J3
Health Implications of Conflict in Close Relationships
Brittany L. Wright and Timothy J. Loving* The University of Texas
Abstract
We summarize the large body of research conducted over the previous 30 years on the link between interpersonal conflict and physiological outcomes, with a focus on implications for health. Specifically, we review evidence that conflict in close, romantic relationships affects inter- nal bodily processes, including cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune function, as well as objec- tive health indicators. We focus on studies that have utilized standardized, laboratory-based conflict discussions, as we believe this methodology provides the clearest picture of how conflict affects health. It is our hope that this general overview serves as a useful introduction to the state of the field.
Although she should feel relieved to be home after a long day of work, Diane cannot help but feel anxious; all day she has been mulling over how she’s going to pitch the idea of a romantic getaway to her budget conscious husband, Jack. To butter him up, the moment she walks in the door she starts preparing his favorite dinner. Preoccupied by thoughts of her pending conversation, Diane absentmindedly cuts her right index finger while chopping an onion meant for the spaghetti sauce that was beginning to simmer on the stove. Knife safety not being her forte, she reaches for the Band-Aids that she keeps on hand in the kitchen, quickly covers the wound, and proceeds with dinner. Later that evening, as they both sit down to eat, she takes the plunge:
So, I’ve thought about this a lot and I think we should take a trip to the Caribbean this sum- mer. I feel like things have been a little tense between us lately, and maybe a relaxing trip will help us get back on track.
Jack slowly shifts his gaze from the errant noodle he was attempting to wrangle on to his fork and replies: ‘‘And I’d like a Ferrari! You’re kidding, right? You actually think we can afford a trip to the Caribbean?’’ He then throws his fork down and gets up and parks himself in front of the TV. Diane begins to feel flush, and is overwhelmed by the feeling of her heart pounding in her chest. She quips back, ‘‘I knew you were going to say that! You’re so cheap!’’ Jack says nothing in response as he flips channels on the TV.
Unbeknownst to Diane, a complex cascade of events is occurring inside her body. Her blood pressure begins to rise and her endocrine system kicks into overdrive, releasing potentially harmful stress hormones into her bloodstream. Her immune system is also affected, now struggling to keep in check viruses that typically lie dormant in her body. Later that evening, although the actual argument is hours in the past, Diane cannot help but think about Jack’s insensitivity and rejecting demeanor. She gets into bed, turns out her light, and hopes tomorrow goes more smoothly.
A week later, Diane wakes up and prepares for another day of work. As she is putting on her makeup, she notices that the cut on her hand shows little progress toward healing. This surprises her, as she has always considered herself a quick healer. She starts to
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
mention this to Jack when it dawns on her that she cut herself just before their last seri- ous argument. ‘‘Is that a coincidence?’’ she thinks to herself.
Scope
In this article, we summarize the large body of research conducted over the previous 30 years on the link between interpersonal conflict and physiological outcomes, with a focus on implications for health. In brief, it is our intent to demonstrate to the reader that the answer to Diane’s question is an undeniable no, it is not a coincidence. Studies con- ducted across the world, with diverse samples, have shown that conflict in close, romantic relationships affects internal bodily processes, including cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune function, as well as objective health indicators. Our focus in this review is on research that has utilized standardized, laboratory-based conflict discussions, as we believe this methodology (described below) provides the clearest picture of how conflict affects health. Due to space limitations, we are admittedly unable to provide an exhaustive review of every study conducted in this area. That said, the studies we do review allow for a comprehensive, albeit concise, synopsis of the field. Additionally, we avoid lengthy discussion of specific physiological systems, choosing instead to provide brief discussions of how specific study findings may or may not hold implications for subsequent health parameters (when relevant). Readers seeking a more nuanced and technical understanding of the specific biomarkers discussed in this paper are referred to a number of excellent resources (e.g., Lovallo, 2005; Loving, Heffner, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2006; Rabin, 1999; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996).
Why Conflict and Health?
Research regarding the health implications of close, intimate relationships has by and large been dominated by a focus on the effects of conflict. There is good reason for this bias: although the extremity of conflicts within personal relationships varies dramatically, from the slight disagreement to highly emotional and aggressive fights, conflict’s near- universal occurrence in romantic relationships makes it ripe for empirical study (Cupach, 2000). In fact, nearly all married couples report having marital disagreements, with the average married couple arguing once or twice a month (McGonagle, Kessler, & Schil- ling, 1992). Thus, within the marital context, the typical couple married 7 years will have had anywhere from 84 to 168 disagreements (we use the terms ‘conflict’, ‘disagree- ment’, and ‘argument’ interchangeably in this paper). Although we know substantially less about the nature of conflict within non-marital, or dating samples, mounting evidence indicates that disagreements are an equally ubiquitous dynamic within these committed relationships.
