Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 9.
Published in final edited form as: Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2020 Apr 9;12(2):165–175. doi: 10.1177/1948550620904609

Is Low Power Associated with Submission During Marital Conflict? Moderating Roles of Gender and Traditional Gender Role Beliefs

Paula R Pietromonaco 1, Nickola C Overall 2, Lindsey A Beck 3, Sally I Powers 4
PMCID: PMC8269952  NIHMSID: NIHMS1713388  PMID: 34249235

Abstract

Lower power during marital interactions predicts greater aggression by men, but no research has identified women’s response to lower power. We tested whether women who experienced lower situational power during conflict exhibited greater submission, especially if they held traditional gender role beliefs and thus accepted structural gender differences in power. Newlywed couples (Time 1 N = 204 couples) completed questionnaires and discussed an area of conflict 3 times over 3 years. Individuals who perceived lower power during couples’ discussions evidenced greater submission, but this effect was more pronounced for wives, especially wives who held traditional gender role beliefs. Among those with traditional gender role beliefs, greater submission together with lower power predicted lower marital adjustment over time. These results highlight that the low power–submission link, and associated implications for marital adjustment, need to be evaluated in the context of power-relevant situations, gender, and broader power-related beliefs about gender roles.

Power dynamics are fundamental when negotiating conflict and disagreements. During marital conflict, for example, spouses attempt to influence each other to find a desirable resolution (Kelley et al., 2003). Yet, in any given situation, one spouse may have lower power to influence the other partner, and thus may try to regain power through aggressive behaviors (Overall, Hammond, McNulty, & Finkel, 2016) or may resign to their partner’s higher power by holding back, giving in, or disengaging (Lemay & Dobush, 2015). Prior research examining power in romantic relationships has almost exclusively focused on the associations between power and aggressive behaviors, but this research has yielded inconsistent effects (see Overall et al., 2016). Recent work addressing these inconsistencies has highlighted that understanding how power relates to behavior requires assessing gender differences in responses to power experienced within important power-relevant contexts, such as marital disagreements. For example, this work indicates that only men (not women) low in relationship power will behave aggressively in response to low situational power (e.g., low influence during conflict discussions; Overall et al., 2016). This pattern is consistent with other work indicating that aggressive responses to low power are particularly relevant for men because low power threatens central aspects of masculinity (i.e., having power, influence, and agency), and aggressive behavior may function to restore masculinity and power (Bosson & Vandello, 2011).

This prior research, however, leaves open the question of what kind of power-relevant behaviors women are more likely to exhibit in response to lower power in conflictual interactions with their spouse. The current research examines submissive responses (e.g., holding back, giving in, disengaging) that may be particularly relevant for women who lack power. Moreover, whereas masculinity promotes aggressive behavior, traditional gender roles that legitimize subordinate, submissive roles for women and the acceptance of men’s competence and authority may be particularly relevant in promoting women’s submissive responses to low power. The current study tests this proposition by examining whether women who perceive lower power than their spouse during marital conflict discussions are more likely to exhibit submission, particularly if they also accept traditional gender role beliefs.

Situational Power

Individuals who hold lower power in their relationships experience lower satisfaction and well-being (Aida & Falbo, 1991; Bentley, Galliher, & Ferguson, 2007; Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Kifer, Heller, Perunovic, & Galinsky, 2013), partly because they have less sway in critical decisions that affect themselves and their relationships (Altschuler & Rhee, 2015; Carpenter, 2017; Farrell, Simpson, & Rothman, 2015; VanderDrift, Agnew, Harvey, & Warren, 2013).

Indeed, lower power is particularly consequential when partners face conflicting goals and disagreements because resolving conflicts involves influencing or accepting the other person’s desires (Overall et al., 2016).

Most research examining the effects of power in marital relationships has examined people’s global perceptions of power in their relationship, but power is an essential feature of the situation (Kelley et al., 2003). Irrespective of global levels of power or power-related beliefs, people’s perceptions of power in their romantic relationships vary from day to day and across different types of interactions (Kuehn, Chen, & Gordon, 2015; Overall et al., 2016) depending on the power-relevant challenges the situation poses. Accordingly, experiences of lower situational power are associated with more negative emotional and behavioral responses (Kuehn et al., 2015), and levels of situational power determine whether more general perceptions of power and power-related beliefs are linked with behavioral responses (e.g., aggression) within power-relevant interactions, such as during marital conflict (Overall et al., 2016).

The current work focuses on situational power in the context of married couples’ interactions about an important disagreement. Such interactions can illuminate power dynamics because they commonly require attempts to influence the other partner to reach a desired resolution and have one’s needs met (Loving, Heffner, Kiecolt-Glaser, Glaser, & Malarkey, 2004; Rollins & Bahr, 1976; Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen, 2006). Furthermore, we focused on spouses’ subjective perceptions of their relative power in these situations because such perceptions constitute the reality in which individuals act (Powers, Welsh, & Wright, 1994; Welsh, Galliher, & Powers, 1998), and perceived power predicts power-relevant responses, such as aggression, irrespective of whether people’s perceptions reflect their actual relative power (Cross, Overall, Low, & McNulty, 2018).

Low Power and Submissive Behavior

Although prior research has primarily focused on low power leading to aggression in relationships, another set of behaviors—submissive behaviors—also may be especially important in relation to power during marital conflict interactions where partners often have conflicting goals and needs. Submissive behaviors, such as yielding to one’s partner (giving in), not stating one’s true feelings (holding back), or withdrawing and disengaging, are likely to restrict the degree to which individuals achieve their goals or meet their needs. Key models outside of the relationship domain suggest that low power may increase submission (Allan & Gilbert, 1997; Gilbert, 2000) and constrained, inhibited responses (Carver & White, 1994; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Supporting these theoretical links, research examining power within non-romantic interpersonal contexts has generally found that lower power is associated with more submissive, less confrontational behaviors (e.g., withdrawing, speaking less, giving indirect nonverbal cues) and greater inhibition (e.g., holding back attitudes and feelings) (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Catterson, Eldesouky, & John, 2017; Gonzaga, Keltner, & Ward, 2008; Keltner et al., 2003; Moreland & Levine, 1989; Noelle-Neumann, 1991).

