The effects of attitude familiarity on social interactions and stress

Previous correlational research suggests that familiarity with another's attitudes is beneficial for physical health and relationship outcomes. This study aimed to examine the causal effects of attitude familiarity on the stressfulness of interactions and individuals' perceptions of themselves, their partner, and the interaction. Participants were randomly assigned to an attitude familiarity, trait familiarity, or no familiarity condition and completed a discussion task with an assigned partner. Measures of cardiovascular reactivity and participant perception were obtained. In line with our predictions, systolic blood pressure reactivity was significantly lower during the discussion task in the familiarity conditions compared to the control condition. However, other significant main effects of condition on cardiovascular reactivity or self-report measures were found. Secondary analyses indicated that increases in attitude similarity and respect and liking for a partner's attitude or traits were associated with more favorable perceptions of the partner and interaction.

THE EFFECTS OF ATTITUDE FAMILIARITY ON SOCIAL INTERACTIONS AND STRESS by Arwen Alexandria J. Behrends A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Psychology The University of Utah August 2014 Copyright © Arwen Alexandria J. Behrends 2014 All Rights ReservedThe University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL The thesis of Arwen Alexandria J. Behrends has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: David Sanbonmatsu , Chair 6/05/2014 Date Approved Bert Uchino , Member 6/05/2014 Date Approved Paul H. White , Member 6/05/2014 Date Approved and by Carol Sansone , Chair of the Department of Psychology and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School.ABSTRACT Previous correlational research suggests that familiarity with another's attitudes is beneficial for physical health and relationship outcomes. This study aimed to examine the causal effects of attitude familiarity on the stressfulness of interactions and individuals' perceptions of themselves, their partner, and the interaction. Participants were randomly assigned to an attitude familiarity, trait familiarity, or no familiarity condition and completed a discussion task with an assigned partner. Measures of cardiovascular reactivity and participant perception were obtained. In line with our predictions, systolic blood pressure reactivity was significantly lower during the discussion task in the familiarity conditions compared to the control condition. However, other significant main effects of condition on cardiovascular reactivity or self-report measures were found. Secondary analyses indicated that increases in attitude similarity and respect and liking for a partner's attitude or traits were associated with more favorable perceptions of the partner and interaction. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... iii LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... vi INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 Attitude Familiarity in Interactions ................................ ................................ ............. .4 Moderators ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6 Current Study................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 10 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 11 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 17 Primary Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Secondary Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 25 DISCUSSION................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 32 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 36LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Characteristics of Study Participants ................................ ................................ ...... 10 2. Study Conditions and Sample Sizes................................ ................................ ........ 11 3. Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Cardiovascular Reactivity as a Function of Condition and Phase ................................ ................................ ............ 20 4. Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Pre and Post Measures of Anxiety, Threat, Control, and Confidence as a Function of Condition ................................ . 22 5. Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Perceptions of Self as a Function of Condition................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 24 6. Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Perceptions of Partner as a Function of Condition ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 24 7. Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Interaction Quality Ratings as a Function of Condition ................................ ................................ ............................. 25ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank David M. Sanbonmatsu, Bert N. Uchino, and Paul H. White for their contributions to this project.INTRODUCTION Partner's perceptions and evaluations of each other play a central role in relationships (Fletch & Kerr, 2010; Gagne & Lydon, 2004; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). Generally, the happiest relationships appear to be ones in which partners evaluate each other favorably. Research has shown that relationships are more satisfying and more likely to persist when individuals are idealized by their partners (Murray & Holmes, 1993; Murray et al., 2000). Successful relationships are also characterized by partners having accurate knowledge of each other. Research on self-verification theory has shown that spouses report greater commitment and are more likely to remain in a relationship when their partner verifies their general identities, even if those identities are negative (Swann, Hixon, & De La Ronde, 1992). Intimates respond most favorably to the verification of less visible important traits and to the enhancement of highly visible traits (Campbell, 2005). In general, partners are relatively accurate in their perception of their partner's interpersonal qualities, feelings of closeness, marriage values, and commitment (Acitelli, Kenny, & Weiner, 2001; Adams & Jones, 1997; Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Murray et al., 1996). Although the overall favorableness of relationships has been shown to be affected by the accuracy of general partner appraisals, little work has examined the 2 impact of partner knowledge on interactions. An important exception to this is a study by Neff and Karney (2005), which linked the accuracy of spouses' familiarity with their partners' specific traits to the longevity of marriages. The study reported a positive correlation between wives' accurate knowledge of their husband's specific traits and the amount of positive support they gave to their husbands. They were also less likely to divorce in the beginning years of marriage compared to those with less accurate knowledge. The majority of previous research on partner knowledge has focused on trait knowledge. Attitude familiarity is a different form of partner knowledge that may play a particularly central role in shaping partner interactions and relationships. Both types of partner knowledge should be more beneficial than having little to no partner knowledge. However, attitude familiarity is likely to be especially influential in interactions and relationships due to the functionality of attitudes. Attitudes refer to evaluations of and feelings toward objects, persons, situations, issues, events, and behaviors that are stored in memory (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Research has shown that attitudes are functional (Katz, 1960; Sanbonmatsu, Posavac, Vanous, & Fazio, 2007). Attitudes guide information processing (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979), the appraisal of situations and response alternatives (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990), and behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Fazio, 1990). Studies have shown that the availability of strong attitudes facilitates decision making and diminishes the stress people experience in everyday life (Blascovich et al., 1993; Fazio & Powell, 1997). 