Download Invisible Support

Novel Mechanisms Linking
Relationships to Health:
An Interdisciplinary Perspective
Chair: Jaye L. Derrick, PhD
Jaye L. Derrick, PhD
Lindsey M. Rodriguez, PhD
Lisa M. Jaremka, PhD
Máire B. Ford, PhD
Perceived Partner Responsiveness
and Invisible Support
Predict Smoking Cessation
Jaye L. Derrick, University of Houston
Kenneth E. Leonard, Rebecca J. Houston, and Joseph F.
Lucke, University at Buffalo, SUNY
Saul Shiffman, University of Pittsburgh
Why Study Smoking?
• Smokers want to quit but can’t
Why Study Smoking?
• Smokers want to quit but can’t
• Smoking cessation requires self-control
Why Study Smoking?
• Smokers want to quit but can’t
• Smoking cessation requires self-control
• Self-control strength and depletion
• Muraven & Baumeister, 2000
Ongoing Interactions
Ongoing Interactions
Ongoing Interactions
• Partners interact in many domains
Ongoing Interactions
• Partners interact in many domains
• Partners are interdependent
Ongoing Interactions
• Partners interact in many domains
• Partners are interdependent
• Invisible support
• Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000
Relationship Characteristics
• Perceived partner responsiveness
• Partner understands, approves, and cares
• e.g., Reis, 2012; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Reis & Shaver, 1988
Relationship Characteristics
• Perceived partner responsiveness
• Partner understands, approves, and cares
• e.g., Reis, 2012; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Reis & Shaver, 1988
• Motivated lens for viewing partner behaviors
• e.g., Collins & Ford, 2010; Derrick, Leonard, & Homish, 2012; Lemay, Clark, &
Feeney, 2007; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000
Relationship Characteristics
• Perceived partner responsiveness
• Partner understands, approves, and cares
• e.g., Reis, 2012; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Reis & Shaver, 1988
• Motivated lens for viewing partner behaviors
• e.g., Collins & Ford, 2010; Derrick, Leonard, & Homish, 2012; Lemay, Clark, &
Feeney, 2007; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000
• Predicts achievement and health outcomes
• e.g., Feeney, 2004; Lakey & Cassady, 1990; Lakey & Orehek, 2011; Selcuk &
Ong, 2013; Slatcher, Selcuk, & Ong, 2015
Hypotheses
• Invisible support should predict:
• Greater self-control
• Lower likelihood of lapsing during a quit attempt
• BUT:
• Only for those who perceive high partner responsiveness
Method
Participants
• 62 smokers and their non-smoking partners
• Smoking status:
• 38 (61%) of the smokers were men
• 24 (39%) of the smokers were women
• Age:
• Smokers, M = 36.21, SD = 8.73
• Non-smokers, M = 34.95, SD = 9.14
Participants
• Race (% white):
• Smokers, 76%
• Non-smokers, 85%
• Education (in years):
• Smokers, M = 13.25, SD = 1.78
• Non-smokers, M = 14.45, SD = 2.14
• Employed (% at least part-time):
• Smokers, 67%
• Non-smokers, 77%
Participants
• Marital status:
• 61.3% married
• 38.7% cohabiting
• Children:
• 50% had children
• range: 1-3
Baseline Procedure
• Orientation session at our lab
• Completed baseline assessments
• Obtained study smart phones
• Completed training on completion of EMA
Baseline Measure
• Global perceived partner responsiveness
•
•
•
•
•
•
Used the 6-item subscale of Emotional Intimacy
From the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR)
Schaefer & Olson, 1981
Scaled from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
e.g., “My partner can really understand my hurts and joys”
e.g., “My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to”
Daily Procedure
• 21-day ecological momentary assessment
• Fixed morning report
• Fixed evening report
• Random prompt reports (3x daily)
• Lapse reports as needed
Support Received
• Evening reports (smoker):
• Today my partner...
•
•
•
•
•
•
Did something special for me
Did a chore that is normally my responsibility
Picked up after me
Went out of the way to run an errand for me
Looked for something I had lost
Took care of the kids so I wouldn’t have to
Support Provided
• Evening reports (non-smoker):
• Today I...
