Negative Partner Attributions Moderate the Association between Heart Rate Reactivity During Relationship Conflict and Relationship Satisfaction.

Abstract

Numerous theoretical models of relationship distress suggest that strong, negative reactions to conflict are directly associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Consistent with this supposition, substantial evidence links higher levels of subjective negative emotion, more pronounced and frequent expressions of negative affect, and higher levels of negative communication behaviors to lower levels of relationship satisfaction (e.g., Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). However, the evidence linking stress-related physiological responding during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction is less compelling than would be anticipated based on theory. We propose that these theoretically unexpected but empirically well-replicated findings may be the result of different patterns in association between physiological reactivity and relationship satisfaction for couples with varying styles in how they typically perceive unwanted behavior in one another. The present study tests negative attributions for undesirable partner behaviors as a moderator of the association between heart rate reactivity (HRR) during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction in a sample of 60 married couples. A significant interaction emerged between HRR and negative attributions of partner behavior in predicting relationship satisfaction such that higher levels of HRR were associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction for individuals who typically made more negative attributions for undesirable partner behaviors, but with higher levels of relationship satisfaction for individuals who typically made fewer negative attributions for undesirable partner behaviors. Implications for conceptualizing reactivity during relationship conflict and couple interventions are discussed.

Decades of research have explored the individual, interpersonal, and contextual factors that nourish meaningful bonds between romantic partners or corrode their connections (e.g., Levenson & Gottman, 1985; Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000, Fincham & Beach, 2010). A large and well-developed line of inquiry within this literature focuses on relationship conflict, interpersonal interactions between romantic partners in which individual partners hold incompatible goals or differing opinions (Fincham, Bradbury, & Grych, 2014). A central, cross-cutting premise in this line of research is that the way partners respond during instances of relationship conflict is a critical determinant of overall relationship functioning including global evaluations of relationship satisfaction or the development of relationship distress.

The responses exhibited by romantic partners during such interactions are understood to be comprised of behavioral expression, cognitions, and emotional experiencing (e.g., Epstein & Baucom, 2002). A well-established body of evidence supports the perspective that expression or enactment of more negative behaviors and fewer positive behaviors (e.g., Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000), as well as the experience of more negative cognitions and fewer positive cognitions about one’s partner during such interactions, is associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction (e.g., Sillars, Roberts, Leonard, & Dun, 2000). The literature linking emotional experiencing during conflict to relationship satisfaction, however, is more mixed and complex.

In this article we conceptualize emotion consistent with the component process model of emotion, which considers subjective emotional experience, emotional expressions, and emotion-related physiological activation to be separable but related dimensions of emotional reactions (Scherer, 2009). Previous research demonstrates that experiences or demonstrations of more negative affect are associated with declines in relationship satisfaction (Levenson & Gottman, 1985; Huston & Vangelisti, 1991). Physiological components of emotional experiencing during conflict, however, and their links to relationship satisfaction are aspects of emotional responding that warrant additional scrutiny. In particular, we will focus on cardiovascular responding and more specifically heart rate reactivity (HRR).

Higher levels of HRR during relationship conflict have often been presented in research and clinical settings as reliable predictors of lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Such framing likely stems from the seminal work of John Gottman and colleagues (1993) which demonstrated an association in physiological arousal and marital dissolution and used this observation to recommend that couples who experience elevations in physiological arousal during conflict suspend interactions with their spouses and engage in self-soothing. In this same work, Gottman proposes the cascade model of relationship distress, which proposes that negative reactions to conflict, in particular strong physiological reactions, overwhelm romantic partners. As these reactions are reinforced over time, the emotional and physiological arousal of conflict interactions become acutely aversive and couples begin to view their problems as too severe to address cooperatively. Most research on physiological responding during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction that has followed has operated using the main effect logic proposed in this model, hypothesizing greater physiological reactivity during relationship conflict as directly linked to lower relationship satisfaction.

While a recent meta-analysis examining the association between prominent aspects of cardiovascular responding (heart rate reactivity and blood pressure reactivity) found a significant association between cardiovascular reactivity during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction, the association is small, with effect sizes ranging from r = −.18 to r = −.08 (Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014). In contrast, a meta-analysis of studies of behavior exhibited during relationship conflict found that hostility, distress, and withdrawal all demonstrated stronger associations with lower levels of relationship satisfaction (mean Cohen’s d of −0.63, −0.28, and −0.28, respectively; Woodin, 2011). Most studies of the association between cardiovascular responding and relationship satisfaction assume a negative main effect. It is possible, however, that physiological responding bears a more complex association with relationship satisfaction. Consideration of alternative patterns of association between these variables is therefore warranted and may help account for this unexpectedly modest relationship.

