When love is not blind: Rumination impairs implicit affect regulation in response to romantic relationship threat

Abstract

The present research examined how rumination influences implicit affect regulation in response to romantic relationship threat. In three studies, the disposition to ruminate impaired the ability to maintain positive feelings about the romantic partner in the face of explicit or implicit reminders of relationship threatening events. In Study 1, a high disposition to ruminate was correlated with impaired down-regulation of negative feelings toward the partner in response to a hurtful relationship incident. Two follow-up studies manipulated relationship threat explicitly through an experiential recall procedure (Study 2) or implicitly through a subliminal evaluative-conditioning procedure (Study 3). In both studies only individuals with low disposition to ruminate were able to ward off negative feelings and maintain positive feelings toward the partner. These findings illuminate the role of implicit affect regulation in the context of relationship threat-and how it is inextricably connected with the processes underlying rumination.

Full text

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ]
On:
23 March 2011
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 932789022]
Publisher
Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cognition & Emotion
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713682755
When love is not blind: Rumination impairs implicit affect regulation in
response to romantic relationship threat
Nils B. Jostmanna; Johan Karremansb; Catrin Finkenauerc
a University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands b Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen,
The Netherlands c VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
First published on: 23 February 2011
To cite this Article Jostmann, Nils B. , Karremans, Johan and Finkenauer, Catrin(2011) 'When love is not blind:
Rumination impairs implicit affect regulation in response to romantic relationship threat', Cognition & Emotion, 25: 3,
506 — 518, First published on: 23 February 2011 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2010.541139
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.541139
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

When love is not blind: Rumination impairs
implicit affect regulation in response to romantic
relationship threat
Nils B. Jostmann
1
, Johan Karremans
2
, and Catrin Finkenauer
3
1
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3
VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The present research examined how rumination influences implicit affect regulation in response to
romantic relationship threat. In three studies, the disposition to ruminate impaired the ability to
maintain positive feelings about the romantic partner in the face of explicit or implicit reminders of
relationship threatening events. In Study 1, a high disposition to ruminate was correlated with
impaired down-regulation of negative feelings toward the partner in response to a hurtful
relationship incident. Two follow-up studies manipulated relationship threat explicitly through an
experiential recall procedure (Study 2) or implicitly through a subliminal evaluative-conditioning
procedure (Study 3). In both studies only individuals with low disposition to ruminate were able to
ward off negative feelings and maintain positive feelings toward the partner. These findings
illuminate the role of implicit affect regulation in the context of relationship threat*and how it is
inextricably connected with the processes underlying rumination.
Keywords: Romantic relationships; Relationship threat; Rumination; Implicit affect regulation; State
orientation.
Satisfying romantic relationships often yield good
outcomes such as security, comradeship, and
social support, and foster physical and emotional
well-being (Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983; Lee,
Seccombe, & Sheehan, 1991). Unfortunately,
every now and then the stability and harmony of
romantic relationships are threatened by circum-
stances that may give rise to negative*or at least
less positive*feelings toward the partner. Nega-
tive feelings may be caused by some annoying
behaviour displayed by the partner, a disagreement
with the partner, or perhaps by a very attractive
alternative that exceeds the looks and personality of
the partner. Sometimes people may feel less
positive about their partner without even being
aware of the exact source of these feelings. For
instance, people may not realise that their negative
feelings toward their partner have been caused by
the partner’s scowling look or other subtle events
Correspondence should be addressed to: Nils B. Jostmann, University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Roetersstraat
15, 1018WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: n.b.jostmann@uva.nl
COGNITION AND EMOTION
2011, 25 (3), 506518
506
#2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/cogemotion DOI:10.1080/02699931.2010.541139
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

