Content uploaded by Shelly L Gable
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shelly L Gable
Content may be subject to copyright.
Moving Toward More Perfect Unions: Daily and Long-Term Consequences
of Approach and Avoidance Goals in Romantic Relationships
Emily A. Impett
University of Toronto
Amie M. Gordon
University of California, Berkeley
Aleksandr Kogan
University of Hong Kong
Christopher Oveis
Harvard University
Shelly L. Gable
University of California, Santa Barbara
Dacher Keltner
University of California, Berkeley
In 2 daily experience studies and a laboratory study, the authors test predictions from approach-avoidance
motivational theory to understand how dating couples can maintain feelings of relationship satisfaction
in their daily lives and over the course of time. Approach goals were associated with increased
relationship satisfaction on a daily basis and over time, particularly when both partners were high in
approach goals. Avoidance goals were associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction over time,
and people were particularly dissatisfied when they were involved with a partner with high avoidance
goals. People high in approach goals and their partners were rated as relatively more satisfied and
responsive to a partner’s needs by outside observers in the lab, whereas people with high avoidance goals
and their partners were rated as less satisfied and responsive. Positive emotions mediated the link
between approach goals and daily satisfaction in both studies, and responsiveness to the partner’s needs
was an additional behavioral mechanism in Study 2. Implications of these findings for approach-
avoidance motivational theory and for the maintenance of satisfying relationships over time are dis-
cussed.
Keywords: relationship goals, couples, daily experience methods, approach and avoidance motivation,
relationship motivation
Although most romantic partners begin their lives together with
aspirations of finding enduring love, empirical studies reveal time and
time again that the majority experience precipitous declines in satis-
faction and intimacy over the course of their relationships (Huston,
Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001; Impett, Strachman,
Finkel, & Gable, 2008; Karney & Bradbury, 1997). Recent studies
have begun to reveal specific cognitive tendencies and social
practices that countervail this trend and enable couples to cultivate
and maintain feelings of satisfaction, including idealization (Mur-
ray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2004), capitalization (Gable, Reis, Impett,
& Asher, 2004), forgiveness (Tsang, McCullough, & Fincham,
2006), and gratitude (Algoe, Gable, & Maisel, 2010). In this
article, we draw on an approach-avoidance motivational perspec-
tive (Gable, 2006a) that distinguishes between approach relation-
ship goals (i.e., goals focused on the pursuit of positive experi-
ences in one’s relationship such as fun, growth, and development)
and avoidance relationship goals (i.e., goals focused on avoiding
negative experiences such as disagreements and conflict) to un-
derstand how couples can maintain feelings of satisfaction and
closeness. We present the results of two studies which rely on
multiple methods (i.e., daily experience, short-term longitudinal,
and behavioral observation) to document how approach and avoid-
ance goals influence couples’ relationship quality in their daily
interactions and over the course of time.
An Approach-Avoidance Motivational Perspective
Motives are general, affectively based motivational tendencies
that energize and orient behavior (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006).
Several theories of motivational processes postulate the existence
of distinct approach (also called appetitive) and avoidance (also
called aversive) motivational systems (see reviews in Carver,
This article was published Online First July 26, 2010.
Emily A. Impett, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto;
Amie M. Gordon and Dacher Keltner, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley; Aleksandr Kogan, Department of Psychology,
University of Hong Kong; Christopher Oveis, Department of Psychology,
Harvard University; Shelly L. Gable, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of California, Santa Barbara.
This work has been supported by a grant from The Templeton Advanced
Research Program, sponsored by the Metanexus Institute on Religion,
Science and the Humanities, awarded to Dacher Keltner; National Science
Foundation Grant BCS-0753597 awarded to Shelly L. Gable; and National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships awarded to Amie M.
Gordon and Aleksandr Kogan. We are particularly grateful to Gregg
Sparkman and Angela Li for assistance with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily A.
Impett, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road North, Mississauga,
ON L5L 1C6, Canada. E-mail: eimpett@gmail.com
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 99, No. 6, 948–963 0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020271
948
Sutton, & Scheier, 2000; Elliot & Covington, 2001). For instance,
Gray’s (1987) neuropsychological model of motivation posits ap-
petitive and aversive motivational systems, referred to as the
behavioral approach system (BAS) and the behavioral inhibition
system (BIS; see also Carver & White, 1994; and Gray &
McNaughton, 2000). The BAS is an appetitive system that is
primarily sensitive to positive stimuli or signals of reward, whereas
the BIS is an aversive system that is primarily sensitive to negative
stimuli or signals of punishment. The approach-avoidance moti-
vational distinction has implications for understanding emotional
experience. For example, Carver and Scheier (1998) outlined two
independent dimensions of affective experience, one managing
approach behavior (and ranging from elation to depression) and
the other managing avoidance behavior (and ranging from fear to
relief). In a study of motivational dispositions and daily events,
participants with higher BAS sensitivity reported experiencing
more daily positive affect than those with lower BAS sensitivity,
whereas participants with higher BIS sensitivity reported experi-
encing more daily negative affect than those with lower BIS
sensitivity (Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000).
The approach-avoidance distinction has been particularly help-
ful in understanding motivation in interpersonal relationships (see
Gable & Berkman, 2008, for a review). On the basis of the work
of early social motivation theorists (e.g., Boyatzis, 1973; Mehra-
bian, 1976), Gable and colleagues have distinguished between
approach and avoidance social goals (Gable, 2006a). Whereas
approach social goals direct individuals toward potential positive
outcomes, such as intimacy and growth in their close relationships,
avoidance social goals direct individuals away from potential
negative outcomes, such as conflict and rejection. For example, in
a discussion about childcare, a husband who has strong approach
goals may be concerned with wanting the discussion to go
smoothly and wanting both partners to be happy with the outcome.
In contrast, a husband with strong avoidance goals may be more
concerned with avoiding conflict about childcare and preventing
both partners from being unhappy with the outcome. It is important
to point out that being low in approach goals is not the same as
being high in avoidance goals. People who are not motivated by
approach goals are not particularly interested in pursuing positive
experiences in their relationships, such as bonding, intimacy, or
fun activities. In contrast, people who are motivated by avoidance
goals are interested in avoiding negative experiences, such as
conflict, betrayal, or rejection by a romantic partner.
Recent studies have found that approach and avoidance social
goals predict different social outcomes within close relationships.
In the first empirical investigation of social goals, Gable (2006a)
asked participants to generate a list of goals, three for their roman-
tic life and three for any other aspect of their social life; these goals
were later coded as approach or avoidance in nature. Results
showed that whereas approach goals were associated with more
satisfaction with social life and less loneliness, avoidance goals
were associated with increased anxiety and loneliness 8 weeks
later. Following up this initial work, Elliot et al. (2006) developed
an eight-item measure of approach and avoidance social goals and
found that approach social goals were associated with greater
subjective well-being, whereas avoidance social goals were asso-
ciated with more reports of physical health symptoms 3.5 months
later.
More recently, Impett and colleagues conducted a study of
approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships, using an
adaptation of the measure of social goals developed by Elliot et al.
(2006). Using this scale in a short-term longitudinal study and two
daily experience studies, they found that people with strong ap-
proach goals in their romantic relationships maintained high levels
of sexual desire on a daily basis and over a 6-month period of time
(Impett, Strachman, et al., 2008). In addition, several studies have
examined the implications of approach and avoidance goals pur-
sued in specific relational contexts such as sexuality (Cooper,
Shapiro, & Powers, 1998; Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005) and
sacrifice (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005). Two daily experience
studies have shown that on days when individuals made sacrifices
or engaged in sexual activity for approach goals, they reported
greater feelings of satisfaction, but on days when they did so for
avoidance goals, they reported less relationship satisfaction (Im-
pett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005; Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005).
Further, a combined experience sampling study and interval con-
tingent study of romantic relationships showed that people with
high approach goals base their feelings of relationship satisfaction
on positive thoughts about the relationship, whereas people high in
avoidance goals base their feelings of satisfaction on negative
thoughts about the relationship (Gable & Poore, 2008).
The current set of studies extends previous research on approach
and avoidance relationship goals in four critical ways. First, most
of the existing research on relationship goals has focused on only
one member of the couple, despite the fact that partners are
involved in ongoing, dynamic interactions with another person
who has his or her own goals for the relationship. The current work
is the first set of studies we know of to focus on goals in a dyadic
context, measuring the relationship goals and relationship satisfac-
tion of both members of romantic couples. We investigate how
pursuing approach versus avoidance goals impacts the partner’s
feelings about the relationship and if and how partners’ goals
interact to shape relationship satisfaction. Second, we test critical
differences in how relationship goals influence relationship satis-
faction in daily interactions versus over time, advancing specific
predictions about the conditions under which relationship goals
should be associated with relationship satisfaction. Third, given
that several previous studies have shown that approach goals are
associated with increased feelings of satisfaction, we test a new
mechanism to explain why pursuing approach goals benefits rela-
tionships, focusing specifically on the role of positive emotions.
Fourth, all of the existing research on approach and avoidance
relationship goals has relied on self-report measures. The current
investigation includes the first study on relationship goals to bring
couples into the laboratory, enabling us to corroborate our self-
report findings with outsider observers’ ratings of both partners’
relationship quality.