Not surprisingly, the topics about which couples tend to argue vary considerably as a function of the specific life circumstances of the study samples. For married couples, money appears to strike the ire of spouses particularly well, especially within first mar- riages (Madden & Janoff-Bulman, 1981; Oggins, 2003; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). Further, gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples report similar amounts of conflict in their relationships and indicate similar topics of argument (e.g., money, communica- tion, sex; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2005), although same-sex couples report argu- ing more about issues of trust (likely due to the increased probability of encountering past partners) whereas heterosexual couples argue more about social issues (Kurdek, 1994). Although couples, especially those with children, tend to cite a range of other
Health Implications of Conflict 553
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
topics as being conflict-inducing (e.g., children, chores, and communication), conflicts over money-related issues are most likely to stay unresolved (Papp, Cummings, & Goeke- Morey, 2009; Stanley et al., 2002). Finally, in adolescent dating couples, the most common topics of disagreement concern sexuality (e.g., dating behaviors, intimacy in relationship), differences in ideas or opinions, and issues surrounding behavior (e.g., smoking, consuming alcohol; Laursen, 1995). Altogether, there is a fair amount of over- lap in the types of things about which romantic couples tend to argue, but the specific relationship contexts introduce some variation as well. The key thing to keep in mind is that regardless of the topic, conflict is a common occurrence.
Making Couples Argue
Isolating the effect conflict has on health requires strict control of a plethora of variables, including the time of day, interactions with third parties (e.g., friends and family), food and caloric intake, and so on, that also affect the types of physical outcomes in which researchers are interested. Fortunately, in addition to its commonality, conflict is also an ideal context for increasing understanding of how relationships affect health because con- flict is relatively easy to create in the laboratory, thus allowing for such strict control. In doing so, researchers are able to more accurately isolate specific conflict dynamics (via video recording) and assess ever-increasingly complex health-relevant physiological pro- cesses (discussed below). Importantly, conflicts generated in the laboratory provide a rela- tively accurate depiction of couples’ actual ‘real life’ conflict experiences (Heyman, 2001; Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003).
For all of the reasons outlined above, use of standardized conflict discussions pro- vides the best mechanism for identifying causal links between specific conflict behaviors and physical outcomes; however, such paradigms are not without limitations. For example, in older adult samples, results deriving from laboratory-based conflict inter- actions may lack generalizability. Older adults are less likely than their less relationship- experienced counterparts to report anger or other forms of hostility when confronted with an interpersonal conflict (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003; Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). Additionally, older adults are generally less likely to feel the need to engage in confrontation with a partner (Blanchard-Fields, 2007; Blanchard-Fields & Coats, 2008). As a result, it is possible that ‘forcing’ older adults to have a problem- solving discussion ultimately identifies processes and outcomes that are not particularly likely to occur in their day-to-day relationship lives (i.e., any results may reflect aspects of the paradigm and not the interpersonal relationship itself). This may be why it is not uncommon for older adults’ perceptions about typical behaviors to affect physio- logical outcomes more so than laboratory-induced conflict behaviors (Heffner et al., 2006).
The general method by which researchers induce conflict in the laboratory is more or less equivalent across research laboratories, and involves three primary steps (Loving et al., 2006). First, couples identify two or more areas of disagreement, or unresolved conflict topics. Identification of topics is typically done via self-report surveys, which are completed individually by each couple member, but is at times done with the aid of a researcher (or some combination of the two). Second, the researchers will have a brief conversation with the couple to ensure that particularly ‘hot topics’ have been selected. Third, the couple is then instructed to spend a certain amount of time discussing, and attempting to resolve, the identified areas of disagreement (for a more detailed discus- sion, see Loving et al., 2006).
1 Allotted discussion times vary across studies, with most
554 Health Implications of Conflict
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
discussions lasting between 5 min (Frankish & Linden, 1996) and 45 min (Mayne et al., 1997); the length of the discussion is often determined by the type of physiological markers assessed (i.e., studies focusing solely on cardiovascular outcomes can get by with discussions under 15 min, but longer discussions are needed when assessing endocrine and immunological markers, with 30 min being the most common). Typically, the phys- iological or health markers of interest are assessed before, during, and after the discussion, which allows researchers the ability to examine individuals’ initial reactions to the pend- ing conversations (i.e., anticipatory responses) as well as couple members’ ability to recover once the conversations have ended (recall Diane’s later rumination about the argument with Jack). Additionally, in a few studies included in this summary, researchers deviated from the standard conflict interaction paradigm. For instance, rather than having couples argue about an issue in their relationship, Smith and Gallo (1999) assigned spouses to differing sides of a non-personal issue (e.g., rent controls for campus-area housing) and measured their blood pressure and heart rate (HR) fluctuations throughout the discussion.
