The studies of emotion function and emotional disorders complement one another. In this article, the authors outline relations between the social functions of emotion and four psychological disorders. The authors first present a social-functional account of emotion and argue that emotions help coordinate social interactions through their informative, evocative, and incentive functions. They then review evidence concerning the emotional and social problems related to depression, schizophrenia, social anxiety, and borderline personality disorder and consider how the emotional disturbances related to these disorders disrupt interactions and relationships, thus contributing further to the maintenance of the disorder. They conclude by discussing research strategies relevant to the study of emotion, social interaction, and psychopathology. We can be afraid.., or get angry, or feel pity, in general have pleasure or pain, both too much and too little, and in both ways not well; but [having these feelings] at the right times, about the right things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way, is the

The investigators proposed that transgression-related interpersonal motivations result from 3 psychological parameters: forbearance (abstinence from avoidance and revenge motivations, and maintenance of benevolence), trend forgiveness (reductions in avoidance and revenge, and increases in benevolence), and temporary forgiveness (transient reductions in avoidance and revenge, and transient increases in benevolence). In 2 studies, the investigators examined this 3-parameter model. Initial ratings of transgression severity and empathy were directly related to forbearance but not trend forgiveness. Initial responsibility attributions were inversely related to forbearance but directly related to trend forgiveness. When people experienced high empathy and low responsibility attributions, they also tended to experience temporary forgiveness. The distinctiveness of each of these 3 parameters underscores the importance of studying forgiveness temporally.

University and the Harvard Business School. The authors would like to thank the three reviewers, the Associate Editor, and David Mick as well as the individuals who helped make the experiment possible, Nina Echeverria, Paul Rodhe, Patrick Tower, Melissa Valentine, and most importantly Ravi Pillai for his remarkable support. 3 This paper reports results from a longitudinal field experiment examining the evolution of relationships between consumers and an on-line photography brand in response to brand personality and transgression manipulations. Development patterns differed significantly for the two personalities, whereby relationships with sincere brands deepened over time in line with friendship templates, and relationships with exciting brands evinced a trajectory characteristic of short-lived flings. However, these patterns held only when the relationship proceeded without a brand transgression. Relationships with sincere brands suffered dramatically and irrevocably in the wake of transgressions but, surprisingly, showed signs of reinvigoration for exciting brands. Character inferences concerning the quality of the brand as a relationship partner mediated the results. Findings suggest a dynamic construal of brand personality, greater attention to interrupt events including transgressions, and consideration of the relationship contracts formed at the hands

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Structural equation analyses were used to examine the impact of social support vs. social under-mining (conflict) on mental health in longitudinal data from 1,087 recently unemployed respon-dents. The results demonstrated that social support and social undermining were not the opposite poles of the same factor, each having some impact independent of the other. Social undermining had statistically significant and strong adverse impact at each concurrent level of mental health. It also predicted improvement (but not a high level) in mental health in subsequent time waves. In contrast, social support had a significant beneficial impact on mental health only at Time 1. Compared with the volatile and extreme effects of social undermining, those of social support appear weaker but more stable. These findings are consistent with literature on the impact of life events (S. E. Taylor, 1991) and on marital interactions and satisfaction (J. M. Gottman & L. J. Krokoff, 1989). Social support research began over 20 years ago and has de-veloped into a central research topic, as reflected in the current proliferation of articles, review chapters, and books (see House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Vaux, 1988). Whether social sup-port is conceptualized and measured in terms of network rela-tions, perceived available support, or received support from others, the typical finding demonstrates that social support has a beneficial effect on mental health (e.g., Antonnuci &

