HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES...position, my dissertation, and my family. I would also like...

Identifying the Predictive Influence of Family Background Characteristics, Individual Traits and Skills, and Contextual Factors on

Partner Enhancement in Marital Relationships

by

Jeremy S. Boden, B.S., M.S.

A Dissertation

In

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES

Texas Tech University

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of:

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Sylvia Niehuis, Ph.D. Dissertation Chair

Dean M. Busby, Ph.D. Jacki Fitzpatrick, Ph.D. Alan Reifman, Ph.D.

Accepted Dominick Casadonte

Interim Dean of the Graduate School December, 2012

Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my profound gratitude to all the members of my

dissertation committee. I am deeply grateful for their time, attention, and mentoring

provided on my behalf in completing this document.

I am indebted to Dr. Sylvia Niehuis for her tireless efforts. Her dedication through

the process was deeply appreciated. Despite my many foibles, she was kind, patient, and

direct with both my strengths and weakness.

I appreciate Dr. Alan Reifman’s efforts in assisting me with the methods and data

analysis sections and, as one of my favorite teachers at Texas Tech University, it was a

pleasure working with him on this project.

I would like to thank Dr. Dean Busby for access to the RELATE data set and for

his approachable mentoring along the way. I would also like to express my immense

gratitude to Frank Poulsen who sat patiently in his office while I riddled him with

questions about SEM.

I would like to thank Dr. Jacki Fitzpatrick, not only for her help and feedback on

this dissertation but for her mentoring during my tenure at Texas Tech University. I owe

much of my skill, love, and passion for teaching to her. She stretched me in ways I didn’t

think were possible.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention all of the other faculty members who helped

me along the way. Dr. Judy Fisher for helping with my first publication; Dr. Miriam

Mulsow for accepting me to the program and for her enthusiasm; Dr. Elisabeth Sharp for

opening my eyes to a greater perspective of thinking; Dr. Jason Whiting for one of my

favorite jobs at the TTREI and for all of his encouragement, mentoring, and, friendship;


iii

and Dr. Mary Moline at Loma Linda University for creating a love for couples therapy,

and for her love and concern for me as a person. I am also grateful to Dr. Steven Clark at

Utah Valley University for his support while I tried to balance a full-time faculty

position, my dissertation, and my family. I would also like to thank all my friends at

Texas Tech who saw me through the darkest and joyful points in my life: Gail Bentley,

Shara Jackson, and Sothy Eng. Finally, I am thankful to the Texas Tech HDFS

department and Texas Tech Graduate School for their financial assistance and support.

To my wife, Daria, the few words that I write here do not adequately describe the

love and support you provided. None of what I have accomplished would have been

possible without your unfailing dedication. Quite simply, I could not have asked for a

finer friend and companion. Elisabeth, Hannah, Leah, and Nicolas you bring balance to

my life and remind me, daily, of what is eternally important. I would also like to thank

my parents who were a constant support. I always knew they were proud of me. Finally, I

must thank my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ who provide the ultimate purpose in my

life and have given me all that I have and, without them, nothing would be possible.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT vii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Predictive Factors 3

Theoretical Context 7

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9

Theoretical Framework 9

Background on Social Cognition 12

Partner Enhancement 15

Predictors of Partner Enhancement 18

Family Background Characteristics 18

Parental Marital Quality 21

Family Quality 22

Parent-Child Relationships 23

Individuals’ Traits and Skills 25

Self-Esteem 25

Attachment Orientation 28

Relationship Self-Regulation Efforts and Strategies 30

Coming to Terms with One’s Family of Origin 32

Gender 34

Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval 35


v

Summary of Hypotheses and Research Question 38

CHAPTER 3: METHOD 40

Sample 40

Procedure 44

Measures 45

Partner Enhancement 46

Family Background Characteristics 47

Parental Marital Quality 47

Family Quality 47

Parent-Child Relationships 48

Individuals’ Traits and Skills 48

Self-Esteem 48

Attachment Orientation 48

Relationship Self-Regulation Efforts 49 and Strategies Coming to Terms with One’s Family of Origin 50

Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval 50

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 55

Model Testing 57

Findings 58

Family Background Characteristics 58 and Partner Enhancement

Individuals’ Own Traits and Skills 60 and Partner Enhancement

Contextual Factors and Partner Enhancement 63

Mediation Effects 64


vi

Supplementary Analyses 66

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 69

Discussion of Hypotheses and Research Question 70

Family Background Characteristics and Partner Enhancement 70

Hypothesis 1 70

Individuals’ Own Traits and Skills and Partner Enhancement 71

Hypothesis 2 71

Hypothesis 3 72

Hypothesis 4 75

Hypothesis 5 77

Hypothesis 6 77

Contextual Factors and Partner Enhancement 78

Hypothesis 7 78

Mediation Effects 79

Implications 80

Limitations and Future Directions for Research 82

Conclusion 87

REFERENCES 89


vii

ABSTRACT

The study of cognitions and partner perceptions in the context of romantic

relationships has seen much attention the last decade. How partners evaluate each other

relative to how they evaluate themselves on a given attribute has been shown to influence

relationships processes. When an individual (perceiver) evaluates his or her partner more

favorably than the original perceiver views him or herself, “partner enhancement” is said

to occur. This study sought to investigate the antecedents to partner enhancement in a

sample of 653 married couples. Family background characteristics, self-esteem,

attachment orientations, relationship self-regulation, and social network approval were

used to predict partner enhancement. Results revealed that family background

characteristics, anxious and avoidant attachment, self-esteem, and social network

approval were all associated with partner enhancement for both husbands and wives.

However, self-esteem and avoidant attachment had an opposite effect on partner

enhancement than was hypothesized. Suggestions for future research and practical

implications for relationship education and therapy are discussed.


viii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Sample Characteristics 42

2. Correlations for Study Variables 52

3. Latent Constructs, Indicators, and Standardized Factor Loadings 53

4. Mean Differences Between Husbands and Wives on Study Variables 64


ix

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Proposed Structural Equation Model 56

2. Structural Equation Model 59

3. Mediation 64

4. Actor-Partner Effects Structural Equation Model 68


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The investigation of cognitions and partner perceptions has been a major focus in

the study of close relationships (Fletcher, Overall, & Friesen, 2006). Considerable

interest has been paid to how social cognitions may affect the satisfaction and stability of

dating and marital relationships (e.g., Canary & Dainton, 2006; Maner & Miller, 2011;

McNulty, O’Mara, & Karney, 2008; Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, &

Verette, 2000). The way one views one’s partner can have a dramatic effect on

relationship outcomes (Niehuis, Lee, Reifman, Swenson, & Hunsaker, 2011). In general,

research suggests that when partners have a positive view of each other, there is a

positive influence on relational outcomes (e.g., Sacco & Phares, 2001). One form of

cognition that has been found to play a role in relationship outcomes is partner

enhancement. Partner enhancement assumes that individuals view their partner as more

competent, skilled, or capable on a given attribute (e.g., affability) than themselves.

Only two studies so far have examined partner enhancement. Busby, Holman, and

Niehuis (2009) created a five-fold typology based on how both individuals in a romantic

partnership perceived themselves in relation to one another with regard to their affable

personality. The researchers found that couples in which both individuals perceived their

partner as more affable than themselves (i.e., partner enhancement) experienced less

negative communication, held fewer expectations for change, and had higher scores on

relationship satisfaction and stability at Time 1. Further, enhancing one’s partner above

one’s self was also associated with relationship stability one year later (Time 2). In


2

contrast, couples in which both individuals perceived themselves as better than their mate

on affability experienced higher levels of negative communication and lower relationship

satisfaction and stability at Time 1.

Morry, Reich, and Kito (2010) looked at relationship types (i.e., friendship,

dating, and marriage), relationship quality, and partner enhancement. They found that

dating and married partners’ (but not friends’) who reported higher relationship quality

(i.e., meeting one’s needs, love for partner, and expectations) were more likely to

enhance their partner on positive traits (e.g., openness) but not on negative traits.

Researchers also measured partner enhancement for negative traits (e.g., moody). An

individual could enhance their partner if they rated the target (i.e., friend or partner)

lower on the scale than they did themselves. Results indicated that only cross-sex friends

were more likely to partner enhance than were dating or married partners.

Both studies found a significant positive association between partner

enhancement and relationship satisfaction/quality. Given this positive relationship and its

implication for long-term relationship quality and stability, it is important to understand

what might make some individuals more (or less) likely to enhance their spouse above

themselves. Previous studies have identified the influence of partner enhancement on

marital relationships (e.g., Busby et al., 2009; Morry et al., 2010). This study seeks

empirically to gain a better understanding of the “roots” of partner enhancement by

drawing on review article by Larson and Holman (1994) that identifies a variety of

factors (such as self-esteem, attachment, family background, and social network

approval) that might predict partner enhancement as well as additional variables that have

been identified since then.


3

Predictive Factors

Family background characteristics (e.g., relationship with parents) have been

found to be predictive of romantic relationship outcomes (Holman & Associates, 2001).