Toward A Dyadic Perspective on Relationship Goals
Previous research on approach and avoidance goals in romantic
relationships has been limited by a focus on only one member of
the romantic couple. No study to date has taken a dyadic perspec-
tive, focusing on how goals shape both partners’ relationship
quality. Specifically, no research has investigated how one per-
son’s pursuit of approach versus avoidance goals impacts his or
her partner. Previous empirical studies set the stage for our first set
949
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
of predictions concerning the relationship between an actor’s ap-
proach or avoidance goals and the partner’s satisfaction. People
who are high in approach goals seek out more positive events
(Gable et al., 2000) and base their satisfaction on positive thoughts
about the relationship (Gable & Poore, 2008), in turn leading them
to create a more positive relational environment (Aron, Norman,
Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000). Therefore, we predicted that
the partners of approach-oriented people will ultimately experi-
ence more satisfaction in the relationship. In contrast, people high
in avoidance goals remember more negative social information
(Strachman & Gable, 2006), are more reactive to negative events
(Elliot et al., 2006; Gable, 2006a; Gable et al., 2000), and base
their satisfaction on feelings of insecurity (Gable & Poore, 2008).
Over time, this chronic focus on the negative may erode the
partner’s feelings of satisfaction. Thus, we predicted that whereas
one person’s approach goals will enhance the partner’s satisfac-
tion, that same individual’s avoidance goals will diminish the
partner’s satisfaction.
Taking a dyadic level of analysis raises intriguing questions
about possible interactions between partners’ goals. For example,
will relationships thrive if only one partner is high in approach
goals, or does it take both partners to be high in approach goals to
promote lasting feelings of satisfaction? Here we tentatively pre-
dict that whereas it may only take one partner to be high in
approach goals for partners to experience satisfaction in the mo-
ment, it likely requires that both partners be high in approach goals
for the relationship to flourish over time. In contrast, given the
research showing the powerful toxic effects of negative processes
in romantic relationships (e.g., Gottman & Levenson, 2000) and
research showing that people feel more disconnected from and
dislike people who chronically express negative emotions (see
review by Keltner & Kring, 1998), we tentatively propose that it
only takes one partner to be high in avoidance goals to negatively
impact the relationship over time and decrease the satisfaction of
both partners in the relationship.
Relationship Goals in the Moment and Over Time
The present studies build on the existing literature in a second
way by investigating how the pursuit of approach and avoidance
relationship goals influences feelings of relationship satisfaction
on a daily basis as well as over time. On the basis of research
showing that people high in approach goals experience more
positive events and social interactions (Gable et al., 2000), we
expected that on a daily basis and over the longer term, people with
high approach relationship goals should experience increased feel-
ings of satisfaction. However, we expected to see a different
pattern for people high in avoidance goals. People with high
avoidance goals do not experience more frequent negative rela-
tionship exchanges, but they do react to them more strongly when
they do occur (Gable, 2006a). Therefore, we predicted that people
high in avoidance goals would not necessarily experience poorer
relationship quality on a daily basis than people with low avoid-
ance goals, given that negative relational exchanges happen with
little frequency on a daily basis in relationships (Gable, Reis, &
Downey, 2003) providing people high in avoidance goals with
little opportunity to react to these events with decreased feelings of
satisfaction. Over longer periods of time, however, everyone is
bound to experience negative interactions with a dating partner,
giving the people who are high in avoidance goals opportunities to
react to them with feelings of decreased satisfaction. Thus, we
expected that although avoidance goals will not be associated with
daily relationship satisfaction, they will be associated with de-
creased relationship quality over time (i.e., a several-month period
in romantic relationships).
Positive Emotions as a Mediating Link Between
Approach Goals and Relationship Satisfaction
A third important extension of the current studies was to under-
stand why approach goals are so beneficial for relationships by
testing an important mechanism of the link between approach
relationship goals and relationship quality. Several studies have
provided support for a “differential exposure” mechanism wherein
people who are high in approach goals actually seek out and
experience more positive events and social interactions (Gable,
2006a; Gable et al., 2000). Another possible mechanism that has
yet to be tested concerns the role of positive emotions. Emotions
are likely to be an important mediating process, especially given
the central role that affect plays in motivational processes (Keltner
& Lerner, 2009). Several studies on general approach motivation
(e.g., Gable et al., 2000) and approach goals in romantic relation-
ships (e.g., Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005) have shown that people
with high approach goals report experiencing stronger positive
emotions than people with low approach goals.
The extent to which people experience positive emotions
should, in turn, influence feelings of relationship satisfaction.
Within the framework of Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) broaden-and-
build theory of positive emotions, positive emotions broaden peo-
ple’s attention and thinking, and these broadened outlooks help
people to discover and build consequential personal resources,
such as social support and enhanced feelings of satisfaction
(Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008). On the basis of
this model, we predicted that people who experience heightened
feelings of positive emotions on a daily basis will also report
feeling more satisfied in their relationships. In short, people with
high approach goals should experience stronger daily positive
emotions, in turn contributing to greater feelings of satisfaction
with the relationship. By taking a dyadic perspective, we are also
able to test the hypothesis that having a partner who is focused on
pursuing positive experiences, such as fun, growth and develop-
ment, should also lead people to feel more positive emotions.
Thus, we expected that having a partner who is high in approach
goals will influence people’s positive emotions, in turn making
them feel more satisfied with the relationship. As previously
discussed, we did not expect to find an association between avoid-
ance relationship goals and daily relationship quality, because
negative relational exchanges happen infrequently, giving
avoidance-motivated people little opportunity to react to these
events with increased negative emotion. However, should we find
an association between avoidance goals and daily relationship
quality, we will test negative emotions as a mediator, because they
should be a prime contributor to feelings of satisfaction for people
high in avoidance goals.
Moving Beyond Self-Reports of Relationship Quality
All of the existing research on approach and avoidance relation-
ship goals has relied on self-report measures of relationship qual-
950 IMPETT ET AL.
ity. The fourth crucial extension of the current research is to
investigate how relationship goals influence dyadic interactions in
the laboratory, thereby enabling us to corroborate self-report find-
ings with outside observers’ ratings of the quality of intimate
relationships. By incorporating outside, observer-based measures
of relationship quality, the current research is less limited by issues
concerning self-report data, specifically that the outcomes of in-
terest (i.e., relationship satisfaction) overlap semantically with the
predictors (i.e., approach and avoidance goals).
In the present research, we focus on two critical indicators of
relationship quality in the laboratory. The first is a global indicator
of relationship satisfaction. In line with our self-report predictions,
we predicted that people high in approach goals would be seen as
relatively more satisfied than people low in approach goals; fur-
ther, we expected that the partners of people who are high in
approach goals would be seen as more satisfied than the partners
of people who are low in approach goals. In contrast, we expected
that people high in avoidance goals would be seen as less satisfied
than their less avoidant counterparts. In addition, given their
chronic focus on avoiding negative outcomes in their relationships,
we expected that the partners of people who are high in avoidance
goals would be rated as less satisfied than the partners of people
who are not as focused on making sure negative things do not
happen in their relationships.
Another advantage of studying dyadic interactions in the labo-
ratory is that we can observe specific behaviors that may account
for why approach and avoidance goals shape feelings of relation-
ship satisfaction. The second indicator of relationship quality for
which we code is behavioral responsiveness to the partner’s needs,
defined as the extent to which partners make each other feel cared
for, understood, and validated (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Reis
& Patrick, 1996). Numerous studies have shown that responsive-
ness is at the core of satisfying relationships (e.g., Gable & Reis,
2006; Maisel, Gable, & Strachman, 2008) and is essential not only
when couples navigate the inevitable stressors of everyday life and
seek out social support (Iida, Seidman, Shrout, Fujita, & Bolger,
2008) but also when they share and discuss positive events with
one another (Gable et al., 2004).
Given their focus on creating positive experiences in their
relationships, we expected that people with high approach goals
would be rated as relatively more responsive to their partner’s
needs by outside observers than would people who are low in
approach goals. In contrast, people who are high in avoidance
goals are motivated to avoid negative experiences, such as conflict
and rejection by a romantic partner (Gable, 2006b). Thus, we
expected that this chronic focus on avoiding negative outcomes
would diminish the ability of people who are high in avoidance
goals to respond to a partner’s needs. In other words, people who
are busy focusing on avoiding negative outcomes may miss the
opportunity to connect with their partner, leading them to be rated
as relatively less responsive. We also investigate the possibility
that these effects might extend to the partners of people who are
high in approach and avoidance goals. For example, it may be easy
or relatively more rewarding to be responsive to a partner who is
high in approach goals and open to receiving that responsiveness.
In contrast, it may be relatively hard to be responsive to a partner
who is chronically focused on avoiding negative outcomes and less
open to being the recipient of caring, responsive behavior (Reis,
Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Finally, we anticipated that responsive-
ness would be an important mechanism of the link between ap-
proach and avoidance goals and coded satisfaction. That is, re-
sponsiveness should account for the links between relationship
goals and satisfaction.
Overview of the Studies
We conducted two studies to test our predictions about how
approach and avoidance relationship goals influence both partners’
relationship quality as they interact in the moment as well as how
goals influence partners’ relationship quality over time. Study 1
was a 14-day daily experience study of individuals in dating
relationships with a 1-month follow-up. In the second two-part
study, both members of dating couples participated in a 14-day
daily experience study with a 3-month longitudinal follow-up
(Study 2A) and a laboratory interaction (Study 2B).
Study 1
In this 14-day daily experience study of college students in
dating relationships with a 1-month longitudinal follow-up, we
expected that on a daily basis and over the longer term, people with
high approach relationship goals would experience increased feel-
ings of satisfaction and closeness. However, we expected that
whereas avoidance goals would not be associated with daily rela-
tionship quality, they would be associated with decreased relation-
ship quality over time. We also predicted that people with high
approach goals would experience stronger daily positive emotions,
in turn contributing to greater feelings of satisfaction and closeness
to a romantic partner.
Method
Participants and procedure. The study was advertised as an
examination of “dating relationships,” and participants received
credit toward psychology coursework at the University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles in exchange for participation. To be eligible,
participants had to (a) be currently involved in a (nonmarital)
dating relationship, (b) see their partner at least 5 days per week
(thus ruling out long-distance relationships), and (c) be the only
member of a given couple to participate in the study. One hundred
fifty-three participants (69 men, 84 women) completed the study.