A focus on the secure base phenomenon creates a framework for exploring the function of the attachment system in adulthood. Engaged couples (N ϭ 157) were videotaped in a problem-solving interaction and assessed using the Secure Base Scoring System (SBSS), a system based on Ainsworth's analyses of infant-parent secure base use and support. Study 1 showed behavior was significantly related to representations assessed with the Adult Attachment Interview (M. The secure base concept is central to Infants' secure base use and parents' secure base support are readily observable in that the infant's and young child's need for supervision, protection, and support is ever present Attachment Representations Individual differences in early secure base behavior reflect an infant's or child's expectations of his or her own behavior and the parent's likely behavior in various situations Development of the Measure Relatively few studies of attachment have used observations of adult couples' interactions (see, e.g., Compared with that of infants, adult secure base behavior is relatively intermittent, can be subtle, involves many contexts, and is often verbal. These aspects make naturalistic observations difficult, and hence, we adopted a standardized problem-solving interaction as a source of secure base behavior. Problem-solving interactions are well-established assessment techniques that capture critical behaviors common to engaged and married couples and do so in a brief time period . It was expected that the problem-solving situation would be sufficiently taxing to activate the attachment system and therefore provide an opportunity to observe secure base behavior. Again in contrast to infant behavior, in which the infant uses but does not provide secure base support, adult secure base behavior is reciprocal The standardized task is one in which both partners raise concerns, and thus, each partner is in the position of responding to the other. In addition, and very importantly, the task allows for ready comparison with other methods of assessing couples' interactions (see Study 2). We developed a measure of secure base behavior in adult partnerships that directly parallels the secure base behaviors of infants and parents identified by Ainsworth and colleagues In the two studies presented below, we examined the possibility and value of assessing secure base behavior from adult partners' behaviors and conversation. In our discussion of Study 1, we describe the Secure Base Scoring System (SBSS) and how secure base use and support are related within individuals and within couples. In Study 1, we examined the construct validity of the SBSS with respect to adult attachment representations. In Study 2, we used the SBSS to clarify links between the secure base construct and key components of close adult relationships such as communication, conflict tactics, and feelings about the relationship. From the point of view of attachment theory, secure base behavior is a critical facet of close relationships that is related to, but not wholly redundant with, other relationship characteristics. Study 1 Introduction Our discussion of Study 1 describes the scoring system and the relations of secure base behaviors between partners, within individuals, and by gender. The relation between secure base behavior and an established measure of adult attachment representations is also examined. This association is important both theoretically and methodologically. We used the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George, Another theoretical issue addressed in this study was the question of a single organizing attachment system versus dual systems of caregiving and attachment. Several theorists (Aber, Belsky, 680 CROWELL ET AL. Working within the secure base framework, we developed the following hypotheses. First, we expected men and women would be similar in their secure base behavior as the theory does not suggest gender differences within the attachment system. Second, we hypothesized that secure base use and support within individuals emerge from a single organizing attachment system and hence would be highly correlated. Third, we anticipated that individuals classified as secure with the AAI would be more effective in their secure base behavior with the partner than would those classified as insecure. We anticipated few, if any, differences among the insecure classifications as they represent differences in strategy and not differences in degree of security or effectiveness Method Participants. Participants were 157 engaged couples recruited from newspaper advertisements and a wedding fair and assessed 3 months prior to their wedding dates. Selection of engaged couples (vs. dating couples) was dictated by the need to know that they were indeed in a close relationship and that they would have some degree of comparability in the stage of the relationship and the issues faced by the participants. The mean age of the women was 23.5 years (SD ϭ 1.5 years) and of the men, 24.9 years (SD ϭ 2.3 years). None of them had been married before, and none had children from this relationship or any prior relationship. The duration of the relationships ranged from 0.67 to 