychological well-being (Thomaes, Sedikides, van den Bos, Hutteman, & Reijntjes, 2017), the question of how to enhance self-authenticity is compelling, with potentially important implications for optimal functioning. Despite this, only a limited body of research has investigated possible antecedents to self-authenticity, and these studies have generally taken an intrapersonal perspective. For instance, research focused on the self-regulatory system shows that assuming a promotion orientation can enhance subjective self-authenticity relative to adopting a prevention orientation (Kim, Chen, Davis, Hicks, & Schlegel, 2019). Other motivation-related work shows that making sacrifices in romantic relationships for approach goals, versus avoidance goals, leads to higher authenticity (Impett, Javam, Asyabi-Eshghi, & Kogan, 2013). In regards to situation-based traits, both correlational and experimental data show that high-power individuals experience more self-concept consistency, which translates to more self-authenticity, relative to lowpower individuals (Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011). Recent evidence also points to self-attitudes as potential precursors of self-authenticity, with measured and manipulated self-compassion predicting greater subjective self-authenticity (Zhang et al., 2019). These initial studies showcase how self-aspects might be modified to support greater self-authenticity, while leaving open the interpersonal contexts or conditions that could play a vital role in cultivating self-authenticity.

7.2 The Michelangelo Phenomenon Romantic relationships may provide a fertile context for encouraging selfauthenticity. This hypothesis builds on theoretical and empirical work suggesting that social relationships facilitate personal growth (Lee, Ybara, Gonzalez, & Ellsworth, 2018) and that individuals experience considerable self-concept change when they enter romantic relationships and as they become increasingly committed to their partners (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Mattingly et al., 2014). According to interdependence theory, behaviors, dispositions, or motivations that begin as interaction-specific adaptations may become habitual ways of being over time (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). In other words, individuals make accommodations and modifications to their own self-concepts as they regularly interact with another person who, be it intentionally or unintentionally, encourages certain aspects of self and discourages others. The cognitive interdependence that individuals experience with their romantic partners (Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006) and the integration of self and other that occurs in close relationships (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991) highlight the unique potential of romantic partners to facilitate self-concept change.

110

T. E. DiDonato

The possibility that romantic partners can promote self-concept change is captured in the Michelangelo phenomenon. The Michelangelo phenomenon describes a loving dynamic in which romantic partners enable self-concept change by helping each other move toward their ideal selves (Drigotas et al., 1999; Rusbult et al., 2005). The talents of its namesake, the Renaissance painter and sculptor Michelangelo Buonarroti, are called upon in the original introduction of this interpersonal model (Drigotas et al., 1999) and in subsequent descriptions (e.g., Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro, 2009) in order to illustrate the focal interpersonal dynamic. The metaphor rests on the idea that as a sculptor, Michelangelo chipped and chiseled at marble not in order to create, but rather in order to “reveal the ideal form slumbering within” (Rusbult et al., 2009: p. 305). Importantly, it is not Michelangelo’s vision that is imposed upon the marble, rather he simply enacts behaviors that allow the “ideal form” to be released. This metaphor provides the basis for the idea that romantic partners might serve as sculptors, helping each other move toward an “ideal form” (i.e., his or her ideal self). Key to the Michelangelo phenomenon is evidence suggesting that individuals do possess multiple selves (Higgins, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986). A person’s present self (i.e., the actual self; Higgins, 1987) is a self-representation centered on current attributes, such as existing skills, traits, roles, and behavioral tendencies. In addition to the actual self, people also maintain guiding, future-oriented selves, such as the ought self (i.e., what a person believes she should be; Higgins, 1987) and the ideal self. The ideal self encompasses the type of person an individual aspires to become: the constellation of behaviors, traits, and skills she wishes to acquire (Higgins, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986). People are fundamentally oriented toward self-growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and this ideal self can serve as a compass that directs individuals’ self-growth. Because people experience distress to the extent that their actual self is discrepant from their ideal self, individuals are strongly motivated to align them (Higgins, 1989; Moretti & Higgins, 1990). The Michelangelo phenomenon suggests that romantic partners can help in this process. In other words, it identifies an interpersonal process that facilitates movement toward the ideal self. Three components comprise the Michelangelo phenomenon, and appear in Fig. 7.1. For point of illustration, imagine that Elizabeth and Phillip are romantic partners. For Elizabeth to experience interpersonally-facilitated movement closer to her ideal self (i.e., the Michelangelo phenomenon), Phillip must first maintain an understanding of Elizabeth’s ideal self that is congruent with Elizabeth’s own conception of her ideal self. This accurate understanding is termed partner perceptual affirmation. If Elizabeth sees her ideal self as spontaneous, then Phillip knows, either explicitly or implicitly, that Elizabeth aspires to be spontaneous. Without partner perceptual affirmation, sculpting might occur in a direction toward Phillip’s ideal rather than Elizabeth’s ideal self (i.e., the Pygmalion Phenomenon), which if the two ideals are different and incompatible could render adverse effects (Rusbult et al., 2005). At minimum, perceptual disaffirmation could promote the development of traits that are not relevant to a person (Drigotas et al., 1999). That is, Phillip could believe that Elizabeth’s ideal self includes being physically fit, when being physically fit is not something she particularly aspires to be or not be.

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

111

The Michelangelo phenomenon

Partner Affirmation Hypothesis

Partner Perceptual Affirmation

Movement Toward Ideal Hypothesis

Partner Perceptual Behavioral Affirmation

Enhanced SelfAuthenticity Hypothesis

Self Movement Toward the Ideal Self

SelfAuthenticity

Fig. 7.1 The Michelangelo phenomenon as a facilitator of self-authenticity

Perceptual affirmation provides the foundation for behavioral affirmation, actions that can drive individuals toward their ideal selves. Should Phillip hold a perceptuallyaffirming belief of Elizabeth’s ideal self, he can create situations and opportunities that encourage her to express aspects of her ideal self. Thus, behavioral affirmation elicits self change through behavioral confirmation (Darley & Fazio, 1980); Phillip’s beliefs about Elizabeth become reality as he elicits from Elizabeth those behaviors that are consistent with his perception. If he accurately perceives her ideal self as spontaneous, he might behave in a manner that allows her to more easily make spur-of-the-moment plans and express her spontaneous side. He might refrain from making specific lunch plans on a road trip and instead leave the choice up to her; he might express particular pleasure and enthusiasm when Elizabeth does something spontaneous, reinforcing her behavior. Through enacting ideal-self-affirming behaviors, Phillip enables self-movement toward the ideal self , the hallmark step in the Michelangelo phenomenon. At this stage, Elizabeth’s actual self changes to assume more of the traits, skills, or other such features that comprise her ideal self. Evidence confirms that behavioral affirmation predicts greater proximity to the ideal self, and that behavioral affirmation mediates the relation between perceptual affirmation and movement toward the ideal (DiDonato & Krueger, 2010; Drigotas et al., 1999). This suggests that the Michelangelo phenomenon, a self and other-regulated experience of self-growth, is fundamentally anchored to actual behaviors that can occur in our most intimate relationships. The Michelangelo phenomenon appears to reflect a healthy dynamic, one associated with personal and interpersonal benefits. How individuals’ partners behave in relation to their ideal selves predicts greater life satisfaction (Bühler, Weidmann, Kumashiro, & Grob, 2019; Drigotas, 2002), stronger emotional well-being, less

112

T. E. DiDonato

loneliness, and more self-esteem (Drigotas, 2002). The Michelangelo phenomenon also consistently predicts diverse representations of couple well-being (Bühler et al., 2019; DiDonato & Krueger, 2010; Drigotas et al., 1999; Kumashiro, Rusbult, Finkenauer, & Stocker, 2007; Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka, & Finkel, 2009), including relationship stability over time (Drigotas, 2002). Researchers have used varied methods to measure the Michelangelo phenomenon. The traditional self-report approach involves asking participants a series of questions targeting how much their partners regard them as their ideal self (i.e., perceptual affirmation) and how much they treat them as their ideal self (i.e., behavioral affirmation; Drigotas et al., 1999). Next, participants describe key features of their ideal self, which typically reflect personal, social, and professional aspirations (Bühler et al., 2019; Rusbult et al., 2009). Finally, participants indicate the extent to which they have moved closer or further away from these ideal features as a result of being with their partner (Drigotas et al., 1999). Because the Michelangelo phenomenon is conceptualized as a positive relational process that unfolds over time, relying exclusively on self-reports obtained at one time point is problematic for a number of reasons, including social desirability concerns, common method variance, and uncertainty regarding the causal direction of this process. Alternate measurement methods have appropriately begun to address these issues, including friend and partner reports of model criteria that have allowed for intrapersonal and across-person analyses (Drigotas et al., 1999; Rusbult et al., 2009). Longitudinal work supports model predictions (Rusbult et al., 2005), as have daily diary entries and coding of videotaped conversations in which couples discuss aspects of each other’s ideal selves (Rusbult et al., 2009; Righetti, Rusbult, & Finkenauer, 2010). Results from these diverse measurement methods converge in support of the affirmation and movement-toward-the-ideal theorized in the Michelangelo phenomenon. Research has also begun to reveal when the Michelangelo phenomenon is more likely to occur by identifying factors tied to the processes underlying the Michelangelo phenomenon, although this effort is still in its infancy. For instance, the extent to which partners exhibit characteristics similar to each other’s ideal selves appears to facilitate the Michelangelo phenomenon (Rusbult et al., 2009). When both partners possess aspects of the other’s ideal, they both engage in more affirmation, eliciting aspects of each other’s ideal selves, and fostering each other’s self-growth, which in turn predicts couple well-being and vitality (Rusbult et al., 2009). A subset of research has also considered individual strengths that might facilitate the Michelangelo phenomenon. For example, partners high in locomotion orientation, meaning that they have superior skills in executing the work involved in self-regulation, tend to be more effective sculptors; their partners experience more movement toward their ideal selves and report stronger relationships (Kumashiro et al., 2007). Sculptors’ success is also predicted by the extent to which partners are promotion oriented rather than prevention oriented, as promotion-oriented partners tend to offer more affirmation, facilitating the Michelangelo phenomenon (Righetti et al., 2010). These traits also predict how easily individuals can be sculpted by their partners. Individuals with a greater locomotion orientation and greater promotion orientation elicit

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

113

more affirmation from their partners, which allows them to enjoy more movement toward their ideals (Kumashiro et al., 2007; Righetti et al., 2010). There is ample opportunity for future work to investigate other aspects of the self, partner, or couple that might assist or derail the Michelangelo phenomenon or moderate how it might link to various aspects of well-being.

7.3 The Michelangelo Phenomenon and Self-authenticity The supportive and nourishing dynamic described by the Michelangelo phenomenon may illustrate one way in which romantic relationships have the potential to promote self-authenticity. To begin, the close-relationship context in general is linked to experiences of authenticity. For instance, interacting with close others as compared to distant others predicts self-reported authenticity (Venaglia & Lemay, 2017) and spending time with close others without doing anything in particular (e.g., hanging out) is an activity in which people feel most like themselves (Lenton et al., 2013). Theorists have argued that being in love is a precursor to being authentic (Adams, 2006); and when individuals find themselves in satisfying, need-fulfilling, high commitment relationships, they tend to engage in less self-concealment (Uysal, Lin, Knee, & Bush, 2012), an inverse correlate of authenticity (Lopez & Rice, 2006). Likewise, experiencing higher attachment anxiety in close relationships has been linked to greater inauthenticity (self-alienation and accepting of external influence), and less unbiased processing, with attachment avoidance predicting lower levels of awareness, less unbiased processing, less authentic relational orientation, and higher levels of self-alienation (Stevens, 2017). These associations are corroborated by experimental work in which priming secure attachment increased self-authenticity in the form of willingness to self-disclose (Gillath et al., 2010). It is clear that certain relationship characteristics are tied to self-authenticity more than others; however, even in the case of relationship security, these findings leave open the specific mechanisms that would explain how close relationships might facilitate self-authenticity. A defining premise of the Michelangelo phenomenon is that individuals provide affirmation of their romantic partner’s ideal self, particularly behavioral affirmation, which in turn promotes their romantic partner’s self-growth by stimulating their partner’s movement toward his or her ideal self (Drigotas et al., 1999). There is good reason to suspect that movement toward the ideal may enable heightened authenticity (i.e., the enhanced self-authenticity hypothesis illustrated in Fig. 7.1). Of note, there appears to be a tentative link between accessing the ideal self and feeling authentic. Narratives in which individuals describe when they feel “most like” versus “least like” their true or real self (i.e., most authentic) often draw upon attributes and characteristics of their ideal self as opposed to their actual or ought self; as Lenton et al. (2013) noted, “activation of the ideal self may, ironically, make people feel ‘real’” (p. 285). Similarly, research on dyadic interactions shows that individuals who engage in mutual relationship styles (rather than self-focused autonomy or other-focused connected) report the least self-ideal discrepancy and also report the

114

T. E. DiDonato

least false-self behavior (i.e., they feel the most authentic; Neff & Harter, 2002). However, cross-cultural research is less consistent in connecting the ideal self with self-authenticity. On one hand, daily reports of self-authenticity were not predicted by daily variations in self-ideal overlap in samples from the United States, China, India, and Singapore (Slabu, Lenton, Sedikides, & Bruder, 2014). At the same time, reports of feeling inauthentic corresponded with reports of less self-ideal overlap in samples from both the United States and Singapore. This later finding supports the idea that “being unreal is particularly un-ideal” (Slabu, Lenton, Sedikides, & Bruder, 2014, p. 1367). There is also a question of whether authenticity—specifically relational authenticity—follows from being one’s actual self or being one’s ideal self. One investigation revealed that while lay person beliefs tend to hold that authenticity arises from congruence with the actual self, self-authenticity is in fact more likely to occur as a function of proximity to the ideal self (Gan & Chen, 2017). In their first study, participants judged the similarity between who they are in their romantic relationships (i.e., relational self), who they ideally want to be (i.e., ideal self), and who they really are (i.e., actual self). Findings revealed that the extent to which individuals’ relational selves matched their ideal selves, not their actual selves, uniquely predicted self-reported relational authenticity, and did so above and beyond quality indices like commitment, satisfaction, and closeness. Experimental work substantiated these correlational findings by manipulating participants’ degree of overlap between their relational selves and their ideal selves. Results indicated that those in the low overlap condition reported less authenticity than those in the high overlap condition. An extension of this study revealed that aligning participants’ relational selves with their actual selves produced no differences in authenticity; however, having low overlap between relational selves and ideal selves triggered lower authenticity (Gan & Chen, 2017). In the only study to date to link the Michelangelo phenomenon and selfauthenticity, DiDonato and Krueger (2010) tested the enhanced self-authenticity hypothesis in a correlational study of individuals in dating relationships. Participants completed standard self-report measures of partner perceptual affirmation, partner behavioral affirmation, and self-movement toward the ideal (Drigotas et al., 1999), trait authenticity (the Authenticity Inventory; Kernis & Goldman, 2006), and state authenticity (the Functional Flexibility Index; Paulhus & Martin, 1988). Observed associations between the components of the Michelangelo phenomenon were consistent with others’ findings (e.g., Drigotas et al., 1999), with behavioral affirmation accounting for variation in self-movement toward the ideal. In support of the enhanced self-authenticity hypothesis, model-testing revealed a significant direct path from self-movement toward the ideal to self-authenticity, whether conceptualized as trait or state authenticity. In other words, participants who perceived more partner-facilitated movement toward the ideal also reported more self-authenticity. Two alternative models captured the data less effectively, one in which dispositional authenticity was conceptualized as driving the Michelangelo phenomenon, and the other in which the role of movement toward the ideal was minimized and the role of partners’ affirming behaviors was emphasized. Thus, self-movement toward the

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

115

ideal seems to be a precursor to self-authenticity, rather than the reverse, and enabling this movement appears to be critical to the process by which the Michelangelo phenomenon may promote self-authenticity. These findings bolster the argument that certain interpersonal dynamics in close relationships can affect self-authenticity, but they do so only tentatively, given the study’s correlational design and its reliance on self-report data. Longitudinal research, work manipulating interpersonally-facilitated movement toward the ideal, and the use of multiple measurement procedures would provide a stronger test of how romantic partners might promote self-authenticity. Additional investigation could also build on evidence showing that aspects of the self contribute to the Michelangelo phenomenon (Kumashiro et al., 2007; Righetti et al., 2010) and to self-authenticity (e.g., Zhang et al., 2019), in an effort to construct an integrated model of how sculptor characteristics, target characteristics, their interaction, and aspects of the relationship might influence growth toward self-authenticity.

7.4 Potential Consequences and Challenges If the Michelangelo phenomenon enhances self-authenticity, it may be part of a positive feedback loop that produces and encourages benefits not only for the individual, but for the relationship as well. Enhancing self-authenticity could translate to individuals engaging in healthier relationship behaviors, which in turn may produce more positive relationship outcomes, and accompanying boosts in personal well-being (Brunell et al., 2010). By promoting each other’s self-authenticity, correlational evidence suggests couples may help protect themselves against the adverse effects of their relationship conflicts (Wickham, Williamson, Beard, Kobayashi, & Hirst, 2016) and could experience heightened feelings of trust, need satisfaction, and partner support (Wickham, Warren, Reed, & Matsumoto, 2018). Potential growth in these aspects of interdependence could in turn encourage the Michelangelo phenomenon. Further, if the Michelangelo phenomenon enhances self-authenticity, it is likely partners will notice. Individuals are adequate estimators of each other’s self-authenticity, and higher levels of perceived partner authenticity predict greater relationship satisfaction for both the perceiver and the perceived (Wickham, 2013). Indeed, experimental work shows that believing partners to have higher authenticity produced greater trust, commitment, and satisfaction (Wickham, 2013), qualities that might in turn cultivate the interdependence that enables the Michelangelo phenomenon. Enhanced self-authenticity through positive relationship processes might be particularly important to individuals who belong to minority or stigmatized groups. One explanation for felt authenticity is a perceived match or “fit” between one’s self and one’s environment (Schmader & Sedikides, 2018); people feel more authentic when a social context activates their core self, affords their own goals, and validates core aspects of the self. It follows from this thesis that having a privileged social identity may allow for experiences of self-authenticity more easily than having a

116

T. E. DiDonato

devalued social identity (e.g., identifying as an ethnic, cultural, or racial minority), given that privileged social groups construct many environments for their own use (Schmader & Sedikides, 2018). Perhaps the potential for romantic partners to promote self-authenticity is particularly important for individuals living, learning, or working in environments that do not inherently support their authenticity. Authenticity felt within the confines of a personal relationship might offset experiences in other areas of an individual’s life that inhibit authenticity. For individuals who identify as sexual minorities, the Michelangelo phenomenon and its potential to enhance self-authenticity could also prove especially beneficial. At risk for minority stress, lesbian, gay, bisexual individuals often balance “outness” and disclosure decisions, which foster a sense of authenticity, with fear of discrimination in a heteronormative culture (Meyer, 2003). At the same time, authenticity regarding one’s sexual identity predicts psychological well-being and (inversely) distress (Riggle, Rostosky, Black, & Rosenkrantz, 2017). Because members of sexual minorities regularly encounter situations that could discourage authenticity, romantic partners who promote self-authenticity might play a particularly important role in their psychological health. In the above discussion and more generally within the field, self-authenticity is viewed as a uniformly positive, socially-desirable virtue, making a dyadic process that promotes self-authenticity unequivocally valuable. This common vantage point reflects a core humanistic value, that individuals are fundamentally good (Maslow, 1968; Rogers, 1961). Consistent with this assumption, experiencing authenticity produces more moral and less impure feelings than experiencing inauthenticity, suggesting that self-authenticity feels like a virtue (Gino, Kouchaki, & Galinksy, 2015). The extent to which self-authenticity and the interpersonal processes that promote it are truly beneficial, may, like many traits highlighted by positive psychology (McNulty & Fincham, 2012), depend on contextual factors. It seems reasonable to suggest that if someone does not like his boss, mother-in-law, or daughter’s teacher, his conversations with these people might have more favorable outcomes if he is not sociallysupported towards his authentic self and does not act as his “real me.” While evidence pointing to adverse consequences of heightened self-authenticity is slim, research has shown that when individuals gamble, those who feel greater authenticity during gambling tend to engage in more frequent betting and more problematic play, particularly those who gamble for enjoyment (Lister, Wohl, & Davis, 2015). This suggests that in certain circumstances, authenticity could reinforce unhealthy, risky behaviors. Were a romantic partner to provide affirmation of a high-rolling ideal self, felt authenticity could come with considerable financial, social, and personal costs. Similarly, the assumption that relationship-facilitated self-authenticity uniformly begets positive psychological health may have its limits. The seemingly universal link between self-authenticity and psychological well-being is tempered by evidence showing that, for individuals high in the Dark Tetrad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism), experiencing authenticity predicts less, rather than more, well-being (Womick, Foltz, & King, 2019). Romantic partners who serve as ineffective sculptors for individuals high in the Dark Tetrad might paradoxically encourage more well-being, even as they fail to elicit their partners’ ideal selves or support

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

117

their partners’ authenticity. A better appreciation of the potential “dark side” of relationship-facilitated self-authenticity may come from empirical attention to how the rewarding feeling of self-authenticity might reinforce detrimental or harmful behaviors. With the Michelangelo phenomenon serving as a mechanism for promoting selfauthenticity, the content of individuals’ ideal selves may provide an entry point for delineating the extent to which relationship-facilitated self-authenticity is beneficial for well-being. While individuals’ ideal selves typically contain favorable aspirations, they could include aspirations that are potentially harmful for their owners or others (e.g., social domination; unhealthy weight loss; excessive material possession). Greater felt authenticity resulting from relationship-based promotion toward these ideal selves may reinforce the pursuit of vices, not virtues. Perhaps a clever sculptor could selectively affirm those aspects of a romantic partner’s ideal self that reflect positive and healthy goals. However, this opposes a fundamental postulate of the Michelangelo phenomenon, which is that the sculptor does not exert his or her wishes on the partner; rather, the sculptor simply reveals the partners’ ideal form, as defined by the partner. In practice, individuals select for partners willing and capable of supporting their goals (Montoya & Hurton, 2014), suggesting that even individuals with nefarious ideal selves would find partners who can advance them toward those ideal selves enabling them to feel like their “real me.”

7.5 Conclusion Authenticity is a key component of the fully-functioning person (Proctor et al., 2016) and while individuals’ skills and personal qualities certainly affect goal achievement (Baumeister et al., 2007), conceptualizing the goal of greater authenticity as solely an intrapersonal endeavor ignores the critical role of social forces in goal pursuit (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2015). For romantic partners, authenticity striving need not be a solitary undertaking; partners can be considered units of a single self-regulatory systems in which their respective goal dynamics are fundamentally intertwined (Fitzsimons, Finkel, & Vandellen, 2015). As such, individuals’ authenticity goals are inextricably linked to the needs, behaviors, motives, and resources of their partner and their relationship (Finkel, Fitzsimons, & vanDellen, 2015). The Michelangelo phenomenon captures this essential interdependence, supporting its potential as a framework for promoting personal growth. Given the central role of romantic partners in day-to-day life, it makes sense that the Michelangelo phenomenon is typically represented as a dynamic occurring within a romantic relationship; however, other people can serve as sculptors, too (e.g., family members, mentors; Drigotas et al., 1999). The variability in authenticity that people experience across different domains in their lives may reflect variability in the sculpting ability of the important people in those domains with whom they maintain relationships. Attention to situation-specific relationship-facilitated authenticity could support a more nuanced understanding of the boundaries of the benefits

118

T. E. DiDonato

tied to one dyadic process (e.g., with the romantic partner). Further, given evidence that proximity of the relational self to the ideal self predicts relational authenticity, whereas proximity of the more-general actual self to the ideal self does not (Gan & Chen, 2017), recognizing that neither the actual self nor the ideal self is a unitary construct could generate new understanding of how their overlap might predict holistic authenticity or its distinct components. Self-authenticity is intimate and personal, and its potential to be elicited through social processes underscores how tethered individuals are to the people in their lives. While individuals may be tempted to attribute experiences of genuineness and feeling like the “real me” to internal causes (e.g., personal traits or effort), a more likely explanation is that these individuals have been the lucky beneficiaries of a social world comprised of skillful, sensitive sculptors. Personal growth can be a personal endeavor, but individuals’ potential becomes all the greater when they have allies supporting them toward their best and most authentic selves.

References Adams, W. W. (2006). Love, open awareness, and authenticity: A conversation with William Blake and DW Winnicott. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 46, 9–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022167805281189. Agnew, C. R., & Etcheverry, P. E. (2006). Cognitive interdependence considering self-inrelationship. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 274–293). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.60.2.241. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system: Journey and substance. London: Sage. Baumeister, R. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.52.1.163. Baumeister, R. F. (2019). Stalking the true self through the jungles of authenticity: Problems, contradictions, inconsistencies, disturbing findings—And a possible way forward. Review of General Psychology, 23, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019829472. Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation and the executive function: The self as controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 516–539). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Boyraz, G., Waits, J. B., & Felix, V. A. (2014). Authenticity, life satisfaction, and distress: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 498–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/ cou0000031. Brunell, A. B., Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M., Heppner, W., Davis, P., Cascio, E. V., et al. (2010). Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 900–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.018.

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

119

Bühler, J. L., Weidmann, R., Kumashiro, M., & Grob, A. (2019). Does Michelangelo care about age? An adult life-span perspective on the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1392–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518766698. Chen, S. (2019). Authenticity in context: Being true to working selves. Review of General Psychology, 23, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000160. Cooper, A. B., Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Serfass, D. G., & Brown, N. A. (2018). Feeling good and authentic: Experienced authenticity in daily life is predicted by positive feelings and situation characteristics, not trait-state consistency. Journal of Research in Personality, 77, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.005. Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X. 35.10.867. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327965PLI1104_01. DiDonato, T. E., & Krueger, J. I. (2010). Interpersonal affirmation and self-authenticity: A test of Rogers’s self-growth hypothesis. Self and Identity, 9, 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15298860903135008. Drigotas, S. M. (2002). The Michelangelo phenomenon and personal well-being. Journal of Personality, 70, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00178. Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.293. English, T., & Phillip, O. P. (2013). Understanding the social effects of emotion regulation: The mediating role of authenticity for individual differences in suppression. Emotion, 13, 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029847. Finkel, E. J., Fitzsimons, G. M., & vanDellen, M. R. (2015). Self-regulation as a transactive process: Reconceptualizing the unit of analysis for goal setting, pursuit, and outcomes. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 264–282). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Interpersonal influences on self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410364499. Fitzsimons, G. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2015). Goal interdependence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.015. Fitzsimons, G. M., Finkel, E. J., & Van Dellen, M. R. (2015). Transactive goal dynamics. Psychological Review, 122, 648–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039654. Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of Big Five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality, 78, 1353–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494. 2010.00653.x. Fridhandler, B. M. (1986). Conceptual note on state, trait, and the state–trait distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.169. Gan, M., & Chen, S. (2017). Being your actual or ideal self? What it means to feel authentic in a relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167216688211. Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5, 18–20. Gillath, O., Sesko, A. K., Shaver, P. R., & Chun, D. S. (2010). Attachment, authenticity, and honesty: Dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce self-and other-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019206.

