My research investigates the interpersonal processes involved in building and maintaining relationship well-being, and individual differences in interpersonal behavior.

In one line of research, I explore how a social support recipient’s self-esteem influences their support preferences, and how their receptivity to support in turn affects providers. Through hypothetical scenarios, reports of recently received or provided support, and interactions with a confederate or a friend, we've found that individuals with low self-esteem (LSEs) are less receptive than are individuals with high self-esteem (HSEs) to support that positively reframes their experience (e.g., tries to cheer them up, take an optimistic spin, or minimizes the problem) but are equally receptive to support that validates their negative feelings. Yet in a real interaction, friends are equally likely to offer positive reframing to both LSEs and HSEs and less likely to offer validation to LSEs. LSEs are less accepting of such support, and in turn, providers feel worse about the interaction, about themselves, and about their friendship more broadly. Recipients’ receptivity to support directly influences providers’ experience of a support interaction as well as their self- and relationship evaluations. These findings illustrate how well-meaning support attempts that do not match recipients’ particular preferences may be detrimental to both members of the dyad (Marigold, Cavallo, Holmes, & Ross, 2014).

In another line of research, I have investigated why LSEs are hesitant to read much meaning into their partner’s positive behavior towards them. In a series of studies, my colleagues and I circumvented this cautious tendency by having participants write abstractly about a past compliment from their partner—that is, describing why their partner “admired” them (as opposed to the more concrete term “complimented” them)—and explaining the meaning and significance of the compliment for their relationship. Compared to a control condition that simply described the compliment, LSEs who received the “abstract reframing intervention” (ARI) felt more secure and satisfied in their relationship (Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007) and were less likely to derogate their partner after a subsequent relationship threat (Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2010), thereby breaking the self-fulfilling cycle of insecurity. Furthermore, the effects of the ARI were evident two to three weeks later. At that time, participants who had received the ARI in an initial session continued to feel more secure about their relationship (Marigold et al., 2007), and behaved less negatively towards their partners in the intervening time period, according to their partners’ reports (Marigold et al., 2010).