By employing the standard paradigm and its variants, scientists are now able to provide a remarkably fine-grained portrait of the health implications of romantic relationship con- flict. The earliest work on this topic focused on cardiovascular outcomes, mostly owing to logical (who has not felt their heart pounding during an argument?) and practical con- cerns (such outcomes were traditionally the easiest to assess non-invasively). Many of these studies served as the foundation for later work that explored other more difficult to assess physiological outcomes. Therefore, we will begin by discussing the research exam- ining the effects of conflict on cardiovascular outcomes.
Conflict and Cardiovascular Outcomes
Arguing with a romantic relationship partner affects a number of cardiovascular outcomes. Common markers of cardiovascular health include HR, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), cardiac output (CO), and vascular resistance indexes (VRI). Most individuals are familiar with SBP and DBP, which refer to the pressure applied to the walls of blood vessels as the heart is beating. SBP, or the top number in 120 ⁄ 70 mmHg, for example, references the peak pressure when the heart is beating or contracting; DBP, or the bottom number, references the pressure on the walls of blood vessels when the heart is at rest. Other terms, such as CO or VRI, are generally less familiar to the general public. Briefly, CO refers to the volume of blood pumped by the heart during a specific time period (e.g., 1 min) and in its simplest form is measured as a function of one’s HR (number of heart beats per minute) and stroke rate (the volume of blood pumped with each beat). Vascular resistance refers to the extent to which blood vessels resist the flow of blood throughout the vascular system, with greater resistance linked to poor physical health (Broadwell & Light, 1999).
Collectively, each of these cardiovascular indices provides important information regarding the manner in which the body is responding physiologically to a conflict inter- action, and researchers often choose a subset of these markers to represent overall cardio- vascular reactivity during conflict (e.g., Dopp et al., 2000; Kiecolt-Glaser, Malarkey, Chee, & Newton, 1993). For example, merely disagreeing with a romantic partner affects the cardiovascular system; when partners disagree with one another, SBP and DBP levels of men and women increase compared to when partners agree with one another on a par- ticular topic (Smith & Gallo, 1999; Smith et al., 2009). Additionally, individuals experi- ence significant increases in SBP, HR, and CO during a conflict discussion relative to
Health Implications of Conflict 555
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
what is experienced during a ‘neutral’ or ‘positive’ discussion (Nealey-Moore et al., 2007).
Findings such as these are interesting, but they raise questions about why increases in cardiovascular indices occur in the first place. In other words, what are the mechanisms, or underlying dynamics, that cause such health-relevant physiological outcomes? Among the variables that have been considered, being ‘nasty’ or interacting with a ‘nasty’ partner (Ewart et al., 1991) affects cardiovascular outcomes for the worse. This interaction dynamic is commonly referred to as hostility or negativity, and is most often measured as a personality trait assessed through a self-report questionnaire or as a constellation of behaviors observed during the conflict discussion (e.g., individuals who express criticism, roll their eyes, or interrupt a partner during conflict are identified as more hostile or neg- ative). Further, oftentimes, couples are considered hostile couples when both members of the couple are rated as being hostile during the conflict or when they both are scored as being hostile based on a self-report questionnaire (e.g., via the Cook–Medley Hostility Scale; Cook & Medley, 1954).
Not surprisingly, having a nasty, or hostile, discussion with a partner is not good for one’s health. In fact, simply disagreeing with a hostile partner can cause one’s HR to increase (Smith & Gallo, 1999). Further, wives who are hostile themselves, or in a hostile relationship, show increases in SBP, HR, and VRI relative to non-hostile wives or those in non-hostile relationships (Broadwell & Light, 2005; Ewart et al., 1991; Morell & Apple, 1990). Husbands’ cardiovascular reactivity demonstrates similar patterns; for exam- ple, husbands in hostile relationships show a significant increase in VRI, and hostile husbands’ DBP increases when they are confronting their wives about an issue (Broadwell & Light, 2005; Newton & Sanford, 2003).