The mean relationship length for all participants was 19 months
(range ⫽1 month to 8 years; SD ⫽19.4 months). Participants
ranged in age from 18 to 38 years (M⫽20.1, SD ⫽2.4).
Participants comprised a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds;
40% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 35% were White, 13% were
Hispanic, 4% were African American, and 8% self-identified as
multiethnic or “other.”
During an initial session, each participant was given 14 surveys
containing the daily measures, one for each night of the week. A
researcher then reviewed the procedures for completing the daily
surveys, specifically emphasizing that participants should begin
completing their surveys that evening; that they should complete
one survey each night before going to bed; that their responses
were confidential; that they should not discuss their surveys with
their partner; and that if they missed a day, they should leave that
particular survey blank. To bolster and verify compliance with the
daily schedule, participants were asked to return completed sur-
951
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
veys every 2 to 3 days to a locked mailbox located outside of the
laboratory. As an incentive, each time participants handed in a set
of surveys on time, they received a lottery ticket for one of several
cash prizes ($100, $50, $25) to be awarded after the study. Par-
ticipants who did not return a particular set of surveys on time
were reminded by phone or e-mail. Only daily surveys returned on
time were treated as valid and retained in the data set. In total,
participants completed 1,928 daily surveys on time, an average of
12.6 (out of 14) days per person.
One month after the daily experience study, participants were
sent a short e-mail survey with questions about their current
relationship status and satisfaction. Of the 153 original partici-
pants, 134 (88%) responded to the survey. Participants who com-
pleted and did not complete the survey did not significantly differ
in baseline relationship satisfaction, commitment, or approach or
avoidance relationship goals. Of the 134 participants who re-
sponded to the follow-up, 18 (13%) of the respondents indicated
that they had broken up with their partner sometime during the
month after the study.
Background measures. In their initial session in the labora-
tory, participants completed a questionnaire with basic demo-
graphic information (i.e., gender, age, ethnicity, relationship dura-
tion), as well as an eight-item measure of approach and avoidance
goals originally developed by Elliot et al. (2006) for use in close
relationships more generally (e.g., friendships and dating relation-
ships) and adapted for use in romantic relationships (Gable, 2006b;
Impett, Strachman, et al., 2008). Participants responded to such
items as “I will be trying to deepen my relationship with my
romantic partner” and “I will be trying to move toward growth and
development in my romantic relationship” (approach relationship
goals; four items; ␣⫽.78) and “I will be trying to avoid disagree-
ments and conflicts with my romantic partner” and “I will be
trying to make sure that nothing bad happens in my romantic
relationship” (avoidance relationship goals; four items; ␣⫽.79)
over the course of the next academic semester on 7-point scales
(1 ⫽strongly disagree to7⫽strongly agree). The mean for the
approach goals measure was 5.8 (SD ⫽1.0), and the mean for the
avoidance goals measure was 5.3 (SD ⫽1.0). The correlation
between approach relationship goals and avoidance relationship
goals was .56 ( p⬍.001), which is similar to the correlation
between social-approach goals and social-avoidance goals re-
ported by Elliot et al. (2006). In addition, relationship satisfaction
was assessed with a standard measure (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew,
1998). Participants responded to such statements as “Our relation-
ship makes me happy” on 9-point scales (0 ⫽do not agree at all
to 8 ⫽agree completely). In this sample, ␣⫽.89 for satisfaction
(M⫽6.18, SD ⫽1.42).
Daily measures. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(Watson, Tellegen, & Clark, 1988) was used to measure daily
positive emotions (day-level ␣⫽.92, person-level ␣⫽.95; M⫽
4.00, SD ⫽0.93) and negative emotions (day-level ␣⫽.91,
person-level alpha ⫽.94; M⫽2.03, SD ⫽1.03). Participants were
instructed to answer the questions according to “how you felt
today.” To assess daily relationship quality, participants were
asked “How satisfied with your relationship were you today?” and
“How close did you feel to your partner today?” on 7-point scales
(1 ⫽not at all to7⫽extremely). These two variables were highly
intercorrelated, so we combined them into a composite variable
(day-level ␣⫽.93, person-level ␣⫽.95; M⫽4.9; SD ⫽1.5).
Results
A central goal of this study was to test predictions about the
associations between approach and avoidance relationship goals
and daily relationship quality. To address the data nonindepen-
dence, we performed analyses using multilevel modeling tech-
niques in the hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) computer pro-
gram (HLMwin v. 6.08; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon,
2004). In all of the analyses reported below, we entered approach
and avoidance goals simultaneously. Thus, any significant effects
suggest that approach and avoidance goals have independent pre-
dictive effects on relationship quality. For all of the analyses
reported below, we tested for interactions with gender, and none of
these interactions reached significance.
Relationship goals and daily relationship quality. The first
major set of hypotheses concerned associations between approach
and avoidance goals and daily relationship quality. As predicted,
the results revealed that approach goals were associated with
increased daily relationship quality (B⫽.33, p⬍.001), but
avoidance goals were not significantly associated with daily rela-
tionship quality (B⫽–.08, p⫽.36).
1
Further, the association
between approach goals and relationship quality remained signif-
icant after controlling for relationship duration
2
as well as initial
relationship satisfaction and commitment. In addition, there were
never significant interactions between approach and avoidance
relationship goals in predicting any of the daily or longitudinal
outcomes in this study.
The mediating role of positive emotions. The second hy-
pothesis concerned the mediating role of positive emotions in
explaining why individuals with strong approach goals experience
enhanced daily relationship quality. We tested for multilevel me-
diation based on the principles of Zhang, Zyphur, and Preacher
(2009). Specifically, because our predictor variable (approach re-
lationship goals) can only predict between-person differences, we
separated within- and between-person effects by group centering
positive emotions at Level 1 and reentering the mean of positive
emotions at Level 2. In all of the mediational analyses, we con-
centrated on the aggregate of positive emotions (Level 2 variable)
as the mediator of the link between approach goals and daily
relationship quality.
The first requirement in demonstrating mediation is that the
predictor variable be associated with the outcome variable (Baron
& Kenny, 1986). As shown in Figure 1, approach relationship
goals were significantly associated with daily relationship quality.
The second requirement is to show that approach relationship
goals predict the putative mediator, positive emotions; indeed they
did. The third requirement is that the mediator predicts the out-
come variable (i.e., relationship quality), controlling for the pre-
dictor variable, and that this effect could plausibly account for the
direct effect between the predictor and the outcome variable.
Aggregated positive emotions significantly predicted daily rela-
tionship quality, controlling for daily positive emotions, and the
direct effect from approach relationship goals to relationship qual-
1
Avoidance goals were not significantly associated with daily negative
emotions in Study 1 (unstandardized HLM coefficient ⫽.04, p⫽.16).
2
Relationship duration never significantly interacted with approach or
avoidance relationship goals in any of the analyses in Studies 1, 2A, or 2B.
952 IMPETT ET AL.
ity dropped in significance. A significant Sobel (1982) test indi-
cated that the drop in the value of the latter unstandardized HLM
coefficient was significant (z⫽2.06, p⬍.05), providing evidence
for partial mediation. In other words, participants with high ap-
proach relationship goals experienced strong positive emotions, in
turn promoting greater daily relationship quality.
Relationship goals and relationship satisfaction at the
1-month follow-up. The third major set of hypotheses was that
approach goals would predict increased relationship satisfaction at
the 1-month follow-up, whereas avoidance goals would predict
decreased satisfaction 1 month later. Results of regression analyses
showed that approach goals predicted increased relationship satis-
faction at the 1-month follow-up controlling for baseline satisfac-
tion (B⫽.23, p⬍.01), consistent with our hypothesis. Also
consistent with our hypotheses, avoidance goals predicted de-
creased satisfaction at the follow-up, controlling for baseline sat-
isfaction (B⫽–.16, p⬍.05). Both of these results remained
significant after controlling for relationship duration and commit-
ment pointing to the robust nature of the findings.
Discussion
In this daily experience study of individuals in dating relation-
ships, we showed that people who were high in approach relation-
ship goals experienced greater relationship quality on a day-to-day
basis as well as over a 1-month period of time. The association
between approach relationship goals and daily relationship quality
was mediated by positive emotions. Avoidance goals were not
associated with daily relationship quality, whereas they were as-
sociated with decreased relationship quality over time. This study
was critical in documenting the influence of approach and avoid-
ance relationship goals on relationship quality in the moment and
over time and provided the first empirical evidence for the role of
positive emotions as a mechanism. However, it remains unclear
what impact relationship goals have on the emotions and relation-
ship satisfaction of the other partner and if relationship goals
would be associated with relationship quality over a longer period
of time.
Study 2A
Study 2A was designed to extend the results of the previous
study in several important ways.
First, we predicted that not only will people with strong ap-
proach relationship goals report increased daily relationship qual-
ity, but that their partners will report greater feelings of relation-
ship satisfaction and closeness as well. To test this hypothesis, we
conducted another 14-day daily experience study, this time obtain-
ing measures of approach and avoidance relationship goals and
daily measures of emotions and relationship quality from both
members of the couple. We also sought to extend the mediational
findings from Study 1 by determining if one person’s approach
goals influence his or her partner’s positive emotions, in turn
contributing to increased relationship quality. To do so, we used a
different measure of emotions which included more relational
emotions (e.g., compassion, love, and gratitude).