120

T. E. DiDonato

Gino, F., Kouchaki, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The moral virtue of authenticity: How inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychological Science, 26, 983–996. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0956797615575277. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319. Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652601(08)60306-8. Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychological Science, 19, 1140–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02215.x. Impett, E. A., Javam, L., Le, B. M., Asyabi-Eshghi, B., & Kogan, A. (2013). The joys of genuine giving: Approach and avoidance sacrifice motivation and authenticity. Personal Relationships, 20, 740–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12012. Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Leary, M. R. (2016). Self-perceived authenticity is contaminated by the valence of one’s behavior. Self and Identity, 15, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868. 2015.1128964. Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Leary, M. R. (2018). Self-judgments of authenticity. Self and Identity, Advance online publication.. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1526109. Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Leary, M. R. (2019). The enigma of being yourself: A critical examination of the concept of authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23, 133–142. https://doi.org/10. 1037/gpr0000157. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multi-component conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 284–358). New York, NY: Academic Press. Kim, J., Chen, K., Davis, W. E., Hicks, J. A., & Schlegel, R. J. (2019). Approaching the true self: Promotion focus predicts the experience of authenticity. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.12.001. Koydemir, S., Sim¸ ¸ sek, Ö. F., Kuzgun, T. B., & Schütz, A. (2018). Feeling special, feeling happy: Authenticity mediates the relationship between sense of uniqueness and happiness. Current Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9865-z. Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 974–980. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.017. Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., Finkenauer, C., & Stocker, S. L. (2007). To think or to do: The impact of assessment and locomotion orientation on the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507079261. Lee, D. S., Ybarra, O., Gonzalez, R., & Ellsworth, P. (2018). I-through-we: How supportive social relationships facilitate personal growth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217730371. Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2013). How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81, 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6494.2012.00805.x. Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2016). State authenticity in everyday life. European Journal of Personality, 30, 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2033. Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 3–16. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17439760500372796.

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

121

Lister, J. J., Wohl, M. J., & Davis, C. G. (2015). The dark side of authenticity: Feeling “real” while gambling interacts with enhancement motives to predict problematic gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31, 995–1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9460-7. Lopez, F. G., & Rice, K. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 362–371. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-0167.53.3.362. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176– 190. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12025. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514553334. McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0024572. Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. https:// doi.org/10.1037/00332909.129.5.674. Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2014). A two-dimensional model for the study of interpersonal attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1088868313501887. Moretti, M. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1990). Relating self-discrepancy to self-esteem: The contribution of discrepancy beyond actual-self ratings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 108– 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90071-S. Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502196006. Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.55.1.88. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Proctor, C., Tweed, R., & Morris, D. (2016). The Rogerian fully functioning person: A positive psychology perspective. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 56, 503–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022167815605936. Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., Black, W. W., & Rosenkrantz, D. E. (2017). Outness, concealment, and authenticity: Associations with LGB individuals’ psychological distress and wellbeing. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/ sgd0000202. Righetti, F., Rusbult, C., & Finkenauer, C. (2010). Regulatory focus and the Michelangelo Phenomenon: How close partners promote one another’s ideal selves. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 972–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.001. Rivera, G. N., Christy, A. G., Kim, J., Vess, M., Hicks, J. A., & Schlegel, R. J. (2019). Understanding the relationship between perceived authenticity and well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000161. Robinson, O. C., Lopez, F. G., Ramos, K., & Nartova-Bochaver, S. (2013). Authenticity, social context, and well-being in the United States, England, and Russia: A three country comparative analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 719–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022112465672. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

122

T. E. DiDonato

Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009a). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678721.2009. 01657.x. Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Kubacka, K. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2009b). “The part of me that you bring out”: Ideal similarity and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014016. Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Stocker, S. L., Kirchner, J. L., Finkel, E. J., & Coolsen, M. K. (2005). Self processes in interdependent relationships: Partner affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Interaction Studies, 6, 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.6.3.05rus. Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059. Ryan, R. M., LaGuardia, J. G., & Rawsthorne, L. J. (2005). Self-complexity and the authenticity of self-aspects: Effects on well being and resilience to stressful events. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000162. Ryan, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2019). Toward a social psychology of authenticity: Exploring withinperson variation in autonomy, congruence, and genuineness using self-determination theory. Review of General Psychology, 23, 99–112. Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Arndt, J., & King, L. A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-concept accessibility and meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014060. Schmader, T., & Sedikides, C. (2018). State authenticity as fit to environment: The implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 228–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734080. Sedikides, C., Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., & Thomaes, S. (2019). Sketching the contours of state authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000156. Sedikides, C., Slabu, L., Lenton, A., & Thomaes, S. (2017). State authenticity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 521–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417713296. Seto, E., & Schlegel, R. J. (2018). Becoming your true self: Perceptions of authenticity across the lifespan. Self and Identity, 17, 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1322530. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Crossrole variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380. Slabu, L., Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2014). Trait and state authenticity across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1347–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022114543520. Stavrova, O., Pronk, T., & Kokkoris, M. D. (2018). Choosing goals that express the true self: A novel mechanism of the effect of self-control on goal attainment. European Journal of Social Psychology. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2559. Stevens, F. L. (2017). Authenticity: a mediator in the relationship between attachment style and affective functioning. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 30, 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09515070.2016.1176010. Strohminger, N., Knobe, J., & Newman, G. (2017). The true self: A psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691616689495. Thomaes, S., Sedikides, C., van den Bos, N., Hutteman, R., & Reijntjes, A. (2017). Happy to be “me?” Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective well-being in adolescence. Child Development, 88, 1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12867. Tou, R. Y., Baker, Z. G., Hadden, B. W., & Lin, Y. C. (2015). The real me: Authenticity, interpersonal goals, and conflict tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 189–194. Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., Knee, C. R., & Bush, A. L. (2012). The association between self-concealment from one’s partner and relationship well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211429331.

7 Self-authenticity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon

123

Vannini, P., & Franzese, A. (2008). The authenticity of self: Conceptualization, personal experience, and practice. Sociology Compass, 2, 1621–1637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008. 00151.x. Venaglia, R. B., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2017). Hedonic benefits of close and distant interaction partners: The mediating roles of social approval and authenticity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1255–1267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217711917. Vess, M. (2019). Varieties of conscious experience and the subjective awareness of one’s “true” self. Review of General Psychology, 23, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019829471. Wickham, R. E. (2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.001. Wickham, R. E., Warren, S. L., Reed, D. E., II, & Matsumoto, M. K. (2018). Attachment and perceived authenticity across relationship domains: A latent variable decomposition of the ECRRS. Journal of Research in Personality, 77, 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.005. Wickham, R. E., Williamson, R. E., Beard, C. L., Kobayashi, C. L., & Hirst, T. W. (2016). Authenticity attenuates the negative effects of interpersonal conflict on daily well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.006. Womick, J., Foltz, R. M., & King, L. A. (2019). “Releasing the beast within”? Authenticity, wellbeing, and the Dark Tetrad. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 115–125. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.022. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385. Zhang, J. W., Chen, S., Tomova, T. K., Bilgin, B., Chai, W. J., Ramis, T., … & Manukyan, A. (2019). A compassionate self is a true self? Self-compassion promotes subjective authenticity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0146167218820914.

Chapter 8

The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development Brittany K. Jakubiak and Jennifer M. Tomlinson

Develop, expand, achieve—words like these illustrate the often-theorized human motivation for continual self-development (also termed self-growth; Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988; Deci & Ryan, 2000). In other words, people are motivated to build competencies, pursue and achieve goals, and become more efficacious over the lifespan. Stagnant, inert, bored—words like these have deep negative connotations and underscore the theorized negative psychological consequences of failing to continually develop oneself (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Tsapelas, Aron, & Orbuch, 2009). Although individuals are motivated to grow and avoid stagnation, opportunities for growth often carry risks that can serve as deterrents to self-development. Specifically, individuals who choose to pursue personal goals or embrace life opportunities may risk experiencing failure, disappointment, or embarrassment (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Close others may be able to help to mitigate these perceived risks and bolster self-development by providing social support (Feeney & Collins, 2015a). The current chapter describes theoretical and empirical support for the idea that social support promotes self-development and therefore enhances/protects well-being. We begin by reviewing broad theoretical perspectives that emphasize the fundamental need for continual self-development. Then, we describe how selfdevelopment occurs in the context of interpersonal relationships and highlight why social support, in particular, is critical for self-development. Next, we summarize recent empirical evidence demonstrating that specific support behaviors (secure base support and relational catalyst support) promote self-growth and ultimately enhance B. K. Jakubiak (B) Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. M. Tomlinson Department of Psychology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_8

125

126

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

personal and relational well-being. Finally, we discuss additional factors that impact this process (i.e., support visibility, attachment orientation, goal coordination) and suggest avenues for future research.

8.1 Motivated to Grow For the purpose of this chapter, we define self-development (or self-growth) as any enhancement of one’s personal skills, perspectives, experiences, or positive attributes. Thus, self-development could include building competencies (learning to code in Java), pursuing and achieving specific goals (training to run a marathon), having new experiences (traveling), or adding attributes to one’s self-concept (i.e., deciding that “I am funny”). Several theoretical perspectives highlight self-development as a foundational human motivation. For instance, as part of his theory of motivation, Maslow described the need for self-actualization: “the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming” (1943, p. 382). In his humanist perspective, Rogers similarly emphasized a fundamental actualizing tendency, which he described as an “inherent tendency…to develop all [one’s] capacities” (1959, p. 196; Ford, 1991). More recently, the self-expansion model of motivation (see Chap. 1 of this book) describes a motive to expand the self by acquiring new knowledge, traits, experiences, and skills (Aron et al., 2013; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013). Theoretically, people are motivated to expand in these ways because self-expansion increases one’s ability to be effective in the environment and increases the likelihood of future goal achievement. White (1959) first proposed this specific motivation for “effectance” or competence, and a motive for competence was later included as one of the self-determination theory’s three fundamental human motivations, along with motivations for autonomy and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Attachment theory similarly emphasizes a central, lifelong, motivation for selfdevelopment in its elaboration of an innate exploration behavioral system (one of the three innate systems, including also an attachment behavioral system and a caregiving system; Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1988). According to attachment theory, individuals are motivated to engage in exploration—autonomous engagement with the physical or social environment—“from cradle to grave” (Bowlby, 1969/1982, p. 208). Children explore by investigating novel environments, playing with toys, and interacting with unfamiliar people; adults engage in exploration by pursuing goals related to work, education, leisure, and social relationships (Bowlby, 1988; Carnelley & Ruscher, 2000; Elliot & Reis, 2003; Green & Campbell, 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Exploration, in any of these forms, can generate self-development by providing opportunities to develop skills and by providing new experiences. Consistent with the idea that self-development may be a fundamental motivation, individuals thrive when they are able to self-expand, develop competencies, and engage in successful exploration (Aron et al., 2013; Brunstein, 1993; Emmons,

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

127

1986; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a; Klug & Maier, 2014; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). For example, a recent meta-analysis revealed a medium-to-large positive effect linking goal progress and subjective well-being (Klug & Maier, 2014). Empirical data also support the contention that individuals are motivated to continue developing competencies throughout the lifespan (e.g., Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a; Lapierre, Bouffard, Dubé, Réal, & Bastin, 2001; Reker, Peacock, & Wong, 1987; Riediger, Freund, & Baltes, 2005). For example, younger and older adults both reported more positive mood (psychological well-being), fewer physical symptoms (physical well-being), and greater relationship quality (relational well-being) on days when they made progress on their autonomous goals on the same day and/or the previous day (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Self-growth is, and remains, a key predictor of well-being across the lifespan.

8.2 Interpersonal Facilitation of Self-Development Although self-development is a personal process (i.e., it entails personal change and satisfies a personal motivation), self-development is inextricably tied to interpersonal relationships. For example, the self-expansion model highlights close relationships as the primary source for self-expansion (Aron et al., 2013). As two people develop a close relationship, they each take on one another’s resources, skills, attributes, and abilities as their own, which expands and diversifies each individual’s self-concept (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995; Aron & Fraley, 1999; Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014). The potential for self-expansion can even motivate relationship formation, as research has shown that individuals prefer to form relationships with people who can help them to develop desired competencies and achieve personal goals (Slotter & Gardner, 2011). This inclusion-of-otherin-the-self perspective describes a relatively passive process of relationship-induced self-growth that peaks early in relationships when individuals first become interdependent (Aron et al., 2013). People are naturally drawn to partners who reflect their ideal self and, through the Michelangelo phenomenon, relationship partners in turn facilitate movement toward the ideal self (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka, & Finkel, 2009; also see Chap. 7 of this volume). Close others continue to facilitate self-development in ongoing relationships as well by shaping which goals people pursue and serving as means to enable goal achievement (e.g., Fitzsimons, Finkel, & Van Dellen, 2015; Orehek & Forest, 2016; Orehek, Forest, & Barbaro, 2018). Attachment theory provides a particularly useful framework with which to explain how partners can facilitate self-growth in ongoing relationships because it highlights the conditions under which people will be motivated to pursue opportunities for selfgrowth. People do not always approach opportunities to develop competencies or to have new experiences. According to attachment theory, people are only motivated to explore—to pursue goals, to expand their self-concepts with new experiences—during periods of non-adversity and perceived relational security (Bowlby, 1969/1982,

128

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

1973, 1980, 1988). When people feel threatened, or believe their primary relationship is threatened, a complementary behavioral system—the attachment system—is activated instead. The attachment system motivates people to establish and maintain proximity to attachment figures (primary caregivers in childhood; romantic partners in adulthood) to restore safety and feelings of security (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). The dynamic interplay between the attachment and exploration systems presents something of a paradox: people must believe they can depend on others in order to prioritize independent, self-expanding pursuits (Feeney, 2007; Feeney, Van Vleet, & Jakubiak, 2015). The attachment system is also closely linked to views of the self and others. People who are securely attached (low in both anxiety and avoidance) have a positive model of self and other. People who are high in attachment anxiety have a negative model of self and a positive model of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). People who are high in attachment avoidance, in contrast, have a positive model of self and a negative model of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These working models of self and other may also shape exploration behavior. For example, highly anxious individuals may be reluctant to seek out opportunities for growth or to encourage their partners to seek out such opportunities because they are not confident that their partner will be there for them (Arriaga, Kumashiro, Finkel, Van der Drift, & Luchies, 2014; Feeney, Van Vleet, Jakubiak, & Tomlinson, 2017). Highly avoidant individuals, in contrast, may seek out opportunities for growth at the detriment of fostering close relationships because they are confident in themselves but not in their trust of their partner (Arriaga et al., 2014). Based on attachment theory, partners can facilitate exploration (and self-growth) by reifying the closeness of the attachment bond and by mitigating the perceived risk of exploration opportunities so that individuals do not feel threatened or stressed by them. Exploration always entails some degree of risk; taking on challenges and pursuing goals presents risks ranging from physical dangers (e.g., injury) to psychological dangers like disappointment and failure (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). The presence of other individuals (and especially close others, like attachment figures) diminishes perceived risks in the physical and social environment and can therefore enable people to shift their attention toward self-growth (Beckes & Coan, 2011; Coan, 2010; Coan & Sbarra, 2015). In one study, people who stood next to a friend (or thought of a friend) perceived a hill to be less steep than people who stood alone or thought of a neutral or disliked person (Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, & Proffitt, 2008). Relatedly, married participants were less threatened by the possibility of receiving electric shocks when they held hands with another person, especially if that other person was their spouse (Coan et al., 2017; Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006). This social modulation of threat can be critical in determining whether an individual will accept and persist in pursuing a challenging (and risky) life opportunity that could lead to self-growth. Although the mere presence of a close other mitigates perceived risk, attachment figures can encourage exploration more effectively when they go beyond being present to provide responsive social support (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016b; Kane,

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

129

McCall, Collins, & Blascovich, 2012). For example, adults who completed a virtual cliff-walking task (exploration of a novel environment) were less stressed by the experience and felt more secure when avatars representing their partners provided nonverbal support compared to when partners were simply present with them in the virtual world (Kane et al., 2012). Similarly, individuals who imagined receiving supportive touch from their romantic partners were more likely to take on a novel challenge and perceived difficult tasks more positively/enthusiastically than individuals who merely thought of their partners (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016b). When attachment figures provide responsive social support, they motivate individuals to explore, which can ultimately facilitate self-growth. This is especially true for more securely attached individuals, who exhibit less distress and better ability to provide effective support in contrast to more insecurely attached individuals (Mattingly, McIntyre, & Selterman, 2018).

8.3 Social Support for Self-Development Social support is a broad construct; it encompasses many specific support types and innumerable support behaviors (Cohen, 2004; Lakey, 2013; Vangelisti, 2009). To promote self-development, in particular, attachment figures can serve as a secure base for exploration by providing a form of support referred to as secure base support. In Bowlby’s original writings, he described the secure base role in this way: In essence this role is one of being available, ready to respond when called upon to encourage and perhaps assist, but to intervene actively only when clearly necessary. In these respects it is a role similar to that of the officer commanding a military base from which an expeditionary force sets out and to which it can retreat, should it meet with a setback. Much of the time the role of the base is a waiting one but it is nonetheless vital for that. For it is only when the officer commanding the expeditionary force is confident his base is secure that he dare press forward and take risks. (Bowlby, 1988, p. 11)

As this quote (particularly the last line) describes, individuals will only take the risks necessary for self-development (e.g., challenging oneself to learn a new skill or visit a new place), when they receive support that reassures them that they have a secure base to return to, if needed. Based on Bowlby’s original writings and empirical observation, Feeney and Thrush (2010) identified and elaborated on three specific characteristics of a secure base in adulthood: availability, encouragement, and non-interference. Availability entails both physical proximity (practical availability in space) and attentiveness (psychological availability, willingness to offer support). Partners can demonstrate their availability by providing their attention, drawing physically near, providing a touch that underscores their proximity, or making statements to reaffirm their availability (e.g., “I’ll be here if you need me”). Encouragement includes conveying excitement and enthusiasm about the opportunity or goal and expressing confidence that the individual is capable of successful exploration (e.g., goal achievement).

130

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

Finally, non-interference describes the waiting role that Bowlby (1988) originally emphasized. Although tangible assistance (i.e., instrumental support) can be an effective form of support during stress (Cohen, 2004), direct assistance can be intrusive during exploration because the goal of exploration is autonomous engagement with the environment. When partners interfere in goal pursuit (perhaps well-meaningly), they prevent individuals from fulfilling their motive to develop competence, and they obstruct self-development. Interference can also communicate that the supportprovider views the support-recipient as needing assistance and can therefore undermine the support-recipient’s self-efficacy (e.g., Feeney & Thrush, 2010; Feeney & Van Vleet, 2010). Feeney and Thrush (2010) provided empirical support for each of these components of secure base support. Specifically, availability, encouragement, and non-interference (observationally coded) each predicted greater persistence on a challenging task in the laboratory. The idea of secure base support was recently expanded into a more comprehensive type of support called relational catalyst support (Feeney & Collins, 2015a). Whereas secure base support specifically encourages persistence in ongoing exploration/goal pursuit, relational catalyst support is a broader conceptualization of the myriad ways that partners facilitate the exploration process from beginning to end. Thus, in their definition of relational catalyst support, Feeney and Collins (2015a) describe ways in which partners can prepare individuals to accept opportunities for growth and enable self-development through these exploration opportunities. Specifically, partners who provide relational catalyst support (1) communicate the importance of self-development broadly and encourage aspirational thinking, (2) help individuals to recognize potential opportunities and frame these opportunities as challenges rather than threats, (3) help individuals to develop requisite skills that will enable successful exploration, and finally (4) provide secure base support during exploration itself (Feeney & Collins, 2015a). Empirical research supports the contention that relational catalyst support encourages individuals to accept opportunities for growth. In one laboratory study, participants were more likely to choose to participate in an optional, challenging task for which they could win a prize when their partners provided greater relational catalyst support (Feeney et al., 2017). Thus, partners have the potential to play a pivotal role in self-development, helping one another to not only achieve current, immediate goals, but also helping one another to come up with even bigger goals that they may not have initially imagined.

8.4 Outcomes of Social Support for Growth and Self-Development As the relational catalyst support model (Feeney & Collins, 2015a) suggests, close relationship partners can serve as a launchpad helping one another to become bigger and better people. Social support in non-adverse contexts has been associated with

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

131

a variety of indicators of individual and relational well-being. We focus here on growth-oriented outcomes such as perceived growth, goal progress, positive affect, health, and relationship satisfaction. These are growth-oriented outcomes because they are linked to self-efficacy or the perception that one can accomplish important goals. For example, positive affect leads to a broadening of perspective that can lead to greater creativity and result in better problem solving (Fredrickson, 2004). Though some studies consider both individual and relational outcomes, we have tried to group studies with similar measures of support and similar outcomes together. Individual Outcomes In the short term, receiving secure base support for goals has been linked to greater positive mood, greater perceived likelihood of achieving a goal, and greater self-esteem (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010). In the short term, secure base support for goals also predicts both same-day and next-day goal progress for both young adult newlyweds and couples over the age of 65 (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Daily goal progress, in turn, predicts greater individual well-being (greater positive affect, fewer physical health symptoms) on the same day and next day as well. Again, these results occurred across the adult lifespan (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Several studies have built on these short-term findings to demonstrate long-term individual consequences of support for self-development. For example, relational catalyst support (both observed by coders and perceived by recipients) predicts longterm outcomes (Tomlinson, Feeney, & Van Vleet, 2015). Interestingly, in two studies, responsive support during a goal discussion between an individual and their spouse predicted greater feelings of capability of accomplishing a goal, which in turn predicted a greater likelihood of accomplishing the goal, perceived self-growth, and self-esteem six months and a year later. Relational catalyst support also predicts willingness to pursue a challenging activity in the laboratory (Feeney et al., 2017). Individuals who received greater relational catalyst support (observationally coded) were more likely to accept a challenging life opportunity (giving a videotaped speech for which they could win a prize). Further, pursuing the challenging life opportunity led to increased happiness, self-efficacy, and perceived growth and learning over the following six months (Feeney et al., 2017). A related set of studies found that nurturing partner support (emotional and esteem support) and action-facilitating partner support (information and tangible support) during a discussion about selfimprovement goals led to greater self-improvement success over the course of a year (Overall, Fletcher, & Simpson, 2010). Finally, partner support for self-expansion predicted health and retirement satisfaction one year later in retired couples (Tomlinson, Feeney, & Peters, 2019). Consistent with the importance of self-growth (and support for self-growth), actual self-expansion at the six-month mark mediated these effects. Taken together, this work is consistent with Feeney and Collins’ (2015a) contention that partners can promote thriving in a much more active way by encouraging one another to accept opportunities for growth and serving as a launchpad for exploration. Furthermore, these studies suggest a process whereby receiving support for goals and exploration is effective because it increases one’s perceived efficacy as well as one’s actual ability to develop the self and progress toward important goals.

132

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

Another line of work that may explain how support in non-adverse contexts could promote self-development is work on capitalization (Gable & Reis, 2010; Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). Capitalization is a process in which individuals share positive events with others (capitalization attempts) and those others respond in a positive, engaging, and enthusiastic way (response to capitalization attempts; Gable & Reis, 2010). Theoretically, capitalization may result in self-growth because partners who share opportunities that are met with an enthusiastic response may be more likely to pursue further opportunities that allow them to develop new competencies and have additional self-expanding experiences. Past research shows that sharing positive events with close others does promote positive affect (e.g., Gable et al., 2004). Theoretically, positive affect is part of a broaden-and-build cycle that can lead to greater creativity and personal growth (Fredrickson, 2001), though no research has directly tested self-growth as a consequence of capitalization. Finally, another line of research focuses on the costs of losing support for selfdevelopment. That is, if partners are integral to exploration, breakups should interfere with individual growth. Consistent with this contention, when people broke up with partners who were instrumental to their personal goals (i.e., helpful in achieving the goal; associated with the goal), they made less subsequent progress on their personal goals (Gomillion, Murray, & Lamarche, 2015). In addition to the loss of support, breakups are also associated with decreased self-concept content or self-contraction (Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006). Relationship Outcomes Relationship outcomes are also impacted by social support in non-adverse contexts such as those involving positive event disclosures, opportunities for self-expansion, and in discussions of important life goals. People who perceive their partners to typically respond to capitalization attempts in an active constructive way demonstrate higher intimacy and daily marital satisfaction (Gable et al., 2004). Further, disclosers who feel understood, validated, and cared for during a discussion of a positive event have greater relationship well-being and are less likely to breakup two months after the discussion (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006). Similar effects have been seen in experimental contexts. For example, Fivecoat, Tomlinson, Aron, and Caprariello (2015) experimentally manipulated active or passive partner support in response to an opportunity for self-expansion using instant messages. Results showed that for longer-term couples, active support for self-expansion led to increased relationship satisfaction, compared to passive support. Responsive partner support during self-improvement goal discussions also leads to increases in relationship quality (Overall et al., 2010). Similarly, in daily life, younger and older adults alike who receive secure base support from their spouses report greater increases in relationship quality on the same and the following day, mediated by daily goal progress (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Support Visibility Although support receipt is typically associated with positive outcomes in goal contexts (when the support-recipient is pursuing a goal), there is some evidence that receiving support can produce personal costs that should be considered. This support costs idea has typically been considered in adverse (stress) contexts because support during stress may signal a lack of confidence that the

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

133

support-recipient can cope with the stressor alone or increase the salience of the stressor (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000). In stress contexts, there is some evidence that “invisible support” (support that is provided by a support-provider but is not perceived as support by the support-recipient; indirect or subtle support) is preferable to “visible support” (overt support that is perceived by the support-recipient) for personal outcomes (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Bolger et al., 2000; Shrout, Herman, & Bolger, 2006). However, in the moment, overt visible support remains preferable for relational outcomes (Gleason, Iida, Shrout, & Bolger, 2008). When considered on the daily level, invisible support does not have detectable effects on relational outcomes on the day it is received, but lagged analysis suggests that partners reap the benefits in terms of relationship satisfaction the next day (Girme et al., 2018). It is also important to consider the importance of support visibility in non-adverse contexts. When individuals are pursuing goals and opportunities for growth, they could perhaps experience support costs similar to the costs experienced during stress. Theoretically, receiving overt support for goals could communicate that the supportprovider thinks that the support-recipient needs support to achieve the goal and could undermine self-efficacy or cause distress. For instance, a novice runner who receives enthusiastic support from his partner (advice about running routes and gear, encouragement to run) may infer that his partner thinks he is unable to develop as a runner independently. Initial empirical research suggests that both visible and invisible support can be useful in non-adverse contexts. In one study, researchers had participants discuss a goal to change something about themselves and observed participants’ support behaviors during the discussion (Howland & Simpson, 2010). The best personal outcomes were observed when partners provided practical or emotional support indirectly (“invisibly”), and participants failed to perceive support-receipt. Specifically, when partners provided support indirectly and participants failed to perceive it, participants reported the least anger and anxiety and the greatest self-efficacy (Howland & Simpson, 2010). In a related study, researchers instructed participants to discuss a personal goal with their romantic partner, and they observationally coded for visible (overt, direct) and invisible (indirect, subtle) emotional support (Girme, Overall, & Simpson, 2013). Immediately after the discussion, participants who were distressed by the discussion (those who perceived the discussion as an adverse context) perceived their goal discussions to be more successful when they received greater visible support. Alternatively, participants who were not distressed by the discussion perceived their goal discussions to be less successful when they received greater visible support (Girme et al., 2013). This is perhaps because visible support communicates care when the support-recipient is concerned about goal pursuit but is perceived as intrusive when one feels efficacious to pursue his or her goals independently. Regarding the relationship, participants perceived their partners to be more supportive when they provided greater visible support, especially if the participant was distressed by the discussion (Girme et al., 2013). Coded invisible support was not related to these

134

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

immediate outcomes, but it instead predicted goal achievement over the following year (whereas visible support did not). Though these studies only begin to address the role of support visibility in nonadverse contexts, they suggest that indirect, invisible support may offer benefits when individuals are pursuing goals and opportunities for growth. However, invisible support’s benefits may be limited to non-distressed individuals and to personal wellbeing and goal achievement outcomes. Visible support can also produce benefits for individuals who are distressed by growth opportunities or for relational outcomes.