3 If one's own attitudes are functional, knowledge of another's attitudes should be similarly functional. Because attitudes can play a significant role in people's decisions, actions, and emotions, knowledge of another's attitudes should allow an individual to better anticipate, influence, and respond to their behavior. The connection between attitude familiarity and relationships has been supported previously in a pair of correlational studies. In the first study (Sanbonmatsu, Uchino, Wong, & Seo, 2012), romantically involved couples completed measures of their own attitudes and their perceptions of their partner's attitudes as well as several measures of relationship quality. The results indicated that higher levels of attitude familiarity in married and dating couples was associated with more positive interpersonal outcomes. Couples that had higher levels of attitude familiarity reported getting along better. They were less likely to fight, less prone to upset each other, and were less prone to experience conflict. Helpfulness and partner affiliation were higher and dominance lower as attitude familiarity increased. These results were unchanged when statistically controlling for relationship length and were not moderated by the dyad factor. These findings indicate that unlike Neff and Karney (2005), attitude familiarity is beneficial for relationship functioning in both genders. A second study found that married couples who had higher levels of attitude familiarity experienced better interpersonal functioning and lower daily cardiovascular reactivity (Sanbonmatsu, Uchino, & Birmingham, 2011). This study employed daily diary assessments of interactions between partners/within couples and daily ambulatory blood pressure readings. The daily diary data revealed that attitude familiarity was linked to greater partner responsiveness, perceived interaction positivity, state self-4 esteem, and lower perceived interaction negativity. Higher levels of attitude familiarity were associated with lower daily ambulatory systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, indicating there was less stress present in the relationship. These associations were not affected by relationship length or the dyad factor. As noted above, these studies were correlational. Hence, they do not provide unequivocal evidence of the causal effects of attitude familiarity on interactions and relationships. The association could be the result of reversal patterns in which qualities such as conflict and support affect partners' willingness to learn about each other. Relationship qualities such as commitment, satisfaction, and liking may also affect the amount of time partners spend together and their level of familiarity with each other. Partners in relationships with lower amounts of commitment, satisfaction, and liking may be less motivated to learn about each other's likes and dislikes. Attitude Familiarity in Interactions As discussed earlier, attitudes are functional for individuals. Being familiar with a partner's attitudes should provide an individual with information that could improve the quality of interactions with that partner. Partners who know each other's likes and dislikes should be more proficient in avoiding interactions that are potentially contentious and in making decisions that are mutually beneficial. Therefore, such couples should report less fighting and fewer episodes of upsetting each other. Support behaviors should also increase, as partners are able to better anticipate when support is needed and what type of support to provide. For example, if an individual knows that a particular conversation topic, such as health care reform, is a controversial issue for 5 their partner, the individual can avoid bringing it into a conversation. If the topic does arise, they know that their partner may require additional support such as a sympathetic ear or increased personal space. Interactions between partners who have higher levels of attitude familiarity should be smoother and more positive, and less stressful. These favorable interactions should also influence individuals to see the overall relationship to be more positive. This positivity should be seen in measures of feelings of liking and closeness to the partner. This increase in interaction quality may affect perceptions of the partner and the self. When individuals learn their partner's likes and dislikes, their partners may see them as being perceptive, caring, intelligent, and socially skilled. This may be due to the smoother, more favorable interactions and the positive feedback that is received. Individuals who learn their partner's attitudes should perceive themselves as being more perceptive, supportive, agreeable, and report higher levels of self-esteem due to the more favorable interaction. Persons whose attitudes are known should have more positive perceptions of themselves due to the supportiveness and favorability of the interactions and the caring that is conveyed when their partners make an effort to know their attitudes. Self-verification may also play a role in increasing perceptions of positivity toward the self (Swann, 1984). People should feel less uncertain about their attitudes when their partner confirms those attitudes. The effects of attitude familiarity on interaction favorability should also be evident in stress-related processes. Attitude familiarity affects conflict and support behaviors, both of which have been linked to significant physical health outcomes (De 6 Vogli, Chandola, & Marmot, 2007; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). In general, negative interactions have been shown to elevate stress levels. For example, married couples who engaged in negative interactions with their spouse displayed elevated cardiovascular reactivity compared to couples who engaged in positive or neutral interactions (Smith et al., 2009). The reactivity hypothesis suggests that this type of elevated cardiovascular response to a stressor could lead to the development of cardiovascular diseases over time (Cacciopo et al., 1998; Chida & Steptoe, 2010). As evidenced in Sanbonmatsu et al. (2011), attitude familiarity is associated with lower daily ambulatory blood pressure. This finding indicates that interactions that are characterized by higher levels of attitude familiarity may be less stressful than interactions characterized by lower levels of attitude familiarity. Attitude familiarity may decrease stress by improving interactions, increasing support behaviors, and decreasing the amount of conflict between partners. Moderators There are several possible moderators of the effects of attitude familiarity on interactions and relationships. Sanbonmatsu et al. (2011) found that attitude similarity was significantly correlated with attitude familiarity. However, in controlling for attitude similarity, all but