DiGiovanni Ana M, Cornelius Talea, Bolger Niall
Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 406 Schermerhorn Hall, 1190 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY, 10027, USA.
Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2023 Jul;14(5):636-646. doi: 10.1177/19485506221116989. Epub 2022 Aug 17.
It is unknown how co-rumination, or perseverating on problems or feelings another person, unfolds in the daily lives of romantic couples. Using a variance decomposition procedure on data from a 14-day dyadic diary, we assessed how much variance in co-rumination was attributable to temporally stable and varying factors, as well as whether co-rumination is better measured as a couple-level or individual-level process. Within-person, within-couple fluctuations in co-rumination contributed most (~33%) to the total variance and summary scores based on these fluctuations were reliable. Stable between-couple differences accounted for ~14% of the total variance and could also be reliably assessed. However, within-couple agreement in co-rumination was low, such that the reliability at the level of within-couple change was inadequate. Research is needed to understand these divergent perceptions of co-rumination and potential downstream consequences. We conclude by considering how these results inform theory and can be applied to similar dyadic constructs.
目前尚不清楚共同反复思考,即执着于他人的问题或感受,在浪漫情侣的日常生活中是如何展开的。我们对来自一份为期14天的双人日记的数据采用方差分解程序,评估了共同反复思考中的方差有多少可归因于时间上稳定和变化的因素,以及共同反复思考作为一种伴侣层面或个体层面的过程是否能得到更好的衡量。共同反复思考中个体内部、伴侣内部的波动对总方差的贡献最大(约33%),基于这些波动的汇总分数是可靠的。伴侣之间稳定的差异占总方差的约14%,也能够得到可靠的评估。然而,共同反复思考中伴侣内部的一致性较低,以至于伴侣内部变化层面的可靠性不足。需要开展研究来理解对共同反复思考的这些不同看法以及潜在的下游后果。我们通过思考这些结果如何为理论提供信息以及如何应用于类似的二元结构来得出结论。