INTRODUCTION GROWTH IN RELATIONSHIPS

INTRODUCTION GROWTH IN RELATIONSHIPS

Romantic partners and dedicated discount seekers Becca and Andy scroll through a

coupon application on their shared laptop computer. Becca is excited when she reaches a coupon

for 45% off dance lessons near their town, but an uneasy Andy ultimately thinks a half price

discount on their favourite restaurant is something he would prefer. The couple discusses which

coupon they should purchase, and Becca argues they should try new things together more often,

whereas Andy responds that fostering traditions in their relationship is what matters. In

relationships, there are always these dilemmas – do we go to a new restaurant, or to an old

favourite? Do we move across town or stay in our neighbourhood?

Molden, Olson, & Lucas, 2012; Molden & Winterheld, 2013), we suggest that for individuals

who are eager to attain advancement or growth, like Becca, the presence of characteristics in

their relationship consistent with their motivational orientations (e.g., growth and advancement)

enhances relationship well-being. In contrast, if the same growth related characteristics are

present but the individual’s motivational orientation stresses stability and security, like Andy,

these characteristics should have less influence on relationship well-being. Although the

foundation of most relationships is based on the presence of security related traits (Hazen &

Shaver, 1987), if an individual’s motivational orientation prioritizes relationship stability and

responsibility more than growth and advancement, that individual’s relationship well-being

should be higher.

In three experimental studies, we examine how the presence of growth characteristics in

and growth (Aron & Aron, 1986; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). Existing theorizing in close

relationships has long emphasized the importance of maintaining security for the success and

well-being of relationships. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), for example, posits that forming

secure attachment bonds with close others, that is, experiencing a sense of security and trust in a

partner, fosters relationship success and well-being through the lifespan (e.g., Brennan & Shaver,

1995; Feeney, 1996; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Kobak & Hazan, 1991). Feeling secure in one’s

relationships is comprised of experiencing intimacy and interdependence, while also being

trusting of others and viewing both others and the self in a positive light. Given that secure

attachment is defined as the absence of anxiety and avoidance (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1982;

Hazan & Shaver, 1987), high quality bonds (i.e., successful relationships) are often measured by

felt security in close relationships. For example, several lines of work have focused on the

negative downstream consequences of experiencing threats to relationship security (Cavallo,

Fitzsimons, & Holmes, 2009; Cavallo, Holmes, Fitzsimons, Murray, & Wood, 2012; Murray,

This pattern of self-protective behaviour ironically undermines relationship satisfaction and

results in greater conflict between partners, enhancing the likelihood of the relationship ending

(Murray et al., 2002; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996).

The presence of security itself fosters high quality relationships but has also been

theorized as a pre-requisite for experiencing other beneficial relationship factors. According to

attachment theory, security is needed as a foundation in order for exploration and growth to

occur (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Attachment figures serve as a secure base from which individuals

can explore the environment, knowing they can return to the secure base if difficulties arise.

Research examining the role of exploration in adult attachment has stressed that secure partners

tend to foster exploration outside of the dyad (Green & Campbell, 2000; Feeney & Thrush,

2010). For example, people with secure partners spent more time persisting at a solitary novel

puzzle task than did those with insecure partners, suggesting that security also plays a role in

The emphasis on the importance of security to relationship success can also be seen in

security and absence of insecurity is critical for maintaining high quality, long-lasting

Relationship Success: Growth and Advancement

It is clear that security is a critical component of relationship success. However,

historically less attention has been paid to the potentially powerful role of growth, in its own

which is required at some minimum level to maintain a relationship, the focus on growth-related

qualities emphasizes the need for progress (including adopting new values, standards and

experiences) within the relationship. There is a growing body of research highlighting the critical

role of growth-related qualities in enhancing relationship well-being (e.g., Aron, Aron, &

Smollan, 1992; MacDonald, Locke, Spielmann, & Joel, 2013; Spielmann, MacDonald, &

Tackett, 2012).