one of the effects of attitude familiarity remained significant, indicating that attitude familiarity is a significant predictor of relationship functioning independent of attitude similarity. It is likely that attitude familiarity and attitude similarity have a complex relationship as attitude similarity may interact with attitude familiarity in several 7 different ways. Research has shown that people who are similar in personality and personal values are attracted to one another, and have closer, longer relationships (Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986; Gaunt, 2006; Luo & Klohnen, 2005). This increased likelihood of getting along with a similar individual may increase motivation to learn more about the other person. It is also plausible that it is easier to remember and recognize the shared likes and dislikes, which would contribute to smoother interactions. This complex relationship between attitude familiarity and attitude similarity requires additional examination. Appreciation of another's attitudes may be one of the most critical determinants of the impact of attitude familiarity. The pattern of effects observed in previous studies (Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2012) is likely to be stronger when attitudes are perceived as similar and are respected. It is possible that without respect for another's attitudes, attitude familiarity could be toxic to relationships. Individuals who have knowledge of their partner's likes and dislikes, but do not respect their partner's attitudes, could use the knowledge to antagonize or manipulate their partner. Current Study The main aim of this study was to further our understanding of the role of attitude familiarity in relationships by examining its causal effects on interactions and social ties. Outside of the two previous attitude familiarity studies and the studies of Neff and Karney (2005), research on partner knowledge has generally not examined the effects of partner knowledge on specific processes such as conflict and support (Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2012). This study sought to address this 8 question by examining the causal effects of attitude familiarity on the favorableness of interactions, relationship quality, and perceptions of the self and partner. The study's basic design was to manipulate the amount and type of information participants received regarding an interaction partner. Participants in the study were placed in gender matched pairs and provided with information regarding their assigned partner's attitudes or traits, or they received no information at all. They then engaged in a discussion task with their partner. Cardiovascular measurements were taken throughout the study as a physiological indicator of stress. Participants also completed measures of their perceptions of themselves, their partner, and the qualities of the interaction. Generally, it was hypothesized that partners who were familiar with each other's traits or attitudes, compared to partners with no familiarity, would perceive more positivity in the interaction, report higher levels of liking and closeness, generally perceive themselves and their partner more positively, and exhibit less stress associated with the interaction. It was hypothesized that partners who were familiar with each other's attitudes, compared to partners who were familiar with each other's traits or partners with no familiarity, would have more positive interactions. Partners who were familiar with each other's attitudes were expected to perceive the interaction as being smoother, more comfortable, and less stressful. As such, they should report lower levels of anxiety and threat regarding the interaction task. They should also exhibit lower levels of cardiovascular reactivity. It was also expected that individuals who were familiar with 9 their partner's attitudes would perceive themselves and their partner as being easier to get along with, more helpful, likable, and less upsetting. We hypothesized that attitude similarity and respect for partner's attitudes would moderate the effects of attitude familiarity. Positive interactions may be more likely to occur when attitudes are similar and respected. When attitudes are not similar or respected, interactions could have higher levels of conflict, disagreement, and perceived interaction negativity. METHOD Participants One hundred and twenty undergraduate students (82 females and 38 males) enrolled in psychology classes at the University of Utah completed the study for course credit. Table 1 lists the participant characteristics. Participants were placed into gender matched pairs within each of the three conditions. Each of these dyads was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. The members of the dyads did not know each other prior to the experiment. Table 2 contains the breakdown of condition assignment and gender. Table 1 Characteristics of Study Participants Variable Mean Gender 68.33% Female Age 22.85 years BMI 24.67 Ethnicity 70% Caucasian 7.5% Hispanic/Latino 7.5% Asian-American 2.51% Other Annual Income 58.33% <$10,000 18.33% $10,000-20,000 20.83% >$20,000 Education 95.8% Partial college- college graduate11 Table 2 Study Conditions and Sample Sizes Attitude Familiarity Trait Familiarity No Familiarity (control) Female n=32 n=24 n=26 Male n=6 n=18 n=14 Procedure The procedure consisted of one laboratory session that lasted approximately 1 ½ hours. Upon entering the lab, participants completed the informed consent. They were informed that the study was concerned with cardiovascular responses to social interactions and that they would be connected to spot electrodes and a blood pressure cuff to monitor their cardiovascular responses while they engaged in a discussion task with each other. Participants then completed a demographic questionnaire and height and weight measurements in separate rooms. Following this, participants were placed in a room with a barrier between them. When in place, the barrier prevented the participants from viewing each other, though it was possible for them to hear each other. A blood pressure cuff was placed on the upper portion of the nondominant arm (Dinamap Pro100; Critikon Corp.). Seven disposable spot electrodes were then placed according to published guidelines (Hoetink et al., 2002). Participants completed a 10-minute resting baseline where they were instructed to relax and not speak to each other. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were taken every 90 seconds and cardiac impedance was taken continuously. However, due to equipment malfunction, the cardiac impedance 12 data were corrupted and unavailable for analyses. Video and audio recordings were similarly corrupted and unavailable for analyses. All participants then completed the attitude and trait questionnaires. The experimenter swapped each participant's completed questionnaire according to the dyad's assigned condition. For participants placed in the attitude familiarity condition, the experimenter gave them their partner's completed attitude questionnaire. Participants placed in the trait familiarity condition were given their partner's completed trait questionnaire. The experimenter informed the participants that this switch was to give them a chance to familiarize themselves with their partner before the discussion task. To encourage participants to pay attention to the questionnaires, they were informed that they would have 10 minutes to memorize their partner's information before completing a recall task. Participants placed in the control condition were given