One possible explanation for the modest association observed is that the psychological meaning of physiological reactivity during relationship conflict is more ambiguous than that of self-reports or enacted behaviors (e.g., Cacioppo, 1990). Psychophysiological responses during stressful events, such as relationship conflict, are influenced by numerous physical and psychological factors. The complexity of these responses makes it difficult to clearly link physiological activity to psychological processes because the same physiological response (e.g., an increase in heart rate) could be indicative of multiple psychological processes (e.g., stress [e.g., Kudielka, Schommer, Hellhammer, & Kirschbaum, 2004] or attention [e.g., Laumann, Garling, & Stormark, 2003]). Thus, greater precision is required for a more accurate understanding of the role of physiological reactivity during relationship conflict.

Another possible explanation is that the association between physiological reactivity during conflict and relationship satisfaction differs across couples and is moderated by another important component of relationship functioning, such as partner-related cognitions. Numerous conceptual models that link relationship conflict to the deterioration of relationship satisfaction suggest that it is not necessarily the existence of conflict but rather the combination of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional reactions to conflict that distinguish well-functioning couples from distressed couples (e.g., Baucom & Eldridge, 2013). In particular, many theoretical models specific to relationship conflict (for a review, see Peterson, 1983) highlight the role of attributional processes in the escalation of naturally occurring conflict, suggesting that escalation is caused by the attribution of blame to other rather than self or distinct circumstances.

One such model, the polarization model of relationship distress (Baucom & Atkins, 2013) suggests that if competing needs between partners are seen as naturally occurring individual differences rather than personal faults, strong reactivity during conflict is not inevitably associated with distress. For instance, strong emotional responding could merely be the result of a partner demonstrating their deep investment in their relationship and their passionate commitment to problem solving. Alternatively, it could also be an indication that a partner is troubled to be discussing a source of disagreement that is not a frequent topic of discussion (e.g., Baucom et al., 2012). According to such rationalization, it is possible that strong physiological responding during relationship conflict may occur across couples with various levels of relationship satisfaction.

Alternatively, the logic of this model suggests that if members of a couple typically demonstrate more negative attributions for partner behavior, strong emotional responses to conflict are likely to be more distressing and detrimental to the relationship. For example, for couples in which spouses believe a partner’s criticism, inattentiveness to relationship needs, or aloofness is purposeful, selfish, or worthy of blame, stronger cardiovascular responding during conflict could be related to feelings of frustration, contempt, or despair. As these emotions are reinforced over time, spouses might then begin to associate these feelings with their partner and more negatively evaluate their relationship overall. Thus, the way partners in a couple tend to think of one another is an important factor that influences the association between typical responses during conflict and relationship satisfaction.

Although conceptual models that link relationship conflict to the deterioration of relationship satisfaction often include cognitive functions, such as attributions of negative partner behavior, this component is rarely included in analyses of associations between physiological reactivity and relationship outcomes. Allowing for a possible moderating effect of cognitive components of relationship functioning in analyses of physiological reactivity during relationship conflict may help explain the modest association between HRR and relationship satisfaction described above. Moreover, it would likely provide greater understanding of emotion-related physiological activation during relationship conflict.