Yet, to our knowledge, no prior studies have examined whether lower power within actual relationship interactions, such as during marital disagreements, promotes more submissive behaviors. This link is particularly important in romantic relationships because submissive responses (e.g., holding back) are associated with poorer relationship functioning, probably because submission limits people’s ability to achieve core relational needs and goals (Cameron & Overall, 2017; Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017; Gottman, 1998; Gross & John, 2003; Impett et al., 2012; Peters & Jamieson, 2016). The current investigation expands prior research by testing whether lower power is associated with submissive behavior (holding back, giving in, disengaging), testing the moderating roles of gender and traditional gender role beliefs, and exploring the conditions under which submission may shape later marital adjustment.

Power, Gender, and Traditional Gender Role Beliefs

The fact that men hold more societal-level power than women around the world (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014) is reflected in traditional gender role beliefs about men’s and women’s roles and responsibilities. Although the balance of power is shifting, especially in the Western world, widespread endorsement of this power structure still exists via beliefs about gender roles (Connor, Glick, & Fiske, 2017; Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Hausmann et al., 2014). Beliefs about gender roles reflect broader societal stereotypes and prescriptive norms about how men and women ought to behave. These prescriptive norms express that men are high in competence and thus better suited to the role of breadwinner and other authority and leadership roles, including being the head of the family. By contrast, prescriptive norms suggest that women’s warmth and communal qualities make women better suited to more subordinate domestic roles, such as housework and childrearing. Thus, gender and gender role norms support differences in structural power in society, with men generally holding more structural or societal-level power (Connor et al., 2017; Glick & Fiske, 1999; Hausmann et al., 2014).

Although men hold greater societal-level or structural power based on traditional gender roles, women’s caregiving roles do afford women dyadic power within romantic relationships (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Hammond & Overall, 2017). For example, women are more likely to take an active, guiding role in discussing areas of relationship conflict (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Kelley et al., 1978; Vogel, Murphy, Werner-Wilson, Cutrona, & Seeman, 2007), and in making decisions related to the home and children (Pew Research Center, 2008; Williams & Chen, 2014). However, women’s dyadic power is precarious because their relationship power can be usurped by male partners exerting the broader authority assigned by their dominant social role, which provides a basis to resist and reduce women’s power even in relationship domains (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Hammond & Overall, 2017). Accordingly, women who experience lower power relative to their partner within a specific conflict interaction may be more likely to respond in accordance with pervasive, and often implicit, societal pressures to behave in ways that conform to prescribed gender role norms that reflect a more subordinate, submissive role for women (Ellemers, 2018; Wood & Eagly, 2010). Thus, on average, women (compared to men) may be more likely to respond to lower power with submission because submissive responses are consistent with prescribed gender role norms for women to submit, avoid conflict, and preserve harmonious relationships (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Jack, 1991; Wood & Eagly, 2010).

The acceptance of traditional gender role beliefs, however, is likely to be an important moderator of this effect. Women with traditional gender role beliefs are more accepting of structural gender differences in power, but they also expect to have some power within the relationship (e.g., in conflict discussions) and the family (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Hammond & Overall, 2017). However, their broader acceptance of gendered power structures inherent in gender role beliefs reflects implicit agreement that women should accept and submit to their male partners’ greater competence, authority and leadership if their desires, goals, and decision-making are not influencing their male partner positively, or are eliciting resistance from their partner (i.e., if women have lower relative power in specific situations) (Moya, Glick, Expósito, de Lemus, & Hart, 2007). Thus, if they lack power relative to their partner in conflict situations, women who hold higher traditional gender role beliefs should exhibit more submissive behaviors, such as holding back, giving in, and disengaging.

Research that has not considered specific power-related situational contexts indicates that the acceptance of traditional gender role beliefs is associated with submissive behavior in general. Work following from self-silencing theory suggests that women who adhere to prescriptive gender roles are more likely to self-silence by holding back their true reactions to maintain harmony in interpersonal relationships (Jack, 1991; Jack & Dill, 1992), and empirical findings support this idea (Swim, Eyssell, Murdoch, & Ferguson, 2010; Watson & Grotewiel, 2016). Other work specifically examining romantic relationships has shown that individuals with more traditional gender role beliefs are less likely to make personal disclosures to their partner (Marshall, 2008; Rubin, Hill, Peplau, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1980), suggesting that they may be suppressing authentic feelings. These prior investigations, however, have overlooked the importance of assessing submissive responses to lower power during specific power-related situations, such as marital disagreements. Yet it is precisely in situations where wives hold low power that traditional gender role beliefs may promote submissive behavior.

The Present Study

The present study examined whether women’s perceptions of lower power relative to their spouse in specific marital conflict interactions were associated with submissive behavior during those interactions, especially for women who were more accepting of structural differences in power between men and women. Using data from a longitudinal study of newlywed couples who discussed a major area of unresolved disagreement at three time points, we tested two predictions. First, we hypothesized that, women (compared to men) who perceived that they had lower power than their spouse during conflict discussions would report greater submissive behavior. Second, given that gender differences should arise because of traditional gender roles that prescribe a more subordinate role for women, we predicted that wives perceiving lower power who held more traditional gender role beliefs would be particularly likely to report submissive behavior.