8.5 Attachment Differences in Provision and Receipt of Support for Growth Although all individuals are presumed to have an exploration system that motivates self-development (as described above), individual differences related to attachment orientation may impact how one perceives growth opportunities and support for growth opportunities. In general, adults who chronically trust their romantic partners to be available and responsive (securely attached individuals) habitually prioritize exploration and daily goal pursuit (Green & Campbell, 2000; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). Insecurely attached individuals may pursue goals and life opportunities less readily because they lack a reliable secure base to enable confident exploration. In other words, insecurely attached individuals may perceive risks of exploration and may fail to receive (or perceive) partner support to mitigate those risks. Even when insecurely attached individuals receive support for life opportunities, they may interpret it less favorably, consistent with their less favorable interpretations of support in stress contexts (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2004). In the short-term, partner support for goals can be uncomfortable for anxiously attached people because they may worry that the partner is supporting their personal goals to push them away (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). However, in the long-term, autonomy support is beneficial for anxiously attached individuals, and it can actually result in decreases in attachment anxiety over time (Arriaga et al., 2014; Arriaga, Kumashiro, Simpson, & Overall, 2018; see Chap. 5 in this volume). Individual differences in attachment orientation also shape motivation to provide support in growth contexts. Securely attached individuals are most able to effectively provide responsive support to encourage a partner’s acceptance of challenging life opportunities (Feeney & Thrush, 2010). Securely attached individuals likely experience few concerns about encouraging opportunities for the partner’s growth because they perceive the relationship to be stable, and they trust their partners. Insecurely attached individuals are less able to provide effective secure base support (Feeney & Thrush, 2010). Specifically, anxiously attached individuals provide less encouragement and are more interfering, while avoidantly attached individuals are less able to demonstrate availability (Feeney & Thrush, 2010). The ineffectiveness of support from insecurely attached individuals may be partially due to motives for providing

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

135

support (Feeney et al., 2017). Greater attachment insecurity predicts less altruistic motives and greater egoistic motives for supporting partners’ opportunities for growth (Feeney et al., 2017).

8.6 Partner Goal Coordination Another factor that influences the effectiveness of support-provision and supportreceipt in the context of opportunities for growth is couple-members’ goal coordination (Fitzsimons et al., 2015). Goal coordination is defined as compatibility in goal pursuit. Couple-members who have good goal coordination “find it easy to successfully integrate goals and pursuit,” whereas those with poor goal coordination do not (Fitzsimons et al., 2015, p. 659). Goal coordination matters because the extent to which couple-members’ personal goals are compatible can impact the ease with which they can support one another in achieving their personal goals. When couple-members have similar goals or goals that can be achieved in concert, they can simultaneously make progress on their goals and support one another’s goals and life opportunities (Fitzsimons et al., 2015). For example, two partners with personal goals to increase physical fitness can exercise together. Additionally, couple-members can benefit from their goal coordination if one couple-member has a personal growth opportunity that generates additional resources (e.g., greater work responsibility) with which the other couple-member is able to pursue growth opportunities (e.g., continuing education). When couple-members instead have poor goal coordination, one person’s decision to accept opportunities for growth may prevent the other partner from doing so if time or monetary resources are limited. In these cases, partners may be particularly hesitant to support one another’s goals, and couple-members may experience poor individual and relational outcomes. Goal conflict, which comes from a perception that one’s individual goals are incompatible with one’s relationship, is associated with lower subjective well-being and relationship quality (Gere & Schimmack, 2013). In addition, in early stage dating relationships, increased goal conflict results in reducing goal pursuit and devaluing conflicting goals (Gere & Impett, 2017). Though changes to goal pursuit may be better for relationship longevity, it is possible that a partner’s lack of support for important goals could result in self-contraction (Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014). In addition to producing lower feelings of capability of accomplishing a goal, goal conflict also leads to decreased support for the goal from a romantic partner (Tomlinson, Yarrington, & Zhang, 2018). In an observational study of couples discussing a goal that their relationship made it more difficult to accomplish, goal conflict (both reported and observed by coders) was associated with decreased relationship satisfaction and lower feelings of capability of accomplishing the goal (Tomlinson et al., 2018). In a second cross-sectional study of retired individuals, goal conflict was associated with decreased satisfaction, closeness, self-efficacy, physical health, and mental health. Together, these studies

136

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

suggest that goal conflict in older adulthood has negative implications for relationship functioning, goal pursuit, and health (Tomlinson et al., 2018). It is likely that incompatibility between a goal and the relationship makes it more challenging for support-providers to be responsive, which would likely decrease the likelihood of the recipient accomplishing the goal.

8.7 Future Directions Although the extant research on partner support to promote self-development is relatively small in scope, it has been grounded in and guided by comprehensive theoretical perspectives (e.g., Bowlby, 1988; Feeney & Collins, 2015a, 2015b) and it has utilized a variety of sophisticated techniques, including dyadic, longitudinal, daily diary, observational, and experimental methods. Based on the current state of the literature, we have identified some areas where future research will be important to further refine our understanding of partner support for self-development. First, more can be done to identify specific contexts where support for goals is most and least helpful. One way to identify such contexts might be to consider significant life transitions across the lifespan, which often result in decreases in self-concept clarity whether they involve the gain or loss of a social role (Slotter & Emery, 2017). Meta-analytic findings suggest that the transitions to marriage, parenthood, and retirement are closely tied to subjective well-being and relationship satisfaction (Luhmann, Hoffman, Eid, & Lucas, 2012). The transition to marriage is associated with declines in life satisfaction and relationship satisfaction (Luhmann et al., 2012). Thus, this is a time period where support for individual self-growth might be particularly important for tempering declines in satisfaction and promoting thriving because many couples are at critical points in their education and careers. The transition to parenthood is also associated with declines in both life satisfaction and relationship satisfaction (Luhmann et al., 2012). Support for growth may look different in this context, when parents likely have less energy or resources to pursue hobbies and goals, but recognizing one another’s individual needs may be a way to help maintain satisfaction. In addition, goal coordination would become especially important due to childcare responsibilities. The transition to retirement is considered to be an affectively neutral event because both costs and benefits balance out (Luhmann et al., 2012), but it may be a particularly crucial phase for self-development and support for self-development. Genadek, Flood, and Moen (2019) have argued that a relatively new phase of ‘encore adulthood’ now exists (i.e., a phase of late adulthood post-work in which adults have greater control over their time and are still in good health). Thus, this time period is particularly ripe for studying support for growth and goals. It is important to consider how couples are still benefiting from support for autonomous goals during retirement and older adulthood (see Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a, 2016b, and Tomlinson et al., 2019, for examples), in contrast to some theories of aging, which focus primarily on

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

137

maintenance (i.e., avoiding cognitive or physical declines). Adapting to life transitions may lead to shifting goals, which would involve disengaging from some goals and re-engaging with others (e.g., Ntoumanis & Sedikides, 2018; Wrosch, Scheier, & Miller, 2013). Support-providers need to be able to continually update their knowledge of goals that are most central to the partner so as to provide support that is sensitive and responsive to current needs. It will also be worthwhile for future researchers to consider what types of goals are most important to pursue and most beneficial to support to facilitate selfdevelopment. For example, it may be better to pursue and support compassionate goals (in contrast to self-image goals), which are characterized by sincere concern for a close other because these goals predict increases in trust and social support (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). Compassionate goals lead to increases in support because they create a cycle of mutual responsiveness, which ultimately enhances relationship quality for both relationship partners (Canevello & Crocker, 2010). Additionally, for married couples, perceived social support for both promotion (goals focused on attainment) and prevention (goals focused on maintenance) predicts greater life satisfaction (Molden, Lucas, Finkel, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2009). For unmarried couples, in contrast, only promotion support is linked to life satisfaction (Molden et al., 2009). In this case, the type of support that is most effective depends on the relationship status of the partners. Another priority for future research will be to investigate the individual components of relational catalyst support (Feeney & Collins, 2015a, 2015b). There are at least four distinguishable components of relational catalyst support including “nurturing a desire to create or seize opportunities for growth,” “providing perceptual assistance in the viewing of life opportunities,” “facilitating preparation for engagement in life opportunities,” and “facilitating implementation by serving a launching function that enables one to fully engage in life opportunities” (Feeney & Collins, 2015b, p. 24). These components include a broad array of partner behaviors ranging from encouraging the partner to leave their comfort zone to providing support during failures and setbacks. Future research should evaluate the outcomes of each individual component of relational catalyst support and explore which components are necessary and sufficient to encourage self-growth and individual and relational wellbeing. To do so, researchers must develop measures that assess each relational catalyst support component individually, perhaps observationally or through self-report in daily life. Experimental research will also be required to validate the importance of each relational catalyst support component. Specifically, future research should manipulate individual relational catalyst support components in contexts in which individuals have the choice to pursue growth opportunities (see Feeney et al., 2017). This approach can be useful to identify the key components of relational catalyst support and to explore whether some components are especially useful for specific types of people (e.g., anxiously attached and avoidantly attached individuals). Finally, future research should also address support-providers’ outcomes in a growth/development context. Some theorists have argued that supporting a partner’s self-development goals strains the support-provider and the relationship because it

138

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

requires a high degree of investment and nurturance (Finkel, Cheung, Emery, Carswell, & Larson, 2015; Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014). This perspective is consistent with research in aging and chronic illness contexts in which supportproviders experience caregiver burden or caregiver burnout from providing support (Adelman, Tmanova, & Delgado, Dion, & Lachs, 2014). In particular, supportproviders may experience personal and relational costs of supporting a partner’s selfdevelopment if the support-recipient is not appreciative or if the support-provision is chronic, ineffective, or inequitable (Gleason, Iida, Bolger, & Shrout, 2003; Inagaki & Orehek, 2017; Ryon & Gleason, 2018). Further, Clark and Grote (1998) argue that even when supporting a partner’s needs is costly to the self, relationship quality is generally not harmed and is sometimes even benefited. This is likely because in a communal relationship, one’s own and the partner’s outcomes are closely linked. However, other theorists argue that support-provision is not typically costly and is instead actually beneficial for support-providers (e.g., Collins & Ford, 2010; Feeney & Collins, 2014; Inagaki & Orehek, 2017). Attachment theory proposes a fundamental caregiving motive; that is, people are foundationally motivated to assist when a close other is experiencing distress and to provide a secure base for exploration when a close other is not distressed (e.g., Collins & Ford, 2010). Empirical research also shows that support-provision in a stress context is physiologically rewarding and stress-reducing for supportproviders (Inagaki & Eisenberger, 2012, 2016). Future research should empirically test support-providers’ outcomes in a growth context.

8.8 Conclusions Relationship researchers have made considerable progress in identifying the precursors and consequences of self-development. Building on diverse theoretical perspectives that each herald self-growth as a fundamental human motivation, relationship researchers have demonstrated that social support is a central impetus for self-development across the lifespan. We also see that support for self-growth has short-term and long-term benefits for individuals and their relationships, likely caused by successful self-development. There is still a great deal to learn about how best to facilitate self-growth, and we encourage future research to accept this challenging opportunity.

References Adelman, R. D., Tmanova, L. L., Delgado, D., Dion, S., & Lachs, M. S. (2014). Caregiver burden: A clinical review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311, 1052–1060. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253.

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

139

Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self: Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140–160. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112. Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E. J., Van der Drift, L. E., & Luchies, L. B. (2014). Filling the void: Bolstering attachment security in committed relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 398–406. Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 71–96. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226. Beckes, L., & Coan, J. A. (2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 976–988. Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 458–475. Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 953–961. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety, and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books. Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070. Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 78–106. Carnelley, K. B., & Ruscher, J. B. (2000). Adult attachment and exploratory behavior in leisure. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 153–165. Clark, M. S., & Grote, N. K. (1998). Why aren’t indices of relationship costs always negatively related to indices of relationship quality? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 2–17. Coan, J. A. (2010). Adult attachment and the brain. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 210–217. Coan, J. A., Beckes, L., Gonzalez, M. Z., Maresh, E. L., Brown, C. L., & Hasselmo, K. (2017). Relationship status and perceived support in the social regulation of neural responses to threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12, 1574–1583. Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87–91. Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032–1039. Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676–684. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363–383. Collins, N. L., & Ford, M. B. (2010). Responding to the needs of others: The caregiving behavioral system in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 235–244.

140

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 555–575. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317–331. Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1058–1068. Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–48. Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268–285. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2014). Much “I do” about nothing? Ascending Mount Maslow with an oxygenated marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 69–79. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015a). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015b). Thriving through relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 22–28. Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 57–76. Feeney, B. C., & Van Vleet, M. (2010). Growing through attachment: The interplay of attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 226–234. Feeney, B. C., Van Vleet, M., & Jakubiak, B. K. (2015). An attachment theoretical perspective on optimal dependence in close relationships. In J. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and research: New directions and emerging themes (pp. 195–233). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Feeney, B. C., Van Vleet, M., Jakubiak, B. K., & Tomlinson, J. M. (2017). Predicting the pursuit and support of challenging life opportunities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1171–1187. Finkel, E. J., Cheung, E. O., Emery, L. F., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2015). The suffocation model: Why marriage in America is becoming an all-or-nothing institution. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 238–244. Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41. Fitzsimons, G. M., Finkel, E. J., & Van dellen, M. R. (2015). Transactive goal dynamics. Psychological Review, 122, 648–673. Fivecoat, H. C., Tomlinson, J. M., Aron, A., & Caprariello, P. A. (2015). Partner support for individual self-expansion opportunities: Effects on relationship satisfaction in long-term couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 368–385. Ford, J. G. (1991). Rogerian self-actualization: A clarification of meaning. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31, 101–111. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-andbuild theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1367–1378. Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 904–917. Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2010). Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an interpersonal context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 195–257.

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

141

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245. Genadek, K. R., Flood, S. M., & Moen, P. (2019). For better or worse? Couples’ time together in encore adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 4(2), 329–338. Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2017). Shifting priorities: Effects of partners’ goal conflict on goal adjustment processes and relationship quality in developing romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 793–810. Gere, J., & Schimmack, U. (2013). When romantic partners’ goals conflict: Effects on relationship quality and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 37–49. Girme, Y. U., Maniaci, M. R., Reis, H. T., McNulty, J. K., Carmichael, C. L., Gable, S. L., … Overall, N. C. (2018). Does support need to be seen? Daily invisible support promotes next day relationship well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(7), 882–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/ fam0000453.supp. Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). When visibility matters: Short-term versus long-term costs and benefits of visible and invisible support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1441–54. Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1036–1045. Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2008). Receiving support as a mixed blessing: Evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 824–838. Gomillion, S., Murray, S. L., & Lamarche, V. M. (2015). Losing the wind beneath your wings: The prospective influence of romantic breakup on goal progress. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 513–520. Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 452–461. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270–280. Howland, M., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Getting in under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible support. Psychological Science, 21, 1878–1885. Inagaki, T. K., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). Neural correlates of giving support to a loved one. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 3–7. Inagaki, T. K., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2016). Giving support to others reduces sympathetic nervous system-related responses to stress. Psychophysiology, 53, 427–435. Inagaki, T. K., & Orehek, E. (2017). On the benefits of giving social support: When, why, and how support providers gain by caring for others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 109–113. Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2016a). Daily goal progress is facilitated by spousal support and promotes psychological, physical, and relational well-being throughout adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 317–340. Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2016b). Keep in touch: The effects of imagined touch support on stress and exploration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 59–67. Kane, H. S., McCall, C., Collins, N. L., & Blascovich, J. (2012). Mere presence is not enough: Responsive support in a virtual world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 37–44. Klug, H. J. P., & Maier, G. W. (2014). Linking goal progress and subjective well-being: A metaanalysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 37–65. Lakey, B. (2013). Social support processes in relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 711–728). New York: NY: Oxford University Press.

142

B. K. Jakubiak and J. M. Tomlinson

Lapierre, S., Bouffard, L., Dubé, M., Labelle, R., & Bastin, É. (2001). Aspirations and well-being in old age. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 102–115). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13(3), 317–331. Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis on differences between cognitive and affective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 592–615. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W. (2013). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 12, 621–634. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176– 190. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., & Selterman, D. F. (2018). Individual differences and romantic relationships: Bidirectional influences on self and relational processes. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences (Vol. 2, pp. 402–430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Finkel, E. J., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2009). Perceived support for promotion-focused and prevention-focused goals. Psychological Science, 20, 787–793. Ntoumanis, N., & Sedikides, C. (2018). Holding on to the goal or letting it go and moving on? A tripartite model of goal striving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 363–368. Orehek, E., & Forest, A. L. (2016). When people serve as means to goals: Implications of a motivational account of close relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 79–84. Orehek, E., Forest, A. L., & Barbaro, N. (2018). A people-as-means approach to interpersonal relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 373–389. Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1496–1513. Reker, G. T., Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1987). Meaning and purpose in life and well-being: A life-span perspective. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 44–49. Riediger, M., Freund, A., & Baltes, P. B. (2005). Managing life through personal goals: Intergoal facilitation and intensity of goal pursuit in younger and older adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 60, P84–P91. Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 185–256)., Formulations of the person and the social context New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Kubacka, K. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2009). “The part of me that you bring out”: Ideal similarity and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 61–82. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Ryon, H. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2018). Reciprocal support and daily perceived control: Developing a better understanding of daily support transactions across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 1034–1053. Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Social support and the perception of geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1246–1255. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497. Shrout, P. E., Herman, C. M., & Bolger, N. (2006). The costs and benefits of practical and emotional support on adjustment: A daily diary study of couples experiencing acute stress. Personal Relationships, 13(1), 115–134.

8 The Role of Social Support in Promoting Self-Development

143

Slotter, E. B., & Emery, L. F. (2017). Self-concept clarity and social role transitions. In J. LodiSmith & K. G. DeMarree (Eds.), Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications (pp. 85–106). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2011). Can you help me because the “me” I want to be? The role of goal pursuit in friendship formation. Self and Identity, 10, 231–247. Tomlinson, J. M., Feeney, B. C., & Peters, B. (2019). Physiological, observational, and longitudinal evidence for the importance of partner support for self-expansion during the transition to retirement. Poster presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting. Portland, OR. Tomlinson, J. M., Feeney, B. C., & Van Vleet, M. (2015). A longitudinal investigation of relational catalyst support of goal strivings. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 246–257. Tomlinson, J. M., Yarrington, J. S., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Goal conflict in retirement: Implications for satisfaction, goal pursuit, and health. Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Biannual Meeting. Fort Collins, CO. Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science, 20, 543–545. Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Challenges in conceptualizing social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 39–51. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Goal adjustment capacities, subjective well-being, and physical health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 847–860.

Chapter 9

Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change Brent A. Mattingly, Kevin P. McIntyre, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.

Two people meet, fall in love, and form a relationship; their self-concepts become intricately interconnected. Everything is great. But what happens when that relationship ends? The premise of the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is the idea that such dissolution is so distressing that, if it were possible, individuals might resort to having memories of their partners completely erased to help ease the pain. Though the film provides insight into why this may be an undesirable option, in reality, individuals do not have the option to have their memories wiped in such a manner. Nevertheless, relationship-induced self-concept changes have consequences for relationship formation and maintenance, as well as for how relationships dissolve and the subsequent aftermath of relationship dissolution. The formation and functioning of close relationships can alter individuals’ selfconcepts in such a manner that the self-concepts are cognitively linked with the partner and the relationship as a whole (see previous chapters in this volume). For example, relationships can lead individuals to acquire traits and perspectives of a partner (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995), feel cognitively merged with a partner (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Aron et al., 2004), and perceive themselves as possessing a more diverse and robust self-concept (Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, B. A. Mattingly (B) Department of Psychology, Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. P. McIntyre Department of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] G. W. Lewandowski Jr. Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_9

145

146

B. A. Mattingly et al.

2014; McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2015). Certainly, although these selfgrowth processes have myriad intra- and interpersonal benefits (e.g., Agnew & Le, 2015; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2014; Mattingly, McIntyre, & Selterman, 2018), they also carry intrapersonal risks if relationship dissolution occurs. In particular, dissolution threatens the loss of this intertwined self-concept content, which in turn may result in self-concept confusion and psychological distress (e.g., Agnew, 2000; Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). It is also possible that dissolution can produce positive self-change, especially if the former relationship stifled the self-concept (e.g., Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007). In this chapter, we discuss both the extent to which relationship dissolution leads to subsequent self-concept change, as well as the mechanisms underlying whether these changes are deemed harmful versus beneficial.

9.1 Predicting (and Inoculating Against) Dissolution Before discussing the effects of relationship dissolution on the self-concept, it is worthwhile to briefly consider how relationship-induced self-concept change predicts dissolution in the first place. Because self-expansion (i.e., the acquisition of positive self-concept content; see Chap. 1) strengthens relationship commitment (McIntyre et al., 2015), and greater commitment in turn predicts relationship stability and a greater probability of relationship continuance (Le & Agnew, 2003), relationships characterized by a high degree of mutual self-other integration are less susceptible to dissolution (Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010). That is, intertwined selfconcepts that lead individuals to think of themselves as part of a collective unit effectively serve as a relationship maintenance mechanism (Agnew et al., 1998; McIntyre et al., 2015). For example, in one study, researchers recruited a sample of individuals in earlystage romantic relationships (i.e., less than 3 months in duration) and then tracked them over a 9-month period (Mattingly, McIntyre, Knee, & Loving, 2019). During the study’s first wave, individuals reported the level of self-expansion provided by their newly formed relationship. During the second wave of the study (i.e., 9 months later), individuals indicated whether their relationship was still intact. Supporting the notion that self-expansion protects relationships from dissolving, Wave 1 selfexpansion significantly predicted relationship status at Wave 2, such that for every one unit increase on Lewandowski and Aron’s (2002) Self-Expansion Questionnaire (rated on a nine-point Likert-type scale) at Wave 1, individuals’ relationships were 36% more likely to be intact at Wave 2. Aside from strengthening commitment (e.g., McIntyre et al., 2015), why does selfexpansion protect relationships from dissolution? One reason may be that individuals in self-expanding relationships tend to think less about dissolution in the first place. Just as behavioral intentions are proximal predictors of behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991), so too is dissolution consideration a proximal predictor of dissolution (VanderDrift, Agnew, & Wilson, 2009). That is, dissolution consideration predicts subsequent

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

147

breakup (Knopp, Rhoades, Stanley, Owens, & Markman, 2014), and it significantly mediates the association between commitment and relationship dissolution (VanderDrift et al., 2009). Supporting the prediction that self-concept improvements are beneficial because they reduce thoughts of dissolution, McIntyre et al. (2015) found that the self-improvement processes of self-expansion and self-pruning (i.e., subtracting negative qualities) significantly negatively predicted attention to alternatives and dissolution consideration, whereas the self-concept degradation processes of selfcontraction (i.e., subtracting positive qualities) and self-adulteration (i.e., adding negative qualities) positively predicted attention to alternatives and dissolution consideration. Moreover, in a study of dating and married individuals contemplating breakup and divorce, Joel, MacDonald, and Page-Gould (2018) found that individuals whose partners hindered their ability to self-improve tended to report greater dissolution consideration. These results suggest that relationship termination may be more attractive to individuals who value self-improvement. This may be especially relevant when individuals’ current relationships lack self-expansion opportunities (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007) or when self-expansion opportunities are more available and appealing from other sources, such as from attractive alternatives (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006; VanderDrift, Lewandowski, & Agnew, 2011) or individual pursuits (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2014). Additionally, self-expansion also protects against relationship dissolution by fending off relationship boredom. That is, the novelty that often characterizes the self-expansion experience (Lewandowski & Aron, 2004; Tomlinson, Hughes, Lewandowski, Aron, & Geyer, 2019)—and in particular, self-expanding activities (Reissman, Aron, & Bergen, 1993)—becomes cognitively linked to the partner and the relationship, which in turn serves to maintain individuals’ interest and excitement in the relationship. In one study testing this idea, couples experimentally assigned to participate in a self-expanding activity (i.e., one that was novel and arousing) reported significantly less boredom post-activity relative to couples who participated in a nonexpanding activity (Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000). Moreover, in a longitudinal study, married couples’ self-reported boredom significantly predicted their marital satisfaction 9 years later (i.e., bored couples showed diminished marital satisfaction longitudinally), even after controlling for baseline marital satisfaction (Tsapelas, Aron, & Orbuch, 2009). Though dissolution was not directly measured, decreased relationship satisfaction was one of the strongest known risk factors for dissolution (Le et al., 2010). Experimentally induced boredom motivates individuals to seek subsequent self-expansion (Harasymchuk, Cloutier, Peetz, & Lobreton, 2017); to the degree that individuals perceive their relationship as lacking in self-expansion opportunities, this may motivate them to terminate the relationship.

9.2 Losing Self-concept Content Even though relationships that promote self-concept improvements are at a reduced risk for breakup, they are not immune from dissolution. This may be due to the fact

148

B. A. Mattingly et al.

that breakups need not be mutual or because there are many additional factors that predict relationship dissolution beyond self-concept interdependence (e.g., a selfexpanding relationship may still dissolve if sufficient conflict exists; Le et al., 2010). Thus, integrating a partner into one’s self-concept is potentially risky, as dissolution would leave individuals with a self-concept that is still merged with a (now ex-) partner. Consequently, self-expanded individuals may lose these relationship-derived self-concept attributes upon dissolution. To illustrate this point, Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, and Kunak (2006) conducted a series of studies examining how relationship dissolution affected individuals’ working self-concepts. In two correlational studies, participants who had recently experienced a romantic breakup self-reported the amount of self-expansion the dissolved relationship provided, as well as completed measures of self-concept impairment (e.g., “I’ve lost a big part of myself”). As predicted, individuals reported greater loss of self-concept content post-dissolution when their relationships had provided more (vs. less) self-expansion. In a third study, all participants completed a guided imagery task in which they imagined their relationship dissolving. Those who had additionally been experimentally primed to think of the self-expanding aspects of their relationship reported significantly fewer and less diverse self-concept attributes than those who were primed to think of the non-expanding aspects of their relationship. That is, this study reveals that when self-expansion is salient (e.g., as would be the case in self-expanding relationships), dissolution negatively affects individuals’ working self-concepts, even if dissolution is merely imagined. This finding was conceptually replicated by Slotter, Gardner, and Finkel (2010), who showed that highly committed individuals expect to lose more self-concept content if their relationships were to end. Figure 9.1 provides a visual conceptualization of this self-concept loss that occurs upon dissolution. In the top panel, individuals’ self-concepts are represented by the light gray circle labeled “Self,” whereas partners’ self-concepts are represented by the dark gray circle labeled “Other.” Though both circles contain unique self-concept content, the region in the middle where they overlap represents shared self-concept content. The bottom panel represents what happens to self-concepts upon dissolution. Because the relationship is no longer intact, people lose access to or are uncertain about the aspects of their self-concepts that previously overlapped with the partner. The light gray-shaded region represents the part of the self-concept individuals still possess. This post-dissolution self-concept is likely smaller than the pre-dissolution self-concept because individuals no longer have access to the parts of their selfconcepts that were intertwined with the partner. The result is that individuals only have access to their unique self-concept content post-dissolution. Though self-concept loss is often a passive by-product of dissolution, it may sometimes be a more active and intentional process. For example, rather than feeling as if aspects of their identity merely disappeared upon dissolution (e.g., Lewandowski et al., 2006), individuals may actively reject and exclude self-concept attributes associated with their ex-partners as a way of coping with the breakup. In a test of this hypothesis, Slotter, Emery, and Luchies (2014) had romantically involved participants identify five self-concept attributes and indicate the degree to which

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

149

Fig. 9.1 Self-other overlap when the relationship is intact (top panel) and upon dissolution (bottom panel)

their current partners had influenced their adoption of these traits. Then, participants forecasted the likelihood of retaining these attributes if their relationship dissolved. Supporting predictions, individuals reported that they would be less likely to retain traits that were strongly associated with the partner.1 In a second study, romantically involved participants first identified a single self-concept attribute and rated how influential their partner was in their acquisition of that trait. Then, participants were randomly assigned to write an essay about a control topic (i.e., their weekend plans) or relationship dissolution (i.e., what it would be like if their relationship were to end). Finally, participants rated the degree to which the previously listed trait was indicative of their self-concept. Again supporting predictions, individuals rejected the self-concept attribute (i.e., rated it as less indicative of the self-concept) when imagining dissolution and believing the partner were instrumental in the participant possessing the trait. Put succinctly, in order to effectively cope with dissolution, individuals may actively purge attributes from their self-concepts, especially when they perceive those aspects of their self-concept were due to their ex-partner’s influence. Nevertheless, the loss of self-concept content upon dissolution is potentially quite distressing to individuals, as they are faced with the challenge of identifying, repairing, and redefining the lost identities, perspectives, and beliefs (e.g., Drew, Heesacker,

1 However,

individuals believed they were more likely to retain traits that were strongly associated with the partner if acquiring the trait was effortful (vs. less effortful). This is perhaps due to a cognitive dissonance reduction process of effort justification (Aronson & Mills, 1959).