blank forms of either the attitude or trait questionnaire and told that they would be completing a recall task on the items listed in the questionnaire. Following the 10-minute study period, all participants were given a free recall sheet where they were asked to write down as much information about their partner that they could remember in 5 minutes. After the recall task, all participants completed a second 10-minute cardiovascular measures collection period, identical in format to the initial resting baseline. This 10-minute period will be referred to as the manipulation phase of the study. All participants then completed measures of state anxiety, threat appraisal, and perceived coping ability regarding their upcoming discussion task performance. Participants in the attitude familiarity and trait familiarity conditions also completed 13 measures regarding how much they liked and respected their partner's traits or attitudes. The 10-minute discussion task immediately followed. In the discussion task, participants were instructed to interact with each other as they normally would when meeting someone for the very first time. The discussion was left unstructured (no predefined turn taking) to allow for a natural flow of conversation. Participants were instructed to allow each other equal talking time and to continue speaking if they felt the blood pressure cuff inflate. The barrier between the participants was then removed and the discussion task began. As in the baseline measurements, blood pressure readings were taken every 90 seconds. At the end of the discussion task, the barrier was replaced and participants were instructed to again sit quietly for another 5 minutes while cardiovascular measures were taken. Participants then completed postmeasures of state anxiety, threat appraisal, and perceived coping ability. Participants also evaluated the interaction for smoothness, favorableness, comfortableness, amount of conflict, and amount of disclosure. Several measures of partner evaluation were also completed. Participants reported how responsive, likable, helpful, and upsetting they found their partner. They also evaluated their partner's intelligence, social skills, communication skills, and predictability. Finally, a state self-esteem measure was completed. Participants were then debriefed concerning the true nature of the experiment. 14 Measures Cardiovascular Assessments Noninvasive cardiovascular assessments were taken via a Mindware 2000D Impedance Cardiograph and a Dinamap Model 100 blood pressure monitor. The Dinamap Model 100 uses the occillometric method to estimate blood pressure. SBP, DBP, HR, and MAP reading were taken every 90 seconds during the four collection periods. Attitude and Trait Questionnaires Participants indicated their attitudes towards 99 attitude-objects on a 7-point scale (anchored by very negative and very positive). This questionnaire was modified and expanded from the attitude questionnaire used in previous work (Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2012). Attitude-objects were selected based on relevance to the sample such as current political issues, entertainment preferences, and school-related tasks. Traits were assessed using the NEO-PI-R, a 97-item questionnaire in which participants indicated agreement/disagreement on various traits on a 5-point scale (anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree). Threat and Challenge Appraisals Participants completed a measure of challenge and threat appraisals utilized by Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, and Ernst (1997). These assessments have been sensitive to different patterns of cardiovascular reactivity in prior work (e.g., threat with increased TPR, Tomaka et al., 1997). 15 Self-Efficacy and Perceived Control Perceptions of self-efficacy and perceived control were assessed via items used in prior social psychophysiological studies (Gerin, Milner, Chawla, & Pickering, 1995). The item assessing self-efficacy asked participants to rate their confidence in their ability to perform well on the disclosure task on a 5-point scale anchored by 1 (not at all) and 5 (very much). Perceived control in performing well on the disclosure task was assessed on a similar 5-point Likert scale. Both measures are sensitive to experimental manipulations of self-efficacy and control (Gerin et al., 1995). Appraisals of Partner Responsiveness Perceived partner responsiveness was assessed using 4 items (Larenceau, Feldman-Barrett, & Rovine, 2005). Participants were asked how understood, validated, accepted, and cared for the other person made them feel. This measure has good internal consistency and predicts relationship-based processes in prior work (Larenceau et al., 2005). State Anxiety Scale The short-form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Scale has good psychometric properties and was utilized in this study (Marteau & Bekker, 1992). Interaction Quality Participants indicated how comfortable they felt with their partner on 7-point scales anchored by extremely uncomfortable and extremely comfortable. The 16 smoothness and favorableness of the interaction was rated on 7-point scales anchored by 1 (very awkward) and 7 (very smooth), and 1 (very negative) and 7 (very positive). Partner and Self-Ratings Participants rated their partners and their selves on 7-point scales anchored by 1 (not socially skilled) and 7(highly socially skilled), 1 (not intelligent) and 7 (highly intelligent), 1 (not perceptive) and 7 (highly perceptive), 1 (not at all easy to get along with) and 7 (very easy to get along with), and 1 (not at all easy to talk to) and 7 (very easy to talk to). Participants also indicated their liking for their partner on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (dislike very much) and 7 (like very much). Social Relationships Index (SRI) The SRI instructs participants to rate how helpful and upsetting their partner generally was on a 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely) point scale. Prior studies suggest that the SRI is psychometrically sound, with good internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Uchino, 2009). State Self-Esteem State self-esteem was assessed using the 20-item state self-esteem scale, which accesses current thoughts across a variety of dimensions (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991).RESULTS A series of 3 (Familiarity) X 2 (Dyad) regressions were conducted on all main dependent measures using the SAS proc mixed procedure. The proc mixed procedure utilizes a random regression model to create parameter estimates within and across dyads. Least square means was used to adjust for unequal cell sizes between conditions and the Tukey-Kramer HSD adjustment was used for all pairwise comparisons. We first examined the main effects of condition on each of the main dependent measures. Subsequent analyses examined correlations between attitude and trait similarity and the primary dependent measures. We also examined the interactions between similarity in traits and attitudes and condition on each of the main dependent measures. Due to the small number of males in the sample, there was a lack of adequate power to examine gender effects. Primary Analyses Cardiovascular Reactivity BP measures (SBP, DBP, HR, MAP) were taken every 90 seconds during each of the four collection phases (baseline, manipulation, discussion task, and recovery). Within each collection phase, the readings for each BP measure was averaged together to create a single averaged score. Cardiovascular reactivity was calculated by subtracting the baseline average score from the discussion task average score. 