For example, couples that engage in new and arousing activities have more positive

relationship outcomes (Aron et al., 2000); by definition, novel activities are expanding to the self

and the arousal felt is associated with past rapid expansion experiences. This experience mirrors

that of rapid self-expansion at the beginning of a relationship that fosters initial positive affect

and physiological arousal (Aron, Norman, & Aron, 1998). As the relationship progresses, further

rapid expansion is slow or nonexistent and this leads to boredom and loss of enjoyable emotion

In one illustration of this, Aron and colleagues (2000) asked couples to complete one of

two tasks. Half the couples undertook a novel task in which they were told to complete an

ball to and from each other. Couples had a greater increase in relationship quality from before to

relationship quality may be lower than if they had won. In order to rule out this possibility,

Reissman, Aron, and Bergen (1993) recruited married couples for a 10-week study and randomly

assigned them to spend 1.5 hours per week doing an exciting activity (e.g., attending a concert,

skiing, or dancing), a pleasant activity (e.g., visiting friends, attending a movie, or eating out), or

to do nothing. Importantly, each of the suggested tasks did not require winning or losing. At the

end of the 10 weeks, there was a significantly greater increase in satisfaction in the exciting

activities group compared to the pleasant or no-activity group, even when controlling for social

desirability. This study not only demonstrated that the success of a task is not necessary for

positive relationship outcomes, but that even outside of a controlled laboratory environment,

prioritize safety and security. However, if an individual has evidence of reciprocated affections,

Regulatory Focus Theory

aspirations and accomplishments (promotion-focus) and (b) responsibilities and safety

advancement and gains. In contrast, a prevention-focus involves sensitivity to the presence or

absence of negative outcomes and an inclination to avoid mismatches to desired end states.

With a prevention-focus, there is vigilance to assure safety and non-loss (Higgins et al., 1994).

A person’s regulatory focus broadly influences the manner in which people carry out a

variety of self-regulatory activities. For example, using signal detection (Tanner & Swets, 1954;

Trope & Liberman, 1996), Roney, Higgins, and Shah (1995) hypothesized that individuals in a

state of eagerness from a promotion-focus should want to accomplish “hits” and avoid errors of

omission, as this is a loss of accomplishment. Alternatively, those in a state of vigilance from a

prevention-focus should want to attain correct rejections and avoid errors of commission, as this

would be making a mistake. They found that, when solving anagrams, promotion-focus

Promotion and prevention-focus are motivational states that can be elicited by situations,

Research on these motivational states in the context of relationships and trust development,

conflict resolution, relationship initiation, self-disclosure, relationship maintenance, commitment

levels, and attention to alternative partners has been abundant (Molden & Winterheld, 2013).

Given that promotion-focused individuals are concerned with pursuing gains even at the

risk of losses, it is assumed that these individuals should develop trust more rapidly, and should

recover trust following a betrayal faster than prevention-focused individuals. Molden, Olson, and

Lucas (2012) tested theory this by asking participants to play a multi-round investment game in

which they transferred money to an anonymous partner. When promotion-focused individuals

transferred money to their partner (a display of trust) but their partner did not transfer money to

them (a display of betrayal) they were more likely to recover from this betrayal in later rounds of

the game compared to prevention-focused individuals experiencing the same situation.

which are more important to them than potential losses.

In another program of studies, it was found that promotion-focused individuals eagerly

pursue opportunities to grow and advance in relationships whereas prevention-focused people

who prefers to pursue goals eagerly with a partner who prefers to utilize vigilant strategies can

alternatives more than prevention-focused people (Finkel, Molden, Johnson, & Eastwick, 2009).

staying in the relationship when it lacks those necessary features of excitement and change that

promotion-focused individuals seek.

pursue felt security, reciprocated affection, closeness, and commitment from a partner. The

presence of these qualities, in our opinion, would ideally be balanced with experiencing novel

activities together, learning new things about each other, and generally moving forward together

in the relationship. Each is important for relationship success, but one’s motivational orientation

towards promotion-focus or prevention-focus can determine which of these qualities (i.e., growth

or security) is prioritized in romantic relationships. People who have a promotion-focus toward

improving their relationships will represent their advancement goals as engaging in novel

activities with their partner and avoiding missed social opportunities. In contrast, people who

have a prevention-focus towards securing their relationship would represent this goal as

will examine the influence of individual’s chronic and induced regulatory focus on relationship

Overview of the Present Studies

Three experimental studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that promotion-focused

individuals would experience better relationship well-being (e.g., satisfaction, commitment,

optimism) when they believed their relationship offered greater opportunity for growth compared

to when it portrayed greater opportunity for security. This hypothesis was tested using three

different paradigms and operationalizations of growth in relationships. Given the focus on the

absence or presence of growth in each study and promotion-focused individuals’ sensitivity to

growth-related concepts, findings for prevention-focused individuals who are sensitive to the

presence and absence of security-related concepts are reported, but are not the focus of this

thesis.

