[PDF] Implicit ambivalence of significant others - Person and Context Lab

7175_8Zayas,Surenkok,Pandey_Compass_Revisions_7Sept17_FinalVersion.pdf ARTICLEImplicit ambivalence of significant others:

Significant others trigger positive and negative

evaluations

Vivian Zayas

|

Gizem Surenkok

|

Gayathri Pandey

Cornell University

Correspondence

Vivian Zayas, Department of Psychology,

Cornell University, 238 Uris Hall.

Email: vz29@cornell.edu

Funding information

Institute for the Social Sciences, Cornell Uni-

versity, Grant/Award Number: Zayas, 2007Abstract Despite the rich literature on implicit partner evaluations, there has been scant attention to a defining feature of significant other men- tal representations-their affective complexity. Recent findings (Zayas & Shoda, 2015), however, provide an empirical demonstra- tion that significant others automatically and simultaneously acti- vate positiveandnegative evaluations-a phenomenon we refer to asimplicit ambivalence. A primary aim of this paper is to extend extant theory by elaborating on the features of the dyadic context that may contribute to the formation of implicit ambivalence. Partic- ularly, drawing from research from relationship science, social cogni- tion, and social neuroscience, we focus on the ability of significant others to dynamically and simultaneously confer rewards and threats, the attunement of perceivers to potential social rewards and social threats, and aspects of sense-making of another person's mind that may give rise to implicit ambivalence. From this new per- spective, implicit ambivalence is not a pathological or rare state. Quite the opposite, implicit ambivalence may be a normative, typical process, that is triggered even by people who are highly positive in one's network. We identify future directions for social cognition and relationship science.1 |

INTRODUCTION

Odi et amo. quare id faciam fortasse requiris?

I hate and I love. Why I do this, perhaps you ask? (Roman poet Catullus)

Poets, historians, artists, philosophers, and psychologists have long acknowledged that close relationships can be

the source of our greatest joys, as well as the source of our greatest sorrows. A key assumption of various theories of

close relationships is that the affective complexity that defines our closest relationships becomes etched in memory

and stored asmental representationsof significant others (e.g., Baldwin, 1992; Bowlby, 1973; Pietromonaco & Barrett,DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12360

Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2017;e12360.

https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12360© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/spc31of16

2000). One aspect of mental representations that has received considerable attention over the past three decades is

implicit partner evaluations. These are the evaluations that come to mind automatically, effortlessly, unintentionally,

and nonconsciously when one thinks of a significant other (see Zayas & Shoda, 2005; see also LeBel & Campbell,

2009). Although such evaluations may not be consciously felt, there is evidence that they color expectations,

subjective experience, and relationship outcomes (Günaydin, Zayas, Selcuk, & Hazan, 2012; McNulty, Olson, Meltzer,

& Shaffer, 2013; Murray, Holmes, & Pinkus, 2010; Selcuk, Zayas, Günaydin, Hazan, & Kross, 2012).

Despite these insights, there is one glaring paradox in the study of implicit partner evaluations: Mental represen-

tations of significant others are affectively complex, yet most of the work has focused on an individual difference

perspective in which some people experience greater rewards (vs. threats) and thus form positive (vs. negative)

implicit partner evaluations. There has been scant attention on the more normative question of the very nature of

significant other representations, and the possibility that one's partner is associated with good,andthe same partner

is associated with bad.

Recently, Zayas and Shoda (2015) demonstrated that thoughts of a significant other spontaneously activated

positiveandnegative evaluations, even though participants did not consciously report holding these ambivalent

feelings. We refer to the finding that significant others automatically trigger positive and negative evaluations as

implicit ambivalencebecause it involves the simultaneous coactivation of positive and negative (i.e., ambivalence;

Norris, Gollan, Berntson, & Cacioppo, 2010) and may not be consciously felt (i.e., implicit; Banaji & Greenwald,

1995).

In the present paper, we first provide a brief review of theory and research on implicit partner evaluations (see

Andersen, Saribay, & Przybylinski, 2012; Baldwin, Lydon, McClure, & Etchison, 2010; McNulty & Olson, 2015 for

thorough reviews). We then turn to the main goal of the paper, which is to examine in greater depth the affective

complexity of significant other representations, motivated by Zayas and Shoda's (2015) empirical findings. Based on

a review of findings from relationship science, social cognition, and social neuroscience, we theorize about the key

aspects of dyadic context that may be particularly important in the formation of implicit ambivalence. Specifically,

we focus on characteristics of partners as targets who are capable of dynamically and simultaneously conferring social

rewardsandpunishments, and we discuss characteristics of perceivers who are exquisitely attuned to social rewards

andsocial punishments. We argue that these target and perceiver characteristics lead to the acquisition ofpartner -

negativeandpartner - positiveassociations in memory. We end by discussing directions for future research.

2 |

CONCEPTUALIZING IMPLICIT PARTNER EVALUATIONS

Social cognitive perspectives conceptualize a person's"mind"as a distinctive network of interconnected cognitions

and affects that are assumed to mediate a person's response to the situation (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Shoda &

Mischel, 1998). From this perspective, implicit partner evaluations are represented as associated nodes within a

person's mind. Activation of the partner node within a person's networkspreadsto associated attitudes, which are also

conceptualized as nodes (Zayas, Gunaydin, & Shoda, 2015; Zayas, Shoda, & Ayduk, 2002; Zayas, Whitsett, Lee,

Wilson, & Shoda, 2008). The strength of association between the partner node and the evaluation node determines

the ease with which activation spreads within a person's network (see Figure 1). 1

It is assumed that implicit evaluations develop slowly, with repeated experiences encountered over time (Rydell,

McConnell, Strain, Claypool, & Hugenberg, 2007; Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). When one repeatedly interacts

1

For the purpose of this paper, we focus on abstract, context-insensitive, implicit partner evaluations that reflect an evaluative sum-

mary of interactions with the partner (e.g., Murray, Gomillion, Holmes, Harris, & Lamarche, 2013). However, because implicit partner

evaluations reside within a larger network of associations that include nodes of other people, places, and things, as well as behavioral

strategies and scripts (Zayas et al., 2002; Zayas et al., 2009), we acknowledge that evaluations spontaneously triggered in a given

moment may depend on the other activations within a person's network. For example, given that partners are commonly used to reg-

ulate distress, stressful situations are likely to increase the positivity of partner representations (Mikulincer, Hirschberger, Nachmias, &

Gillath, 2001).