It is well researched that children develop relational cognitions and expectations as they

grow up and that these perceptions influence their attitudes, values, and behaviors (Day,

2010). Examining family background variables in relation to cognitions is important in

the study of romantic relationships because of the powerful effect cognitions have on

relational outcomes (Fincham & Beach, 1999). Past research on the link between family

background experiences and future marital outcomes has focused mainly on conflict,

divorce, aggression, satisfaction, and stability. It is important to extend and expand this

important content area to cognitions that partners have about one another. To the author’s

knowledge, no study has linked family background characteristics to partner

enhancement in marriage either directly or indirectly.

In addition to family background variables, individuals’ traits and skills have been

a staple in relationship research. Factors such as self-esteem, attachment, relationship

self-regulation (i.e., efforts and strategies individuals use to direct their thoughts, feelings,

and behaviors to improve their relationship), and coming to terms with family

background experiences have found their way into decades of research. Self-esteem has

been linked not only to a variety of marital dynamics, such as jealousy and infidelity

(e.g., Shackelford, 2001), but also to dating and married partner’s social perceptions. For

instance, Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (2000) found that dating and married partners with

low self-esteem dramatically underestimated how positively their partners perceived

them. Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) also found that partners with


4

low self-esteem seem to disparage their partners compared to those with high self-esteem.

Self-esteem, therefore, plays an important role in how individuals perceive themselves

and their partner. This study will seek to examine the relationship between self-esteem

and partner enhancement, thereby extending the literature in both of these areas.

Adult attachment has been a topic of interest in romantic relationships since

Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) article, which established the link between adult attachment

and romantic relationship functioning. In reference to attachment, Collins and Allard

(2001) state, “As individuals enter new relationships, they bring with them a history of

social experiences and a unique set of memories, beliefs, and expectations that guide how

they interact with others and how they construct their social world” (p. 60). They further

suggest that the cognitions that individuals create in the pre-adult stage of development

can specifically be influential in the context of romantic relationships. Much research on

attachment and marriage has focused on specific attachment orientations and their

association with marital outcomes. Only recently have studies begun to link attachment

orientations to specific cognitions such as attributions (e.g., Gallo & Smith, 2001) and

irrational relationship beliefs (e.g., Stackert & Bursik, 2002). To the author’s knowledge,

no study has examined how attachment orientations may affect how individuals view

their partner in relation to themselves. Thus, this study intends to fill in this gap in the

literature.

A vast body of research has shown that individuals who are able to direct their

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in order to accomplish a given goal (i.e., using self-

regulation strategies and efforts) enjoy a variety of personal benefits (e.g., Baumeister,

Heatherton, & Tice, 1994; Locke & Latham, 2002). Self-regulatory strategies and efforts


5

and how relational goals are obtained have recently found their way into research on

marriage. Self-regulation in relationships is the process of looking inward at one’s self

rather than placing blame on one’s partner for relationship deficiencies. Further,

relationship self-regulation (RSR) focuses on “how partners successfully change their

own behavior within the relationship rather than on the occurrence of specific

relationship behaviors” (Halford, Lizzio, Wilson, & Occhipinti, 2007, p. 187). Studies

have demonstrated that when individuals proactively put effort into and implement

strategies to improve themselves and thereby their relationship, they experience greater

relationship satisfaction (e.g., Halford, & Moore, 2002). Nevertheless, the literature on

RSR has predominantly focused on how one’s perceived relational efforts and strategies

affect stability and satisfaction. To the author’s knowledge, no research has examined

whether relationship self-regulation is associated with cognitions about one’s partner. It

could be that when partners perceive that they are putting forth efforts and strategies into

improving themselves and their relationship that this might affect their perception of their

partner.

Although there has been an abundant amount of research on the link between

family background dynamics and future relationship outcomes, few studies have looked

at an individual’s ability to overcome negative family experiences. Some clinical

perspectives posit that individuals who are able to grow from their past negative family

experiences are better able to approach life successfully (Bowen, 1978). Even though

past events cannot be altered, the impact they have on present goals, attitudes,

expectations, and behaviors can be changed (Holman & Associates, 2001). Martinson,

Holman, Larson, and Jackson (2010) found that when adult individuals come to terms


6

with their negative family of origin experiences, they tend to report more relationship

satisfaction compared to those who have not emotionally resolved or processed their

difficult family background experiences. If one is able to come to terms with one’s

negative family background experiences, this will likely also affect one’s cognitions

about one’s partner. This study, therefore, seeks to explore the potential link between

coming to terms with one’s family background and one’s perceptions of one’s partner in

relation to oneself.