Positive affect and positive exchanges during conflict do not appear to influence car- diovascular reactivity (Ewart et al., 1991; Morell & Apple, 1990); however, this is not to say that positive relationship features are unimportant. For example, when spouses per- ceive that their partners are generally supportive, they experience lower SBP, DBP, and VRI before and during conflict relative to when they do not believe their spouses are supportive (see Broadwell & Light, 1999). In a study of newlywed couples, spouses who were more satisfied with the support they tend to receive from their partners showed lower DBP during conflict (Heffner, Kiecolt-Glaser, Loving, Glaser, & Malarkey, 2004). Thus, in terms of cardiovascular outcomes, avoiding negative behaviors during conflict is key, but the ongoing relationship between spouses also plays a role.
Conflict and Endocrine Outcomes
In addition to providing important information about how the body is responding in the immediate context of conflict, cardiovascular reactivity also affects the body’s hormone production. Thus, researchers often evaluate individuals’ endocrine reactivity directly by measuring the hormones released during a conflict. At the most basic level, the endocrine system is a set of glands that work together to secrete hormones into an individual’s bloodstream. Some of the most commonly assessed endocrine outcomes include epineph- rine (EPI), norepinephrine (NEPI), cortisol, and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). Each of these hormones, which serve both basic bodily functions but are also activated during times of stress, is released as a function of either the hypothalamic-pituitary-adre- nocortical (HPA) axis or the sympathetic adrenomedullary (SAM) axis. The SAM axis is responsible for individuals’ ‘fight or flight’ responses in which EPI and NEPI are immedi- ately released into the bloodstream. The HPA axis, on the other hand, is responsible for
556 Health Implications of Conflict
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
the release of ACTH and cortisol; the effects of the HPA axis are not necessarily seen until after the fight or flight response is over and are more influential in recovery from a stressor. Other hormones have also received attention, including prolactin, vasopressin, and growth hormone, but the bulk of research has focused on the hormones released directly via the HPA and SAM axes.
As with cardiovascular outcomes, hostility during conflict affects individual hormone levels quite dramatically. For example, in newlyweds, negative or hostile behavior during conflict increases spouses’ EPI, NEPI, ACTH, and growth hormone (Malarkey, Kiecolt- Glaser, Pearl, & Glaser, 1994). Importantly, in a number of studies, wives are more affected by conflict than are their male spouses (e.g., Fehm-Wolfsdorf et al., 1999; Robles, Shaffer, Malarkey, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2006). In these studies, conflict interactions either had no impact on husbands’ endocrine function or husbands were significantly less influenced than were their wives (see Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001 for a comprehen- sive review and theoretical explanation).
Researchers have focused on specific behavioral patterns in an attempt to understand the etiology of this gendered pattern. For example, women experience higher levels of cortisol and NEPI if their husbands withdraw in response to her negative behaviors (Kie- colt-Glaser et al., 1996); a similar pattern emerges in older married couples (Heffner et al., 2006). In contrast, husbands’ own behaviors and emotions affect their endocrine responses more so than does their wives’ behaviors. For example, high hostile husbands experience greater increases in cortisol when they express more anger during a conflict (Miller, Dopp, Myers, Stevens, & Fahey, 1999). For men in dating relationships, how- ever, partner attributes may matter more. For example, men who are dating highly emo- tional women, or those who generally display more distress, fear, and anger, have a difficult time recovering (i.e., returning to baseline) after a conflict (Laurent & Powers, 2007). Thus, both men and women experience changes in specific hormones in response to conflict, but the underlying causes of these changes appear to vary and may do so as a function of relationship context.
In addition to hostility (or negativity), a number of other relationship-level and indi- vidual-level variables affect hormone responses to conflict, including pubertal timing (Smith & Powers, 2009), vulnerability to loss and rejection (Laurent & Powers, 2006), relative emotional dependency in marriage (Loving, Heffner, Kiecolt-Glaser, Glaser, & Malarkey, 2004), and adult attachment (Laurent & Powers, 2007; Powers et al., 2006). For example, newlywed wives who were more emotionally invested in their marriages compared to their husbands (i.e., they had less power) showed greater ACTH levels in response to conflict (Loving et al., 2004). Within dating relationships, ‘insecurely attached’ individuals, or those who are uncomfortable relying on others and having others rely on them, show steep increases in cortisol in anticipation of a conflict discussion, and maintain those increases well after the discussion ends. Additionally, just being paired with an ‘insecure’ partner increases men’s cortisol stress responses to conflict (both antici- pation and recovery; Powers et al., 2006). Studies such as these, which focus on modera- tors of hormone responses during romantic relationship conflict, are beginning to provide a much more complete picture of how and why conflict affects health.