Study 1 included data from an online questionnaire about potential partners and used an

experimental manipulation of regulatory focus to predict partner and trait preferences for growth.

judgments about relationships that offer greater (vs. lesser) opportunities for growth. In this

study, we experimentally manipulated participants’ regulatory focus using a well-validated

induction procedure (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002; Higgins,

Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Higgins et al., 1994). Following this, they were asked to make

judgments about two hypothetical relationship partners, one of whom afforded greater

offered growth or the partner who offered security. Overall, 32.4% of participants reported

partner than were people in the control condition, OR = 3.16, p = .046, 95% CI [1.02, 9.78].

Promotion-focused participants did not differ significantly from control participants in their

partner choices, OR = 1.13, p = .801, 95% CI [.45, 2.85]. When it came to preferring the profile

These results preliminarily demonstrate a differential preference for a partner offering

potential for growth among promotion-focused participants relative to prevention-focused

participants. However, given the main effect of security across all conditions, we cannot yet be

confident in our conclusions about promotion-focused individual’s preference for romantic

partners offering growth over security. The 3-way interaction between partner preference,

have then decided on their preference for the addition of growth traits or not. Moving forward,

The result showing that promotion-focused participants did not differ from control

for those who were prevention-induced compared to those who were promotion-induced.

Including a control condition is advantageous in that it allows for a better understanding of how

preferences might differ from baseline. However, a control condition in this case can also be

difficult to interpret given that people’s chronic regulatory focus are still at play. This means that

a control condition is not “system-neutral” or evenly leveled on both promotion and prevention.

condition and not between the promotion and control condition, which may have looked similar

in promotion strength. Many regulatory focus studies do not employ a control condition for this

in a romantic relationship. This might indicate a lack of validity in the results gathered using

same extent that traditional samples do. MTurk is known for being demographically diverse and

has been shown to provide data that is at least as reliable as data acquired using traditional

methods (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Thankfully, the demographics questionnaire was able to

significantly higher than those who did not complete the writing task (Myears = 29.89; SD =

10.64), F(1, 153) = 5.05, p = .026, d = .39, suggesting younger participants were more likely to

drop out of the study. As well, the relationship length of participants who completed the writing

task (Mmonths = 69.53; SD = 78.12) was significantly higher than those who did not complete the

writing task (Mmonths = 35.43; SD = 44.35), F(1, 148) = 8.04, p = .005, d = .37. We do not

anticipate that this would have affected the results because although the relationships of those

who dropped out were shorter in duration than those who remained in the study, their

relationships were still well established and this would not have been an emerging difference in

sample. Regarding age, there is no theoretical reason to expect that only young adults would be

dropping out. Therefore, we expect for their inclusion in the results to have made no differences.

In order to establish the preliminary effect of people’s preferences for growth or security

relationship well-being as a function of the presence of growth related traits, rather than the role

of prevention-focus. We are primarily interested in growth because it is important to relationships

(e.g., Aron et al., 2000), as can be seen in participants’ reports of relationship wellbeing, and it

has been investigated to a lesser extent than has the importance of security in relationships.

Therefore, because all subsequent manipulations focus on the presence or absence of growth and

not security, it is expected that promotion strength (but not prevention strength) would be most

Study 2

The purpose of Study 2 was to experimentally manipulate people’s perceptions of

whether their committed relationships were characterized by continued growth. In this study,

people in exclusive romantic relationships were recruited and we measured their chronic

relatively distant growth experience they had with their current relationship partner. By

temporal self comparisons formed during the writing task and their regulatory focus orientations.

