Cardiovascular Reactivity During Marital Conflict in Laboratory and Naturalistic Settings: Differential Associations with Relationship and Individual Functioning Across Contexts

• Author: Katherine J. W. Baucom,Jasara N. Hogan,Matthew S. Goodwin,Panayiotis Georgiou,Sheila E. Crowell,Brian R. W. Baucom,Stacia V. Bourne,Alexander O. Crenshaw
• Date: 01 September 2018
• Published date: 01 September 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12353

Cardiovascular Reactivity During Marital Conflict in

Laboratory and Naturalistic Settings: Differential

Associations with Relationship and Individual

Functioning Across Contexts

BRIAN R. W. BAUCOM*

KATHERINE J. W. BAUCOM*

JASARA N. HOGAN*

ALEXANDER O. CRENSHAW*

STACIA V. BOURNE*

SHEILA E. CROWELL*

PANAYIOTIS GEORGIOU

†

MATTHEW S. GOODWIN

‡

Cardiovascular reactivity during spousal conflict is considered to be one of the main path-

ways for relationship distress to impact physical, mental, and relationship health. However,

the magnitude of association between cardiovascular reactivity during laboratory marital con-

flict and relationship functioning is small and inconsistent given the scope of its importance in

theoretical models of intimate relationships. This study tests the possibility that cardiovascu-

lar data collected in laboratory settings downwardly bias the magnitude of these associations

when compared to measures obtained in naturalistic settings. Ambulatory cardiovascular

reactivity data were collected from 20 couples during two relationship conflicts in a research

laboratory, two planned relationship conflicts at couples’ homes, and two spontaneous relation-

ship conflicts during couples’ daily lives. Associations between self-report measures of relation-

ship functioning, individual functioning, and cardiovascular reactivity across settings are

tested using multilevel models. Cardiovascular reactivity was significantly larger during

planned and spontaneous relationship conflicts in naturalistic settings than during planned

relationship conflicts in the laboratory. Similarly, associations with relationship and individ-

ual functioning variables were statistically significantly larger for cardiovascular data col-

lected in naturalistic settings than the same data collected in the laboratory. Our findings

suggest that cardiovascular reactivity during spousal conflict in naturalistic settings is statis-

tically significantly different from that elicited in laboratory settings both in magnitude and in

the pattern of associations with a wide range of inter- and intrapersonal variables. These dif-

ferences in findings across laboratory and naturalistic phy siological responses highlight the

value of testing physiological phenomena across interaction conte xts in romantic relationships.

Keywords: Heart Rate Reactivity; Romantic Relationships; Marital Conflict

Fam Proc 57:662–678, 2018

*Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

†

Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

‡

Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian R. W. Baucom, Department of

Psychology, University of Utah, 380 South 1350 East, BEHS 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

E-mail: brian.baucom@psych.utah.edu.

This manuscript was supported in part by start-up funding from the University of Utah and a Vice

President for Research Seed Grant from the University of Utah awarded to Brian Baucom.

662

Family Process, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2018 ©2018 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12353

Cardiovascular reactivity is one of the major pathways by which marital conflict is

thought to impact overall relationship functioning, mental health, and physical well-

being (e.g., Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003; Whisman & Uebelacker, 2003). For example,

faster heart rate (HR) during couple conflict is associated with lower levels of concurrent

relationship satisfaction and greater longitudinal decline in relationship satisfaction (e.g.,

Levenson & Gottman, 1985), higher levels of negative communication behaviors (e.g.,

Newton & Sanford, 2003), and increased risk for hypertension and cardiovascular disease

(e.g., Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003). These effects are generally understood to occur due

to distress that partners experience during stressful couple interactions (e.g., Robles &

Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003). However, empirical evidence has thus far failed to support the theo-

rized magnitude of association between conflict-related cardiovascular reactivity and rela-

tionship functioning. For example, Robles and colleagues (Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, &

McGinn, 2014) reported meta-analytic effect sizes of r=.10, .18, and .18 (ps<.001)

for associations between relationship satisfaction and HR, diastolic blood pressure (DBP),

and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reactivity, respectively.

Existing research on cardiovascular reactivity during marital conflict is primarily

based on physiological data collected in laboratory settings while spouses discuss an area

of disagreement in their relationship (Robles et al., 2014). This methodology grew ou t of

a behavior analytic tradition that emphasized the utility of directly observing spouses’

behavior during arguments recorded in laboratory settings (for a review see Heyman,

2001). However, empirical evidence suggests that while conflict behavior enacted in a

laboratory is generally representative of how spouses typically behave, it tends to be less

negative and more positive than conflict that occurs outside of a laboratory (e.g., at

home; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Romantic relationship researchers have frequently

explained this finding as reflecting a social desirability effect wherein spouses do not

want to behave badly when being recorded (e.g., Heyman, 2001). While researchers have

not viewed this behavioral discrepancy as an impediment to studying marital conflict in

the laboratory generally, it may have a more pernicious effect when one seeks to identify

representative psychophysiological processes associated with spousal conflict in natural-

istic settings.

Additional concern about the generalizability of laboratory-based psychophysiological

reactivity during marital conflict arises from the literature examining the consistency of

an individual’s cardiovascular reactivity during stress tasks across time and place. The

fields of health psychology and behavioral medicine have long been concerned with the

consistency of an individual’s physiological reactivity to stressors because stable individ-

ual differences in physiological reactivity are a key component of stress-related process

models of disease. Early research into the stability of physiological reactivity to stress,

and cardiovascular reactivity specifically, found that within-person correlations between

cardiovascular reactivity during repeated laboratory stressors varies considerably from

small (e.g., r=.15; Smith & O’Keeffe, 1988) to large (r=.68; Gerin et al., 1998). Larger

correlations typically emerge between cardiovascular reactivity during identical stress

tasks performed on different occasions than cardiovascular reactivity during different

tasks performed either on the same or different occasions.

Conversely, varying the context or location of a stress task has been associated with

lower within-person correlations in cardiovascular reactivity relative to correlations that

emerge for stress tasks that occur in the same place or similar settings. For example,

Gerin et al. (1998) measured three indices of cardiovascular reactivity—HR,

1

DBP, and

SBP—during a serial subtraction task performed in the laboratory, a classroom, and

1

Correlations between measures of HR reactivity are not reported because they were all very small, and

study authors suggest that they are unreliable because of measurement imprecision.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, September, 2018

BAUCOM ET AL.

/

663