that elude people’s conscious awareness (Chartrand,
Van Baaren, & Bargh, 2006).
The present research addresses the question
how people can cope effectively with their negative
feelings toward the partner or the relationship.
We refer to situations in which such negative
feelings are consciously or unconsciously triggered
as relationship threat. We suggest that success
at dealing with relationship threat requires that
people regulate their affective states by transform-
ing negative feelings toward the partner into more
positive feelings. To the extent that relationship
threat is triggered by events outside of people’s
awareness, affect regulation should operate
implicitly without conscious intervention (Mauss,
Bunge, & Gross, 2007).
Building on previous findings that perseverating
rumination about one’s own feelings and thoughts
interferes with interpersonal (Lyubomirsky &
Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995) and emotional function-
ing (Kuhl, 1981; Watkins, 2004), we suggest that
rumination impairs implicit affect regulation in
response to relationship threat. In the following
paragraphs, we first review the literatures on
coping with relationship threat, affect regulation,
and rumination. We then present three studies that
tested the predictions derived from our theoretical
analysis.
Dealing with relationship threat
To maintain harmonious romantic relationships,
people have developed a variety of strategies. Many
of these strategies seem to be directed at preventing
the very occurrence of relationship threat. As of the
early stages of relationships people are motivated to
focus on the positive attributes and neglect the
negative attributes of their partners (Clark &
Grote, 1998). Furthermore, romantic partners
tend to perceive their relationship as superior to
other relationships (Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991),
maintain positive illusions about the partner
(Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, & Kusche,
2002), derogate attractive alternatives (Johnson &
Rusbult, 1989), and interpret their partner’s
messages generally in a positive manner (Hawkins,
Carre
`re, & Gottman, 2002). In addition to these
rather explicit strategies, committed romantic
partners automatically respond to attractive
alternatives with inattention (Maner, Gailliot, &
Miller, 2009; cf. Plant, Kunstman, & Maner,
2010). Together, these observations suggest that
love is, indeed, sometimes blind.
Nevertheless, relationship-enhancing processes
occur even, or particularly, when the relationship
is threatened. For example, people tend to devalue
attractive alternatives to their partner especially
when the alternatives form a realistic threat to the
relationship (i.e., they are both attractive and
available; Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; cf. Simpson,
Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995). Moreover, people
tend to think of their relationship as superior to
other relationships especially when they have been
told that their type of relationship (e.g., relation-
ships between college students) is unlikely to
persist very long (Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut,
Yovetich & Verette, 2000). These and similar
relationship-protecting strategies are particularly
effective when people are highly committed to
their relationship (Plant et al., 2010; Rusbult,
Arriaga, & Agnew, 2001). These findings demon-
strate that committed partners are highly moti-
vated to avoid the confrontation with relationship
threatening information.
High commitment may not prove the ultimate
protection against relationship threat, however,
since even devoted couples can have destructive
fights. Recently, researchers have therefore sug-
gested that in addition to sufficient motivation,
people need to be able to adaptively regulate their
responses to relationship threat (Rawn & Vohs,
2006). In line with this notion, people have been
found to deal more effectively with relationship
threat if they possess sufficient self-control to
suppress retaliatory responses to the partner’s
provocative behaviour (Finkel & Campbell,
2001; Pronk, Karremans, Overbeek, Vermulst, &
Wigboldus, 2010). Notably, such regulation
appeared not to be influenced by the strength of
people’s relationship commitment. Thus, above
WHEN LOVE IS NOT BLIND
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3) 507
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

and beyond motivational factors, relationship
quality seems to depend on the ability to regulate
one’s responses to relationship threat.
Implicit affect regulation and disposition
toward rumination
The present research further investigated the
benefits of regulating one’s responses to relationship
threat. However, unlike previous research that has
studied behavioural responses (e.g., Finkel &
Campbell, 2001), we examined how people regulate
their affective responses to relationship threat.
Maintaining positive feelings towards the partner
confers satisfaction and relationship stability (Le-
Bel & Campbell, 2009), while unresolved negative
feelings can backfire during later occasions and
jeopardise relationship quality perhaps even more
than immediate retaliation (Greenberg & Foerster,
1996). Hence, we reason that affect regulation is a
prerequisite for dealing effectively with relationship
threat (Gross & John, 2003).
Negative feelings towards the partner or the
relationship can occur*just like any other events
that give rise to negative feelings (Chartrand et al.,
2006)*unexpectedly and even without any notice-
able cause. Such situations might be particularly
threatening for a relationship because deliberate
attempts at affect regulation are generally useless
when negative feelings are triggered by events that
elude conscious awareness (Winkielman, Zajonc,
& Schwarz, 1997). Thus, it is important that
relationship partners are able to use affect
regulation strategies that do not require deliberate
intervention but rather rely on implicit processes
(Mauss, Bunge, et al., 2007; Rothermund, Voss, &
Wentura, 2008).
Implicit affect regulation in the context of
relationship threat is unlikely to occur invariably.
Instead it may depend on the extent to which
people are inclined to dwell upon their current
affective and cognitive states. As an extensive
body of research suggests, people sometimes*and
some people more so than others*tend to
ruminate perseveratively about their current
thoughts and feelings (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991).
To be sure, some forms of repetitive thinking can
be useful to cope with past failures and avoid them
in the future (Joormann, Dkane, & Gotlib, 2006;
Trapnell & Campbell, 1999; Watkins, 2008).
However,
rumination refers to a form of repetitive thinking
that is characterised by unintentional preoccupa-
tion with one’s problems and internal states as an
end in itself rather than as a means to effective
action (Kuhl, 1981). Thus, rumination generally is
a maladaptive response to distressing situations
(Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky,
2008).
A high disposition toward rumination has been
associated with both interpersonal problems and
poor affect regulation. On an interpersonal level,
rumination contributes to impairments in social
problem solving (Watkins & Baracaia, 2002; see
also Koole, Kuhl, Jostmann, & Finkenauer, 2006).
On an affective level, rumination correlates with
high emotional vulnerability*the extent to which
affect becomes less positive or more negative and
persists as such in response to repeated failure
experience (Kuhl, 1981; Moberly & Watkins,
2006; Watkins, 2004), negative mood inductions
(Baumann & Kuhl, 2002), and mortality salience
(Koole & Van den Berg, 2005). Poor affect regula-
tion may be the reason why rumination has been
associated with health problems (Baumann,
Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2007), and depression (Rholes,
Michas, & Shroff, 1989).
In contrast with a high disposition toward
rumination, a low disposition has been found to
be much more adaptive in response to threatening
events. For instance, compared to high rumina-
tion, low rumination was found to correlate with
better coping after failure (Kuhl, 1981) and better
affect regulation in response to negative mood
inductions (Baumann & Kuhl, 2002). Important
for the present context, there is initial evidence
that low rumination*but not high rumination*
might be linked to implicit affect regulation. In a
study that used a subliminal priming procedure,
low rumination was associated with the ability to
JOSTMANN, KARREMANS, FINKENAUER
508 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3)
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