Recent literature has examined the influence of past selves on perceptions of the current

self (Broemer, Grabowski, Gebauer, Ermel, & Diehl, 2008; Gebauer, Broemer, Haddock, & von

Hecker, 2008) using Schwarz and Bless’ (1992, 2007) inclusion/exclusion model. The

inclusion/exclusion model provides a framework for understanding the occurrence of

assimilation and contrast effects in context-dependent evaluative judgment. Distant past selves or

events are typically used in current evaluations as standards of comparison and produce contrast

effects whereas recent past selves or events are more likely to become incorporated into current

judgments, producing assimilation. We hypothesized that participants who were assigned to

recall a recent growth experience would construe that event as generally consistent with the

current state of their romantic relationship (Broemer et al., 2008; Gebauer, Broemer, Haddock, &

comparison, they should judge their relationship well-being to be higher than those who

Method

signs posted in a busy university common area that asked if they were in a romantic relationship

and had 15 minutes to spare, in exchange for a full-size chocolate bar. Each individual was asked

to read a letter of information and to sign a consent form. Participants then completed

demographic (i.e., age, gender) and relationship (i.e., length, status) information as well as the

regulatory focus questionnaire (RFQ; Higgins et al., 2001).

Next, participants were asked to read and evaluate a brief paragraph about growth in

relationships. This passage was ostensibly based on actual research, and participants were told

that it might appear in the Close Relationships section of a Social Psychology textbook. The

passage describes how scientific research has verified that continuing to grow is important in all

romantic relationships and how relationship satisfaction comes from advancing, developing, and

asked to describe a time in their relationship in the recent past when they learned something new

the beginning” of their relationship. All relationship events possessed the type of growth and

advancement themes promotion-focused individuals would be sensitive to.

optimism, and a single question about their relationship’s potential for continued growth (i.e.,

growth potential). It was hypothesized that participants would think they had greater growth

potential after writing about recent growth events compared to distant growth events, because

their perceptions of the presence of current growth in their relationship should carry over to how

individuals think about the future of their relationship.

Regulatory Focus. Participants completed the regulatory focus questionnaire (RFQ;

Higgins et al., 2001) to assess chronic promotion and prevention-focus. The RFQ is an 11-item

measure that captures chronic regulatory focus orientations by assessing participant’s history

with promotion and prevention success. Using a 5-point scale from 1 (never or seldom) to 5

(very often), participants answered six promotion-focus items (e.g., “Do you often do well at

(Haws, Dholakia, & Bearden, 2010; Lalwani, Shrum, & Chiu, 2009; Lockwood, Jordan, &

own studies not discussed in this thesis produced alpha levels ranging from .51 to .68 (M = .61,

& Finkel, 2013; Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007), the promotion and prevention subscales were

computed as traditionally done.

Relationship Commitment. This 7-item scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1988) assessed

participants’ relationship commitment (e.g., “I am committed to maintaining my relationship

with my partner”). Participants responded to these items on a 7-point scale (1 = do not agree at

all, 7 = agree completely). The internal reliability of this scale was good (α = .89).

Relationship Optimism. Participants indicated their relationship optimism by indicating

how likely it was they would remain with their partner over 7 time periods ranging from two

months to a lifetime (e.g., “How likely is it that you are your partner will still be together in 6

months?”). Participants responded to these 7 items (MacDonald & Ross, 1999) on a scale

felt growth potential (e.g., “How much growth potential do you think you and your partner

have?”) on scale ranging from 1 (No growth potential at all) and 7 (An extreme amount of growth

potential).

Results and Discussion

To test our hypothesis that promotion-focused individuals who wrote about relationship

events in the recent past would have better relationship well-being relative to those who wrote

about an event in the distant past, a composite measure of relationship well-being was created by

averaging measures of satisfaction, commitment, and optimism (α = .85), each transformed to a

z-score. The dependent measures composite was submitted to a hierarchical regression where

condition (dummy-coded such that 0 = distant past, 1 = recent past) and centered promotion and

prevention scores were entered into the first step, and the two-way interactions were entered on

.755. A strong prevention-focus was more associated with relationship wellbeing than was a

weak prevention-focus. As well, there was a marginal two-way interaction between condition

and promotion strength, β = .21, t(135) = 1.93, p = .055. See Table 6 for the estimated means of

the relationship well-being composite.

Although this interaction was not conventionally significant, it was decomposed and the

simple effects were examined. As can be seen in Figure 3, assimilation and contrast effects

occurred in participants with strong promotion orientations, such that they showed better

relationship well-being when they were asked to write about relationship events in the recent past

than did those who wrote about events in the distant past, β = .33, t(135) = 2.91, p = .004. In

contrast, those with weaker promotion orientations did not differ in relationship well-being as a

that in the recent past condition, those high in promotion strength had marginally better

However, promotion strength did not affect responses in the distant past condition, β = -.12, t(76)

prevention strength, β = .14, t(135) = 1.32, p = .187 (See Figure 4).

optimism, satisfaction, and commitment; See Table 7 for estimated means) it appears that in the

two-way interaction between condition and promotion strength, optimism is driving the action in

Growth Potential. Regarding growth potential, participants in the recent past (M = 6.13,

SD = .87) condition did not believe their relationship had any more or less growth potential than

.134. Possible explanations are discussed below.