150

B. A. Mattingly et al.

Frost, & Oelke, 2004). Consequently, losing aspects of the self-concept upon dissolution should be emotionally distressing to individuals.2 To test this, Slotter et al. (2010, Study 1a) had participants who had recently experienced a breakup complete measures of their post-dissolution self-concept change and current emotional distress (operationalized as depressive symptomatology). As predicted, individuals reported greater emotional distress to the degree that they also experienced greater losses of self-concept content. To examine these effects more naturalistically, Slotter et al. (2010, Study 2) also collected a sample of Internet diaries, which were contentcoded and identified as related to a breakup, a nonsocial life change, or neutral topics. Then, the researchers content-analyzed one writing sample from the Internet diary for distress-related words and a second writing sample from the authors’ profile pages for self-concept size (i.e., non-redundant self-descriptions were tallied). Relative to the non-breakup conditions, participants who wrote about breakup had fewer non-redundant self-concept attributes and reported greater emotional distress. In another test of this hypothesis, researchers tracked participants who had recently experienced a marital separation over 4.5 years (Bourassa, Hasselmo, & Sbarra, 2019). In addition to completing measures of psychological distress, participants completed a stream of consciousness task in which they spoke continuously about their ex-partner and the separation. These stream of consciousness thoughts were then linguistically coded for first-person plural pronoun usage (e.g., “we,” “us”). Remarkably, participants who used more plural pronoun usage at the beginning of the study were significantly more likely to exhibit heightened emotional distress 4.5 years later. These studies clearly indicate that difficulties with self-other separation upon a breakup are particularly distressing, both short and long term. Furthermore, both self-reported and independently judged loss of self-concept content predict emotional distress upon dissolution (Manvelian, Bourassa, Lawrence, Mehl, & Sbarra, 2018). Specifically, married couples that were recently separated or divorced completed measures of self-concept loss and emotional grief and also completed a stream of consciousness task in which they spoke about their dissolved relationship for four consecutive minutes. Independent judges then coded participants’ stream of consciousness thoughts on self-concept loss (i.e., the degree to which participants made comments that indicated a loss of self-concept content and/or identity). Replicating previous research (e.g., Slotter et al., 2010), greater self-reported self-concept loss predicted heightened emotional distress. However, independently judged self-concept loss also uniquely predicted participants’ emotional distress. This suggests that the effects of self-concept loss on distress are not necessarily constrained to individuals’ subjective perceptions, as independent evaluators are also able to identify individuals’ diminished self-concept in a manner consistent with participants’ self-reports.

2 In

fact, simply imagining dissolution is sufficient to create emotional distress (e.g., Slotter et al., 2014).

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

151

9.3 Losing Self-concept Clarity Transitioning from one social role to another (e.g., from “romantic partner” to “single individual”) can disrupt the degree to which individuals possess clear and cohesive self-concepts (Light & Visser, 2013; Slotter & Emery, 2018; Slotter, Soto, & Winger, 2015). Accordingly, relationship dissolution may also reduce the degree to which individuals feel that they have clear, cohesive, and confidently defined selfconcepts (i.e., self-concept clarity; Campbell et al., 1996), which could be the result of losing self-concept content. To test this possibility, Slotter et al. (2010, Study 1a) asked participants who had recently experienced a romantic breakup to report their experience of self-concept content change upon dissolution as well as their current self-concept clarity. As predicted, greater dissolution-specific self-concept content loss predicted reduced self-concept clarity, such that individuals were less certain about their self-concepts to the degree that they reported more substantial changes to their self-concept content. Moreover, this reduction in self-concept clarity significantly mediated the association between self-concept content loss and emotional distress, suggesting that the emotional distress upon dissolution may be more of a result of self-concept confusion than an actual diminishment in self-concept size. In a follow-up study, Slotter et al. (2010, Study 3) longitudinally tracked participants’ relationships and breakups. Of particular importance, participants whose relationships dissolved (vs. those whose relationships stayed intact) experienced a sharp decline in self-concept clarity immediately upon relationship dissolution, which in turn resulted in greater emotional distress. Even more striking, for those who experienced dissolution, self-concept clarity continued to gradually decline over the course of the study, indicating that dissolution had both immediate and longer-lasting negative effects on participants’ self-concepts. One potential reason dissolution impairs self-concept clarity and in turn leads to emotional distress may be because, as previously noted, individuals vary in the degree that they attempt to retain versus reject partner-associated self-concept attributes (Slotter et al., 2014). That is, whereas some individuals may actively reject selfconcept attributes that are associated with the ex-partner, others may have difficulty letting go of those traits due to the amount of effort spent acquiring the trait (Slotter et al., 2014), or because of the relative importance the trait has to the self-concept. Notably, individuals who have difficulty disentangling their self-concepts from their ex-partners, as measured by greater post-dissolution inclusion of other in the self, tend to report greater residual emotional distress (Boelen & van den Hout, 2010). One particular group of individuals who may have difficulty with self-other separation upon dissolution are those who are high in attachment anxiety. In general, individuals high in attachment anxiety possess a negative view of the self, feel unworthy of others’ affection, and as a result are preoccupied with fears that partners will abandon them (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Accordingly, anxious individuals enact hyperactivating strategies as a way to reduce attachment concerns, such as excessively seeking assurances from partners and exhibiting heightened levels of jealousy (Mikulincer et al., 2003). Furthermore,

152

B. A. Mattingly et al.

individuals high in attachment anxiety exhibit greater relational uncertainty (Fox & Warber, 2014), desire greater self-other overlap with their romantic partners than they currently experience, and are more likely to spontaneously incorporate a partner’s traits into their own self-concepts (Slotter & Gardner, 2012), presumably as a way of keeping the partner close and protecting against the threat of being abandoned. Of course, hypervigilant strategies may backfire and ultimately push partners away (e.g., Lemay & Dudley, 2011); in fact, attachment anxiety significantly predicts the probability of subsequent dissolution (Le et al., 2010). Accordingly, Cope and Mattingly (2020) posited that individuals high in attachment anxiety would be particularly impaired (in terms of self-concept confusion and emotional distress) upon dissolution. That is, because anxious individuals proactively incorporate a partner’s identity into their own due to their fear of abandonment, dissolution should be especially distressing because there will be greater self-concept adjustments needed post-dissolution. To test this hypothesis, Cope and Mattingly (2020) had participants who had recently experienced a breakup complete a measure of their attachment anxiety. The researchers then directed participants to think about and estimate their self-concept clarity immediately after their relationship had ended. As predicted, there was a negative correlation between attachment anxiety and post-dissolution self-concept clarity, such that individuals higher in attachment anxiety reported less clear self-concepts post-dissolution. In a follow-up study, these effects were replicated with current self-concept clarity as the outcome (i.e., those higher in initial attachment anxiety later reported reduced self-concept clarity, even months after the breakup). Furthermore, Cope and Mattingly (2020) posited that anxious individuals should try to navigate this self-concept upheaval by attempting to rekindle the dissolved relationship. That is, by attempting to reestablish a relationship with the former partner, anxious individuals would not need to drastically redefine their self-concepts, as the previously lost attributes of the partner could be retained or easily reincorporated. Supporting these predictions, Cope and Mattingly (2020) found that attachment anxiety predicted a greater desire for relationship rekindling, which was mediated by post-dissolution self-concept confusion. That is, individuals high in attachment anxiety showed reduced self-concept clarity upon dissolution, which in turn motivated them to attempt to rekindle the dissolved relationship. These results suggest that the impairment in self-concept clarity that occurs as a result of relationship dissolution, specifically for those high in attachment anxiety, may additionally explain why some relationships alternate between dissolving and being rekindled (called on/off or cyclical relationships; e.g., Dailey, Hampel, & Roberts, 2010; Dailey, Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, 2009; Halpern-Meekin, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2013).

9.4 Benefits of Dissolution for the Self-concept Dissolution, though distressing, can sometimes be beneficial for individuals (e.g., Bourassa, Sbarra, & Whisman, 2015; Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). That is, under certain

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

153

conditions, relationship dissolution may not be harmful to individuals’ identities and may even eventually enhance their identities. As noted above, although dissolution generally results in the loss of self-concept content and clarity, this may not always be the case. For example, when individuals exerted a large amount of effort to acquire self-concept attributes while in the relationship, they are more likely to retain these traits upon dissolution compared to those attributes for which they exerted less effort to acquire (Slotter et al., 2014). Moreover, certain self-concept gains are unlikely to be lost, due to the nature of the content. Whereas someone who acquired the identity of marathon runner while in a relationship may come to question this identity upon dissolution (e.g., “Do I really view myself as a marathon runner or was I just doing that for my partner?”), the skills and knowledge that accompanied that identity (e.g., proper nutrition, training regimens, proper running techniques) are unlikely to be forgotten when the relationship ends. Thus, even if an individual’s identity as a runner is threatened, her/his identity as someone who is knowledgeable about running is not. The size and diversity of the individual’s self-concept post-dissolution may still be larger and greater than it was prior to the formation of the relationship. To oversimplify the point for illustrative purposes, an individual may have acquired ten self-concept attributes as a result of the relationship and lost seven of these attributes upon dissolution, thereby yielding a net gain of three attributes over the course of the relationship. In a novel test of this hypothesis, Carpenter and Spottswood (2013) had active users of the social media site Facebook self-report the number of serious romantic relationships they had been in over the course of their lives as well as the number of interests they had listed on their individual Facebook profile page. This latter item served as an indirect proxy for individuals’ self-concept sizes, such that individuals who identified more interests on Facebook were deemed as having larger self-concepts.3 As predicted, individuals who self-reported having had more past serious romantic relationships also tended to have more Facebook interests. This suggests that individuals retain some of the self-expansion gains obtained from previous relationships, which Carpenter and Spottswood (2013) term self-expansion residue. Of course, not all relationships provide individuals with self-expansion, therefore limiting the potential for self-expansion residue. Research regularly indicates that self-expanding relationships provide individuals with novel, challenging, and interesting experiences (Aron et al., 2013; Coulter & Malouff, 2013; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2014; Reissman et al., 1993; Tomlinson et al., 2019). When relationships fail to provide these experiences, individuals experience relational boredom (Aron et al., 2000), feel as if their relational needs are not being satisfied, and believe that future opportunities for self-expansion are being restricted (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006). As noted above, relationships that lack self-expansion are prone 3 Though this measure of self-concept size is imperfect, it roughly simulates other validated measures

of self-concept size, such as tasks in which participants spontaneously generate responses to the question “Who are you today?” (e.g., Aron et al., 1995), generate traits that they deem to be true of the self (e.g., Slotter et al., 2014), or identify from a large list which traits are indicative of their self-concepts (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013a).

154

B. A. Mattingly et al.

to dissolution; however, by ending such relationships, individuals may provide themselves an opportunity for post-dissolution self-concept growth since the factors inhibiting self-expansion (i.e., the romantic relationship and partner) are no longer present. In this sense, the dissolution of a non-expanding relationship may provide individuals with the opportunity to grow their self-concepts, consistent with the proverbial “addition by subtraction.” Lewandowski and Bizzoco (2007) empirically explored this possibility of postdissolution self-concept growth by recruiting participants who had recently experienced a breakup. Participants self-reported the degree that their relationship had provided self-expansion immediately prior to dissolution, feelings regarding losses to their self-concepts they experienced upon dissolution, the degree to which they rediscovered aspects of their self-concepts that the relationship had been inhibiting, and feelings regarding how much they had grown as a person since the breakup. As predicted, individuals reported greater post-dissolution growth when their relationships lacked self-expansion pre-dissolution. Mediation analyses revealed that when relationships inhibited individuals’ self-expansion motive, individuals reported less loss of self upon dissolution, which in turn allowed them to more quickly grow postdissolution. Additionally, rediscovery of the self mediated the association between pre-dissolution self-expansion and post-dissolution growth, such that individuals were more likely to rediscover previously neglected aspects of their self-concepts when their relationships lacked self-expansion, and in turn this allowed individuals to flourish post-dissolution by growing their self-concepts. Taken together, Lewandowski and Bizzoco’s (2007) results suggest that the dissolution of a relationship that is inhibiting self-expansion carries with it the benefit of enhancing the self-concept via post-dissolution growth.

9.5 Post-dissolution Recovery Given the findings that individuals may retain self-concept attributes from a dissolved relationship (Carpenter & Spottswood, 2013; Slotter et al., 2014) and that some individuals experience growth immediately following dissolution (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007), it is clear that individuals can recover from the self-concept impairments that dissolution often creates. In fact, dissolution distress subsides more quickly to the degree that individuals experience self-concept repair after the breakup. Specifically, Mason, Law, Bryan, Portley, and Sbarra (2012) tracked individuals who had recently experienced a breakup over an 8-week period, and each week participants completed various measures of self-concept change and emotional well-being. Supporting the importance of repairing the impaired self-concept, individuals who showed greater improvements to their self-concepts on any given week tended to exhibit greater psychological well-being the subsequent week. Importantly, psychological well-being did not predict subsequent self-concept recovery. This suggests that individuals who have avenues available for self-concept growth post-dissolution, such as alternative relationships (e.g., Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006; VanderDrift et al., 2011),

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

155

friendships (e.g., Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, Alegre, & Siy, 2010), or individual pursuits (e.g., Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b), are less likely to remain in a state of emotional distress. But how might individuals attempt to repair their self-concepts post-dissolution? First, individuals may immerse themselves in activities, hobbies, or interests that they previously found fulfilling as a way to rediscover these previously neglected aspects of the self-concept (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007). By revisiting aspects they once possessed or that were more central to their self-concepts, individuals may reignite their interest in the activity and can be more assured of success on challenging tasks since they had already been successful in the past. Both of these conditions would therefore increase the likelihood that individuals’ self-concepts could be repaired and expanded with additional positive content. However, individuals find it more difficult to rediscover past aspects of their self-concepts when they are still cognitively merged with their ex-partners (Bourassa et al., 2019), perhaps because individuals are uncertain as to which aspects of their self-concept are their own or their partner’s (Lewandowski et al., 2006; Slotter et al., 2010); thus, rediscovery may only be a viable recovery option for some individuals or at certain times in the post-dissolution process. Second, individuals may psychologically recover through expressive writing and by creating a narrative about the dissolution of the relationship. By cognitively processing information about the dissolution, particularly in a manner in which individuals focus on their positive emotions and cognitively reappraise the experience, individuals may increase the speed and degree of their emotional recovery (e.g., Lepore & Greenberg, 2002). Supportive of this hypothesis, Lewandowski (2009) found that individuals who engaged in a 3-day expressive writing task that focused on their positive emotions about the breakup (relative to focusing on negative emotions or writing about a neutral topic) reported a significantly enhanced positive mood two days after the writing intervention. Additionally, post-dissolution emotional distress was reduced to the degree that individuals were able to create coherent narratives about the breakup (e.g., telling the story of the separation; Bourassa, Manvelian, Boals, Mehl, & Sbarra, 2017). Moreover, Slotter and Ward (2015) found that individuals who listed more redemptive thoughts during a 4-day expressive writing task (i.e., those who identified the proverbial “silver linings” of the breakup) showed improved emotional well-being over the course of the study. Thus, thinking about the breakup in a coherent, positive, and redemptive manner aids individuals in recovering from the distress of the breakup. Third, other forms of cognitive processing regarding dissolution may assist in postdissolution recovery. There is evidence, for example, that merely thinking deeply about the breakup in a non-ruminative manner—specifically, by participating in research studies on dissolution—may help individuals repair their self-concepts. Specifically, Larson and Sbarra (2015) tracked individuals who had recently experienced a breakup over a 9-week period. Some participants were assigned to only provide responses to study materials at the beginning and end of the study, whereas other participants were assigned to provide responses every three weeks, thereby deeply processing the breakup more frequently. Importantly, those who completed

156

B. A. Mattingly et al.

more assessments showed less self-concept impairment at the conclusion of the study than those who only completed pre- and posttest assessments and this in turn reduced individuals’ psychological distress. Lastly, individuals may be able to prevent many self-concept losses in the first place if they maintain a friendship with their ex-partner. Though there are various barriers that may make it difficult for ex-romantic partners to maintain a post-dissolution friendship (Busboom, Collins, Givertz, & Levin, 2002), some ex-partners are able to navigate these obstacles (Bullock, Hackathorn, Clark, & Mattingly, 2011; Metts, Cupach, & Bejilovec, 1989). In fact, there is evidence that individuals are more likely to maintain friendships with ex-partners when the romantic relationship was self-expanding. Moreover, the amount of post-dissolution overlap with an ex-partner was more directly associated with the amount of self-expansion provided by the previous relationship than how close it was (Mattingly, 2016).

9.6 Future Directions As we have highlighted in this chapter, the dissolution of romantic relationships affects individuals’ self-concepts and subsequent psychological well-being. Though there has been much research in this domain over the past decade and a half, there are many avenues for future research that remain to be fully explored. One such topic that remains underexplored is the trajectory of self-concept changes both immediately preceding and following dissolution, particularly as it relates to who initiated the breakup. Non-mutual breakups likely affect the two partners in qualitatively different manners. Individuals who do not initiate the breakup and whose partners leave them (i.e., the recipient of the dissolution) should be especially likely to suffer the self-concept-related consequences of dissolution. Recipients’ selfconcepts are likely largely merged with their partners, and dissolution forces these individuals to navigate the post-dissolution recovery process unexpectedly. Therefore, recipients likely exhibit sharp and marked declines in self-concept content and clarity upon dissolution, as well as prolonged periods of emotional distress (e.g., Lewandowski et al., 2006; Slotter et al., 2010). Initiators of the breakup, however, are unlikely to spontaneously come to the decision of relationship termination; rather, they likely are dissatisfied for a period of time prior to ending the relationship (e.g., Le et al., 2010). Initiators may therefore enact a process of self-concept disengagement while their relationship is intact by beginning to separate some of their identities from their partners. Initiators could also get a head start on adding new self-concept aspects that are free from the partner, such as beginning new hobbies or forming new social networks without including the partner. In a more extreme case, initiators may begin self-expanding with an extradyadic partner, such that any self-concept loss as a result of their current relationship is immediately offset by the gains of their alternative (extradyadic) relationship. To the extent that initiators begin resolving the self-concept changes prior to dissolution, they are less

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

157

likely to experience confusion or distress upon dissolution. Preliminary evidence suggests this could be the case; breakup initiators report less self-concept loss and more post-dissolution self-concept rediscovery than breakup recipients (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007); however, future longitudinal research should more fully explore this possibility. Another avenue for future research could explore the utility of rebound relationships (i.e., new relationships that are formed shortly after the dissolution of a previous relationship) as a way of restoring and repairing lost self-concept content, as suggested by Brumbaugh and Fraley (2015). Though rebound relationships would not necessarily immunize individuals from losing self-concept content and clarity from the recently dissolved relationship, they may provide individuals with a source of quick self-concept replenishment. Indirectly supportive of this possibility, in two studies Slotter and Emery (2019) found that individuals who exhibited lower selfconcept clarity upon dissolution showed increased interest in a potential romantic partner (Study 1) and were more likely to be involved in a new relationship (Study 2). Repairing and replenishing self-concept losses via rebound relationships may be especially likely to occur for those individuals who are most prone to self-concept losses in the first place—the anxiously attached (Slotter & Gardner, 2012). Individuals high in attachment anxiety show increased tendencies to form rebound relationships, and this tends to enhance their post-dissolution growth (Marshall, Bejanyan, & Ferenczi, 2013). Moreover, when anxiously attached individuals believe it will be easy for them to rebound into a new relationship, they tend to cognitively separate themselves from their ex-partner more easily (Spielmann, MacDonald, & Wilson, 2009). Finally, because the majority of research examining how dissolution affects the self-concept has primarily used the lens of self-expansion, future research should explore the role of other self-processes in the dissolution process. For example, perhaps relationships characterized by high levels of self-contraction (i.e., loss of positive self-concept content; Mattingly et al., 2014) would lead to a greater rediscovery of the self following dissolution (Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007). This also raises the possibility that people could experience unwanted rediscovery of self, such as following the dissolution of relationships that enabled self-pruning. For example, if an individual was able to successfully quit smoking with the help of a partner, perhaps they would be more likely to return to that undesirable habit after breakup. Lastly, an individual may feel greater self-worth, despite having a smaller self-concept, if they were to terminate a relationship that was characterized by self-adulteration. Together, this avenue for future research suggests the possibility that there may be a more robust and complex post-dissolution process than is currently understood.

158

B. A. Mattingly et al.

References Agnew, C. R. (2000). Cognitive interdependence and the experience of relationship loss. In J. H. Harvey & E. D. Miller (Eds.), Loss and trauma: General and close relationship perspectives (pp. 385–398). New York, NY: Routledge. Agnew, C. R., & Le, B. (2015). Prosocial behavior in close relationships: An interdependence approach. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 362–375). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright, S. C., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101–132. Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Boelen, P. A., & van den Hout, M. A. (2010). Inclusion of other in the self and breakup-related grief following relationship dissolution. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 15, 534–547. Bourassa, K. J., Hasselmo, K., & Sbarra, D. A. (2019). After the end: Linguistic predictors of psychological distress 4 years after marital separation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1872–1891. Bourassa, K. J., Manvelian, A., Boals, A., Mehl, M. R., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Tell me a story: The creation of narrative as a mechanism of psychological recovery following marital separation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36, 359–379. Bourassa, K. J., Sbarra, D. A., & Whisman, M. A. (2015). Women in very low quality marriages gain life satisfaction following divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 490–499. Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Too fast, too soon? An empirical investigation into rebound relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 99–118. Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., Clark, E. M., & Mattingly, B. A. (2011). Can we be (and stay) friends? Remaining friends after dissolution of a romantic relationship. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 662–666. Busboom, A. L., Collins, D. M., Givertz, M. D., & Levin, L. A. (2002). Can we still be friends? Resources and barriers to friendship quality after romantic relationship dissolution. Personal Relationships, 9, 215–223. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156. Carpenter, C. J., & Spottswood, E. L. (2013). Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1531–1537.

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

159

Cope, M. A., & Mattingly, B. A. (2020). Putting me back together by getting back together: Relationship rekindling resolves post-dissolution self-concept confusion in anxiously attached individuals. Unpublished manuscript. Coulter, K., & Malouff, J. M. (2013). Effects of an intervention designed to enhance romantic relationship excitement: A randomized-control trial. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2, 34–44. Dailey, R. M., Hampel, A. D., & Roberts, J. B. (2010). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and commitment vary by relationship type and status. Communication Monographs, 77, 75–101. Dailey, R. M., Pfeister, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, G. (2009). On-again/off-again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships? Personal Relationships, 16, 23–47. Drew, S. S., Heesacker, M., Frost, H. M., & Oelke, L. E. (2004). The role of relationship loss and self-loss in women’s and men’s dysphoria. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 381–397. Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites in romantic relationships: Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 3–7. Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2013). Relationship churning in emerging adulthood: On/off relationships and sex with an ex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 166–188. Harasymchuk, C., Cloutier, A., Peetz, J., & Lebreton, J. (2017). Spicing up the relationship? The effects of relational boredom on shared activities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 833–854. Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Page-Gould, E. (2018). Wanting to stay and wanting to go: Unpacking the content and structure of relationship stay/leave decision processes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 631–644. Knopp, K., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S., Owens, J., & Markman, H. (2014). Fluctuations in commitment over time and relationship outcomes. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3, 220–231. Larson, G. M., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Participating in research on romantic breakups promotes emotional recovery via changes in self-concept clarity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 399–406. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377– 390. Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Dudley, K. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 681–702. Lepore, S. J., & Greenberg, M. A. (2002). Mending broken hearts: Effects of expressive writing on mood, cognitive processing, social adjustment and health following a relationship breakup. Psychology and Health, 17, 547–560. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2009). Promoting positive emotions following relationship dissolution through writing. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 21–31. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something’s missing: Need fulfillment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 389–403. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Aron, A. (2002, February). The Self-Expansion Scale: Construction and validation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Aron, A. (2004). Distinguishing arousal from novelty and challenge in initial romantic attraction between strangers. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 361–372.

160

B. A. Mattingly et al.

Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317–331. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Bizzoco, N. M. (2007). Addition through subtraction: Growth following the dissolution of a low quality relationship. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 40–54. Light, A. E., & Visser, P. S. (2013). The ins and outs of the self: Contrasting role exist and role entries as predictors of self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 12, 291–306. Manvelian, A., Bourassa, K. J., Lawrence, E., Mehl, M. R., & Sbarra, D. A. (2018). With or without you? Loss of self following marital separation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 37, 297–324. Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2013). Attachment styles and personal growth following romantic breakups: The mediating role of distress, rumination, and tendency to rebound. PLoS ONE, 8, e75161. Mason, A. E., Law, R. W., Bryan, A. E. B., Portley, R. M., & Sbarra, D. A. (2012). Facing a breakup: Electromyographic responses moderate self-concept recovery following a romantic separation. Personal Relationships, 19, 551–568. Mattingly, B. A. (2016). Self-expansion and post-dissolution friendships. Unpublished raw data. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013a). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 12, 621–634. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013b). The power of one: Benefits of individual self-expansion. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 12–22. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2014). Broadening horizons: Self-expansion in relational and non-relational contexts. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 30–40. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 19, 113– 127. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Knee, C. R., & Loving, T. J. (2019). Implicit theories of relationships and self-expansion: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1579–1599. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., & Selterman, D. F. (2018). Individual differences and romantic relationships: Bidirectional influences on self and relational processes. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences (Vol. 2, pp. 402–430). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857–878. Metts, S., Cupach, W. R., & Bejilovec, R. A. (1989). “I love you too much to ever start liking you”: Redefining romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 259–274. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., Alegre, J. M., & Siy, J. O. (2010). Understanding the impact of cross-group friendship on interactions with novel outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 775–793. Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243–254. Slotter, E. B., & Emery, L. F. (2019). Beginning again: The timing of initiating new romantic relationships post-breakup predicts self-concept clarity. Unpublished manuscript. Slotter, E. B., & Emery, L. F. (2018). Self-concept clarity and social role transitions. In J. LodiSmith & K. G. DeMarree (Eds.), Self-concept clarity: Perspectives on assessment, research, and applications. New York, NY: Springer.

9 Relationship Dissolution and Self-concept Change

161

Slotter, E. B., Emery, L. F., & Luchies, L. B. (2014). Me after you: Partner influence and individual effort predict rejection of self-aspects and self-concept clarity after relationship dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 831–844. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). How needing you changes me: The influence of attachment anxiety on self-concept malleability in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 11, 386–408. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160. Slotter, E. B., Soto, N., & Winger, L. (2015). Lost without each other: The influence of group identity loss on the self-concept. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 15–30. Slotter, E. B., & Ward, D. E. (2015). Finding the silver lining: The relative roles of redemptive narratives and cognitive reappraisal in individuals’ emotional distress after the end of a romantic relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 737–756. Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., & Wilson, A. E. (2009). On the rebound: Focusing on someone new helps anxiously attached individuals let go of ex-partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1382–1394. Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: Personal growth following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10, 113–128. Tomlinson, J. M., Hughes, E. K., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., & Geyer, R. (2019). Do shared self-expanding activities have to be physically arousing? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 2781–2801. Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science, 20, 543–545. VanderDrift, L. E., Agnew, C. R., & Wilson, J. E. (2009). Nonmarital romantic relationship commitment and leave behavior: The mediating role of dissolution consideration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1220–1232. VanderDrift, L. E., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). Reduced self-expansion in current romance and interest in relationship alternatives. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 356–373.

