Bonnie M. Le’s research while affiliated with University of Rochester and other places

Honesty is a virtue that is highly valued across societies, yet can be challenging to enact, especially when truthful expressions may hurt others. We tested preregistered hypotheses on the distinct personal and interpersonal effects of expressed honesty, perceived honesty, and honest connections (i.e., accurate perceptions of expressed honesty) on well-being and change among couples. Romantic partners (N = 214 couples; N = 428) discussed a desired change in the lab and reported on their well-being and motivation to change concurrently and three months later. Honesty and well-being were self-reported and rated by observers, with results indicating correspondence between self and observer reports. Results of multilevel response surface analyses showed that greater expressed and perceived honesty—but not honest connections—predicted greater personal well-being, relationship quality, and target motivation to change concurrently, with some benefits emerging overtime. Results could not be explained by couples’ baseline relationship satisfaction, communication styles, or the severity of the issue discussed. Benefits were most observed for self-reported honesty, suggesting that the internal experience and perception of honesty is most consequential for relational outcomes. The current results have important implications for understanding honesty as an interpersonal communication process. We find that honesty can benefit relationships even when the truth may hurt, with more expressed and perceived honesty fostering better relationships regardless of whether couples share in that perception of honesty.

Romantic partners often attempt to improve their relationship by changing each other’s traits and behaviors, but such partner regulation is often unsuccessful. We examined whether gratitude expressed by agents (i.e., partners requesting change) facilitates greater regulation success from targets (i.e., partners making change) by encouraging targets’ autonomous motivation. Across studies, including observational (Study 1, N = 111 couples), preregistered longitudinal (Study 2, N = 150 couples), and experimental (Study 3a, N = 431; Study 3b, N = 725) designs, agents’ gratitude for targets’ efforts was linked to greater targets’—and less consistently agents’—reported regulation success. These effects were consistently mediated by greater target autonomous motivation, and generally persisted when accounting for how agents communicated their change request and other positive responses to targets’ efforts (e.g., positivity and support). Gratitude for targets’ efforts appears to be an important tool for promoting change success.

Empathy is a multidimensional construct that includes changes in cognitive, affective, and physiological processes. However, the physiological processes that contribute to empathic responding have received far less empirical attention. Here, we investigated whether physiological synchrony emerged during an empathy-inducing activity in which individuals disclosed a time of suffering while their romantic partner listened and responded (N = 111 couples). Further, we examined the extent to which trait and state measures of cognitive and affective empathy were associated with each other and with physiological synchrony during this activity. We found evidence for physiological synchrony in skin conductance reactivity and also in interbeat interval reactivity, though only when disclosers were women, but not for respiratory sinus arrhythmia reactivity. Physiological synchrony was not consistently associated with other well-established trait and state measures of empathy. These findings identify the nuanced role of physiological synchrony in empathic responding to others’ suffering.

Two motivations linked to developing and maintaining communal relationships include caring for others' welfare and striving to be viewed as a desirable communal relationship partner. We review evidence suggesting that both motivations promote high-quality listening. Furthermore, high-quality listening signals listeners' prosocial motivation and enhances the perceived relational value of both listeners and speakers. Thus, high-quality listening likely functions as an effective strategy in the formation and maintenance of communal relationships. This review suggests several directions for future research, including longitudinal research on the role of listening in relationship development, accuracy and bias in detecting and interpreting listening, the influence of conversation topic on listening, the role of people's beliefs about the usefulness of listening, and individual and relationship factors that determine people's motivations for listening.

The current meta-analysis addressed whether theistic religious beliefs are causally related to greater prejudice by analyzing 44 studies (Ntotal = 11,330) that used experimental designs-priming religion and then measuring negativity toward outgroups (e.g., LGBT and Muslim). The overall priming effect was significant but small (r = .06), indicating that priming religion increases prejudice. The implications of these results for the relation between religion and prejudice and for future work on religious priming are discussed.