We propose that differences in general patterns of negative attributions for undesirable partner behavior may be related to different patterns of association between physiological responding during conflict and relationship satisfaction. Specifically, we hypothesize that greater HRR will be associated with lower ratings of relationship satisfaction for individuals with strong negative attributions. Alternately, we propose that individuals who are less likely to blame their partners for undesirable behaviors in general and who do not typically see such behaviors as typifying the partner may demonstrate weaker links between emotion-related physiological reactivity during relationship conflict and global reports of relationship satisfaction. Thus, we hypothesize a non-significant association between HRR during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction for those with low levels of negative attributions of partner behavior. The present study tests these hypotheses by examining the moderating influence of negative attributions for undesired partner behavior on the association between HRR during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 59 opposite-sex and one female same-sex married couples (N=120) living in a major metropolitan area in Utah who were recruited for participation in a study of communication and emotion through community fliers, email lists, on-line classified postings, and department research participant websites. Stratified random sampling was used to ensure a range of relationship satisfaction across participating couples; this approach resulted in approximately a third (27%) of couples falling within the distressed range. The rate of distress observed in our sample is consistent with previous studies which noted a base rate of .31 (Whisman, Beach, & Snyder, 2008). On average, participants had a mean age of 29.62 years (SD = 7.65). They had a mean of 0.83 children (SD =1.33) and a combined monthly income of $1,887 (SD = $2,979). The sample was 70.2% white, 14.2% Asian American, 4.2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 1.7% African American. Eight-point three percent identified as Hispanic or Latino and 9.2% did not provide information regarding their race/ethnicity.

Procedures

Participants first came to the university with their spouse for a 3–4 hour laboratory assessment that included four baseline measurements of physiology (two resting baselines, a paced breathing task, and a standardized reading assessment) followed by a battery of self-report questionnaires (including assessments of relationship satisfaction and negative attributions of partner behavior), and ending with four video recorded interactions tasks (events of the day, relationship history, and two relationship change conversations). The current study uses data from the two resting baselines, the two relationship change discussions, and several self-report questionnaires. Baseline measures of resting heart rate were captured as participants sat quietly separately and together, each for 5 minutes. The order of measuring baseline physiology together or separate first was randomized and counterbalanced. Each relationship change conversation was 10 minutes in duration. Each spouse selected the topic of one of the two relationship change conversations based on their ratings on the Problem Areas Questionnaire (Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995); the order of whose conversation topic was discussed first was randomized and counterbalanced. All procedures were approved by the University of Utah IRB.

Measures

Relationship satisfaction.

Relationship satisfaction was measured using the 4-item Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The four items of this scale are summed such that higher scores represent greater relationship satisfaction. The cut-off for clinically significant distress on the CSI-4 is 13.5; 27% of spouses reported a score below this cut-off value in the current sample. Cronbach alphas were α = 0.95 for men and α = 0.91 for women.

Negative attributions of partner behavior.

Negative attributions for partner behavior were measured using the twenty-eight-item Relationship Attribution Measure (RAM; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992. Twenty-four items (12 from the causal attribution scale and 12 from the responsibility attribution scale) were averaged to create a composite where higher scores indicate stronger judgments of negative partner behavior to be caused by one’s spouse and that one’s spouse is liable for producing some negative event or behavior. Cronbach alphas were α = 0.91 in men and α = 0.90 in women.

Heart rate reactivity (HRR).

Continuous electrocardiogram waveforms were recorded using 1kHz sampling during the laboratory assessment using a BioPac MP150 System (BioPac Systems Inc., 2014) and three silver-silver chloride 8ml electrodes attached to participants’ torsos with ground placed on the right collarbone and two placed ventrally at V4. Heart rate during the two resting baselines and the two relationship change discussions was calculated from these waveforms using Mindware Heart Rate Variability Scoring software (Mindware Technologies Ltd., Gahanna, OH). Standard regression diagnostics were used to test for outliers, and signal quality was assessed using visual inspection of missing data. Signal quality was considered to be acceptable if 10% or fewer data points were missing in any epoch. No heart rate values were identified as outliers or poor quality using these methods. Average heart rate during the two resting baselines were very highly correlated (r = .96), so measurements were averaged prior to analysis. Change scores were generated by subtracting average heart rate during the two resting baselines from the average heart rate during the two relationship conflict conversations.

Covariates in sensitivity analyses.

In addition to primary analyses, multiple potential covariates were included in a sensitivity analysis to further specify the nature of hypothesized associations. Body-Mass Index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on the ratio of an individual’s height and weight. Each spouse’s height and weight were measured using a Healthometer beam scale. BMI was calculated by dividing a participant’s weight in kilograms by their height in centimeters squared (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). BMI was included to control for individual differences in resting heart rate associated with poor physical health (e.g., Diaz, Bourassa, Guertin, & Tardif, 2005). Self-reported age was included to control for age-related variation in relationship satisfaction (VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001) and resting heart rate (e.g., Umetani, Singer, McCraty, & 1998). Self-reported current use of medications that could potentially impact cardiovascular activity was dichotomously scored 0 = none, 1 = any. The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) was used to assess emotion dysregulation. This is a 36-item measure assessing an individual’s ability to modulate, recognize, understand, and accept emotions as well as regulate behavior regardless of emotion state. In this measure, higher scores represent higher levels of emotion dysregulation. Emotion regulation techniques have been shown to affect physiological indicators or arousal (Cisler, Olatunji, Feldner, & Forsyth, 2010). Therefore, emotion dysregulation was included in our analyses as a potential covariate that might explain variance in physiological arousal during conflict. In our sample, the DERS demonstrated an internal reliability of α = 0.87 in men and α = 0.91 in women.

