Está en la página 1de 26

JSPR

Article

Relational savoring in
long-distance romantic
relationships

Journal of Social and


Personal Relationships
126
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0265407514558960
spr.sagepub.com

Jessica L. Borelli1, Hannah F. Rasmussen1,


Margaret L. Burkhart2, and David A. Sbarra3

Abstract
Relationship satisfaction is crucial for health and happiness. In the absence of physical
contact, people in long-distance romantic relationships (LDRs) may use alternate means
of maintaining relationship satisfaction, such as mentally activating feelings of closeness to
their partners. This experiment examined the effects of relational savoring, relative to
two control conditions, on emotion and relationship satisfaction following a
laboratory-based stress task, among 533 people in an LDR. Relational savoring yielded
greater positive emotion among participants, particularly those with medium to high
baseline relationship satisfaction. Further, emotional state mediated the link between
relational savoring and post-stressor relationship satisfaction for participants with average or higher baseline satisfaction. Savoring relational memories resulted in short-term
benefits among people in LDRs with average or higher satisfaction. The promise of relational savoring as a brief intervention is discussed as well as the implications of the results
for couples in LDRs.
Keywords
long-distance relationships, savoring, emotion, relationship satisfaction, intervention

1
2
3

Pomona College, USA


Claremont Graduate University, USA
University of Arizona, USA

Corresponding author:
Jessica L. Borelli, Department of Psychology, Pomona College, 647 N College Way, Claremont, CA 91711,
USA.
Email: jessica.borelli@pomona.edu

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Long-distance romantic relationships (LDRs), or relationships in which romantic partners


are separated by geographical distance, are surprisingly common (Bergen, Kirby, &
McBride, 2007; Stafford, 2005). Estimates suggest that over 3 million Americans live
apart from their spouses for reasons unrelated to conflict or separation (Bergen et al.,
2007), amounting to 2.9% of marriages in the U.S. In addition, up to 75% of college students report having been in an LDR at some point, and at any given time, 35% of college
students are currently in an LDR (Stafford, 2005). LDRs are of interest to relationship
researchers in that they pose a challenge to the ways in which researchers traditionally
conceptualize central constructs in relationship research, such as emotional closeness and
relationship maintenance (Sahlstein, 2010; Stafford, 2005). Intuitively, LDRs seem as
though they would be less satisfying to romantic partners than geographically close relationships (GCRs) simply because face-to-face interaction is scarce, communication may
be more difficult, and the financial burdens associated with the relationship may be
greater (Stafford, 2005; Stafford & Merolla, 2007). These stressors have the potential
to generate downstream psychological effects related to the physical separation, such
as concerns regarding loyalty, fidelity, and commitment to the relationship of ones
partner (Pistole, 2010; Roberts & Pistole, 2009; Vormbrock, 1993). And yet, research
suggests that many LDRs fare well in terms of standard relationship metrics: LDR members report comparable or even greater satisfaction, trust, stability, and intimacy as compared to members of GCRs (Jiang & Hancock, 2013; Roberts & Pistole, 2009; Stafford,
2005, 2010).
This mismatch between theory and data inspires relationship scientists to refine theoretical conceptualizations of factors that strengthen and weaken relationship satisfaction
in LDRs. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982 [1969]) is well suited to explain individual
differences in felt security and relationship stability in LDRs. Bowlby argued that ones
approach to close relationships throughout the life span is an outgrowth of his/her
interactions with primary caregivers during infancy and childhood (Bowlby, 1982
[1969]). These experiences inform the development of an internal working model, a
schema comprised of ones thoughts, feelings, and expectations regarding close relationships (Bowlby, 1982 [1969]). One of the central tenets of Bowlbys attachment theory
is that physical separation from the attachment figure is the most salient threat to childrens attachment relationships, launching an invariant cascade of behavioral and emotional reactions (Bowlby, 1960, 1982 [1969]). In adulthood, too, physical separation from
ones romantic partner is conceptualized as a key attachment stressor (Hazan & Shaver,
1987; Vormbrock, 1993; Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Although the length of separation
required to evoke a distress response may be longer among adults as compared to children, theorists argue that physical separation from ones romantic partner has the potential
to undermine felt security among adults in a manner similar to what transpires among
children experiencing prolonged separations from caregivers (Hazan & Shaver, 1987;
Vormbrock, 1993). The physical absence of the romantic partner threatens adults sense of
safety because their secure base is not available (Bowlby, 1988; Vormbrock, 1993).
Further, the temporary lapse in partner availability may raise the threat of permanent loss
of the relationship, which could permanently destabilize ones security in the relationship
and promote psychological distress (Bowlby, 1973; Cameron & Ross, 2007; Guldner,
1996; Maguire & Kinney, 2010; Pistole, 2010; Sahlstein, 2010; Vormbrock, 1993).

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

In order for an LDR to be stable, adults must be able to maintain feelings of security
vis--vis their romantic partner despite long stretches of physical separation (Vormbrock,
1993). Differences in coping with relationship stress secondary to physical separation are
likely to emerge. Relationship satisfaction, itself thought to result from the interaction
between individual and dyadic factors (e.g., attachment style and relationship quality;
Hazan & Shaver, 1987), may be integrally associated with the capacity to maintain felt
security in an LDR. Adults who are highly satisfied with their romantic relationship may
be able to construe the physical separation as unrelated to the overall stability of the
relationship itself and may thereby be able to weather the challenges of an LDR with
intact relationship satisfaction. However, LDR members who are relatively unsatisfied
with their romantic relationship may have trouble contextualizing insecurity as resulting
from the physical separation, instead attributing the feelings to integral aspects of the
relationship itself, which in turn may lead to less positive feelings about the relationship
and lower relationship stability.
In conclusion, we derive four points from attachment theory and research on LDRs that
are relevant to the current study: (1) the physical separation inherent in LDRs has the
potential to undermine felt security, (2) underscoring LDR members feelings of security
may protect the quality of their relationship from the stresses inherent to LDRs, (3) LDR
members with higher relationship satisfaction may be more comfortable focusing on
feelings of security vis--vis their romantic partner, and (4) protecting relationship
satisfaction from threats among LDR members is important for ultimately contributing to
relationship longevity.

Savoring
Savoring is the process of attending to, intensifying, and prolonging the positive emotions
attached to experiences (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). People can savor past memories of
events that have actually occurred (retrospective savoring), experiences that are ongoing
in nature (concurrent savoring), or even anticipated experiences that may occur in the
future (prospective savoring; Bryant & Veroff, 2007). As an emotion regulation tool,
savoring has the potential to help people find new perspective and gain insight into their
problems (Bryant, Smart, & King, 2005; Tugade & Frederickson, 2006). Indeed, people
who savor report more positive moods as well as less hopelessness, anhedonia, and
neuroticism (Bryant, 2003; Gentzler, Morey, Palmer, & Yi, 2012). Furthermore, savoring
increases happiness (Quoidbach, Wood, & Hansenne, 2009) and improves both depression
and negative mood (Hurley & Kwon, 2011; McMakin, Siegle, & Shirk, 2011).
Although existing research demonstrates that relationships are the most commonly
reported focus of savoring (Bryant et al., 2005), few studies have explicitly examined the
differences between savoring an individual, personal memory (personal savoring) and
savoring one that involves a close emotional connection with another person (relational
savoring). Relational savoring is defined as savoring an experience that occurs in physical
and temporal conjunction with another person with whom one is emotionally close
(Borelli et al., 2014). In contrast to relational savoring, personal savoring involves
reflecting on a memory of an individual or personal positive experience. Theoretically, the
goal of engaging in relational savoring is to activate mental representations of ones