ward off the affective impact of unconsciously
presented negative primes in a lexical-decision
task (Koole & Van den Berg, 2005). These
findings suggest that low rumination facilitates
implicit affect regulation, whereas this ability is
impaired by high rumination.
The present research and hypotheses
The present research tested the hypothesis that
rumination impairs affect regulation in response
to relationship threat. In three studies, we
measured participants’disposition toward rumi-
nation, and their affective responses to relation-
ship threat. In Study 1, participants recalled a
past hurtful incident in their relationship and
indicated to what extent they had felt negatively
toward the partner at the time of the incident
and still felt negatively currently. The difference
between past and current negative feelings was
used as an index for affect regulation in
response to relationship threat. Study 1 also
examined whether current feelings toward the
partner were mediated by participants’actual
ruminations about the hurtful incident.
In Studies 2 and 3, we induced relationship
threat experimentally. In Study 2 half of the
participants were asked to recall the most negative
trait (or positive trait in the control condition)
of their romantic partner, and then to provide a
general evaluation of their partner. Study 3 was
explicitly designed to see if, central to our argu-
ment, rumination impairs the ability for implicit
affect regulation*the ability to deal with uncon-
sciously induced relationship threat. We used an
evaluative-conditioning task, in which sublimin-
ally presented negative words (or neutral words in
the control condition) were associated with the
name of the participant’s romantic partner.
In all three studies, we expected that the
disposition to ruminate would influence affective
reactions to relationship threat. As a sign of
effective affect regulation we expected low rumi-
nators to maintain positive feelings towards their
partner or relationship in response to consciously
or unconsciously triggered relationship threat. By
contrast we expected implicit affect regulation to
be impaired among high ruminators as indicated
by more negative feelings towards the partner or
the relationship.
STUDY 1
In Study 1, romantically involved college students
recalled a past incident in their relationship that, at
the time, raised negative feelings toward the
partner. We retrospectively measured past feelings
toward the partner at the time of the incident, as
well as current feelings toward the partner. We also
assessed to what extent our participants experi-
enced actual ruminations about the past relation-
ship threat. We hypothesised that low ruminators,
as compared to high ruminators, would experience
greater improvements in their past to current
feelings toward the partner. We further hypothe-
sised that the effects of rumination disposition on
current feelings would be mediated by actual
ruminations about the incident.
Method
Participants. Seventy-one students (8 male,
63 female), who were currently involved in a
relationship for at least 3 months, participated in
exchange for participation in a lottery.
Procedure and materials. All materials were
administered through a questionnaire at the end
of a class. The first part of the questionnaire
consisted of the preoccupation-subscale of the
Action Control Scale (ACS; Kuhl, 1994) to assess
individual differences in disposition toward rumi-
nation. The scale is a frequently used measure of
trait rumination (e.g., Moberly & Watkins, 2006),
and consists of 12 scenarios (e.g., ‘‘When I’mina
competition and have lost every time ... ’’) for
which participants choose either a ruminative
response (e.g., ‘‘The thought that I lost keeps
running through my mind’’, scored 1) or a non-
ruminative response (e.g., ‘‘I can soon put losing
out of my mind’’, scored 0), giving a overall score
from 0 to 12; Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient
(KR 20).74. Based on recommendations from
WHEN LOVE IS NOT BLIND
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3) 509
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