We also addressed an exploratory question regarding the harm that could arise over time from submissive responses. Prior work has shown that submissive behavior is associated with poorer relationship quality over time, but these detrimental effects may be particularly likely to emerge if women with more traditional gender role beliefs are submissive due to a lack of power. To test this idea, we examined whether submission and lower power at an earlier time point, together with traditional gender role beliefs and gender, would predict change in marital adjustment over time. We focused on the conditions under which submission may contribute to marital adjustment over time, consistent with calls in relationship science to pay greater attention to longitudinal processes, given that cross-sectional approaches have limited value for understanding how relationship processes shape the quality of relationships over time (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).

Method

Participants

The present study includes new analyses using data from a longitudinal study of 225 opposite-sex couples (Beck, Pietromonaco, DeBuse, Powers, & Sayer, 2013). Of the 225 couples at Time 1, 204 couples had complete data for the variables examined here (power, gender role beliefs, submission). Of the 184 couples who returned for Time 2, 169 couples had complete Time 2 data. Of the 164 couples who returned for Time 3, 149 couples had complete Time 3 data.1 The sample size for the parent project was based on prior work (Powers, Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006). Although no a priori power analyses were conducted for this study, the number of dyads (N = 204 at Time 1) and repeated assessments (522 marital interactions) exceeds most studies examining behavior and/or power dynamics within couples’ conflict interactions (Heyman, 2001; Overall, 2018; Overall et al., 2016). A power analysis, using our estimates (see Table 4, Model 2) as the population parameter estimates and a Monte Carlo simulation for 1000 hypothetical studies, showed 85% power for the predicted interaction between power and gender role beliefs that emerged for women [see Online Supplemental Material (OSM), Table S1].

Table 4:

Estimation of Predictors of Individuals’ Self-Reported Submissive Behavior During the Conflict Discussions Using the Two-Intercept Model: Simple Effects within Gender

Model 1: Wives b SE p 95% CI
Intercept 1.740 .049 .000 [1.643, 1.837]
Time −.005 .031 .873 [−.066, .056]
Power −.302 .042 .000 [−.384, −.219]
Model 1: Husbands b SE p 95% CI
Intercept 1.833 .054 .000 [1.727, 1.939]
Time .035 .032 .280 [−.028, .097]
Power −.149 .037 .000 [−.222, −.076]
Model 2: Wives b SE p 95% CI
Intercept 1.751 .050 .000 [1.652, 1.849]
Time .005 .031 .872 [−.056, .066]
Power −.379 .045 .000 [−.468, −.290]
Gender Role Beliefs .135 .075 .073 [−.013, .283]
Power × Gender Role Beliefs −.399 .091 .000 [−.578, −.220]
Model 2: Husbands b SE p 95% CI
Intercept 1.798 .055 .000 [1.691, 1.906]
Time .033 .032 .307 [−.030, .096]
Power −.146 .040 .000 [−.225, −.067]
Gender Role Beliefs .188 .067 .006 [.056, .320]
Power × Gender Role Beliefs −.006 .056 .918 [−.115, .103]
Open in a new tab

Note. The estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients in bold are significant at p < .05 or less. Analyses are based on data from all time points, including 204 couples at Time 1, 169 couples at Time 2, and 149 couples at Time 3.

At Time 1, couples had been married ≤ 7 months, had no children, and were on average 27.70 (wives) and 29.13 (husbands) years of age. Relationship length (from their first date) averaged 61.05 months. Most participants were White (95.6% of husbands, 93.1% of wives), had a bachelor’s degree or higher (63.2% of husbands, 81.7% of wives), and had a median individual income between $30,000-$40,000. Each spouse received $50 at Time 1, $70 at Time 2, and $105 at Time 3.

Procedure

Couples participated in three sessions: Time 1 (married ≤ 7 months); Time 2 (approximately 19 months after Time 1), and Time 3 (approximately 37 months after Time 1). At each session, couples talked for 15 minutes about an important unresolved conflict. Before the discussion, both spouses separately nominated three topics of unresolved disagreement and rated the intensity of their prior discussions of that topic (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very intense). Research assistants selected a topic for discussion that had been mentioned by both partners (if possible) and had the highest intensity rating from at least one partner. The majority of selected topics were nominated by both partners: 79.8% (Time 1), 81.1% (Time 2), and 81.2% (Time 3). Participants completed questionnaires before and after each discussion.

Measures

Gender role beliefs.

At Time 1 only, participants completed a 17-item measure adapted from a longer assessment of traditional gender role beliefs (Prasad & Baron, 1996). The items capture (1) women’s traditional gender role of being responsible for childcare, and associated emphasis on women’s caregiving qualities, and (2) men’s traditional gender role as economic provider, and associated emphasis on men’s greater competence. Examples include (1) “Women are better suited than men to childcare,” and (2) “Human beings evolved so that men have authority in the family” (1 = Strongly agree; 5 = Strongly disagree; see OSM for all items). Items were reverse-scored: Higher scores indicate more traditional gender role beliefs.

Situational power.

Immediately after each discussion (Times 1–3), participants separately rated their power relative to their spouse during the interaction: “In the discussion you just had with your spouse … (1) “who had more control?,” (2) “who had more power?,” and (3) “who had more influence?” (1 = Spouse had much more; 4 = Spouse and I had an equal amount; 7 = I had much more). Lower versus higher scores from the midpoint index participants’ perceiving lower versus higher power relative to their spouse in the interaction.

Submissive behavior.

Participants also rated 6 items assessing submission, including how much they were “holding back,” “open” [reverse-scored], “honest” [reverse-scored], “giving in,” “disengaged,” and “withdrawn” during the discussion (1 = Not at all; 7 = Extremely).

Marital adjustment.

Prior to each discussion (Times 1–3), participants completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier, 1976), which consists of 32 items assessing marital adjustment across a range of areas (consensus, satisfaction, cohesion, affection). Scores can range from 0–151; higher scores indicate better marital adjustment.