•
•
•
•
•
•
Did something special for my partner
Did a chore that is normally my partner’s responsibility
Picked up after my partner
Went out of the way to run an errand for my partner
Looked for something my partner had lost
Took care of the kids so my partner wouldn’t have to
Support Indices
Mary
No
No
John
Yes
Yes
Support Indices
Mary
No
No
Yes
No Support
John
Yes
Confirmed
Support
Support Indices
Mary
No
No
No Support
Yes
Projected
Support
Yes
John
Confirmed
Support
Support Indices
Mary
No
Yes
No
No Support
Invisible
Support
Yes
Projected
Support
Confirmed
Support
John
Support Indices
• Total of six possible behaviors
• Separately summed all instances of:
•
•
•
•
No support
Invisible Support
Projected Support
Confirmed Support
Support Indices
Mary
No
Yes
No Support
Invisible Support
M = 4.49
M = 0.74
Projected Support
Confirmed Support
M = 0.39
M = 0.36
No
John
Yes
Outcome Variables
• Self-Control (evening reports):
• Today I felt...
• like it was easy to work toward my goals
• like I had good self-control
• like I had a lot of willpower
• Scaled from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)
• α = .75, M = 3.02, SD = 0.93
Outcome Variables
• Smoking Day
• Any reports of smoking that day
• Smoking occurred on 791 (60%) person-days
• People reported 0 – 22 smoking days
• M = 12.11, SD = 7.33, Mdn = 13
Analytic Strategy
Model Building
• Mixed effects linear/logistic regression
•
•
•
•
Reports nested within person
Only 1 partner smoked, so not dyadic data
Random intercept
AR1 for linear outcome
Model Building
• Mixed effects linear/logistic regression
•
•
•
•
Reports nested within person
Only 1 partner smoked, so not dyadic data
Random intercept
AR1 for linear outcome
• Daily diary covariates
• Day of study
• Number of evening reports completed
• Previous day’s value on DV
Substantive Predictors
• Level 1 Main effects:
• Invisible support
• Projected support
• Confirmed support
• All person mean centered
• Both time-lagged and concurrent
Substantive Predictors
• Level 2 Main Effect:
• Perceived partner responsiveness
• Grand mean centered
• Low/high values for simple slopes at 1 SD -/+ mean
• Cross-Level Interactions:
•
•
•
•
Partner Responsiveness X Invisible Support
Partner Responsiveness X Projected Support
Partner Responsiveness X Confirmed Support
Both time-lagged and concurrent
Results
Do Invisible Support and Partner
Responsiveness Predict Self-Control?
• Invisible Support X Partner Responsiveness:
• b = .058, 95% CI = [.012, .104], p = .014
Do Invisible Support and Partner
Responsiveness Predict Self-Control?
3.30
Lower Invisible Support
3.20
Greater Invisible Support
Self-Control
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70
2.60
Lower
Higher
Perceived Partner Responsiveness
Do Invisible Support and Partner
Responsiveness Predict Self-Control?
3.30
Lower Invisible Support
3.20
Greater Invisible Support
Self-Control
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70
2.60
Lower
Higher
Perceived Partner Responsiveness
Do Invisible Support and Partner
Responsiveness Predict Smoking?
• Partner Responsiveness X Invisible Support:
• OR = 0.82, 95% CI = [0.67, 0.99], p = .043
Do Invisible Support and Partner
Responsiveness Predict Smoking?
Probability of Smoking
0.60
Lower Invisible Support
Greater Invisible Support
0.40
0.20
Lower
Higher
Perceived Partner Responsiveness
Do Invisible Support and Partner
Responsiveness Smoking?
Probability of Smoking
0.60
Lower Invisible Support
Greater Invisible Support
0.40
0.20
Lower
Higher
Perceived Partner Responsiveness
Mediation?
PPR X
Invisible
Support
Self-Control
Smoking
Lapse
Mediation?
Self-Control
PPR X
Support
-.202 (.100)*
-.168 (.127)
Smoking
Lapse
Discussion
Discussion
• Invisible support predicts higher self-control and lower
likelihood of lapsing
• Only true for high partner responsiveness
• Non-significant or reversed for low partner responsiveness
• Specific to invisible support
• Not projected or confirmed support
John’s Smoking Cessation
John’s Smoking Cessation
Special Thanks to...
• Colleagues:
• University of Houston
• Research Institute on Addictions
• Trainees:
•
•
•
•
•
Rebecca Eliseo-Arras
Courtney Hanny
Maggie Britton
Sana Haddad
Undergraduate RAs
• Funding:
• R21 DA034068, Derrick