2of16ZAYASET AL.

with an aspect of the environment-whether it be a person, place, or thing-the evaluations that are triggered in the

moment begin to be stored in memory. Overtime, the statistical regularities between the environmental stimulus

and the evaluation are encoded into associative structures (Conrey & Smith, 2007; Fazio, 2007). If the stimulus is

repeatedly associated with rewarding experiences, then the mental representation of the stimulus will acquire

an association with a positive attitude (see Figure 1a). In contrast, if the stimulus is repeatedly associated with

aversive experiences, the mental representation of the stimulus will acquire an association with a negative attitude

(see Figure 1b).

Similarly, it is generally theorized that implicit partner evaluations develop slowly and reflect the affective tone of

repeated interactions with one's partner (e.g., Baldwin, 1992; Bowlby, 1973; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000). More-

over, because many aspects of relationships are inherently rewarding (Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005)-ranging

from low-level affiliative cues (e.g., touch, caress) to more complex multi-sensory experiences (e.g., companionship,

intimacy)-it is assumed that implicit partner evaluations are largely positive. Consequently, most people are expected

to acquirepartner - positiveassociations (Figure 1a). However, those who routinely experience negative interactions

with one's partner are expected to formpartner - negativeassociations (see Figure 1b; Banse, 2001; Scinta & Gable,

2007). Thus, individual differences in the quality of one's relationship can give rise toindividual differencesin implicit

partner evaluations (e.g., Scinta & Gable, 2007; Zayas & Shoda, 2005).

FIGURE 1Structural representation of implicit evaluations in memory: positive (panel A), negative (panel B), and

ambivalent (panel C). In each panel, the large circle represents a person's mind, and the smaller circles within each

person's mind represent the thoughts and affects that are accessible. The lines among the concepts indicate which

concepts are connected with one another and the strength of association. Solid lines connecting concepts indicate an

excitatory association (i.e., activation of one concept results in the activation of the associated concept). Dashed lines

connecting concepts indicate an inhibitory association (i.e., activation of one concept inhibits activation of the

associated concept)

ZAYASET AL.3of16

3 |

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF IMPLICIT PARTNER

EVALUATIONS

Implicit partner evaluations-i.e., the spontaneous evaluations that come to mind in response to activating the partner

representation-are assumed to occur within milliseconds and without conscious awareness of the stimulus being

evaluated or the downstream consequences of the evaluation (e.g., Zayas, Shoda, Mischel, Osterhour, & Takahashi,

2009; see also Ferguson & Zayas, 2009; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Accordingly, researchers have been using a variety

of implicit methods toinferhow people think about others (e.g., Banse, 1999; McNulty, Baker, & Olson, 2014, for a

review see Baldwin et al., 2010). Some work has focused onnormativeaspects: What evaluations spontaneously come

to mind in response to activating a significant other representation? But the majority of the work has focused on

questions involvingindividual differences: What are the antecedents and consequences of individual differences in

implicit partner evaluations? We review this literature below. 3.1 | Normative structure of implicit partner evaluations

In one of the first studies on this topic, Zayas and Shoda (2005) developed and validated an Implicit AssociationTest

(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) to assess implicit partner evaluations. They found that, for the overwhelming

majority of participants, partner representations automatically activated strong positive (vs. negative) evaluations.

Similarly, using a version of the name-letter task, LeBel and Campbell (2009) showed that akin to how evaluation of

one's own initials serves to index implicit self-esteem (Nuttin, 1985), people evaluated their partner's (vs. other's) ini-

tials more positively. These findings have been corroborated by fMRI studies showing that viewing a photograph of

one's partner activates the dopaminergic reward system that is implicated in reward processing and approach behav-

iors (Aron et al., 2005; Bartels & Zeki, 2004; also reviewed in Guerra et al., 2012). 3.2 | Individual differences in implicit partner evaluations

From an individual difference perspective, a central question is whether past experiences shape implicit partner

evaluations. Providing initial correlational evidence, Zayas and Shoda (2005) found that securely attached individuals

showed stronger positive implicit partner evaluations, compared to avoidantly attached (also see Banse & Kowalick,

2007; Dewitte, De Houwer, & Buysse, 2008; Zayas, Mischel, Shoda, & Aber, 2011). In another study, Murray et al.

(2010) found that newlyweds with more responsive spouses in conflict-of-interest situations during the first 6 months

of marriage showed stronger positive implicit (but not explicit) partner evaluations 4 years later. Similarly, how

frequently newlywed couples had sex was positively associated with their later implicit (but not explicit) partner

evaluations (Hicks, McNulty, Meltzer, & Olson, 2016).

Not only are implicit partner evaluations assumed to reflect past experiences, they are also expected to shape

future ones. Consistent with this idea, Zayas and Shoda (2005) showed that stronger implicit partner positivity was

associated with more positive expectations about the future of one's romantic relationship, and with longer, more

emotionally committed, and satisfied relationships. Using a 21-day daily diary study, LeBel and Campbell (2013)

provided further evidence that stronger implicit partner positivity, assessed by the name-letter task, predicted

subsequent daily self-reports of relationship satisfaction and positive behaviors.