Coded Behavior During Conflict.

Negative communication behavior was coded using the Asymmetric Behavior Coding System (ABCS; Leo, Crenshaw, & Baucom, 2016), a 25-item observational coding system. Scores on all 25 items were generated separately for each partner and conversation by a team of four coders. Thirteen items load onto the negative communication behavior composite: defensiveness, emotional protests, pressuring for change, blame, contempt, belligerence, controlling the conversation, domineering, making threats, submitting, stonewalling, withdrawing, and avoiding. Internal reliability of the scale was .80, and interrater reliability of the scale was .87.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for all study variables. Consistent with expectations, relationship satisfaction and negative attributions for partner behavior were negatively correlated (r = −.60, p < 0.001). Additionally, relationship satisfaction and negative attribution of partner behavior were both correlated with age (r = −.28, p = 0.002 and r = .18, p = 0.046, respectively).

Table 1.

Correlations Among and Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables

	M (SD)	Sex	Age	BMI	Med	DERS	Neg Beh	HRR	Neg Attr
CSI-4	16.48 (3.75)	−0.03	−0.28**	−0.04	0.04	−0.24**	−0.20*	0.03	−0.60***
Sex	0.50 (0.50)		0.03	0.01	−0.15	0.07	0.00	0.00	−0.04
Age	29.62 (7.65)			0.24**	0.05	0.00	0.02	−0.01	0.18
BMI	25.97 (5.67)					−0.05	0.17	0.05	−0.01
Med	0.25 (0.43)					0.00	−0.11	−0.05	−0.07
DERS	73.80 (16.76)						0.04	−0.04	0.18
Neg Beh	3.00 (0.74)							0.16	0.25**
HRR	−1.58 (6.07)								0.03
Neg Attr	2.84 (0.84)

Notes. For sex, 0 = female, 1 = male, CSI-4 = Couples Satisfaction Index, BMI = Body Mass Index, Med = current medication use, DERS = Difficulty in Emotion Regulation Scale, Neg Beh = Coded negative behavior during conflict interaction, HRR = Heart rate reactivity, Neg Attr = Negative attributions of partner behavior.

^*p < 0.05,

^**p < 0.01,

^***p < 0.001.

Study hypotheses were tested using a mixed-effects regression in which relationship satisfaction was regressed onto grand-mean centered HRR, grand-mean centered negative attributions, and the interaction between these two variables as represented by the following equation (presented in mixed model format):

$${\text{Rel\_Sat}}_{\text{ij}}={\gamma }_{00}+{\gamma }_{01}*{\text{HRR}}_{\text{ij}}+{\gamma }_{10}*{\text{Neg\_Attr}}_{\text{ij}}+{\gamma }_{11}*{\text{HRR}}_{\text{ij}}*{\text{Neg\_attr}}_{\text{ij}}+{\text{ u}}_{0\text{j}}+{\text{ r}}_{\text{ij}}$$

where i indexes spouses and j indexes couples. In this model, spouses are nested within couples, and the standard error of fixed effect estimates (i.e., the regression coefficients) are adjusted for the statistical dependence between partners’ scores. The random effect on the intercept, u_0j, allows for individual differences in relationship satisfaction.

Table 2 presents the full results of this model. Consistent with hypotheses, a significant interaction emerged between HRR and negative attributions, B = −0.142 (p = 0.005). To decompose the nature of this interaction, we determined values of negative attributions for partner behavior for which HRR and relationship satisfaction were significantly associated (i.e. determined regions of significance). The results of these estimations revealed that greater increases in heart rate are associated with lower ratings of relationship satisfaction for individuals who reported +1.02 SD or greater from the mean numbers of negative attributions of partner behavior (B = −0.13, p = 0.047). Interestingly and contrary to hypotheses, greater increases in heart rate are associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction for individuals reporting −0.96 SD or fewer numbers of negative attributions for partner behavior (B = 0.11, p = 0.049). Simple slopes of the observed significant interaction effect are illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 2.

