Self-efficacy in romantic relationships: prediction of relationship attitudes and outcomes.

This article was downloaded by: [Ondokuz Mayis Universitesine] On: 08 November 2014, At: 02:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships: Prediction of Relationship Attitudes and Outcomes a

b

Heidi R. Riggio , Dana A. Weiser , Ann Marie a

c

a

Valenzuela , P. Priscilla Lui , Roberto Montes & Julie Heuer

a

a

California State University , Los Angeles

b

University of Nevada , Reno

c

Purdue University Accepted author version posted online: 21 Jun 2013.Published online: 26 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Heidi R. Riggio , Dana A. Weiser , Ann Marie Valenzuela , P. Priscilla Lui , Roberto Montes & Julie Heuer (2013) Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships: Prediction of Relationship Attitudes and Outcomes, The Journal of Social Psychology, 153:6, 629-650, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2013.801826 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.801826

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the

Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [Ondokuz Mayis Universitesine] at 02:05 08 November 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


The Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, 153(6), 629–650 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships: Prediction of Relationship Attitudes and Outcomes HEIDI R. RIGGIO California State University, Los Angeles DANA A. WEISER University of Nevada, Reno ANN MARIE VALENZUELA California State University, Los Angeles P. PRISCILLA LUI Purdue University ROBERTO MONTES JULIE HEUER California State University, Los Angeles

ABSTRACT. Three studies examine discriminant and predictive validity of a self-report measure of self -efficacy in romantic relationships (Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships; SERR). Study 1 indicates SERR scores predict relationship anxiety and expectations of relationship success when general self-efficacy, self-esteem, social desirability, and efficacy beliefs about relating to specific relationship partners are considered. Study 2 indicates SERR scores predict later relationship satisfaction and commitment when relationship type and length are considered. Study 3 indicates that SERR scores predict later relationship outcomes when other self-efficacy indicators are considered. The SERR assesses broad feelings of relationship self-efficacy, independent of specific relationships or partners. Keywords: commitment, relationship efficacy, relationship satisfaction, self-efficacy, social self-efficacy

Address correspondence to Heidi R. Riggio, California State University, Los Angeles, Department of Psychology, 5151 State University Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA; [email protected] (e-mail). 629


630

The Journal of Social Psychology

SELF-EFFICACY IS COMPRISED OF “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Research strongly supports the role of self-efficacy beliefs in affecting motivation, effort, and persistence in performance. High self-efficacy involves expectations that outcomes can and will be achieved through action; such beliefs thus affect behavior and expectations of how well one will perform (Bandura, 1997). Self-reports of general self-efficacy are positively associated with feelings of personal control, ability to cope with stressful situations, interpersonal competence, and psychological health (Bandura, 1997). Efficacy beliefs are increasingly of interest in terms of processes in intimate relationships. Researchers have specifically examined individual beliefs about ability to resolve conflicts with a relationship partner (Cui, Fincham, & Pasley, 2008; Fincham, Harold, & GanoPhillips, 2000) and ability to engage in specific, positive relationship behaviors (Lopez, Morúa, & Rice, 2007). Although some researchers argue that beliefs about self-competence in personal relationships are enduring dispositions that influence adaptive interactions and affect relationship success (Bradbury, Cohan, & Karney, 1998), fewer studies have examined broader self-perceptions of capabilities to meet task demands within romantic relationships that are not tied to a specific relationship with a specific partner. The present study examines the predictive validity of a self-report measure of self-efficacy in romantic relationships—the Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships (SERR) scale (Riggio et al., 2011)—by examining how broad self-assessments of relationship competence are linked with outcomes in current romantic relationships. Direct experiences provide the most vital information for individual development of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), which is based on a large sampling of life events and is composed of information from a variety of related experiences (Woodruff & Cashman, 1993). Experiences in romantic relationships should inform judgments of task demands within relationships and one’s abilities to respond effectively to such demands (Bandura, 1997; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991). Although efficacy expectations (as self-attributions) have been investigated within the context of relationship attributions, and researchers have argued that efficacy as a construct should be more fully incorporated into cognitive models of intimate relationships (Fincham et al., 2000), few measures have been used or developed, and most are dependent on specific experiences with particular relationship partners. Bandura (1997) asserts that self-efficacy is based on perceived capabilities within the same activity domain across conditions sharing common features and is not just reflective of “specific behaviors within specific situations” (Bandura, 1997, p. 49). Judgments of self-efficacy also vary depending on contextual features and targets of behavior (Bandura, 1997). Although individuals are likely to have beliefs about their abilities to resolve conflicts within a particular relationship, and to engage in positive relationship behaviors with a specific relationship partner (Fincham & Bradbury, 1993; Lopez et al., 2007), a


Riggio et al.

