Strategies in Context: How Perceptions of Romantic Partner Support for Weight Loss Vary by the Relational Context

ABSTRACT

Because romantic partners can be a strong influence on individuals’ weight loss efforts and progress, the current study assessed the relational context of weight loss—dynamics within the relationship that pertain to weight loss. Three relational characteristics were examined: whether the weight loss was a team effort, how much partners had opposing approaches to weight loss, and individuals’ difficulty in balancing their weight loss goals within their relationship goals. Findings showed that the relational characteristics were associated with both the perceived frequency and effectiveness of partner strategies (i.e., instrumental influence, encouragement, and coercion). Team effort was associated with perceiving all three strategies as more frequent and effective; opposing approaches were negatively associated with encouragement but positively associated with coercion for both frequency and effectiveness; and balance struggle was positively associated with coercion frequency and effectiveness. Additionally, a cluster analysis of the three relational characteristics yielded four relational climates: synchronized (high team effort, low relational strains), contentious cooperatives (moderate in all three relational characteristics), autonomous (low in all relational characteristics), and lone battlers (low team effort, high relational strains). The groups varied in the strategies they perceived as effective. All of these findings emerged beyond the variance explained by general relationship satisfaction. Overall, these results better explicate relationship characteristics that can be incorporated into a larger, ecological model on health behavior change.

Notes

¹ All associations between the relational context variables and perceptions of strategy frequency and effectiveness were significant when each relational context variable was assessed separately (β_s > .10, p_s < .047, ΔF_s > 3.99, ΔR² ranged from .01 to .17) with the exception of team effort and coercion (β = .04, p = .473. ΔF = .52, ΔR² = .00). Full results can be obtained from the author. A couple of conclusions can be drawn from the differences in the two sets of analyses. First, when controlling for opposing approaches and balance struggle, team effort showed stronger, positive associations with coercion in both frequency and effectiveness. Second, when controlling for the other characteristics, balance struggle was not associated with influence or encouragement for either frequency or effectiveness, which might be due to the overlap between opposing approaches and balance struggle.

² More information on the remaining three clusters is available from the author.

³ An ANOVA shows that relationship satisfaction varied among the four clusters, F(3, 358) = 40.38, p < .001, partial η² = .25. All clusters significantly differed with the exception of the contentious cooperatives (M = 5.11) and autonomous groups (M = 5.45), with synchronized reporting the highest (M = 6.27) and lone battlers reporting the least (M = 4.28).