Display options
Cite
Murray SL, Holmes JG, Derrick JL, et al. Cautious to a Fault: Self-Protection and the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49(3):522-533doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.010.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J. L., Harris, B., Griffin, D. W., & Pinkus, R. T. (2013). Cautious to a Fault: Self-Protection and the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction. Journal of experimental social psychology, 49(3), 522-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.010
Murray, Sandra L, et al. "Cautious to a Fault: Self-Protection and the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction." Journal of experimental social psychology vol. 49,3 (2013): 522-533. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.010
Murray SL, Holmes JG, Derrick JL, Harris B, Griffin DW, Pinkus RT. Cautious to a Fault: Self-Protection and the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013 May;49(3):522-533. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.010. PMID: 25013236; PMCID: PMC4086831.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013 May;49(3):522-533. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.010.

Cautious to a Fault: Self-Protection and the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction.

Journal of experimental social psychology

Sandra L Murray, John G Holmes, Jaye L Derrick, Brianna Harris, Dale W Griffin, Rebecca T Pinkus

Affiliations

  1. University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
  2. University of Waterloo.
  3. Research Institute on Addictions, Buffalo, NY.
  4. University of British Columbia.
  5. University of Western Sydney.

PMID: 25013236 PMCID: PMC4086831 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.010

Abstract

A contextual model of self-protection is proposed to explain when adhering to cautious "if-then" rules in daily interaction erodes marital satisfaction. People can self-protect against partner non-responsiveness by distancing when a partner seems rejecting, promoting a partner's dependence when feeling unworthy, or by devaluing a partner in the face of costs. The model implies that being less trusting elicits self-protection, and that mismatches between self-protective practices and encountered risk accelerate declines in satisfaction. A longitudinal study of newlyweds revealed that the fit between self-protection practices and risk predicted declines in satisfaction over three years. When people self-protected more initially, satisfaction declined more in low-risk (i.e., low conflict, resilient partner) than high-risk relationships (i.e., high conflict, vulnerable partner). However, when people self-protected less initially, satisfaction declined more in high-risk than low-risk relationships. Process evidence was consistent with moderated mediation: In low-risk relationships only, being less trusting predicted higher levels of self-protective caution that forecast later declines in satisfaction.

Keywords: longitudinal; newlyweds; procedural rules; risk; self-protection

References

  1. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1979 Aug;47(4):743-9 - PubMed
  2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Feb;96(2):324-48 - PubMed
  3. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(4):322-38 - PubMed
  4. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Aug;81(2):263-77 - PubMed
  5. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Jul;85(1):63-84 - PubMed
  6. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Sep;83(3):556-73 - PubMed
  7. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 May;86(5):729-43 - PubMed
  8. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Aug;97(2):256-78 - PubMed
  9. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Feb;78(2):273-84 - PubMed
  10. Psychol Bull. 2010 Jul;136(4):627-58 - PubMed
  11. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Jul;99(1):14-31 - PubMed
  12. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:351-75 - PubMed
  13. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Mar;78(3):478-98 - PubMed
  14. Multivariate Behav Res. 2007 Jan-Mar;42(1):185-227 - PubMed
  15. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Mar;94(3):429-59 - PubMed
  16. Dev Psychol. 1999 Sep;35(5):1283-96 - PubMed
  17. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Mar;88(3):510-31 - PubMed
  18. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Jul;65(1):56-68 - PubMed
  19. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Nov;77(5):942-66 - PubMed
  20. Psychol Sci. 2011 May;22(5):619-26 - PubMed
  21. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Mar;96(3):601-619 - PubMed
  22. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Sep;87(3):363-83 - PubMed
  23. Psychol Rev. 2009 Oct;116(4):908-28 - PubMed
  24. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Jun;70(6):1327-43 - PubMed
  25. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 May;72(5):1075-92 - PubMed
  26. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Aug;75(2):545-60 - PubMed
  27. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Apr;94(4):631-46 - PubMed
  28. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Jan;84(1):126-47 - PubMed
  29. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2(1):2-17 - PubMed
  30. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Aug;61(2):226-44 - PubMed
  31. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Feb;80(2):237-52 - PubMed
  32. Psychol Bull. 2006 Sep;132(5):641-66 - PubMed
  33. Psychol Bull. 1995 Jul;118(1):3-34 - PubMed
  34. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Apr;98(4):587-604 - PubMed
  35. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010 Jul 1;46(4):650-656 - PubMed
  36. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1981 Oct;49(5):760-2 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support