Gaëlle Vanhee

Why are couples fighting? A need frustration perspective on relationship conflict and dissatisfaction

The present study investigated whether partners’ frustration of relational needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness was associated with relationship dissatisfaction and conflict (frequency, topics, communication patterns). Self-report measures were completed by 230 committed heterosexual couples. APIM and regression analyses revealed that (1) need frustration is associated with how dissatisfied partners are with their relationship, how frequently they initiate conflict, and how they communicate during conflicts, but not with the number of conflict topics; (2) relatedness-frustration matters most, whereas only limited evidence was found for autonomy- and competence-frustration; (3) both ones own and ones partners need frustration play a role in dissatisfaction and conflict; and (4) although most of the results were consistent across gender, gender differences were found for how need frustration affects couples’ conflict communication. Therapeutic implications are discussed. Practitioner points Addressing need frustration in couples may help to reduce relationship dissatisfaction, conflict, and destructive conflict communication Therapists should especially focus on relatedness-frustration of men and women, but also pay attention to their autonomy-frustration Destructive conflict communication patterns in couples reflect relatedness-frustration in both men and women and autonomy- and competence-frustration in men.

A Pronoun Analysis of Couples' Support Transactions.

The present study collected data about couples’ level of relationship quality and their usage of pronouns that express we-ness or separateness in the context of support interactions. The sample consisted of 48 couples in a long-term relationship who provided questionnaire data and participated in two videotaped social support interaction tasks. Couples’ videotaped interactions were subsequently coded for the number of personal pronouns—we-words (e.g., we, ours, ourselves) versus you and me-words (e.g., me, mine, you, yours)—used by both partners.

EFT-C's understanding of couple distress: an overview of evidence from couple and emotion research

Despite the growing body of research on Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFT-C), less research attention has been paid to the validity of EFT-Cs description of the relationship dynamics that characterize distressed couples. The current theoretical paper provides a narrative review of evidence from existing emotion and couple research for EFT-Cs assumptions on the origin of relationship distress (according to Johnson and to Greenberg and Goldman). Our findings lead to three conclusions: first, the general assumptions outlined by EFT-Cs on need frustration, emotional responses, and interaction patterns are largely supported by the couple and emotion literature. Second, less straightforward evidence was found for the specific elaborations of these principles made by EFT-Cs. Third, a lack of systematic research on EFT-Cs assumptions hampers strong conclusions. We suggest future research on this issue with attention toward current insights in the emotion and couple literature. Practitioner points Evidence supports EFT-Cs basic assumptions that partners’ unmet needs lead to relationship distress and negative emotions, which give rise to negative interaction cycles between partners Direct empirical evidence is available for attachment-related assumptions, whereas assumptions on identity and attraction/liking needs have been less investigated Some of EFT-Cs more specific assumptions need to be more systematically researched