Multilevel Modeling Coefficients of Key Study Variables for Relationship Satisfaction

	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
Variables	B	SE B	95% CI		B	SE B		95% CI	B	SE B	95% CI
Sex	−0.35	0.39	−1.12	0.42	−0.25	0.42	−1.07	0.57	−0.35	0.41	−1.15	0.46
HRR	−0.01	0.04	−0.09	0.08	0.00	0.05	−0.10	0.09	0.00	0.05	−0.09	0.10
Neg Attr	−2.23**	0.30	−2.82	−1.65	−1.68***	0.39	−2.44	−0.92	−1.77***	0.38	−2.51	−1.04
HRR*Neg Attr	−0.14***	0.05	−0.24	−0.04	−0.25*	0.13	−0.50	0.00	−0.26*	0.13	−0.51	−0.02
Age	-	-	-	-	−0.13	0.05	−0.22	−0.03	−0.13	0.05	−0.23	−0.04
BMI	-	-	-	-	−0.06	0.05	−0.16	0.04	−0.05	0.05	−0.15	0.05
Med	-	-	-	-	−0.01	0.65	−1.29	1.27	−0.02	0.65	−1.29	1.26
DERS	-	-	-	-	−0.03	0.02	−0.06	0.01	-	-	-	-
Neg Beh	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.93	0.53	−1.96	0.11

Notes. For sex, 0 = female, 1 = male, CSI-4 = Couples Satisfaction Index, BMI = Body Mass Index, Med = current medication use, DERS = Difficulty in Emotion Regulation Scale, Neg Beh = Coded negative behavior during conflict interaction, HRR = Heart rate reactivity, Neg Attr = Negative attributions of partner behavior.

^*p < 0.05,

^**p < 0.01,

^***p < 0.001.

Figure 1.

Predicted means for association of Heart Rate Reactivity and Relationship Satisfaction for 1 SD above mean negative attributions, mean negative attributions, and 1 SD below mean negative attributions.

All measured potential covariates (grand-centered BMI, grand-centered age, and dummy coded medication use, difficulties with emotion regulation, and observationally coded negative behavior) were included in sensitivity analyses. No substantive changes emerged in the direction, magnitude, or significance of effects of interest when these covariates were included in analyses. Results for these sensitivity analyses and provided in Table 2 as Model 2 and Model 3, respectively.

Discussion

In this study, we tested whether general patterns of negative attributions for undesirable partner behavior moderated the association between HRR during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction. Consistent with hypotheses, higher HRR during relationship conflict was associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction for spouses who reported more negative attributions of partner behavior. Conversely and in contrast to hypotheses, for spouses who reported lower levels of negative attributions of partner behavior, higher HRR during relationship conflict was associated with higher reports of relationship satisfaction. These findings provide support for a moderation model of the association between HRR during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, these results suggest general patterns of thinking about one’s spouse with regards to undesirable behavior are associated with divergent patterns of association between emotion-related responding during conflict and global evaluations of the relationship.

These findings expand our understanding of physiological reactivity during moments of relationship conflict. As discussed, prevailing theories that link relationship conflict to deterioration of relationship satisfaction posit a main effect model in which strong physiological responding during relationship conflict exerts a direct and negative effect on relationship quality (e.g., Gottman, 1993) or in which a reciprocal relationship exists between relationship quality and emotional responding during relationship conflict such that negative evaluations of the relationship result in stronger reactions to conflict and vice versa (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995). These theories suggest that strong emotional reactions to relationship conflict are associated with maladaptive outcomes via a direct association with relationship satisfaction. The results of the current study provide evidence contrary to this main effect logic. In this study, the association between physiological responding during conflict and relationship satisfaction was moderated by general patterns in attributions of negative partner behavior. Couples that typically made more negative attributions of undesired partner behavior in general demonstrated a stronger association between higher HRR during conflict interactions and lower global ratings of relationship satisfaction.