Kuhl (1994), we identified participants with a
score between 0 and 6 as being low ruminators,
whereas we identified participants with a score
between 7 and 12 as high ruminators.
1
Next, participants were asked to recall an
incident in the past few months, which at the
time evoked negative feelings toward the partner.
To induce participants to bring to mind such an
incident, they were asked to briefly describe the
incident in a few sentences.
Participants subsequently indicated for 6 ne-
gative emotions (anger, sadness, disappointment,
irritation, impatience, jealousy) to what extent
they had experienced each emotion with regard to
the partner at the time of the incident. Partici-
pants then indicated to what extent they experi-
enced each emotion with regard to the partner
currently, when thinking back to the incident.
Participants responded on 7-point scales ranging
from 1 not at all to 7 to a great extent.To
examine the differences between past affective
responses and current affective responses, we
averaged both the scores on the six past emotions
into the variable past emotions (a.78), and
averaged the scores on the six current emotions
into the variable current emotions (a.51).
Finally, participants indicated on two items the
extent (1 not at all,7to a great extent)to
which they sometimes ruminated and sponta-
neously thought back about the incident
(a.82). The responses to these two items were
averaged to obtain an index of actual rumination.
Results
We conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with past emotions and current emotions as within
participants variables, and rumination disposition
as a between participants variable. As might be
expected, participants currently experienced less
negative emotions regarding the partner
(M2.50, SD1.09), than at the time the
incident took place (M4.47, SD0.86), F(1,
69) 303.14, pB.001, h
2
.82. Moreover, low
ruminators overall experienced less negative emo-
tions than high ruminators, F(1, 69) 6.76,
pB.02, h
2
.09. This latter main effect was
qualified by the marginally significant interaction
between rumination disposition and time (past
versus current), F(1, 69) 3.61, p.062,
h
2
.05. Inspection of this interaction revealed
that both high ruminators, F(1, 39) 132.79,
pB.001, h
2
.77, and low ruminators, F(1,
30) 173.94, pB.001, h
2
.85, experienced a
significant reduction in negative emotions between
the time of the incident and the time of the study,
but this effect was greater among low ruminators.
A different way to interpret the two-way interac-
tion is to say that, regarding past emotions, low
ruminators (M4.31, SD1.10) did not differ
from high ruminators (M4.60, SD0.61),
F(1, 69) 2.04, ns. However, low ruminators
(M2.09, SD0.97) currently experienced fewer
negative emotions than high ruminators
(M2.82, SD1.07), F(1, 69) 8.66, pB.005,
h
2
.11.
Mediation by actual rumination. Following
recommendations for mediation analyses from
Baron and Kenny (1986), we tested whether
four requirements were met: first, rumination
disposition should correlate with actual rumina-
tion, which was the case, b0.31, t(69) 2.67,
pB.01. Second, rumination disposition should
affect current feelings, which we reported above,
b0.33, t(69) 2.94, pB.005. Third, actual
rumination should be associated with current
feelings, which we found as well, b0.53,
t(69) 5.12, pB.001. Finally, the association
between rumination disposition and current feel-
ings should be reduced while controlling for actual
rumination, which we confirmed in a subsequent
regression analysis, b0.19, t(68) 1.81,
pB.08. A Sobel test revealed that the indirect
effect of rumination disposition on current
feelings via actual rumination was significant,
z 2.29, pB.03.
1
Correlational and regression analyses with responses to the preoccupation-subscale of the ACS as a continuous measure of
trait rumination revealed similar results.
JOSTMANN, KARREMANS, FINKENAUER
510 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3)
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

Discussion
These findings support our hypothesis that the
disposition to ruminate impairs affect regulation
in response to relationship threat. Low ruminators
and high ruminators did not differ in their levels
of negative emotions at the time the incident took
place, only low ruminators experienced less nega-
tive emotions toward the partner when currently
recalling the incident. Moreover, Study 1 revealed
evidence that actual rumination was responsible
for the impairments in affect regulation: high
ruminators were more likely to actually ruminate
about the relationship threatening incident, and
actual rumination was the reason that high
ruminators currently felt more negatively about
their partner.
STUDY 2
Study 1 was correlational and thus does not allow
the drawing of causal conclusions. In Study 2,
therefore, we experimentally induced relationship
threat for half of our participants. We asked half
of the participants to think of their partner’s most
negative characteristic (or most positive character-
istic, for the other half of the participants).
Participants then rated their current feelings
toward the partner. We expected that relationship
threat would reduce positive feelings toward the
partner among high ruminators, while low rumi-
nators were expected to be able to maintain positive
feelings toward the partner in response to relation-
ship threat.
Method
Participants and design. One hundred twenty-
five students (21 male, 104 female) who were
involved in a relationship participated in exchange
for financial compensation. The design was a 2
(Disposition toward Rumination: low vs.
high)2 (Relationship Threat: present vs. ab-
sent) between-participants design.
Procedure and materials. The study was compu-
ter-based and conducted in individual cubicles.
Participants were informed that they would
participate in a number of unrelated studies.
They first completed the preoccupation subscale
of the ACS (KR 20.70). Then, they visualised
their relationship partner and typed in the name
of the partner. Next, participants conducted a
30-minute unrelated task, after which we admi-
nistered the threat manipulation. We told parti-
cipants that we were interested in the kind of
issues people generally bring to mind when
thinking of negative (threat condition) or positive
(no threat condition) aspects of their relationship
partner. Participants typed in what they thought
were the most negative (or positive) aspects of
their relationship partner.
Following the threat manipulation, partici-
pants indicated for ten positive (e.g., joyful,
delighted) and ten negative emotion words (e.g.,
irritated, hostile) to what extent these words
described their current feeling toward their
partner (1 not at all,7very much). After
reversing the negative affect items, we averaged
the items into one variable, representing partici-
pants’current affective state toward the partner,
with higher levels indicating more positive affect
(a.90).
2
Results
We subjected participants’affective state scores to
a 2 (Disposition toward Rumination: low vs.
high)2 (Relationship Threat: present vs. ab-
sent) ANOVA, which revealed a main effect of
Relationship Threat, F(1, 121) 8.18, pB.01,
h
2
.06. On average, participants in the threat
condition (M5.48, SD0.88) reported less
positive feelings toward the partner than partici-
pants in the no threat condition (M5.87,
2
We measured relationship commitment in Studies 2 and 3 (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). In both studies, relationship
commitment did not influence the interactive effect of trait rumination and relationship threat, all FsB1. This shows that the
effect of trait rumination on dealing with relationship threat is independent from relationship commitment.
WHEN LOVE IS NOT BLIND
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3) 511
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