18 Cardiovascular reactivity during the manipulation phase was similarly calculated by subtracting the baseline average score from the average score from the manipulation phase. Table 3 contains the least squares means and standard errors for all BP measures and study phases. SBP Reactivity The main effect of condition on SBP reactivity during the discussion task was significant, b = -4.485, SE = 1.70, F(2, 57) = 3.58, p = .03. Post Hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that SBP reactivity during the discussion task was significantly lower in the attitude familiarity condition than in the control condition (p = .03). Thus, attitude familiarity contributed to decreased SBP reactivity during the discussion task. Although the effect was in the predicted directions, SBP reactivity during the discussion task in the attitude familiarity condition was not significantly different from SBP reactivity in the trait familiarity condition (p =.19). The main effect of condition on SBP reactivity during the manipulation phase was not significant, F(2, 57) = .66, p = .52. DBP Reactivity The main effects of condition on DBP reactivity during the discussion task, F(2, 57) = .78, p = .47, and of DBP reactivity during the manipulation phase were not significant, F(2, 57) = .42, p = .7.19 Table 3 Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Cardiovascular Reactivity as a Function of Condition and Phase Attitude Familiarity Trait Familiarity Control Condition LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE Discussion Phase SBP 2.67 1.21 5.59 1.13 7.16 1.18 Discussion Phase DBP 4.58 0.95 4.91 0.90 6.14 0.93 Discussion Phase HR 3.78 0.87 2.31 0.81 2.59 0.84 Discussion Phase MAP 6.00 1.01 7.14 0.95 8.62 0.99 Manipulation Phase SBP -1.24 0.94 0.11 0.89 -0.01 0.92 Manipulation Phase DBP -0.06 0.59 0.15 0.56 0.66 5.71 Manipulation Phase HR -1.64 0.66 -1.88 0.63 -2.18 0.65 Manipulation Phase MAP 0.21 0.59 0.39 0.56 0.94 0.58 Note: Blood pressure measured in millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). 20 HR Reactivity The main effects of condition on HR reactivity during the discussion task, F(2, 57) = .86, p = .43, and on HR reactivity during the manipulation phase, F(2, 57) = .17, p = .85, were not significant. MAP The main effects of condition on MAP reactivity during the discussion task, F(2, 57) = 1.71, p = .19, and MAP reactivity during the manipulation phase, F(2, 57) = .42, p = .67, were not significant. Self-Report Measures Anxiety, Threat, Coping Ability, and Confidence The main effects of condition on prediscussion task anxiety appraisals, F(2, 57) = 1.25, p = .29, threat appraisals, F(2, 57) = .67, p = .52, perceptions of coping ability, F(2, 57) = .61, p = .55, and perceptions of confidence regarding the upcoming task performance, F(2, 56) = .14, p = .87, were not significant. Postdiscussion task levels of anxiety appraisals, F(2, 57) = .03, p = .97, threat appraisals, F(2, 56) = .55, p = .58, perceptions of coping ability, F(2, 57) = .09, p = .92, and perceptions of confidence regarding discussion task performance, F(2, 56) = .514, p = .61, also did not vary as a function of condition. Table 4 contains the least squares means and standard errors of anxiety, threat, coping ability, and confidence. 21 Table 4 Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Pre and Post Measures of Anxiety, Threat, Control, and Confidence as a Function of Condition Attitude Familiarity Trait Familiarity Control Condition LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE Prediscussion Anxiety 8.36 0.35 8.42 0.33 8.32 0.33 Prediscussion Threat 1.18 0.08 1.29 0.07 1.30 0.08 Prediscussion Control 3.80 0.16 3.92 0.14 3.87 0.16 Prediscussion Confidence 4.17 0.13 4.24 0.12 4.15 0.13 Postdiscussion Anxiety 8.36 0.35 8.43 0.32 8.32 0.33 Postdiscussion Threat 1.13 0.07 1.21 0.07 1.11 0.07 Postdiscussion Control 4.36 0.10 4.43 0.09 4.24 0.10 Postdiscussion Confidence 4.53 0.09 4.63 0.08 4.52 0.0922 Evaluations of Partner and Self Following the discussion, participants evaluated their own intelligence, perceptiveness, social skills, and how easy they were to talk to. The responses to these items were averaged together to provide a single score of self-evaluation. An index of partner evaluations was also created. This index was calculated by averaging participants' rating of their partner's social skills, perceptiveness, intelligence, and how easy they were to talk to. The main effects of condition on participants' evaluations of partners, F(2, 57) = 1.29, p = .28, feelings of liking for their partner, F(2, 57) = .48, p = .62, feelings of closeness to their partners, F(2, 57) = 14, p = .87, and evaluations of themselves, F(2, 57) = .14, p = .87, were not significant. Table 5 contains the least squares means and standard errors for the self-evaluations measures. Table 6 contains the least squares means and standard errors for perceptions and evaluations of partners. Partner Responsiveness The four items of the partner responsiveness scale (how understood, validated, accepted, and connected did your partner make you feel?) were summed to provide a single score. The main effect of condition on ratings of partner responsiveness was not significant, F(2, 57) = 1.5, p = .23.23 Table 5 Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Perceptions of Self as a Function of Condition Attitude Familiarity Trait Familiarity Control Condition LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE Self-Evaluations 5.95 0.13 5.85 0.12 5.89 0.12 State Self-Esteem 79.84 1.79 77.70 1.72 81.05 1.72 Table 6 Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Perceptions of Partner as a Function of Condition Attitude Familiarity Trait Familiarity Control Condition LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE Partner Evaluations 6.00 0.14 6.21 0.13 5.92 0.13 Partner Responsiveness 14.21 0.53 15.40 0.50 15.20 0.52 Closeness 4.78 0.24 4.61 0.23 4.65 0.23 Liking 5.98 0.18 6.16 0.16 5.95 0.17 Helpfulness 3.95 0.19 4.19 0.19 4.05 0.19 Upsetting 1.00 0.08 1.21 0.07 1.10 0.0824 Interaction Quality Ratings of interaction positivity and negativity were significantly negatively correlated, r (118) = -.50, p < .01. Negativity ratings were reverse scored and averaged with positivity ratings to create an index of interaction positivity. The main effects of condition on ratings of interaction positivity, F(2, 57) = .19, p = .83, and interaction smoothness, F(2, 57) = 0.0, p = .99, were not significant. Perceptions of which participant had greater influence, F(2, 57) = 0.0, p = .99, perceived disclosure by self, F(2, 57) = .94, p = .40, and perceived disclosure by partner, F(2, 57) = .24, p = .78, also did not vary as a function of condition. Table 7 contains the least squares means and standard errors for measures of interaction quality. Table 7 Least Squares Means and Standard Errors for Interaction Quality Ratings as a Function of Condition Attitude Familiarity Trait Familiarity Control Condition LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE Positivity 4.79 0.08 4.86 0.08 4.83 0.08 Smoothness 4.21 0.13 4.21 0.12 4.20 0.12 Partner Disclosure 3.61 0.14 3.71 0.13 3.6 0.13 Self-Disclosure 3.58 0.10 3.69 0.10 3.50 0.1025 SRI The main effects of condition on ratings of how helpful participants found their partner, F(2, 57) = .41, p = .66, and ratings of how upsetting they found their partner, F(2, 57) = 1.99, p = .15, were not significant. State Self-Esteem The main effect of condition on reported levels of state self-esteem was not significant, F(2, 57) = .97, p = .38. Secondary Analyses Secondary analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between attitude similarity, trait similarity, the stressfulness of the interactions, and participants' perceptions across conditions. A second set of analyses examined the interaction between condition, and attitude and trait similarity on the stressfulness of the interaction and the participants' perceptions. The third set of analyses examined the relationship between respect and liking of a partner's attitudes or traits on the stressfulness of the interaction and participants' perceptions within each of the corresponding familiarity conditions. The secondary analyses utilized the SAS proc mixed procedure to account for the dyadic dependency in the dataset. 