631

broader assessment of self-efficacy in romantic relationships involves capturing self-perceptions of relationship capabilities as they have occurred and developed across relationships, and assessing such self-perceptions independent of particular partners or relationships. A broader assessment of individual beliefs about abilities to form and maintain satisfying romantic relationships in general, across relationships and partners, may be particularly useful in examining individual behaviors that occur repeatedly within different relationships, and relationship-oriented behaviors that occur outside of particular relationships, including feelings of anxiety about relationships and beliefs about the likelihood of various relationship outcomes, including a happy, long-lasting relationship. Several studies indicate relations between positive reports of self-efficacy within a particular relationship and positive relationship outcomes. Using an unpublished measure assessing beliefs in one’s ability to resolve conflicts with a particular relationship partner (Bradbury, 1989), Fincham and colleagues (2000) found that greater efficacy expectations are related to more positive attributions about partner behaviors in relationships and greater satisfaction among married couples over time. Using the same self-report measure, Cui and colleagues (2008) found that efficacy beliefs about resolving conflicts are related to less romantic relationship conflict, which in turn is related to relationship quality (feelings of satisfaction, reward, warmth, and happiness), while Fincham and Bradbury (1987) found that efficacy beliefs about resolving conflicts are related to persistence in solving problems in relationships. Using a “relationship-specific” (p. 81) measure of self-efficacy, assessing individual confidence in ability to engage in “specific relationship maintenance behaviors” (p. 83), Lopez and colleagues (2007) found that self-efficacy judgments predict relationship satisfaction among college students over time. Although these findings support that judgments of efficacy concerning specific relationship behaviors in interaction with a specific partner are linked to relationship outcomes, there is little research evidence on how broad beliefs about one’s abilities as a romantic partner that are not dependent on a specific relationship or a specific partner relate to outcomes in relationships and other relationship beliefs. Additional research has investigated relational competence, individuals’ perceptions that communications with a partner are appropriate and effective (Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984). Although each partner develops their own sense of relational competence, the impression is dyadic as it is dependent on actions and reactions of both partners. Spitzberg and Hecht (1984) identify components of relational competence: skills (abilities to engage in effective communication behaviors), knowledge (of partner and context), outcomes (satisfaction with communications), and motivation (dependent on partner and context). Recent conceptualizations of marital competence also distinguish between skills and motivation (Carroll, Badger, & Yang, 2006). Self-efficacy can be distinguished from relational competence in that it is not based on intentions to behave (Bandura, 1997); although self-efficacy is predictive of behavioral intentions, the constructs


632


are distinct (Wulfert & Wan, 1995). Self-efficacy is similarly not based on skill enumeration but on one’s beliefs about abilities to deal effectively with task demands inherent in particular situations (Bandura, 1997). If self-efficacy in romantic relationships is based on an overall assessment of typical difficulty involved in relationships for oneself, it is less dependent on behaviors of specific others, because it is based on experiences across relationships and central to self-referent processes across similar situations (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs are “can do” beliefs, beliefs that one has sufficient power and skill to produce desired effects by one’s actions (Bandura, 1997). Regardless of actual skill and knowledge a person may possess, without a firm belief that one “can do” behaviors necessary for success, one is easily overwhelmed by setbacks, limitations, negative feedback from others, and other challenges. Self-beliefs that outcomes can be achieved through actions affect goal selection, expectations of goal achievement, and persistence in response to difficulties. These types of beliefs may be particularly important in functioning in personal relationships, in which accommodations are quite common and necessary (Etcheverry & Le, 2005; Rusbult et al., 1991) and in which conflict may also be common. Individuals who believe that their behaviors will effectively maintain relationship satisfaction and positivity have efficacy in relationships. They are willing to persist in their relationship in the face of difficulties. They intend to engage in behaviors that establish their commitment to and investment in relationships, and they see relationship satisfaction as an achievable goal (Bandura, 1997; Riggio, 2012). In line with research documenting links between greater self-efficacy and success expectations (Conklin, Dahling, & Garcia, 2013; Tudoran, Scholderer, & Brunsø, 2012) and lower anxiety (Ghaderi & Rangaiah, 2011; Lavasani, Khezriazar, Amani, & Malahmadi, 2011), individuals with greater beliefs in their competence in relationships should expect to be successful in relationships, and they should report a greater degree of comfort and ease in relationships compared to those with fewer beliefs in their abilities to achieve positive relationship outcomes. A valid measure of such beliefs should be predictive of such relationship attitudes and outcomes. The Current Study Using three studies, we examine the predictive validity of a self-report measure of self-efficacy in romantic relationships (SERR; Riggio et al., 2011), and its relations with relationship attitudes and outcomes in current romantic relationships. We designed the SERR as a measure of broad perceptions of one’s capabilities to effectively act in response to task demands in romantic relationships, with the measure reflecting an “intermediate” analysis of self-efficacy within a particular domain (Bandura, 1997, p. 49). We conducted three studies to show replication of results across samples and to support the SERR’s uniqueness as a self-construct and its ability to predict broad relationship attitudes and specific relationship outcomes, independently of other self-constructs (e.g.,


Riggio et al.

633

general self-efficacy, self-esteem), feelings of efficacy in relating with the current relationship partner (Lopez et al., 2007), and other important relationship variables (e.g., length and type of relationship). Study 1 participants completed measures of other self-constructs, including self-esteem, general and social self-efficacy, and social desirability, and the Relationship Self-Efficacy Scale (RSES; Lopez et al., 2007), which we used to predict relationship anxiety and expectations of success in romantic relationships. Study 2 participants completed descriptions of indicators of romantic relationship quality, including satisfaction and commitment, in their current romantic relationships. Study 3 participants completed descriptions of current relationship outcomes and measures of general and social self-efficacy. Study 1 Study 1 assesses relations between SERR scores and general and social selfefficacy, self- esteem, social desirability, and the RSES (Lopez et al., 2007); and prediction of relationship anxiety and general expectations of relationship success with SERR scores when other variables are considered. Based on research linking self-efficacy to greater expectations of success (Conklin et al., 2013; Tudoran et al., 2012) and lower anxiety (Ghaderi & Rangaiah, 2011; Lavasani et al., 2011), and the assertion that self-efficacy within a domain is predictive of success expectations beyond efficacy beliefs about a specific relationship and partner (Bandura, 1997; Bradbury et al., 1998), we propose: Hypothesis 1 (H1): SERR scores will predict relationship anxiety and expectations of relationship success, even when self-esteem, social desirability, self-efficacy, and RSES scores are considered. Method Participants Undergraduate students (N = 218, M age = 24.6 years, 173 women, 44 men, 1 missing) at a state university in southern California participated for required or extra credit. Fifty-two percent of participants were Hispanic/Latino-American (14% Euro-American, 6% Asian-American, 7% African American, 16% mixed heritage, 7% other); 11% were married (85% single, 4% divorced). Fifty-two participants reported not being currently in a romantic relationship; of those in relationships, nine reported same-sex partners.1 Measures Participants completed self-report measures in the following order, starting with the General Self-efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982), which consisted of