Perhaps most interesting from a practical viewpoint is work showing that implicit partner evaluations predict

future breakup. Providing correlational evidence, Zayas and Shoda (2005) found that compared to those who had

recently broken-up, participants in intact relationships showed greater implicit partner positivity (also see Imhoff &

Banse, 2010). In a longitudinal study, LeBel and Campbell (2009) found that implicit partner evaluations prospectively

predicted, 4 months later, a reduced likelihood of relationship dissolution indirectly via relationship satisfaction. Sim-

ilarly, Lee, Rogge, and Reis (2010) showed that initial stronger implicit partner positivity significantly predicted a

reduced risk of relationship dissolution in the following 12 months. Likewise, McNulty et al. (2013) showed that

4of16ZAYASET AL.

newlyweds with greater implicit partner positivity experienced less decline in their marital satisfaction over the next

4 years. Finally, in an important extension, McNulty, Olson, Jones, and Acosta (2017) used evaluative conditioning to

experimentally enhance implicit positive partner evaluations, which in turn increased subsequent self-reported marital

satisfaction. 4 | A PARADOX: THE LACK OF AFFECTIVE COMPLEXITY IN THE STUDY OF

IMPLICIT PARTNER EVALUATIONS

Both theory and intuition have long acknowledged that close relationships are affectively complex. Even in the most

satisfying and secure relationship, partners experience conflict, frustration, indifference, outright disapproval, or

rejection. Negative interactions are as relevant to close relationships as positive interactions as evidenced by the

fact that people can readily recall a negative interaction with their partner (e.g., Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Feeney,

2004). Indeed, Andersen and Chen (2002) importantly noted that"most significant-other representations are

unlikely to be exclusively positive or negative, as people may often have ambivalent feelings about their significant

others"(p. 629; also see Andersen & Cole, 1990). Increasingly, contemporary approaches have highlighted the need

to understand how partners navigate both the rewards and threats within close relationships (e.g., Gable & Reis,

2001; Gere, MacDonald, Joel, Spielmann, & Impett, 2013). A core idea of Murray, Holmes, and Collins' (2006)

risk regulation model, for example, is that every close relationship inherently necessitates reconciling the desire to

protect one's self from rejection or potential separation, with the desire for interpersonal closeness

and connectedness.

Still, although various theoretical perspectives highlight the inherent affective complexity of relationships,

empirical work on implicit partner evaluations has focused primarily on anindividual differenceapproach; people differ

from one another in the extent to which they encounter rewards (vs. threats) in their relationship, and this, in turn,

leads people to differ from one another in the extent to which they develop positive (vs. negative) implicit partner

evaluations. The focus on individual differences has directed attention away from the normative question: Do the

rewardsandthreats that are an inherent part of close relationships become etched in memory, such that activation

of the significant other representation comes to simultaneously trigger both positive and negative evaluations.

4.1 | Theoretical frameworks for positing the separability of positivity and negativity

The possibility that significant-other representations could automatically elicit positive and negative evaluations

simultaneously is supported by several theories that posit that the human mind is highly attuned to both rewards

and threats (e.g., Carver & White, 1994; Gable & Reis, 2001; Gray, 1987; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). According to

the evaluative space model (see Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994), positivity and negativity reflect two distinct and

separable neural systems: One is sensitive to appetitive cues and the other to aversive cues. That is, people scan

the environment in terms of its appetitive (i.e., rewards)andaversive (i.e., threats) features, and these two evaluations

of potential rewards and threats occur independently, in parallel, and simultaneously. These evaluations occur very

early in the processing stream and are eventually integrated into a behavioral response that is confined to either

approach or withdrawal.

Illustrating the benefits of assessing the rewards and the possible threats in the environment independently and

simultaneously, Cacioppo, Berntson, Norris, and Gollan (2012) described a situation in which a thirsty animal on a

savannah would be motivated to go to a water hole (appetitive stimulus), but in so doing would also be making itself

vulnerable to attacks by predators (aversive stimulus). In such circumstances, the ability to continuously and simulta-

neously monitor the environment for rewards and threats is highly adaptive: it enables the animal to approach the

needed water, while remaining vigilant and ready to flee if a predator approaches.

ZAYASET AL.5of16

5 | A DEMONSTRATION OF IMPLICIT AMBIVALENCE TRIGGERED BY

SIGNIFICANT OTHERS

Although various theoretical frameworks allow for the mental representation of a significant other to acquire

positive and negative associative links, only recently has there been a direct empirical demonstration of this

hypothesis. Zayas and Shoda (2015) showed that mental representations of significant others are implicitly ambivalent

by using a measure that was designed to assess implicit positive and negative evaluations separately. In these

experiments, participants were first asked to nominate a significant person whom they mostlikedand a second

significant person whom they mostdisliked. In the comparison condition, participants nominated an object that they

most liked and another object that they most disliked. The names of people and objects nominated were used as

primes in a sequential priming task (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986) designed to assess positive and

negative evaluations separately.

To illustrate the key findings the data are reproduced in Figure 2. As shown in the left panel, attitude objects

elicited univalent automatic evaluations-eitherpositiveornegative, but not both. This finding replicated the well-

documented effect of automatic activation of attitude objects. Specifically, liked objectsactivatedpositive

evaluations, as reflected by faster classification of positive targets (upward-going bars), butinhibitednegative

evaluations, as reflected by slower classification of negative targets (downward-going bars). Disliked objects

activated negative evaluations, as reflected by faster classification of negative targets, but inhibited positive

evaluations, as reflected by slower classification of positive targets.

Importantly, the pattern was drastically different for primes related to significant others (see Figure 2).

Activating the mental representation of significant persons elicited positiveandnegative evaluations, a pattern

reflecting implicit ambivalent evaluations. Specifically, liked persons activated positive evaluations, but importantly,

they also facilitated negative evaluations. Indeed, it is worth noting that the liked person facilitated negative

evaluations to the same extent as the disliked object facilitated negative evaluations. Disliked persons activated

negative evaluations, but also facilitated positive evaluations. A follow-up study replicated the finding that

significant others trigger implicit ambivalence and ruled out alternative explanations for the results, such as

heightened general arousal or an alerting response triggered by the significant other primes (see Zayas & Shoda,

2015, Experiment 2).

FIGURE 2Implicit evaluations of objects (left panel) and significant persons (right panel), as assessed with the

sequential priming paradigm. Bars represent facilitation-inhibition scores (milliseconds) as a function of prime

valence and target valence, and reflect the extent to which the prime led to faster or slower reactions times in the

target classification task as compared to a baseline neutral prime (e.g.,"BBB"). Error bars represent 1 SE ± the mean.

Figure is reproduced with permission from Zayas and Shoda (2015)

6of16ZAYASET AL.