Why do these types of hormonal effects during and immediately after conflict matter? It is important to note that the effects we briefly review above often last well after conflicts have ended (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1996). As a result, the hormone levels seen during a conflict may provide a snapshot into more regular day-to-day hormone system function. Importantly, chronic increases of many of the hormones mentioned contribute to the overall wear-and-tear of the body, leading to sickness and early
Health Implications of Conflict 557
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
mortality (McEwen, 1998). Put more simply, increases in many of these hormones (e.g., cortisol) dysregulate the immune system, potentially affecting our body’s ability to ward off illness. With this in mind, we now turn our attention to the effect of conflict on immune system function.
Conflict and Immune Outcomes
Generally speaking, the immune system’s primary job is to distinguish the ‘self’ (the body’s normal cells) from the ‘non-self’ (foreign invaders or transformed cells), and destroy the latter. Measuring the function of the immune system generally takes one of two forms: (1) Researchers determine the count or percentage of specific immune cells by conducting an ‘enumerative assay’, or (2) researchers essentially test the ability of dif- ferent types of immune cells to perform their jobs by conducting a ‘functional assay’ (for a description of specific measures see Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser, 1995). Each type of assay provides important and unique information regarding performance of the immune system. Importantly, paralleling the effects seen with cardiovascular and endocrine outcomes, conflict in close relationships disrupts normal immune function.
In what is perhaps the seminal study on this topic, Kiecolt-Glaser et al. (1993) assessed the effect of conflict on spouses’ immune systems via a number of functional and enu- merative immunological assays. In general, spouses exhibiting more ‘nasty’ types of behaviors during a 30-min conflict discussion demonstrated signs of immunological dis- ruption and down-regulation. For example, high negativity was associated with signs that the body was having a difficult time controlling, or keeping in check, a latent virus (i.e., Epstein-Barr). In other words, negative behaviors during conflict ‘resurrects’, so to speak, a virus that typically lies dormant in our bodies. In this particular study, women were more affected than were men, but a subsequent study with older spouses revealed similar effects for men and women (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1997).
Kiecolt-Glaser et al. (1993) also identified significant changes in numbers of several specific types of immune cells. More recent work by Dopp et al. (2000) and Miller et al. (1999) has provided additional detail regarding how concentrations of specific immune cells change in result to conflict (i.e., cell trafficking). The specific findings of these stud- ies are beyond the scope of this paper, but the general idea that immune cell concentra- tions can be affected following even short problem-solving discussions highlights the significant impact conflict can have on health.
In addition to changes in immune cell numbers and function, researchers have also assessed how conflict affects cytokines, or substances produced by immune cells that play an important role in how the immune system works. For example, increased levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a proinflammatory cytokine, are associated with cardiovascular dis- orders, osteoporosis, certain cancers, Rheumatoid arthritis, and Alzheimer’s disease (Black, 2006; Nishimoto, 2006; Swardfager et al., 2010). Importantly, Gouin et al. (2009) found that more avoidantly attached individuals (i.e., those who are generally uncomfortable with intimacy) had significantly higher levels of IL-6 levels (an 11% increase) during a conflict discussion compared to when they had a supportive interac- tion with their spouse. In additional analyses using the same sample (Graham et al., 2009), couples that were less engaged during conflict (as evidenced by the amount and types of words they used during the conflict) had higher levels of IL-6 compared to more engaged spouses. Thus, as with cardiovascular and endocrine outcomes, both indi- vidual-level and couple-level dynamics moderate the impact of conflict on immune health.
558 Health Implications of Conflict
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Conflict and Objective Health
For the most part, the cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune outcomes lend strong sup- port to the claim that conflict affects health. Ultimately, however, the best evidence for such an assertion comes from studies that have directly measured health outcomes (rather than infer them based on alterations in health-relevant physiological parameters), a research direction that is garnering increasing attention. Indeed, conflict in close relation- ships affects asthma symptomatology, the experience of physical pain, and the rate at which wounds heal. First, interpersonal conflict affects pulmonary function of asthmatics. Specifically, in a small sample of asthmatic patients, four out of six individuals experi- enced decreased pulmonary functioning during a conflict with their spouse, with women, once again, being negatively impacted significantly more so than their husbands (Schmal- ing et al., 1996). Second, conflict also affects the experience of physical pain. In a study of 34 couples, males suffering from chronic back pain engaged in a discussion with their spouse about either a stressor in the marriage or a non-relationship focused discussion. Patients who discussed a stressor with their partner were subsequently more likely to quit a bicycle-riding task prematurely compared to those who participated in the neutral dis- cussion (Schwartz, Slater, & Birchler, 1994).