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

relationship as providing a sense of security, safety, and adoration in essence, bringing


to mind a secure attachment representation of ones partner (Borelli et al., 2014). Our goal
in this investigation is to examine whether, relative to control conditions, relational
savoring of retrospective events by LDR members results in better emotional states and
protects against relationship threats.
Within the context of the current study, we define relational savoring as savoring a
memory or experience that occurred with ones LDR romantic partner. Borelli and colleagues (2014) used a similar approach to study a small sample of non-deployed spouses
(wives) of military service members before and during a military deployment. Among
non-deployed spouses with low attachment avoidance, relational savoring completed during the deployment reduced negative emotion in the short term. In other words, relational
savoring had positive short-term benefits only among women reporting low levels of
baseline attachment avoidance, which according to the authors, may occur because adults
low in avoidance are relatively comfortable with focusing on attachment-related thoughts
and feelings while undergoing an attachment-related threat, whereas those high in avoidance tend to turn their attention away from such topics during relationship threats (Borelli
et al., 2014). Our work builds upon Borelli and colleagues (2014) study by (1) evaluating
whether this intervention works among a larger sample of adults, (2) testing the efficacy of
the intervention in a different sample (adult members of LDRs), (3) comparing relational
savoring to two as opposed to one control condition, and (4) examining whether the intervention protects relationship satisfaction from a simulated relationship threat. This project
is well positioned to speak to the utility of a brief relational savoring intervention for this
population as well as to inform models of the mechanisms underlying relational savoring.

Current investigation
Given that adult members of LDRs have less frequent face-to-face contact with their partners than adults in GCRs (Sahlstein, 2010), it may be especially necessary for them to rely
upon nonphysical means of activating feelings of security in their relationship in order to
preserve closeness and emotional connection vis--vis their partners. Accordingly,
encouraging the practice of routine relational savoring may be especially important
among this population. It is possible that committed and satisfied LDR partners naturally
engage in relational savoring independently or conjointly with their romantic partners on a
regular basis, however, whether this happens remains largely unknown, as does the
impact of relational savoring on the individual.
Therefore, our primary goal in conducting the current study is to address this question
experimentally by evaluating whether relational savoring improves LDR members
emotional states. Specifically, we predict that participants completing a relational
savoring task will report greater positive and lower negative emotions following the task
as compared to participants completing a personal savoring and a neutral control condition task, and that participants completing personal savoring will report greater positive
and lower negative emotions as compared to participants completing the control task
(Hypothesis 1). Confirmation of our hypothesis would support the notion that brief
interventions can enhance emotional states (Layous, Nelson, & Lyubomirsky, 2013;
Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009).

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

Second, following Borelli and colleagues (2014), we seek to identify whether baseline
relationship satisfaction predicts differential responsiveness to relational savoring. We
suspect that LDR members who report higher levels of baseline relationship satisfaction
will be more comfortable reliving positive relational memories in our relational savoring
task. Further, people with higher baseline relationship satisfaction may also have more
positive relational memories to draw upon in completing the task. As a result, their
engagement in the reflection task may be deeper and may result in a superior emotional
state. Thus, we hypothesize that baseline levels of relationship satisfaction will moderate
the association between experimental condition and post-task emotional state such that
relational savoring will have the most pronounced impact (i.e., greatest positive emotion,
lowest negative emotion) on individuals who began the study with high levels of relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 2).
Our final goal in conducting the current study is to assess whether emotional states
elicited by the mental reflection task serve to buffer individuals against the effects of a
simulated relationship stress task. The answer to this question has relevance for our
understanding of LDR longevityif we demonstrate that relational savoring elicits
more favorable momentary emotional responses among LDR members, then the logical
next step is asking whether this emotional response translates into a meaningful relational outcome for the individual. Studies consistently document that relationship
satisfaction declines over time among married couples (Glenn, 1998; VanLaningham,
Johnson, & Amato, 2001). Given the robust association between relationship satisfaction and myriad indicators of psychological and physical health (King & Reis, 2012;
Myers, 2000; Parker-Pope, 2010; Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014), identifying ways to protect relationship satisfaction from the normative decline observed
among members of long-term relationships is crucial. Herein we aim to contribute to
the literature documenting the effects of brief, theoretically informed social psychological interventions on relationship satisfaction (cf. Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, &
Gross, 2013).
We accomplish this goal by presenting participants with a simulated, laboratory-based
relationship stressor designed to imply a threat to the partners availability. Following this
task, we again assess their relationship satisfaction. Here, we predict that post-mental
reflection task emotion will mediate the link between reflection task condition and
post-stressor relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). This hypothesis is consistent with
the finding from a study examining the efficacy of a brief relationship event reappraisal
task among married adults on marital satisfaction over the course of the following year:
Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, and Gross (2013) found that the protection against
declines in relationship satisfaction was mediated through reductions in conflict-related
distress.
Finally, we use a moderated mediation framework in an effort to examine how these
different aspects of our study might operate as an integrated whole. Specifically, we
predict that the degree to which condition affects post-stressor relationship satisfaction
indirectly through post-task emotional state will depend on pre-task relationship satisfaction, such that post-task emotion will act as an indirect effect on post-stressor relationship
satisfaction only among LDR members with high baseline relationship satisfaction
(Hypothesis 4).

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Method
Adult members of long-distance relationships, defined as romantic relationships of at least
6 months old in which partners are separated by 100 or more miles, were invited to participate in the study via internet postings on Craigslist in cities in California, Colorado,
Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia. The
Craiglist postings stated that the purpose of the study was to understand how adults cope
with long-distance relationships. A total of 533 (65.1% female) adults, Mage = 28.75, SDage
= 9.99 participated in the study. Most (96.1%) lived within the U.S. (31.6% California,
6.3% Florida, 6.3% Illinois, 5.9% New York, 5.1% Pennsylvania, and the remaining
44.8% from 41 different states). The sample was ethnically (56% Caucasian, 19% Asian
American, 12.5% Hispanic, 6% African American, 5% other, and 1% Native American)
and socioeconomically diverse (49% reported annual income <US$40,000). On average,
the sample was educated (40% reported having obtained a bachelors degree and 41%
reported having earned an associates degree or fewer years of education), worked outside
the home (70%), and did not have children (84%). Participants lived relatively far away
from their partners as a result of enrollment in college (31.5%), military employment
(2.1%), or an unspecified reason (66.4%), Mdistance = 1,027.24 miles, SDdistance = 935.55
miles. On average, study participants had known, Mknown = 4.83 years, SDknown = 1.96
years, been romantically involved with, Mdated = 3.77 years, SDdated = 5.18 years, and had
been physically separated from their partners for several years, MLD = 2.68 years, SDLD =
1.38 years.

Procedure
All data were collected using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT), an online data collection
tool. Prior to beginning the survey, participants completed informed consent. Participants
then completed baseline assessments, including reporting on their relationship satisfaction
and providing information about their romantic relationships. Qualtrics randomly
assigned participants to one of three mental reflection tasks (control, personal savoring,
relational savoring), which participants completed next. Following the mental reflection
task, participants completed the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS; Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants then completed the relationship stressor task and
subsequently rated their relationship satisfaction.