The observed moderating effect of negative attributions of undesirable partner behavior in general on the association between higher HRR during conflict interactions and lower levels of relationship satisfaction likely reflects the occurrence of polarization processes in couples who reported more negative attributions of partner behavior than average. As described in the polarization model of relationship distress (Baucom & Atkins, 2013), polarization patterns such as escalating behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes result in uncompassionate or even vilifying views of one’s partner and lead to more and more negative attributions for individual differences, conflict, and emotional experiences that are reinforced with each negative interaction over time. When emotional vulnerabilities are triggered during polarizing interactions between partners, such as conflict interactions, this results in aversive and overwhelming feelings that reinforce those negative attributions. Our findings provide evidence aligned with the theorized moderating influence of negative attributions proposed in this model, in that couples with higher levels of negative attributions of undesirable partner behavior in general exhibited a stronger association between physiological components of emotional responding (i.e., HRR) and lower levels of relationship satisfaction.

Furthermore, the moderating effect of negative attributions of partner behavior on the association between HRR during relationship conflict and lower levels of relationship satisfaction may also reflect that negative attributions of undesirable partner behavior occur during such negative interactions. The undesirable partner behavior of taking an incompatible position during a conflict interaction may be attributed to failings of the partner rather than as a result of individual differences. In lieu of conceptualizing strong emotions as the result of the inherent challenging nature of problem solving with another person or discussing an emotionally vulnerable topic, partners may fall into a pattern of blaming each other for the negative emotional experience experienced during challenging interactions and thus report lower global rating of relationship satisfaction. Seeing one’s partner as the source or cause of conflicts may reinforce the association between the aversive emotional experience during such interactions and lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Importantly, our study only measured general attributions of undesirable partner behavior and future research should more specifically assess attributional processes that occur during moments of conflict.

Finally, the moderating effect of negative attributions of undesirable partner behavior observed in this study reinforces the importance of cognitive processes in theoretical conceptualizations of relationship conflict and broader markers of relationship functioning, such as relationship satisfaction. As discussed earlier, many previous studies of physiological responding during conflict and relationship satisfaction assume a direct association between stronger cardiovascular responding and lower levels of relationship satisfaction. However, numerous theoretical models of the deterioration of relationship satisfaction emphasize the importance of attributional processes. Our findings support the theorized importance of attributional processes in that varying levels of negative attributions of partner behavior in general were associated with significantly different patterns of association between HRR during conflict and relationship satisfaction.

Interestingly, we observed that couples that reported fewer negative attributions for undesirable partner behavior demonstrated a positive association between HRR during relationship conflict and greater relationship satisfaction. This finding suggests that HRR during conflict possibly represents different psychological processes during relationship conflict depending on how one typically perceives undesirable behavior in their spouse. Additional research is required to determine the existence and nature of such differences as multiple possibilities exist. It may be that for satisfied couples, instances of relationship conflict are quite infrequent in their daily lives. In such instances, prompting conflict conversations in a laboratory setting may result in a more unusual or distressing interaction as compared to less satisfied couples. Such interactions may be experienced as more distressing as it more significantly threatens the normal equanimity of their relationship. Another possible explanation may be that satisfied couples tend to feel particular confidence in the strength of their relationship and thus feel greater comfort with a wider range of emotional experiencing while discussing topics that result in conflict for them. It could also be that for satisfied couples, greater HRR during relationship conflict reflects the fact that romantic partners are willing to engage passionately in bids for relationship change. We cannot claim with certainty the mechanism linking greater HRR during relationship conflict interactions to higher ratings of relationship satisfaction for couples who report fewer negative attributions of undesirable partner behavior in general and additional research is needed to better understand this relationship. Our findings do imply, however, that HRR during moments of conflict is more complex than it has previously been conceptualized.

Importantly, our study included analyses designed to control for conflict behavior typical of participating couples and that was elicited by the conflict interactions of our procedures. Without such controls, one might propose a counter hypothesis that the amount of conflict experienced better explains the association between HRR during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction. Our results, however, do not support such a counterargument. Firstly, both self-reported abilities to regulate behavior regardless of emotion state and observer rating of negative behavior exhibited during conflict interactions were not associated with relationship satisfaction in univariate analyses (p = 0.12; p = 0.08, respectively). Secondly, controlling for both variables did not substantially change the direction or significance of effects of interest. We believe these results strengthen our findings that typical patterns in negative attributions of partner behavior bear a unique association with physiological responding during conflict interactions and relationship satisfaction.

