When self-protection overreaches: Relationship-specific threat activates domain-general avoidance motivation

Murray, Holmes, and Collins’ [Murray, Holmes, and Collins (2006) Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666] interpersonal risk regulation model posits that people cope with threats to their romantic relationships by prioritizing self-protection goals over connectedness goals. The current paper tests whether these relationship-specific responses to threat are reflective of broader shifts in motivation. In Study 1, participants were quicker to identify avoidancerelated words than approach-related words following a relationship-specific threat. In Study 2, threatened participants performed better than control participants on an anagram task under an avoidance frame, but not under an approach frame. These results suggest that relationship threat nonconsciously heightens global avoidance motivation and that the interpersonal risk regulation model may originate from a more fundamental approach-avoidance system. Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. On Friday night, James and Helen are deliberating over the menu of a new restaurant. Although things start out pleasantly, Helen’s vacillation between options and James’ pointed comment about her having ‘‘commitment issues” triggers an argument about their relationship that leaves James doubting Helen’s true feelings toward him. For the rest of their meal, James is particularly withdrawn. On the drive home, he deviates from his usual tendency to drive fast and instead, takes great care not to exceed the speed limit. To Helen’s annoyance, James stops for gas despite having some left in the tank and informs her that ‘‘One can never be too careful.” Our goal in this paper is to examine the possibility that James’ reticence toward Helen at dinner and his cautious driving are produced by a common motivational system. Specifically, we hypothesize that situations where the perceived regard of a romantic partner is threatened activate a more general regulatory system. This system shifts people’s general motivations in ways that facilitate the operation of the more specific interpersonal risk regulation system, a psychological mechanism that allows people to dynamically balance the competing goals of promoting intimacy with romantic partners and avoiding the pain of potential rejection (Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). Research to date has elucidated many cognitions and behaviors that fulfill connectedness or selfprotection goals (e.g., Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998; Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, & Kusche, 2002), but little work has examined the underlying nature of these goals. In the current paper, we attempt to expand on the interpersonal risk regulation model by demonstrating that threats to one’s romantic relationship activate fundamental risk-management goals. We hypothesize that situations where interpersonal risk is salient nonconsciously activates people’s general motivation to avoid negative outcomes. This broad motivational response to relationship threat likely drives self-protective responses observed in relationship contexts, for example, distancing oneself from a romantic partner and downplaying the importance of the relationship (Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003). However, we propose that global shifts in motivation also affect goal pursuit nonconsciously in non-relationship contexts. Thus, both James’ withdrawal from Helen and his risk-averse driving can be viewed as a manifestation of a general avoidance motivation. In the present paper, we attempt to show that romantic risk regulation may be intricately related to a more expansive motivational system than previously conceptualized. Regulating risk in relationships Establishing a satisfying romantic relationship can be a risky endeavor. To foster a relationship that fulfills a fundamental need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people must risk dependence on their partners by thinking and behaving in ways that give their partner substantial control over their personal outcomes (Murray, Holmes, et al., 2006). However, increasing dependence 0022-1031/$ see front matter Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.007 * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 (519) 746 8631. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.V. Cavallo). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010) 1–8