26 Effects of Attitude Similarity and Trait Similarity Similarity and Respect-liking of Attitude and Traits An index of attitude similarity was created by calculating the correlation between each dyad member's responses to the attitude questionnaire. An index of trait similarity was created by calculating the correlation between each dyad member's responses to the trait questionnaire. Higher correlations on the indexes indicate greater similarity between partners. An index of participants' respect and liking for their partner's traits or attitudes was also created by averaging the self-reported levels of respect and liking. Cardiovascular Reactivity Increases in attitude similarity between partners were associated with decreases in HR reactivity during the manipulation phase of the study, b = -6.91, SE= 2.40, F(1, 55.7) = 8.29, p = .01. However, attitude similarity was not associated with HR reactivity during the discussion phase or with SBP reactivity, DBP reactivity, and MAP during the manipulation or discussion phases. There were also no significant interactions between attitude similarity and condition for any of the BP measures. Trait similarity between partners was a significant predictor of DBP reactivity during the discussion task, b = 7.35, SE = 2.64, F(1, 49) = 7.76, p = .01. However, this was not in the predicted direction as increases in trait similarity were associated with increases in DBP reactivity during the discussion task. Trait similarity was also marginally associated with higher MAP reactivity during the discussion phase, b = 5.60, SE = 3.03, F(1, 49.4) = 3.4, p = .07. This finding was not in the predicted direction as 27 increases in trait similarity between partners were associated with increases in MAP reactivity during the discussion phase. Increases in trait similarity were marginally associated with lower HR reactivity during the discussion task, b= -4.94, SE= 2.57, F(1, 50.4) = 3.69, p = .06. There were no significant effects of trait similarity on SBP reactivity during the discussion and manipulation phases, or on DBP, MAP, and HR reactivity during the manipulation phase. There were no significant interactions between trait similarity and condition for any of the BP measures. Participant Perceptions Increases in attitude similarity between partners were associated with increased feeling of liking of the interaction partner, b = 1.77, SE = .66, F(1, 55.7) = 7.15, p = .01, and closeness to partner, b = 1.90, SE = .91, F(1, 52.8) = 4.35, p = .04). Increases in attitude similarity were marginally associated with more positive evaluations of the interaction partner, b = .94, SE = .52, F(1, 56) = 3.23, p = .08. Thus, as attitude similarity increased, partners were perceived more favorably. There were no significant associations between attitude similarity and the remaining measures of the interaction partner, self-evaluation, or interaction quality. There were also no significant interactions between attitude similarity and condition. Increases in trait similarity between partners were associated with increases in prediscussion control appraisals regarding discussion task performance, b = 1.23, SE = .46, F(1, 45.3) = 7.15, p = .01. However, the interaction between trait similarity and condition indicated that trait similarity was marginally associated with lower levels of 28 prediscussion appraisals of control, F(1, 42.4) = 3.19, p = .05, in both the trait familiarity, b = -3.04, SE = 1.68, and attitude familiarity conditions, b = -4.00, SE = 1.60. Increases in trait similarity between partners were marginally associated with higher appraisals of prediscussion task confidence appraisals regarding discussion task performance, b = .69, SE = .38, F(1, 47.5) = 3.29, p = .08. The interaction between trait similarity and condition on prediscussion task confidence appraisals was not significant. Increases in trait similarity between partners were associated with higher appraisals of how upsetting participants found their partner, b = .43, SE = .21, F(1, 50) = 4.31, p = .04. The interaction between trait similarity and condition was marginally significant for how upsetting participants perceived their partner, F(2, 46) = 2.63, p = .08. Within the attitude familiarity condition, increases in trait similarity were associated with lower ratings of how upsetting a partner was, b = -0.20, SE = .68. However, within the trait familiarity condition, increases in trait similarity were associated with higher ratings (b = .85, SE = .72). There were no significant effects of trait similarity or significant interactions between trait similarity and condition on the remaining measures of partner evaluations, self-evaluation, and interaction quality. Analyses within the Attitude Familiarity and Trait Familiarity Conditions We also examined the relationship between attitude similarity, trait similarity, and participants' perceptions within the attitude familiarity and trait familiarity conditions. Similar analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between29 reported levels of respect-liking of partner's attitudes and reported levels of respect-liking of partner's traits, on the stressfulness of the interactions, and participant perceptions. These analyses were conducted within the attitude familiarity and trait familiarity conditions. Attitude Familiarity Condition Within the attitude familiarity condition, there were no significant associations between reported levels of respect-liking of a partner's attitudes and SBP, DBP, HR and MAP reactivity during the manipulation and discussion phases. There were also no significant associations between attitude similarity between partners and any of the BP measures. Reported levels of respect-liking of a partner's attitudes was a significant predictor for perceptions of the interactions partner's helpfulness, b =.75, SE =.245, p < .01, and prediscussion task confidence appraisals, b =.40, SE =.16, p = .02. These findings indicate that when partners were familiar with each other's attitudes, increases in respect and liking for those attitudes were associated with higher confidence regarding upcoming discussion task performance and with later perceptions of increased partner helpfulness during the interaction. Attitude similarity between partners was a significant predictor for ratings of partner helpfulness, b = 2.66, SE = 1.04, p = .02, and was a marginally significant predictor of prediscussion task coping appraisals for performance in the upcoming discussion task, b = 2.66, SE = 1.04, p = .08. These findings indicate that within partners who are familiar with each other's attitudes, increases in attitude similarity are 30 associated with increased perceptions of prediscussion task coping ability and how helpful participants later viewed their partners. Increases in trait similarity between partners