12.5 years (average 4.25 years, SD ϭ 2.1 years). On average, participants had attended 14.8 years of school. The participants were mostly White (96% White, 1% African American, 3% Hispanic). Seventy-five percent of participants had parents in intact marriages, and 25% were from families in which parents were divorced, widowed, or separated. Technical difficulties with either the audiotaped interviews or the videotaped interactions interfered with scoring 8 couples, and 5 couples did not complete the two-part assessment. Therefore, videotaped interactions and AAIs were obtained for 144 couples. Procedure. Participants attended two 2-hr laboratory sessions. They were interviewed with the AAI and completed questionnaires describing their relationships in the first session. They completed additional questionnaires in the second session and were videotaped in the couples' problemsolving interaction. The measures were administered to each man and woman separately by two researchers. Measures. The AAI Scale scores are used to assign the adult to one of three major classifications: secure/autonomous, insecure/dismissing, and insecure/preoccupied The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and scored from the transcriptions by two coders trained by Mary Main and Eric Hesse. Coders were blind to all other information regarding the participant. Coders achieved 74% agreement for four classifications (secure, dismissing, preoccupied, can't classify) on 28% of the sample (n ϭ 84), ϭ .61, p Յ .01 (agreement for three classifications was 80%). Interrater agreement was calculated separately for the unresolved classification. Coders achieved 84% agreement on the unresolved classification, ϭ .60, p Յ .01. Interrater agreement for coherence was r(84) ϭ .66, p Յ .01. Disagreements between coders were settled by conference. One hundred thirteen participants (39%) were classified as secure (women, n ϭ 56; men, n ϭ 57). Eighty-three participants (29%) were classified as dismissing (women, n ϭ 32; men, n ϭ 51), 49 (17%) as preoccupied (women, n ϭ 24; men, n ϭ 25), and 4 (1.5%) as can't classify (women, n ϭ 3; men, n ϭ 1). Of the 39 (13.5%) participants classified as unresolved, 29 were women, and 10 were men. There was modest concordance between partners for attachment status in this sample-55% for three major classifications-similar to that found in other samples The Family Behavior Survey (FBS; Posada & Waters, 1988) assesses dimensions of relationship functioning including the global variables of discord and happiness or satisfaction commonly used in marital research The Discord scale assesses how often in the past 6 months the participant disagreed with his or her partner on each of 18 topics (e.g., handling finances, career decisions, affection, jealousy, dealing with in-laws). Re-681 ASSESSING SECURE BASE BEHAVIOR IN ADULTHOOD sponses are recorded on a 5-point scale: never, 1-3 times, 4 -6 times, 7-9 times, almost every week, and every week or more. The topics are similar to the discord items of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale The Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability The couples were assessed using a standard couple-observation procedure We hypothesized that the behavioral components of the secure base phenomenon in adult partnerships would be parallel or analogous to Ainsworth's descriptions of infant and parent behavior. In childhood, secure base behaviors of the caregiver include active support for exploration in ordinary circumstances as well as responsiveness in times of stress and danger The SBSS translates these elements into adult behaviors. In the careseeking or secure base use role, an adult partner optimally signals his or her needs clearly and consistently, approaching the other partner directly for help or support. The support received is effectively used to reestablish emotional equilibrium, and the adult returns to normal activity and exploration. In providing secure base support, the other partner is interested and open to detecting signals, recognizes that the partner has a need or is distressed, and correctly interprets the need. In a timely fashion, he or she gives an appropriate, cooperative response that supports and protects the well-being of the partner and the relationship as a whole. Assessment of secure base use involves scoring the individual on four theoretically developed 7-point subscales that guide the coder to a 7-point summary scale used in the analyses. Although the scales can be used in post hoc analyses to clarify a result, the scales are initially used to focus attention on key components of the interaction. The initial signal subscale assesses the initial clarity of the concern expressed by a participant. It is analogous to the infant's signaling of distress or need, as is the maintenance scale described next. A high score is given to an individual who takes the initiative and is able to deliver the message directly and constructively, even if manifest distress is high, with congruence among verbal, behavioral, and emotional expressions. The maintenance