These findings suggest that the combination of physiological reactivity, at least as measured by HRR, and cognitions about one’s partner, especially negative attributions for undesirable partner behaviors in general, are important targets for exploration in couple-based interventions for relationship distress. Presently, interventions typically frame physiological activation during relationship conflict as wholly detrimental to relationship functioning and often advise relationship partners to suspend interactions and physically separate if possible when they observe significant elevations in physiological arousal. Although this may be an efficacious strategy while romantic partners meet criteria for relationship distress, if over-utilized during later stages of treatment, it may be inappropriately applied. Considering that for couples in our sample who were low on negative attributions of partner behavior, greater physiological arousal during conflict was associated with higher relationship satisfaction, it is possible that more strongly experienced physiological components of emotion are not associated with impairments to relationship satisfaction and therefore might not need to be pathologized or avoided. Depending on the nature of attributions of partner behavior at later stages of treatment, couples may benefit from a reframe of physiological activation in a less negative light, such as a possible signal of meaningful engagement in problem solving with one’s partner.

Our findings suggest that interventions designed to treat relationship distress and improve relationship satisfaction may benefit from devoting particular attention to educating clients about the experience and meaning of physiological activation during moments of tension or conflict similar to the way that physiological arousal is explained during exposure therapy for phobias (Foa & Kozak, 1986). It is possible that helping clients understand arousal as a component of their own emotional experiencing as opposed to negatively attributing the discomfort or distress experienced during such interactions as the fault of their partner will help them experience a range of emotions during conflict without damaging relationship functioning. Couples may benefit from mindful observation of physiological responding guided by their therapist in-session when discussing difficult issues in order to recognize physiological arousal and adequately bring thoughts about one’s partner to a neutral or positive disposition.

Limitations

Our results indicate that negative attributions of undesirable partner behavior moderate the relationship between HRR to conflict and relationship satisfaction. Future research should attempt to determine how tendencies to attribute negative partner behavior as the fault of one’s romantic partner are related to specific cognitions that occur during instances of relationship conflict. We did not capture how negatively spouses viewed one another during their relationship conflict conversations or to what they attribute the particular topic they selected to discuss during a conflict discussion. A better understanding of the thoughts or attributions that occur during these interactions might provide insights that could be used to better address conflict management in interventions that treat relationship distress.

Furthermore, the polarization model predicts that romantic partners’ thoughts about one another become more extreme, i.e. polarized, over time, and that negative cognitions about one’s partner and conflict itself are reinforced with each additional negatively charged interaction. Our research, however, only observed couples’ reactions to conflicts and relationship satisfaction at one point in time. To provide additional evidence in support of a model that allows cognitions such as attributions of negative partner behavior to moderate the association between physiological responding during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction, future research would benefit from understanding how attributions of partner behavior change over time, as well as how that change impacts the association between reactivity to conflict and relationship satisfaction.

Additionally, our methods only measured one index of physiological responding. While heart rate is one component of the autonomic nervous system that is well accepted to be highly sensitive to interpersonal stressors, including relationship conflict (e.g., see table 2 in Baucom et al., 2018), additional measures of ANS functioning may offer greater information about the emotional states experienced by spouses during moments of relationship conflict. Further research is needed using multiple indexes of physiological responding.

Finally, this study included a relatively small sample size (N_couples = 60) and the sample lacked ethnic, racial, and sexuality diversity. Therefore, our findings may not generalize to populations that are demographically dissimilar to our participants. Moreover, the sample was not comprised of couples seeking treatment but instead deliberately included couples at varying levels of relationship satisfaction. Future research should attempt to replicate findings using in larger and more diverse samples and compare treatment-seeking samples to non-distressed couples.

Conclusion

Previous models of relationship distress suggest a main effect of physiological responding during relationship conflict on relationship satisfaction. Our study tested a moderation model in which patterns of negative thinking about one’s spouse moderated this association. We observed a significant interaction effect of negative attributions of partner behavior on the association between HRR during relationship conflict and relationship satisfaction. These results provide evidence that negative patterns of thinking about one’s partner significantly influence the association between relationship conflict and global evaluations of the relationship. These findings strengthen our understanding of the association of attributional processes to relationship satisfaction, the nature of relationship conflict in couple functioning, and possible interpretations of emotion-related physiological responding during relationship conflict.