were associated with greater liking of partner, b = 1.57, SE = .65, p = .02, and feelings of closeness to partner, b = 1.62, SE = .65, p = .03. Thus, within partners who know each other's attitudes, increases in trait similarity were associated with increased feelings of liking and closeness for the interaction partner. Trait Familiarity Condition Within the trait familiarity condition, there were no significant associations between reported levels of respect-liking of a partner's traits and any of the BP measures. Attitude similarity and trait similarity also had no significant associations with any of the BP measures. Increases in trait similarity between partners were associated with lower prediscussion task threat appraisals, b = -.86, SE = .34, p = .02, and higher state self-esteem scores, b = 23.32, SE = 9.46, p = .03. It was marginally associated with lower ratings of prediscussion task anxiety appraisals, b = -4.69, SE = 2.36, p = .06. Thus, when partners knew each other's traits, increases in trait similarity between partners were associated with lower prediscussion task threat and anxiety appraisals and higher state self-esteem ratings. Increases in reported levels of respect-liking of a partner's traits were associated with higher ratings of interaction positivity, b =.27, SE = .08, p < .01, reported level of self-evaluation, b=.70, SE=.23, p < .01, partner helpfulness ratings, b =.66, SE =.28, p = 31 .02, and liking of partner, b =.79, SE =.29, p < .01. Within the trait familiarity condition, increases in reported levels of respect-liking of those traits were associated with more favorable perceptions of interaction positivity, self-evaluations, partner helpfulness, and liking of partner. Reported levels of respect-liking of a partner's traits were marginally associated with more favorable perceptions of partner evaluation, b = .60, SE =.22, p = .06, partner responsiveness, b = 1.48, SE = .77, p = .06, and partner closeness, b = .66, SE = .33, p = .06. Within the trait familiarity condition, increases in respect-liking of those traits were associated with more favorable perceptions of interaction positivity, partner evaluations, partner helpfulness, liking of partner, and evaluations of self. DISCUSSION Prior studies of attitude familiarity have used correlational designs to examine the relations between knowledge of other's attitudes, interpersonal processes, and health. The current study used an experimental design to investigate the possible causal effects of increased familiarity with partner's attitudes on physiological responding, social interactions, and participant perceptions. The most important finding of the study was that familiarity with partner's attitudes diminished systolic blood pressure (SBP) reactivity during the discussion task. Contrary to predictions, familiarity with a partner's attitudes did not lower systolic blood pressure significantly more than familiarity with a partner's traits. This effect is consistent with previous studies that have shown that lower ambulatory blood pressure is associated with higher levels of attitude familiarity between partners (Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011). Taken together, these studies indicate that familiarity can lead to decreases in physiological stress. As discussed earlier, this is important because higher levels of cardiovascular reactivity can result in negative health (Cacciopo et al., 1998; Chida & Steptoe, 2010). Increased familiarity with a partner's attitudes did not significantly affect the other measures of physiological reactivity (DBP, MAP, HR). However, it is not unusual to find significant effects for only systolic blood pressure in cardiovascular reactivity studies (e.g. Vrijkotte, van Doornen, & de Geus, 2000). Past research has also reported 33 a tendency for systolic blood pressure measures to be more reliable than measures of DBP and HR (Cohen et al., 2000; Manuk, 1994). Unexpectedly, being familiar with a partner's attitudes or traits did not affect participant's perceptions of their partners. Participants' self-perceptions were also unaffected by attitude or trait familiarity. Perceptions of interaction quality also did not vary as a function of familiarity. The inconsistency of the effects of familiarity with a partner's attitudes on SBP reactivity during the discussion phase and the null results of the self-report measures is puzzling. This inconsistency may be due in part to the delay between the participants' behavior and their completion of the questionnaires. The blood pressure measures were recorded throughout the experiment. As such, they were able to monitor the real-time changes taking place during the study while the self-report measures were only completed before or after the discussion task. The lack of significant effects of familiarity with a partner's attitudes or traits on participant perceptions may be due to a weak familiarity manipulation. The information within the questionnaires lacked contextual information such as when a particular trait or attitude is more relevant for the partner's behavior. As such, it may have been too abstract to be significantly useful to the participants. With the provided information not being readily applicable, it may be that participants initially used other sources of information. Also, the characteristics of our sample may have contributed to the weak familiarity manipulation. Our sample was fairly homogenous in that they were all undergraduate students at the same university and many shared the same major 34 (psychology). Participants may have relied more on this shared identity than the provided attitude or trait information. This notion may be particularly true if participants perceived the provided information as being too abstract. Instead, they could have relied on information that seemed more tangible, such as common classes. If so, the discussion task may not have lasted long enough for the freeform discussion to move past superficial topics such as common classes and other shared experiences. Thus, participants may not have had much opportunity to use the provided partner information. Our secondary analyses do lend some support to our hypotheses that similarity and respect and liking of a partner's attitudes would moderate the effects of partner familiarity on the stressfulness of the interaction and participant perceptions. Generally, similarity between partner's attitudes and/or traits were associated with more favorable perceptions of partners. Though there were no significant interactions between attitude similarity and familiarity with a partner's attitudes or traits on physiological responses and participant perceptions, there were a few significant interactions between trait similarity and familiarity with a partner's attitudes or traits on participant perceptions. Overall, these interactions indicated that when participants who were familiar with their partner's attitudes or traits, increases in trait similarity were associated with more favorable perceptions of partners. Respect and liking of a partner's attitudes and respect and liking of a partner's traits demonstrated similar patterns on participant perceptions. Generally, increases in respect and liking of a partner's attitudes or traits were associated with more favorable perceptions of both the partner and the interaction. 