of the signal subscale is based on how actively and persistently the individual maintains a clear distress signal or becomes increasingly clear and direct in expressing what he or she wants or needs, if necessary. The highest scores for signaling behaviors are given when the adult uses an attachment or secure base explanatory framework in his or her remarks, for example, "Our relationship is supposed to help us each be better than we can be on our own," or "I feel like I can't trust you to be there for us when you spend the money in our savings account without talking to me first." The approach subscale refers to a direct expression in behavior, words, and affect of the desire and need for the response of the partner (e.g., " It would help me if you would. . . ."), as opposed to general expressions of distress or need (e.g., "I just need to sleep more"). It is analogous to the infant's approach, proximity seeking, and contact with the attachment figure. Strong approach is scored when the secure base user clearly expects that the partner ought to be fully and directly responsive to the concern. The ability to be comforted subscale assesses whether the individual responds to the partner's support with diminished distress and relief in the partner's responsiveness and the resolution of the situation or attempts to self-soothe if the partner is unresponsive. It is analogous to the infant's response to comfort and return to normal behavior. The Summary of Secure Base Use scale captures the observer's overall impression. A high score indicates that the participant conveys his or her distress or concern clearly and effectively both initially and throughout the discussion, approaches the partner with the clear expectation that he or she should or will help, and is able to make use of the partner's efforts to help. The average interitem correlation among secure base use subscales was r ϭ .76 for women and r ϭ .76 for men. The secure base use subscales were highly correlated with the Summary of Secure Base Use scale, with rs ranging from .84 to .90 for women and from .80 to .93 for men. There are four theoretically developed 7-point secure base support subscales that guide the coder to a 7-point summary scale used in the analyses. The interest in the partner subscale assesses the individual's willingness and ability to be a good listener and a catalyst in encouraging the partner to express his or her feelings and thoughts. This behavior reflects a general attitude toward and regard for the partner and is considered analogous to availability. The recognition of distress or concern subscale assesses awareness of the partner's distress, needs, or concern, that is, sensitivity. The individual must notice that the partner is bothered by something when the partner expresses a concern. The interpretation of distress subscale assesses the individual's correctness in understanding the partner's concern or signal and his or her ability to focus on the key elements rather than on superficial or tangential aspects. The responsiveness to distress subscale includes (a) willingness or desire to help the partner, (b) effort and effectiveness in the attempt as shown in the individual's behavior, words, and affective tone, and (c) willingness to use cooperative means instead of a controlling, demanding, or advising manner to solve the conflict. The Summary of Secure Base Support scale captures the overall secure base support of the caregiver. A high score indicates interest in the partner, sensitivity to the partner's distress, willingness and ability to understand the problem, and cooperative responsiveness. The average interitem correlation among secure base use subscales was r ϭ .86 for women and r ϭ .86 for men. As with the secure base use subscales, the secure base support subscales were highly correlated with the Summary of Secure Base Support scale, with rs ranging from .86 to .97 for women and from .83 to .97 for men. When one partner raises a concern and seeks to use the other as a secure base, the other partner is automatically scored for secure base support. In 84% of the couples, the men and women took both roles and shifted back and forth between secure base use and support in the course of the discussion. Thus, there was no significant difference between men and women in the roles observed overall, 2 (2, N ϭ 294) ϭ 3.97, ns. For those couples (16%, n ϭ 23) who did not switch roles, women were more likely to be in the support-seeking role, 2 (1, N ϭ 50) ϭ 3.89, p Յ .05. Women sought secure base support in 62% of these unidirectional interactions, and 682 CROWELL ET AL. men provided support; in the remaining 38% of the couples, men were the careseekers, and women provided support. Interrater agreement between two coders was calculated for 89 individuals (31% of the sample). Agreement for the Secure Base Use Summary scale was r ϭ .73, p Ͻ .01; agreement for the secure base use subscales ranged from r ϭ .70 to r ϭ .79, average r ϭ .73. Interrater agreement for the Secure Base Support Summary scale was r ϭ .80, p Ͻ .01; agreement for the secure