6 | SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH PREVIOUS WORK ON

AMBIVALENCE

Given that ambivalence has been widely studied, it is worth highlighting the ways in which the findings from Zayas

and Shoda (2015) corroborate past work, as well as extend it. 6.1 | From single (relative) dimensional measures to two dimensional measures

As already discussed, the majority of the work on implicit partner evaluations has focused on individual differences of

relative implicit partner evaluations. This approach focuses on a person's implicit evaluation of his or her partner on a

continuum from good on one end and bad on another. Thus, there has been scant attention to the possibility that

significant others elicitbothpositive and negative evaluations. 6.2 |

Implicit activation of ambivalence

Previous work has typically operationalized ambivalence as a series of alternating positive and negative states (e.g.,

Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-on, & Ein-dor, 2010), as incongruity between emotions and behaviors (e.g., Berenson &

Andersen, 2006), or as incongruity between explicit and implicit evaluations (e.g., Petty, Tormala, Briñol, & Jarvis,

2006). Although these definitions reflect various ambivalent states, they do not reflect a situation in which the same

stimulus simultaneously automatically triggers two different and opposing evaluations (Figure 1c). To the best of our

knowledge, the Zayas and Shoda (2015) finding is the first demonstration of a situation in which the same concept can

prime positive and negative evaluations simultaneously. 6.3 |

Implicit vs. explicit ambivalence

It is worth noting that participants in the experiments by Zayas and Shoda (2015) were unaware of their ambivalence

toward the liked significant other. Still, even though they reported holding strong positive feelings and an absence of

negative feelings towards the liked person, the liked significant person automatically triggered negative evaluations.

These findings suggest that implicit ambivalence may occur even in the absence of explicit ambivalence (e.g., Ferguson

& Zayas, 2009; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). This aligns with work that distinguishes between consciously experienced

ambivalence and structural ambivalence in which positive and negative may coexist in the absence of the subjective

experience of ambivalence (e.g., Priester & Petty, 1996). 6.4 | Implicit ambivalence as a normative (typical) state

Finally, historically ambivalence is viewed as an uncommon and often times pathological or destructive state. For

example, it is assumed to be a state only experienced by a subset of the population (e.g., insecurely attached;

MacDonald, Locke, Spielmann, & Joel, 2013), elicited only in unique situations, such as by a volatile or unsatisfying

partner (Berk & Andersen, 2008; Holt-Lunstad, Uchino, Smith, Olson-Cerny, & Nealey-Moore, 2003), or to engender

negativity in close relationships (Fincham & Linfield, 1997; Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2005). But implicit

ambivalence, as assessed in Zayas and Shoda's (2015) experiments, was anything but uncommon; the majority

(>66%) of the participants showed evidence that the liked significant person triggered implicit ambivalence. These

findings suggest that implicit ambivalence of significant others is a normative (typical) state in an ongoing relationship,

and that perhaps more consciously felt ambivalent responses are rare.

ZAYASET AL.7of16

7 |

WHAT GIVES RISE TO IMPLICIT AMBIVALENCE?

Although various theorists have discussed the inherent affective complexity that characterizes mental representations

of significant others, less attention has been given to this more basic question ofwhy. In this section, we speculate

about the characteristics of significant others astargets, as well as characteristics ofperceiversthat are likely to con-

tribute to the formation of implicit ambivalent evaluations of significant others. 7.1 |

Characteristics of significant others as targets

The implicit evaluations of an object are assumed to develop slowly from repeated interactions with the object.

Thus, a feature that is likely to give rise to the acquisition of ambivalent implicit evaluations is the nature of

dyadic context. Specifically, significant others are routinely associated withbothrewardandpunishment

(Figure 1c). A significant other can be associated with various rewarding experiences, including touch, comfort,

security, and sex, thereby engendering the formation of positive implicit partner evaluations (Zayas, Merrill, &

Hazan, 2015). But negative interactions are also a part of close relationships, and their occurrence can impair

mood, decrease relationship satisfaction (Gable, Reis, & Downey, 2003), and trigger psychological and physiolog-

ical distress (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005; Lemay, Overall, & Clark, 2012; for a review see Loving & Slatcher, 2013).

We posit that negative interactions-actual or perceived, consciously felt or not-are a basis for the formation of

partner - negativeassociations in memory even for those partners that are highly supportive. In other words, a

normative feature of mental representations is the presence of not just positivity but also the presence of some

negativity.

Findings from neuroimaging studies on romantic love are consistent with this idea. Although not the focus of their

study, using fMRI, Bartels and Zeki (2000) found that when participants viewed pictures of their romantic partner

activation was seen in reward-related brain areas (i.e., ventral striatum and ventral tegmental area)andin pain/loss-

related brain regions (i.e., dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). Eisenberger and Muscatell (2013) speculate that the

activation of dorsal anterior cingulate cortex could indicate an increased sense of vigilance for potentially losing the

partner in addition to instilling a sense of positivity and security.

Other characteristics of significant others as targets may make them more likely to acquire positive and

negative evaluations. For one, significant others not only are associated with rewards and punishments, but

are capable of conveying bothsimultaneously. Situations in which a partner conveys"mixed"messages are

commonplace. For example, one's partner can be smiling, while expressing a critical remark, or expressing that

everything is fine, while her body language suggests that she is angry. We argue that the ability of significant

others tosimultaneouslyconvey rewardsandpunishments may be a critical feature that gives rise to implicit

ambivalence.

Yet another factor is the inherent difference between people and inanimate objects as targets of perception

(for a review, see Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Stated simply, inanimate objects do not have minds but social beings

do. They possess internal states, including affects, thoughts, goals, desires, and fears (Lee & Harris, 2013). Because

social beings have minds, they elicit processes of sense making (Waytz, Morewedge, et al., 2010; Waytz, Gray,

Epley, & Wegner, 2010). Moreover, mental states can vary quickly, from moment to moment, and accordingly,

behavioral manifestations of these internal states also vary from moment to moment (Hartshorne & May, 1928;

Semin & Cacioppo, 2008). Thus, although speculative, from our perspective, possessing a mind is expected to auto-

matically elicit continuous monitoring and sense making of an interaction partner, particularly their rapidly changing

internal states and behaviors (Blakemore & Decety, 2001; Frith & Frith, 2010). Because such monitoring involves

basic evaluations of goodness and badness (Ferguson & Zayas, 2009), possessing, or seeming to possess a mind is

likely to increase the likelihood that an aspect of the environment will be evaluated in terms of goodness and

badness.