35 While we are unable to make causal claims from these secondary analyses, they are useful in highlighting directions for follow-up studies. For example, the association between attitude and/or trait similarity between partners and more favorable participant perceptions supports the idea of a complex relationship concerning partner's attitude familiarity, trait familiarity, and levels of similarity between partners. These findings indicate that our similarity and respect-liking moderation hypotheses were not too far afield. It is possible that the effects of being familiar with a partner's attitudes are strongest in situations where the partner is perceived as being very different from the individual or when the individual expects to have frequent interactions with the partner. In conclusion, this study has highlighted several important directions for future research. While familiarity significantly lower systolic blood pressure during the discussion task, this effect was not the self-report measures. In addition, secondary analyses implied a complex relationship between familiarity with a partner's attitudes or traits and similarity between traits and/or attitudes on physiological responding and participant perceptions. Future research should focus on understanding the disconnection between physiological responding and the self-report measures. Addressing the issues with the current familiarity manipulation procedure may be beneficial in understanding why this disconnection occurred. Future work should also examine if different interaction goals moderate the effects of attitude familiarity on partner perceptions. Finally, the relationship between partner familiarity and similarity should be explored further. REFERENCES Acitelli, L. K., Kenny, D. A., & Weiner, D. (2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners' marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8, 167-185. Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1177-1196. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Review, 84, 888-918. Blascovich, J., Ernst, J. M., Tomaka, J., Kelsey, R. M., Salomon, K. L., & Fazio, R. H. (1993). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of autonomic reactivity during decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 165-176. Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167-1170. Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Malarkey, W. B., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Sheridan, J. F., Poehlmann K. M., Burleson, M. H., Ernst, J. M., Hawkley, L.C., & Glaser, R. (1998). Autonomic, neuroendocrine, and immune responses to psychological stress: The reactivity hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 664-673. Campbell, L. (2005). Responses to verifying and enhancing appraisals from romantic partners: The role of trait importance and trait visibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 663-675. Chida, Y., & Steptoe, A. (2010). Greater cardiovascular responses to laboratory mental stress are associated with poor subsequent cardiovascular risk status. A meta analysis of prospective evidence. Hypertension, 55(4), 1026-1032. 37 Cohen, S., Hamrick, N., Rodriguez, M. S., Feldman, P. J., Rabin, B. S., & Manuck, S. B. (2002). Reactivity and vulnerability to stress-associated risk for upper respiratory illness. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(2), 302-310. Fazio, R. H., & Powell, M. C. (1997). On the value of knowing one's likes and dislikes: Attitude accessibility, stress, and health in college. Psychological Science, 8, 430-436. Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 627-658. Gagné, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 322-338. Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74, 1401-1420. Gerin, W., Milner, D., Chawla, S., & Pickering, T.G. (1995). Social support as a moderator of cardiovascular reactivity in women: A test of the direct effects and buffering hypotheses. Psychosomatic Medicine 57,16-22. Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895-910. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta analytic review. PLoS Med , 7. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204. Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 439-448. Laurenceau, J. P., Feldman-Barrett, L., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 314-323. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109. Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304-326. 38 Manuck, S. B. (1994). Cardiovascular reactivity in cardiovascular disease: "Once more unto the breach." International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1(1), 4-31. Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short form of the state scale of the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 301-306. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 707-722. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G., Dolderman, D., Griffin, D. W. (2000). What the motivated mind sees: Comparing friends' perspectives to married partners' views of each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(6), 600-620. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1417 Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1155-1180. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Judgments of a relationship partner: Specific accuracy but global enhancement. Journal of Personality, 70, 1079-1112. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Personality, 88, 480-497. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Company Publishers. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 614-622. Sanbonmatsu, D. M, Posavac, S. S., Vanous, S., Ho, E. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2007). The deautomatization of accessible attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 365-378. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Uchino, B. N., & Birmingham, W. (2010). On the importance of knowing your partners' views: Attitude familiarity in couples is associated with lower ambulatory blood pressure in daily life. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 41, 131-137. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Uchino, B. N., Wong, K. K., & Seo, J. Y. (2012). Getting along better: The role of attitude familiarity in relationship functioning. Social Cognition, 30(3), 350-361.39 Sherwood, A., Allen, M. T., Fahrenberg, J., Kelsey, R. M., Lovallo, W. R., & Van Doornen, L. (1990). Methodological guidelines for impedance cardiography. Psychophysiology, 27, 1-23. Smith, T. W., Ruiz, J., & Uchino, B. N. (2000). Vigilance, active coping, and cardiovascular reactivity during social interaction in young men. Health Psychology, 19, 382-392. Smith, T. W., Uchino, B. N., Berg, C. A., Florsheim, P., Pearce, G., Hawkins, M., Henry, N. J., Beveridge, R. M., Skinner, M. A., Ko, K. J., & Olsen-Cerny, C. (2009). Conflict and collaboration in middle-aged and older couples: II. Cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Psychology and Aging, 24, 274-286. Swann, W. B., Hixon, J. G., & De La Ronde, C. (1992). Embracing the bitter "truth": Negative self-concepts and marital commitment. Psychological Science, 3, 118-121. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457-577. Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Cognitive and physiological antecedents of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 63-72. Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of our relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Uchino, B.N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A life span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 236-255. Vrijkotte, T. G., van Doornen, L. J., & de Geus, E. J. (2000). Effects of work stress on ambulatory blood pressure, heart rate, and heart rate variability. Hypertension, 35(4), 880-886.