Chapter 10

The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion in Understanding Health and Behavior Change Xiaomeng Xu

We can understand and study health through many different perspectives. For example, we can examine health in the context of built environment—the spaces in which people live and work on a daily basis. Research on this topic shows that the design, maintenance, and use of sidewalks, trails, green spaces, and public facilities can contribute significantly to decisions to engage in health behaviors (e.g., physical activity), mental health, and physical health outcomes (for reviews, see Booth, Pinkston, & Poston, 2005; Renalds, Smith, & Hale, 2010). Relatedly, inequality in built environment can help explain inequality in health by socioeconomic status (e.g., Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, Page, & Popkin, 2006). Health can also be understood through a variety of social factors including culture, social influence, family structure, romantic relationships, and social support (e.g., Betancourt & Flynn, 2009; Brewer, Chapman, Rothman, Leask, & Kempe, 2017; Landrine & Klonoff, 1992; Spear & Kulbok, 2001; Slatcher & Selcuk, 2017; Uchino, 2006). Individual factors such as sexual orientation, food preferences, and genetics are also influential (e.g., Conron, Mimiaga, & Landers, 2010; Eertmans, Baeyens, & Van den Bergh, 2001; Madden et al., 1999; Rankinen & Bouchard, 2006; Rose, Broms, Korhonen, Dick, & Kaprio, 2009; Xu et al., 2014b). While all of these factors are important and there are many additional factors, this chapter will focus on health in the context of the self. That is, how might a person’s self-concept, other facets of their self, and changes in their self over time influence their health behaviors? Health behaviors refer to any behavioral act that can have a significant impact (whether positive or negative, short-term or long-term) on a person’s physical and mental well-being. These behaviors are highly varied and include engaging in sedentary and physical activity, diet choices, following medical advice, sleep behavior, X. Xu (B) Department of Psychology, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_10

163

164

X. Xu

alcohol and substance use, management of chronic conditions, medication adherence, preventative behaviors (e.g., medical checkups, breast self-exams, vaccinations, appropriate hygiene, sunscreen use, dental care, condom use), and many additional behaviors. These behaviors have a strong impact on daily life, health, and mortality. For example, cigarette smoking causes many premature deaths and significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, heart disease, stroke, respiratory illnesses, multiple cancers, type 2 diabetes, and many other health complications (see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Physical activity provides a number of health benefits, while sedentary behavior is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes and all-cause cardiovascular disease mortality (see Proper, Singh, van Mechelen, & Chinapaw, 2011; Warburton & Bredin, 2017). Given the impact of health behaviors on mortality and morbidity, it is important to research significant influencers of health behaviors including relevant self-factors. This chapter will first provide a very brief introduction of the self and related aspects (e.g., self-concept, self-efficacy) and how they influence health behaviors. Then, the self-expansion model of self-concept augmentation will be introduced, and recent research on self-expansion and health behaviors will be covered. Finally, the chapter will end with overall discussion, particularly of future directions.

10.1 Health Behaviors and the Self The self typically refers to an individual’s personhood, what they mean when they use the term “I” (Baumeister, 1999; Leary & Tangney, 2002). The self can be understood at different levels of analyses including biologically (e.g., a physical body), cognitively (e.g., identity, consciousness), behaviorally (e.g., experiencing, agentic), socially (e.g., separate from others), and culturally (e.g., values and beliefs, group belongingness). A critical aspect of the self is self-concept, which refers to the content of the self—what a person believes to be true of themselves, their important attributes, unique characteristics, and how they might answer a question such as “who am I?” (Baumeister, 1999). One’s self-concept content and how this may change over time are influential factors in understanding many health behaviors. For example, we can better understand smoking behavior and smoking cessation by recognizing that self-concept (e.g., as a smoker or a non-smoker) is a predictive factor and that certain changes in self-concept (e.g., transitioning from thinking of oneself as a smoker to no longer having this self-concept or even thinking of oneself as a nonsmoker) are important in the context of successful quit attempts (e.g., Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Corty, Olsavsky, 1981; Shadel & Mermelstein, 1996; Shadel, Mermelstein, & Borrelli, 1996). Self-concept content can also include important beliefs about one’s abilities, which can have a significant impact on health. For example, self-efficacy (belief in one’s abilities to achieve one’s goals) and an internal locus of control (belief that one has control over life outcomes vs. an external locus of control which is a belief that one has little control because outside forces are predominantly responsible

10 The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion …

165

for outcomes) are positively associated with better health behaviors and health outcomes across a range of domains (e.g., AbuSabha & Achterberg, 1997; Grembowski et al., 1993; O’Leary, 1985; Waller & Carson Bates, 1992). Conversely, negative beliefs about the self (low self-esteem) and one’s abilities (low self-efficacy) can be detrimental to health. For example, a longitudinal study of adolescence found that low self-esteem and low self-efficacy predicted worse health (e.g., obesity, physical inactivity, depression) in adulthood (Park, 2003). When trying to help someone change or improve health behaviors, understanding the self is crucial in effective intervention, and many theories of health behavior change, and clinical treatments focus on aspects of the self. For example, Motivational Interviewing focuses on building intrinsic motivation to change behaviors by exploring one’s own reasons for wanting to change (e.g., in line with own goals and values), committing to the change, and understanding potential barriers, obstacles, and consequences of enacting the change (Hettema, Steele, & Miller, 2005). The client’s sense of self is the focus of Motivational Interviewing, as clients need to articulate what it is that they want, why they want it (why it is important, what their goals and values are, who they currently are and who they want to become), what challenges they might face (including potential changes to their self-concept as they make behavioral changes), and how they will overcome those challenges (and how self-efficacious they feel at meeting challenges). Motivational Interviewing is effective at enhancing health behaviors in the context of physical activity, diet, illness management and treatment adherence, gambling, and substance abuse (e.g., Hettema et al., 2005; Martins & McNeil, 2009; Rubak, Sandbaek, Lauritzen, & Christensen, 2005). Now that we have established the importance of the self in health and health behaviors, the rest of this chapter will focus on one aspect of the self that provides some novel implications for health: self-expansion.

10.2 Self-expansion Aron and Aron (1986) developed the self-expansion model to help explain some of the processes underlying romantic relationship experiences (for a review, see Xu, Lewandowski, & Aron, 2016). That is, the self-expansion model describes relationship-induced self-concept change. Specifically, the self-expansion model posits that a fundamental motivation for humans is to increase self-efficacy and abilities to achieve goals. Individuals are thus drawn to experiences and activities that provide an opportunity for the self-concept to grow or expand. These experiences tend to be novel, interesting, challenging, and/or exciting, allowing individuals to add new abilities, identities, roles, and skills and both feel more capable (self-efficacy) and be more capable (increased self-concept with added resources). Romantic relationships offer an avenue for people to expand the self by incorporating key aspects of another person (e.g., identities, perspectives, resources) into their own self-concept. This inclusion of the other in the self can occur at a rapid pace

166

X. Xu

leading to highly rewarding experiences (e.g., intense early-stage passionate love). There have been many studies of self-expansion that support the motivational and inclusion aspects of the model and help to explain processes including initial attraction, motivation to begin and end relationships, relationship maintenance behaviors, boredom/habituation, attraction to alternatives, and adjustment following a breakup (for reviews see Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; Xu et al., 2016; and Chap. 1 in this volume). More recently, the self-expansion model has been extended to contexts outside of romantic relationships. This new research direction has shown that self-expansion does indeed also occur at the individual level (e.g., by learning something new and interesting or performing a novel and challenging task) and can significantly influence self-concept, self-efficacy, and exertion (e.g., Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b). Individual-level self-expansion can strongly impact people’s lives. For example, workplace self-expansion predicts job commitment and satisfaction, and those who lost a self-expanding job had lower current self-concept clarity (McIntyre, Mattingly, Lewandowski, & Simpson, 2014; see Chap. 13 in this volume for a review of workplace self-expansion).

10.3 Self-expansion and Behavioral Health Given self-expansion’s impact on individuals, there are several ways that selfexpansion can influence health behaviors. One is through a process of reward replacement, where a person substitutes a non-desired behavior with a replacement behavior that provides similar reinforcement (e.g., going for a walk or chatting with a friend instead of turning to alcohol for relaxation). Because self-expansion involves novelty, interest, challenge, and/or excitement, it can yield positive affect and be highly rewarding, especially if it occurs at a fast pace (see Strong & Aron, 2006). For example, rapid self-expansion can occur as people fall in love during the early stages of a new romantic relationship as partners learn about each other, share novel experiences, and incorporate the other into the self at a rapid pace (e.g., Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995). Neuroimaging studies of early-stage intense romantic love show that this form of rapid self-expansion is associated with greater activation in the mesolimbic dopaminergic system of the brain (e.g., Aron et al., 2005; Xu et al. 2011; for a brief review see Xu, Weng, & Aron, 2015). This brain system has many functions including being important in reward, motivation, and learning processes and is implicated in addiction (e.g., Pierce & Kumaresan, 2006; Wise, 1996). Research suggests that there is considerable overlap between the neural underpinnings of intense romantic self-expansion and addiction (see Fisher, Xu, Aron, & Brown, 2016). Given this, might one form of reward be able to interfere with or even replace the other? That is, might it be easier to give up a substance of abuse when one is experiencing alternative rewards from self-expansion? To test this idea in the context of smoking behaviors, researchers had 66 former smokers and 74 current smokers report on self-expansion that occurred in their lives

10 The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion …

167

in the two months leading up to their most successful quit attempt (Xu, Floyd, Westmaas, & Aron, 2010). Participants reported on 49 potential self-expansion events and had the opportunity to write in additional self-expansion experiences. Reported self-expanding experiences included both social experiences (e.g., making a new friend, falling in love) as well as individual experiences (e.g., learning something new and exciting, experiencing a personal achievement). The researchers found that former smokers who had successfully quit smoking reported significantly more selfexpansion leading up to their quit attempt than current smokers who tried to quit but did not succeed. Additionally, among the current smokers, the number of selfexpanding experiences was significantly positively correlated with duration of abstinence before relapsing. While the previous research has supported the idea that one reward can substitute for another, this was the first study to suggest that self-expansion rewards may also be helpful in the context of giving up a substance of abuse (Alter, Lormann, & Green, 2006; Haylett, Stephenson, & Lefever, 2004; Salvy, Nitecki, & Epstein, 2009; Vaillant, 1983; Wellman, Nation, & Davis, 2007). Further exploring the idea that smoking reward may be substitutable by selfexpansion reward, Xu and colleagues conducted two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies (Xu et al., 2012; Xu, Aron, Westmaas, Wang, & Sweet, 2014). The first study recruited 18 current Chinese smokers who reported being passionately in love with a romantic partner who was a non-smoker (Xu et al., 2012). Participants provided photographs of their romantic partner and a familiar non-smoker acquaintance (someone who was the same sex as their partner, whom they had known for as long as their partner, but did not have any romantic feelings for or history with). Photographs did not differ significantly by picture quality or attractiveness level based on outside raters (although unsurprisingly, the participants rated their partners as more attractive than their acquaintances). Participants were asked to abstain from smoking for at least 8 hours prior to their scanning session (verified via breath CO monitor). During the scanning session, they viewed blocks of stimuli in pairs of a person photograph (partner or acquaintance) next to an object photograph (cigarette cue or a neutral cue; e.g., a hand holding a cigarette or a hand holding a pen). Partners and acquaintances were non-smokers to ensure that they were not also cigarette cues. In line with the hypothesis, cigarette cue-reactivity regions of the brain (areas that are typically more active when cigarette stimuli are present) were significantly less active when cigarette cues appeared with the partner’s photograph than when they appeared with the acquaintance’s photograph. The second study replicated and extended this finding in the USA, outside the context of early-stage intense passionate love, and using non-partner stimuli (Xu et al., 2014a). Twenty New York couples (at least one member was a smoker) in long-term relationships were recruited for this study. One member of the couple (always a smoker) abstained from smoking for at least 8 hours (verified by CO levels) and then engaged in a scanner session where they played a cooperative video game with their partner (who was in the control room outside the scanner). This game was designed for the study and consisted of blocks of four randomized conditions in a 2 (self-expanding or non-self-expanding) × 2 (cigarette cues present or no cigarette cues present) design. Each game block included a series of trials

168

X. Xu

where players cooperatively selected a target image (if it was present) among four images that appeared on the screen for points. Cigarette images appeared in half of the trials for the two cigarette cue conditions. The self-expanding conditions were designed to be more exciting (participants rated these conditions as significantly more exciting than non-self-expanding conditions), requiring quicker gameplay and containing novel images. The non-self-expanding conditions were designed to be less exciting and only included images players had already seen in a pre-scanning practice session. Similar to the results of the previous study, there was significantly less activation in a cigarette cue-reactivity region when cigarette cues appeared in the self-expanding condition compared to the non-self-expanding condition. Further, cigarette cue-reactivity was negatively correlated with composite self-reported game excitement (average excitement ratings for self-expansion conditions minus average excitement ratings for non-self-expansion conditions). Taken together, the three studies reviewed above suggest that one way selfexpansion can be beneficial in the context of health and desired behavior change is by affecting motivation to engage in specific behaviors. That is, by providing an alternate form of reward and reducing cue reactivity, self-expansion may reduce the motivation a person has for a non-desired behavior (e.g., smoking) and make it easier to engage in a desired behavior (e.g., reducing or quitting smoking). Given that self-expansion activates the mesolimbic dopaminergic system of the brain, it is unsurprising that expansion is implicated in motivation. And indeed, selfexpansion is associated with domain-specific (e.g., relationship) and global measures of approach (but not avoidance) motivation, and this approach motivation increases sensitivity to opportunities for self-expansion (Mattingly, McIntyre, & Lewandowski, 2012). Theoretically, the model also suggests that self-expanding experiences should enhance a person’s self-concept by fostering self-concept growth and/or diversity, increasing identities, resources, and self-efficacy which may lead to greater motivation for, and effort on, subsequent tasks (Aron et al., 2013). Research on non-relational self-expansion confirms that self-expansion enhances self-concept size and increase self-efficacy (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b, 2014b). Increased motivation and self-efficacy means that a person may feel more capable of behavior change and may be more amenable to exerting effort toward reaching their goals. A series of studies on non-relational self-expansion found that those who engaged in high self-expanding activities (moving objects in a novel and challenging way with chopsticks) exerted more effort and persistence in subsequent physical (grip strength) and cognitive (anagram) tasks than those who engaged in low self-expanding activities (moving objects by hand) (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b). Motivation, self-efficacy, and effort/persistence are crucial in health and behavior change, and thus, self-expansion may be an important variable to consider in both research and more applied arenas (e.g., behavioral health interventions, public health policies and recommendations). For example, self-expansion has been proposed as one factor to consider in exercise prescriptions for adults (Strohacker, Fazzino, Breslin, & Xu, 2015). In addition to exercise behaviors, which have a strong impact on health, behaviors associated with weight control (including monitoring and regulating eating, increasing physical activity, and obtaining sufficient sleep) are also important, with many

10 The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion …

169

clinical trials focusing on promoting healthy body composition change. One example is a behavioral weight loss intervention study which recruited from a community wellness initiative (Shape Up Rhode Island) open to all adults residing in the state (Leahey et al., 2015). Participants in the study were 268 adults with overweight or obesity who signed up for the Shape Up Rhode Island (SURI) program and expressed interest in weight loss. Prior to the start of the study, participants went through a screener and a baseline visit to ensure that they were eligible. This included objective weight and height to verify that their Body Mass Index (BMI) was >25 kg/m2 (placing participants in overweight and obese categories). During the baseline visit, participants also received a weight loss goal (losing 1–2 lbs per week), calorie and fat gram goals (tailored based on size and demographics), and gradually increasing physical activity goals for the duration of the intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three arms for the 12-week intervention (SURI Internet program, SURI Internet program + monetary incentives, SURI Internet program + weekly group sessions). All arms of the study received the community wellness program as well as an Internet behavioral weight loss program. These programs gave participants a pedometer, access to a Web site for logging data (e.g., weight, activity, calories), a paper log, newsletters, weekly videos, information on meal planning, weekly reminders to enter their data onto the Web site, weekly automated feedback on progress, and positive feedback for meeting weight and exercise goals. One arm of the study was an incentives arm where participants additionally received small random monetary incentives ($1–10 per week) for submitting at least five days of data each week and entry into raffles for achieving clinically significant weight loss (at least 5%). Another arm was an optional group where participants did not receive monetary incentives but had the option of attending weekly group sessions at the research center (led by professionals such as psychologists, dieticians, and exercise physiologists). These group sessions included a private weigh-in and feedback on progress, as well as information and group discussion on topics that supplemented those in the weekly videos. Overall, the study found that both incentives and optional group meetings were effective at increasing weight loss above and beyond the SURI Internet program, with incentives being the more cost-effective approach (see Leahey et al., 2015 for additional information on this intervention study including CONSORT diagram and detailed design and results for each arm). Using data from this weight loss intervention study, Xu et al. (2017) examined whether self-expansion was associated with better adherence, weight loss, and physical activity (PA) outcomes. They hypothesized that there would be positive associations for all outcomes based on the past literature and the theoretical reasons why selfexpansion should be related to greater effort, motivation, and results. Two hundred thirty-nine participants completed both baseline and post-intervention (12-week) assessments where objective weights, self-reported self-expansion, and self-reported physical activity data were collected. Adherence to the intervention was assessed objectively by recording how often participants followed the intervention instructions and logged onto the Web site, viewed the weekly video, and recorded their daily monitoring data (e.g., calories, weight, fat grams, physical activity minutes).

170

X. Xu

At baseline and post-intervention, self-expansion was assessed with four questions based on a shortened version of the 14-item self-expansion scale (Lewandowski & Aron, 2002; Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b). Participants were asked to think about their life “over the past 12 weeks” and to rate on a 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely) scale “how exciting has your life been,” “how boring has your life been,” “how interesting has your life been,” and “how much do you feel like you’ve grown as a person.” Composite self-expansion scores were calculated by averaging these four items (boredom was reverse-scored). At baseline and post-intervention, physical activity was assessed with the Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire, which is used to calculate physical activity minutes over the past week by multiplying daily minutes of sport, recreation, brisk walking, fitness activities by the number of times per week individuals report engaging in these activities, then summing all the products (Paffenbarger, Wing, & Hyde, 1978). The study results showed that across treatment arms, self-expansion significantly increased from baseline assessment to post-intervention assessment (Xu et al., 2017). While details about which self-expanding events and experiences participants experienced was not assessed in this study, it is possible that the increase in self-expansion from baseline to post-intervention assessment is reflecting that the intervention itself was a source of self-expansion. During the intervention, participants learned new things, and may have found the experience novel, interesting, challenging, and/or exciting. Regardless of what types of self-expansion participants experienced, the increase suggests that self-expanding experiences may have provided participants with additional reward throughout the intervention. These self-expanding rewards may have substituted for food rewards, and this type of non-food reinforcer replacing food-reinforcer substitution has been linked in previous research with weight loss (Buscemi, Murphy, Berlin, & Raynor, 2014). The study also found that reported self-expansion during the 12 weeks of the intervention (controlling for study arm and baseline self-expansion) was significantly positively associated with percent weight loss, treatment adherence (e.g., frequency of logging into the study Web site, frequency of entering daily monitoring data), physical activity minutes, and likelihood of achieving clinically significant weight loss (at least 5% of body weight). Consistent with theory and the past literature showing that self-expansion leads to greater effort, self-efficacy, and motivation, treatment adherence partially mediated the effect of self-expansion on weight loss. Because these results indicated that self-expansion may be an important beneficial factor in health behavior change, Xu has been extending this work to examine the role of self-expansion in objectively measured physical activity (using FitbitTM monitors) at the daily level. In a four-week daily study of 50 community adults, pre-post and daily data were collected on general self-expansion, physical activity specific selfexpansion, self-reported physical activity, and Fitbit-measured physical activity. The study had a retention rate of 100% and adherence rates of 97% for completing daily surveys and 99.57% for wearing the Fitbit monitor daily (see Xu et al., 2018 for adherence and retention details and strategies). Preliminary analyses of the data show that self-expansion (particularly self-expansion specific to physical activity) is

10 The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion …

171

significantly positively related to objective physical activity across the four weeks. These results suggest that self-expansion may be a promising factor to investigate in future programmatic behavioral health research.

10.4 Conclusion and Future Directions This chapter focused on the importance of understanding the self in the context of health and health behavior change. Self-related factors (e.g., self-concept, selfefficacy, motivation, identity) can strongly impact many health behaviors, suggesting that they may be especially fruitful for future research and important factors to focus on in clinical interventions. In addition to the direct effects that self-factors can have on health, a more positive self-concept including greater self-efficacy and expansion of the self-concept can also indirectly affect health in desirable ways. For example, self-expansion can increase positive mood, self-efficacy, motivation, and improve relationships with close others, which in turn can make it easier to stick to behavioral changes in line with one’s goals. Researchers and clinicians may find it efficient to focus on self-concept when addressing health behaviors as it is relevant to multiple health behaviors, can have both direct and indirect desirable effects, and can also have positive effects beyond the targeted health behavior (e.g., improved social relationships, improved wellbeing and quality of life). This chapter emphasized the recent research on self-expansion and health, a new area of investigation. While the self-expansion model was first proposed over 30 years ago in the context of romantic relationships, self-expansion is still a novel variable in the context of behavioral health. The existing data reviewed here suggest that self-expansion is a promising factor for health scientists to continue investigating. This is in part because self-expansion is rooted in approach motivation, is associated with greater self-efficacy, and leads to increased effort, persistence, and adherence. These effects of self-expansion help to counteract some of the common barriers that people face when trying to implement behavior change (e.g., low motivation, low self-efficacy). Additionally, self-expansion is highly individual as what one person considers exciting or novel may be boring and mundane for another person. Thus, self-expansion is particularly well suited for personalization, and this may be one of the factors why it may be effective, as health behavior change interventions have greater success when they are tailored to the individual (e.g., Noar, Benac, & Harris, 2007). Finally, as self-expansion increases self-efficacy, effort, and persistence on subsequent (even unrelated) tasks, it is possible that self-expansion may be an especially helpful factor to consider in the context of multiple behavior change, something that many people engage in (e.g., Prochaska & Prochaska, 2011). Future research on self-expansion in the context of health behavior should also focus on understanding the exact mechanisms and boundary conditions through which self-expansion enhances behavior change. When and for whom is selfexpansion particularly helpful or unhelpful? Does it depend on the type of selfexpansion (e.g., general vs. specific to the targeted behavior(s) domain)? What is the

172

X. Xu

time course of the effects? Past research has shown that while aspects of the self tend to be relatively stable, they can also change somewhat predictably. For example, selfconcept and self-esteem tend to grow with age, with being male and having higher levels of parental care additionally related to higher self-esteem and most positive self-concept (O’Malley & Bachman, 1983; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2001; Shapka & Keating, 2005; von Soest, Wichstrøm, & Kvalem, 2016). One line of future research could focus on exploring individual differences and their influence on self-concept to better elucidate that influence (e.g., how much the typical sex differences are due to biology vs. other considerations such as socialization) and to provide the basis for understanding how individual differences affect desired outcomes (e.g., would a self-expansion intervention be less effective for those who have less positive selfconcept to start with, or would it be more effective as there is more opportunity for growth)? Another line of future research could focus on the temporal aspects of selfconcept change, as there are unfortunately very few longitudinal studies that examine self-concept repeatedly, let alone ones that also examine health behavior variables. Longitudinal studies that include multiple measurements (e.g., diary studies) may be especially helpful at offering insight into how self-concept change and behavioral change interact. For example, if a person wants to quit smoking, does engaging in self-expansion on a specific day predict higher self-efficacy for quitting on a subsequent day? And does this in turn lead to greater success which then leads to even greater self-efficacy and motivation to engage in further self-expansion? If this cycle continues, at some point, of course a self-efficacy ceiling effect will be reached and self-expansion may no longer be attractive (there are only so many interesting, challenging, and novel things that can be done on a daily basis), what individual factors predict the time course and level of these set points? An additional line of inquiry would be to examine self-expansion both as a global construct as well as within specific domains relevant to the behavior change of interest. Some preliminary data from Xu’s laboratory, for example, show that both general and physical-activity selfexpansion are positively associated with engagement in physical activity; however, self-expansion specific to physical activity produced a larger effect size. Finally, since self-expansion does not require medical facilities, clinicians, or equipment, it might be especially helpful for those residing in rural areas with fewer resources and/or those who have mobility or travel constraints. If self-expansion as a behavioral intervention can be disseminated effectively via technology such as mobile apps, it could be a promising and cost-effective way to accessibly address behavioral health needs. While research has established that self-factors are extremely important in the context of health and health behavior change, there is still much that is not completely understood and it is an exciting time for researchers in this field. Answering the questions outlined above (as well as the many further questions sure to come up as additional research is conducted) will help us to better understand both self-expansion and behavior change and move us toward more effective interventions for improving health.

10 The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion …

173

References AbuSabha, R., & Achterberg, C. (1997). Review of self-efficacy and locus of control for nutritionand health-related behavior. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97(10), 112–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(97)00273-3. Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00838.2004. Alter, R. J., Lohrmann, D. K., & Greene, R. (2006). Substitution of marijuana for alcohol: The role of perceived access and harm. Journal of Drug Education, 26(4), 335–355. https://doi.org/10. 2190/2780-G96W-J17N-R3H1. Aron, A., & Aron, E. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102–1112. Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.) (1999). The self in social psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis). Betancourt, H., & Flynn, P. M. (2009). The psychology of health: Physical health and the role of culture and behavior. In F. A. Villarruel, G. Carlo, J. M. Grau, M. Azmitia, N. J. Cabrera, & T. J. Chahin (Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino psychology: Developmental and community-based perspectives (pp. 347–361). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Booth, K. M., Pinkston, M. M., & Poston, W. S. C. (2005). Obesity and the built environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(Suppl. 5), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jada.2005.02.045. Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Rothman, A. J., Leask, J., & Kempe, A. (2017). Increasing vaccination: Putting psychological science into action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(3), 149–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618760521. Buscemi, J., Murphy, J. G., Berlin, K. S., & Raynor, H. A. (2014). A behavioral economic analysis of changes in food-related and food-free reinforcement during weight loss treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036376. Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., Corty, E., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1981). Self-images and cigarette smoking in adolescence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(4), 670–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728174025. Conron, K. J., Mimiaga, M. J., & Landers, S. J. (2010). A population-based study of sexual orientation identity and gender differences in adult health. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.174169. Eertmans, A., Baeyens, F., & Van den Bergh, O. (2001). Food likes and their relative importance in human eating behavior: Review and preliminary suggestions for health promotion. Health Education Research, 16(4), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/16.4.443. Fisher, H., Xu, X., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2016). Intense, passionate romantic love: A natural addiction? How the fields that investigate romance and substance abuse can inform each other. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00687. Gordon-Larsen, P., Nelson, M. C., Page, P., & Popkin, B. M. (2006). Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117(2), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0058. Grembowski, D., Patrick, D., Diehr, P., Durham, M., Beresford, S., Kay, E., et al. (1993). Selfefficacy and health behavior among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137237.

174

X. Xu

Haylett, S. A., Stephenson, G. M., & Lefever, R. M. H. (2004). Covariation in addictive behaviours: A study of addictive orientations using the Shorter PROMIS Questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(03)00083-2. Hettema, J., Steele, J., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Motivational interviewing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143833. Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1992). Culture and health-related schemas: A review and proposal for interdisciplinary integration. Health Psychology, 11(4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0278-6133.11.4.267. Leahey, T. M., Subak, L., Fava, J., Schembri, M., Thomas, G., Xu, X., et al. (2015). Benefits of adding small financial incentives or optional group meetings to a web-based statewide obesity initiative. Obesity, 23, 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.20937. Leary, M., & Tangney, J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self and identity. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lewandowski, G. W. Jr., & Aron A. (2002, February). The self-expansion scale: Construction and validation. Presented at The Society of Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting, Savannah, GA. Madden, P. A. F., Heath, A. C., Pedersen, N. L., Kaprio, J., Koskenvuo, M. J., & Martin, N. G. (1999). The genetics of smoking persistence in men and women: A multicultural study. Behavior Genetics, 29(6), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021674804714. Martins, R. K., & McNeil, D. W. (2009). Review of motivational interviewing in promoting health behaviors. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.02.001. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013a). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 12, 621–634. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.718863. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013b). The power of one: Benefits of individual self-expansion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760. 2012.746999. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2014a). Broadening horizons: Self-expansion in relational and nonrelational contexts. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12080. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2014b). Expanding the self brick by brick: Nonrelational self-expansion and self-concept size. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613503886. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). You make me a better/worse person: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176– 190. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12025. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2012). Approach motivation and the expansion of self in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 19, 113–127. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01343.x. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Simpson, A. (2014). Workplace selfexpansion: Implications for job satisfaction, commitment, self-concept clarity and self-esteem among the employed and unemployed. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 59–69. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.856788. Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 673–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673. O’Leary, A. (1985). Self-efficacy and health. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23(4), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(85)90172-X. O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1983). Self-esteem: Change and stability between ages 13 and 23. Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.19.2.257. Paffenbarger, R. S., Jr., Wing, A. L., & Hyde, R. T. (1978). Physical activity as an index of heart attack risk in college alumni. American Journal of Epidemiology, 108, 161–175. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112608.