634


17 items assessing willingness to initiate action and persist (e.g., “I give up easily”), and six items assessing social self-efficacy (e.g., “It is difficult for me to make new friends”), using a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) (α = .89 for general, .52 for social self-efficacy). Participants next completed the Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), which consisted of 33 true/false items assessing need to present oneself in a socially desirable manner (e.g., “I have never intensely disliked anyone;” α = .77); and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), which consisted of 10 items assessing feelings of self-worth (e.g., “I feel I have a number of good qualities”), using a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) (α = .86). Participants completed three items assessing likelihood of experiencing a happy marriage, an unhappy marriage, and divorce (general expectations of relationship success on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 9 (very likely) (α = .75); and the SERR (Riggio et al., 2011), which consisted of 12 items assessing beliefs about one’s abilities as a relationship partner and tendency to persist in relationships (e.g., “Failure in my romantic relationships only make me want to try harder;” α = .89), using a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Participants completed the Anxiety Subscale of the Relationship Awareness Scale (RAS- A; Snell, 1998), which consisted of nine items assessing anxiety in close relationships (e.g., “I am somewhat awkward and tense in close relationships”), using a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very characteristic of me) (α = .93); and the RSES (Lopez et al., 2007), which consisted of 25 items assessing beliefs about one’s skills at engaging in behaviors with a relationship partner that reflect mutuality (e.g., “Express affection to your partner”); emotional control (e.g., “Show respect to your partner when you disagree”); and differentiation (e.g., “Offer criticism to your partner without hurting his/her feelings”). Respondents indicate “your current level of confidence that you are able to engage in each behavior within the context of your present romantic relationship” on a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (completely sure) (α = .91 for participants in relationships). Procedure Participants completed measures in one quiet classroom session (60–90 minutes). We instructed participants to complete the RSES in terms of a previous relationship if they were not currently involved in a romantic relationship.

Results SERR scores are normally distributed (M = 79.5, SD = 18 for summed items; M = 6.62, SD = 1.5 for average item response). Partial correlations (controlling for participant sex and age) indicate no relations between SERR scores and current


Riggio et al.

635

relationship and marital status; however, both are correlated with RSES scores, suggesting that RSES scores are more strongly related to features of current relationships than SERR scores (see Table 1).2 Results indicate positive correlations between SERR scores and social desirability, self-esteem, general and social selfefficacy, general expectations of relationship success, and RSES scores; and a negative correlation with relationship anxiety. We next use four hierarchical multiple regression models to examine predictive validity of the SERR by itself and also when RSES responses are included. For models examining prediction of attitudes using SERR scores alone, participant sex,3 age, and current relationship status are used as covariates (entered at Step 1), followed by social desirability, self-esteem, general and social selfefficacy (entered at Step 2); and then SERR scores (Step 3). In support of H1, results indicate that SERR scores predict both relationship anxiety (R2 change = .04, p < .01) and expectations of relationship success (R2 change = .08, p < .001). When RSES scores are also used in regression models, Step 1 includes participant sex, age, and marital status; Step 2 includes social desirability, self-esteem, general and social self-efficacy; and RSES and SERR scores are entered at Step 3. In support of H1, results indicate that SERR scores predict relationship anxiety (R2 change = .05, p < .05, sr2 = .02) and expectations of relationship success (R2 change = .08, p < .001, sr2 = .06) for participants currently in relationships, while RSES scores do not (see Table 2).

Study 2 Study 2 is designed to provide further validation for the SERR by assessing its relations with outcomes in current romantic relationships assessed at a later time, including satisfaction, investment in and commitment to it, and quality of alternatives to it. Based on previous research indicating links between self-reports of general self-efficacy and performance in various domains (Bandura, 1997), and links between feelings of efficacy in relationships and relationship outcomes (Fincham et al., 2000; Lopez et al., 2007), we propose: H2: SERR scores will predict current relationship outcomes when relationship status and length are also considered.

Method Participants Participants were undergraduate students (N = 120, M age = 22.3, 100 women, 20 men) currently in relationships. Average relationship length was 34.5 months (SD = 4.1), with 10 married, 8 engaged, 9 living together, 76 dating

RSES .10 .20∗∗ −.10 .09

Current involvement

Number of relationships .03 .01 −.03 .03

Marital status −.02 −.14∗ .04 .06

General Social Selfselfselfesteem efficacy efficacy .44∗∗∗ .40∗∗∗ .32∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ .29 .26 .26∗∗∗ −.38∗∗∗ −.38∗∗∗ −.44∗∗∗ .29∗∗∗ .21∗∗ .21∗∗

Social desirability .35∗∗∗ .28∗∗∗ −.37∗∗∗ .18∗

Note. N = 158–218. For current involvement, 0 = no, 1 = yes; marital status, 0 = married, 1 = single. Table entries are partial correlations controlling for participant sex and age. SERR = Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships (total score); RSES = Relationship Self-Efficacy Scale; RAS-A = Relational Awareness Scale-Anxiety. ∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05.