base support subscales ranged from r ϭ .55 to r ϭ .75, average r ϭ .69. Disagreements between the coders were settled by conference with a third coder. Results Analyses are presented in four sections. The first section compares men and women and examines the relations between the Secure Base Support Summary and the Secure Base Use Summary scales within couples. The second section examines the relations between the Secure Base Support Summary and the Secure Base Use Summary scales within individuals. The third section explores associations between secure base behaviors and the AAI classifications. The last section examines the relative contributions of AAI coherence and partner behavior to secure base behavior in the interaction, controlling for partner behavior, IQ score, and history of discord reported by the individual in the past 6 months. All analyses were conducted separately for men and women. Descriptive statistics. To compare men and women on secure base behavior, coherence, and marital variables, we used t tests (see In addition, Pearson product-moment correlations were used to examine relations between complementary secure base behaviors of partners. Men and women who were effective in secure base use had partners who were supportive (men's use with women's support, r ϭ .58, p Յ .01; women's use with men's support, r ϭ .58, p Յ .01). Relations between secure base use and support within individuals. Using Pearson correlations, we examined the relation between an individual's ability to use support and provide support, addressing the theoretical question of whether there is a single system of attachment organizing both secure base use and support across the life span. Within individuals, secure base use and secure base support behaviors were highly correlated (women, r ϭ .86, p Յ .01; men, r ϭ .88, p Յ .01). Recognizing that in a dyadic interaction, some behaviors are due to the characteristics of the partner, we calculated partial correlations between secure base use and secure base support of individuals controlling for secure base use and support of the partner. The correlations within individuals were still very high (women, r ϭ .78, p Յ .01; men, r ϭ .82, p Յ .01). Relations between secure base behaviors and AAI classifications. The third set of analyses addressed the following questions. Is a person who is secure with respect to attachment based on childhood experiences more able to use and provide secure base support with an adult partner than one who is insecure? Are there differences in secure base behavior among adults with insecure representations of attachment? We conducted planned orthogonal comparisons of the attachment classifications with respect to secure base behavior using t tests. The first comparison was between the secure versus insecure groups. Next, those classified as unresolved were compared with the other insecure groups combined (dismissing and preoccupied). Lastly, individuals classified as dismissing were compared with those classified as preoccupied. Mean scores, standard deviations, and t tests between classifications are presented in Secure men and women were more effective in secure base use and support than those classified as insecure. Unresolved individuals did not differ from those classified as other insecure. Comparisons between the dismissing and the preoccupied groups revealed no differences for women, but men classified as preoccupied were more able to use and provide secure base support than those classified as dismissing. Investigation of the secure base use subscales revealed that preoccupied men were more effective than dismissing men at signaling initially, preoccupied M ϭ 4.7, dismissing M ϭ 3.3, t(66) ϭ 3.38, p Յ .01, and over time, preoccupied M ϭ 5.0, dismissing M ϭ 3.7, t(66) ϭ 3.08, p Յ .01. There were no differences in the quality of their approach behavior or their ability to be comforted. With respect to support, they demonstrated more interest, preoccupied M ϭ 4.3, dismissing M ϭ 3.4, t(70) ϭ 2.14, p Յ .05, and recognition when partners were upset, preoccupied M ϭ 5.1, dismissing M ϭ 4.1, t(69) ϭ 2.06, p Յ .05. They were also more responsive, preoccupied M ϭ 3.7, dismissing M ϭ 2.8, t(70) ϭ 2.00, p Յ .05. ASSESSING SECURE BASE BEHAVIOR IN ADULTHOOD The relation between the AAI coherence scores and secure base behavior was examined using Pearson r correlations. Coherence was significantly related to secure base behavior for both women and men (women: use, r ϭ .43, p Յ .01; support, r ϭ .41, p Յ .01; men: use, r ϭ .37, p Յ .01; support, r ϭ .34, p Յ .01). Effect of partner behavior on the link between AAI classifications and secure base behavior. Behavior occurs in a dyadic context. Consistent with other reports To test the link between the AAI and secure base behavior in the context of partner behavior and other possible influences, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses (see 1 In the third step, the complementary secure base behavior of the partner was entered to take into account the immediate secure base environment of the individual. For example, if