10 The Importance of Self-concept and Self-expansion …

175

Park, J. (2003). Adolescent self-concept and health into adulthood. Health Reports, 14(Suppl), 41–52. Pierce, R. C., & Kumaresan, V. (2006). The mesolimbic dopamine system: The final common pathway for the reinforcing effect of drugs of abuse? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.04.016. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Gender differences in self-concept and psychological wellbeing in old age: A meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 56, 195–213. https:// doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.4.P195. Prochaska, J. J., & Prochaska, J. O. (2011). A review of multiple health behavior change interventions for primary prevention. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(3), 208–221. https://doi. org/10.1177/1559827610391883. Proper, K. I., Singh, A. S., van Mechelen, W., & Chinapaw, M. J. M. (2011). Sedentary behaviors and health outcomes among adults: A systematic review of prospective studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.015. Rankinen, T., & Bouchard, C. (2006). Genetics of food intake and eating behavior phenotypes in humans. Annual Review of Nutrition, 26, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.26. 061505.111218. Renalds, A., Smith, T. H., & Hale, P. J. (2010). A systematic review of built environment and health. Family & Community Health, 33(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181c4e2e5. Rose, R. J., Broms, U., Korhonen, T., Dick, D. M., & Kaprio J. (2009). Genetics of smoking behavior. In Y. K. Kim (Ed.), Handbook of behavior genetics (pp. 411–432). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76727-7_28. Rubak, S., Sandbaek, A., Lauritzen, T., & Christensen, B. (2005). Motivational interviewing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The British Journal of General Practice, 55(513), 305–312. Salvy, S., Nitecki, L. A., & Epstein, L. H. (2009). Do social activities substitute for food in youth? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9145-0. Shadel, W. G., & Mermelstein, R. (1996). Individual differences in self-concept among smokers attempting to quit: Validation and predictive utility of measures of the smoker self-concept and abstainer self-concept. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02883391. Shadel, W. G., Mermelstein, R., & Borrelli, B. (1996). Self-concept changes over time in cognitive– behavioral treatment for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 659–663. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0306-4603(95)00088-7. Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2005). Structure and change in self-concept during adolescence. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087247. Slatcher, R. B., & Selcuk, E. (2017). A social psychological perspective on the links between close relationships and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(1), 16–21. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963721416667444. Spear, H. J., & Kulbok, P. A. (2001). Adolescent health behaviors and related factors: A review. Public Health Nursing, 18(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446.2001.00082.x. Strohacker, K., Fazzino, D., Breslin, W. L., & Xu, X. (2015). The use of periodization in exercise prescriptions for inactive adults: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2, 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.04.023. Strong, G., & Aron, A. (2006). The effect of shared participation in novel and challenging activities on experienced relationship quality: Is it mediated by high positive affect? In K. D. Vohs, & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Intrapersonal processes; Interpersonal relationships (pp. 342–359). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Uchino, B. N. (2006). Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 377–387. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10865-006-9056-5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, G.A.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic

176

X. Xu

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Retrieved from https:// www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/50th-anniversary/index.htm. Vaillant, G. (1983). The natural history of alcoholism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. von Soest, T., Wichstrøm, L., & Kvalem, I. L. (2016). The development of global and domainspecific self-esteem from age 13 to 31. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 592–608. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000060. Waller, K. V., & Carson Bates, R. (1992). Health locus of control and self-efficacy beliefs in a healthy elderly sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6(4), 302–309. https://doi.org/ 10.4278/0890-1171-6.4.302. Warburton, D. E. R., & Bredin, S. S. D. (2017). Health benefits of physical activity: A systemic review of current systematic reviews. Current Opinion in Cardiology, 32(5), 541–556. https:// doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000437. Wellman, P. J., Nation, J. R., & Davis, K. W. (2007). Impairment of acquisition of cocaine self administration in rats maintained on a high-fat diet. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 88(1), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2007.07.008. Wise, R. A. (1996). Neurobiology of addiction. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6(2), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(96)80079-1. Xu, X., Aron, A., Brown, L., Cao, G., Feng, T., & Weng, X. (2011). Reward and motivation systems: A brain mapping study of early-stage intense romantic love in Chinese participants. Human Brain Mapping, 32(2), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21017. Xu, X., Aron, A., Westmaas, J. L., Wang, J., & Sweet, L. H. (2014a). An fMRI study of nicotinedeprived smokers’ reactivity to smoking cues during novel/exciting activity. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094598. Xu, X., Clark, U. S., David, S. P., Mulligan, R. C., Knopik, V. S., McGeary, J., et al. (2014b). The effects of nicotine deprivation and replacement on BOLD-fMRI response to smoking cues as a function of DRD4 VNTR genotype. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16(7), 939–947. https://doi. org/10.1093/ntr/ntu010. Xu, X., Floyd, A. H. L., Westmaas, J. L., & Aron, A. (2010). Self-expansion and smoking abstinence. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.10.019. Xu, X., Leahey, T. M., Boguszewski, K., Krupel, K., Mailloux, K. A., & Wing, R. R. (2017). Selfexpansion is associated with better adherence and obesity treatment outcomes in adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 51, 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9823-7. Xu, X., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Aron, A. (2016). The self-expansion model and optimal relationship development. In C. R. Knee & H. T. Reis (Eds.), Positive approaches to optimal relationship development (pp. 79–100). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Xu, X., Tupy, S., Robertson, S., Miller, A. L., Correll, D., Tivis, R., et al. (2018). Successful adherence and retention to daily monitoring of physical activity: Lessons learned. PLoS ONE, 13(9), e0199838. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199838. Xu, X., Wang, J., Lei, W., Aron, A., Westmaas, L., & Weng, X. (2012). Intense passionate love attenuates cigarette cue-reactivity in nicotine-deprived smokers: An fMRI study. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e42235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042235. Xu, X., Weng, X., & Aron, A. (2015). The mesolimbic dopamine pathway and romantic love. In A. W. Toga, M. M. Mesulam, & S. Kastner (Eds.), Brain mapping: An encyclopedic reference (pp. 631–635). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.

Chapter 11

Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors Sarah Ketay, Lindsey A. Beck, and Keith M. Welker

Closeness is a complex, multi-faceted construct with many components and conceptions (for a review, see Prager, Shirvani, Garcia, & Coles, 2013). One indispensable element of closeness is a sense of intimacy and interdependence between oneself and another (e.g., Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 2004; Collins & Feeney, 2004). This element of closeness is essential to many if not all types of close relationships, including friendships, romantic relationships, and family relationships. Intimacy and interdependence are common routes to self-expansion, described as the desire and motivation to expand self-efficacy (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron & Aron, 1996; Aron et al., 2001). In turn, self-expansion through close relationships can shape one’s identity. Specifically, self-expansion achieved through relationships can be understood as positive relationship-induced self-concept change, such that close partners incorporate one another into their sense of self (e.g., Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014). Although these processes are less often construed outside of dyadic connections, several lines of research have examined people’s feelings of intimacy, proximity, and belongingness with larger structures of individuals, including groups, nations, and humankind (e.g., Bogardus, 1959; Bollen & Medrano, 1998; Craemer, 2008; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Sprecher & Fehr, 2005; Thornton, Taylor, & Chatters, 2012; Uleman, Rhee, Bardoliwalla, Semin, & Toyama, 2000; Welker, Slatcher, Baker, & Aron, 2014). For example, people include many S. Ketay (B) Department of Psychology, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. A. Beck Institute for Liberal Arts and Interdisciplinary Studies, Emerson College, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. M. Welker Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_11

177

178

S. Ketay et al.

concepts, objects, and groups (e.g., nationalities, political orientations, sports teams) within their identity, and thus it is possible to develop intimacy and interdependence with larger groups (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997; Gaertner et al., 1993; Thomas et al., 2017; Tropp & Wright, 2001). There is considerable ground to cover for theories of closeness—and as we argue, self-expansion theory—in viewing intergroup relationships as a vehicle for self-concept and attitudinal changes, and extending beyond dyadic connections to connections between individuals and groups. Our goals in this chapter are to extend and apply self-expansion theory to intergroup relations and to explore sociocultural factors related to self-expansion. We refer to groups that one belongs to and identifies with (i.e., “ingroups”), as well as other groups that one does not belong to (i.e., “outgroups”; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Self-expansion theory has largely focused on dyadic connections between individuals, but recent work has extended theory and research to connections between individuals and groups, as well as to connections between romantic couples and groups (e.g., Slatcher, 2010; Smith & Henry, 1996; Welker et al., 2014; Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002). Self-expansion has a motivational component, yet the theory is rooted in social cognition and identity. Specifically, the first principle of self-expansion states that people are motivated to expand the self; the second principle—which stems from research on social cognition and identity—states that people often achieve self-expansion through relationships via inclusion of other in the self (see Chaps. 1 and 2 of this volume for an expanded explanation). Therefore, we can link self-expansion theory with theories of social and group identity, such as the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner et al., 1993). This model proposes a mechanism for reducing prejudice and intergroup bias by changing one’s cognitive representation of two groups (the ingroup and the outgroup) to a single group that fits with the individual’s self-concept (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Essentially, this mechanism works by encouraging outgroup members to think of themselves as part of the same superordinate group, thereby reducing prejudice toward the outgroup. How might self-expansion theory explain intergroup connections and connections between individuals and groups? In this chapter, we lay the foundation for how selfexpansion theory might extend to larger-scale social bonds. First, we provide an overview of self-expansion theory, including how this theory has been applied to a variety of forms of social connection (e.g., individuals, couples, groups, cultures, etc.). Then, we highlight emerging research in the domain of self-expansion, with an emphasis on friendships, romantic relationships, and intergroup contact. We close by discussing some next steps for research and theory on self-expansion and intergroup contact.

11.1 What Is Self-expansion Theory? Self-expansion theory is composed of two distinct yet related principles, both of which advance understanding of close relationships (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron & Aron, 1996; Aron et al., 2001). The first principle of self-expansion theory—known as

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

179

the motivation principle—is the motivation to expand oneself. This principle argues that all people have a propensity toward seeking out novel resources, perspectives, and identities, which in turn advance their self-efficacy and ability to meet environmental challenges. The second principle of self-expansion theory—known as inclusion of other in the self (IOS)—suggests that one of the most common ways that people achieve self-expansion is through their close relationships. By becoming close to others, individuals’ self-concepts may gain new resources, perspectives, and identities as they begin to overlap in content (Aron et al., 2004). These two principles are separate constructs and thus are assessed using distinct measures. Self-expansion motivation represents a motivational process and has been measured via the Selfexpansion Questionnaire (SEQ; Lewandowski & Aron, 2002), whereas inclusion of other in the self represents a cognitive process and has been measured via the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), a pictorial scale of overlapping circles that represent an increasing overlap in identity. Self-expansion can promote positive intergroup contact and attitudes on an individual or intrapersonal level—described here—and on an interpersonal level— described in the following section. At the intrapersonal level, both the motivational aspect of self-expansion and the cognitive aspect of inclusion of other in the self are relevant to intergroup contact. From an intrapersonal perspective, self-expansion motivation can be satisfied by learning new things, trying new hobbies, or traveling to new destinations (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013a; Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014). Self-expansion leads to changes in the self-concept that are linked with increased self-efficacy (e.g., Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b). Furthermore, self-expansion and other self-related motives have an overall positive effect on wellbeing. For example, an individual’s self-related motives have a protective effect on social well-being and have been linked with affiliation and with relationship initiation, development, and maintenance (Leary, 2007). It follows that self-expansion motivation may encourage seeking interactions with outgroup members, as well. In sum, the self-expansion model proposes that individuals are motivated to expand their selves in order to gain self-efficacy and promote self-growth. Close relationships are a powerful means to achieve self-expansion. Self-expansion through close relationships operates under the cognitive mechanism of inclusion of other in the self, in which individuals achieve a shared sense of identity with close others. We use this framework to discuss the motivation to connect with outgroup members, as well as how close relationships with outgroup members foster inclusion of outgroup in the self. Self-expansion Theory and Intergroup Contact in Friendships From an interpersonal perspective, close relationships are a central way to satisfy the motive to self-expand. Because self-expansion is arguably the greatest when one’s perspective has been changed, interacting with dissimilar others or outgroup members may have an advantage compared to interacting with similar others in terms of self-enrichment and increased self-efficacy (Pittinsky, 2012; Wright et al., 2002). Self-expansion via inclusion of other in the self occurs when partners’ resources, perspectives, and identities begin to overlap. It follows that the benefits from this overlap may be the

180

S. Ketay et al.

greatest when partners’ resources, perspectives, and identities are complementary rather than similar to their current self-concepts. Therefore, an outgroup member may be incorporated into one’s self-concept through intergroup contact. However, numerous individual and social factors may determine who seeks intergroup contact (Paolini, Harwood, Hewstone, & Neumann, 2018; Ron, Solomon, Halperin, & Saguy, 2017). For instance, self-expansion motivation has been posited as a predictor for initiating intergroup contact and for developing relationships with outgroup members. Furthermore, the motivation to self-expand can be experimentally activated, or primed. For example, a recent study primed high self-expansion motivation by having participants read a passage that emphasized the benefits of being open to new challenges, seeking novelty, and expanding oneself (Dys-Steenbergen, Wright, & Aron, 2016). Both correlational and experimental studies have shown that individuals primed with high self-expansion motivation displayed increased interest in intergroup interactions and formed closer relationships with outgroup members during a friendship-building activity (Dys-Steenbergen et al., 2016; Paolini, Wright, Dys-Steenbergen, & Favara, 2016). Similarly, individuals who endorsed polyculturalism, or the idea that diverse groups have interacted throughout history and influenced each other’s cultures, had increased intergroup contact and friendships (Rosenthal & Levy, 2016). People who value polyculturalism may do so because they desire self-expansion and are motivated to promote self-expansion through the formation of relationships with those outside their own culture. However, intergroup contact does not guarantee positive outcomes. For instance, in an Australian sample, negative contact with a racial outgroup was more strongly associated with increased racism than was positive contact associated with reduced racism (Barlow, Hornsey, Thai, Sengupta, & Sibley, 2013). In addition, a large body of theory and research demonstrates that competitive intergroup interactions lead to increased prejudice (e.g., Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2005; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). We are not aware of any research in which selfexpansion and negative contact were examined, yet many studies suggest that positive intergroup contact improves intergroup relations (for a review, see Dovidio, Love, Schellhaas, & Hewstone, 2017). Strikingly, positive intergroup contact appears to shift one’s perspective of an outgroup member to someone who is included in one’s own self-concept. This shift occurs at the interpersonal level and may also affect attitudes at the intergroup level. For example, through repeated close contact, outgroup members may become incorporated into the self-concept, in turn resulting in more positive attitudes toward the outgroup in general (Eller & Abrams, 2004). A recent review proposes that positive intergroup contact changes the conceptual representations of outgroups from an “us” versus “them” orientation to a more inclusive “we” orientation (Dovidio et al., 2017). A similar yet distinct theory, social comparison theory (Allport, 1954; Festinger, 1954), indicates that others’ skills and attributes can bolster one’s own self-concept. Much of the research on social comparison theory, however, has focused on social comparison as a way to increase one’s self-esteem (if comparing oneself to less successful others) or decrease one’s self-esteem (if comparing oneself to more successful

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

181

others). Social comparison theory suggests that the self-concept may be measured or defined by comparing oneself to others. In contrast, self-expansion theory suggests that the self-concept may be modified or augmented through gaining new perspectives and resources, often by interacting with others. Social comparison can be altered when the self is expanded to include others in the self, either through having close relationships or through priming an interdependent self that defines the self in terms of relationships (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). For example, when the other is included in the self, the other’s success becomes less threatening (Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002), and the other’s outcomes may be experienced as one’s own (Thai, Lockwood, Zhu, Li, & He, 2019). Inclusion of other in the self may also lead to a reduction in social comparison in intergroup relations, as group membership is often framed by comparing ingroup with outgroup. Thus, through including the outgroup in the self, outgroup successes may become less threatening and more fulfilling. As stated earlier, self-expansion theory suggests that people seek out relationships as a means for self-expansion, in which they can increase their self-efficacy and knowledge and promote self-growth (Aron & Aron, 1996; Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013). This reasoning has also been extended to intergroup relations by Wright et al. (2002), who suggested that forming relationships with outgroup members offers an increased opportunity for self-expansion due to outgroup members holding resources, perspectives, and identities beyond the self and beyond what ingroup members can offer. Evidence is building that friendships are particularly impactful for developing positive intergroup attitudes in comparison with less intimate forms of contact (e.g., Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011). One challenge to this idea comes from the similarity-attraction effect. Being attracted to similar others is well documented, and the folk wisdom that “opposites attract” has not been supported when tested experimentally. Rather, most people are attracted to those with whom they are similar (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Byrne, 1997). Self-expansion theory would predict the opposite, as interacting with dissimilar others may offer the most opportunities to expand the self and be most favorable for self-growth (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron et al., 2001). A cross-group friend likely has different life experiences and perspectives, which offers a unique opportunity for self-expansion. Moreover, since individuals are likely to self-expand with close others, becoming close with a cross-group friend may provide more unique information to self-expand upon. This prediction has been supported in certain contexts in which a friendship is likely to develop. As individuals are more likely to pursue a friendship when they believe their chances of a friendship are higher, the negative effects of dissimilarity are ameliorated when chances of friendship are high. Indeed, men who were told that a relationship was likely showed a preference for dissimilar others (Aron, Steele, Kashdan, & Perez, 2006), and higher perceived potential for friendship was associated with lower perceived deep-level dissimilarity (Cunningham, 2008). The outcomes of intergroup friendship have been researched in contexts from young children’s classrooms, to medical and business schools, to corporate settings (e.g., Turner & Cameron, 2016; Lu et al., 2017). Work has just begun to explore

182

S. Ketay et al.

the potential mechanisms underlying the outcomes of intergroup friendship, such as interpersonal and group-related processes (Davies & Aron, 2016). It is here that research on self-expansion may increase understanding of the links between positive intergroup interactions and positive outcomes. Below, we review the outcomes and processes involved in forming intergroup friendships. Interest in interacting with a member of an outgroup appears to be motivated by the desire to expand one’s self (Paolini et al., 2016). Priming self-expansion motivation also improves intergroup interactions. Recently, researchers reported the first experimental evidence that entering an intergroup interaction with a high self-expansion motivation results in higher quality interactions and increased self-growth. More specifically, when individuals were primed with high self-expansion, cross-group interactions in a friendship-building activity led to more positive interpersonal outcomes, including higher levels of closeness, and more positive intrapersonal outcomes, including stronger reported self-growth and self-efficacy (Dys-Steenbergen et al., 2016).

11.1.1 Inclusion of Other in the Self and Intergroup Friendships A central principle of self-expansion theory is that when individuals become close with another person, they include that person in the self such that the cognitive concept of the other overlaps with the self (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; for a review, see Aron et al., 2013). Pettigrew (1998) suggested that intergroup friendship, beyond simply intergroup contact, is more effective at improving attitudes toward outgroup members. He proposed that this is likely due to the affective and cognitive processes that contribute to reductions in prejudice. The cognitive attributional aspect of self-expansion theory, inclusion of other in the self, is a potential mechanism that underlies reduction in prejudice. In this manner, individuals may include an outgroup member in their self-concept, thus providing a pathway for reduced bias, improved attitudes, enhanced self-growth, and better intergroup conflict resolution. Friendships provide an especially rich ground for improving intergroup relations. Friendships are unique in that they typically entail sustained intimate contact over long periods of time spent in shared activities across different situations (Davies et al., 2011). This idea has been explored in the context of intergroup friendships and has revealed numerous positive outcomes. For example, one study measured the effects of building a new friendship—with closeness measured via the IOS Scale (Aron et al., 1992)—with a racial outgroup member (Caucasian and Latinx). The closeness of these friendships reduced the link between race-based rejection sensitivity and cortisol reactivity during the friendship-building activities (Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008). Specifically, cortisol is a steroid hormone produced by the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis and is often elevated in stressful situations to maintain homeostasis, mobilize glucose, and downregulate

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

183

other physiological systems to deal with stressors (Sapolsky, 1998). Effects beyond the friendship-building activities were also seen by Page-Gould et al. (2008), as prejudiced individuals initiated more intergroup contact in a follow-up period. These findings suggest that induced positive intergroup friendship may be a potential intervention for prejudice reduction (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). Furthermore, the observed reductions in the link between race-based rejection sensitivity and cortisol reactivity may have important implications for successful friendship formation, given other research indicating that lower cortisol during friendship formation is associated with higher closeness during social interactions; this research also shows that when individuals have lower cortisol levels, others desire more closeness with them during friendship formation (Ketay, Welker, & Slatcher, 2017). Inclusion of other in the self serves to improve intergroup relations across several marginalized populations. For example, after completing a friendship-building activity with an outgroup member, in this case, a homosexual individual, heterosexual participants’ attitudes toward homosexuals in general were significantly improved (Lytle & Levy, 2015). Self-expansion theory predicts that the greatest opportunities for self-growth and positive interpersonal outcomes would come from interacting with dissimilar others. Consistent with self-expansion theory, friendship pairs between heterosexual and homosexual participants resulted in greater reported closeness measured via the IOS Scale (Lytle & Levy, 2015). This aligns with the idea that interactions with dissimilar others offer greater opportunities for self-expansion. Greater self-expansion via interactions with less similar others in turn offers the potential for gaining access to different resources, perspectives, and experiences that may enhance the self-concept. Studies also have started to explore the cognitive mechanisms underlying the link between outgroup friendship and intergroup relations. For example, researchers found that increased accessibility (via priming) of a cross-group friend was linked with improved intergroup interactions with a novel outgroup member (Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, Alegre, & Siy, 2010b). This link was mediated by associating the friend’s group with the self. Together, the above research indicates that the motivational and cognitive processes of self-expansion are mechanisms through which intergroup relations may be improved. This work denotes the fluidity of the self and calls into question the lines between self and other, or “us versus them.”

11.1.2 Extended Contact and Intergroup Relations Inclusion of other in the self also may occur through extended contact. As opposed to direct contact (i.e., having an outgroup friend), extended contact occurs by being aware that one’s friend has an outgroup relationship. Research on the extended contact effect demonstrates that improved attitudes toward racial outgroups can be achieved without direct contact with the outgroup and instead through knowledge of other ingroup members’ relationships with outgroup members (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). The extended contact effect’s benefits may arise

184

S. Ketay et al.

via one of two proposed mechanisms. First, the ingroup or outgroup member may serve as a positive exemplar; therefore, a positive association with the ingroup or outgroup member becomes generalized to the group. Second, the outgroup member may become included in the self by virtue of being friends with one’s ingroup friend. Extended contact may occur when one gains knowledge that ingroup members have positive friendships with an outgroup member (Wright et al., 1997). According to this hypothesis, knowing that an ingroup member has an outgroup friend is associated with improved attitudes toward that outgroup (for a review of the extended contact hypothesis, see Zhou, Page-Gould, Aron, Moyer, & Hewstone, in press). Indeed, simply knowing that a friend has an outgroup friendship appears to reduce prejudice and increase feelings of closeness with the outgroup, even without direct contact (Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008; Vezzali, Andrighetto, Drury, Di Bernardo, & Cadamuro, 2017; Wright et al., 1997). For instance, extended contact by having a friend who has a homosexual friend has been linked with increased outgroup humanization among a heterosexual sample when the outgroup was homosexual individuals (Capozza, Falvo, Trifiletti, & Pagani, 2014). These findings are similar to previously discussed findings in which direct contact in a friendshipbuilding activity improved heterosexual participants’ attitudes toward homosexuals (Lytle & Levy, 2015). Another form of extended contact—outside the realm of friendship—includes contact with media representations of outgroup members (i.e., media contact). For instance, one study utilized media contact via passages from the Harry Potter book series in which main characters experienced prejudice (e.g., Hermione Granger being called a “mudblood” by Draco Malfoy). Children that were read these passages showed improved outgroup attitudes, especially when they identified with the targeted character (Vezzali, Stathi, Giovannini, Capozza, & Trifiletti, 2015). Similar findings were evident for children’s stories involving a cross-race friend. In children as young as 7 years old, exposure to an outgroup adult reading a story featuring a cross-race friendship promoted positive attitudes toward that racial outgroup (Johnson & Aboud, 2017). Furthermore, media contact has been supported as a potential mechanism for increasing adults’ empathy toward transgender people and reducing anti-transgender bias (Hoffarth & Hodson, in press). In sum, extended contact, via knowledge of a friend’s close relationship with an outgroup member or via media contact with an outgroup member through books, television shows, or movies, may be a means through which intergroup relationships can be improved. Although most research on improving intergroup relations has been via face-to-face contact, extended contact appears to be reliably associated with positive outcomes. This mechanism may be a viable option when face-to-face contact is not possible (e.g., due to lack of a certain population in a particular region) or advisable (e.g., when a certain population is the target of extreme bias).

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

185

11.2 Self-expansion Theory and Intergroup Contact in Romantic Couples Most of the research on self-expansion theory to date has been conducted in the context of dyadic romantic relationships. This work has shown that self-expansion appears to have a protective effect for romantic relationships. For example, in a longitudinal study of married couples, those with more shared exciting activities reported higher marital satisfaction (Tsapelas, Aron, & Orbuch, 2009). Recent studies using dyadic, daily experience, longitudinal, and experimental methods have indicated that self-expanding activities are linked with higher sexual desire and relationship satisfaction in couples (Muise et al., 2019). Further, couple members who experienced more self-expansion paid less attention to alternatives (Van der Drift, Lewandowski, & Agnew, 2011) and were less susceptible to infidelity (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006). This work has been taken a step further to examine inter-couple interactions. Taking advantage of the documented effect that self-disclosure has on facilitating inclusion of other in the self (e.g., Aron et al., 1997), this research fostered self-disclosure between two romantic couples (Slatcher, 2010; Welker et al., 2014). Results found that building friendships between couples via guided self-disclosure increased closeness and passionate love within each couple (Slatcher, 2010; Welker et al., 2014). Furthermore, recent applications of self-expansion theory to intergroup contact within couples have focused on expanding the self to include other groups via connections between couples. Building on the previous work examining selfexpansion within pairs of interacting couples (Slatcher, 2010), researchers examined self-expansion between pairs of couples of different races (e.g., one Caucasian couple and one African American couple; Welker et al., 2014). Specifically, Caucasian couples and African American couples were randomly assigned to interact as samerace or different-race pairs of couples. This study provided the first evidence that intergroup contact between couples promotes self-expansion and positive attitudes between members of different groups. Yet, although this research found a significant reduction in prejudice using a composite measure within couples but not individuals, the couple versus individual manipulation did not significantly moderate the effect of cross-race contact on racial attitudes. Given that cooperative intergroup contact can reduce prejudice in individuals (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998), research with larger sample sizes is needed to more robustly demonstrate this interaction effect, showing that couples are significantly more effective than individuals at reducing prejudice. Creating intergroup couple friendships may reduce prejudice for several reasons related to increased self-expansion. First, intergroup interactions can be stressful (e.g., Amodio, 2009; Page-Gould, Mendes, & Major, 2010a; Stephan & Stephan, 1985), and having one’s romantic partner present can buffer physiological responses to stressors and pain perceptions (Ditzen, Hoppmann, & Klumb, 2008; Eisenberger et al., 2011; Kane, McCall, Collins, & Blascovich, 2012; Slatcher, Robles, Repetti, & Fellows, 2010; Younger, Aron, Parke, Chatterjee, & Mackie, 2010). Having an attachment figure like a romantic partner present can provide a “secure base” during

186

S. Ketay et al.

potentially stressful situations and promote exploratory and self-expansive behavior (Bowlby, 1973). Additionally, couple members may have their relationship as a salient point of commonality between intergroup pairs of couples. According to the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), having a salient, common characteristic present between members of different groups can lead individuals to form a common ingroup category that includes both members and thus allows them to mentally recategorize group boundaries so that ingroup bias is applied to those usually considered to be outgroup members. Although these are likely mechanisms for why intergroup couple friendships may promote self-expansion and reduce prejudice, more work is needed to replicate these effects and confirm these potential mediators.