SERR – – RSES .58∗∗∗ – RAS-A −.49∗∗∗ −.44∗∗∗ General .41∗∗∗ −.33∗∗∗ expectations of success

SERR

TABLE 1. Study 1 Correlations


636 The Journal of Social Psychology

−.20∗∗ −.14 −.12 −.28∗∗∗

−.15∗ −.09 −.06 −.24∗∗ −.24∗∗

β2

−.01 .33∗∗∗

−.01 .13 .00 .11

−.09 −.21†

−.14 −.01 −.09 −.20∗

β3

.07 .15 .15

.20∗∗∗

.24

.29∗∗∗

.10∗∗ .18∗∗∗

.31 .34

Adj. R2

.02 .00 .00 .34∗∗∗ .37∗∗∗

R2

.079

.079 .081

.049

.284 .038

R2 change

7.31∗∗∗

4.55∗∗ 20.33∗∗∗

3.78∗

16.38∗∗∗ 9.24∗∗

F

.00 .01 .00 .00 .08 .00 .06

.04 .04 .00 .02

sr2

Note. N = 161 and 120 for relationship anxiety; 215 and 158 for expectations. Models with RSES for participants in current relationships. For each outcome, two models are shown (SERR entered last; RSES and SERR entered last). Variables entered in order listed. First 4 variables entered in Step 1; SERR or RSES and SERR entered in Step 2. β 1 = term at entry after covariates; β 2 = term in SERR model; β 3 = term in RSES + SERR model. F-values for change in R2 . All models use sex and age as covariates (results not shown); models without RSES use current relationship status as covariate; models with RSES use marital status. SERR = Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships; RSES = Relationship Self-Efficacy Scale. ∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05, † p < .10.

General expectations of relationship success Social desirability .05 .00 .14 Self-esteem .23∗ General self-efficacy −.02 −.05 Social self-efficacy .08 .04 SERR .34∗∗∗ RSES SERR

Relationship anxiety Social desirability Self-esteem General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy SERR RSES SERR

β1

TABLE 2. Prediction of Relationship Anxiety and General Expectations of Relationship Success: Study 1


Riggio et al. 637

638


exclusively, 15 dating a described partner and others (2 missing). Three participants reported same-sex partners. Frequencies of ethnicity were similar to Study 1.


Measures Participants completed the SERR (α = .90) and the Investment Model Scale (IMS; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), 37 items assessing commitment to (α = .89) and satisfaction with (α = .93) one’s current relationship, quality of relationship alternatives (α = .87), and relationship investment (α = .86), using a 4-point scale for 15 items, ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 4 (agree completely), and a 9-point scale for 22 items, ranging from 0 (do not agree at all) to 8 (agree completely). Participants provided information about partner sex and age, relationship status (0 = married, 1 = engaged, 2 = living together, 3 = dating this person only, 4 = dating this person and others), and relationship length. Procedure Participants completed measures in two quiet classroom sessions. In session 1 (30–40 minutes), participants completed SERR items and measures not reported here. In session 2 (5–6 weeks later, 30–50 minutes), participants currently in relationships completed the IMS. We did not inform participants the sessions were related; different authors conducted each session. Recruitment for Time 2 focused on individuals in relationships. We asked participants to use the last four digits of their telephone number as identification numbers; we used these numbers to match responses. Results SERR scores are normally distributed (M = 79.2, SD = 17.4 for summed items; M = 6.59, SD = 1.45 for average item response). Partial correlations controlling for participant age and sex indicate significant relations between SERR and current relationship outcomes (see Table 3). We used hierarchical regressions to predict IMS scores with participant sex4 and age (Step 1), relationship type (Step 2) and length (Step 3), and SERR scores (Step 4). Results indicate that SERR scores are significantly predictive of IMS Commitment (R2 change = .15, p < .001), satisfaction (R2 change = .11, p < .001), and investment (R2 change = .10, p < .001) in final models. Prediction of IMS alternatives is marginally significant (R2 change = .03, p < .10) (see Table 4). Study 3 Study 3 assesses relations with SERR scores and current romantic relationship outcomes, including relationship conflict, while also considering general

.40∗∗∗ .38∗∗∗ −.20† .34∗∗∗

Relationship length −.05 .27∗∗ .05 −.12 .20†

Relationship status −.04 −.45∗∗∗ −.34∗∗∗ .38∗∗∗ −.40∗∗∗ .74∗∗∗ −.40∗∗∗ .53∗∗∗

IMS Commitment

−.43∗∗∗ .41∗∗∗

IMS Satisfaction

−.40∗∗∗

IMS Alternatives

Note. N = 98–102. Coveriates participant sex and age are entered in Step1 (results not shown). Relationship status, 0 = married, 1 = engaged, 2 = living together, 3 = dating this person only, 4 = dating this person and others. Table entries are partial correlations controlling for participant sex and age. SERR = Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships; IMS = Investment Model Scale. ∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05, † p < .10.