Results

Analytic Strategy

Means, standard deviations, and alpha reliabilities for all variables appear in Table 1, and correlations among all variables appear in Table 2. Couple members’ responses showed considerable dependence (see bold coefficients along the diagonal in Table 2), and thus we used multilevel modeling to take into account nonindependence between spouses.

Table 1:

Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Reliabilities for All Measures

Time 1
Husbands N = 204 Wives N = 204
Measure M SD α M SD α
Gender Role Beliefs 2.08 .67 .89 1.71 .54 .86
Power 3.86 .75 .78 3.95 .74 .80
Submission 1.87 .80 .75 1.74 .76 .72
Marital Adjustment 117.92 11.53 .89 120.61 11.01 .88
Time 2
Husbands N = 169 Wives N = 169
Measure M SD α M SD α
Power 3.83 .99 .89 3.97 .85 .83
Submission 1.85 .79 .71 1.79 .82 .76
Marital Adjustment 115.11 12.51 .89 118.26 11.21 .87
Time 3
Husbands N = 149 Wives N =149
Measure M SD α M SD α
Power 3.79 0.91 .86 3.96 0.56 .66
Submission 1.91 0.80 .74 1.68 0.69 .72
Marital Adjustment 115.10 12.47 .90 116.48 12.67 .89
Open in a new tab

Note. Gender role beliefs were measured at Time 1 only, and therefore means and alphas appear only at Time 1. Theoretical score ranges were 1–5 for gender role beliefs, 1–7 for power, 1–7 for submission, and 0–151 for marital adjustment.

Table 2:

Correlations for All Measures at Each Time Point for Husbands and Wives

Time 1
Measures 1 2 3 4
1. Gender Role Beliefs .43** −.11 .16* −.03
2. Power .06 −.29** −.35** −.11
3. Submission .10 −.24** .16* −.22**
4. Marital Adjustment −.03 −.07 −.33** .46**
Time 2
1. Gender Role Beliefs .41** .02 .08 .04
2. Power −.02 −.31 −.35** .03
3. Submission .15 −.15 .22** −.29*
4. Marital Adjustment −.10 −.06 −.47** .43**
Time 3
1. Gender Role Beliefs .44** .01 .04 .04
2. Power −.06 −.25** −.14 −.03
3. Submission .25** −.11 .23** −.43**
4. Marital Adjustment −.07 −.03 −.42** .32**
Open in a new tab

Note. Correlations for husbands appear below the diagonal, and correlations for wives appear above the diagonal at each time point. Correlations between spouses’ scores on each variable appear along the diagonal (in bold). The sample included 204 couples at Time 1, 169 couples at Time 2, and 149 couples at Time 3.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01 (two-tailed)

For Whom Does Low Power Predict Submissive Behaviors?

We used the MIXED procedure in SPSS 26 to analyze repeated-measures dyadic data (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) to take into account nonindependence across couple members’ scores and all three time points. Our first analyses modeled submissive behavior during the discussion as a function of gender (effect-coded as −1 for wives, 1 for husbands), perceived relative power during the conflict discussions (centered at the scale midpoint of 4, indicating equal power),2 and the gender × power interaction (Model 1). We then tested the moderating role of gender role beliefs by adding the main and interaction effects of gender role beliefs (Model 2). For both models, time of the session (Time 1 = 0; Time 2 = 1; Time 3 = 2) was included as a control variable (see OSM for annotated SPSS syntax). When effects significantly differed for wives and husbands, a two-intercept dyadic model simultaneously calculated the simple effects for wives and husbands while continuing to account for nonindependence across spouses and time (Kenny et al., 2006).3

Our first test examining whether lower power was associated with greater submission for women (see Table 3, Model 1) revealed the expected two-way power × gender interaction. Wives and husbands who held lower power within specific conflict discussions reported greater submissive behavior, but this association was stronger for wives (see Tables 3 and 4). Our second test examining whether the link between women’s power and submission was moderated by traditional gender role beliefs (Table 3, Model 2) also revealed the hypothesized 3-way power × gender role beliefs × gender interaction, showing that gender role beliefs moderated the association between power and submissive behavior for wives but not husbands (see Figure 1).

Table 3:

Estimation of Predictors of Individuals’ Self-Reported Submissive Behavior During the Conflict Discussions

Model 1 Predictors b SE p 95% CI
Intercept 1.787 .040 .000 [1.708, 1.865]
Time .014 .024 .557 [−.033, .061]
Power −.226 .027 .000 [−.279, −.172]
Gender .063 .028 .024 [.008, .118]
Power × Gender .076 .029 .008 [.020, .133]
Model 2 Predictors b SE p 95% CI
Intercept 1.775 .040 .000 [1.695,1.854]
Time .018 .024 .449 [−.029, .065]
Power −.263 .030 .000 [−.321, −.205]
Gender Role Beliefs .162 .053 .002 [.059, .265]
Gender .036 .029 .221 [−.022, .093]
Power × Gender Role Beliefs −.205 .053 .000 [−.308, −.101]
Power × Gender .117 .031 .000 [.056, .177]
Gender Role Beliefs × Gender .026 .048 .583 [−.068, .121]
Power × Gender Role Beliefs × Gender .197 .054 .000 [.092, .303]
Open in a new tab

Note. The estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients in bold are significant at p < .05 or less. Pseudo r-squared (calculated following Snijders & Bosker, 2012) for Overall Model 2 = .069. Analyses are based on data from all time points, including 204 couples at Time 1, 169 couples at Time 2, and 149 couples at Time 3.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The interaction among perceived power relative to the spouse in the discussion, acceptance of traditional gender role beliefs, and gender predicting submissive behavior across the three time points. Low and high values for power are plotted at 1 SD below and above the scale midpoint (indicating equal power). Thus, high levels of situational power indicate higher power relative to the partner and low levels of situational power indicate lower power relative to the partner (also see Footnote 1). Slopes for wives as a function of traditional GRB (+1 SD above the mean vs. −1 SD below the mean) differed significantly from each other, p < .001; slopes for husbands as a function of traditional GRB (+1 SD above the mean vs. −1 SD below the mean) did not differ significantly, p = .918. (See Table S2 for actual mean submission scores by power, gender role beliefs, and gender.)

