Voice versus loyalty: Self-construals and responses to dissatisfaction in romantic relationships

Abstract Two studies examined the relationship between self-construals and active versus passive strategies for dealing with dissatisfaction in romantic relationships. In Study 1, chronic differences in self-construals were measured and in Study 2, self-construals were manipulated via a priming technique. In both studies, an independent self-construal was related to the active, constructive response of voice (expressing one’s dissatisfaction with the intent of improving the relationship). In contrast, an interdependent self-construal was related to the passive, constructive response of loyalty (optimistically waiting for conditions to improve). Implications of self-construals for the dynamics of close relationships are discussed.

[1]  P. Noller,et al.  The associations between adult attachment and couple violence: The role of communication patterns and relationship satisfaction. , 1998 .

[2]  Kennon M. Sheldon,et al.  A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Avoidance (Relative to Approach) Personal Goals , 2001, Psychological science.

[3]  Caryl E. Rusbult,et al.  Determinants and Consequences of Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: Responses to Dissatisfaction in Adult Romantic Involvements , 1986 .

[4]  William B. Gudykunst,et al.  The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures , 1996 .

[5]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  “I” Value Freedom, but “We” Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment , 1999 .

[6]  M. Brewer,et al.  Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. , 1996 .

[7]  C. Rusbult.  Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. , 1987 .

[8]  Caryl E. Rusbult,et al.  Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. , 1982 .

[9]  D. Oyserman,et al.  Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: cognitive consequences of salient self-concept , 2002 .

[10]  S. Duck,et al.  Intimate Relationships: Development, Dynamics and Deterioration , 1986 .

[11]  K. Vohs,et al.  Self-Esteem and threats to self: implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  S. Cross,et al.  Models of the self: self-construals and gender. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  R. Petty,et al.  Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  C. Rusbult,et al.  The impact of gender and sex-role orientation on responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships , 1986 .

[15]  A. van Knippenberg,et al.  It takes two to mimic: behavioral consequences of self-construals. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  D. Stapel,et al.  I, we, and the effects of others on me: How self-construal level moderates social comparison effects. , 2001 .

[17]  H. Markus,et al.  Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. , 1991 .

[18]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Emotional Experience in Close Relationships , 2007 .

[19]  C. Rusbult,et al.  Self-esteem and problem-solving behaviour in close relationships. , 1987 .

[20]  Garth J. O. Fletcher,et al.  Blackwell handbook in social psychology: Interpersonal processes. , 2002 .

[21]  Caryl E. Rusbult,et al.  Impact of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. , 1986 .

[22]  D. R. Lehman,et al.  Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? , 1999, Psychological review.

[23]  John G. Oetzel,et al.  The effects of self‐construals and ethnicity on self‐reported conflict styles , 1998 .

[24]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Is the Interdependent Self More Sensitive to Question Context Than the Independent Self? Self-Construal and the Observation of Conversational Norms☆ , 2002 .

[25]  W. Gardner,et al.  Are there "his" and "hers" types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  S. Duck,et al.  Individuals in relationships , 1993 .

[27]  E. Higgins,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. , 1996 .

[28]  Xiaohui Pan,et al.  Face and facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States , 2001 .

[29]  J. Simpson,et al.  Attachment orientations, social support, and conflict resolution in close relationships , 1998 .

[30]  D. Trafimow,et al.  Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. , 1991 .

[31]  J. Oetzel,et al.  Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively , 2001 .

[32]  J. Simpson,et al.  Attachment theory and close relationships. , 1998 .

[33]  J. G. Holmes,et al.  Conflict in close relationships. , 1996 .

[34]  On the Peculiarities of Loyalty: A Diary Study of Responses to Dissatisfaction in Everyday Life , 1995 .

[35]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the role of interdependence in regulatory focus. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  T. Singelis,et al.  The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals , 1994 .

[37]  B. Hannover,et al.  The semantic--procedural interface model of the self: the role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. , 2001 .

[38]  Caryl E. Rusbult,et al.  Responses to Dissatisfaction in Romantic Involvements: A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis , 1983 .