With regards to our longitudinal predictions, we also sought to
determine if the associations between relationship goals and rela-
tionship quality would persist over a longer time period, so in this
study, we included a 3-month longitudinal follow-up. We assessed
multiple indicators of relationship quality, including satisfaction,
commitment, closeness, and thoughts about breaking up, allowing
us to examine the impact of approach and avoidance relationship
goals on several important indicators of relationship quality over
time. We predicted that although it may only take one partner to be
high in approach goals for partners to experience satisfaction in the
moment, it likely takes both partners to be high in approach goals
in order for the relationship to flourish over time. In contrast, given
the powerful negative effects of negative processes in romantic
relationships, we expected that it only takes one partner to be high
in avoidance goals to negatively impact the relationship over time,
ultimately decreasing the satisfaction of both partners in the rela-
tionship.
Method
Participants and procedure. All participants were recruited
from the San Francisco, California, Bay Area by means of online
flyers posted on Craigslist.org and paper flyers placed throughout
the Bay Area. A total of 80 couples were recruited for the study;
however, 11 couples were removed from the analyses because one
member of the couple did not complete the initial online survey or
we could not properly match a participant’s initial online survey to
his or her daily experience records. Of the 69 couples who were
included in the analyses, 64 couples were heterosexual, 4 were
lesbian, and there was one gay male couple in the sample. Partic-
ipants comprised a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds: 52% were
European or European American, 20% were Chinese or Chinese
American, 8% were African or African American, 5% were Mex-
ican or Mexican American, and 15% were of other ethnicities.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 years (M⫽24.0, SD ⫽
6.7). The couples had been dating from 6 months to 30 years
(median ⫽16 months; SD ⫽23 months). In addition, 48% of the
couples were cohabitating.
After both partners agreed to take part in the study, the partic-
ipants were e-mailed a Web link to the initial online survey, which
was to be completed before the couple arrived at our laboratory.
Couples came to the lab, completed several self-report measures,
.21*
.33*** (.25*)
.39***
Actor’s
Approach Goals
Actor’s
Relationship
Quality
Actor’s Positive
Emotions
Figure 1. Positive emotions as a mediator between approach goals and
daily relationship quality (Study 1). Note that all numbers are unstandard-
ized hierarchical linear modeling coefficients. The coefficient on the bot-
tom line outside of the parentheses represents the direct effect of the actor’s
approach goals on the actor’s relationship quality. The coefficient inside of
the parentheses represents the indirect effect after accounting for the
actor’s positive emotions as a mediator.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
953
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
and then participated in videotaped interactions (described in detail
in Study 2B). At the end of the laboratory session, a research
assistant explained the procedures for the daily experience com-
ponent of the study to each couple. Both members were asked to
complete a 10-min online survey through surveymonkey.com for
14 consecutive nights beginning with the day of the laboratory
session. Participants were informed that in the event that they
missed a diary at night, they could complete the diary the next
morning; however, if they still did not complete the diary by the
end of the morning of the next day, they were asked to skip that
diary. In addition to explaining the basic procedures to the couples,
the research assistants also emphasized that each diary should be
completed anonymously, that the couple should not discuss their
answers with one another during the course of the study, and that
the research team would never reveal the responses to their partner.
To maximize compliance, we sent reminders via e-mail and
employed a lottery bonus system. Each night around 10 p.m., a
member of the research team would e-mail a reminder to all
participants who had not yet completed the diary for that day. In
addition, participants were instructed that for every diary they
completed on time, a ticket in their name would be entered into a
raffle to win an additional $100, $50, or $25 cash prize. Partici-
pants completed 1,686 diary entries on time, an average of 12.2
(out of 14) days per person.
Three months after completing the daily experience portion of
the study, we recontacted both members of the couple and pro-
vided a link to a 10-min online follow-up survey. Of the 138
participants who provided daily experience data, 104 (75%) par-
ticipants completed the follow-up survey. Participants who com-
pleted and did not complete the follow-up did not significantly
differ in baseline satisfaction, commitment, or relationship goals.
Of the 62 couples who had at least one member complete the
follow-up, eight (13%) indicated that they had broken up with their
partner sometime during the three months after the study. Each
partner in the couple was paid $30 for completing the 14-day daily
experience study and $10 for completing the 3-month online
follow-up (for a total of $40 paid to each participant for complet-
ing both components of the study).
Background measures. In the initial online survey, partici-
pants completed a questionnaire with basic demographic informa-
tion, as well as the same measure of approach and avoidance
relationship goals completed in Study 1 (Elliot et al., 2006), this
time on a 5-point scale (0 ⫽strongly disagree to 4 ⫽strongly
agree). In this sample, ␣⫽.84 for approach relationship goals,
and ␣⫽.73 for avoidance relationship goals. The mean for the
approach goals measure was 3.28 (SD ⫽0.55), and the mean for
the avoidance goals measure was 2.65 (SD ⫽0.74). The correla-
tion between approach and avoidance relationship goals was r⫽
.35 ( p⬍.01).
We assessed baseline relationship quality with four measures.
Relationship satisfaction was assessed with the same measure used
in Study 1 (Rusbult et al., 1998; ␣⫽.90, M⫽5.09, SD ⫽0.84).
Commitment to the relationship was assessed with a seven-item
measure (Rusbult et al., 1998; ␣⫽.93, M⫽4.67, SD ⫽0.87).
Participants responded to such questions as “I want my relation-
ship to last for a very long time” on 7-point scales (0 ⫽strongly
disagree to6⫽strongly agree). To measure participants’ thoughts
about breaking up with their romantic partner, we adapted four
items from the Marital Instability Index (Booth, Johnson, & Ed-
wards, 1983). Participants answered the following questions:
“Have you or your partner ever seriously suggested the idea of
breaking up?” “Have you discussed breaking up with a close
friend?” and “Even people who get along quite well with their
partner sometimes wonder whether their relationship is working
out. Have you ever thought your relationship might be in trouble?”
on 3-point scales (0 ⫽never;1⫽within the last month;2⫽
currently). In addition, they answered the following question:
“Have you and your partner had a separation or broken up?” on a
2-point scale (0 ⫽never,1⫽within the last month). Because these
items were measured on different response scales, we standardized
each item before combining all items into an overall dating insta-
bility score (␣⫽.71; M⫽0.32, SD ⫽0.36). Finally, closeness
was measured with the one-item Inclusion of Other in the Self
scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Participants were presented
with a series of seven pairs of circles, one circle representing them
and the other circle representing their partner. In each picture, the
circles overlap to varying degrees (from not at all overlapping to
almost completely overlapping), and participants were asked to
choose the picture which best represents their relationship with
their romantic partner (M⫽5.15, SD ⫽1.29).
Daily measures.
Relationship quality. Each day, both partners rated the extent
to which they felt satisfaction and closeness in their romantic
relationship on 5-point scales (0 ⫽not at all to4⫽a lot). As in
Study 1, we combined these variables into a composite variable
(day-level ␣⫽.92, person-level ␣⫽.93, M⫽2.73, SD ⫽1.02).
Emotions. Each day, participants indicated the extent to which
they experienced 15 emotions on 5-point scales (0 ⫽not at all to
4⫽a lot). This measure was adapted for use in romantic rela-
tionships from a measure of social emotions (Srivastava, Tamir,
McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009) and extends Study 1 by focusing
on more relational emotions. The eight positive emotions included
amused/having fun, happy/pleased/joyful, proud/good about my-
self, uplifted/inspired/elevated, affectionate/loving/caring, cared
about/loved/connected, compassionate/sympathetic, and grateful/
appreciative/thankful (day-level ␣⫽.93, person-level ␣⫽.96;
M⫽2.14; SD ⫽0.96). The seven negative emotions included
angry/irritable/frustrated, anxious/nervous, guilty/embarrassed/
ashamed, sad/depressed/down, criticized/blamed, lonely/isolated,
and resentful toward my partner (day-level ␣⫽.85, person-level
␣⫽.93).
Three-month follow-up measures. Three months after the
daily experience study, participants completed an online survey
with the same four measures of relationship quality that they
completed at baseline: relationship satisfaction (␣⫽.92, M⫽
4.82, SD ⫽1.07), commitment (␣⫽.93; M⫽4.50, SD ⫽0.95),
closeness (M⫽5.09, SD ⫽1.39), and thoughts about breaking up
(␣⫽.78; M⫽0.35, SD ⫽0.42).
Results
Data-analysis plan. In the current study, we assessed both
members of romantic couples to examine the actor and partner
effects of relationship goals on daily relationship quality. The
actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, &
Cook, 2006) was used to assess the contribution of both partners’
relationship goals to daily relationship quality. APIM allows for
the estimation of both the effect that a person’s independent
954 IMPETT ET AL.
variable has on his/her own dependent variable (known as an actor
effect) and the effect that a person’s independent variable has on
his/her partner’s dependent variable (known as a partner effect).
APIM assumes that data from two members of a couple are not
independent, and treats the dyad rather than the individual as the
unit of analysis. Thus, actor and partner effects are estimated
simultaneously, controlling for each other. For example, an actor
effect for approach goals would assess the daily relationship qual-
ity of people with high approach goals compared with those with
low approach goals, controlling for the participant’s level of avoid-
ance goals and the partner’s level of approach and avoidance goals.
A partner effect for approach goals would assess whether people
with partners who have high approach goals differ in their daily
relationship quality from people with partners who have low
approach goals, controlling for the actor’s own level of approach
and avoidance goals and the partner’s level of avoidance goals. In
short, actor effects resemble the types of effects that are estimated
by traditional data-analytic techniques, but they control for the
potential impact of the partner, whereas the partner effects model
the interdependence that exists between partners in relationships.
We analyzed the data using multilevel modeling in the HLM
computer program (HLMwin v. 6.08; Raudenbush et al., 2004).
We used a three-level model, in which days were nested within
persons and persons were nested within couples (Gable & Poore,
2008). This analysis simultaneously controls for dependencies in
the same person’s reports across days and between partners. For all
of the analyses reported below, we entered both actor and partner
approach and avoidance goals simultaneously. There were never
any significant interactions between approach and avoidance goals
in predicting any of the daily or longitudinal outcomes. Finally, we
tested for interactions with gender, and none of these interactions
reached significance. Descriptive statistics and correlations among
actor and partner variables are shown in Table 1.