Third, conflict affects the ability of the body to heal wounds (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005). Specifically, in a recent study, 42 married couples were given eight small, stan- dardized wounds on their non-dominant forearms via use of a small plastic template (about the size of a deck of cards) and a vacuum pump. Over two separate laboratory vis- its, the ability of these ‘suction blisters’ to heal following a standard conflict interaction and a supportive interaction (during which spouses took turns talking about something they would like to change about the self) was assessed. Remarkably, the wounds of indi- viduals in high hostile relationships healed at 60% of the rate of those in low hostile rela- tionships. Not surprisingly, the effects were more pronounced when comparing the rate of healing following the conflict versus the support interaction.
Importantly, the findings reviewed above are consistent with what is seen in non-labo- ratory based studies. For example, individuals reporting more negative interactions in their close relationships are at a higher risk for coronary heart disease (De Vogli, Chandola, & Marmot, 2007) and martial stress predicts a host of poor health outcomes as well as early mortality (Matthews & Gump, 2002). Thus, although an overall smaller body of work exists, the studies that have been conducted provide strong support for the contention that changes in internal bodily processes that occur before, during, and after a conflict interac- tion have significant, real-world consequences.
Summary
The occurrence of conflict in close relationships is a given: across relationship types, all couples report having disagreements (occasionally or otherwise). Conflict is so common, in fact, that relationship scholars view it to be an essential component of a well-function- ing relationship; it is through conflict, when preferences or wants diverge, that we develop (or not) a feeling of trust for our partners and a sense of where we stand in our relationships (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Unfortunately, despite its potentially adaptive function, conflict can significantly harm relationship partners, especially when the conflict is ‘nasty’ (although, as we note, simply disagreeing with someone, regardless of the affective tone and observed behaviors, affects the body). Over the years, researchers have identified a host of factors that affect whether an argument with a close relationship
Health Implications of Conflict 559
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
partner will result in any number of physiological and physical outcomes. In this review, we have provided a general summary of the body of findings regarding the health impli- cations of conflict in close relationships. We admittedly glossed over most of the very nuanced, but fascinating, study findings, instead focusing on general patterns and big- picture summaries. It is our hope, however, that this general overview serves as a useful introduction to the state of the field.
Short Biographies
Brittany Wright is a graduate student at The University of Texas at Austin pursuing a doctoral degree in Human Development and Family Sciences. She received her B.A. in Psychology and M.S. in Experimental Psychology from Mississippi State University. Broadly speaking, her research interests include studying the transitions within nonmarital romantic relationships and the factors that enhance or weaken relationship development. Within this area, she also studies how these relationship transitions can influence mental and physical health.
Timothy Loving received his Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Purdue University in 2001. He is currently an Associate Professor in The University of Texas at Austin’s Department of Human Development and Family Sciences. Prior to arriving at Texas, he received Post-doctoral training at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, where he was funded by an NIH Training Grant in Psychoneuroimmunology. Dr. Loving’s research addresses the mental and physical health impact of relationship transitions, with a particular focus on affectively positive transitions (e.g., falling in love) and the role net- work members serve as relationship partners adapt to these transitions. He is an Associate Editor of Personal Relationships and a member of the editorial board for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. His research is currently funded by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, and his work has been published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personal Relationships, Psychosomatic Medicine, Psychoneuroendocrinology, and Archives of General Psychiatry.
Endnotes
* Correspondence address: The University of Texas, 1 University Station, Box A2702, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Email: tjloving@mail.utexas.edu
1 Depending on the specific goals of a study, the researchers may leave the couple alone or sit out of sight but
audiotape (e.g., Nealey-Moore, Smith, Uchino, Hawkins, & Olson-Cerny, 2007; Smith & Gallo, 1999) or video- tape the couples’ conversations (e.g., for subsequent behavioral coding; Broadwell & Light, 1999; Dopp, Miller, Myers, & Fahey, 2000; Fehm-Wolfsdorf, Groth, Kaiser, & Hahlweg, 1999; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1996; Powers, Pie- tromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006). In some instances, the researchers will sit in the room with the couple during the discussion to facilitate as needed (e.g., Ewart, Taylor, Kraemer, & Agras, 1991; Mayne, O’Leary, McCrady, & Contrada, 1997).