1 Simple slope = −.631, SE = .086, t = −7.298, p < .001, 95% CI [−.801, −.461]

2 Simple slope = −.126, SE = .057, t = −2.211, p = .027, 95% CI [−.239, −.014]

3 Simple slope = −.149, SE = .042, t = −3.558, p < .001, 95% CI [−.232, −.067]

4 Simple slope = −.142, SE = .063, t = −2.265, p = .024, 95% CI [−.265, −.019]

Simple effects (Table 4) showed that wives who perceived lower relative situational power reported greater submission, but this association was significant only among women who held more traditional gender role beliefs and not among those with less traditional gender role beliefs. Husbands who perceived lower situational power reported greater submission regardless of their gender role beliefs.

Supplemental analyses revealed that the results were not further moderated by time (Table S4) and the results were unchanged when modeling both actor and partner effects (Table S5) or controlling for marital adjustment (Table S6).

Do Submissive Behaviors Predict Marital Adjustment Over Time?

We explored whether greater submissive responses to low power by women with more traditional gender role beliefs had negative implications for marital adjustment over time. Using the same multilevel repeated dyadic data-analytic approach, next wave marital adjustment (e.g., at Time 2) was regressed on marital adjustment at the prior wave (e.g., at Time 1), submission and power at the prior wave (e.g., at Time 1), gender role beliefs, gender, and all possible interactions (see OSM for more details).4

The interaction among submission, power, and gender role beliefs significantly predicted next wave marital adjustment, but this effect did not interact with gender (see Table 5). For people high in traditional gender role beliefs, greater submission occurring in the context of lower (vs. higher) power predicted lower next wave marital adjustment (Figure 2, Panel 1). For those with less traditional gender role beliefs, submission did not significantly predict marital adjustment regardless of individuals’ perceived power (Figure 2, Panel 2). Analyses testing for the direction and extent of change in marital adjustment (DAS) scores indicated that, on average, DAS scores declined 2.32 points, but this decline was greater (about 4 points) for individuals holding more traditional gender role beliefs and who showed greater submissive behavior in the context of low power (see OSM, Table S10, Figure S1).

Table 5:

Lagged Analyses: Estimation of Predictors of Next Wave Marital Adjustment (DAS)

Full Model
Predictor b SE p 95% CI
Intercept 116.604 .435 .000 [115.750, 117.459]
Prior Wave DAS .691 .034 .000 [.623, .758]
Gender −.362 .365 .322 [−1.081, .356]
Submission −.281 .609 .644 [−1.477, .914]
Power .171 .595 .773 [−.998, 1.340]
GRB .653 .663 .325 [−.650, 1.955]
Submission × Power .565 .611 .356 [−.636, 1.766]
Submission × Gender .123 .567 .828 [−.991, 1.237]
Submission × GRB −.748 .894 .403 [−2.503, 1.007]
Power × Gender .149 .629 .812 [−1.085, 1.384]
Power × GRB −.131 1.006 .896 [−2.109, 1.846]
GRB × Gender −.666 .602 .270 [−1.850, .519]
Submission × GRB × Power 3.584 1.045 .001 [1.532, 5.636]
Submission × Power × Gender .068 .608 .910 [−1.127, 1.263]
Submission × GRB × Gender .380 .899 .672 [−1.385, 2.146]
Power × GRB × Gender −1.000 1.039 .336 [−3.042, 1.041]
Submission × GRB × Power × Gender −.089 1.056 .933 [−2.162, 1.985]
Open in a new tab

Note. The estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients in bold are significant at p < .05 or less. Pseudo r-squared (calculated following Snijders & Bosker, 2012) = .457. Prior wave DAS, submission, and gender role beliefs (GRB) were grand-mean centered; power was centered at the scale midpoint of 4. Gender was effect-coded (−1 = female, 1 = male). Analyses are based on data from all time points, including 204 couples at Time 1, 169 couples at Time 2, and 149 couples at Time 3.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The interaction among perceived power relative to the spouse in the discussion, acceptance of traditional gender role beliefs, and submissive behavior predicting spouses’ marital adjustment at the next wave. Low and high values are plotted at 1 SD below and above the mean. The slope for spouses with low power and more traditional gender role beliefs differed significantly from the slopes for spouses with low power and less traditional gender role beliefs, p = .001, and for spouses with high power and more traditional gender role beliefs, p = .001; it did not differ significantly from the slope for spouses with high power and less traditional gender role beliefs, p = .22. (See Table S7 for actual mean submission scores by submissive behavior, power, and gender role beliefs.)

1 Simple slope = −3.051, SE = .903, t = −3.380, p = .001, 95% CI [−4.824, −1.278]

2 Simple slope = 1.541, SE = 1.227, t = 1.256, p = .211, 95% CI [−0.869, 3.951]

3 Simple slope = −1.188, SE = 1.247, t = −.953, p = .342, 95% CI [−3.638, 1.262]

4 Simple slope = 1.572, SE = 1.009, t = 1.558, p = .121, 95% CI [−0.410, 3.555]

Discussion

Individuals in close relationships can manage a lack of power in different ways. Most research has focused on how power dynamics lead to aggressive behavior, but individuals may also behave submissively by holding back, giving in, or disengaging. Our primary aim was to investigate who responds to lower power with submissive behavior during marital conflict. Lower perceived power relative to the partner during conflict was associated with greater submission for both women and men, but this association was stronger for women than men and was especially pronounced for women who held more traditional gender role beliefs. This pattern is consistent with the acceptance of structural differences in power, and associated submission for women, encouraged by traditional gender roles (Connor et al., 2017; Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Hausmann et al., 2014). Furthermore, it underscores that power processes are illuminated by examining them within specific power-relevant contexts (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; Gordon & Chen, 2013; Overall et al., 2016), such as within conflict interactions.