Measures
Relationship satisfaction. The Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale (KMS; Schumm, Nichols,
Schectman, & Grinsby, 1983) is a brief, 3-item measure of marital satisfaction. The KMS
has excellent internal consistency and concurrent validity and is highly correlated with the
Dyadic Adjustment scale and the Quality of Marriage Index (Schumm et al., 1986). It is
focused on the satisfaction dimension of marital or relationship quality. There is a precedent in the literature of using the KMS with partners in unmarried couples (Paap &
Gardner, 2011); in fact, a meta-analysis suggests it may produce more reliable scores
in unmarried rather than married couples (Graham, Diebels, & Barnow, 2011; Rochlen

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

& Mahalik, 2004). Similar to the protocol followed in the previous research, the scale
was modified for use in our study by replacing spouse with partner and marriage
with relationship. Participants rate each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale with
scores ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). In our sample,
Cronbachs was .91 for baseline relationship satisfaction and .94 for post-stressor relationship satisfaction.
Emotional state. The PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) is a 20-item measure comprised of two
scales: one assessing positive affect (PA) and the other assessing negative affect (NA). We
used the PANAS as a measure of emotional state immediately following the experimental
reflection task. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (1 = very slightly or
not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite a bit, 5 = extremely) the extent to which
they felt 20 different emotions at that moment (e.g., Excited, Scared, Irritable, Proud).
Cronbachs in this sample was .90 for both PA and NA.
Mental reflection task. We developed the mental reflection tasks for the purposes of the
current investigation, though the design and the structure of the personal and relational
savoring tasks were adapted from the previous work (Borelli et al., 2014; Borelli,
McMakin, & Sbarra, 2010). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions, each of which involved reading instructions and writing out responses to a series of
questions. Our first experimental condition (neutral control) was intended to evoke a
neutral emotional response and to serve as complete control (on both the impact of
positive emotion activation and relational content). We intended our second control task
(personal savoring) to serve as a control for positive emotion activation. We expected that
participants in the personal savoring condition would show higher positive emotion and
lower negative emotion as compared to participants in the neutral control condition, but
given that relational memories are commonly the focus of savoring (Bryant et al., 2005),
we expected that the personal savoring would not evince as positive an emotional
response as the relational savoring task.
In the neutral control condition, participants were asked to think about their morning
routine, spend 1 min focusing on it, and then answer a series of questions regarding details
of the experience. After answering the questions, participants were asked to spend 2 min
mentally replaying the experience (see Figure 1A for a sample response to the control
condition reflection task).
In the personal savoring condition, participants were asked to focus on a personal
positive experience they had, which could range from something relatively simple or
mundane to something profound or deeply meaningful. Participants were asked to focus
on a single memory or incident, spend 1 min reflecting on it, then answer a series of
questions, which, among other things, prompted them to describe sensory aspects of the
experience (e.g., What was the air like? What were you wearing?) and to describe how
they were thinking or feeling. After writing answers to the questions, participants were
asked to spend 2 min mentally replaying the experience (see Figure 1B for an example of
a personal savoring response).
In the relational savoring condition, participants were prompted to think about a
positive experience (they) had with (their) partner. They were instructed to select any

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Please think about your morning routine from the time you wake up until the time you leave
for work/school.
Prompt

Participant Response

Using as much detail as possible, describe


what normally happens during your
morning routine.

My alarm goes off. I usually snooze for 1-2 cycles,


which is 5-10 minutes. I get ready for work in
the bathroom with a shower and brush my
teeth, and other grooming. I get dressed for
work. I go to the kitchen where I occasionally
will eat breakfast. I get coffee or tea or at least
juice everyday. I pack my lunch and head out
the door to work.
Sometimes it is hectic because I snoozed or take
some time to eat in the morning. I lay my
clothes out the night before so that is one less
thing I have to do in the morning.
6:30 AM. Business attire. Typically dress pants or
a skirt and a dressy top. I lay my outfit out the
night before so it is quicker in the morning for
me.
Sometimes I have cereal if I have milk, sometimes I
just have it dry if I have any. Sometimes I skip
breakfast and just have something to drink like
tea or coffee or juice. Sometime I have oatmeal
or Greek yogurt.
Tired. I feel like I didnt get enough sleep and I just
want to stay in bed longer. On the weekends I
like to sleep in and try to catch up on sleep. I
know I should get up at the same time everyday
even on the weekends though but it is hard
since I dont get enough sleep during the week.
I typically and thinking about what a busy day I
have ahead of me. I try to move as fast as
possible so that I am not late. I try to pack a
healthy lunch. Sometimes I wonder if my
husband is eating breakfast and taking care of
himself or if he is really lonely too.
I need to get up earlier so it is easier for me in the
morning, I should go to bed sooner, I should eat
breakfast everyday.

What is your room/apartment like in the


morning?

What time do you normally start your


morning? What do you wear?

What do you eat?

How do you normally feel in the mornings?

What do you think about during your


morning routine?

What thoughts are you having now about


your morning routine?

Figure 1A. Sample response from the control condition. Participants were asked to think
about the prompt and respond to the following questions.

kind of experience, no matter how minor or major, when they felt especially cherished,
protected, or accepted by their partner (Borelli et al., 2010, 2014), which was designed to
evoke feelings of attachment security. Just as in the personal savoring condition, participants reported on the details of the event, as well as their thoughts and feelings, and then

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

Please think about a positive personal experience you have had. This could be something as
simple as enjoying a good meal or taking a nice walk, or it could be something as major as
getting a promotion or accomplishing a big task. Try to focus on a single memory of a time
when things seemed at their best for you.
Prompt

Participant Response

Using as much detail as possible,


describe what happened.

I was checking my college admissions status for [NAME OF


UNIVERSITY] back in high school, nervous if I would get
in or not. When I checked, I felt a huge sense of relief in
my admission. I had been waiting all month for this, as it
was the last school to release their admission.
It was a normal room temperature day. Air wasnt cool or
hot. Was inside the house, so it was just normal indoor air.
The moment occurred in the evening. Im guessing it was
around 6 or 7pm, though it could have been earlier
around 5pm.
Probably sweat pants and a sweater. I was at home, so I
wear comfortable clothes at home. I think I might have
had a turtleneck on. Im not sure.
Excited, relieved, happy. I was excited to be going to a great
college, proud of my achievements, relieved because I
got into a good school, happy because it was a proud
achievement.
Im so glad I got in and that I would have a good future. I
felt proud of myself. Maybe emotional too and almost
teared up.
Im glad I havent had to do that in a while. Its always very
exciting when you anticipate something and you get
great news from it. However, Im sure if it was bad news,
it wouldve been a "meh" moment. I think that its always
very fulfilling when you are able to achieve your goals.

What was the air like? What was the


weather like?
What time of day did the moment
occur?
What were you wearing?

How did you feel at the time?


(excited, proud, calm, relaxed
etc.)
What thoughts did you have at the
time?
What thoughts are you having now?

Figure 1B. Sample response from the personal savoring condition. Participants were asked to
think about the prompt and respond to the following questions. Other example topics include
passing an important exam, spending time with friends, going to a favorite place, remembering a
successful job interview, and overcoming a physical test.

were asked to spend 2 min mentally reliving the event (see Figure 1C for an example of a
relational savoring response).
Relationship stressor. For the purpose of this study, after conducting focus group brainstorming sessions with adult members of LDRs, we developed a vignette presenting an
ambiguous situation that our focus group members suggested could be interpreted as
threatening the integrity of the relationship. Participants were asked to imagine that their
partners were supposed to call them at a certain hour in the evening after they had returned
home from a work function but had not yet called and it was 2 hr past the agreed upon time
for the phone call. Immediately following the vignette, they answered a series of questions

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

10

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Think about a positive emotional experience you have had with your partner. This could be
something as simple as taking a walk together or laughing over a funny joke, or it could be something as major as taking a vacation or accomplishing a big task together. Try to focus on a single
memory of a time when you felt especially cherished, protected or accepted by your partner.
Prompt

Participant Response

Using as much detail as possible, describe


what happened.