Finally, contextual factors that surround relationships are also important to

consider when discussing relationships (Larson & Holman, 1994), particularly the degree

to which one’s social network (i.e., family and friends) approves of one’s marital

relationship. Generally speaking, the literature on social network approval has focused

primarily on premarital, rather than marital relationships. However, Brown, Orbuch, and

Maharaj (2010) note, “social networks can be a valuable resource and provide various

types of social capital to . . . married couples” (p. 320). In addition, Sprecher, Felmlee,

Orbuch and Willetts (2002) argue that social networks continue to influence relationship

processes even after the relationship enters into greater mutuality, such as marriage. The

majority of the literature has focused on how social network approval affects overall

relationship satisfaction/quality and stability, but has not paid much attention to the

specific mechanisms by which this effect may occur. However, some scholars have

suggested that because individuals compare their own opinions with those of friends and

family, married individuals may use those evaluations as a yardstick to measure their own

opinions of their spouse and relationship (Bryant & Conger, 1999). Therefore, this study


7

seeks to examine whether family and friends’ approval of one’s marital relationship

affects whether one perceives one’s spouse to be more affable than oneself.

Theoretical Context

Larson and Holman (1994), motivated by the high rate of marital dissolution in

the United States and its effects on society, set out to gain a better understanding of

factors during dating and courtship that might have an influence on subsequent marital

quality and stability. The researchers conducted a comprehensive review of the literature

dated from 1975 to 1992. Based on their findings, they put forth a conceptual model that

allows researchers to derive hypotheses about individual as well as simultaneous effects

of spouses’ family background characteristics, traits, skills, cognitions, and experiences,

as well as various contexts, on marital quality and stability. The present study identifies

variables from this ecosystemic model to examine whether family background

characteristics (perceived parental marital happiness, family-of-origin quality, and

quality of the parent-child relationship) predict partner enhancement directly and/or

indirectly via contextual factors (social-network approval of the relationship) and

individuals’ own traits and skills (self-esteem, attachment orientation, relationship self-

regulation efforts and strategies, and having come to terms with difficulties experienced

in the family of origin). Therefore, this study seeks to obtain a better understanding of the

construct of partner enhancement and its potential predictors. This study utilizes Larson

and Holman’s (1994) ecological model of relationship quality and stability as a source of

ideas, but the study is primarily empirical in nature.


8

To do this, the present study utilizes a cross-sectional subset (N = 653

heterosexual couples in their first marriage) of a larger, ongoing longitudinal study of

relationship development, sponsored by the RELATE Institute. The RELATE is a

multidimensional and comprehensive assessment instrument that assesses both spouses’

family background characteristics; traits, skills, cognitions; current relationship

functioning; and perceptions of approval of the marriage from family and friends. It

makes it possible, therefore, for the present study to seek answers to questions not

addressed by previous research, such as: Are individuals who believe that their parents

had a good marriage, who recall a positive parent-child relationship, and who believed

they grew up in a safe, appropriate, and happy family environment, more likely to

enhance their partner, or are such individuals more prone to perceive their partner as less

affable than themselves? Are individuals with an insecure attachment orientation or who

have not come to terms with difficulties they experienced in their family of origin, or who

suffer from low self-esteem more likely to overcome these “liabilities” in their marriages

by enhancing the partner above themselves, or are they more likely to perceive their

partner in a more negative light relative to themselves? Finally, are individuals whose

family and friends approve of their marriage more likely to enhance their partner’s

qualities above their own, or are such individuals more likely to enhance themselves

above their partner? By answering questions like these, the present study will hopefully

be of great value not only to researchers in the field of cognitions and relationships, but

also to relationship educators of both premarital and marital curricula, and to cognitive-

behavioral therapists helping distressed couples.


9

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section discusses Larson and Holman’s (1994) ecological model of

premarital predictors of marital quality and stability and then provides a background on

close relationship research with regard to social cognition in general and partner

enhancement in particular. Next, the empirical research regarding hypothesized

predictors of partner enhancement, namely family background characteristics,

individuals’ traits and skills, and contextual factors are examined. Each predictor section

concludes with a statement of hypothesis derived from the theoretical framework used

and the empirical literature reviewed. The chapter ends with a summary of the hypotheses

and one exploratory research question.