SD0.60). There was no main effect of Disposi-
tion on affective state, F(1, 121) 1.25, ns.
The analysis further revealed the predicted
interaction between Disposition and Relationship
Threat, F(1, 121) 4.33, pB.05, h
2
.04 (see
Figure 1). High ruminators reported less positive
feelings in the threat condition (M5.28,
SD0.93) than in the no threat condition (M
5.93, SD0.55), F(1, 121) 12.57, pB.005,
h
2
.16, while low ruminators reported similar
feelings in the threat (M5.70, SD0.78) and
the no threat condition (M5.81, SD0.66),
FB1.
Discussion
Study 2 supported our hypothesis that the
disposition towards rumination impairs affect
regulation in response to relationship threat. After
thinking of negative aspects of the partner, high
ruminators experienced less positive feelings to-
ward the partner, while low ruminators did not
feel more negative about the partner. This finding
must be interpreted with some caution, however,
because we cannot entirely rule out the possibility
that thinking about positive aspects of the partner
had reduced generally negative feelings towards
the partner among high ruminators. To resolve
this possible limitation, the following study pre-
sented neutral rather than positive affective ma-
terial in the control condition.
STUDY 3
In the foregoing two studies, participants were
explicitly instructed to recall or think about
relationship threatening information. Even
though this by no means rules out the possibility
that the affect regulation process itself was
implicit, we cannot yet confirm our hypothesis
that rumination moderates implicit affect regula-
tion in response to relationship threat. As a more
stringent test of this hypothesis, Study 3 examined
the case in which relationship threat comes
unexpectedly and without noticeable cause. We
used a subliminal evaluative-conditioning task to
trigger relationship threat unconsciously (cf. De
Houwer, Hendrickx, & Baeyens, 1997). We
hypothesised that implicit affect regulation in
response to unconsciously triggered relationship
threat is facilitated by low rumination and
impaired by high rumination.
Method
Participants and design. Seventy students
(18 male, 52 female; 22 years on average), all
involved in a romantic relationship for a couple of
months, participated in exchange for financial
compensation or course credit. The design of
the study consisted of a 2 (Disposition toward
Rumination: low vs. high)2 (Subliminally
Triggered Relationship Threat: present vs. absent)
between-participants design.
Procedure and material. The procedure of Study
3 was similar to that of Study 2 except where
noted. We assessed individual differences in trait
rumination through the preoccupation-subscale of
the ACS (KR 20.70). We further asked
participants to type in the name of their relation-
ship partner. Participants then engaged in a
15-minute unrelated task, after which we ma-
nipulated relationship threat by means of an
evaluative-conditioning paradigm.
The evaluative-conditioning paradigm was in-
troduced as a visual detection task, during which
the name of the partner would be very briefly
presented on the centre of the screen for 25 trials.
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Low
rumination
High
rumination
Feelings toward the partner
No threat
Threat
Figure 1. Positive feelings toward the partner as a function of
trait rumination and relationship threat (Study 2).
JOSTMANN, KARREMANS, FINKENAUER
512 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3)
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

Sometimes, the name would be written in bold
(e.g., Barbara). After every fifth trial, participants
indicated during how many of the five trials the
name had been presented in bold letter type. Each
trial started with a string of Xs presented in the
centre of the screen for 500 ms. In the threat
manipulation, the string of Xs was immediately
followed by the presentation of a negative word
(e.g., pain, negative) for 23 ms. In the no-threat
manipulation, the Xs were immediately followed
by a neutral word (e.g., tree, bike) for 23 ms. In
both conditions the evaluative words were
immediately followed by another string of Xs for
500 ms. Participants were told that the flashing
string of Xs served as a focus point. Immediately
after the second string of Xs, the name of the
partner was presented for 100 ms. Thus, outside of
conscious awareness, in the threat condition
negative words were paired with the name of the
partner, while in the no-threat condition, neutral
words were paired with the name of the partner.
Following the visual detection task, partici-
pants rated their partner on 7-point scales
(1 not at all,7very much) regarding 5 positive
traits (e.g., sweet, trustworthy) and 5 negative
traits (e.g., selfish, aloof). The scores of the
negative traits were reversed, and the scores of
all 10 traits were averaged to create an index of
positive partner evaluation (a.82).
Finally, we thoroughly debriefed our partici-
pants. No participants were aware that the name of
the partner had been preceded by negative (or
neutral) words, and no participants realised the
true nature of the study. Thus, any effects of
the subliminal evaluative-conditioning procedure
seem to have operated without participants’
conscious awareness. We carefully explained the
general purpose of the study and the procedure of
the evaluative-conditioning task. We stressed that
any possible negative (or less positive) feelings
about the partner may have been due to the
evaluative-conditioning procedure.
Results
We subjected participants’partner evaluation
ratings to a 2 (Disposition to Ruminate: low vs.
high)2 (Subliminally Conditioned Relationship
Threat: present vs. absent) ANOVA. We found
a marginally significant effect of Disposition, F(1,
66) 2.97, p.09, h
2
.05, indicating that low
ruminators (M5.53, SD0.71) were somewhat
more positive about the partner than high rumi-
nators (M5.12, SD0.93). We also found a
main effect of Threat Condition, F(1, 66) 8.04,
pB.01, h
2
.11. Participants in the threat
condition (M5.06, SD0.91) evaluated the
partner less positively than participants in the
no-threat condition (M5.62, SD0.66).
In line with predictions, these main effects
were qualified by an interaction between Disposi-
tion and Threat Condition, F(1, 66) 5.83,
pB.02, h
2
.08 (see Figure 2). Further inspec-
tion of this interaction revealed that high rumi-
nators evaluated the partner less positively in the
threat condition (M4.73, SD0.86) than in
the no-threat condition (M5.69, SD0.72),
F(1, 66) 14.74, pB.05, h
2
.27. By contrast,
low ruminators did not evaluate the partner
differently in the threat condition (M5.48,
SD0.82) than in the no-threat condition
(M5.57, SD0.64), FB1.
Discussion
Replicating Study 2, Study 3 found that high
rumination*but not low rumination*impairs
affect regulation in response to relationship threat.
Importantly and central to our general hypothesis,
low ruminators were able to refrain from negative
evaluations of the partner even though negative
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low
orientation
High
rumination
Partner evaluation
No threat
Threat
Figure 2. Positive partner evaluations as a function of trait
rumination and relationship threat (Study 3).
WHEN LOVE IS NOT BLIND
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3) 513
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