The results of Study 2 showed that highly promotion-focused individuals have better

relationship well-being when asked to write about growth events occurring in the recent past

temporal distance manipulation may have been extinguished. Additionally, the effects could have

been occurring below the level of conscious awareness such that participants might have “felt”

differently without having been able to cognitively report on their feelings of growth potential.

See Appendix C1 for evidence from a follow up study of a potential alternate mechanism of the

temporal distance manipulation.

Decomposing this interaction revealed that participants high in promotion focus did not differ in

potential manipulation as somewhat threatening. Those who do value gains less strongly may

have interpreted the results as indicating a lack of sufficient progress rather than affording

opportunity for growth. Importantly, however, those high in promotion focus were not negatively

Testing Mediated Moderation. Given that the pattern of means for both relationship

well-being and affect were similar, we then tested whether the differential influence that

relationship well-being mediated the influence of promotion-focus and condition on participants’

Therefore, as outlined in Figure 11, highly promotion-oriented people had better

relationship well-being when they were presented with feedback suggesting their relationship

had ample opportunity to grow, and this accounted for their more positive affect.

relationship well-being by experimentally manipulating whether their relationship had ample or

little potential for future growth. People high (vs. low) in promotion-focus perceived their

link between growth trait feedback, promotion-focus, and affect. This suggests that when highly

promotion-focused people perceive their relationships to afford growth potential, which they

A potential limitation to this study is the believability of the feedback given the

technology used for the analysis and presentation of it. Although only two participants indicated

their skepticism of the computer generated feedback, steps should be taken to utilize more

sophisticated technology and stringent tests for believability. In any case, these findings offer

evidence towards the importance of perceived growth potential in overall relationship wellbeing.

It was found that regulatory focus influences a preference for the presence of growth potential in

relationship well-being after manipulating the presence or absence of growth traits in others

(Study 1) and growth potential in participants’ own (Study 2-3) relationships. In Study 1, there

was a differential preference for a partner possessing growth traits (vs. security traits) among

about their relationships after writing about recent past relationship growth events (Study 2) and

after receiving feedback indicating ample opportunity for future growth in their relationship

between the interaction of promotion-focus and condition with affect is fully mediated by

relationship well-being.

In addition to providing evidence for the hypothesized effect of regulatory focus and

growth on relationship well-being, each study also developed and demonstrated the potential of

The obtained consistent support for the basic hypothesized effect is significant from both

a theoretical and applied perspective. It is important from a broad theoretical perspective because

it addresses a gap in the literature where only the absence of safety and security (or presence of

rejection) is detrimental and systematically shows that the absence of growth can also be harmful

in romantic relationships. There is a largely different set of issues that have previously been

are particularly important for understanding the promotion and prevention-focus motivational

emphasize growth potential concepts that promotion-focused individuals are sensitive to as

The present research was generated in the context of theories that focused on motivation,

excitement, and arousal. Regarding motivation, regulatory focus theory proposes that with a

promotion-focus there is a will to attain advancements and growth but with a prevention-focus

that creates a high degree of positive affect and arousal if it happens quickly (Aron et al., 1998).

After time, opportunities for further expansion become limited and loss of enjoyable emotion

may occur, leading to a decreased relationship well-being. Taken together, regulatory focus

theory and the self-expansion model might suggest that individually rated relationship well-being

after initial self-expansion might depend on each individual’s motivations.

would result in better relationship well-being than if the activities ceased. It was this kind of

theorizing that generated the initial hypotheses.

The present studies demonstrate an effect that is specific to our personal

operationalizing the concept of growth potential in romantic relationships. Indeed, we hope that

researchers with varied orientations to explore the particular mechanism behind this fairly

In sum, we think the key theoretical importance of these findings is their demonstration

that perceptions of growth traits and potential in relationships can have a substantial impact on

relationship well-being based on one’s chronic or induced regulatory focus motivation. This is

prioritize advancement and gains, the presence of growth is influential for relationship wellbeing.