11.3 Next Steps for Expanding Theory and Research We have proposed that theoretical and empirical work on self-expansion can enhance understanding of intergroup relations. For instance, we have highlighted recent research suggesting that when people engage in self-expansion at the intergroup level by forming friendships with outgroup members (either independently or with their romantic partners), by recognizing that their friends have close relationships with outgroup members, or by viewing outgroup members through favorable portrayals in the media, they experience positive intergroup outcomes. These outcomes include reduced bias and increased empathy and humanization of outgroup members. In our concluding sections, we briefly discuss one important cultural difference— independent versus interdependent self-construals—and one important individual difference—self-expansion expectancies—that might shape the self-expansion processes we have explored.

11.3.1 Self-expansion and Cultural Variability in Self-concept Through inclusion of other in the self, self-expansion theory describes a process by which people become more interdependent with their identities. Yet inclusion of other in the self varies depending on culture. One factor critical to characterizing cultural differences in self-expansion is self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), which refers to differences in self-concept between more individualistic, typically Western cultures, and more interdependent, typically Eastern cultures. People with more independent self-construals (typical of individualistic cultures, like the USA) view the self as more unique and separate from others, defining the self in terms of traits, preferences, and abilities that distinguish the self from others. On the other hand, people with more interdependent self-construals (typical of collectivistic cultures, like

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

187

Japan) view the self as more interconnected to others and to social groups. Despite cultural differences in self-construal, there is significant intracultural variability in independence versus interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 2001), and people can be temporarily primed to adopt more independent or interdependent self-construals (e.g., Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999). Priming interdependence could potentially enhance the desire to connect with others in general, including outgroup members, and could prove useful in interventions that include outgroup interactions. A wealth of research highlights the potential for self-construal to influence the intensity of self-expansion. Relative to European Americans, East Asians associate happiness with social harmony and are motivated to adjust to their surroundings and to others’ expectations (Bakan, 1966; Bresnahan, Chiu, & Levine, 2004; Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Kitayama & Uchida, 2003; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001; Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2002; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009; Wojciszke & Bialobrzeska, 2014). Furthermore, in East Asian cultures, self-concept is rooted in group memberships and close relationships (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This emphasis promotes a relationally focused pattern of social interactions (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Markus & Oyserman, 1989). To our knowledge, no studies have explicitly examined the intensity of self-expansion among East Asians in comparison with European Americans. Collectivist values, which tend to be found in more rural areas and prioritize maintaining traditions and ingroup favoritism, theoretically might be linked with lower desire for self-expansion. Exploring how cultural orientation affects self-expansion could be an interesting direction for future research. Self-construal and self-expansion have the potential for theoretical integration given that they both describe how people incorporate other people, groups, and concepts into the self. Yet surprisingly, little work has synthesized these two theories. It is possible that within the independent self-construal, the reluctance to include others in the self and the motivation for uniqueness leaves independent people less likely or less motivated to engage in self-expansion. On the other hand, people with interdependent self-construals might have higher self-expansion motivation. Yet an exception to this proposed pattern may occur in interdependent self-construals in relation to members from other groups when intergroup prejudice is high. Due to the heightened focus on group norms and motivation to belong to their social groups, people with interdependent self-construals may be less likely to include members of other groups within their identities when there is social influence to conform (a cultural value associated with interdependent self-construal and collectivist cultures) rather than reach out to others and self-expand. An alternative possibility is that self-construal may not directly affect selfexpansion motivation but instead may affect how people pursue self-expansion. Because those with independent self-construals define the self by personal traits, preferences, and hobbies, they may pursue self-expansion through asocial means, such as by developing new hobbies, learning new skills, or pursuing new educational and professional directions. Indeed, people report greater self-efficacy when gaining new resources via learning new facts or performing novel activities (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013b). However, those with more interdependent self-construals

188

S. Ketay et al.

may pursue self-expansion through predominantly social means, such as by pursuing closeness with others or seeking membership in groups.

11.3.2 Self-expansion Expectancies How do we encourage individuals to be motivated to interact with outgroup members? Perhaps instilling the belief that these interactions will be valuable to the self might provide a motive. In addition to self-expansion processes, such as selfexpansion motivation and inclusion of other in the self, self-expansion expectancies (i.e., cognitive beliefs that close relationships can enhance the self) also may affect intergroup relations. Self-expansion expectancies, formally construed as the selfreported expectations that one’s knowledge, skills, and resources can be enhanced by social relationships, may foster interest in intergroup relationships and diversity of friendship groups. Recent research supporting these ideas has shown that selfexpansion expectancies were associated with interest in intergroup contact, actual intergroup contact, and a diverse group of friends in young adults as they transitioned to college (Paolini et al., 2016). This work suggests that individuals might benefit from being informed that social relationships, and in particular intergroup relationships, could enhance their self-efficacy, knowledge, and resources.

11.4 Conclusions Over the past three decades, self-expansion theory has grown through many avenues of research related to close relationships and intergroup relations at individual and dyadic levels and via direct and extended contact. Each of these avenues offers opportunities to expand oneself, increase one’s self-efficacy and knowledge, and ultimately improve intergroup relations through positive interactions. It is of critical importance to psychology that theories continually expand, integrating with other subfields of psychology and helping unite multiple areas of research. The field of psychology as a whole may benefit from cumulative and overarching theoretical frameworks (Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019). Self-expansion theory offers such a framework, with promising applications to intergroup relations and cultural psychology. Researchers might use the groundwork laid out in this chapter to continue integrating self-expansion theory with other perspectives within and beyond the field of social psychology.

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

189

References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Amodio, D. M. (2009). Intergroup anxiety effects on the control of racial stereotypes: A psychoneuroendocrine analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 60–67. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY, US: Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325–344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3(1), 45–58. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2001). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2: Interpersonal processes. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of close relationships (p. 90–115). Oxford University Press. Aron, A., Steele, J., Kashdan, T., & Perez, M. (2006). When similars do not attract: Tests of a prediction from the self-expansion model. Personal Relationships, 13(4), 387–396. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377. Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright, S. C., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15(1), 101–132. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Oxford, England: Rand McNally. Barlow, F. K., Hornsey, M. J., Thai, M., Sengupta, N. K., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). The wallpaper effect: The contact hypothesis fails for minority group members who live in areas with a high proportion of majority group members. PLoS ONE, 8(12), 2152–2178. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 193–281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2004). Measuring closeness: The Relationship Closeness Inventory (RCI) revisited. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 81–101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bogardus, E. S. (1959). Social distance. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Press. Bollen, K., & Medrano, J. D. (1998). Who are the Spaniards? Nationalism and identification in Spain. Social Forces, 77(2), 587–621. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bresnahan, M. J., Chiu, H. C., & Levine, T. R. (2004). Self-construal as a predictor of communal and exchange orientation in Taiwan and the USA. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(2), 187–203. Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 417–431.

190

S. Ketay et al.

Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Trifiletti, E., & Pagani, A. (2014). Cross-group friendships, extended contact, and humanity attributions to homosexuals. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 276– 282. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Craemer, T. (2008). Nonconscious feelings of closeness toward African Americans and support for pro-Black policies. Political Psychology, 29(3), 407–436. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808. Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Importance of friendship potential in reducing the negative effects of dissimilarity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(5), 595–608. Davies, K., & Aron, A. (2016). Friendship development and intergroup attitudes: The role of interpersonal and intergroup friendship processes. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3), 489–510. Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. Ditzen, B., Hoppmann, C., & Klumb, P. (2008). Positive couple interactions and daily cortisol: On the stress-protecting role of intimacy. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(8), 883–889. Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606–620. Dys-Steenbergen, O., Wright, S. C., & Aron, A. (2016). Self-expansion motivation improves crossgroup interactions and enhances self-growth. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(1), 60–71. Eisenberger, N. I., Master, S. L., Inagaki, T. K., Taylor, S. E., Lieberman, M. D., & Naliboff, B. D. (2011). Attachment figures activate a safety signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 11721–11726. Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew’s reformulated intergroup contact model and the common ingroup identity model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 229–256. Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2005). Instrumental relations among groups: Group competition, conflict and prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 227–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are “we”, you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 239–251. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321–326.

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

191

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a fundamental dialectic. American Psychologist, 49(2), 104–111. Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (in press). When intergroup contact is uncommon and bias is strong: The case of anti-transgender bias. Psychology & Sexuality. Johnson, P. J., & Aboud, F. E. (2017). Evaluation of an intervention using cross-race friend storybooks to reduce prejudice among majority race young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 110–122. Kane, H. S., McCall, C., Collins, N. L., & Blascovich, J. (2012). Mere presence is not enough: Responsive support in a virtual world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 37–44. Ketay, S., Welker, K. M., & Slatcher, R. B. (2017). The roles of testosterone and cortisol in friendship formation. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 76, 88–96. Kitayama, S., & Uchida, Y. (2003). Explicit self-criticism and implicit self-regard: Evaluating self and friend in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 476–482. Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317–344. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something’s missing: Need fulfillment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(4), 389–403. Lewandowski, G. W. Jr., & Aron, A. (2002). The self-expansion scale: Construction and validation. Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA. Lu, J. G., Hafenbrack, A. C., Eastwick, P. W., Wang, D. J., Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). “Going out” of the box: Close intercultural friendships and romantic relationships spark creativity, workplace innovation, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1091–1108. Lytle, A., & Levy, S. R. (2015). Reducing heterosexuals’ prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women via an induced cross-orientation friendship. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 447–455. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 100–127). New York, NY: Springer. Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 922–934. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013a). The power of one: Benefits of individual self-expansion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(1), 12–22. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013b). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 12(6), 621–634. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 176–190. Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 311–323. Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 237–258. Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behavior, 3, 221–229.

192

S. Ketay et al.

Page-Gould, E., Mendes, W. B., & Major, B. (2010a). Intergroup contact facilitates physiological recovery following stressful intergroup interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 854–858. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., Alegre, J. M., & Siy, J. O. (2010b). Understanding the impact of cross-group friendship on interactions with novel outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 775–793. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my crossgroup friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080–1094. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(12), e12422. Paolini, S., Wright, S. C., Dys-Steenbergen, O., & Favara, I. (2016). Self-expansion and intergroup contact: Expectancies and motives to self-expand lead to greater interest in outgroup contact and more positive intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 450–471. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. Pittinsky, T. L. (2012). Us plus them: Tapping the positive power of difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Prager, K. J., Shirvani, F., Garcia, J. J., & Coles, M. (2013). Intimacy and positive psychology. In M. Hojjat & D. Cramer (Eds.), Positive psychology of love (pp. 16–29). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ron, Y., Solomon, J., Halperin, E., & Saguy, T. (2017). Willingness to engage in intergroup contact: A multilevel approach. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 210–218. Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2016). Endorsement of polyculturalism predicts increased positive intergroup contact and friendship across the beginning of college. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3), 472–488. Sapolsky, R. M. (1998). Why zebras don’t get ulcers. New York, NY: Freeman. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. Slatcher, R. B. (2010). When Harry and Sally met Dick and Jane: Creating closeness between couples. Personal Relationships, 17(2), 279–297. Slatcher, R. B., Robles, T. F., Repetti, R., & Fellows, M. D. (2010). Momentary work worries, marital disclosure and salivary cortisol among parents of young children. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72, 887–896. Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(6), 635–642. Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 629–651. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157–175. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London, England: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Thai, S., Lockwood, P., Zhu, R., Li, Y., & He, J. (2019). The family ties that protect: Expanded self comparisons in parent-child relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 1041–1066. Thomas, W. E., Brown, R., Easterbrook, M. J., Vignoles, V. L., Manzi, C., D’Angelo, C., et al. (2017). Social identification in sports teams: The role of personal, social and collective identity motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 508–523.

11 Self-expansion: Intergroup and Sociocultural Factors

193

Thornton, M. C., Taylor, R. J., & Chatters, L. M. (2012). African American, Black Caribbean, and non-Hispanic White feelings of closeness toward other racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Black Studies, 43(7), 749–772. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924. Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 585–600. Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science, 20(5), 543–545. Turner, R. N., & Cameron, L. (2016). Confidence in contact: A new perspective on promoting cross-group friendship among children and adolescents. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 212–246. Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 843–860. Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: Themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441–456. Uleman, J. S., Rhee, E., Bardoliwalla, N., Semin, G., & Toyama, M. (2000). The relational self: Closeness to ingroups depends on who they are, culture, and the type of closeness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 1–17. Van der Drift, L. E., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). Reduced self-expansion in current romance and interest in relationship alternatives. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(3), 356–373. Vezzali, L., Andrighetto, L., Drury, J., Di Bernardo, G. A., & Cadamuro, A. (2017). In the aftermath of natural disasters: Fostering helping toward outgroup victims. In E. Van Leeuwen & H. Zagefka (Eds.), Intergroup helping: The positive side of intergroup behaviour (pp. 305–330). New York, NY: Springer. Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Trifiletti, E. (2015). The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(2), 105–121. Welker, K. M., Slatcher, R. B., Baker, L., & Aron, A. (2014). Creating positive outgroup attitudes through intergroup couple friendships and implications for compassionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(5), 706–725. Wojciszke, B., & Bialobrzeska, O. (2014). Agency versus communion as predictors of self-esteem: Searching for the role of culture and self-construal. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(4), 469–479. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Including others (and groups) in the self: Selfexpansion and intergroup relations. In J. P. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives (pp. 343–363). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Younger, J., Aron, A., Parke, S., Chatterjee, N., & Mackey, S. (2010). Viewing pictures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain: Involvement of neural reward systems. PLoS ONE, 5, e13309. Zhou, S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., Moyer, A., & Hewstone, M. (in press). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

Chapter 12

Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences of Workplace Self-expansion Cheryl E. Gray, Kevin P. McIntyre, Brent A. Mattingly, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.

Consider the features that influence an employee’s evaluation of their job. Although there are a number of important concrete factors, such as salary and benefits, there are also a number of intangible and psychological factors as well. According to the U.S. News & World Report rankings of The Best Jobs (Graves, 2012), good jobs offer their workers variety; that is, they lead workers to encounter new ideas and experiences. In contrast, bad jobs are monotonous, dull, and repetitive. Good jobs also provide workers with a sense of community (Graves, 2012); that is, they allow workers to make social connections with co-workers, clients, or customers. In contrast, bad jobs offer workers few opportunities to form meaningful relationships. Finally, good jobs offer employees the potential for personal and career growth, whereas bad jobs are career dead ends that offer few opportunities for advancement (Graves, 2012). We argue that these characteristics of good jobs describe workplace self-expansion, a construct that captures the increase in positive self-concept content that occurs as a result of experiences in the workplace.

C. E. Gray (B) Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. P. McIntyre Department of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. A. Mattingly Department of Psychology, Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] G. W. Lewandowski Jr. Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_12

195

196

C. E. Gray et al.

As discussed in detail in the previous chapters (see Chap. 1), self-expansion describes the cognitive reorganization of the self-concept that occurs when people increase their number of positive self-concept attributes. Although the bulk of research has focused on how people experience self-expansion as a result of romantic relationships, recent work suggests that people can experience self-expansion in the workplace (e.g., Dansereau, Seitz, Chiu, Shaughnessy, & Yammarino, 2013; Jurek & Besta, 2019; McIntyre, Mattingly, Lewandowski, & Simpson, 2014). In essence, people should experience workplace self-expansion because their jobs offer them the opportunity to gain new skills, resources, perspectives, and identities as they strive to achieve personal goals. This chapter details how self-expansion occurs in an organizational setting, and we further discuss the outcomes of workplace self-expansion.

12.1 Self-expansion in the Workplace The self-expansion model proposes that individuals are inherently motivated to gain resources, skills, and identities that help them increase their self-efficacy (Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2014). The model further proposes that there are two common mechanisms through which individuals experience self-expansion. First, self-expansion can occur when individuals include aspects of others (e.g., individuals, groups, communities) into their own self-concepts. This has most commonly been studied in the context of romantic relationships, when partners add aspects of each other into their self-concepts (Aron et al., 2013); however, it also occurs when individuals incorporate larger group identities into the self (e.g., Besta & Zawadzka, 2019; Lawendowski & Besta, in press; Mashek, Cannaday, & Tangney, 2007; McIntyre et al., 2014). For example, a person who joins an organization dedicated to promoting environmentalism may come to view himself as an environmentalist as he becomes closer to the organization. Second, self-expansion occurs when individuals complete novel and challenging experiences (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013). For example, an employee who learns a new programming language on her own may add the identity “computer programmer” to her self-concept. Organizations can promote self-expansion in a host of ways. One way is to help employees integrate their workplace community into their self-concepts. For example, BetterUp, an evidence-based coaching company, encourages employees to participate in regular “coffee chats.” Employees across the organization are randomly paired and encouraged to spend 30 min getting to know each other. This process allows employees to form new relationships and gain new perspectives through connections with others who work in different departments, different levels of the organization, and different geographic locations. In line with this example, research indicates that workplace self-expansion positively correlates with the degree to which

12 Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences …

197

workers include aspects of their job into their self-concepts (e.g., McIntyre, Simpson, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2014) and form positive social relationships at work (Jurek & Besta, 2019). Another common approach for organizations to promote self-expansion is by helping workers identify areas where they may grow as workers. For example, the Tampa Bay Lightning, a Florida-based hockey team, invites sports management employees to partake in a “360° assessment.” A 360° assessment is a common developmental exercise in which employees invite others, typically their supervisors, colleagues, and direct reports, to share insights into their strengths and weaknesses. The results provide employees with a 360° view of how they are perceived by others, often revealing potential areas for self-growth. Research also supports this avenue for workplace self-expansion. In particular, employees’ perceptions of self-expansion in the workplace are positively correlated with the extent to which their job provides them with opportunities for career development, such as attending job training seminars (Jurek & Besta, 2019). A third mechanism by which workplaces may promote individuals’ self-expansion is by exposing them to novel and challenging work tasks. Workers view jobs that are interesting and engaging as more self-expanding (Jurek & Besta, 2019). Moreover, research indicates that boring jobs can be more enjoyable for workers when paired with a self-expanding task (Hughes, Lewandowski, Branick, McIntyre, & Mattingly, 2017). In one study, participants listened to either a self-expanding audio clip (i.e., a TED talk) or a non-expanding neutral audio clip (i.e., rippling water) while completing a boring data entry task (i.e., entering 21 lines of random characters into a blank word processing document). Results revealed that participants who completed the boring task while listening to a self-expanding audio clip rated the data entry task more positively than those in the neutral audio condition. Participants in the self-expansion condition also indicated that they would be more willing to complete the data entry again, and for a longer period of time, relative to those in the neutral audio condition. One reason that people may be more willing to take on difficult or challenging tasks when they are self-expanding (or paired with a self-expanding task) is that self-expansion provides employees with greater job resources (Jurek & Besta, 2019) and may foster a sense of flow (Graham, 2008). In line with these findings, the job demands–resources theory suggests that employees can sustain the demands of a job, such as high workload, to the extent that they have sufficient social and organizational resources, such as supervisor support, role clarity, and learning opportunities (Bakker, Demerouti, De Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003). In sum, workplaces can provide a variety of avenues for workers to experience selfexpansion. This occurs when workplaces encourage workers to incorporate aspects of their job and workplace community into their sense of self, help workers identify aspects of job-related self-growth, and provide workers with interesting, novel, and challenging work tasks. In the next section, we detail various benefits of workplace self-expansion. We suggest that, just like how self-expansion that occurs in romantic relationships has benefits at the individual and couple level, workplace self-expansion leads to positive outcomes for workers and organizations.

198

C. E. Gray et al.

12.2 Outcomes Associated with Workplace Self-expansion Research on workplace self-expansion’s benefits has closely paralleled research on the benefits of romantic relationship-induced self-expansion. In particular, in romantic relationships, partners who experience self-expansion generally report higher relationship satisfaction and more commitment to the relationship (Aron et al., 2013). They are also less likely to pay attention to relationship alternatives or think about relationship dissolution (McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2015; VanderDrift, Lewandowski, & Agnew, 2011) and are more likely to be faithful in the relationship (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006; Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014; VanderDrift, Lewandowski, & Agnew, 2011). Below, we detail how similar outcomes occur at work; employees who experience workplace self-expansion tend to be more satisfied and committed to their jobs, more engaged in their work, less likely to experience burnout, and less likely to want to quit their job.1 Job Satisfaction Parallel to self-expansion’s link with relationship satisfaction, workplace self-expansion is associated with job satisfaction among workers. Research suggests that workplace self-expansion is strongly associated with job satisfaction (Besta & Jurek, 2017; Gray, McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2019; McIntyre, Simpson, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2014). Job satisfaction is an important component of employee well-being and is associated with better health and increased life satisfaction (Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005), as well as increased organizational performance and decreased withdrawal behaviors (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Bluedorn, 1982; Hollenbeck & Williams, 1986). Why may workplace self-expansion increase job satisfaction? We suggest that self-expansion is associated with the core job characteristics identified by the Job Characteristics Model (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). According to this model, jobs that promote high satisfaction are those that are associated with high skill variety (i.e., number of different skills required), task identity (i.e., portion of the job one is involved in), task significance (i.e., impact of the job on others), autonomy (i.e., freedom to dictate how to perform the job), and job feedback (i.e., knowledge of how one is performing). Each of these characteristics is potentially associated with the extent to which individuals experience self-expansion in the workplace; in fact, novelty, variety, identity growth, self-efficacy, and self-other associations serve as theoretical foundations to the self-expansion experience. Nevertheless, future research should investigate whether workplace self-expansion mediates the association between these job characteristics and overall job satisfaction. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment is another commonly studied job attitude and is generally characterized by three components: affective 1 Most

often, workplace self-expansion is measured with the 14-item Workplace Self-Expansion Questionnaire (WSEQ; McIntyre et al., 2014); sample items include “How much do you feel that you have a larger perspective on things because of your job?” and “How much does working at your job result in your having new experiences?”

12 Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences …

199

commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment is a worker’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement with their organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). For example, a social worker supporting underprivileged children may feel especially committed to her organization because she identifies with the organization’s mission and feels emotionally attached to it. Costs that employees associate with leaving the organization produce continuance commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). For example, a professor may be committed to his university because leaving would result in the loss of tenure. Normative commitment refers to employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with an organization. For example, a storeowner may feel obligated to remain in her family business because it has been passed down for generations. Taken together, organizational commitment is a psychological state characterized by a desire, need, and/or obligation to maintain employment in an organization. Research suggests that workplace self-expansion is positively associated with organizational commitment (Besta & Jurek, 2017; McIntyre et al., 2014). Importantly, workplace self-expansion is moderately to strongly associated with affective commitment but weakly associated with continuance commitment (McIntyre et al., 2014). This is important because some organizations may strive to promote affective commitment while mitigating continuance commitment. Whereas people who are affectively committed to an organization stay in their job because they feel attached to the work, people high in continuance commitment may dislike their job but stay due to the costs of leaving. Some companies even go so far as to reduce the costs of leaving a job to encourage people motivated solely by continuance commitment to leave the organization. For example, Amazon offers to pay its full-time associates at fulfillment centers up to $5000 to leave the company (Umoh, 2018). According to an Amazon spokesperson, the goal is to reduce costs to leaving the organization because “we want people working at Amazon who want to be there” (Umoh, 2018). Self-expansion may increase affective commitment more so than continuance commitment because individuals integrate aspects of their organization into their self-concepts (McIntyre et al., 2014). Work Engagement Not only are jobs characterized by high levels of workplace self-expansion associated with greater satisfaction and commitment, but also they are more engaging. Work engagement describes the positive and fulfilling state at work characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, GonzálezRomá, & Bakker, 2002). Vigor involves high energy levels and mental resilience, willingness to expend effort at work and persistence through difficulties. Dedication involves having a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and pride. Absorption involves being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work. Research supports the notion that jobs that are more self-expanding are also more engaging (Besta & Jurek, 2017; Gray et al., 2019; Jurek & Besta, 2019; Mattingly, McIntyre, Lewandowski, & Simpson, 2015). One reason why self-expansion may contribute to engagement is that it is associated with job resources. Research suggests that job resources (i.e., aspects of a job that support employees, such as having

200

C. E. Gray et al.

flexibility and autonomy in completing work tasks; Bakker et al., 2003) are important drivers of engagement (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). Recent research supports the notion that workplace self-expansion is a significant mediator in the relationship between job resources and work engagement (Jurek & Besta, 2019). This research reveals that when employees gain a sense of identity, skills, or relationships from their work, they experience workplace self-expansion, which contributes to their increased engagement. Burnout Workplace self-expansion is associated with positive experiences including satisfaction, commitment, and engagement, and it may also decrease negative experiences such as burnout, which is a response to chronic stressors on the job characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1998; Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Emotional exhaustion occurs as workers’ emotional resources become depleted, and they feel that they are no longer able to expend more energy. For example, after a long day of rejections, a sales employee may not have the energy to attempt one last sale or cook dinner after work. Depersonalization refers to an unfeeling and impersonal response toward others. To illustrate, after dealing with dozens of frustrated people, a government employee at the DMV may project a cold, disinterested tone with patrons. Diminished personal accomplishment occurs when people feel less competent in their work. After receiving endless angry calls regarding a company-wide data breach, a customer service representative may start to take complaints personally and feel incompetent at his job. According to the job demands-resources model (Bakker, Demerouti, & SanzVergel, 2014; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), burnout occurs when workers lack sufficient resources to cope with job demands, or aspects that necessitate sustained effort, such as work pressure. As mentioned previously, job resources such as supervisor support, role clarity, and learning opportunities increase one’s ability to tackle job demands. Because workplace self-expansion is associated with increased job resources (Jurek & Besta, 2019) through gaining skills, identities, and perspectives, workplace self-expansion may buffer against employee burnout. To examine the link between workplace self-expansion and burnout, Gray et al. (2019) surveyed 151 employed participants. Each participant completed a measure of workplace self-expansion (McIntyre et al., 2014) as well as the 22-item Burnout Questionnaire (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). The results revealed that workplace self-expansion was negatively correlated with two of the three measures of burnout. Specifically, workplace self-expansion was significantly negatively associated with emotional exhaustion and positively associated with personal accomplishment. However, workplace self-expansion was not significantly correlated with depersonalization. These results suggest that workplace self-expansion may mitigate the intrapersonal—but not the interpersonal—effects of burnout. Turnover Intentions Just as insufficient self-expansion in romantic relationships predicts dissolution considerations (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006) and likelihood of breakup (e.g., Mattingly, McIntyre, Knee, & Loving, 2019), lack of workplace self-expansion may lead workers to consider leaving their jobs. In a workplace

12 Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences …

201

context, increased commitment associated with self-expansion may decrease the likelihood that self-expanded individuals will seek out other opportunities and, in turn, may increase the likelihood they will remain with their current employer. Employees’ desire to leave their current job is known as turnover intentions. Employees may consider leaving the company, for example, when they feel as if they are not experiencing enough job-related growth opportunities (Bedeian, Kemery, & Pizzolatto, 1991). Because experiencing growth causes self-expansion, participating in activities that lead to self-concept growth should be associated with decreased turnover intentions. In addition, if people have a self-expanding job, they may have fewer turnover intentions because of the importance of the organization to their self-concept (McIntyre et al., 2014) in line with work on organizational identification (e.g., Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004). Recent research supports the hypothesis that workplace self-expansion is negatively related to employee turnover intentions (Mattingly, McIntyre, Lewandowski, & Simpson, 2019). In particular, Mattingly et al. sampled 160 currently employed participants and found that workplace self-expansion was significantly negatively associated with turnover intentions (2019). Moreover, this research revealed that the association between workplace self-expansion and turnover intentions was mediated by job quality (i.e., a measure of satisfaction and commitment). These results suggest that workplace self-expansion may reduce turnover intentions because people feel more satisfied with and committed to self-expanding jobs. Summary This section has focused on various outcomes associated with workplace self-expansion. Next, we describe another key variable in determining whether people experience self-expansion at work: leadership. Evidence suggests that certain types of leaders are more effective at promoting workplace self-expansion than others.