Relationship goals and both partners’ reports of daily rela-
tionship quality. The first set of hypotheses concerns links
between approach and avoidance relationship goals and both part-
ners’ reports of daily relationship quality. As predicted, people’s
own approach goals were positively associated with their own
relationship quality (B⫽.68, p⬍.001) and their partner’s
relationship quality (B⫽.39, p⬍.001). In other words, the higher
people’s approach relationship goals, the more relationship satis-
faction and closeness both partners reported on a daily basis. As in
Study 1, both of these effects remained significant after controlling
for the length of time that couples had been dating as well as both
partners’ relationship satisfaction and commitment at the baseline
of the study. Consistent with our predictions and replicating the
results of Study 1, there were no associations between avoidance
relationship goals and daily relationship quality, nor were there
any partner effects of avoidance goals on relationship quality.
3
In
addition, there were no significant interactions between approach
and avoidance goals nor were there any significant interactions
between both partners’ relationship goals in predicting daily rela-
tionship quality.
The mediating role of positive emotions. The second set of
hypotheses concerned the mediating role of positive emotions in
accounting for both the association between people’s own ap-
proach goals and their own daily relationship quality (the actor
effect), as well as the association between people’s approach goals
and their partner’s daily relationship quality (the partner effect). As
in Study 1, we tested for multilevel mediation using the principles
of Zhang et al. (2009) to separate within- and between-person
effects. For both mediational analyses, we entered actor approach
goals, actor avoidance goals, partner approach goals, and partner
avoidance goals simultaneously as predictors (although they are
not all depicted in Figure 2).
4
For the mediation of the actor effect, we tested the hypothesis
that people with high approach relationship goals experienced
increased daily positive emotions, in turn contributing to higher
levels of relationship quality. As shown in Panel A in Figure 2, we
found support for this hypothesis. First, as shown above, actor
approach relationship goals were significantly associated with
actor daily relationship quality. Second, actor approach relation-
ship goals predicted the mediator, actor positive emotions. Third,
the actor’s aggregated positive emotions significantly predicted
actor daily relationship quality, controlling for the actor’s daily
positive emotions, and the direct effect from actor approach rela-
tionship goals to actor relationship quality dropped in significance.
A significant Sobel (1982) test indicated that the drop in the value
of the latter beta was significant (z⫽4.64, p⬍.001), providing
evidence for partial mediation. In other words, replicating the
findings of Study 1, participants with high approach relationship
goals experienced strong positive emotions, in turn promoting
greater daily relationship quality.
For the mediation of the partner effect, we tested the hypothesis
that people with high approach relationship goals have partners
who report increased daily positive emotions, in turn contributing
to the partner’s increased feelings of satisfaction and closeness. As
shown in Figure 2B, we also found strong support for this hypoth-
esis. First, as shown above, actor approach relationship goals were
significantly associated with the partner’s daily relationship qual-
ity. Second, actor approach relationship goals predicted the medi-
ator, the partner’s positive emotions. Third, the partner’s aggre-
gated positive emotions significantly predicted the partner’s daily
relationship quality, controlling for the partner’s daily positive
emotions, and the direct effect from actor approach relationship
goals to partner relationship quality dropped to nonsignificance. A
significant Sobel (1982) test indicated that the drop in the value of
the latter beta was significant (z⫽3.76, p⬍.001), providing
evidence for full mediation. In other words, extending the findings
of Study 1, participants with high approach relationship goals have
partners who experienced strong positive emotions, in turn pro-
moting greater daily relationship quality.
Relationship goals and relationship quality at the 3-month
follow-up. Our third set of hypotheses concerns the link between
both partners’ relationship goals as well as interactions between
partners’ goals and the quality of relationships over time. We
tentatively predicted that although it will only take one partner
high in avoidance goals to erode relationship quality over time,
both partners need to be high in approach goals for relationships to
3
Avoidance goals were positively associated with daily negative emo-
tions in Study 2A (unstandardized HLM coefficient ⫽.10, p⬍.05).
4
We excluded partner positive emotions in this test of mediation be-
cause of concerns about potential overlap in variance between both part-
ners’ reports of daily positive emotions. However, we also tested the
mediational model with partner positive emotions included as a control,
and all results remained significant.
955
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
flourish. To test these predictions, we used SPSS mixed models to
address the nested nature of the data. In each of the longitudinal
models, we controlled for baseline levels of the same relationship
variable for both the actor and the partner. For example, in the
model predicting follow-up relationship satisfaction, we controlled
for baseline levels of relationship satisfaction as reported by both
the actor and the partner. In the analyses, we investigated the
effects of both partners’ relationship goals as well as interactions
between both partners’ relationship goals (i.e., approach by partner
approach, and avoidance by partner avoidance pairings) on rela-
tionship satisfaction, commitment, closeness, and thoughts about
breaking up at the 3-month follow-up.
Table 2 depicts the estimates for the effects of both partners’
relationship goals as well as interactions between both partners’
relationship goals on the four indicators of relationship quality at
the 3-month follow-up. In terms of the associations between ap-
proach goals and long-term relationship quality, the one outcome
that was significantly associated with approach relationship goals
was commitment. That is, the higher people were in approach
relationship goals, the more committed they felt to their partner 3
months later, controlling for baseline levels of commitment. In
addition, partner approach goals were associated with increases in
commitment and decreases in thoughts about breaking up over
time. However, as predicted, there were significant interactions
between both partners’ approach goals in predicting all four of the
relationship outcomes. We plotted the interactions between ap-
proach and avoidance goals in predicting each of the measures of
relationship quality at the follow-up at one standard deviation
above and below the mean in approach and partner approach goals
(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). All four graphs looked
similar, so for illustrative purposes, we depict the interaction for
relationship satisfaction in Figure 3. These results suggest that, to
the extent that both partners were high in approach relationship
goals, both partners reported high levels of satisfaction, commit-
ment, closeness, and fewer thoughts about breaking up at the
3-month follow-up.
In terms of associations between avoidance goals and long-term
relationship quality, the only outcome that was significantly asso-
ciated with avoidance goals was satisfaction. Specifically, the
higher people were in avoidance goals, the less satisfied they felt
with their relationships three months later, although this effect was
marginally significant. As predicted, there were also significant
partner effects for avoidance relationship goals on all four of the
relationship outcomes. Specifically, the higher people’s partners
were in avoidance goals, the lower their satisfaction, commitment,
and closeness, and the more they had thought about breaking up
with their partner by the 3-month follow-up. Subsequent analyses
revealed that none of these longitudinal effects significantly inter-
acted with gender.
Discussion
This dyadic daily experience study extended the results of Study
1 in several important ways. First, consistent with Study 1, we
found that approach goals predicted increased daily and long-term
relationship quality. In contrast, avoidance goals were not associ-
ated with daily relationship quality but were associated with de-
creased relationship satisfaction three months later. Second, we
extended the results of Study 1 by showing that one person’s
approach goals are associated with both partners’ daily relation-
ship quality, because both members of the couples experience
increased positive emotions on a daily basis. Third, because we
measured the relationship goals of both partners, we found support
.54***
.62*** (.27**)
.64***
Actor’s
Approach Goals
Actor’s
Relationship
Quality
Actor’s Positive
Emotions
.42***
.39*** (.07)
.64***
Actor’s
Approach Goals
Partner’s
Relationship
Quality
Partner’s Positive
Emotions
A
B
Figure 2. A. Positive emotions as a mediator between the actor’s ap-
proach relationship goals and the actor’s daily relationship quality (Study
2A). B. Partner’s positive emotions as a mediator between the actor’s
approach relationship goals and the partner’s daily relationship quality
(Study 2A). Note that all numbers are unstandardized hierarchical linear
modeling coefficients.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Actor and Partner Variables (Studies 2A and 2B)
Variable
Approach
goals
Avoidance
goals
Positive
emotions
Negative
emotions
Coded
satisfaction
Coded
responsiveness MSD
Approach goals .15 .17 .33
ⴱⴱⴱ
.10 .24
ⴱ
.28
ⴱⴱ
3.28 0.58
Avoidance goals .21
ⴱ
.12 ⫺.02 ⫺.11 ⫺.08 2.64 0.75
Positive emotions .61
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.15 .24
ⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱ
2.12 0.78
Negative emotions .60
ⴱⴱⴱ
.05 .04 0.47 0.41
Coded satisfaction .81
ⴱⴱⴱ
.45
ⴱⴱⴱ
4.56 1.12
Coded responsiveness .55
ⴱⴱⴱ
2.97 1.10
Note. The correlations on the diagonal are between the two members of the couple.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
956 IMPETT ET AL.
for the predicted interaction that it takes two people to be high in
approach goals in order for couples to thrive. In contrast, it only
takes one partner high in avoidance goals to see harmful effects on
couples over the long term. More specifically, the partners of
people high in avoidance goals felt less satisfied, committed, and
close and had more thoughts about breaking up, highlighting the
difficulties of being in a partnership with someone who is high in
avoidance goals.
Study 2B
All of the measures of relationship quality in Study 1 and Study
2A were based on self-reports. In Study 2B, the same couples who
participated in Study 2A participated in a laboratory study where
we videotaped them having discussions about their relationship.
Here, we were able to obtain outside observers’ ratings of both
partners’ relationship satisfaction and responsiveness to their part-
ner’s needs. We predicted that people with high approach relation-
ship goals would be rated by outside observers as relatively more
satisfied and responsive to their partner’s needs. In contrast, we
predicted that people with high avoidance goals would be rated as
relatively less satisfied and responsive to their partner’s needs. We
also investigated the possibility that the partners of people who are
high in approach goals will be rated as more satisfied and respon-
sive, whereas the partners of people who are high in avoidance
goals may be rated as less satisfied and responsive. Finally, we
predicted that the actor and partner effects of approach and avoid-
ance goals on satisfaction would be mediated by responsiveness.
