How relationship doubts sway everyday conversations between couples

Everyday conversations with a romantic partner are deeply influenced by underlying relationship dynamics, such as uncertainty and mutual support. A recent study found differences in how men and women react to these underlying dynamics, with men’s relationship doubts predicting negative emotional and communicative tone for both partners. The research was published in Communication Research.

Romantic relationships naturally involve a merging of daily routines and personal goals. As partners become more entangled in each other’s lives, they can either help or hinder each other’s daily activities.

Researchers refer to the perception that a partner helps achieve goals as facilitation. The perception that a partner obstructs daily objectives is called interference.

Both concepts are central to relational turbulence theory. This psychological framework explores how relationship parameters shape emotions and conversations during specific periods of transition or change.

Prior theories on romantic relationships suggest that interference from a partner naturally sparks negative emotion in the moment. Interpersonal communication researchers call this the Emotion-in-Relationships model.

Free daily newsletter

Relational turbulence theory builds upon this idea by arguing that frequent, repetitive experiences of interference or facilitation create a cumulative effect. In articulating relational turbulence theory, researchers originally drew on excitation transfer theory to explain this dynamic.

This theory suggests that lingering emotional arousal from past interactions can transfer to new situations, intensifying how people respond to their partners in the present. Over time, these daily disruptions or supports build up and generate a climate of emotional sensitivity.

In addition to facilitation and interference, the framework highlights relational uncertainty. Relational uncertainty involves the doubts an individual holds about their own involvement, their partner’s feelings, or the future of the relationship itself.

These doubts often surface when shifts in the relationship environment render old routines and assumed roles obsolete. When partners are uncertain about their relationship, they lack a solid framework to interpret communication. They might rely on distorted evaluations, interpreting neutral statements as threatening or negative.

Researchers Kellie St.Cyr Brisini and Ningyang Wang of Louisiana State University wanted to test these competing claims in a real-world setting. Prior research on relational turbulence theory has largely relied on surveys rather than observing how partners talk to one another in real time.

The scientists designed a laboratory study to look at how relationship parameters influence emotions and conversation quality for both individuals in a couple. They also wanted to map out how an individual’s emotions influence their own communication style, a concept they refer to as actor effects.

At the same time, they wanted to see how one person’s emotions influence their partner’s communication style. Because conversational partners are mutually interdependent, the emotional experiences of one person often bleed into the behaviors of the other. The researchers refer to this interpersonal influence as partner effects.

The research team recruited 71 different-gender couples for the study. Before arriving at the lab, the 142 participants completed questionnaires evaluating their current relationship.

These surveys measured each person’s relationship uncertainty, as well as their feelings of partner interference and partner facilitation. Participants then came to the laboratory to complete two interactive problem-solving tasks.

During the vacation planning simulation, couples sat together on a couch to simulate a living room environment. They used a laptop survey to choose between a trip to the mountains, the beach, or a major city, making daily decisions on lodging, food, and activities while the program tracked their spending.

For the errand planning task, couples sat at a conference table with a physical map and a list of locations. They had to act as though they were planning a party and had only 90 minutes of walking time to gather supplies, forcing them to negotiate the most efficient walking route together.

Each conversation lasted 10 minutes and was recorded on video. Immediately after each task, participants filled out forms rating their levels of annoyance and happiness during the interaction.

A team of trained outside observers later watched the video recordings. To prevent bias, observers viewed the video recordings a minimum of two times, focusing their attention on just one partner at a time during each playback. This allowed the raters to independently evaluate the man and the woman without being overly influenced by the couple as a single unit.

They rated each partner’s behavior for communicative engagement, which refers to how actively involved a person is in the discussion. The observers also rated the communicative valence for each person. Valence describes the general tone of the communication, ranging from positive and constructive to negative and destructive.

The researchers identified different patterns between the emotional experiences of men and women. Men’s feelings of relationship uncertainty were strongly linked to the emotional climate of the conversation.

When men felt uncertain about the state of their relationship, both they and their partners were less likely to report feeling happy during the planning tasks. These men were also more likely to report feeling annoyed.

In turn, men’s annoyance tipped the scales of the conversation’s tone. Couples in which the man reported feeling annoyed received higher observer ratings for negative communication from both partners.

Women’s relationship parameters did not predict men’s emotional experiences in the same way. Instead, women’s emotional experiences were more closely tied to partner facilitation.

When women felt their partner generally helped them achieve their daily goals, they were more likely to feel happy during the dialogue. They were also less likely to feel annoyed.

The researchers tested the theoretical claim that interference causes a more intense emotional reaction than facilitation. The results did not align with this aspect of the theory. Instead, facilitation was a stronger predictor of emotion across the statistical models, especially for women in the study.

The statistical models allowed the team to look at the direct associations between relationship parameters and communication. Women’s perceptions of both partner interference and partner facilitation were negatively associated with negative communication from both individuals. Women who felt their partner was generally engaged in their life—whether that engagement manifested as helping or hindering their goals—tended to communicate less negatively, and their partners followed suit.

Positive emotions generally led to better conversations across the board. When either partner reported feeling happy, observers noted higher levels of positive communication from both individuals.

Happiness was also associated with higher levels of conversational engagement for men. Annoyance, on the other hand, did not influence how engaged either partner was in the tasks.

According to psychological models of emotion, negative emotions typically trigger specific action tendencies. Strong negative emotions, such as anger, often prompt individuals to attack or confront a source of injustice. In contrast, annoyance is considered a milder negative emotion with low-to-moderate intensity.

Annoyance usually occurs when a negative stimulus interrupts a person’s thoughts or actions. The natural action tendency for annoyance is to withdraw from the irritation or to complain about it. Conversely, positive emotions like joy and amusement encourage people to approach a situation and prolong the pleasant experience.

The researchers had predicted that annoyance might prompt participants to withdraw from the activity based on these action tendencies. The study’s focus on collaborative, low-stakes tasks might explain why annoyance did not lead to withdrawal. Planning a hypothetical vacation or errand route is not inherently stressful, which may have limited the intensity of negative emotions participants experienced.

Because the tasks were largely neutral, most participants reported feeling either quite happy or not annoyed at all. Future research might observe couples during active conflict discussions to see how stronger emotions like anger and sadness alter communicative engagement.

These findings offer insights for relationship counselors and couples dealing with communication issues. The results suggest that addressing relational uncertainty directly might prevent negative emotions from spilling into everyday problem-solving discussions. Couples who struggle with relational uncertainty may benefit from engaging in direct relationship talk to minimize unnecessary emotional distress.

The study also emphasizes the importance of action-facilitating support. Partners who actively help each other manage daily routines and goals foster positive emotions that translate into more constructive conversations.

The participants evaluating their own emotions after the activities ended also means the data is cross-sectional in nature. This limits the ability to state that the emotions directly caused the observed communication changes. Additionally, the study relied on a sample of college students. Tracking these behaviors in diverse demographics or older adults could reveal different emotional and communicative patterns.

The study, “The Role of Relationship Parameters in Emotion Experiences During Interactions Between Romantic Partners: Testing Relational Turbulence Theory in a Dyadic, Lab Study,” was authored by Kellie St.Cyr Brisini and Ningyang “Ocean” Wang.