12.3 Workplace Self-expansion and Organizational Leadership Leaders are in an especially influential position for promoting workplace selfexpansion (e.g., Mao, Chiu, Owens, Brown, & Liao, 2019). Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric states that, “Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others” (Greenberg, 2012). For decades, researchers have been intrigued by what makes a person a great leader. Numerous theories of effective leadership have emerged in organizational literature ranging from dispositional theories (e.g., great man theory; Carlyle, 1840/2008) to behavioral theories (e.g., participative leadership theory; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007) and contingency theories (e.g., path-goal theory; House, 1996). A review of leadership literature identifies and reviews about 40 such theories that have been published in top-tier journals (Dinh et al., 2014).

202

C. E. Gray et al.

Many scholars have noted that the existing leadership theories are largely disconnected and lacking cohesion, such that integration may help to advance the domain (Dansereau et al., 2013). To accomplish that, Dansereau and colleagues suggested that workplace self-expansion may provide a framework to help bring together these various existing approaches to studying leadership. Although this synthesis of the literature describes the role of self-expansion in various leadership styles, for the purpose of this chapter, we explore two widely recognized approaches to leadership: transformational leadership and leader–member exchange. Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership in organizations involves charismatic, inspirational, and stimulating leaders who lead by encouraging followers to achieve a moving vision (Bass, 1985; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Martin Luther King, Jr. is an example of a transformational leader whose famous I Have a Dream speech projected an inspiring vision to his followers. Transformational leadership is associated with a variety of positive outcomes for employees and organizations, such as higher affective commitment (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004), lower turnover intentions (Bycio et al., 1995), more frequent organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990), greater employee self-efficacy (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), and higher employee job satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Although positive associations between transformational leadership and organizational outcomes have been well replicated, researchers continue to speculate about why transformational leadership is effective (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007; Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Workplace self-expansion may offer a unique lens to understand the efficacy of transformational leadership’s approach. According to Dansereau et al. (2013), transformational leadership encourages followers to beneficially change—in other words to add positive aspects to their existing self through self-expansion (Mattingly et al. 2014; McIntyre et al., 2015). Research supports a positive relationship between transformational leadership and workplace self-expansion, such that employees who experience more transformational leadership also report experiencing more self-expansion (Gray et al., 2019). Preliminary research suggests that workplace self-expansion partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and various outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions; Gray et al., 2019). Therefore, promoting workplace self-expansion seems to be an important component of transformational leadership, although additional research should evaluate causality. Leader–Member Exchange Another influential approach to studying leadership is leader–member exchange (LMX), which focuses on the development and maintenance of high-quality leader–follower relationships (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982). According to this perspective, effective leadership entails mutual respect, liking, and reciprocal influence (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Over 40 years of research on leader–member exchange demonstrate that high-quality leader–member exchange is associated with better employee performance (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), more innovation (Basu & Green, 1997),

12 Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences …

203

higher job satisfaction (Graen et al., 1982; Stephina, Perrewe, Hassell, Harris, & Mayfield, 1991), and greater organizational commitment (Truckenbrodt, 2000). Moreover, leader–member exchange is also associated with reduced turnover (Graen et al., 1982) and more frequent organizational citizenship behavior (Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Employees’ workplace self-expansion may be a mechanism through which LMX leads to beneficial outcomes. According to Dansereau et al. (2013), high-quality leader–member exchange leads followers to believe in shared goals between the leader and follower, and shared goals should result in self-expansion as employees add these goals to their own sense of self. Moreover, the leader–follower dynamic may contribute to self-expansion if the highly reciprocal relationship between leader and follower encourages inclusion of other in the self, much like how individuals include aspects of their romantic partners into their self-concepts (e.g., Aron et al., 2004). The blending and integration of their leaders’ visions, perspectives, and goals may encourage employees to enrich their skill set and work identities to help bring them in closer alignment with their leader. The personal growth employees experience as a result of high-quality LMX may result in improved job attitudes. Research suggests that workers who experience high-quality leader–member exchange generally report higher levels of workplace self-expansion than those who experience low-quality employee–supervisor relationships (Gray et al., 2019). Moreover, workplace self-expansion partially mediates the relationship between leader– member exchange and three job attitudes: job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intentions (Gray et al., 2019). Thus, the effectiveness of high-quality leader–member exchange may be explained in part by the self-expansion workers experience.

12.4 Losing a Self-expanding Position Given the benefits of self-expanding jobs and self-expanding leaders suggested by the existing research, losing a self-expanding position may be especially detrimental for employees. Self-expansion changes one’s sense of self through personal growth and enhanced efficacy. Losing an expansion source may threaten one’s heightened selfconcept and self-esteem. Research suggests that individuals find it difficult, or even impossible, to revert back to previously held identities once they have experienced self-expansion (Aron et al., 2013; Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). In the context of romantic relationships, individuals who lose a self-expanding relationship often experience self-contraction (Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kuank, 2006; Slotter et al., 2010; Smith & Cohen, 1993), which is linked with reduced self-concept clarity (Slotter et al., 2010) and reduced self-esteem (Chung et al., 2002). Similar phenomena may occur when losing a self-expanding job. Consider a successful CEO whose sense of self is completely tethered to her highly challenging and

204

C. E. Gray et al.

novelty-infused job that produces constant learning. How will she feel if the company is sold, and she loses that source of growth and identity? In a study of unemployed individuals, individuals who experienced more workplace self-expansion in their previous position reported lower current self-esteem than those who experienced less workplace self-expansion (after controlling for characteristics of the job; McIntyre et al., 2014). These findings suggest that although employees in self-expanding positions potentially have more to lose following the job loss than those who do not experience selfexpansion at work (e.g., self-esteem, self-concept clarity), the benefits of holding a self-expanding position still likely outweigh the costs of losing such a position due to the myriad of benefits associated with self-expanding jobs. In addition to experiencing greater satisfaction at work, individuals who experience workplace selfexpansion should be better equipped for future positions due to the skills, resources, and perspectives they have gained.

12.5 Summary and Future Directions Workplace self-expansion occurs when workers add positive content to their selfconcepts, as they gain skills, resources, identities, and perspectives from their jobs. As detailed in this chapter, workplace self-expansion may play an important role in a variety of important job-related outcomes, including satisfaction, commitment, work engagement, burnout, and turnover intentions. This chapter also explored leadership’s importance for promoting workplace self-expansion. There are numerous opportunities for further development within this research area. First, although self-expansion shows great promise in the organizational domain, the results described in this chapter are taken from relatively few studies. To illustrate, a Google Scholar search of “self-expansion” results in about 18,100 articles, while a search of “workplace self-expansion” results in 42 articles. Most of the current research on workplace self-expansion is limited to purely theoretical articles and cross-sectional self-report research. Future experimental, longitudinal, qualitative, and interventional research would greatly enhance knowledge of the domain. Future research should also identify effective means of promoting workplace self-expansion. While research demonstrates the value of workplace self-expansion, research is lagging on what specific organizational practices lead employees to perceive self-expansion, and whether it is possible to design self-expansion-based interventions for employees. For example, it may be possible to promote workplace selfexpansion simply by increasing awareness of growth opportunities, or by increasing employees’ sense of community. Similarly, it may be possible to design leadership training programs designed to help management stimulate self-expansion in direct reports. Finally, the existing research suggests that benefits of individual self-expansion can carryover into relationships (Machia & Proulx, in press), and work experiences

12 Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences …

205

can spillover into non-work life (Carlson, Thompson, & Kacmar, 2019). Future research should examine if and how the implications of workplace self-expansion efforts extend beyond employees’ job-related outcomes. If this is the case, then the impact of workplace self-expansion efforts may be far reaching.

References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x. Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 350–360. Arnold, K., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 193–203. Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright, S. C., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101–132. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951–968. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 341–356. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02678370802393649. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477–499. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. Bedeian, A. G., Kemery, E. R., & Pizzolatto, A. B. (1991). Career commitment and expected utility of present job as predictors of turnover intentions and turnover behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 331–343. Besta, T., & Jurek, P. (2017). Zastosowanie skali poczucia rozszerzenia Ja w miejscu pracy w warunkach polskich. Psychologia Ekonomiczna, 10, 41–58. Besta, T., & Zawadzka, A. M. (2019). Expansion of the self of activists and nonactivists involved in mass gatherings for collective action. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 22, 182–199. Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35, 135–153. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.

206

C. E. Gray et al.

Carlson, D. S., Thompson, M. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2019). Double crossed: The spillover and crossover effects of work demands on work outcomes through the family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 214. Carlyle, T. (1840/2008). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.gutenberg.org. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234. Chung, M. C., Farmer, S., Grant, K., Newton, R., Payne, S., Perry, M., et al. (2002). Self-esteem, personality and post traumatic stress symptoms following the dissolution of a dating relationship. Stress and Health, 18, 83–90. Dansereau, F., Seitz, S. R., Chiu, C.-Y., Shaughnessy, B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). What makes leadership, leadership? Using self-expansion theory to integrate traditional and contemporary approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 798–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013. 10.008. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005. Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105–112. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987. tb00605.x. Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–131. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. Graham, J. M. (2008). Self-expansion and flow in couples’ momentary experiences: An experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 679–694. Graves, J. (2012). The Best Jobs of 2012. Retrieved May 7, 2019, from US News & World Report website: https://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2012/02/27/the-best-jobs-of-2012. Gray, C., E., McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W. (2019). Follow the (selfexpanding) leader: The role of workplace self-expansion. Unpublished manuscript. Greenberg, M. (2012). Six qualities leaders need to be successful. Retrieved from Psychology Today website: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201204/six-qualitiesleaders-need-be-successful. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. Hollenbeck, J. R., & Williams, C. R. (1986). Turnover functionality versus turnover frequency: A note on work attitudes and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 606–611. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. Hughes, E. K., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., & Branick, A. (2017, January). Workplace self-expansion: Can you make boring job tasks better? Poster presented at the 18th Annual Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, San Antonio, TX. Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3–21.

12 Self-concept Change at Work: Characteristics and Consequences …

207

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. Jurek, P., & Besta, T. (2019). Employees’ self-expansion as a mediator between perceived work conditions and work engagement and productive behaviors. Current Psychology. Lawendowski, R., & Besta, T. (in press). Is participation in music festivals a self-expansion opportunity? Identity, self-perception, and the importance of music’s function. Musicae Scientiae. Lewandowski, G. W., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something’s missing: Need fulfillment and selfexpansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 389–403. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J. (2006). Losing a self-expanding relationship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317–331. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674. Machia, L. V., & Proulx, M. L. (in press). The diverging effects of need fulfillment obtained from within and outside of a romantic relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Mao, J., Chiu, C. Y., Owens, B. P., Brown, J. A., & Liao, J. (2019). Growing followers: Exploring the effects of leader humility on follower self-expansion, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56, 343–371. Mashek, D., Cannaday, L. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). Inclusion of community in self scale: A single-item pictorial measure of community connectedness. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 257–275. Maslach, C. (1998). A multidimensional theory of burnout. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 68–85). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013). The power of one: Benefits of individual self-expansion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 12–22. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2014). Broadening horizons: Self-expansion in relational and non-relational contexts. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 30–40. Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21, 176– 190. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Knee, C. R., & Loving, T. J. (2019). Implicit theories of relationships and self-expansion: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1579–1599. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Simpson, A. (2015). Self-expansion in the workplace increases workplace engagement. Unpublished manuscript. Mattingly, B. A., McIntyre, K. P., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Simpson, A. (2019). Expand the employee to benefit the organization: Workplace self-expansion predicts job quality, turnover intentions, and organizational behavior. Unpublished manuscript. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857–878. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Simpson, A. (2014). Workplace selfexpansion: Implications for job satisfaction, commitment, self-concept clarity, and self-esteem among the employed and unemployed. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 59–69. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.856788. McIntyre, K. P., Simpson, D. A., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2014, February). Selfexpansion in the workplace increases organizational citizenship and reduces turnover intentions. Poster presented at the 15th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.

208

C. E. Gray et al.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I with you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160. Smith, H. S., & Cohen, L. H. (1993). Self-complexity and reactions to a relationship breakup. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 367–384. Stephina, L. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). A comparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, and reward domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 93–105. Truckenbrodt, Y. B. (2000). The relationship between leader-member exchange and commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Acquisition Review Quarterly, 7, 233–244. Umoh, R. (2018). Why Amazon pays employees $5,000 to quit. CNBC. Retrieved from https:// www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/why-amazon-pays-employees-5000-to-quit.html. VanderDrift, L. E., Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). Reduced self-expansion in current romance and interest in relationship alternatives. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 356–373. Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 171–191. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisorsubordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.

Chapter 13

Summary and Future Directions: Trajectories of Romantic Relationships and Self-concept Change Kevin P. McIntyre, Brent A. Mattingly, and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.

As described in this volume’s chapters, romantic relationships carry with them the fundamental ability to alter individuals’ self-concepts. Through dyadic interactions, experiences, and opportunities for change, relationships provide and create a unique environment that shapes the content, knowledge structures, working models, and clarity of individuals’ identities. Each of this volume’s chapters describes the nature of these changes, and in this summary chapter, we seek to integrate the predominant themes and perspectives. In doing so, we think it is helpful to consider relationships’ developmental trajectories and how the self may change at each point along these trajectories. That is, relationship-induced self-concept change may occur in the earliest moments of a fledgling relationship and may persist well after a relationship has dissolved. Overall, the chapters in this volume illustrate that romantic relationships serve as a potent source of identity and self-concept change. Though the notion that individuals’ self-concepts are intricately tied to others is by no means a novel idea in social psychology (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; James, 1890), the extent to which this is the case has only been more recently (and systematically) examined. As relationship science has matured as a research field, scholars have become more sensitive to the impact that relational partners have on one another. This burgeoning literature reveals time and again that when individuals enter into close relationships their sense of self and K. P. McIntyre (B) Department of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. A. Mattingly Department of Psychology, Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] G. W. Lewandowski Jr. Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3_13

209

210

K. P. McIntyre et al.

identity shapes and is shaped by romantic partners; arguably, relational partners are the most important external sources of self-concept change. Romantic relationships’ potency for shaping the self-concept is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that the mere possibility of beginning a relationship has the potential to change the self. For example, in Chap. 2, Hughes and Slotter point to evidence that individuals change how they view themselves merely after viewing a potential partner’s dating profile. Similarly, Chaps. 4 and 6 describe individual-level factors that influence individuals’ interest in forming relationships that may impact the self-concept. Hadden and Agnew (Chap. 4) suggest that the tendency to be ready or not for a relationship may reflect individuals’ motivation to experience changes to the self-concept. Emery and Gardner (Chap. 6) explain how individuals’ self-concept clarity may make them more or less receptive to relationship-induced self-concept changes. Given that individuals may experience changes to the self prior to the start of a romantic relationship, it is unsurprising that following relationship formation individuals continue to demonstrate changes to the self across a wide variety of domains and aspects (e.g., broad and specific, content and structural, evaluative and agentic, positive and negative). Certainly, the nature of these changes depends upon the experiences that a couple has together. For example, in Chap. 1, we (Mattingly, McIntyre, and Lewandowski) describe the tenets of the self-expansion model, which suggests that one way in which couples increase their self-concept’s size is when they complete shared activities together. Shared activities allow couples to discover new interests and share perspectives which bring them closer and allow them to transfer self-concept knowledge to one another. Similarly, in Chap. 3, Sprecher describes a second type of experience that potentially facilitates a transfer of identity: selfdisclosure. The process of self-disclosure allows individuals to share information that otherwise would be private and inaccessible to others and consequently fosters inclusion of other in the self, especially when the self-disclosure is reciprocal and forecasts greater opportunities for self-expansion. In addition to sharing experiences that allow for moment-to-moment self-concept development, relationships offer the possibility of a broader and deeper substantive transformation of self vis-a-vis others. In Chap. 5, Kumashiro and Arriaga posit that individuals can employ ‘safe’ and ‘soft’ strategies to enhance each other’s sense of attachment security by changing a partner’s working models of self and other. Additionally, in Chap. 7, DiDonato describes how partners may facilitate individuals’ movement toward their ideal self, which enhances overall evaluations of selfauthenticity. In Chap. 8, Jakubiak and Tomlinson also document the active roles that partners can play in supporting self-growth which can have widespread implications for relational well-being. Finally, relationships’ importance on the broader selfconcept is illustrated in Chap. 9, where we (Mattingly, McIntyre, and Lewandowski) discuss how relationship dissolution creates noteworthy challenges to identity that were not present when the relationship was intact. Romantic relationships have a potent effect on the self presumably because they are among the closest and most intimate associations that individuals can have.

13 Summary and Future Directions: Trajectories of Romantic …

211

Beyond the changes to the content of the self, relationships can also impact agentic aspects of the self and, as such, can impact individuals’ behavioral regulation attempts. In Chap. 10, Xu details the innovative research examining how relationshipinduced self-concept change affects a host of health-related behaviors, including smoking cessation, weight loss, and physical activity. Of course, romantic relationships are not the only types of relationships than can lead to self-concept change. Other close relationships, such as friendships, provide additional opportunities for self-concept change in that these relationships may also help shape the various social identities and group memberships that make up a meaningful part of one’s identity. Similar to how romantic partners can help individuals grow by providing them with novel perspectives, friendships may also lead individuals to change or develop new identities, especially when they have friendships with others from differing backgrounds. In Chap. 11, Ketay, Beck, and Welker provide an overview of how cross-group friendships are particularly valuable in fostering self-change, extending previous theorizing on intergroup contact’s benefits. Aside from romantic relationships and friendships, individuals derive a substantial portion of their identity from their occupations. In Chap. 12, Gray, McIntyre, Mattingly, and Lewandowski describe the nascent research that examines how workplaces can provide individuals with opportunities for self-change. Just as good relationships are those that lead individuals to experience self-expansion, good jobs are those that foster self-growth by providing novelty, challenge, and/or excitement.

13.1 Future Directions Despite the wealth of evidence in support of the broad principle of relationshipinduced self-concept change, this literature is ripe for additional theoretical and empirical developments. Most notably, future research should examine how selfconcept changes wax and wane throughout the life course of a relationship. For example, some theorizing suggests that self-expansion occurs rapidly early in relationships and then slows as the relationship matures (Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013), and that satisfied couples actively maintain moderately high levels of self-expansion to combat relationship boredom (e.g., Harasymchuk, Cloutier, Peetz, & Lebreton, 2017). If self-expansion tends to be especially prominent early in relationships, other forms of self-concept change may become more prevalent and noticeable over time. Although empirical evidence of this is currently limited, there are several reasons that this may be the case. First, as individuals grow closer, they may exhibit increased sensitivity to their partners’ quirks and flaws and consequently become more assertive in their attempts to actively shape their partners’ self-concepts. For example, minor annoyances about a partner’s flaws can begin to amplify over time and develop into a social allergen in which the flaw begins to grate on an individual (Cunningham, Shamblen, Barbee, & Ault, 2005).

212

K. P. McIntyre et al.

Second, certain types of self-concept change require partners to be cognizant of one another’s visions and desires for who they want to become. Because the selfconcept is multifaceted and contains representations of individuals’ actual, ideal, and ought states, partners need to first fully understand the nature of the partner’s desired end state before attempting to intervene in identity development (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999). Third, partners can have undesirable impacts on one another, such as when individuals’ negative attributes are acquired or amplified via their partners, or when the couple experiences conflict and difficulties within their relationship. Although some relationships may quickly dissolve when individuals experience self-concept degradation, this is not necessarily always the case. For example, self-adulteration may lower individuals’ perceived relational value, which in turn may diminish their perceptions of their quality of alternatives. Overall, an important question for future research is what patterns of self-concept change distinguish successful from unsuccessful relationships. Certainly, relationships that produce only self-improvement and no self-degradation would be successful; however, we suspect that these types of relationships are the exception rather than the rule, even in long-term committed relationships. Rather, there are likely ebbs and flows of improvement and degradation. Given this, is there a ratio of selfimprovement to self-degradation that is normative within successful relationships? Are certain types of relationship-induced self-concept changes more important than others for relational functioning and psychological well-being? Is there a meanlevel threshold of self-concept degradation that effectively dooms a relationship’s prospects? Though it is clear that partners are able to actively foster improvement in one another and in their relationship, is it possible for partners to also actively avoid or reverse self-concept degradation? If so, how? These are just a few of the many questions that may drive the next wave of scholarship on relationship-induced self-concept change.

13.2 Conclusion Since the publication of the original conceptualization of the self-expansion model (Aron & Aron, 1986), researchers have explored myriad ways that self and relationships intersect. This volume not only describes this past work (with a particular emphasis on contemporary work), but highlights the new frontiers that will serve as fertile ground for future research. The chapters within this volume identify the great strides scholars have made in exploring the dynamic interplay of self and relationships. Nevertheless, we unquestionably believe that the scholarship of relationship-induced self-concept change is just beginning and will yield fruitful lines of investigation for years to come.

13 Summary and Future Directions: Trajectories of Romantic …

213

References Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of the self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere. Aron, A., Lewandowski G. W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Cunningham, M. R., Shamblen, S. R., Barbee, A. P., & Ault, L. K. (2005). Social allergies in romantic relationships: Behavioral repetition, emotional sensitization, and dissatisfaction in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 273–295. Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.293. Harasymchuk, C., Cloutier, A., Peetz, J., & Lebreton, J. (2017). Spicing up the relationship? The effects of relational boredom on shared activities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 833–854. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Index

A Attachment security, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 78–80, 82, 83, 210 Attachment styles, 28, 33, 95 B Breakup, 54, 60–63, 93, 95–97, 99, 100, 132, 147, 148, 150–152, 154–157, 166, 200 Burnout, 138, 198, 200, 204 C Close relationships, 2, 4, 14, 21, 31, 43, 53, 62, 69, 70, 72, 78, 79, 105, 109, 113, 115, 127, 128, 130, 145, 177–179, 181, 184, 186–188, 209, 211 Cognitive interdependence, 1–4, 11, 14, 24, 25, 30, 33, 40, 55, 57, 60, 62, 109 Commitment readiness, 53–63 D Dissolution, 13, 14, 33, 60, 93, 95, 97, 100, 101, 145–157, 198, 200, 210 Dopamine, 166, 168 E Exercise, 47, 83, 135, 168, 169, 197 Exploration, 30, 42, 78, 79, 81, 126, 128– 132, 134, 138 Extended contact, 183, 184, 188 F Fast friends procedure, 166

Friendship, 30, 37, 39, 42, 97, 155, 156, 177–186, 188, 211

G Getting-acquainted process, 43, 44 Goals, 1–5, 21, 27, 41, 57, 61, 63, 70, 71, 75, 78, 79, 82, 90, 97, 105, 108, 109, 115, 117, 125–137, 164, 165, 168, 169, 171, 178, 196, 199, 203

I Ideal self, 2, 11, 47, 62, 79, 106, 110–114, 116–118, 127, 210 Inclusion of other in the self, 4, 8, 11–14, 40, 42–44, 151, 178, 179, 181–183, 185, 186, 188, 203, 210 Interdependence, 2, 3, 24, 40, 57, 59, 62, 70, 73, 75, 83, 105, 109, 115, 117, 148, 177, 178, 187 Intergroup contact, 178–180, 182, 183, 185, 188, 211

J Job satisfaction, 198, 202, 203

L Leadership, 201, 202, 204 Lifespan, 72, 100, 125, 127, 131, 136, 138

M Measurement, 2, 7, 11, 32, 112, 115, 172 Methodology, 8–10, 13

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 B. A. Mattingly et al. (eds.), Interpersonal Relationships and the Self-Concept, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43747-3

215

216 Michelangelo phenomenon, 105, 106, 109– 117, 127 Motivated cognition, 178 O Obesity, 165, 169 Organizational commitment, 198, 199, 203 P Partner affirmation, 92, 110, 112–114, 116 Personal growth, 99, 109, 117, 118, 132, 135, 203 Physical activity, 163–165, 168–172, 211 R Relational catalyst support, 125, 130, 131, 137 Relationship commitment, 2, 3, 146 Relationship-induced self-concept change, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11–14, 25, 28, 38, 55, 57, 62, 63, 145, 146, 165, 177, 209–212 Relationship initiation, 22, 179 Relationship maintenance, 3, 5, 7, 58, 59, 146, 166 Relationship quality, 12, 24, 25, 55, 77, 81, 90, 99, 127, 132, 135, 137, 138 Relationship receptivity, 53–55, 59, 62, 63 Relationship stability, 59, 112, 146 Relationship trajectories, 209 Reward, 42, 81, 166–168, 170 Romantic affiliation, 29, 30 Romantic relationships, 1, 12, 13, 21, 23, 24, 27–31, 33, 37, 39, 54, 55, 57–61, 63, 81, 89–91, 98, 105, 109, 113, 114, 117, 146, 153, 154, 156, 163, 165, 166, 171, 177, 178, 185, 196–198, 200, 203, 209–211 S Scales, 8, 9, 11–13, 39, 40, 42–44, 146, 170, 178, 179, 182, 183 Secure base support, 125, 129–132, 134 Self, 11, 38–40, 111, 148, 164, 179, 182 Self-authenticity, 105–109, 111, 113–118, 210

Index Self-change, 5–8, 12–14, 21, 22, 25–33, 37, 39–42, 45, 46, 48, 89, 91–101, 146, 211 Self-concept, 1–14, 21–26, 28–33, 37–41, 45–48, 57, 58, 60–63, 71–73, 75, 78– 80, 89–93, 95, 99, 100, 107, 109, 110, 126, 127, 132, 145–157, 163– 166, 168, 171, 172, 178–183, 186, 187, 195–197, 199, 201, 203, 204, 209–212 Self-concept clarity, 10, 28–30, 33, 41, 46, 55, 62, 89–101, 136, 151, 152, 157, 166, 203, 204, 210 Self-concept recovery, 154 Self-disclosure, 4, 37–48, 59, 185, 210 Self-expansion, 1, 3–8, 11, 12, 14, 22–33, 38–41, 44–46, 48, 55, 62, 80, 91– 93, 95, 98, 99, 126, 127, 131, 132, 146–148, 153, 154, 156, 157, 163– 172, 177–183, 185–188, 195–205, 210–212 Self-other overlap, 13, 40, 43, 44, 48, 57, 149, 152 Smoking, 157, 164, 166–168, 172, 211 Social support, 4, 125, 128–130, 132, 137, 138, 163 Support, 2, 3, 7, 11, 30, 31, 33, 47, 60, 70, 71, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 92, 97, 99, 106, 107, 109, 112, 114–117, 125–127, 129–138, 166, 197, 199–202, 211

T Timing, 53, 55–57, 59, 60, 63 Turnover intentions, 200–204

W Weight loss, 117, 169, 170, 211 Well-being, 2, 11, 54, 60, 89, 90, 96, 99, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111–113, 115– 117, 125–127, 131, 132, 134–137, 154–156, 163, 179, 198, 210, 212 Work engagement, 199, 200, 204 Working models, 7, 70–77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 128, 209, 210 Workplace, 166, 195–205, 211