This study is the first to demonstrate that low power during relationship interactions is associated with submissive behavior, and that this association emerges most strongly for women who hold beliefs that support the acceptance of the authority granted to men within traditional gender role structures. Our findings complement prior work showing that men respond to low power with aggression (Overall et al., 2016) by demonstrating that low power is also linked to submissive behaviors that will also have important consequences. Although these two behavioral responses to low power may appear inconsistent, assertive/aggressive responses are independent of submissive behaviors (Overall & McNulty, 2017), and involve the presence of (aggressive) behavior rather than the absence of (submissive) behavior. Moreover, the low power-submission link was particularly evident for women holding traditional gender role beliefs.

This pattern highlights that responses to power imbalances are connected to beliefs that shape the meaning and acceptability of power differences as well as normative submissive responses promoted by women’s traditional social roles. Moreover, because differences in the management of relative power are intertwined with gender-related social roles and beliefs (Glick & Fiske, 1999), situations involving power dynamics, such as negotiating marital conflicts, illuminate how and in what type of contexts gender and gender role beliefs shape the management of power differences. More generally, how power processes unfold in any given situation will depend on a range of individual differences and social norms that moderate power-related effects, such as gender, gender role beliefs, personality, and interpersonal goals, and the extent to which norms in the broader culture support particular responses to power (Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, & Rothman, 2015). Future studies examining power within and outside of close relationships would benefit from taking into account both the situational context in which power dynamics play out and the acceptance of social role structures that shape how individuals respond to differences in power.

The findings also have implications for understanding the outcomes of submissive responses to power. It may be reasonable for wives who have difficulty influencing their husbands during disagreements, and who are more accepting of roles that prescribe men greater power, to behave submissively to preserve harmony in low-power situations and to adhere to social expectations. However, over the longer term, submission may adversely impact marital relationships (Bentley et al., 2007; Cameron & Overall, 2017; Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017; Impett et al., 2012; Velotti et al., 2016), particularly if submission arises from low power and associated constraints in managing power. Analysis of this possibility revealed that both women and men who reported submission in the context of low power and more traditional gender role beliefs showed lower marital adjustment at the next time point. Further work is needed to understand why this effect occurred for both more traditional wives and husbands. One possibility is that the analysis was underpowered to detect the interaction among power, submission, gender, and gender role beliefs. Another possibility is that both women and men show the effect but for different reasons. For more traditional women, submission in response to low power is consistent with their greater acceptance of structural differences in social power, but their constrained behavior may limit their ability to have their own needs and goals met in the relationship, or may stem from prioritizing their partner’s needs over their own. For more traditional men, both low power and submission may impede their perceived ability to live up to traditional gender roles, and over time, such experiences may erode relationship functioning.

Understanding power dynamics in romantic relationships is critical because imbalances in power can lead to poorer relationship functioning (Simpson et al., 2015). Furthermore, similar dynamics are likely to play out in power-relevant interactions across domains (e.g., work and educational settings). A central question for future work is whether submissive behaviors reinforce submissive social roles. Wives who perceive low power and show submission during conflict are less likely to influence their husbands to achieve their own goals and desired resolutions, and repeated occurrences of this pattern over time may set up a behavioral confirmation process (Wood & Eagly, 2010) that perpetuates the acceptance of lower relative power. The lack of influence and desired resolution, and reinforcement of social roles that promote submission by women who are unable to influence their partner during conflicts, are likely key routes for the poor adjustment that can arise from submission.

Limitations

Despite the novelty of these theoretically consistent findings and the ecologically valid methods examining marital interactions, this work has several limitations. Our longitudinal non-experimental design inevitably limits causal conclusions. Although we focused on individuals’ perceptions of behavior because of difficulties in observers’ detecting internal, inexpressive behaviors, such as giving in and holding back (Low, Overall, Cross, & Henderson, 2018; Thomson, Overall, Cameron, & Low, 2018), replicating these effects if and when valid and reliable observational coding schemes are developed will be an important direction for future research. Couples in our sample were opposite-sex, White, and generally well-educated and well-adjusted in their marriages; whether our findings generalize to other kinds of couples (e.g., lower-income, ethnically diverse, same-sex) remains to be determined. Also, participants in our study held relatively egalitarian attitudes, and therefore the moderating effects of gender role beliefs demonstrate that even mild acceptance (or less resistance) to traditional gender roles are associated with women responding with submission to low power during discussions of important issues in their marriage. The observed effects may be even more pronounced in samples including individuals who strongly endorse traditional gender role beliefs or from cultures where the dominant view more strongly supports men’s authority and women’s subordinate role.

Conclusions

Extending previous work showing that men often respond to lower power with aggression, the current work suggests that women will often respond to lower power with submission to a greater extent than men, and that this pattern emerges particularly for women who hold more traditional gender role beliefs. For people who hold more traditional gender role beliefs, submission in response to low power, in turn, was associated with declines in marital adjustment, perhaps because these processes reduce the degree to which key goals and needs are met in relationships. Overall, this work advances an understanding of power and gender in romantic relationships by emphasizing that whether power is linked to submission depends on relative levels of power within specific interactions, individuals’ gender, and their broader beliefs about power and gender roles.

Supplementary Material

SupplementalMaterial

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA133908, Principal Investigators: Paula Pietromonaco and Sally Powers). We thank Holly Laws for statistical advice.

Footnotes

1

Participants who dropped out after Time 1 did not differ significantly on the Time 1 variables from those who were retained at Time 2, Time 3, or both.