8of16ZAYASET AL.

7.2 |

Characteristics of perceivers

From an evolutionary perspective, the formation and maintenance of affective ties promote survival and reproduc-

tion and ensures that offspring live to reproductive years (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Spoor & Williams, 2007). As

such, it is assumed that perceivers have inherited a suite of psychological processes that make them highly sensitive

to various simple and complex cues that promote social ties (e.g., smile, touch). Encountering such cues is highly

rewarding (e.g., Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001), activating the dopaminergic system, which is linked to

approach-related behaviors (Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005), and over time serves as the basis for forming

partner-positive associations in memory (Zayas, Gunaydin, et al., 2015). Ironically, perceivers' attunement to affilia-

tion also makes them exquisitely attuned to various forms of social threats, real or imagined (e.g., Chernyak & Zayas,

2010; Critcher & Zayas, 2014; Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Ho,

Surenkok, & Zayas, 2014; Lockenhoff, Cook, Anderson, & Zayas, 2012; Zayas et al., 2009). Clear-cut instances of

rejection to milder threats induced by everyday conflicts (Coan & Sbarra, 2015) can trigger circuitry involved in the

processing andmonitoring of threat.As isthe case withother typesof threats,oneresponseis avoidance-i.e., to move

psychologically and behaviorally, away from the source of the threat (Murray, Holmes, et al., 2013).

Thus, perceivers are attuned to any social rewards and social threats. Although there are physiological and

emotional costs to detecting threat, detecting threat can serve to recruit attentional, motivational, and strategic

behaviors to eliminate or minimize the threat. For example, in early life, sensitivity to separation from a"wise and

stronger"caregiver triggers distress and prompts infants and toddlers to restore physical closeness with the caregiver

(Bowlby, 1969). Similarly, in adulthood, perception of threats from a partner can prompt a variety of responses aimed

at restoring the threatened ties (e.g., Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Moreover, conflict

within a relationship provides an opportunity for reassessing one's feelings about the relationship, reassessing what

has been working, and discussing problems, doubts, and disappointments openly, thereby possibly being beneficial

for the relationship in the long run (Braiker & Kelley, 1979; for a review, see McNulty, 2016). Thus, despite the

aversiveness, functionally, attunement to threats may be essential for maintaining affective ties. 7.3 | Perceiver and target characteristics contribute to implicit ambivalence evaluations

We posit that mental representations of significant others should reflect the affectively rich and dynamic interactions

of their relationship, especially given the characteristics of perceivers and of targets. As such, they should acquire

affectively complex evaluations that include both positivityandnegativity (see Figure 1c). This proposition naturally

builds on the assumption of the evaluative space model regarding the separability of positive and negative. However,

importantly, as a point of distinction from previous theorizing, we propose that it is possible for thesamestimulus in

the environment-in our discussion, significant others-to be automatically evaluated as a source of possible reward

andas a source of possible of threat (Figure 1c). This conceptualization is quite different than the one posed by

Cacioppo et al.'s (2012) thirsty animal hypothetical scenario. Whereas the thirsty animal evaluates water as rewarding

and a predator as threatening, here, we posit that perceivers evaluate a significant other as rewarding and the same

significant other as the source of threat. 7.4 |

Formation of partner - negative associations

Given ample evidence that significant others are associated with positivity, we focus on the factors that are likely to

give rise to partner-negative associations. In particular, we hypothesize that the formation of partner-negative

associations is likely to be fairly robust for several reasons.

1. We speculate that even in the most satisfying relationships, aversive experiences with significant others are inev-

itable. Whether actual or imagined, subtle or strong, felt or not, aversive experiences are the basis for forming

partner-negative associations (Murray et al., 2010).

ZAYASET AL.9of16

2. Perceivers are highly (even overly) attuned to threat, such that they mayperceivea threat even in situations

involving no real threat (Chernyak & Zayas, 2010; Critcher & Zayas, 2014). This sensitivity may be particularly

strong in the context of close relationships (Zayas et al., 2009), given that the desire for closeness ironically

increases sensitivity to the pain of interpersonal rejection (Braiker & Kelley, 1979; Murray et al., 2006). The mere

possibility that a partnercouldbe rejecting, frustrating, hurtful, and disappointing can disrupt the belief that the

partner can be counted on and may make perceivers particularly attuned to threats, real or imagined (Murray

et al., 2006). Thus, partner-negative association may form even when the partner hasnotactually engaged in

an objectively negative manner.

3. In some instances, a partner may be perceived as having engaged in a harmful act based on incorrect information.

Research shows that the elicited negative reaction may remain in memory despite learning that the originally

encountered information was wrong. Specifically, even if one learns that a negative event actually didnotoccur,

one can revise one's explicit beliefs, but cannot"undo"the negativity at the implicit level (Gawronski &

Bodenhausen, 2006, 2011).

4. Even in the absence of conscious awareness, a partner's negative behavior can still negatively impact one's

subjective state (Gable et al., 2003), and may lead to the formation of partner-negative associations.

5. Given the profound need for affiliation (Harlow, 1958), and that social connection appears to be our brain's

baseline (Coan & Sbarra, 2015), even commonplace separation may be aversive and may give rise to

partner-negative association in memory. Similarly, because close relationships involve mutual interactive

regulation in which partners experience gratification as well as frustration, and union as well

as separation (Blatt, Auerbach, & Levy, 1997; Blatt & Blass, 1990; Feldman & Blatt, 1996), we speculate

the possibility that even instances of asynchrony within an ongoing interaction may activate neural

circuitry recruited in monitoring and expectancy violation and may leave traces of negativity (Hove &

Risen, 2009).