evaluations were triggered unconsciously through
a subliminal evaluative-conditioning task. Thus,
we observed implicit affect regulation among low
ruminators, whereas implicit affect regulation was
impaired among high ruminators.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In the present research, we hypothesised that
rumination impairs implicit affect regulation in
response to relationship threat. To test our
hypothesis, we conducted three studies in which
individuals who were in a relationship indicated
their current feelings about their partner after they
had recalled a past hurtful incident in their
relationship (Study 1), after an evocation of the
partner’s most negative characteristic (Study 2), or
after subliminal conditioning of negative informa-
tion with the partner’s name (Study 3). Consistent
across studies, the ability to maintain positive
feelings toward the relationship or the partner was
influenced by the disposition to ruminate. Indivi-
duals with a high disposition to ruminate*
compared to those with a low disposition to
ruminate*displayed more negative feelings, and
hence less effective implicit affect regulation, in
response to relationship threat.
The present findings are noteworthy for several
reasons. First, they support the idea that affect
regulation is an effective coping response to
relationship threat (see also Gross & John, 2003).
Second, the present research is, to our knowledge,
the first to show that affect regulation in response
to relationship threat can occur implicitly. While
the explicit nature of relationship threat in Studies
1 and 2 makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions
about this issue, Study 3 provided a more stringent
test by triggering relationship threat uncon-
sciously. Because deliberate attempts at affect
regulation are generally useless when negative
feelings are triggered by events that elude conscious
awareness (Winkielman et al., 1997), we can be
confident that affect regulation in this study relied
on implicit processes.
Third, the present research could link implicit
affect regulation to the ability to avoid rumination.
Rumination is associated with interpersonal dys-
functioning (Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema,
1995), and emotional problems including anxiety
disorder and clinical depression (Nolen-Hoeksema
et al., 2008). Because of these harmful conse-
quences, it is important to better understand the
mechanisms underlying rumination. As predicted,
low trait rumination facilitated implicit affect
regulation, whereas it was impaired among high
ruminators. Our research thus identifies implicit
affect regulation as one of the hidden mechanisms
that protect some*but unfortunately not all*
people from the detriments of perseverating rumi-
nations after negative events.
The benefits of implicit affect regulation
presumably lie in its independence from conscious
reflection and deliberate intervention (Berkman &
Lieberman, 2009; Koole, 2009). Indeed, implicit
affect regulation occurs automatically (Eder,
Rothermund, & Proctor, 2010; Schweiger Gallo,
Keil, McCulloch, Rockstroh, & Gollwitzer,
2009), without any clear instructions or intentions
(Koole & Jostmann, 2004; Meyer, Berkman,
Karremans, & Lieberman, 2011 this issue), and
even without conscious awareness (Jostmann,
Koole, Van der Wulp, & Fockenberg, 2005;
Mauss, Cook, & Gross, 2007). The exact pro-
cesses underlying implicit affect regulation have
yet to be understood. However, one suggestive
possibility is an automatic affect processing bias
that favours information that is opposite to the
person’s current affective state (Rothermund
et al., 2008). Our findings suggest that such
automatic affective bias may not be available for
those who tend to ruminate incessantly.
In spite of these novel insights, the present
research has some limitations and thus leaves
several questions open for future investigation.
One question is whether low ruminators have
applied genuine affect regulation. In Studies 2 and
3, we found no detectable affective changes
among low ruminators, which makes it possible
that they simply did not respond to the relation-
ship threat. Because the processes underlying
implicit affect regulation are automatic, they are
notoriously difficult to monitor (Mauss, Cook
et al., 2007). Nevertheless, indirect evidence
JOSTMANN, KARREMANS, FINKENAUER
514 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3)
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