SERR IMS commitment IMS satisfaction IMS alternatives IMS investment

SERR



Riggio et al. 639

−.37∗∗∗ −.05

.43∗∗∗ .02

−.35∗∗∗ .08

IMS satisfaction Relationship type Relationship length SERR

IMS alternatives Relationship type Relationship length SERR

IMS investment Relationship type Relationship length SERR −.33∗∗∗ .11 .32∗∗∗

.42∗∗∗ .00 −.18†

−.35∗∗∗ −.03 .34∗∗∗

−.38∗∗∗ .19∗ .39∗∗∗

β2

.27∗∗∗ .37∗∗∗

.18∗∗∗ .21∗∗∗

.21∗∗∗ .32∗∗∗

.27∗∗∗ .42∗∗∗

R2

.24 .33

.14 .17

.18 .29

.24 .39

Adj. R2

.135 .096

.162 .030

.112 .109

.202 .149

R2 change

8.52∗∗∗ 13.77∗∗∗

9.09∗∗∗ 3.47†

6.62∗∗ 14.82∗∗∗

12.71∗∗∗ 23.29∗∗∗

F

.09 .00 .10

.14 .00 .03

.09 .00 .11

.11 .03 .15

sr2

Note. N = 97–98. Variables entered in order listed. Covariates participant sex and age are entered in Step 1 (results not shown). Relationship type and length entered at Step 2. β 1 = term for variable at entry; β 2 = term in full model. F-values for change in R2 ; sr2 for variable in full model. SERR = Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships; IMS = Investment Model Scale. ∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05, † p < .10.

−.40∗∗∗ .15

IMS commitment Relationship type Relationship length SERR

β1

TABLE 4. Prediction of Current Relationship Outcomes With SERR Scores: Study 2



Riggio et al.

641

and social self-efficacy. As in Study 2, SERR scores are assessed first, with relationship outcomes assessed at a later time. Based on Study 2 results, we propose:


H3: SERR scores will predict relationship outcomes when relationship status, length, and general and social self-efficacy are considered. Method Participants Participants were undergraduate students (N = 130, M age = 24.3, 103 women, 27 men) currently involved in romantic relationships (14 with samesex partners). Frequencies of ethnicity and relationship type are similar to those in Studies 1 and 2. Measures Participants completed the SERR (α = .89), the General Self-Efficacy Scale (general α = .90, social α = .56), and the Investment Model Scale (commitment α = .90, .92 for satisfaction, .83 for alternatives, .86 for investment). Participants completed nine items (adapted from the Parental Conflict Scale, Peterson & Zill, 1986) assessing frequency of relationship conflict (about showing affection, use of leisure time, etc.) using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (rarely) to 4 (frequently) (α = .63). Procedure Participants completed measures in two sessions. In session 1 (30–40 minutes), participants completed general and social self-efficacy and SERR items. In session 2 (4–5 weeks later, 30-50 minutes), participants completed IMS and conflict measures. We did not inform participants that the sessions were related; different authors conducted each session, each with different titles, in different campus classrooms. Participants used the last four digits of telephone numbers for identification; we matched responses with these numbers.

Results SERR scores are normally distributed (M = 82.4, SD = 16.3 for summed items; M = 6.87, SD = 1.4 for average item response). Partial correlations (controlling for sex and age) indicate positive relations between SERR and IMS scores, and a negative correlation between SERR scores and conflict (see Table 5).

.40 .38∗∗∗ −.18∗ .30∗∗∗ −.27∗∗ .57∗∗∗ .24∗∗

∗∗∗

Relationship length .11 .30∗∗∗ .20∗ −.12 .33∗∗∗ .00 .05 .04

Relationship status

−.15† −.26∗∗ −.16† .18∗ −.31∗∗∗ −.04 .05 .13 .69∗∗∗ −.48∗∗∗ .73∗∗∗ −.20∗ .15† −.02

IMS commitment

−.26∗∗ .47∗∗∗ −.35∗∗∗ .08 −.03

IMS satisfaction

−.49∗∗∗ .05 .10 .10

IMS alternative

.06 .04 −.02

IMS investment

−.23∗ −.01

IMS conflict

Note. N = 127–130. Relationship status, 0 = married, 1 = engaged, 2 = living together, 3 = dating this person only, 4 = dating this person and others. SERR = Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships; IMS = Investment Model Scale. Table entries are partial correlations controlling for participant sex and age. ∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05, † p < .10.

SERR IMS commitment IMS satisfaction IMS alternatives IMS investment Conflict General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy

SERR




Riggio et al.

643


General self-efficacy is only related to conflict. We used hierarchical multiple regressions to predict IMS scores and conflict with participant sex5 and age (Step 1), relationship type and length (Step 2), general and social self-efficacy (Step 3), and SERR scores (Step 4), with SERR scores significantly predictive of IMS commitment (R2 change = .12, p < .001), satisfaction (R2 change = .15, p < .001), alternatives (R2 change = .08, p < .01), investment (R2 change = .06, p < .01), and relationship conflict (R2 change = .04, p < .05) in final models (see Table 6). Discussion The current results support a rather solid link between self-reports of selfefficacy in romantic relationships, other relationship attitudes, and outcomes in current romantic relationships, even when controlling for reports of other selfattitudes related to general social competence (general and social self-efficacy, self-esteem, social desirability) and important features of relationships (length and type). First, the results indicate that self-efficacy in romantic relationships is related to feelings of anxiety in relationships, with individuals reporting stronger beliefs about their capabilities to deal effectively with task demands in romantic relationships experiencing fewer feelings of tension and discomfort in personal relationships. Individuals with high relationship self-efficacy believe they can competently cope with intimacy; they feel comfortable and at ease in intimate situations while individuals with low self-efficacy feel uneasy and awkward. Clearly, such beliefs are intertwined, with experienced awkwardness in close relationships leading to feelings of lower efficacy and beliefs of low capabilities leading to feelings of anxiety. Perceptions of efficacy in romantic relationships are also related to expectations of experiencing happy, lifelong relationships, with individuals reporting low ability to respond effectively to task demands in romantic relationships reporting lower expectations for lifelong relationship success. Research indicates that such expectations are influential for behaviors and interactions within intimate relationships, including marriages (Amato & Rogers, 1999; Etcheverry & Le, 2005). The current results also support relations between self-efficacy in romantic relationships and important current relationship features, with greater self-efficacy associated with greater relationship satisfaction, commitment, and investment, and less frequent relationship conflict. Although individuals currently experiencing satisfying, highly-committed, low-conflict relationships are likely to feel highly competent as relationship partners, the conceptual and temporal separation of measures in Studies 2 and 3 (by several weeks) helps ameliorate the influence of mood, response, and confirmatory biases and supports the argument that beliefs about one’s capabilities as a relationship partner meaningfully affect quality features of relationships by affecting the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals within romantic relationships (Bandura, 1997). Importantly, perceptions of self-efficacy in romantic relationships are linked to