2

Power was centered at the scale midpoint, indicating equal power. Thus, predicted values of high power (1 SD above the midpoint) indicate more power relative to the partner, and predicted values of low power (1 SD below the midpoint) indicate less power relative to the partner. Mean levels were close to the scale midpoint (see Table 1), and thus results were very similar when power was grand-mean centered (Table S3).

3

Our theoretical framework (and analytic approach) does not separately focus on the predicted effects as either between- or within-person. At the theoretical level, we would expect the effects to hold at both levels. Indeed, our operationalization of situational power represents a weighted average of between and within effects. Although three assessments do not provide adequate conditions for partitioning within- vs. between-person effects, additional analyses explored the effects separately at each level (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). All between-person effects remained significant; within-person effects generally paralleled between-person effects; and, the key interaction among power, gender role beliefs and gender remained significant at both levels (OSM, Tables S7-S8).

4

Coefficients for power and submission incorporate both within and between person components.

Publisher's Disclaimer: Note that this is the accepted version of the manuscript and not the official published version.

Contributor Information

Paula R. Pietromonaco, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Nickola C. Overall, University of Auckland

Lindsey A. Beck, Emerson College

Sally I. Powers, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

References

  1. Aida Y, & Falbo T (1991). Relationships between marital satisfaction, resources, and power strategies. Sex Roles, 24(1–2), 43–56. 10.1007/BF00288702 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan S, & Gilbert P (1997). Submissive behaviour and psychopathology. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36(4), 467–488. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1997.tb01255.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Altschuler J, & Rhee S (2015). Relationship power, sexual decision making, and HIV risk among midlife and older women. Journal of Women & Aging, 27(4), 290–308. 10.1080/08952841.2014.954499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson C, & Berdahl JL (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and Inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377. 10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck LA, Pietromonaco PR, DeBuse CJ, Powers SI, & Sayer AG (2013). Spouses’ attachment pairings predict neuroendocrine, behavioral, and psychological responses to marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 388–424. 10.1037/a0033056.supp [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentley CG, Galliher RV, & Ferguson TJ (2007). Associations among aspects of interpersonal power and relationship functioning in adolescent romantic couples. Sex Roles, 57(7–8), 483–495. 10.1007/s11199-007-9280-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bosson JK, & Vandello JA (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–86. 10.1177/0963721411402669 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cameron LD, & Overall NC (2017). Suppression and expression as distinct emotion-regulation processes in daily interactions: Longitudinal and meta-analyses. Emotion. 10.1037/emo0000334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carpenter CJ (2017). A relative commitment approach to understanding power in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 68(1), 115–130. 10.1080/10510974.2016.1268639 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carver CS, & White TL (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Catterson AD, Eldesouky L, & John OP (2017). An experience sampling approach to emotion regulation: Situational suppression use and social hierarchy. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 33–43. 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen S, Lee-Chai AY, & Bargh JA (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chervonsky E, & Hunt C (2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17(4), 669–683. 10.1037/emo0000270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Christensen A, & Heavey CL (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Connor RA, Glick P, & Fiske ST (2017). Ambivalent sexism in the twenty-first century. In Sibley CG, Barlow FK, Sibley CG (Ed), & Barlow FK (ORCID: 0000-0001-9533-1256), (Ed) (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice. (pp. 295–320). 10.1017/9781316161579.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cross EJ, Overall NC, Low RST, & McNulty JK (2018). An interdependence account of sexism and power: Men’s hostile sexism, biased perceptions of low power, and relationship aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10.1037/pspi0000167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis SN, & Greenstein TN (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105. 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellemers N (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275–298. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Falbo T, & Peplau LA (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 618–628. 10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.618 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Farrell AK, Simpson JA, & Rothman AJ (2015). The relationship power inventory: Development and validation. Personal Relationships, 22(3), 387–413. 10.1111/pere.12072 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gilbert P (2000). Varieties of submissive behavior as forms of social defense: Their evolution and role in depression. In Sloman L & Gilbert P (Eds.), Subordination and defeat: An evolutionary approach to mood disorders and their therapy. (pp. 3–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. (2000-07594-001). [Google Scholar]
  22. Glick P, & Fiske ST (1999). Gender, power dynamics, and social interaction. In Ferree MM, Lorber J, Hess BB, Ferree MM (Ed), Lorber J (Ed), & Hess BB (Ed) (Eds.), Revisioning gender. (pp. 365–398). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. (1998-06518-006). [Google Scholar]
  23. Gonzaga GC, Keltner D, & Ward D (2008). Power in mixed-sex stranger interactions. Cognition and Emotion, 22(8), 1555–1568. 10.1080/02699930801921008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gordon AM, & Chen S (2013). Does power help or hurt? The moderating role of self-other focus on power and perspective-taking in romantic relationships. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1097–1110. 10.1177/0146167213490031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gottman JM (1998). Psychology and the study of the marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169–197. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gross JJ, & John OP (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hammond MD, & Overall NC (2017). Dynamics within intimate relationships and the causes, consequences, and functions of sexist attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 120–125. 10.1177/0963721416686213 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hausmann R, Tyson LD, Bekhouche Y, & Zahidi S (2014). The global gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  29. Heyman RE (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 5–35. 10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Impett EA, Kogan A, English T, John O, Oveis C, Gordon AM, & Keltner D (2012). Suppression sours sacrifice: Emotional and relational costs of suppressing emotions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 707–720. 10.1177/0146167212437249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Jack DC (1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (1991-98431-000). [Google Scholar]