We were walking back to his room from a date and


he stopped me on the sidewalk and pulled me
into a hug. He held me tightly, and told me that
no matter what happened in the future hed
always remember that moment as being so
perfect. We stood there holding each other for
several minutes, looking at the stars as people
walked past us.
The weather was cool and crisp, and the skies were
clear. It was in early spring, and the nights tended
to get chilly.
It was later in the evening, after dark.
I was wearing a lavender button-up shirt, but dont
remember whether I was wearing a jacket. I
dont remember what else I was wearing.
[Partner] was wearing a black pea coat with a long
sleeved t-shirt underneath. I dont remember the
other things he was wearing.
I felt happy and I didnt want the night to end. I
remember feeling slightly self-conscious as
people I knew walked past us.
I was taken aback by the intensity he showed, but
felt really confident about our relationship and
where we were.
Im glad that I feel just as appreciated and
cherished by my partner now as I did during that
moment.

What was the air like? What was the


weather like?
What time of day did the moment occur?
What were you wearing?

What was your partner wearing?

How did you feel at the time? (excited,


proud, calm, relaxed etc.)
What thoughts did you have at the time?
About your partner? About your
relationship?
What thoughts are you having now about
your partner and about your
relationship?

Figure 1C. Sample response from the relational savoring condition. Participants were asked to
think about the prompt and respond to the following questions.

regarding their reactions to the hypothetical situation (e.g., What are the reason(s) why
your partner has not called? How does this make you feel about your partner?), which
were designed to help participants focus on their (presumably negative) emotional
reaction to the scenario (see Figure 2 for a sample response to the vignette). Pilot testing,
as well as the examination of transcripts from the actual test sample, suggested that the
vignette evoked strong feelings (including threat) from a majority of participants.
Language analysis. In order to establish the validity of both our mental reflection tasks and
our simulated relationship stressor, we conducted a linguistic analysis on the transcripts
participants produced using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (Pennebaker, Francis,
& Booth, 2001). Specifically, to evaluate whether our mental reflection task conditions

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

11

Your partner calls you to tell you he/she is going to an office function on Friday after work.
The function will be held at a hotel and will include dinner and cocktails for the entire staff;
there will be around 30 people in attendance. Your partner says he/she plans to be home at
9PM if you want to talk. After work, your partner text messages you at 6PM to tell you he/she
is headed to the event. You respond telling your partner to let you know when he/she is home.
By 11PM you have not heard from him/her.
Prompt

Participant Response

What are the reason(s) why your


partner has not called?

He got held up at the event or went out for a drink with


colleagues afterward. He forgot that he said he would be
home.
I feel mad and annoyed and betrayed and sad. I am frustrated
that I am waiting around when I could have made other
plans.
It makes me feel really bad that he forgot about me or doesnt
care enough to make time for me. It makes me feel less
confident.
It makes me question whether he cares about me, and it
makes me feel angry and annoyed with him.
Hes just out with friends having fun and isnt bothered by not
getting to talk to me. Hes forgotten he said he would be
home.
I feel really dissatisfied and wonder whether its worth the
hassle. It feels one-sided, like I am the only one who cares.
I will feel progressively sadder and angrier as the night goes on
and will probably cry. I will have a glass of wine and distract
myself with television.

How do you feel about this


situation?
How does this make you feel
about yourself?
How does this make you feel
about your partner?
What do you think your partner
is thinking or feeling?
How do you feel about your
relationship?
How will you handle this
situation?

Figure 2. Sample response to the relationship stressor. Participants were asked to imagine the
vignette was happening to them and respond to the following questions.

functioned as they were intended, we examined the frequency of first person plural (we,
us, and our) and first person singular (I, me, and my) pronoun use based on the
argument that greater first person plural and lower first person singular pronoun use
suggests a greater relational focus (Borelli et al., 2014; Rohrbaugh, Mehl, Shoham, Reilly,
& Ewy, 2008; Rohrbaugh, Shoham, Skoyen, Jensen, & Mehl, 2012). Further, we evaluated frequency of positive emotion (e.g., love, sweet, joy) based on the assumption
that more frequent positive emotion word use would suggest a greater degree of positive
emotion experienced during the mental reflection task.
In order to evaluate whether our relationship stressor task functioned as it was intended,
we compared participants written responses to the post-stressor questions to their responses
on the neutral control mental reflection task only. We analyzed frequency of negative emotion words, reasoning that if our stressor worked as intended, it would produce a higher
frequency of negative emotion words (e.g., worried, crying, and sad) on the poststressor questions as compared to the narratives participants produced in response to the
neutral control task. We based our hypothesis on the assumption that greater negative emotion word use would signify more pronounced negative emotional experience in response to

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

12

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Table 1. Mean values (standard deviations) of affect and relationship satisfaction variables by
condition.

Measures
Age
Sum pos affect
Sum neg affect
KMS T1
KMS T2

Total

Control

Personal

Relational

N 533

n 190

n 177

n 166

28.75 (9.99)
30.43 (8.98)
15.93 (6.97)
5.70 (1.03)
5.72 (1.16)

28.95
28.66
16.86
5.67
5.67

(8.49)
(8.83)
(7.46)
(1.04)
(1.21)

28.82 (11.95)
30.28 (8.83)
16.28 (7.12)
5.68 (1.04)
5.68 (1.18)

28.46
32.63
14.47
5.77
5.81

(9.30)
(8.89)
(5.96)
(1.01)
(1.07)

Note. pos affect positive affect; neg affect negative affect; KMS Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale; KMS T1
relationship satisfaction before intervention; KMS T2 relationship satisfaction after stressful vignette.

the task. Although we expected that the relationship stressor would increase negative emotion word use frequency relative to mental reflection task word usage among participants
who had completed both the personal and relational savoring tasks as well, we believed this
would provide us with less information about the relationship stressor itself than if we compared word use among participants completing the neutral control only.

Data analytic plan


Prior to evaluating our hypotheses, we first conducted validity checks to enhance our
confidence that participants engaged in the mental reflection tasks in the way that we
intended. We next evaluated the main effect of the experimental conditions on emotion
following the mental reflection tasks. When evaluating the moderation, mediation, and
moderated mediation hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical linear regressions using the
PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2012). When conducting tests of moderation and
moderated mediation involving continuous moderator variables, to facilitate interpretation of the results, PROCESS automatically provides estimates of simple slopes at low (1
SD below the mean), medium (the mean), and high (1 SD above the mean) levels of the
continuous moderator variable. Consistent with research recommendations (Hayes, 2009;
Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010), we assessed for the presence of indirect effects even when
no direct effects were found.

Results
Table 1 reports mean and standard deviations for all the primary study variables for the
sample as a whole and by condition. The mental reflection groups did not differ on any of
the demographic or relationship-specific outcomes.1 Male participants, Asian American
participants, and participants having completed graduate education reported significantly
lower baseline relationship satisfaction as compared to the rest of the sample, ps < .05.
Baseline relationship satisfaction did not significantly differ from relationship satisfaction
measured post-stressor, t = .50, p = .61. Zero-order correlations revealed that participant
age was negatively associated with baseline relationship satisfaction, that post-task

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

13

Table 2. Correlation matrix for key variables.


Variable
1
2
3
4
5

Participant age
Sum positive emotion
Sum negative emotion
Relationship satisfaction T1
Relationship satisfaction T2

.10*
.05
.09*
.06

.12**
.29**
.34**

.34**
.36**

.85**

*p < .05 (two-tailed); **p < .01 (two-tailed).

positive and negative affect were inversely related, and that post-task emotion was associated with both baseline and post-stressor relationship satisfaction (see Table 2).

Pre-hypothesis testing validity check one: language use on mental reflection


tasks
We were interested in examining whether language use on the written mental reflection
tasks varied as a function of the experimental task condition. Using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), we found that after controlling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 1.03,
p = .31, and sex, F(1, 530) = 0.24, p = .63, condition was associated with first person
plural word use, F(1, 530) = 154.10, p = .000001, p2 = .38. The results of least significant difference (LSD) post hoc tests revealed that the three conditions were all significantly different from one anotherparticipants in the relational savoring condition
used significantly more first person plural words than participants in either control condition and participants in the personal savoring condition used significantly more first
person plural words than participants in the neutral control condition, all ps < .001. We
witnessed the reverse pattern with respect to first person singular word useafter controlling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 4.40, p = .03, p2 = .01, and sex, F(1, 530) =
13.39, p = .0001, p2 = .03, condition was associated with first person singular word use,
F(1, 530) = 92.78, p = .0001, p2 = .27. LSD post hoc tests indicated that participants in
the neutral control condition used significantly more first person singular words than
participants in either savoring condition and that participants in the personal savoring
condition used significantly more first person singular pronouns than participants in the
relational savoring condition, ps < .0001. As expected, all three groups differed in pronoun use indicative of relational content, such that participants in the personal savoring
condition used fewer relationally oriented pronouns than participants in the relational
savoring condition but more than participants in the neutral control condition. Further, a
global examination of the memories generated among participants in the personal
savoring condition suggested that although many (56% of participants) mentioned their
partner, none of the personal savoring memories were explicitly about emotional closeness in the romantic relationship.
Next we evaluated participants use of positive emotion words. After controlling
for participant age, F(1, 530) = 0.06, p = .81, and sex, F(1, 530) = 0.44, p = .51,
condition was associated with positive emotion word use, F(1, 530) = 98.72, p =

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

14

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

.0001, p2 = .28. LSD post hoc tests indicated that participants in the neutral control
condition used significantly fewer positive emotion words than participants in either
savoring condition, ps < .0001, but that positive emotion word use did not differ
between the personal and relational savoring conditions, p = .49. Therefore, as
expected, the two savoring conditions yielded comparable linguistic evidence of
positive emotion and greater linguistic evidence of positive emotion compared to the
neutral control condition.

Pre-hypothesis testing validity check two: language use on relationship stressor


To test whether our relationship stressor task elicited negative emotion, we examined
differences in negative emotion word use among participants in the neutral control
condition only (n = 190). Using a paired samples t-test, we found that participants
negative emotion word use increased significantly in response to the relationship stressor
questions as compared to the control mental reflection task, t(189) = 10.54, p = .0001
(Mmental reflection = 1.01, SDmental reflection =1.05; Mstressor = 3.11, SDstressor = 3.05). The
results confirmed our hypotheses that neutral control participants negative emotion word
use was significantly higher in their written responses to the post-stressor questions relative to their responses collected during the mental reflection task.

Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1: Main effects of mental reflection task condition on emotional state.
Controlling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 4.47, p = .04, and sex, F(1, 530) = 1.67,
p = .20, condition was significantly associated with self-reported positive emotion,
F(2, 530) = 9.11, p = .0001, p2 = 0.03. LSD post hoc tests revealed that participants in the relational savoring condition reported more positive emotion immediately following the task as compared to both participants in the control, t(354) = 3.96, p = .0001,
d = 0.45, and the personal savoring conditions, t(341) = 2.34, p = .01, d = 0.27. Older participant age and engaging in relational savoring predicted greater positive emotion (see
Table 1 for means by experimental group).
We next conducted a univariate ANCOVA, with negative emotion as the dependent
variable: controlling for participant age, F(1, 530) = 0.88, p = .35, and sex, F(1, 530) =
15.11, p = .0001, condition was significantly associated with negative emotion, F(2, 530)
= 5.94, p = .001, p2 = 0.02. The results of LSD post hoc tests revealed that participants in
the relational savoring condition reported less negative emotion as compared to both
participants in the control, t(354) = 2.39, p = .01, d = 0.35, and the personal savoring
conditions, t(341) = 1.82, p = .03, d = 0.28.
Hypothesis 2: Interaction between pre-task relationship satisfaction and post-task
emotion.
After conducting our preliminary analyses, we observed that the relational savoring group
differed from the two other conditions across all of the main outcomes, but the neutral

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

15

Table 3. Summary of the interaction between relationship satisfaction and condition predicting
positive and negative emotions.
Dependent Variables
Positive Emotion
b
2

Step 1 R
Relationship satisfaction
Condition
Age
Sex
Step 2 DR2
Condition  rel. satisfaction

.15***
0.21
9.90*
0.12**
1.89*
.01**
2.24**

CI
[2.28, 1.86]
[18.69, 1.11]
[0.04, 0.19]
[3.39, 0.39]
[0.73, 3.75]

Negative Emotion
b
.14***
1.44
1.01
.01
1.81**
.00
0.51

CI
[3.05,
[5.83,
[0.05,
[2.98,

0.17]
7.84]
0.06]
0.65]

[1.68, 0.67]

Note. CI 95% confidence interval; Rel. relationship.


*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

control and the personal savoring conditions did not differ. Therefore, for the sake of
simplicity, in the remainder of this paper we present all analyses examining differences
between the relational savoring condition and the control conditions (neutral control plus
personal savoring).2
To test Hypothesis 2, we conducted a hierarchical linear regression3 to evaluate
whether baseline relationship satisfaction moderated the association between condition
(relational savoring versus controls) and post-task positive and negative emotion. After
controlling for covariates, the interaction between condition and baseline relationship
satisfaction was significant (see Table 3). Conditional effects analyses revealed that for
people reporting low levels of baseline relationship satisfaction (1 SD below the mean),
the relational savoring condition did not have an effect on positive emotion relative to the
control conditions (see Figure 3; low relationship satisfaction: b = .56, p = .62); however,
for participants reporting medium and high levels of baseline relationship satisfaction
(mean and 1 SD above the mean, respectively), relational savoring produced greater
post-task positive emotion as compared to the control conditions (medium relationship
satisfaction: b = 2.86, p = .0001, high relationship satisfaction: b = 5.17, p = .00001). Further, when we reversed the pairwise comparisons to treat the savoring condition as the
moderator (and baseline relationship satisfaction as the focal predictor), we observed that
baseline relationship satisfaction was associated with post-task positive emotion in both
reflection task conditions but the relationship was stronger among participants in the relational savoring condition (control conditions: b = 2.02, p = .00001, relational savoring:
b = 4.26, p = .000001).
When evaluating whether baseline relationship satisfaction moderated the association
between condition and post-task negative emotion, we found that after controlling for
covariates, the interaction between condition and baseline relationship satisfaction interaction was not significant (see Table 3). In other words, relational savoring reduced negative emotion for participants relative to the control conditions regardless of baseline
relationship satisfaction.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

16

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

38
Low Baseline RS

Positive Affect (PANAS)

36

Medium Baseline RS
High Baseline RS

34

32

30

28

26
Control
Relational Savoring
Mental Reflection Task Condition

Figure 3. Interaction between relationship satisfaction pre-task and condition (control: neutral
and personal savoring; relational savoring) predicting positive emotion measured by the positive
and negative affect schedule (PANAS) post-task. RS relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Mediation of link between condition and post-stressor relationship


satisfaction by post-task emotion.
We conducted a linear regression to test for statistical mediation.4 Evaluating mediation
involves assessing the indirect effect of the independent variable (X) on the dependent
variable (Y) through the mediator M. PROCESS tests the significance of the indirect effect
through bootstrapping. The indirect effect is calculated by multiplying the unstandardized
regression coefficients resulting from X predicting M and from M predicting Y (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). The point estimate and confidence interval (CI) are established through the
use of bootstrapping: if the 95% CI does not include 0, this signifies that the point estimate
is significant at the p < .05 level.
Table 4 presents results of hierarchical linear regressions testing the hypothesis that
positive (upper half of Table 4) and negative (lower half) post-task emotion mediated the
association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction. After controlling for participant age and gender in a first step, relational savoring was associated with
greater positive emotion. After controlling for participant age and gender, positive emotion was significantly associated with post-stressor relationship satisfaction. Next, we
examined whether post-task positive emotion acted as an indirect effect in explaining the
non-significant association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction.
We controlled for the same set of covariates included in previous analyses. The indirect

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

17

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

25.72
0.09
1.00
1.98

Constant
Age
Sex
Condition
Positive emotiona

21.51
0.03
2.44
1.21

Constant
Age
Sex
Condition
Negative emotionb

[21.69, 29.76]
[0.01, 0.16]
[1.06, 2.90]
[1.06, 2.90]

CI

1.59
0.03
0.62
0.36

SE
[18.39, 24.63]
[0.03, 0.09]
[3.67, 1.22]
[1.92, 0.50]

CI

Relationship Satisfaction

2.05
0.04
0.80
0.47

SE

Relationship Satisfaction

21.80
0.03
2.40
2.10

25.55
0.87
1.09
3.20

1.64
0.03
0.62
0.64

SE

CI

[18.57, 25.03]
[0.03, 0.09]
[3.61, -1.18]
[3.35, -0.84]

CI

[21.38, 29.73]
[0.01, 0.16]
[2.67, 0.49]
[1.57, 4.82]

Negative Emotion

2.13
0.04
0.80
0.83

SE

Positive Emotion

Model 2: Predicting M

6.40
0.00
0.19
0.02
0.06

3.99
0.01
0.38
0.01
0.05

[3.42, 4.56]
[0.02, 0.00]
[0.18, 0.57]
[0.21, 0.19]
[0.36, 0.06]

CI

0.30
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.01

SE

[5.81, 6.99]
[0.01, 0.00]
[0.00, 0.39]
[0.19, 0.22]
[0.07, 0.04]

CI

Relationship Satisfaction

0.29
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.01

SE

Relationship Satisfaction

Model 3: predicting DV (with M)

Note. DV dependent variable; M mediator; CI confidence interval. Boldface values highlight change in independent variable due to inclusion of the mediator in the model.
a
Indirect effect in this pathway was significant, point estimate .5; 95% CI [0.07, 0.24].
b
Indirect effect in this pathway was significant, point estimate .12; 95% CI [0.05, 0.21].

Predictor Variables

Dependent Variable:

Predictor Variables

Dependent Variable:

Model 1: Predicting DV (no M)

Table 4. Regressions examining post-task emotion as a mediator of the association between condition and relationship satisfaction.

18

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Pre-task
Relationship
Satisfaction
Post-Task Emotion
(PA and NA)

Post-Stressor
Relationship
Satisfaction

Experimental
Condition

Figure 4. Visual depiction of the proposed moderated mediation: post-task emotion mediates the
link between experimental condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction to different
degrees based on pre-task relationship satisfaction.

effect in this pathway was significant, point estimate = 0.15; 95% CI [.07, .24], suggesting
that positive emotion acted as an indirect-only mediator of the link between condition
and post-stressor relationship satisfaction. In other words, after controlling for baseline
relationship satisfaction, there was no direct effect between condition and post-stressor
relationship satisfaction. However, positive emotion was an indirect effect in the nonsignificant association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction.
Similarly, after controlling for participant age and gender in a first step, relational savoring
was associated with lower negative emotion. After controlling for participant age and gender,
negative emotion was significantly associated with post-stressor relationship satisfaction.
Next, we examined whether post-task negative emotion acted as an indirect effect in explaining the non-significant association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction. We controlled for the same set of covariates included in previous analyses. The indirect
effect in this pathway was significant, point estimate = 0.12; 95% CI [.05, .21], suggesting that
negative emotion acted as an indirect-only mediator of the link between condition and poststressor relationship satisfaction. Similar to the above finding, this finding can be interpreted
to mean that when there is an association between condition and post-stressor relationship
satisfaction, it is partially explained by post-reflection task negative emotion.
Hypothesis 4: Moderated mediation of the link between condition and post-stressor
relationship satisfaction.
Our final goal was to examine the moderating and mediating processes in combination by
assessing whether post-task emotion mediated the link between experimental condition
and post-stressor relationship satisfaction to different degrees based on pre-task relationship satisfaction. We posited that pre-task relationship satisfaction would moderate the
link between condition and post-task emotion, which in turn would mediate the link
between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction (see Figure 4).

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

19

Table 5. Regressions examining the moderated mediation model: Baseline relationship satisfaction as a moderator of the mediation of the condition to post-stressor relationship satisfaction link
by positive and negative emotions.
Positive Emotion as a Mediator
Dependent Variable:

Post-stressor Relationship Satisfaction

Predictor Variables
Constant
Low-baseline RS
Medium-baseline RS
High-Baseline RS

SE

CI

0.03
0.13
0.24

0.05
0.04
0.05

[0.06, 0.14]
[0.06, 0.21]
[0.14, 0.34]

Negative Emotion as a Mediator


Dependent Variable:
Predictor Variables
Constant
Low-baseline RS
Medium-baseline RS
High-baseline RS

Post-stressor Relationship Satisfaction


b

SE

CI

0.08
0.11
0.13

0.06
0.03
0.04

[0.05, 0.21]
[0.05, 0.18]
[0.06, 0.22]

Note. RS relationship satisfaction; SE standard error; CI confidence interval.

In the first linear regression model,5 we examined positive emotion as the mediator and
found that after controlling for participant age and sex, the degree to which experimental
condition affects post-stressor relationship satisfaction indirectly through post-task positive emotion depends on pre-task relationship satisfaction. Table 5 displays the conditional indirect effects of experimental condition on post-stressor relationship
satisfaction through positive emotion based on various levels of relationship satisfaction.
For individuals reporting low levels of baseline relationship satisfaction, positive emotion
did not explain the link between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction. Positive emotion acted as a mediator only among participants reporting medium and high levels of baseline relationship satisfaction. In other words, for those with medium and high
levels of baseline relationship satisfaction, higher levels of post-reflection task positive
emotion explained the link between the relational savoring condition assignment and
post-stressor relationship satisfaction.
In the second model, we examined negative emotion as the mediator: after controlling
for participant age and sex, we found that the degree to which condition affects poststressor relationship satisfaction indirectly through post-task negative emotion depends
on pre-task relationship satisfaction. Table 5 displays the conditional indirect effects of
experimental condition on post-stressor relationship satisfaction through negative emotion based on various levels of relationship satisfaction. Similar to the findings described
earlier, negative emotion acted as an indirect effect only among participants reporting
medium and high levels of baseline relationship satisfaction. In other words, for those
with medium and high levels of baseline relationship satisfaction, lower levels of post-

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

20

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

reflection task negative emotion explained the link between the relational savoring condition assignment and post-stressor relationship satisfaction.6

Discussion
Given that LDRs are quite common (Bergen et al., 2007) and that studies reliably report a
link between relationship satisfaction and health (Robles et al., 2014), understanding
factors that promote satisfaction in LDRs is of primary importance to the field of relationship science. In line with recent work suggesting that brief theory-driven social psychological interventions can profoundly influence relational and individual well-being in
an iterative way (Finkel et al., 2013; Layous et al., 2013; Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013;
Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), our study adapted a brief relational savoring task (Borelli
et al., 2010, 2014) for administration over the internet among adult members of LDRs;
as primary outcomes, we assessed emotional reactions and relationship satisfaction following a simulated relationship stressor.
Consistent with the study predictions, we found that assignment to the relational
savoring condition (as opposed to either of the two control conditions) resulted in greater
self-reported positive and lower negative emotion. Importantly, the observed effect sizes
were small (ranging from .27 to .45). In future work, it will be important to evaluate the
practical and long-term significance of these effects. Evidence suggests that increasing
positive emotion, in particular, can have significant downstream effects on behavior (see
Fredrickson, 2013, for a review), so it may be that a relatively small boost in positive emotion will fuel behaviors that in turn further enhance positive emotion. In future work, it
also will be important to assess the impact of repeated engagement in relational savoring.
It is possible that greater familiarity completing this mental exercise will result in greater
yield (more positive emotion); alternatively, over time the intervention could lose its
potency. In sum, although this study suggests small effects on participants emotion, further inquiry is required to appreciate the practical and long-term significance of relational
savoring for this population.
Of note is that there were no significant differences in emotional states between participants assigned to complete the personal savoring task and the neutral control task. This
pattern of findings is especially striking in light of the fact that our linguistic analysis
revealed that participants in the two savoring conditions did not differ in the frequency of
positive emotion words. When people naturalistically savor, they most often choose to
savor relational memories (Bryant et al., 2005) and savoring memories not involving
other people actually may be a difficult task for some adults. It is unknown whether the
types of memories naturalistically savored by adults in LDRs differs from those savored
by other adults (single people or GCR members), but it may be that for some adults in
LDRs, savoring personal memories fails to enhance emotional state because these
memories underscore the fact that they live apart from their romantic partners, which may
evoke feelings of longing or being alone. Future research can examine this issue to
determine whether, for people in an LDR, savoring personal memories yields no emotional benefit relative to a control task.
We also found that participants who began the study with medium and high levels of
relationship satisfaction benefitted the most from the relational savoring in terms of their

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

21

reports of positive emotion. Consistent with previous work finding that relational savoring
improves emotional state for women low in avoidance but damages it for those high in
avoidance (Borelli et al., 2014), our results suggest that relational savoring only works in
terms of enhancing emotional states among individuals who begin the task feeling satisfied
with their relationships. Importantly, unlike Borelli and colleagues (2014) previous work,
we did not find that the relational savoring task resulted in negative outcomes for people
with low relationship satisfaction (relative to completing the control mental reflection
tasks). Therefore, we can conclude that completing a relational savoring task works in terms
of generating more positive emotion in the short term for LDR members with medium to
high baseline relationship satisfaction, suggesting that relational savoring may be an
effective tool for preventing declines in relationship satisfaction. In future work, it will be
important to develop and test interventions that improve mood and relationship satisfaction
among LDR members with low relationship satisfaction, who are likely more in need of
ways to boost their relationship morale. It may be that these people require more intensive
intervention to achieve the same outcomes, or a different approach altogether.
With respect to negative emotion, however, baseline relationship satisfaction did not act as a
statistically significant moderator. Whereas focusing on a positive relationship memory
enhanced positive emotion only for people who entered the study relatively satisfied by their
LDR, as compared to the control conditions, completing the relational savoring task decreased
negative emotion regardless of pre-task satisfaction. Perhaps it is the case that reducing negative emotion is easier to accomplish with a brief intervention, but in order to enhance positive
emotion with a relational savoring task, people must have sufficient access to positive relational
memories, which presumably would be higher with greater relationship satisfaction.
We also found that when the relational savoring task buffered participants relationship
satisfaction from simulated relationship stress, it did so through the improvements in emotional
states following the mental reflection task. Further, this effect was moderated by baseline
relationship satisfaction, such that post-reflection task emotion (positive and negative emotion)
only explained post-stressor relationship satisfaction among adults who began the study with
medium-to-high satisfaction with their LDRs. These findings are consistent with earlier work
with married couples suggesting that the prevention of declines in relationship satisfaction as a
result of a brief intervention can be explained by reductions in distress (Finkel et al., 2013).
Although both variables were measured within a relatively short span of time (approximately
30 min from the start of the mental reflection task), these findings are encouraging in that they
suggest that a relatively minor, albeit targeted intervention can protect relationship satisfaction
in response to a simulated stressor. If we conceptualize relationship processes (both those
that promote relationship function and dysfunction) as iterative, then brief, theoretically
informed interventions have the potential to have repeating and cascading effects on relationship processes (Finkel et al., 2013). Similarly, even momentary experiences of positive emotion have the potential to lead to cognitions and behaviors that in turn inspire
additional boosts in emotional state (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002).
This study constitutes one of the first experimental examinations of relational savoring
in general and the first conducted among LDR members. Our study improved upon
previous work by including a large sample with sufficient statistical power to detect main
and interactive effects of baseline characteristics. Further, unlike Borelli and colleagues
(2014) initial work, this study included two control groups (personal savoring and neutral

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

22

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

control). These contributions should be interpreted in light of the studys limitations. In


our view, the most significant limitation is the time period spanned by the assessments
undertaken in this study: we assessed emotional state immediately following the savoring
task and post-stressor relationship satisfaction approximately 15 min afterward. Thus, we
are unable to speak to whether this impact has any long-lasting effects on relationship
satisfaction. In fact, we did not observe a significant decline in relationship satisfaction
from the baseline to the post-stressor assessment, which is not surprising given the relatively short time frame assessed, but this fact undoubtedly limits the variability that our
models can explain. Building off of these initial findings, future researchers will be tasked
with examining the duration of the observed effects, particularly in terms of whether or
not they can protect against a decline in relationship satisfaction.
Second, the vignette task we used to simulate relationship-related stress was developed
for the purposes of this study and, as such, does not have a history of extensive research
validation. Our linguistic analyses suggest that the relationship stressor worked as
intended in that participants in the neutral control condition used significantly more negative emotion words when responding to the post-stressor questions than when completing the neutral mental reflection task; however, we did not obtain data from participants
that would speak directly to whether or not they found the simulated relationship stressor
realistic or whether it caused a subjective decline in emotional state. This aspect of the
study could be improved in future work.
Third, all of the data presented here were collected online; it would be advantageous to
supplement these data with other types of assessments (e.g., nonself-report assessments such
as behavior observation) as well as with brief interventions delivered in-person, which could
help insure that the interventions function in the way they were intended. Fourth, in our work
we focused exclusively on one member of an LDR dyad. Although important in laying the
groundwork for the observed effects, it will be illuminating in future work to examine dyadic
effects of relational savoring conducted individually with each member of a couple as well as
conjointly. Finally, in future studies, it would be beneficial to evaluate the effects of relational
savoring among GCR members. As it currently stands, we are unable to speak to the specificity of these effects on LDR members. It may be that relational savoring improves outcomes
for adults in GCRs as well, or even for single or divorced adults.
Finally, although we speculate that relational savoring works by activating mental
representations of attachment security, which in turn activates feelings of safety, we did
not have a means to directly assess this in the context of this investigation. In future work,
understanding the mechanisms by which relational savoring exerts its impacts on emotion
and relationship satisfaction will be important for building both theoretical models of
LDRs specifically and attachment representations in general.

Conclusions
Although the findings from this study should be viewed as preliminary until replicated,
our intervention (relational savoring) appears to cause increases in positive emotion and
decreases in negative emotion, as well as post-task relationship satisfaction following a
simulated relationship stressor task. In addition, the positive effects on mood are greater
in LDR members with medium-to-high baseline relationship satisfaction. Exploring the

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

23

long-term impacts of this brief savoring intervention is promising and has the potential to
contribute to a body of research demonstrating the potent effect of brief interventions
(Finkel et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009).
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the adults who participated in this project and research assistants in the
Pomona CARE Lab for their help in collecting and processing the data.

Funding
This work was funded by American Psychoanalytic Association Fund for Research grant awarded
to the first author.

Notes
1. We examined group differences in the following participant characteristics: age, partner age,
number of children, educational attainment, or baseline levels of relationship satisfaction, participant race, sex, length of relationship, length of time physically separated from partner, distance
separating partners, frequency of remote contact (phone, e-mail, text, Skype, letter, etc.), and frequency of face-to-face contact.
2. As a follow-up to our preliminary analyses, we conducted a set of additional analyses evaluating
aspects of the LDRs (length of relationship, length of time physically separated from partner,
distance separating partners, frequency of remote contact, frequency of face-to-face contact)
as well as participant gender or ethnicity moderated any of the observed effects. We also evaluated whether frequency of synchronous or asynchronous contact moderated the findings. Inclusion of these relationship variables in statistical models did not affect the observed pattern of
resultstherefore, we do not report them here.
3. To conduct this analysis, we used Model 1 in the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2012).
4. We used Model 4 in the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2012) to conduct this analysis.
5. We used Model 7 in PROCESS (Hayes, 2012) to evaluate this hypothesis.
6. Following these initial analyses, we evaluated a combined moderated mediation model in which
we included both positive and negative emotions as mediators. The pattern of results remained
the sameboth positive and negative emotions mediated the link between condition and poststressor relationship satisfaction among participants with medium and high, but not low, baseline
satisfaction. Thus, positive and negative emotions were independent indirect effects in the association between condition and post-stressor relationship satisfaction among participants reporting higher levels of relationship satisfaction.

References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bergen, K., Kirby, E., & McBride, M. (2007). How do you get two houses cleaned?: Accomplishing family caregiving in commuter marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 287307.
doi:10.1080/15267430701392131
Borelli, J. L., McMakin, D., & Sbarra, D. (2010). Mental reflection task manual: Pomona deployment study. Unpublished Manuscript, Pomona College.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

24

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Borelli, J. L., Sbarra, D. A., Snavely, J. E., McMakin, D. L., Coffey, J.K., Ruiz, S. K., . . . Chung,
S. Y. (2014, in press). With or without you: Attachment avoidance predicts non-deployed
spouses reactions to relationship challenges during deployment. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice.
Bowlby, J. (1960). Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 15, 952.
Bowlby, J. (1982 [1969]). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. Clinical applications of attachment theory. London, England:
Routledge.
Bryant, F. B. (2003). Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about
savoring. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 175196. doi:10.1080/0963823031000103489
Bryant, F. B., Smart, C. M., & King, S. P. (2005). Using the past to enhance the present: Boosting
happiness through positive reminiscence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 227260. doi:10.
1007/s10902-005-3889-4
Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty: Predicting the survival of long-distance
relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 581606. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.6.581606
Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief intervention
to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24,
15951601. doi:10.1177/0956797612474938
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In E. Ashby Plant & P. G. Devine (Eds.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 153). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional
well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172175. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00431
Gentzler, A. L., Morey, J. N., Palmer, C. A., & Yi, C. Y. (2012). Young adolescents responses to
positive events: Associations with positive affect and adjustment. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 663683. doi:10.1177/0272431612462629
Glenn, N. D. (1998). The course of marital success and failure in five American 10-year marriage
cohorts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 569576. doi:10.2307/353529
Graham, J. M., Diebels, K. J., & Barnow, Z. B. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 3948. doi:10.1037/a0022441
Guldner, G. T. (1996). Long-distance romantic relationships: Prevalence and separation-related
symptoms in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 289296.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analyses in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408420.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.
afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

Borelli et al.

25

Hurley, D. B., & Kwon, P. (2011). Results of a study to increase savoring the moment: Differential
impact on positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 579588. doi:10.
1007/s10902-011-9280-8
Jiang, L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic
separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63, 556577. doi:10.1111/jcom.12029
King, K. B., & Reis, H. T. (2012). Marriage and long-term survival after coronary artery bypass
grafting. Health Psychology, 31, 5562. doi:10.1037/a0025061
Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). What is the optimal way to deliver a positive
activity intervention? The case of writing about ones best possible selves. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 14, 635654. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9346-2
Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 5762. doi:10.1177/0963721412469809
McMakin, D., Siegle, G., & Shirk, S. (2011). Positive affect stimulation and sustainment (PASS)
module for depressed mood: A preliminary investigation of treatment-related effects. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 35, 217226. doi:10.1007/s10608-010-9311-5
Maguire, K. C., & Kinney, T. A. (2010). When distance is problematic: Communication, coping,
and relational satisfaction in female college students long-distance dating relationships. Journal
of Applied Communication Research, 38, 2746. doi:10.1080/00909880903483573
Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55,
5667. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56
Paap, C. E., & Gardner, R. M. (2011). Body image disturbance and relationship satisfaction among
college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 715719. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.
06.019
Parker-Pope, T. (2010). For better: The science of a good marriage. New York, NY: Dutton.
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
(LIWC): A computerized text analysis program. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pistole, M. (2010). Long-distance romantic couples: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 115125. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00169.x
Qualtrics software, Version 50897 of the Qualtrics Research Suite. Copyright 2012 Qualtrics.
Provo, UT, USA. http://www.qualtrics.com
Quoidbach, J., Wood, A. M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Back to the future: The effect of daily practice
of mental time travel into the future on happiness and anxiety. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 349355. doi:10.1080/17439760902992365
Roberts, A., & Pistole, M. (2009). Long-distance and proximal romantic relationship satisfaction:
Attachment and closeness predictors. Journal of College Counseling, 12, 517. doi:10.1002/j.
2161-1882.2009.tb00036.x
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and
health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 140187.
Rochlen, A. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Womens perceptions of male partners gender role conflict as predictors of psychological well-being and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men
& Masculinity, 5, 147157. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.147
Rohrbaugh, M. J., Mehl, M. R., Shoham, V., Reilly, E. S., & Ewy, G. (2008). Prognostic significance of spouse we-talk in couples coping with heart failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 76, 781789. doi:10.1037/a0013238

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

26

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J. A., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We-talk, communal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health-compromised smokers. Family Process, 51, 107121. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01388.x
Sahlstein, E. (2010). Communication and distance: The present and future interpreted through the past.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 106114. doi:10.1080/00909880903483615
Schumm, W. R., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L., & Grinsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics of
responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychological Reports, 53, 567572. doi:10.2466/pr0.1983.53.2.567
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., &
Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction
scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381387. doi:10.2307/352405
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms
with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical
Psychology: In Session, 65, 467487. doi:10.1002/jclp.20593
Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Stafford, L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. Communication
Research, 37, 275297. doi:10.1177/0093650209356390
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 3754. doi:10.1177/026
5407507072578
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion regulation
strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 311333. doi:10.1007/
s10902-006-9015-4
VanLaningham, J., Johnson, D. R., & Amato, P. (2001). Marital happiness, marital duration, and the
U-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79, 13131341. doi:10.
1353/sof.2001.0055
Vormbrock, J. K. (1993). Attachment theory as applied to wartime and job-related marital separation. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 122144. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.122
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 10631070. doi:10.1037/0022-351
Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). A process model of adult attachment formation. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 179195). Chichester, England: Wiley and Sons.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths
about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197206. doi:10.1086/651257

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2015

También podría gustarte