.07 .22∗∗∗ .05 .13∗ .16∗∗ .22∗∗

.18† −.07 .50∗∗∗ .26∗ .07 −.35∗∗ −.13 −.05 .31∗∗ −.13 .09 −.24∗

.10 −.03

.07 .04

.04 −.02

−.26∗∗ .08 .07 .10†

.16∗ .28∗∗∗

−.08 −.10 .44∗∗∗

R2

.17† −.06

β2

.02 .05

.12 .18

.00 .07

.02 .18

.12 .24

Adj. R2

.056 .035

.002 .060

.008 .075

.009 .152

.023 .118

R2 change

3.69∗ 4.73∗

.12 9.09∗∗

.51 10.38∗∗

.57 23.50∗∗∗

1.70 19.77∗∗∗

F

.01 .01 .04

.01 .00 .06

.04 .00 .08

.02 .00 .15

.00 .01 .12

sr2

Note. N = 126–129. Covariates sex, age, relationship type and length entered first (results not shown). β 1 = at entry; β 2 = full model. F-values for change in R2 ; sr2 for variable in full model. SERR = Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships; IMS = Investment Model Scale. ∗∗∗ p < .001, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗ p < .05, † p < .10.

IMS commitment General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy SERR IMS satisfaction General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy SERR IMS alternatives General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy SERR IMS investment General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy SERR Relationship conflict General self-efficacy Social self-efficacy SERR

β1

Table 6. Prediction of Current Relationship Outcomes With Self-Efficacy and SERR Scores: Study 3




Riggio et al.

645

current relationship quality when important relationship features like relationship type and length (Study 2) and other indicators of self-efficacy (Study 3) are also considered. Although how self-efficacy in romantic relationships translates into relationship behaviors on an individual level is beyond the scope of the current study, individual feelings of mastery (or lack thereof) in relationships are linked to descriptions of the current romantic relationship in terms of intimacy, emotional support, happiness, and sexual satisfaction, and intentions concerning commitment to the relationship, all meaningful features of romantic relationships that relate meaningfully to quality of life in adulthood (Shu & Zhu, 2009). The current results also support the independence of self-efficacy within romantic relationships from broad feelings of self-competence, self-reliance, and persistence in response to problems. People who view themselves as highly effective and competent in general do not necessarily view themselves as being able to competently respond to the task demands involved in being an intimate partner. Further, while “can do” judgments in romantic relationships are linked to indicators of relationship quality here, views of the self as socially competent are not. Judgments of self-efficacy in romantic relationships are also related to feelings of relationship anxiety and expectations for relationship success, while reports of self-efficacy in the context of the current romantic relationship and regarding a specific partner are not. These results support the uniqueness and utility of a selfreport assessment of perceptions of self-efficacy within romantic relationships, independent of a particular relationship or partner. Although measures assessing efficacy in performing specific relationship behaviors are important and useful in understanding functioning within particular relationships, including habitual patterns of behavior (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988), broader perspectives of self-efficacy as evolving over time and based on multiple experiences within a particular domain are useful and important (Bandura, 1997; Woodruff & Cashman, 1993). Such an approach is central to understanding the influence of personal dispositions on behavior in romantic relationships, including enduring beliefs about romantic relationships, commitment, and the self as a romantic relationship partner (Bradbury et al., 1998). Questions about how efficacy beliefs as a relationship partner change over time, and how they are related to different relationship experiences and partners, can only be addressed by examining broad beliefs about one’s abilities as a romantic partner. Further, although beliefs about one’s competence in dealing with a specific relationship partner are clearly influential for outcomes within that relationship, it seems that behaviors that occur across different romantic relationships (including relationship seeking) are likely to be predicted by broad beliefs about the self as romantic partner, with little influence of particular partner qualities and characteristics. In addition, the influence of memories of relationships and attributions of relationship success and failure over time seem more important for judgments of general relationship abilities than for judgments of efficacy in relations with a specific romantic partner. Although it is not dependent on a particular

646


romantic relationship, the SERR is predictive of current relationship outcomes, supporting its assessment of individual self-referent beliefs that are influential for actual performance with specific relationships. Future research may examine how relationship self-efficacy beliefs are related to interpretations of relationship events, including partner behaviors.