Therefore, regulatory focus motivations serve as important and influential relationship functions

that can dictate relationship satisfaction, optimism, and commitment based on the traits perceived

in the relationship, and the growth potential that is felt.

The potential practical implications are quite meaningful. Should further work in a more

applied context support this foundational finding, prioritizing shared participation in novel and

arousing activities, and continually learning new things about a partner (i.e., striving for

continued growth), would represent an easily managed route for improving experienced

relationship well-being that could be adopted by anyone with a chronic promotion-focused

orientation, or those who are induced to prioritize promotion goals. This method could be easily

‘reinforcement erosion’ which is the slow progression of couples showing less positive

behaviour towards each other and the deterioration of their relationship over time (Jacobson &

doing (Higgins, 2005). If couples were largely promotion-focused, such that each partner values

advancement and gain, then increased novelty and arousal in activities would be a better

regulatory fit. People will be more inclined toward goal means that have a higher regulatory fit,

It is worth noting that the promotion and prevention-focus goal pursuit strategies are

complementary of each other, and that although one’s motivational strategy can be chronic and

lasting, situational factors and concerns about reciprocation of affection and commitment can

community, and in a controlled laboratory setting; a combination of measured relationship

effect that is far-reaching. Although there is not yet any longitudinal evidence using these

experimental paradigms, these studies have shown casually that thinking about relationships in

growth terms or not means something to people.

There are, of course, potential limitations. First, Study 1’s results could have been

be inferred by participants using a number of traits in partner profiles, and in prompts created

based off of our definition of events present in participants’ own relationships. This may have

for the presence of growth potential more than do distant growth comparisons, which is

paradigms for studying its underlying processes. We hope that this research will bring to the

less time, but I would like you to complete the study in one sitting. If you do not currently have

INFORMATION

Participants will be individuals recruited via MTurk and will complete the study online. The

study will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. For the first study, participants will be

life events. In the second study, they will encounter two short dating profiles and will be asked to

answer questions about each one. Participants will then be electronically debriefed. If you do not

complete the study, you will have to contact the primary researcher Amanda Kohler via E-mail

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all Moderately Extremely hard

hard hard

Manipulation Check

Using the scale below, indicate to what degree do you feel the following adjectives describe

Potential Partner 1/2.

Not at all Moderately Extremely

• Opportunistic

• Traditional

• Secure

• Stable

• Reliable

• Consistent

• Predictable

• Unchanging

• Trustworthy

• Loyal

• Supporting

WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY

Thank you for taking part in this study! Your participation is sincerely appreciated, and we hope

The purpose of this study was to explore how people’s regulatory focus – the extent to which

preference for a partner who symbolized an opportunity for continued growth in their

relationship or one who symbolized stability and security. Both ‘studies’ you participated in were

in fact part of the same study. This deception was necessary so as not to alert you to our

hypotheses.

or very little potential for growth in the future.

This exploratory study used an experimental design, where participants were randomly assigned

to one of three conditions (prevention focused, promotion focused, or a control condition) and

were asked to describe their hopes and aspirations, duties and obligations, or nothing. After

describing these events, we asked participants to read two character profiles describing someone

who seemed fun and exciting (symbolizing a partner with ample opportunity for growth) and

secure and stable (symbolizing a partner without opportunity for substantial growth). Participants

were then asked questions about each potential partner and were asked to make a decision

between which partner seemed better. Because it is also possible that personality and

demographic variables will interact with taking the different perspectives, we also asked you to

provide us with information regarding those variables.

discomfort, anxiety, or negative emotions while completing some of the tasks or filling out

to uncomfortable emotions. These feelings are normal and should be temporary. We wish to

continue to feel badly about any aspect of the study, we encourage you to immediately contact

the primary researcher (Amanda Kohler). However, it is worth noting that if you find yourself

troubled with any lasting or severe negative emotions or have concerns about any feelings

induced in this study, you may want to consider contacting your local mental health facility. If

you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact one of the investigators,

Amanda Kohler, kohl8430@mylaurier.ca, or Dr. Justin Cavallo, [email protected]. This project

has been reviewed and approved by the University Research Ethics Board (REB #2909). If you

feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a

participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact Dr.