References
Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Age and gender differences in adults’ descriptions of emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58B(4), P237–P245.
Black, P. (2006). The inflammatory consequences of psychologic stress: Relationship to insulin resistance, obesity, atherosclerosis and diabetes mellitus, type II. Medical Hypotheses, 67(4), 879–891.
Blanchard-Fields, F. (2007). Everyday problem solving and emotion: An adult developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 26–31.
560 Health Implications of Conflict
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Blanchard-Fields, F., & Coats, A. H. (2008). The experience of anger and sadness in everyday problems impacts age differences in emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1547–1556.
Broadwell, S. D., & Light, K. C. (1999). Family support and cardiovascular responses in married couples during conflict and other interactions. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 40–63.
Broadwell, S. D., & Light, K. C. (2005). Hostility, conflict and cardiovascular responses in married couples: A focus on the dyad. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12(3), 142–152.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181.
Cook, W. W., & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed hostility and Pharisaic-virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38(6), 414–418.
Cupach, W. R. (2000). Advancing understanding of relational conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(4–5), 697–703.
De Vogli, R., Chandola, T., & Marmot, M. (2007). Negative aspects of close relationships and heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(18), 1951–1957.
Dopp, J. M., Miller, G. E., Myers, H. F., & Fahey, J. L. (2000). Increased natural killer-cell mobilization and cyto- toxicity during marital conflict. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 14(1), 10–26.
Ewart, C. K., Taylor, C. B., Kraemer, H. C., & Agras, W. S. (1991). High blood pressure and marital discord: Not being nasty matters more than being nice. Health Psychology, 10(3), 155–163.
Fehm-Wolfsdorf, G., Groth, T., Kaiser, A., & Hahlweg, K. (1999). Cortisol responses to marital conflict depend on marital interaction quality. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6(3), 207–227.
Frankish, C., & Linden, W. (1996). Spouse-pair risk factors and cardiovascular reactivity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 40(1), 37–51.
Gouin, J. P., Glaser, R., Loving, T. J., Malarkey, W. B., Stowell, J., & Houts, C. (2009). Attachment avoidance predicts inflammatory responses to marital conflict. Brain Behavior and Immunity, 23(7), 898–904.
Graham, J. E., Glaser, R., Loving, T. J., Malarkey, W. B., Stowell, J. R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2009). Cognitive word use during marital conflict and increases in proinflammatory cytokines. Health Psychology, 28(5), 621–630.
Heffner, K. L., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (2004). Spousal support satisfac- tion as a modifier of physiological responses to marital conflict in younger and older couples. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 27(3), 233–254.
Heffner, K. L., Loving, T. J., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Himawan, L. K., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (2006). Older spouses’ cortisol responses to marital conflict: Associations with demand ⁄ withdraw communication patterns. Jour- nal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(4), 317–325.
Heyman, R. E. (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 5–35.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Measurement of immune response. In S. Cohen, R. C. Kessler, L. Gor- don, S. Cohen, R. C. Kessler & L. Gordon (Eds.), Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists (pp. 213–229). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCallum, R. C., Snydersmith, M., & Kim, C. (1997). Marital conflict in older adults: Endocrinological and immunological correlates. Psychosomatic Medicine, 59(4), 339–349.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. B., Lemeshow, S., & Dickinson, S. L. (2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychia- try, 62(12), 1377–1384.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Malarkey, W. B., Chee, M., & Newton, T. (1993). Negative behavior during marital conflict is associated with immunological down-regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55(5), 395–409.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCallum, R. C., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (1996). Marital conflict and endocrine function: Are men really more physiologically affected than women? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(2), 324–332.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 472–503.
Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Areas of conflict for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples: What couples argue about influ- ences relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 56(4), 923–934.
Laurent, H., & Powers, S. (2007). Emotion regulation in emerging adult couples: Temperament, attachment, and HPA response to conflict. Biological Psychology, 76(1–2), 61–71.
Laurent, H. K., & Powers, S. I. (2006). Social-cognitive predictors of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal reactivity to interpersonal conflict in emerging adult couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(5), 703–720.
Laursen, B. (1995). Conflict and social interaction in adolescent relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5(1), 55–70. Lovallo, W. R. (2005). Stress & Health: Biological and Psychological Interactions (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc. Loving, T. J., Heffner, K. L., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2006). Physiology and Interpersonal Relationships. In A. L.
Vangelisti, D. Perlman, A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 385–405). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Health Implications of Conflict 561
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Loving, T. J., Heffner, K. L., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (2004). Stress hormone changes and marital conflict: Spouses’ relative power makes a difference. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 595–612.