Limitations This sample is composed of college students. Further research should investigate the utility of the SERR with samples that vary in age, background, and relationship experience, including married couples and individuals who have divorced or married multiple times. Although here, self-efficacy is not related to the number of personal relationships experienced (rather low at about two on average), the idea that self-efficacy evolves over time and is informed by direct experience (Bandura, 1997) supports further investigation of romantic relationship experience and self-efficacy. Similarly, research may consider the habitual nature of self-efficacy as a romantic partner in terms of stable judgments of capabilities to attain positive relationships, persist in the face of relationship difficulties, and behavioral confirmation of relationship expectations (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). This study is limited by reliance on self-reports, particularly of relationship outcomes. Social desirability is considered in links between self-efficacy and relationship attitudes, and separation of measures in Studies 2 and 3 is helpful in reducing biases. Future research should investigate relations between self-reports of self-efficacy in romantic relationships, partner descriptions of behavior, and directly observed interactions between relationship partners. Further, because measures were completed in group settings (in classrooms), peer presence and influence may have affected responses, although participants were instructed to complete measures without social interaction and to not examine the responses of others. The samples used in the current studies are comprised primarily of women, which is a limitation. Fewer men overall participated in the current study. Although the results do not vary substantially by sex, with SERR scores not very different between men and women across the three studies, it appears that SERR scores are less strongly linked to judgments of relationship investment for men compared to women; that general self-efficacy is more strongly linked to the relationship outcomes of men compared to women; and that judgments of relationship investment are linked to feelings of general self-efficacy for men, but not for women. Future research may investigate how men’s evaluations of relationship competence are linked to views of the self as a ‘provider,’ which are likely to involve judgments of efficacy (Bandura, 1997), judgments which appear to vary depending on sex (i.e., men are more strongly socialized into the role of provider; Eagly & Wood, 1999).

Riggio et al.

647


Directions for Future Research The validity and utility of the SERR should be further investigated, including relations with efficacy in dealing with conflict within particular romantic relationships (Bradbury, 1989). Self-efficacy as a broad perception of the self as capable of dealing with task demands within romantic relationships may also be investigated in relation to larger mental models of relationships involving attachment (Collins & Allard, 2001) and habitual attributions for partner-and-self behaviors in relationships (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988). Broad feelings of self-efficacy in romantic relationships may be particularly important in marital depression (Fincham & Bradbury, 1993), especially chronically low feelings of competence as a partner that persist across relationships. Indeed, theorists have argued that efficacy expectations in relationships are an important target in marital therapies (Fincham et al., 2000). Relations between self-efficacy in relationships and other relationship attitudes, including attitudes toward marriage, divorce, commitment, and beliefs about love, romance, and longevity should be investigated. Because self-efficacy as a romantic relationship partner influences expectations of performance in relationships, self-efficacy is linked to relationship behaviors such as resolving problems, dealing with conflict, communicating effectively, engaging in positive, loving behaviors, and other ways of maintaining relationship quality. Future research may directly investigate links between beliefs about abilities to attain positive romantic relationships and deal effectively with relationship difficulties and specific relationship enhancement and maintenance behaviors, including accommodation processes (Rusbult et al., 1991). Interventions aimed at increasing feelings of efficacy in relationships may be helpful for both couples’ and individual relationship functioning and experiences, particularly perhaps in engaging self-control and positive persistence in the face of partner destructive behaviors (Finkel & Campbell, 2001). Finally, because of the importance of family experiences to self-efficacy development (Bandura, 1997; Schneewind, 1995), and because parents serve as primary models of romantic relationship functioning (Cui et al., 2008), future research may also investigate the role of parental marital relationships, particularly parental divorce and marital conflict, in informing individual self-efficacy beliefs. Research on beliefs about the self as a romantic relationship partner is growing, with scholars increasingly recognizing the importance of learning in romantic relationships and views of the self as a relationship partner for personal relationship outcomes (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). As scholars increasingly recognize the importance of competence judgments for effective behavior (Bandura, 1997), examinations of beliefs about the self as a romantic partner should move beyond relationship-specific judgments and examine how formative learning experiences are linked to judgments of the self as a partner, and behavior in personal relationships, not just in terms of emotional judgments of the self as ”loveable” or worthy of love (Belsky, 2002), but in terms of mastery of relationship challenges

648



and persistence in the face of relationship difficulties (Riggio et al., 2011). Such knowledge is likely to be especially helpful in developing applications for improving quality of interpersonal relationships by focusing on individual relationship beliefs and skills, independent of characteristics of current relationships or partners.

NOTES 1.Scores across studies did not vary by partner sex. 2.Results for RSES subscales are similar to results for total scores. 3. Regression results vary slightly by sex, with SERR scores not significantly predictive of men’s relationship anxiety; regression results are the same overall when only women’s responses are analyzed. Women report significantly higher SERR scores (M = 6.74, SD = 1.5) than men (M = 6.15, SD = 1.6), with F (1, 215) = 5.55, p < .05. 4.Regression results vary slightly by sex, with SERR scores not significantly predictive of men’s IMS investment scores; regression results are the same overall when only women’s responses are analyzed. Women and men are not significantly different in SERR scores. 5.Regression results vary slightly by sex, with SERR scores not significantly predictive of men’s IMS investment scores; regression results are the same overall when only women’s responses are analyzed. Women and men are not significantly different in SERR scores. AUTHOR NOTES Heidi R. Riggio is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles. Dana A. Weiser is affiliated with the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Nevada, Reno. Ann Marie Valenzuela is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles. P. Priscilla Lui is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, Purdue University. Roberto Montes is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles. Julie Heuer is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles.