Robert Basso, Chair, University Research Ethics Board, Wilfrid Laurier University, (519)

If you would like to be notified about the results of this study (available by August 30, 2014),

be deleted as soon as the findings have been sent to you).

Thank you again for your participation!

Appendix B

Advertisement

receive a chocolate bar of your choice.

If you are interested, please inquire here. Thank you!

This study has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through, the

Office of Research Ethics, Wilfrid Laurier University REB # 4176.

and Life Events Researchers: Amanda Kohler (MA student) and Dr. Justin Cavallo

(Faculty Supervisor)

Please note: You must currently be in a romantic relationship lasting at least three months to

participate in this study.

will be provided at the end of the study. You will be asked to fill out questionnaires about your

Please note that once data collection is complete, your data cannot be withdrawn because they

experience discomfort, anxiety, or negative emotions while completing some of the tasks or

negative feelings persist after the study is over, please contact the researchers and/or Counselling

Services/Wellness Centre at 519-884-0710 x2338, [email protected], 2nd floor of Student Services

Hardcopy data and consent forms will be stored in a safe for 10 years (until April 30, 2025) and

Demographics

________ Female

Chronic Regulatory Focus

Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, and Taylor (2001).

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Never or seldom Sometimes Very often

9. When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I do not perform as

well as I ideally would like to do.

1 2 3 4 5

Never true Sometimes true Very often true

10. I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

This study examines people’s reading comprehension. On the next page there is an excerpt from

a Social Psychology textbook that is scheduled to be published in 2016. This section comes from

the chapter on “Close Relationships” and concerns the importance of growth in romantic

relationships. We would like to know how readable scholarly text appears to students when there

are errors in writing. Please read the passage carefully and thoroughly and try to ensure you are

clear on the content. Following this, please answer the questions about the passage using the

scale provided.

“When relationships grow, couples experience new things together, learn more about each other,

relationships. People do not often realize how experiencing new events or finding new ways to

now, relationships that keep growing in the future result in even greater emotional and physical

wellbeing. To experience the best that a romantic relationship has to offer, it is not enough that

romantic partners just stay together. They must advance, develop, and deepen their relationship

over time so that they can keep moving forward. Relationships that don’t grow may become stale

2. How easy was it for you to understand the paragraph? (Scale of 1 to 7)

We are interested in your own personal experiences of growth. The following questions ask you

to reflect and describe times in your relationship where you experienced some growth with your

romantic partner. Please select and circle ONE of the three items to respond to. Describe the

event and how you felt at the time in as much detail as you can.

when you learned something new about your partner.

when you did something new together.

Participants are given ¾ of a page to write about the event they choose.

identification than those low in promotion strength, β = .33, t(82) = 3.17, p = .002. However,

higherorder, or more abstract thinking than did recalling a distant past growth event. This is

intriguing because past temporal construal literature has consistently shown the opposite

(Liberman,

Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Liberman, Trope, McCrea, & Sherman, 2007, Trope & Liberman,

their responses. In some studies, if participants are told the true purpose of the study and what

affect how they behave during the study. Because the researchers need to understand how people

will act in a real situation, it is essential for participants to believe they are in a real situation, and

therefore, sometimes researchers cannot tell participants the true purpose of the study right away.

To investigate this, participants were randomly assigned to either write about 2 relationship

events occurring in the recent past or the distant past. All participants also wrote about two

The results of this study will be emailed to you through the SONA system by April 30, 2015 if

hallway outside of the psychology general office, N2006, on or before August 30, 2015. If you

particular, the following papers may be of interest to you:

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Corcoran, K., & Peetz, J. (2013). Looking towards the past or the future: Regulatory focus

determines the direction of temporal comparisons and motivational consequences. Self and

Title: Reading Comprehension and Life Events

Description: In this 30-minute survey, participants will be asked to complete two tasks. You will

Then you will be asked to write about an event that happened in your life. Finally, participants

will answer some questions about their romantic relationship.

Participants must be at least 18 years of age.

HIT Description

romantic relationship for a minimum of 3 months.

Also, please ensure that you have 30 minutes available to complete the survey. It may take you

30 minutes, please return at a later date to complete it.

This project has been reviewed and approved by the University Research Ethics Board (REB #

4176) at Wilfrid Laurier University.