Madden, M. E., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1981). Blame, control, and marital satisfaction: Wives’ attributions for con- flict in marriage. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 43(3), 663–674.
Malarkey, W. B., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Pearl, D., & Glaser, R. (1994). Hostile behavior during marital conflict alters pituitary and adrenal hormones. Psychosomatic Medicine, 56(1), 41–51.
Matthews, K. A., & Gump, B. B. (2002). Chronic work stress and marital dissolution increase risk of posttrial mor- tality in men from the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(3), 309–315.
Mayne, T. J., O’Leary, A., McCrady, B., & Contrada, R. (1997). The differential effects of acute marital distress on emotional, physiological and immune functions in maritally distressed men and women. Psychology & Health, 12(2), 277–288.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. In S. M. McCann, J. M. Lipton, E. M. Sternberg, G. P. Chrousos, P. W. Gold, C. C. Smith & C. C. Smith (Eds.), Annals of the New York Acad- emy of Sciences, Vol. 840: Neuroimmunomodulation: Molecular Aspects, Integrative Systems, and Clinical Advances (pp. 33–44). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
McGonagle, K. A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1992). The frequency and determinants of marital disagree- ments in a community sample. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(4), 507–524.
Miller, G. E., Dopp, J. M., Myers, H. F., Stevens, S. Y., & Fahey, J. L. (1999). Psychosocial predictors of natural killer cell mobilization during marital conflict. Health Psychology, 18(3), 262–271.
Morell, M. A., & Apple, R. F. (1990). Affect expression, marital satisfaction, and stress reactivity among premeno- pausal women during a conflictual marital discussion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(3), 387–402.
Nealey-Moore, J. B., Smith, T. W., Uchino, B. N., Hawkins, M. W., & Olson-Cerny, C. (2007). Cardiovascular reactivity during positive and negative marital interactions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(6), 505–519.
Newton, T. L., & Sanford, J. M. (2003). Conflict structure moderates associations between cardiovascular reactivity and negative marital interaction. Health Psychology, 22(3), 270–278.
Nishimoto, N. (2006). Interleukin-6 in rheumatoid arthritis. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 18(3), 277–281. Oggins, J. (2003). Topics of marital disagreement among African-American and Euro-American newlyweds. Psycho-
logical Reports, 92(2), 419–425. Papp, L. M., Cummings, E., & Goeke-Morey, M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: Money as a topic of marital
conflict in the home. Family Relations, 58(1), 91–103. Powers, S. I., Pietromonaco, P. R., Gunlicks, M., & Sayer, A. (2006). Dating couples’ attachment styles and
patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to a relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 613–628.
Rabin, B. S. (1999). Stress, Immune Function, and Health: The Connection. New York: Wiley-Liss & Sons. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. Robles, T. F., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of marriage: Pathways to health. Physiology & Behav-
ior, 79(3), 409–416. Robles, T. F., Shaffer, V. A., Malarkey, W. B., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2006). Positive behaviors during marital
conflict: Influences on stress hormones. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(2), 305–325. Schmaling, K. B., Wamboldt, F., Telford, L., Newman, K. B., Hops, H., & Eddy, J. M. (1996). Interaction of
asthmatics and their spouses: A preliminary study of individual differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 3(3), 211–218.
Schwartz, L., Slater, M. A., & Birchler, G. R. (1994). Interpersonal stress and pain behaviors in patients with chronic pain. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 861–864.
Smith, A., & Powers, S. I. (2009). Off-time pubertal timing predicts physiological reactivity to postpuberty inter- personal stress. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(3), 441–458.
Smith, T. W., & Gallo, L. C. (1999). Hostility and cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61(4), 436–445.
Smith, T. W., Uchino, B. N., Berg, C. A., Florsheim, P., Pearce, G., Hawkins, M. et al. (2009). Conflict and col- laboration in middle-aged and older couples: II. Cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 274–286.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings. Sex Roles, 52(9–10), 561–575.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41(4), 659–675.
Swardfager, W., Lanctôt, K., Rothenburg, L., Wong, A., Cappell, J., & Herrmann, N. (2010). A meta-analysis of cytokines in Alzheimer’s disease. Biological Psychiatry, 68(10), 930–941.
Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physi- ological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 488–531.
562 Health Implications of Conflict
ª 2011 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/8 (2011): 552–562, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00371.x Social and Personality Psychology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Copyright of Social & Personality Psychology Compass is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.