Method
Participants and procedure. Couples came to the laboratory,
completed several self-report measures, and then participated in
several videotaped interactions. Relevant to the current investiga-
tion, each partner took a turn in discussing “a time in your life
when you felt a lot of love for your partner and how you expressed
it.” The mean length of the conversations was 3 min, 37 s (SD ⫽
1 min, 10 s) with a range of 51 s to 8 min, 22 s. Speaking order for
the conversations was randomly assigned through a coin toss.
There was no main effect of conversation length for the gender of
the partner disclosing.
Couples were seated in two chairs in a private room with the
chairs angled to face each other. Two small cameras were mounted
on the wall approximately 6 feet (1.83 m) above the ground, with
one camera pointed at each participant at an angle to allow for a
full frontal recording. The cameras were visible to the couple and
captured an image of the participants from the top of their heads to
their laps. The cameras were controlled by research assistants in an
adjacent control room who could see and hear the activities in the
experiment room and communicate with the couples via intercom.
Each partner in the couple was paid $20 for taking part in the
laboratory portion of the study.
Observer ratings of relationship satisfaction and responsive-
ness in a semistructured conversation. Three coders indepen-
dently coded the relationship satisfaction of both partners during
both love conversations. The coders indicated the extent to which
each partner “feels satisfied with their relationship” on a 7-point
scale (1 ⫽not at all to 7 ⫽a great deal). The coders overlapped
on 100% of the conversations (␣s⫽.87 and .88 for satisfaction in
the two conversations).
Two coders independently coded the listener (i.e., the person
who was listening to their partner talk about a time when they felt
a great deal of love) for three aspects of responsiveness (i.e.,
understanding, validation, and caring) using an adaptation of a
coding scheme developed by Maisel et al. (2008). Coders indicated
the extent to which the listener seems to understand their partner’s
experience of love (i.e., clearly understands the experience their
Figure 3. Interaction between both partners’ approach relationship goals in
predicting relationship satisfaction at the 3-month follow-up, controlling for
baseline satisfaction (Study 2A). Note that the means were estimated ⫾1
standard deviation on actor and partner approach goals.
Table 2
Prospective Associations Between Relationship Goals and Four Indicators of Relationship Quality at the Three-Month Follow-Up
(Study 2A)
Predictor
Relationship quality at the 3-month follow-up
Satisfaction Commitment Closeness Break-up thoughts
Actor approach .25 .38
ⴱⴱ
.46 ⫺.06
Actor avoidance ⫺.27
†
⫺.14 ⫺.23 .07
Partner approach .27 .22
ⴱ
.43 ⫺.16
ⴱ
Partner avoidance ⫺.29
ⴱ
⫺.33
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.54
ⴱ
.14
ⴱ
Actor Approach ⫻Partner Approach .42
ⴱⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱ
⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
Actor Avoidance ⫻Partner Avoidance ⫺.15 ⫺.05 .12 .07
Note. All numbers are unstandardized regression coefficients. Each analysis controls for the baseline level of the respective variable.
†
p⬍.07.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
957
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
partner is trying to explain, asks clarifying questions about the
experience, nods along with partner, “mmhmm,” “I see,” remi-
nisces more about the experience), validate their partner’s experi-
ence of love (i.e., acknowledges that it was an important experi-
ence, validates that the partner would feel a lot of love in that
situation, “that meant a lot for our relationship,” “that meant a lot
to me too,” “I can see why you would have felt a lot of love then,”
describing times when they felt the same way), and express caring
toward their partner (i.e., expresses commitment to partner, says “I
love you” or other positive things, touches partner, kisses partner,
etc.) on 7-point scales (1 ⫽not at all to7⫽a great deal). Because
of the time-intensive nature of the responsiveness coding, the
coders overlapped on one third of the conversations to establish
reliability for the three components of responsiveness (␣s⫽.79,
.70, and .77 for understanding, validation, and caring, respec-
tively). On the basis of previous research (Maisel et al., 2008), we
combined the three codes into one overall responsiveness code,
and the alpha was .71.
Results
Relationship goals and outside observer ratings of satisfac-
tion and responsiveness. Our central set of hypotheses con-
cerned links between relationship goals and outside observer’s
ratings of relationship satisfaction and responsiveness to the part-
ner’s needs. As discussed previously, we coded the satisfaction of
the “talker” and the “listener” and the responsiveness of just the
“listener” in the two love conversations. We used SPSS mixed
models to address the nested nature of the data (i.e., partners nested
within the couple). As shown in Table 3, we received strong
support for our hypotheses. Specifically, we found that the higher
that people were in approach relationship goals, the more satisfied
and responsive they were rated by outside observers (see actor
approach goals in Table 3) and the more satisfied and responsive
their partners were rated by outside observers (see partner ap-
proach goals in Table 3). In addition, the higher people were in
avoidance relationship goals, the less satisfied and responsive their
partners were rated by outside observers (see partner avoidance
goals in Table 3). There was only one significant effect for actor
avoidance goals. The higher people were in avoidance relationship
goals, the less responsive they were rated by outside observers (see
actor avoidance goals in Table 3). It is notable that the associations
between relationship goals and coded satisfaction were replicated
in the two love conversations: Individuals who were higher in
approach goals and their partners were observed as being more
satisfied and the partners of people who were higher in avoidance
goals were observed as being less satisfied both when they were
the “talker” and when they were the “listener.” In addition, all of
the associations remained significant when controlling for relation-
ship duration as well as both partners’ relationship satisfaction and
commitment at the baseline of the study. There were never any
significant associations with participant gender.
We conducted a final set of analyses to test responsiveness as a
mediator of the associations between approach and avoidance goals
and relationship satisfaction. Because there was not a significant
direct effect of avoidance goals on coded satisfaction, there were then
three associations to mediate: the effect of the actor’s approach goals
on the actor’s satisfaction (shown in Figure 4A), the effect of the
actor’s approach goals on the partner’s satisfaction (shown in
Figure 4B), and the effect of the actor’s avoidance goals on the
partner’s satisfaction (shown in Figure 4C). Actor responsiveness
fully mediated the link between actor approach goals and actor
satisfaction (Sobel z⫽2.60, p⬍.01). Partner responsiveness fully
mediated the link between actor approach goals and partner satis-
faction, although this effect was marginally significant (Sobel z⫽
1.60, p⫽.09). Finally, partner responsiveness mediated the link
between actor avoidance goals and partner satisfaction, although
this effect was also marginally significant (Sobel z⫽–1.80, p⫽
.07). Although the effects for the latter two mediations are not
particularly strong, we should note the difficulty in both detecting
partner effects and mediating those effects. In short, studying
dyadic interactions in the laboratory enabled us to observe respon-
siveness as a specific behavior targeted at the partner that accounts
for why approach and avoidance goals shape both partners’ satis-
faction with the relationship.
Discussion
All of the previous research on relationship goals and relation-
ship quality, including Study 1 and Study 2A reported in this
investigation, relied on self-report measures of relationship qual-
ity. This is the first study to demonstrate that the associations
between approach and avoidance relationship goals and relation-
ship quality replicated across outside observers’ ratings of both
partners’ relationship satisfaction and responsiveness during dy-
adic conversations in the laboratory.
General Discussion
Although many people hope that the love that they feel for their
partner will withstand the test of time, many couples experience
precipitous declines in intimacy and satisfaction over the course of
their relationships. The current set of studies applied an approach-
avoidance motivational framework to understand how couples can
maintain feelings of satisfaction and closeness in their daily lives
and over the course of time. Most broadly, the studies in this article
highlight the conceptual gains to be found by extending approach-
avoidance models of motivation to phenomena in everyday life
(e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Gable et al., 2000) and are part
of an emerging area of research that focuses on approach-
avoidance motivation and close relationships (see Gable & Berk-
man, 2008, for a review).
Table 3
Relationship Goals and Coded Satisfaction and Responsiveness
(Study 2B)
Outside observer ratings of relationship quality
Variable
Satisfaction
(talker)
Satisfaction
(listener)
Responsiveness
(listener)
Actor approach .86
ⴱⴱⴱ
.63
ⴱⴱ
.86
ⴱⴱⴱ
Partner approach .35
†
.52
ⴱⴱ
.67
ⴱⴱ
Actor avoidance ⫺.21 ⫺.22 ⫺.32
ⴱ
Partner avoidance ⫺.34
ⴱ
⫺.29
ⴱ
⫺.30
ⴱ
Note. All numbers are unstandardized regression coefficients.
†
p⬍.07.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
958 IMPETT ET AL.
Relationship Goals and Relationship Quality in the
Moment and Over Time
The first goal of the current studies was to investigate links
between relationship goals and relationship quality in couples’
day-to-day interactions as well as over longer periods of time in
their relationships. In both studies, individuals who were high in
approach relationship goals experienced more relationship satis-
faction and closeness in their daily lives. People who were high in
approach relationship goals also experienced increases in relationship
satisfaction over a 1-month period of time in Study 1 and increases in
commitment over a 3-month period of time in Study 2.
Avoidance goals, in contrast, were not associated with daily
relationship quality in either of the daily studies. We had antici-
pated this finding based on existing research showing that negative
relational exchanges, such as conflict and disagreement, occur
with little frequency on a daily basis (Gable et al., 2003), giving
highly avoidant people little opportunity to react to these events
with decreased feelings of satisfaction (Gable et al., 2000). Over
time, however, everyone is bound to experience negative interac-
tions with a dating partner, giving the people who are high in
avoidance goals opportunities to react to them with feelings of
decreased satisfaction. Indeed, avoidance goals were associated
with decreases in relationship satisfaction over a 1-month period of
time in Study 1 and over a 3-month period of time in Study 2. In
short, the current studies add to a growing body of research
demonstrating the benefits of pursuing approach goals and the
costs of avoidance goals in romantic relationships (Impett, Gable,
& Peplau, 2005; Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005; Impett, Strach-
man, et al., 2008).
A Dyadic Perspective on Relationship Goals
Previous research on approach-avoidance motivation and rela-
tionships has measured the goals of only one member of the
couple, ignoring the influence of the partner’s own goals for the
relationship or interactions between partners’ goals in shaping
relationship quality. The current work provides a new dyadic
perspective on motivation and relationships. By measuring the
relationship goals and relationship quality of both partners in
Studies 2A and 2B, this is the first research to document the
relational benefits of being in a relationship with a person inclined
toward approach goals. The partners of people who were high in
approach goals experienced greater satisfaction and closeness on a
daily basis and felt more committed and had fewer thoughts about
breaking up over a three month period of time than the partners of
people with lower approach goals. Further, the partners of people
high in approach goals were also rated as relatively more satisfied
with the relationship and more responsive to the partner’s needs by
outside observers, showing that the benefits of being in a relation-
ship with someone high in approach goals extend beyond the use
of self-report measures.
The benefits of approach goals were even stronger, as we had
anticipated, to the extent that both partners were high in approach
goals. That is, although it only took one partner to be high in
approach goals for partners to experience satisfaction in their daily
lives, across all four of our measures of long-term relationship
quality in Study 2B, relationships were even more likely to flourish
and thrive to the extent that both partners were high in approach
relationship goals. Put another way, if both partners were not
committed to pursuing positive experiences, growth and develop-
ment in the relationship, it was difficult for these couples to
maintain high feelings of satisfaction over time. It is possible that
over a shorter period of time (such as 1 month in Study 1), one
partner who is high in approach goals may be able to “carry” the
relationship, but that over a slightly longer period of time (3
months in Study 2), both partners need to be focused on pursuing
positive experiences for intimate relationships to thrive.
In contrast to needing both partners to be high in approach goals
to maintain satisfying relationships over time, it only took one
partner high in avoidance goals to negatively impact the relation-
ship over time, consistent with research showing the powerful
toxic effects of negative processes in relationships (e.g., Gottman
& Levenson, 2000). In both studies, avoidance goals were associ-
ated with decreases in relationship satisfaction over time. The
strongest and most consistent pattern of results for avoidance goals
concerned effects on the partner. Specifically, the partners of
people who were high in avoidance relationship goals experienced
lower levels of satisfaction, commitment, and closeness and had
more thoughts about breaking up by the 3-month follow-up than
the partners of people who were lower in avoidance goals. Further,
the partners of high avoidance individuals were also rated as
relatively less satisfied and responsive by outside observers during
the laboratory conversations about love. These are the first find-
ings that document the costly nature of avoidance goal pursuit for
.67**
.35
†
(.20)
.19†
Actor’s
Approach Goals
Partner’s Coded
Satisfaction
Partner’s Coded
Responsiveness
.86***
.63** (.36)
.28**
Actor’s
Approach Goals
Actor’s Coded
Satisfaction
Actor’s Coded
Responsiveness
-.29*
-.29* (-.17)
.28**
Actor’s
Avoidance Goals
Partner’s Coded
Satisfaction
Partner’s Coded
Responsiveness
A
B
C
Figure 4. A. Responsiveness as a mediator between the actor’s approach
relationship goals and the actor’s relationship satisfaction (Study 2B). B.
Responsiveness as a mediator between the actor’s approach relationship
goals and the partner’s relationship satisfaction (Study 2B). C. Respon-
siveness as a mediator between the actor’s avoidance relationship goals and
the partner’s relationship satisfaction (Study 2B). Note that all numbers are
unstandardized regression coefficients.
†
p⬍.07.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
959
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
people’s romantic partners. They are consistent with previous
work showing that people high in avoidance goals remember more
negative social information, are more reactive to negative events,
and base their satisfaction on feelings of insecurity (Elliot et al.,
2006; Gable et al., 2000; Gable & Poore, 2008; Strachman &
Gable, 2006). This chronic focus on avoiding negative outcomes
ultimately erodes the partner’s feelings of satisfaction and close-
ness.
The Role of Positive Emotions in Approach-Related
Processes
Both studies provided converging support for positive emotions
as a mechanism of the link between approach goals and increased
daily satisfaction and closeness. Specifically, one reason why
people high in approach goals experienced greater feelings of
relationship satisfaction is because they experienced more positive
emotions on a daily basis. In Study 1, we demonstrated this effect
with a measure of general positive affect (Watson et al., 1988). In
Study 2, a similar pattern of results was obtained with a measure
of more socially relevant emotions, such as gratitude, love, and
compassion (Srivastava et al., 2009). Further, not only did people
with high approach goals experience more positive emotions but
their partners did as well, in turn contributing to enhanced feelings
of satisfaction with the relationship and closeness to the partner.
More broadly, this research suggests that the positive emotions of
recent interest in relationship research (e.g., gratitude, love, and
compassion) may be closely associated with the approach motiva-
tional system.
These findings give more precision to an understanding of how
underlying approach goals produce positive outcomes in relation-
ships: They do so by influencing a primary determinant of satis-
faction, the balance of positive emotions the individual (and ro-
mantic partner) feels on a daily basis. From a different conceptual
vantage point, these findings are also important for the literature on
emotion. One of the central theses of the influential broaden-and-
build model of positive emotion (e.g., Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) is
that positive emotions build important social resources. The find-
ings from the current studies provide compelling support for how
positive emotions build consequential resources in relationships.
Dyadic Interactions in the Laboratory
Previous research on approach and avoidance goals in romantic
relationships has relied exclusively on self-report measures of
relationship quality (Gable, 2006a; Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005;
Impett, Strachman, et al., 2008). Although the daily reports of
relationship quality included in previous research and in the cur-
rent studies provide a direct window into people’s relationships,
obtaining outside observers’ reports of relationship quality broad-
ens the ecological validity of this body of work. The current work
included the first study investigating how relationship goals shape
dyadic interactions in the laboratory, thereby enabling us to cor-
roborate self-report findings with outside observers’ ratings of
relationship quality. Consistent with their focus on creating posi-
tive experiences in the relationship, we found that people high in
approach goals were rated as relatively more satisfied and respon-
sive to their partner’s needs compared with people low in approach
goals. In contrast, people high in avoidance goals were rated as
less responsive by outside observers but not less satisfied.
These effects even extended to the partner, with the partners of
people high in approach goals being rated as more satisfied and
responsive. Furthermore, the partners of people who were high in
avoidance goals were seen as less satisfied and responsive than the
partners of people who were low in avoidance goals. These results
are not surprising, as it is likely to be relatively more rewarding to
respond to the needs of a partner who is focused on creating
positive outcomes in the relationship, but it is relatively hard to
respond to the needs of a partner who is chronically focused on
avoiding negative outcomes and potentially less open to having
their needs responded to (Reis et al., 2004). Overall, the pattern of
results in reports by outside observers closely paralleled the self-
report results, buttressing our confidence in the overall findings.
Finally, responsiveness proved to be an important mechanism by
which approach and avoidance goals shaped the relationship sat-
isfaction of both partners in the relationship, providing additional
evidence that behavioral responsiveness to a partner’s needs is a
core feature of satisfying relationships (Reis et al., 2004). It is
important to note here that the interaction task itself fell squarely
into the approach goal domain (discussing a time of feeling
love)—future studies should tap into other types of interaction
(e.g., discussing a time when feeling insecure).
Limitations, Future Directions, and Implications
The majority of participants in both studies were college stu-
dents in relatively new relationships where feelings of satisfaction
were quite high. It is possible that the associations between rela-
tionship goals and relationship quality may be different in rela-
tionships of greater duration and commitment, such as in married
couples. For example, during periods of relationship satisfaction
decline known to occur in the child-rearing years of a marriage
(Doss, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markham, 2009), avoidance goals may
have less harmful influences on relationship satisfaction than we
found in our samples of relatively young, dating couples. Indeed,
in one study, perceived support for prevention-focused goals (sim-
ilar to avoidance goals) was not associated with relationship sat-
isfaction for unmarried couples, but perceived support for
prevention-focused goals was positively associated with relation-
ship satisfaction for married couples, for whom the context of the
relationship is presumably more maintenance focused (Molden,
Lucas, Finkel, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2009). Future research that
examines relationships of greater duration and commitment is
needed to extend the current work.
Our theoretical framework proposes that relationship goals in-
fluence relationship quality, although our findings do not provide
a definitive test of this direction of causality. For example, just as
pursuing approach goals may lead people to feel more satisfaction
and closeness, it is also possible that feeling satisfied, in turn,
makes people more likely to pursue positive experiences in their
relationships. Our longitudinal findings, in which we control for
baseline levels of relationship quality, provide compelling evi-
dence that people with high approach goals experience enhanced
relationship quality over time (1 month later in Study 1 and 3
months later in Study 2), whereas people with high avoidance
goals report poorer relationship quality over time. Nevertheless,
future research in which both approach and avoidance goals are
960 IMPETT ET AL.
experimentally manipulated (Strachman & Gable, 2006) would
provide a more definitive test of the causal links between approach
and avoidance goals and relationship quality.