Theoretical Framework

Drawing upon 50 years of cross-sectional and longitudinal literature, Larson and

Holman (1994) developed an ecosystemic model of premarital predictors of marital

quality and stability. The authors argue that there are three major influences that predict

marital quality and stability: background and contextual factors, individual traits and

behaviors/skills, and couple interactional processes. According to their model, a couple is

“a developing system that can and does respond to influences from within and without

the system. The relationship develops at a number of levels, including the individual,

couple, and contextual levels. The relationship at all levels is dynamic rather than linear,

changing and evolving rather than static” (p. 229). Individuals are embedded within their

family of origin background and social context. These two areas (family background and

context) are assumed to shape each partner’s individual traits and behaviors/skills, such


10

as their attitudes, beliefs, and skills that they bring into their relationship. Couple’s

interactional processes also have an impact on the evolving couple. How similar or

different the partners are on (a) a variety of demographic variables, such as race, age,

intelligence; (b) with regard to attitudes, values, and beliefs; and (c) how well they know

each other, whether they cohabit, engage in premarital sex, and how well they

communicate with one another, all have an effect on how smoothly the couple’s

relationship evolves over time and how happy and stable the couple’s relationship is

likely going to be.

Larson and Holman’s (1994) model has helped advance the area of premarital

predictors of marital success and failure, by systematically summarizing and organizing a

plethora of research on variables associated with marital satisfaction, adjustment,

happiness, and stability, into a framework that allows researchers to formulate and test

hypotheses. However, their model, helpful as it is, is not explicit with regard to social

cognitions that result from other dynamics occurring between the partners. This “flaw”

can be attributed to the relative lack of research on social cognitions in the context of

predictors of marital success and failure during the 1980s and 1990s. Historically

speaking, before the 1980s, most researchers devoted their attention to demographic and

background variables, as well as to premarital attitudes pertaining to courtship and

marriage. A clear shift in focus occurred in the 1990s, however, toward the study of

dyadic factors. Parallel to the shift in attention from individual and background variables

to dynamic couple concepts, the earlier focus of identifying factors that facilitate the

selection of “the right” person has been supplemented by greater consideration given to

behavioral propensities that can be modified in order to help couples enhance the quality


11

of their relationships (Cate & Lloyd, 1992; Wamboldt & Reiss, 1989). However, as

Niehuis, Huston, and Rosenband (2006) have pointed out, cognitions and evaluations of

relationships, such as feelings of love and ambivalence, evaluations of the relationship,

such as satisfaction, and perceptions of the partner, had been woefully ignored. Thus,

Larson and Holman’s (1994) model focuses on homogeny, premarital events (e.g.,

cohabitation, premarital pregnancy and birth), and behavioral interaction in the category

labeled couple interactional processes, but does not list relationship cognitions within

this category as well (as Niehuis et al., 2006 would suggest researchers do). However,

had empirical research been done on dyadic perceptions by the time Larson and Holman

developed their model, these authors would in all likelihood have included these as part

of couple interactional processes. With this in mind, then, Larson and Holman’s (1994)

model would suggest the following associations:

• Family background characteristics, such as individuals’ perceptions of their

parents’ marital quality, family quality, and the quality of the parent-child

relationship should have a subsequent effect on couple interactional processes,

including partners’ perceptions of one another;

• individuals’ own traits and behaviors/skills that they bring into relationships

should be associated with couple processes, such as partner enhancement; and

• “other ecosystems around the individual… or the circumstances surrounding the

courtship” (p. 231), such as social network approval, should affect couple

processes, such as individuals’ social cognitions about their partner.

Based on variables and ideas from Larson and Holman’s (1994) ecosystemic

model, the present study examines whether and how selected factors embedded within


12

the family background (e.g., perception of parents’ marital quality, parent-child

relationship, family environment), within individual traits and behaviors (e.g., self-

esteem, attachment orientation) and within the social context (e.g., social network

approval) predict a particular form of social cognition: partner enhancement.

Background on Social Cognition

Research on the topic of marriage has seen a great increase in the last 10 years

(Fincham & Beach, 2010). This expanded work has spanned several disciplines and

topics such as psychological factors, sociodemographics, parenting, and physical and

mental health. However, much of the marital research has focused on predictive factors

of divorce (e.g., Amato & Rogers, 1997; Gottman & Levenson, 2002; Huston, Niehuis, &

Smith, 2001), such as conflict (e.g., Gottman & Driver, 2005) or the impact of stress on

marriage (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2007; Story & Bradbury, 2004). Nevertheless, research on

the impact of cognitions is important in understanding not only the demise of

relationships but how relationships flourish and the mechanisms at work (Maner &

Miller, 2011).

Evidence has shown that the modal course of relationship development

experiences can often lead to a “cognitive shift” for partners wherein the dramatic

upswing of positive feelings drifts into feelings of disenchantment (e.g., Karney,

McNulty, & Bradbury, 2004; Niehuis et al., 2011). Acitelli (2001) argued that

relationships can be maintained simply by cognitively attending to them. