Examining the Physiological, Cognitive, and Physiological Effects of Capitalizing on Good News that is Relationship Threatening, 2016

112 dyads. Mostly undergraduate students recruited from the University of Rochester, NY, USA. Generally, dyads came to the lab, completed baseline self-report measures, affixed to physiological sensors that measured cardiovascular reactivity (heart rate, blood pressure, pre-ejection period, cardiac output, stroke volume, total peripheral resistance, heart rate variability). Participants remained separated in their private testing rooms and were told they were about to discuss a hypothetical event with their romantic partner. One person was randomly assigned to be the discloser of good news: Experimenters incorporated the participants' answers from the initial questionnaire and indicated to disclosers they had been hypothetically hired for their “dream” job or accepted into their “dream” graduate program. The other members of the romantic dyads—the responders—were informed that their partners received this good news. After role assignment, we implemented a manipulation of the conversation context. In the noncorrespondent condition, couples were told to imagine having to live apart from their partners and endure a long- distance relationship. The news was noncorrespondent for disclosers because the pursuit of their dream job (i.e., self-directed goal) conflicted with their relationship-directed goal. The news was also non- correspondent for responders who would have to endure a long-distance relationship so that their partners could pursue their dream jobs. In the correspondent condition, couples were told to imagine they could live together, with the news being positive for disclosers, responders, and the relationship. Participants were explicitly asked to discuss how this news would make each of them feel and how the news would impact their relationship in the short-term and the long-term. After receiving manipulation instructions, disclosers and responders remained in their private testing rooms for an anticipatory period during which they were given three minutes to “gather their thoughts” to prepare for the conversation. A set of double doors that separated the two private testing rooms was opened to create one, large dyad room when the preparation period ended. Couples then engaged in a conversation for 5-min. After the conversation, participants returned to their private testing rooms for a 3 min recovery period and completed questionnaires. Then, couples reversed roles, such that the discloser in the first conversation was now in the responder role and vice versa. We followed up with couples 3 months after the laboratory session.