The results from these two studies document the importance of
approach goals for predicting elevated levels of relationship qual-
ity on a daily basis and maintaining satisfying relationships over
time. The current study does not address the question of whether
it is possible for people with chronically low levels of approach
goals or high levels of avoidance goals to learn to focus on the
positive things to be experienced in their relationships. Neverthe-
less, it is important to note that, by definition, goals are short-term
cognitive representations of wants and fears that should be mal-
leable and sensitive to situational cues (Elliot et al., 2006; Gable,
2006a). Moreover, previous research has shown that goals can be
experimentally manipulated in the social domain (Strachman &
Gable, 2006) and the achievement domain (e.g., Elliot & Harac-
kiewicz, 1996). Experimental evidence for changing people’s
goals in their romantic relationships has yet to be conducted, but
on the basis of theory and previous experimental research, we
expect that people’s goals in their relationships can and do change
over time. Experimentally manipulating relationship goals is a ripe
area for future research.
The measures of approach and avoidance goals were also sig-
nificantly positively correlated in both studies, a finding that is not
altogether surprising. At a more basic dispositional level, approach
and avoidance tendencies are largely independent. For example,
Gray’s (1987) behavioral activation and behavioral inhibition sys-
tems are uncorrelated (Gable et al., 2000). At the level of goals,
however, which are short-term representations of wants and needs,
approach and avoidance goals are not independent (see Gable,
2006a). It is likely that proximal social goals tap into both the
general importance people place on the social domain and the
preferred regulatory focus (approach or avoidance). Another inter-
pretation is that the moderately high correlation between the two
types of goals reflects a response set; that is, people may only vary
on how strongly they rate the importance of social goals overall.
This interpretation is unlikely, however, because approach and
avoidance goals showed a different pattern of associations with
relationship quality.
More research is also needed to explain why people adopt
approach versus avoidance goals in their relationships in the first
place. For example, research guided by Gable’s (2006a) hierarchi-
cal model of social motivation has shown that social goals emerge
from underlying temperaments. Specifically, people who are high
in the dispositional social motive “hope for affiliation” are more
likely to pursue approach social goals, whereas people who are
high in the dispositional social motive “fear of rejection” are more
likely to pursue avoidance social goals (see also Impett, Gable, &
Peplau, 2005). Several recent studies point to the important role of
attachment orientations in shaping relationship goals (Impett &
Gordon, in press; Impett, Gordon, & Strachman, 2008; Locke,
2008). These studies generally show that whereas anxiously at-
tached individuals tend to engage in behaviors to approach rewards
and to avoid relationship costs, individuals relatively high in
attachment avoidance are less likely to approach rewards in their
relationships but are more likely to avoid relationship costs. Social
goals are likely to result from other sources as well such as
rejection sensitivities (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri,
1998) and implicit theories about relationships (Knee, Patrick, &
Lonsbary, 2003). Additional research is needed to explore other
dispositional influences on goal pursuit in the romantic relation-
ship domain.
Concluding Comments
Many people who begin relationships with high hopes of finding
lasting love are disappointed when they find that their feelings of
satisfaction and intimacy have waned over time. In this article, two
studies with multiple methods (i.e., daily experience, short-term
longitudinal, and behavioral observation) demonstrated the utility
of approach-avoidance motivational theory in helping us to under-
stand the conditions under which couples maintain (or weaken)
feelings of satisfaction and closeness, both on a daily basis and
over the course of time in their relationships.
References
Algoe, S. B., Gable, S. L., & Maisel, N. (2010). It’s the little things:
Gratitude as a booster shot for romantic relationships. Personal Rela-
tionships, 17, 117–133.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self
Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 596 – 612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. (2000).
Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and expe-
rienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 78, 273–284. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital
instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 387–394. doi:
10.2307/351516
Boyatzis, R. E. (1973). Affiliation motivation. In D. C. McClelland & R. S.
Steele (Eds.), Human motivation: A book of readings (pp. 252–276).
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self regulation of behavior.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and
personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741–751. doi:10.1177/0146167200268008
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
319 –333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., & Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for
sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A
functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 1528 –1558. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1528
Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The
effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year
prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
601– 619.
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The
self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and
rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 75, 545–560. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.545
961
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance moti-
vation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 73–92.
Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance
motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 378 –391. doi:10.1177/0146167205282153
Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achieve-
ment goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461– 475. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.70.3.461
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of
General Psychology, 2, 300 –319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M.
(2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through
loving-kindness mediation, build consequential personal resources.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062. doi:
10.1037/a0013262
Gable, S. L. (2006a). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals.
Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494
.2005.00373.x
Gable, S. L., (2006b). Approach and avoidance relationship goals. Un-
published raw data. University of California, Los Angeles.
Gable, S. L., & Berkman, E. T. (2008). Making connections and avoiding
loneliness: Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. In A. J.
Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp.
203–216). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Gable, S. L., & Poore, J. (2008). Which thoughts count? Algorithms for
evaluating satisfaction in relationships. Psychological Science, 19,
1030 –1036. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02195.x
Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Intimacy and the self: An iterative
model of the self and close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney
(Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms, and processes (pp. 211–
225). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Downey, G. (2003). He said, she said: A
quasi-signal detection analysis of daily interactions between close rela-
tionship partners. Psychological Science, 14, 100 –105. doi:10.1111/
1467-9280.t01–1-01426
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and
inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 78, 1135–1149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1135
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). To whom
do you turn when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal
benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 228 –245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce:
Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 737–745. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737
.2000.00737.x
Gray, J. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Cambridge.
Gray, J., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J.
(2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital
delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 80, 237–252. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237
Iida, M., Seidman, G., Shrout, P. E., Fujita, K., & Bolger, N. (2008).
Modeling support provision in intimate relationships. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 94, 460 – 478. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.94.3.460
Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving
in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.327
Impett, E. A., & Gordon, A. (in press). Why do people sacrifice to
approach rewards versus to avoid costs? Insights from attachment the-
ory. Personal Relationships.
Impett, E. A., Gordon, A., & Strachman, A. (2008). Attachment and daily
sexual goals: A study of dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15,
375–390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00204.x
Impett, E. A., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2005). Approach and
avoidance sexual motivation: Implications for personal and interpersonal
well-being. Personal Relationships, 12, 465– 482. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2005.00126.x
Impett, E. A., Strachman, A., Finkel, E. J., & Gable, S. L. (2008).
Maintaining sexual desire in intimate relationships: The importance of
approach goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
808 – 823. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.808
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction,
and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075
Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (1998). Emotion, social function, and psy-
chopathology. Review of General Psychology, 2, 320 –342. doi:10.1037/
1089-2680.2.3.320
Keltner, D., & Lerner, J. S. (2009). Emotion. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and
G. Lindsey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp.
312–347). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cooke, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of
relationships: Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55. doi:10.1207/
S15327957PSPR0701_3
Locke, K. D. (2008). Attachment styles and interpersonal approach and
avoidance goals in everyday couple interactions. Personal Relation-
ships, 15, 359 –374. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00203.x
Maisel, N. C., Gable, S. L., & Strachman, A. (2008). Responsive behaviors
in good time and in bad. Personal Relationships, 15, 317–338. doi:
10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00201.x
Mehrabian, A. (1976). Questionnaire measures of affiliative tendency and
sensitivity to rejection. Psychological Reports, 38, 199 –209.
Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Finkel, E. J., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C.
(2009). Perceived support for promotion-focused and prevention-
focused goals: Associations with well-being in unmarried and married
couples. Psychological Science, 20, 787–793. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2009.02362.x
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2004). The benefits of
positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in
close relationships. In H. T. Reis & C. E. Rusbult (Eds.), Close rela-
tionships: Key readings (pp. 317–338). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor &
Francis.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004).
HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner
responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and
closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness
and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component
processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychol-
ogy: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523–563). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment
model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of
alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
962 IMPETT ET AL.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological method-
ology (pp. 290 –312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Associ-
ation.
Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K. M., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J.
(2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study
of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 96, 883– 897. doi:10.1037/a0014755
Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). What you want (and do not want)
affects what you see (and do not see): Avoidance social goals and social
events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1446 –1458.
doi:10.1177/0146167206291007
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). The longitudinal
association between forgiveness and relationship closeness and commit-
ment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 448 – 472. doi:
10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.448
Watson, D., Tellegen, A., & Clark, L. (1988). Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel
mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions.
Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695–719. doi:10.1177/
1094428108327450
Received September 21, 2009
Revision received April 14, 2010
Accepted April 15, 2010 䡲
New APA Editors Appointed, 2012–2017
The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association an-
nounces the appointment of 9 new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2012. As of January 1,
2011, manuscripts should be directed as follows:
●Emotion (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/emo), David DeSteno, PhD, Department of Psy-
chology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115
●Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pha), Su-
zette M. Evans, PhD, Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New
York, NY 10032
●Journal of Abnormal Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/abn), Sherryl H. Good-
man, PhD, Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322
●Journal of Comparative Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/com), Josep Call,
PhD, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
●Journal of Counseling Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/cou), Terence J. G.
Tracey, PhD, Counseling and Counseling Psychology Programs, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85823
●Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition (http://
www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp), Eliot R. Smith, PhD, Department of Psychological and
Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
●Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xge), Isabel
Gauthier, PhD, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240
●Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance (http://
www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xhp), James T. Enns, PhD, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
●Rehabilitation Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rep), Stephen T. Wegener,
PhD, ABPP, School of Medicine Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287
Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2011, manuscripts should be submitted
electronically to the new editors via the journal’s Manuscript Submission Portal (see the website
listed above with each journal title).
Manuscript submission patterns make the precise date of completion of the 2011 volumes uncertain.
Current editors, Elizabeth A. Phelps, PhD, Nancy K. Mello, PhD, David Watson, PhD, Gordon M.
Burghardt, PhD, Brent S. Mallinckrodt, PhD, Charles M. Judd, PhD, Fernanda Ferreira, PhD, Glyn
W. Humphreys, PhD, and Timothy R. Elliott, PhD will receive and consider new manuscripts
through December 31, 2010. Should 2011 volumes be completed before that date, manuscripts will
be redirected to the new editors for consideration in 2012 volumes.
963
APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE RELATIONSHIP GOALS