6. Finally, our proposal that the formation of negative partner evaluations may be robust is bolstered by work

documenting a negativity bias in which negative stimuli wield a stronger and broader impact than positive stimuli

(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Gable & Reis, 2001). Indeed, only few instances of actual or

perceived threat are enough to form negative associations of unknown others (Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008).

Negative feelings resulting from hurtful interactions tend to linger for a long while (Leary, Haupt, Strausser, &

Chokel, 1998) and are easily remembered and relived even several years later (Chen, Williams, Fitness, & New-

ton, 2008). 8 |

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

8.1 | For whom and for what would implicit ambivalence occur?

The findings that mental representations of significant others are associated in memory with positive and

negative evaluations raises questions for future inquiry. From an individual differences perspective, we

can ask: How do the positive and negative evaluations independently or jointly contribute to relationship

dissolution (vs. stability)? From a normative perspective, we can ask: How do the implicit evaluations triggered

by significant others differ from the implicit evaluations that may be triggered by other people in one's network,

including strangers and self? From a relationship science perspective, we can ask: Does the presence of

relationship threat affect the relative strength of positive and negative evaluations? Finally, from a social

cognitive perspective, we can ask: Compared to univalent evaluations elicited by commonplace objects, what

implication does implicit ambivalence triggered by significant others have on attention and behavior?

10 of 16ZAYASET AL.

8.2 |

Broadening our methodological toolkit

To examine the above questions, it is necessary to use and implement measures that assess implicit positivity and

implicit negativity separately. Typically, methods used to assess implicit partner evaluations are implemented in such

a manner that they assess evaluations of partners on a single dimension with good and bad at opposite ends of the

spectrum (see Ito, Cacioppo, & Lang, 1998 for a detailed discussion). To fully understand the nature of significant

other representations and the antecedents and consequences of implicit ambivalence, it will be beneficial to expand

the methodological toolkit so as to be able to assess positive and negative evaluations separately. This likely also

involves including a comparison condition to establish a baseline of responding. 9 |

CONCLUSION

Research in implicit partner evaluations has grown. A main conclusion from this work is that stronger implicit partner

evaluations reflect better experiences and predict better outcomes. But overall the literature on implicit partner

evaluations has focused little on the affective complexity of significant other mental representations. Recent empirical

evidence (Zayas & Shoda, 2015) shows that significant others automatically activate positiveandnegative evaluations.

We theorize that such implicit ambivalence arises from and is an inevitable consequence of naturally occurring and

typical dyadic interactions between two partners. From this new perspective, instead of viewing implicit ambivalence

as a pathological state-observed among only a subset of the population or a subset of people in one's network-

implicit ambivalence appears to be a normative, typical process, that is triggered even by people who are highly

positive in one's network. We speculate that appreciating the implicit ambivalence that characterizes significant other

representations brings additional insight into intrapersonal and interpersonal processes operating within the

relationship domain. ORCID

Vivian Zayas

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9534-3721

REFERENCES

Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory.Psychological Review,109,

619-645.

Andersen, S. M., & Cole, S. W. (1990)."Do I know you?": The role of significant others in general social perception.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,59, 384-399.

Andersen, S. M., Saribay, S. A., & Przybylinski, E. (2012). Social cognition in close relationships. In S. T. Fiske, & C. N. Macrae

(Eds.),The SAGE handbook of social cognition(pp. 350-371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems

associated with early-stage intense romantic love.Journal of Neurophysiology,94, 327-337.

Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events.Communica-

tion Reports,19,45-56.

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.Psychological Bulletin,112, 461-484.

Baldwin, M. W., Lydon, J. E., McClure, M. J., & Etchison, S. (2010). Measuring implicit processes in close relationships. In B.

Gawronski, & K. Payne (Eds.),Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications(pp. 426-444).

New York, NY: Guilford.

Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,68, 181-198.

Banse, R. (1999). Automatic evaluation of self and significant others: Affective priming in close relationships.Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships,16, 803-821.

Banse, R. (2001). Affective priming with liked and disliked persons: Prime visibility determines congruency and incongruency

effects.Cognition and Emotion,15, 501-520.

ZAYASET AL.11 of 16

Banse, R., & Kowalick, C. (2007). Implicit attitudes towards romantic partners predict well-being in stressful life conditions:

Evidence from the antenatal maternity ward.International Journal of Psychology,42, 149-157. Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love.NeuroReport,11, 3829-3834.

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love.NeuroImage,21, 1155-1166.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good.Review of General

Psychology,5, 323-370.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human

motivation.Psychological Bulletin,117, 497-529.

Berenson, K. R., & Andersen, S. M. (2006). Childhood physical and emotional abuse by a parent: Transference effects in adult

interpersonal relations.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 1509-1522.

Berk, M. S., & Andersen, S. M. (2008). The sting of lack of affection: Chronic goal dissatisfaction in transference.Self and

Identity,7, 393-412.

Blakemore, S. J., & Decety, J. (2001). From the perception of action to the understanding of intention.Nature Reviews.

Neuroscience,2, 561-567.

Blatt, S. J., Auerbach, J. S., & Levy, K. N. (1997). Mental representations in personality development, psychopathology, and the

therapeutic process.Review of General Psychology,1, 351-374.

Blatt, S. J., & Blass, R. B. (1990). Attachment and separateness: A dialectic model of the products and processes of

psychological development.Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,45, 107-127. Bowlby, J. (1969).Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973).Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.

Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. Burgess & T. Huston (Eds.),Social

exchange in developing relationships(pp. 135-167). New York: Academic Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with

emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates.Psychological Bulletin,115, 401-423.

Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Norris, C. J., & Gollan, J. K. (2012). The evaluative space model. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski,

& E. T. Higgins (Eds.),Handbook of theories of social psychology, Volume 1(pp. 50-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward

and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 319-333.

Chen, Z., Williams, K. D., Fitness, J., & Newton, N. C. (2008). When hurt will not heal: Exploring the capacity to relive social

and physical pain.Psychological Science,19, 789-795.

Chernyak, N., & Zayas, V. (2010). Being excluded by one means being excluded by all: Perceiving exclusion from inclusive

others during one-person social exclusion.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,46(3), 582-585.

Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort.Current Opinion in Psychology,

1,87-91.

Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Attitude representation: Attitudes as patterns in a distributed connectionist representa-

tional system.Social Cognition,25, 718-735.

Critcher, C. R., & Zayas, V. (2014). The involuntary excluder effect: Those included by an excluder are seen as exclusive

themselves.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,107, 454-474.

Depue, R. A., & Morrone-Strupinsky, J. V. (2005). A neurobehavioral model of affiliative bonding: Implications for conceptu-

alizing a human trait of affiliation.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,28, 313-350.

Dewitte, M., De Houwer, J., & Buysse, A. (2008). On the Role of the Implicit Self-Concept in Adult Attachment.European

Journal of Psychological Assessment,25, 282-290.

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion.Science,

302, 290-292.

Eisenberger, N. I., & Muscatell, K. A. (2013).The Pleasures and Pains of Social Interactions: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience

Perspective(Vol. 2)The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 2: The Cutting Edges(pp. 214-227).

Fazio, R., Sanbonmatsu, D., Powell, M., & Kardes, F. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes.Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology,50, 229-238.

Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength.Social Cognition

,25, 603-637.

Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,87, 631-648.

12 of 16ZAYASET AL.

Feldman, R., & Blatt, S. J. (1996). Precursors of relatedness and self-definition in mother-infant interaction. In J. Masling, &

R. F. Bornstein (Eds.),Psychoanalytic perspectives on developmental psychology(pp. 1-42). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Ferguson, M. J., & Zayas, V. (2009). Automatic evaluation.Current Directions in Psychological Science,18, 362-366.

Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their

marriage?Journal of Family Psychology,11, 489-502. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013).Social cognition(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2010). The social brain: Allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been.Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,365, 165-176.

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of

implicit and explicit attitude change.Psychological Bulletin,132, 692-731.

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2011). The associative-propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open

questions.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,44,59-127.

Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2001). Appetitive and aversive social interaction. In J. H. Harvey, & A. Wenzel (Eds.),Close romantic

relationships: Maintenance and enhancement(pp. 169-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Downey, G. (2003). He said, she said: A quasi-signal detection analysis of spouses"perceptions of

everyday interactions.Psychological Science,14, 100-105.

Gere, J., MacDonald, G., Joel, S., Spielmann, S. S., & Impett, E. A. (2013). The independent contributions of social reward and

threat perceptions to romantic commitment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,105, 961-977.

Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won't let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts.European

Journal of Social Psychology,37, 1176-1186.

Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E. A., & Smith, M. D. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and

friendship.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 247-262.

Günaydin, G., Zayas, V., Selcuk, E., & Hazan, C. (2012). I like you but I don't know why: Facial resemblance to significant others

influences snap judgments.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

48, 250-353.

Gray, J. A. (1987).The psychology of fear and stress. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit

association test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1464-1480.

Guerra, P., Vico, C., Campagnoli, R., Sánchez, A., Anllo-Vento, L., & Vila, J. (2012). Affective processing of loved familiar faces:

Integrating central and peripheral electrophysiological measures.International Journal of Psychophysiology,85,79-87.

Harlow, H. (1958). The nature of love.American Psychologist,13, 573-685.

Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928).Studies in the nature of character: Vol. 1. Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan.

Hicks, L. L., McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., & Olson, M. A. (2016). Capturing the interpersonal implications of evolved prefer-

ences? Frequency of sex shapes automatic, but not explicit, partner evaluations.Psychological Science,27, 836-847.

Ho, E., Surenkok, G., & Zayas, V. (2014). Explicit but not implicit mood is affected by progressive social exclusion.Journal of

Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Relations and Identity,7,22-37.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Uchino, B. N., Smith, T. W., Olson-Cerny, C., & Nealey-Moore, J. B. (2003). Social relationships and ambula-

tory blood pressure: Structural and qualitative predictors of cardiovascular function during everyday social interactions.

Health Psychology,22, 388-397.

Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009). It's all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation.Social Cognition,27,

949-960.

Imhoff, R., & Banse, R. (2010). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward ex-partners differentially predict breakup adjustment.

Personal Relationships,18, 427-438.

Ito, T. A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Lang, P. J. (1998). Eliciting affect using the International Affective Picture System: Bivariate

evaluation and ambivalence.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 856-879.

Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2005). Attitudinal ambivalence, rumination, and forgiveness of partner

transgressions in marriage.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31, 334-342.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. B., Lemeshow, S., Dickinson, S. L., & Glaser, R. (2005). Hostile

marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing.Archives of General Psychiatry,62,

1377-1384.

Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I am too just like you: Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral

response to social exclusion.Psychological Science,19, 816-822.

ZAYASET AL.13 of 16

Leary, M. R., Haupt, A. L., Strausser, K. S., & Chokel, J. T. (1998). Calibrating the sociometer: The relationship between inter-

personal appraisals and state self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1290-1299.

LeBel, E. P., & Campbell, L. (2009). Implicit partner affect, relationship satisfaction, and the prediction of romantic breakup.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45, 1291-1294.

LeBel, E. P., & Campbell, L. (2013). The interactive role of implicit and explicit partner evaluations on ongoing affective and

behavioral romantic realities.Social Psychological and Personality Science,4, 167-174.

Lee,V. K., & Harris, L. T. (2013). How socialcognition caninform social decision making.Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience,7,259.

Lee, S., Rogge, R. D., & Reis, H. T. (2010). Assessing the seeds of relationship decay: Using implicit evaluations to detect the

early stages of disillusionment.Psychological Science,21, 857-864.

Lemay, E. P. Jr., Overall, N. C., & Clark, M. S. (2012). Experiences and interpersonal consequences of hurt feelings and anger.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103, 982-1006.

Lockenhoff, C., Cook, M., Anderson, J., & Zayas, V. (2012). Age differences in responses to progressive social exclusion: The

role of cognition and socioemotional functioning.Journal of Gerontology,68,13-22.

Loving, T. J., & Slatcher, R. B. (2013). Romantic relationships and health. In J. A. Simpson, & L. Campbell (Eds.),The Oxford

handbook of close relationships(pp. 617-637). New York: Oxford University Press.