Prosocial motivation is an important ingredient for satisfying relationships. However, individuals high in attachment avoidance-those who fear closeness and prefer independence-often display reduced prosocial motivation for their romantic partner. In two daily experience studies (Ntotal = 324), we examined whether feeling appreciated by a romantic partner would buffer this negative link. When avoidantly attached individuals felt highly appreciated by their partner, they displayed greater prosocial motivation; specifically, they were more willing to sacrifice, and did so with the intention to benefit their partner (Studies 1 and 2). These effects did not emerge for other, less prosocial motives for sacrifice, such as to benefit oneself or avoid negative outcomes. Furthermore, one reason why avoidantly attached individuals were more prosocial when they felt appreciated is because they felt more committed to the relationship (Study 2). These findings reveal the importance of feeling appreciated, especially among individuals who typically neglect a partner's needs.

Hope is a ubiquitous experience in daily life and acts as a force to help individuals attain desired future outcomes. In the current paper, we review existing research on hope and its benefits. Building on this work, we propose a new model of hope in romantic relationships. Our model seeks to expand the study of hope, addressing limitations of past research by bringing hope into the interpersonal domain and adding a future‐oriented perspective. More specifically, we argue that relational hope encompasses three facets, including relational agency, relational pathways, and relational aspirations, or what we call the wills, ways, and wishes people have in their relationship. We outline specific ways that these three facets may promote well‐being in romantic relationships. First, we propose that relational agency—the motivation to achieve relational goals—fuels approach‐motivated goals, which in turn promotes higher quality relationships. Additionally, we posit that relational pathways—the perception of sufficient strategies to pursue relational goals—enhance self‐regulation to support effective communication and conflict management with a romantic partner. Finally, we propose that relational aspirations—the positive emotions felt in anticipation of future relationship outcomes—foster growth beliefs which in turn promote relationship maintenance and commitment over time. While our model posits that relational hope has many potential benefits for relationships, we also discuss key contexts in which hope may undermine relationships and well‐being. Overall, our proposed model of relational hope offers a new area of insight into how hope may shape well‐being in romantic relationships.

Despite honesty being valued in many settings, there is some ambiguity regarding the conditions under which it is beneficial or harmful for individual and relational well-being. We review and evaluate current work linking honesty to well-being. Specifically, we highlight and distinguish associations between honesty and different types of well-being within people, between people, and among broader groups, organizations, and societies. Importantly, we provide additional context that explains why honesty is not universally associated with greater well-being—and how it may even incur costs for individuals. We provide suggestions for future directions for moving toward a more holistic understanding of honesty and the ways in which honesty can be used to understand individual and relational functioning.

Given that avoidance motivation is often related to negative outcomes, it is surprising that little research has investigated the economic factors that correlate with avoidance motivation. The current meta-analysis synthesized 40 studies (Ntotal = 771,690) on the relation between economic status and avoidance motivation. Economic status was operationalized with objective and subjective measures of economic status; avoidance motivation was operationalized with measures of energization (e.g., motives, behavioral systems) and direction (e.g., personal goals, social goals). The results revealed a small negative association between economic status and avoidance motivation (r = − .046, p < .001). This association was particularly strong in community samples (r = − .070, p < .001), for those high in prevention focus orientation (r = − .087, p < .05), and fear of failure (r = − .067, p < .001). In identifying this negative association in extant demographic data, this meta-analysis demonstrates the promise of examining economic status as a potential antecedent of avoidance motivation in future empirical work.

Despite honesty being valued in many settings, there is some ambiguity regarding the conditions under which it is beneficial or harmful for individual and relational well-being. We review and evaluate current work linking honesty to well-being. Specifically, we highlight and distinguish associations between honesty and different types of well-being within people, between people, and among broader groups, organizations, and societies. Importantly, we provide additional context that explains why honesty is not universally associated with greater well-being—and how it may even incur costs for individuals. We provide suggestions for future directions for moving toward a more holistic understanding of honesty and the ways in which honesty can be used to understand individual and relational functioning.