<link provided>

Reading Comprehension and Life Events

You are invited to participate in a short online research study. The purpose of the study is to

examine how people rate the readability of a short paragraph and respond to life events. This

research is being carried out by Amanda Kohler as part of her Master’s research at Wilfrid

Cavallo, professor of psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Participants will be individuals recruited via MTurk and complete the study online. The study

Participants must be at least 18 years of age.

Participants must be currently involved in a romantic relationship for a minimum of 3 months.

fully explained at this time, but a full explanation will be provided at the conclusion of the study.

Data from approximately 150 research participants will be collected for this study.

Some people may experience discomfort, anxiety, or negative emotions while completing some

of the tasks or filling out questionnaires that ask self-related questions. These feelings are normal

and should be temporary. Participants are free to discontinue the study at any time without loss

of compensation. Participants are also free to choose not to respond to any question or not to

complete any task assigned. If participants experience any negative feelings that persist or

Kohler).

BENEFITS

Participants will experience social psychology research first-hand and have the opportunity to

directly observe and learn about methods commonly used in social psychology (e.g., how

penalty or loss of benefits to which participants are otherwise entitled, and participants may

withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which they are

otherwise entitled.

CONFIDENTIALITY

All data will remain confidential. No information collected from participants will be disclosed to

any parties outside of the researcher (Amanda Kohler) and supervisor (Dr. Justin Cavallo).

Because the data are being collected using an online external site (i.e., Qualtrics) that stores all

data (even if the file is incomplete), if a participant begins the study but withdraws from the

study before completion, or wishes to withdraw their data after completing the study, they will

effects as a result of participating in this study, you may contact the primary researcher Amanda

Kohler by E-mail at kohl8430@mylaurier.ca or her supervisor Dr. Justin Cavallo at

jcavallo@wlu.ca. This project has been reviewed and approved by the University Research

this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this

project, you may contact Dr. Robert Basso, Chair, University Research Ethics Board, Wilfrid

Laurier University at [email protected] or 519-884-1970 X4994.

PARTICIPATION

Participation in this study is voluntary; participants may decline to participate without penalty.

from the study before completion, or wishes to withdraw their data after completing the study,

they will have to contact Amanda Kohler by E-mail at kohl8430@mylaurier.ca in order to have

the data destroyed manually. Participants have the right to omit any question(s)/ procedure(s)

they choose. However, data cannot be withdrawn once data collection is complete because they

you wish to have a copy of the study results.

CONSENT

If you are at least 18 years of age, understand the statements above, and freely consent to

participate in the study, click on the "I Agree" button to begin the study. You should save and/or

print a copy of this consent form for you records.

Behaviour Identification Form Vallacher

and Wegner (1989).

Any behaviour can be described in many ways. For example, one person might describe a

behaviour as "writing a paper," while another person might describe the same behaviour as

"pushing keys on the keyboard." Yet another person might describe it as "expressing thoughts."

This form focuses on your personal preferences for how a number of different behaviours should

be described. Below you will find several behaviours listed. After each behaviour will be two

different ways in which the behaviour might be identified.

For example:

1 Attending class a sitting in a

teacher

place a checkmark next to the option you prefer. Be sure to respond to every item. Please mark

more appropriate for each pair.

organized* b Writing things

b Signing up

clothes into the machine

apple off a branch

an axe b Getting firewood*

Getting ready to remodel* b

Using a yard stick

one's cleanliness* b Vacuuming

the floor

the lock b Securing the house*

election* b Marking a ballot

view* b Holding on to branches

Answering questions b Revealing

decay* b Moving a brush around

in one's mouth

questions b Showing one's

map b Seeing countryside*

Protecting your teeth* b Going to

the dentist

words

finger

b Seeing if someone's home*

Manipulation Check

close, almost like yesterday. How far away does the event you wrote about FEEL to you?

relationship?

3. In which month did this event occur? (Please approximate if you are unsure)

WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY

Department of Psychology

Prior research has shown that writing about relationship events in the recent past versus distant

listing events that happened in the recent past would symbolize growth potential and writing

about events from the distant past would symbolize no future growth potential. We think these

differences will influence how people think about their relationship quality.

Demographic data was collected in order to explore the possibility that individual differences

(e.g., gender) impact the relation between how people feel about their relationships and relational

(519) 884-1970, x4994 or [email protected].

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, you can find additional information in the

Higgins, E. T. (2011). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. Oxford University