MacDonald, G., Locke, K. D., Spielmann, S. S., & Joel, S. (2013). Insecure attachment predicts ambivalent social threat and

reward perceptions in romantic relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,30, 647-661.

McNulty, J. K. (2016). Highlighting the contextual nature of interpersonal relationships.Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology,54, 247-315.

McNulty, J. K., & Olson, M. A. (2015). Integrating automatic processes into theories of relationships.Current Opinion in

Psychology,1, 107-112.

McNulty, J. K., Olson, M. A., Jones, R. E., & Acosta, L. M. (2017). Automatic associations between one's partner and one's

affect as the proximal mechanism of change in relationship satisfaction: Evidence from evaluative conditioning.

Psychological Science,28, 1031-1040.

McNulty, J. K., Olson, M. A., Meltzer, A. L., & Shaffer, M. J. (2013). Though they may be unaware, newlyweds implicitly know

whether their marriage will be satisfying.Science,342, 1119-1120.

Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower.

Psychological

Review,106,3-19.

Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affective component of the secure base schema:

Affective priming with representations of attachment security.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 305-321.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007).Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., Bar-on, N., & Ein-dor, T. (2010). The pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities

and relational ambivalence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,98, 450-468.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, disposi-

tions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.Psychological Review,102, 246-268.

Murray, S. L., Gomillion, S., Holmes, J. G., Harris, B., & Lamarche, V. (2013). The dynamics of relationship promotion:

Controlling the automatic inclination to trust.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,104, 305-334.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: the risk regulation system in relationships.

Psychological Bulletin,132, 641-666.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J. L., Harris, B., Griffin, D. W., & Pinkus, R. T. (2013). Cautious to a fault: Self-protection

and the trajectory of marital satisfaction.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,49, 522-533.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Pinkus, R. T. (2010). A smart unconscious? Procedural origins of automatic partner attitudes in

marriage.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,46, 650-656.

Norris, C. J., Gollan, J., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). The current status of research on the structure of evaluative

space.Biological Psychology,84, 422-436.

Nuttin, J. M. (1985). Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect.European Journal of Social Psychology,

15, 353-361.

Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation.Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences,105, 11087-11092.

Petty, R. E., Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2006). Implicit ambivalence from attitude change: an exploration of the

PAST model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90 ,21-41.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we really know about the self in

relation to others?Review of General Psychology,4, 155-175.

14 of 16ZAYASET AL.

Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of

attitudes to subjective ambivalence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71, 431-449.

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991).The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Strain, L. M., Claypool, H. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2007). Implicit and explicit attitudes respond

differently to increasing amounts of counterattitudinal information.European Journal of Social Psychology,37, 867-878.

Scinta, A., & Gable, S. L. (2007). Implicit attitudes about romantic partners.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33,

1008-1022.

Selcuk, E., Zayas, V., Günaydin, G., Hazan, C., & Kross, E. (2012). Mental representations of attachmentfigures facilitate recovery

following upsetting autobiographical memory recall.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103, 362-378.

Semin, G. R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Grounding social cognition: Synchronization, coordination, and co-regulation. In G. R.

Semin, & E. R. Smith (Eds.),Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective and neuroscientific approaches(pp. 119-147).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (1998). Personality as a stable cognitive-affective activation network: Characteristic patterns of

behavior variation emerge from a stable personality structure. In S. J. Read, & L. C. Miller (Eds.),Connectionist models of

social reasoning and social behavior(pp. 175-208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Spoor,J.,&Williams,K.D.(2007).Theevolutionofanostracismdetectionsystem.InJ.P.Forgas,M.Haselton,&W.vonHippel

(Eds.),The evolution of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition(pp. 279-292). NY: Psychology Press.

Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception.Trends in Cognitive

Sciences,14, 383-388.

Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J. H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making sense by making sentient:

Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,99, 410-435.

Wilson, T., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes.Psychological Review,107, 101-126.

Zayas, V., Gunaydin, G., & Shoda, Y. (2015). From an unknown other to an attachment figure: How do mental representations

change with attachment formation? In V. Zayas, & C. Hazan (Eds.),Bases of adult attachment: From brain to mind to

behavior(pp. 157-183). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Zayas, V., Merrill, S., & Hazan, C. (2015). Fooling around and falling in love: The role of sex in adult attachment. In J. Simpson,

& S. Rholes (Eds.),Attachment theory and research: New directions and emerging themes(pp. 68-96). New York, NY:

Guilford Publications.

Zayas, V., & Shoda, Y. (2005). Do automatic reactions elicited by thoughts of romantic partner, mother, and self relate to adult

romantic attachment?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,31, 1011-1025.

Zayas, V., & Shoda, Y. (2015). Love you? Hate you? Maybe it's both: Significant persons trigger bi-valent priming.Social

Psychological and Personality Science,6,56-64.

Zayas, V., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. N. (2002). Personality in context: An interpersonal systems perspective.Journal of

Personality,70, 851-898.

Zayas, V., Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., Osterhour, L., & Takahashi, M. (2009). Neural responses to partner rejection cues.

Psychological Science,20, 813-821.

Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Aber, J. L. (2011). Roots of adult attachment: maternal caregiving at 18 months predicts

adult peer and partner attachment.Social Psychological and Personality Science,2, 289-297.

Zayas, V., Whitsett, D., Lee, J. J. Y., Wilson, N., & Shoda, Y. (2008). From situation assessment to personality: Building a social-

cognitive model of a person. In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.),The SAGEhandbook of personality theory

and assessment (Vol. 2) (pp. 377-401). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Vivian Zayasis an associate professor of Psychology at Cornell University and Director of the Personality, Attach-

ment, and Control lab. Her research examines close relationships, from initial encounters to full fledge pair bonds

and from a social cognitive perspective.

Gizem Surenkokis a graduate student in Human Development at Cornell University. She received her BA degree

from Bogazici University, Turkey, and MA degree from New York University. Her research focuses on the phys-

iological, affective, and cognitive processes in interpersonal relationships and how these processes affect well-

being.

ZAYASET AL.15 of 16

Gayathri Pandeyis a graduate student in the social and personality psychology program, in the Depar