the secure base use behavior of men was being predicted, we entered the female partners' support scores. The final variable entered was AAI coherence to determine if there was a unique contribution of security to adult secure base behavior. Forty percent of the variance of women's secure base use was predicted (see Discussion The results demonstrate that Representations and behavior. The association between mental representations of attachment and the secure base behavior of 1 Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using each partner's report of happiness in the relationship in place of the report of discord. Happiness contributed significantly to the caregiving behavior, but not the careseeking behavior, of both men and women, uniquely accounting for 2% of the variance. Women's careseeking: R ϭ . adults is of critical importance. The SBSS is validated with respect to the AAI, which, in turn, is enhanced and clarified by its association with adult secure base behavior. Clearly, attachment representations are not the sole influences on attachment behavior within a relationship; romantic relationship experiences and the current partner, in particular, are very influential. Couples are creating their own secure base relationships. These new co-constructed behavioral systems may lead to alteration of the existing attachment working models or development of new relationship-specific models A single organizing system? From a statistical standpoint, the correlation between support and use behaviors within individuals suggests the scores could be combined into a single score of secure base behavior. We elected not to do this for two reasons. First, the behavioral criteria for each construct are distinct. Second, the finding addresses a critical question regarding whether in adults the roles of secure base use and secure base support are different sides of the same coin AAI classifications. Men and women who presented clear, coherent, and valuing analyses of their childhood attachment experiences (classified as secure) were effective in using their partners as a secure base and also in serving as a secure base themselves. In contrast, those who presented incoherent, confused, or limited narratives about attachment experiences were less effective in their secure base behaviors. Theory does not suggest that the insecure classifications would differ in the effectiveness of secure base behavior, although there could well be stylistic differences. Therefore, it is of interest that men classified as preoccupied were more effective in using their partners and providing support than those classified as dismissing, a distinction not observed in the women. Examination of the subscales was useful and showed that the preoccupied men were relatively willing to engage in, rather than limit, interaction with their partners. Marital research suggests women engage problems actively even in dysfunctional relationships, whereas the use of withdrawal as a means of controlling interaction is a tactic more commonly used by men

Four-year follow-up data regarding marital status and marital accord were obtained for 59 couples receiving either behavioral (BMT) or insight-oriented (IOMT) marital therapy in a controlled outcome study. Although no significant group differences had been observed between the 2 treatment conditions at either termination or 6-month follow-up, by 4-year follow-up a significantly higher percentage of BMT couples had experienced divorce (38% for BMT couples compared with 3 % for IOMT couples). Results are compared with previous outcome research in this area, and recommendations are made for further research.

Abstract not found

Basic psychological research on couples and families can be valuable in informing social policies and interventions. This article provides an overview of recent research addressing factors that contribute to satisfying and enduring adult partnerships. Surprisingly, evidence linking communication between intimate partners to the outcome of their relationships has been weak and counterintuitive. This has prompted several new lines of research on how intimate relationships change. Recent findings reviewed here highlight the value of (a) expanding conceptions of intimate communication by considering how social support and positive emotional expressions moderate the effects of problem-solving skills on changes in relationship quality, (b) examining partners ’ personal strengths and vulnerabilities as antecedents of aggression and hostile interaction, and (c) recognising the central role of chronic circumstances and acute stress in governing fluctuations in partners ’ judgements of relationship quality. The implications of these findings for strengthening intimate partnerships are outlined.

Indirect service delivery TRIADIC model: consultant _ consultee _ client Student-Focused Coaching Hasbrouck & Denton (2005) A cooperative, and ideally collaborative, relationship with parties mutually engaged in efforts to provide better services for students. Mutually engaged in efforts Facilitator Collaborative