REFERENCES Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1999). Do attitudes toward divorce affect marital quality? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 69–86. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Belsky, J. (2002). Developmental origins of attachment styles. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 166–170. Bradbury, T. N. (1989). Cognition, emotion, and interaction in distressed and nondistressed marriages. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Bradbury, T. N., Cohan, C. L., & Karney, B. R. (1998). Optimizing longitudinal research for understanding and preventing marital dysfunction. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction .(pp. 279–311). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.


Riggio et al.

649

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 713–721. Carroll, J. S., Badger, S., & Yang, C. (2006). The ability to negotiate or the ability to love? Evaluating the developmental domains of marital competence. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1001–1032. Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2001). Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2. Interpersonal processes (pp. 60–85). London, UK: Blackwell. Conklin, A. M., Dahling, J. J., & Garcia, P. A. (2013). Linking affective commitment, career self-efficacy, and outcome expectations: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development, 40, 68–83. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. Cui, M., Fincham, F. D., & Pasley, B. K. (2008). Young adult romantic relationships: The role of parents’ marital problems and relationship efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1226–1235. Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. Etcheverry, P. E., & Le, B. (2005). Thinking about commitment: Accessibility of commitment and prediction of relationship persistence, accommodation, and willingness to sacrifice. Personal Relationships, 12, 103–123. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). Cognitive processes and conflict in close relationships: An attribution-efficacy model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1106–1118. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1993). Marital satisfaction, depression, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 442–452. Fincham, F. D., Harold, G. T., & Gano-Phillips, S. (2000). The longitudinal association between attributions and marital satisfaction: Direction of effects and role of efficacy expectations. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 267–285. Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277. Ghaderi, A. R., & Rangaiah, B. (2011). Influence of self-efficacy on depression, anxiety and stress among Indian and Iranian students. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 6, 231–240. Lavasani, M. G., Khezriazar, H., Amani, J., & Malahmadi, E. (2011). The role of academic self-efficacy and achievement goals in level of stress, anxiety, and depression of university students. Journal of Psychology, 14, 417–432. Lopez, F. G., Morúa, W., & Rice, K. G. (2007). Factor structure, stability, and predictive validity of college students’ relationship self-efficacy beliefs. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 40, 80–96. Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 295–307. Riggio, H. R. (2012). The psychology of self-efficacy. In S. Britner (Ed.), Self-efficacy in school and community settings (pp. 1–18). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Riggio, H. R., Weiser, D. A., Valenzuela, A., Lui, P., Montes, R., & Heuer, J. (2011). Initial validation of a measure of self-efficacy in romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 601–606. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


650


Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78. Schneewind, K. A. (1995). Impact of family processes on control beliefs. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 114–148). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 133–161. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671. Shu, X., & Zhu, Y. (2009). The quality of life in China. Social Indicators Research, 92, 191–225. Snell, W. E., Jr. (1998). The Relationship Awareness Scale: Measuring relational consciousness, relational-monitoring, and relational-anxiety. Contemporary Social Psychology, 18, 23–49. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666. Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). A component model of relational competence. Human Communication Research, 10, 575–599. Tudoran, A. A., Scholderer, J., & Brunsø, K. (2012). Regulatory focus, self-efficacy and outcome expectations as drivers of motivation to consume healthy food products. Appetite, 59, 243–251. Woodruff, S., & Cashman, J. F. (1993). Task, domain, and general self-efficacy: A reexamination of the Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychological Reports, 72, 423–432. Wulfert, E., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Safer sex intentions and condom use viewed from a health belief, reasoned action, and social cognitive perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 299–311.

Received September 18, 2012 Accepted April 19, 2013

Gender, Contraceptive Attitudes, and Condom Use in Adolescent Romantic Relationships: A Dyadic Approach.

Attachment in romantic relationships and somatization.

Consequences of interpersonal spin on couple-relevant goal progress and relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships.

Machiavellianism, Relationship Satisfaction, and Romantic Relationship Quality.

Romantic relationships between physicians and patients.

The Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With ADHD.

Masculinity in adolescent males' early romantic and sexual heterosexual relationships.

Latent Classes of Adolescent Sexual and Romantic Relationship Experiences: Implications for Adult Sexual Health and Relationship Outcomes.

Relationship stigma and relationship outcomes in interracial and same-sex relationships: Examination of sources and buffers.

The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships.

Racially and ethnically diverse schools and adolescent romantic relationships.

Genetic and neural correlates of romantic relationship satisfaction.

Romantic relationship formation, maintenance and changes in personal networks.

PTSD and Romantic Relationship Satisfaction: Cluster- and Symptom-Level Analyses.

Accuracy and bias in self-perceptions of responsive behavior: implications for security in romantic relationships.

Preoccupation in an early-romantic relationship predicts experimental pain relief.

Effects of empathy and conflict resolution strategies on psychophysiological arousal and satisfaction in romantic relationships.

Romantic Relationship Satisfaction Moderates the Etiology of Adult Personality.

Stress in romantic relationships and adolescent depressive symptoms: Influence of parental support.

Strategically Funny: Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style in Relationship Initiation.

Multiple dimensions of peer influence in adolescent romantic and sexual relationships: a descriptive, qualitative perspective.

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Romantic Relationships in Adolescents and Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Sexuality and romantic relationships in young adult cancer survivors: satisfaction and supportive care needs.

Positive Interactions and Avoidant and Anxious Representations in Relationships with Parents, Friends, and Romantic Partners.