  32. Jack DC, & Dill D (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kelley HH, Cunningham JD, Grisham JA, Lefebvre LM, Sink CR, & Yablon G (1978). Sex differences in comments made during conflict within close heterosexual pairs. Sex Roles, 4(4), 473–492. 10.1007/BF00287193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL, Reis HT, Rusbult CE, & Van Lange PAM (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. 10.1017/CBO9780511499845 [DOI]
  36. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, & Anderson C (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. (2006–12719-000). [Google Scholar]
  38. Kifer Y, Heller D, Perunovic WQE, & Galinsky AD (2013). The good life of the powerful: The experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 24(3), 280–288. 10.1177/0956797612450891 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuehn MM, Chen S, & Gordon AM (2015). Having a thicker skin: Social power buffers the negative effects of social rejection. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 701–709. 10.1177/1948550615580170 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lemay EP Jr., & Dobush S (2015). When do personality and emotion predict destructive behavior during relationship conflict? The role of perceived commitment asymmetry. Journal of Personality, 83(5), 523–534. 10.1111/jopy.12129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Loving TJ, Heffner KL, Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Glaser R, & Malarkey WB (2004). Stress hormone changes and marital conflict: Spouses’ relative power makes a difference. Journal of Marriage & Family, 66(3), 595–612. 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00040.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Low RST, Overall NC, Cross EJ, & Henderson AME (2018). Emotion regulation, conflict resolution, and spillover on subsequent family functioning. Emotion. 10.1037/emo0000519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Marshall TC (2008). Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology and individualism - collectivism. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 25(1), 143–168. [Google Scholar]
  44. Moreland RL, & Levine JM (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In Paulus PB (Ed.), Psychology of group influence., 2nd ed. (pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (1989-97877-006). [Google Scholar]
  45. Moya M, Glick P, Expósito F, de Lemus S, & Hart J (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1421–1434. 10.1177/0146167207304790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Noelle-Neumann E (1991). The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence. Communication Yearbook, 14, 256–287. [Google Scholar]
  47. Overall NC (2018). Does partners’ negative-direct communication during conflict help sustain perceived commitment and relationship quality across time? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(4), 481–492. 10.1177/1948550617712030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Overall NC, Hammond MD, McNulty JK, & Finkel EJ (2016). When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 195–217. 10.1037/pspi0000059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Peters BJ, & Jamieson JP (2016). The consequences of suppressing affective displays in romantic relationships: A challenge and threat perspective. Emotion, 16(7), 1050–1066. 10.1037/emo0000202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Pew Research Center. (2008). Women Call the Shots at Home; Public Mixed on Gender Roles in Jobs | Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/09/25/women-call-the-shots-at-home-public-mixed-on-gender-roles-in-jobs/ [Google Scholar]
  51. Powers SI, Pietromonaco PR, Gunlicks M, & Sayer AG (2006). Dating couples’ attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to a relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 613–628. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Powers SI, Welsh DP, & Wright V (1994). Adolescents’ affective experience of family behaviors: The role of subjective understanding. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(4), 585–600. 10.1207/s15327795jra0404_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Prasad P, & Baron J (1996). Measurement of gender-role attitudes, beliefs, and principles. Retrieved from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/papers.htm/pp.htm
  54. Rollins BC, & Bahr SJ (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(4), 619–627. 10.2307/350682 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rubin Z, Hill CT, Peplau LA, & Dunkel-Schetter C (1980). Self-disclosure in dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(2), 305–317. 10.2307/351228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Sagrestano LM, Heavey CL, & Christensen A (2006). Individual Differences Versus Social Structural Approaches to Explaining Demand-Withdraw and Social Influence Behaviors. In Dindia K, Canary DJ, Dindia K (Ed), & Canary DJ (Ed) (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication. (pp. 379–395). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. (2006-03342-020). [Google Scholar]
  57. Simpson JA, Farrell AK, Oriña MM, & Rothman AJ (2015). Power and social influence in relationships. In Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Simpson JA, Dovidio JF, Mikulincer M (Ed), Shaver PR (Ed), … Dovidio JF (Ed) (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations. (pp. 393–420). 10.1037/14344-015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Snijders TAB, & Bosker RJ (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  59. Spanier GB (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. 10.2307/350547 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Swim JK, Eyssell KM, Murdoch EQ, & Ferguson MJ (2010). Self-silencing to sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 493–507. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01658.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Thomson RA, Overall NC, Cameron LD, & Low RST (2018). Perceived regard, expressive suppression during conflict, and conflict resolution. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(6), 722–732. 10.1037/fam0000429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. VanderDrift LE, Agnew CR, Harvey SM, & Warren JT (2013). Whose intentions predict? Power over condom use within heterosexual dyads. Health Psychology, 32(10), 1038–1046. 10.1037/a0030021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Velotti P, Balzarotti S, Tagliabue S, English T, Zavattini GC, & Gross JJ (2016). Emotional suppression in early marriage: Actor, partner, and similarity effects on marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 277–302. 10.1177/0265407515574466 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Vogel DL, Murphy MJ, Werner-Wilson RJ, Cutrona CE, & Seeman J (2007). Sex differences in the use of demand and withdraw behavior in marriage: Examining the social structure hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 165–177. 10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Watson LB, & Grotewiel M (2016). The protective role of commitment to social change in the relationship between women’s sexist experiences and self-silencing. Sex Roles, 75(3–4), 139–150. 10.1007/s11199-016-0594-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Welsh DP, Galliher RV, & Powers SI (1998). Divergent realities and perceived inequalities: Adolescents’, mothers’, and observers’ perceptions of family interactions and adolescent psychological functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13(4), 377–402. 10.1177/0743554898134002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Williams MJ, & Chen S (2014). When “mom’s the boss”: Control over domestic decision making reduces women’s interest in workplace power. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 436–452. 10.1177/1368430213497065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wood W, & Eagly AH (2010). Gender. In Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, & Lindzey G (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology., Vol. 1, 5th ed. (pp. 629–667). 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

SupplementalMaterial
NIHMS1713388-supplement-SupplementalMaterial.docx (254.2KB, docx)

RESOURCES