makes it plausible that regulation rather than lack
of reactivity is responsible for the present findings.
Specifically, studies from outside the relationship
domain have unequivocally established that low
and high ruminators at first feel equally bad after
failure experiences or threatening events, but low
ruminators subsequently enjoy more positive
affect (Baumann et al., 2007; Baumann & Kuhl,
2002). In line with these findings, low ruminators
in Study 1 reported equally high levels of negative
emotions toward the partner as high ruminators at
the time of the incident, but only low ruminators
currently displayed significant reductions in ne-
gative feelings.
Still, more direct evidence for implicit affect
regulation would certainly strengthen our case.
Future research may address this issue by, for
instance, measuring affect processing biases (Koole
& Jostmann, 2004; Rothermund et al., 2008). If
affect processing among low ruminators is biased in
a positive direction following relationship threat,
and if the strength of this positivity bias inversely
predicts the strength of the affect change, it would
allow us to make a strong point that regulation is at
work. Another possibility is to use repeated
implicit affect measures (e.g., LeBel & Campbell,
2009) to monitor changes over time among low
ruminators. Finally, future research might replicate
Study 3 with both positive and neutral control
conditions. Differences in partner evaluations
among low ruminators between the neutral and
the positive conditions*but not between the
neutral and the negative conditions*would more
clearly indicate affect regulation. In case low
ruminators also down-regulate positive affect
(e.g., to remain cool and collected during social
interactions; Erber, Wegner, & Therriault, 1996),
the inclusion of neutral and positive control
conditions would further allow us to analyse affect
regulation separately for positive and negative
relationship events by comparing them both
against the neutral baseline.
A second question that should be addressed in
future research is how high ruminators could be
helped to develop more adaptive responses to
relationship threat. A variety of strategies have
been suggested that could be helpful to ameliorate
the consequences of rumination such as affirming
one’s core values (Koole, Smeets, Van Knippen-
berg, & Dijksterhuis, 1999), or immediate
distraction followed by problem solving (Nolen-
Hoeksema et al., 2008). Moreover, high rumina-
tors have been found to benefit from adopting
an experiential rather than evaluative mindset
(Moberly & Watkins, 2006). In the light of the
present findings it would be especially desirable if
ruminators were to learn how to improve their
implicit affect regulation. One strategy could be to
train ruminators to generally interpret unfamiliar
situations in a positive way (Tran, Siemer, &
Joormann, 2011 this issue; Wilson, MacLeod,
Mathews, & Rutherford, 2006). Such training, if
exercised repeatedly, might eventually become
automatised and spontaneously facilitate down
regulation of negative affect without deliberate
intervention.
These issues notwithstanding, the present re-
search sheds new light on the important question
of how people can deal effectively with relationship
threat to enjoy the emotional and physical benefits
of satisfying relationships. Previous research has
emphasised the importance of strong commitment
and deliberate self-regulation strategies. However,
the present research suggests that this alone may
not be enough when threat is triggered uncon-
sciously. Fortunately*at least for those who do
not ruminate*people can use implicit affect
regulation to protect their relationship against
unexpected threat. Implicit affect regulation may
thus help romantic relationships to remain happy
and healthy when love is not blind.
REFERENCES
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.
Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2007). Affect
sensitivity and affect regulation in dealing with
positive and negative affect. Journal of Research in
Personality,41, 239248.
WHEN LOVE IS NOT BLIND
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3) 515
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and
personality: Unconscious coherence judgments
and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,83, 12131223.
Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2009). Using
neuroscience to broaden emotion regulation:
Theoretical and methodological considerations.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass,3,
475493.
Buunk, B. P., & Van Yperen, N. W. (1991). Referential
comparisons, relational comparisons, and exchange
orientation: Their relation to marital satisfaction.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,17,
709717.
Chartrand, T. L., Van Baaren, R. B., & Bargh, J. A.
(2006). Linking automatic evaluation to mood and
information processing style: Consequences for
experienced affect, impression formation, and
stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General,135,7077.
Clark, M. S., & Grote, N. K. (1998). Why aren’t
indices of relationship costs always negatively related
to indices of relationship quality? Personality and
Social Psychology Review,2,217.
De Houwer, J., Hendrickx, H., & Baeyens, F. (1997).
Evaluative learning with ‘‘subliminally’’ presented
stimuli. Consciousness and Cognition,6,87107.
Eder, A. B., Rothermund, K., & Proctor, R. W. (2010).
The prepared emotional reflex: Intentional prepara-
tion of automatic approach and avoidance tenden-
cies as a means to regulate emotional responding.
Emotion,10, 593598.
Erber, R., Wegner, D. M., & Therriault, N. (1996). On
being cool and collected: Mood regulation in
anticipation of social interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,70, 757766.
Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control
and accommodation in close relationships: An
interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,81, 263277.
Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Style, C. B. (1983). Does
marriage have positive effects on the psychological
well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and
Social Behavior,24, 122131.
Greenberg, L. S., & Foerster, F. S. (1996). Task
analysis exemplified: The process of resolving
unfinished business. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,64, 439446.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences
in two emotion regulation processes: Implications
for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,85, 348362.
Hawkins, M. W., Carre
`re, S., & Gottman, J. M.
(2002). Marital sentiment override: Does it
influence couples’ perceptions? Journal of Marriage
and the Family,64, 193201.
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting
temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a
means of maintaining commitment in close relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57,
967980.
Joormann, J., Dkane, M., & Gotlib, I. H. (2006).
Adaptive and maladaptive components of rumina-
tion? Diagnostic specificity and relation to
depressive biases. Behavior Therapy,37, 269281.
Jostmann, N. B., Koole, S. L., Van der Wulp, N. Y., &
Fockenberg, D. A. (2005). Subliminal affect
regulation: The moderating role of action- versus
state-orientation. European Psychologist,10,
209217.
Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion
regulation: An integrative review. Cognition and
Emotion,23,441.
Koole, S. L., & Jostmann, N. B. (2004). Getting a grip
on your feelings: Effects of action orientation and
social demand on intuitive affect regulation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,87, 974990.
Koole, S. L., Kuhl, J., Jostmann, N. B., & Finkenauer,
C. (2006). Self-regulation in interpersonal relation-
ships: The case of action- versus state-orientation.
In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and
relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and inter-
personal processes (pp. 360383). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Koole, S. L., Smeets, K., Van Knippenberg, A., &
Dijksterhuis, A. (1999). The cessation of rumination
through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,77, 111125.
Koole, S. L., & Van den Berg, A. E. (2005). Lost in the
wilderness: Terror management, action orientation,
and nature evaluation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,88, 10141028.
Kuhl, J. (1981). Motivational and functional help-
lessness: The moderating effect of state versus action
orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,40, 155170.
Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psy-
chometric properties of the Action Control Scale
(ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),
Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation
JOSTMANN, KARREMANS, FINKENAUER
516 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3)
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

(pp. 4759). Go
¨ttingen, Germany: Hogrefe &
Huber.
LeBel, E. P., & Campbell, L. (2009). Implicit partner
affect, relationship satisfaction, and the prediction of
romantic breakup. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology,45, 12911294.
Lee, G. R., Seccombe, K., & Sheehan, C. L. (1991).
Marital status and personal happiness: An analysis of
trend data. Journal of Marriage and the Family,53,
839844.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1995).
Effects of self-focused rumination on negative
thinking and interpersonal problem solving. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,69, 176190.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009).
The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance:
Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,45, 174179.
Mauss, I. B., Bunge, S. A., & Gross, J. J. (2007).
Automatic emotion regulation. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass,1, 146167.
Mauss, I. B., Cook, C. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007).
Automatic emotion regulation during an anger
provocation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology,43, 698711.
Meyer, M. L., Berkman, E. T., Karremans, J. C., &
Lieberman, M. D. (2011). Incidental regulation of
attraction: The neural basis of the derogation of
attractive alternatives in romantic relationships.
Cognition and Emotion,25, 490505.
Moberly, N. J., & Watkins, E. R. (2006). Processing
mode influences the relationship between trait
rumination and emotional vulnerability. Behavior
Therapy,37, 281291.
Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Bellavia, G. M., Holmes, J. G.,
& Kusche, A. G. (2002). When rejection
stings: How self-esteem constrains relationship-
enhancement processes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,83, 556573.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression
and their effects on the duration of depressive
episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,100,
569582.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S.
(2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on
Psychological Science,3, 400424.
Plant, E. A., Kunstman, J. W., & Maner, J. K. (2010).
You do not only hurt the one you love: Self-
protective responses to attractive relationship
alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46, 474477.
Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., Overbeek, G.,
Vermulst, A., & Wigboldus, D. (2010). What it
takes to forgive: When and why executive function-
ing facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,98, 119131.
Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The importance of
self-regulation in interpersonal functioning. In K.
D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships:
Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes
(pp. 1531). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rholes, W. S., Michas, L., & Shroff, J. (1989). Action
control as a vulnerability factor in dysphoria.
Cognitive Therapy and Research,13, 263274.
Rothermund, K., Voss, A., & Wentura, D. (2008).
Counter-regulation in affective attentional biases: A
basic mechanism that warrants flexibility in emotion
and motivation. Emotion,8,3446.
Rusbult, C. E., Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001).
Interdependence in close relationships. In J. O.
Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes
(pp. 359387). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998).
The investment model scale: Measuring commit-
ment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives,
and investment size. Personal Relationships,5,
357391.
Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A. M., Wildschut, T.,
Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived
superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and
persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79, 521545.
Schweiger Gallo, I., Keil, A., McCulloch, K. C.,
Rockstroh, B., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009). Strate-
gic automation of emotion regulation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,96,1131.
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995).
When the head protects the heart: Empathic
accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology,69, 629641.
Tran, T. B., Siemer, M., & Joormann, J. (2011).
Implicit interpretation biases affect emotional vul-
nerability: A training study. Cognition and Emotion,
25, 546558.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-
consciousness and the five-factor model of person-
ality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76,
284304.
WHEN LOVE IS NOT BLIND
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3) 517
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011

Watkins, E. (2004). Adaptive and maladaptive rumi-
native self-focus during emotional processing.
Behavior Research and Therapy,42, 10371052.
Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive
repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin,134,
163206.
Watkins, E., & Baracaia, S. (2002). Rumination and
social problem solving in depression. Behaviour
Research and Therapy,40, 11791189.
Wilson, E. J., MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Ruther-
ford, E. M. (2006). The causal role of interpretive
bias in anxiety reactivity. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology,115, 103111.
Winkielman, P., Zajonc, R. B., & Schwarz, N. (1997).
Subliminal affective priming resists attributional
interventions. Cognition and Emotion,11, 433465.
JOSTMANN, KARREMANS, FINKENAUER
518 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (3)
Downloaded By: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] At: 14:11 23 March 2011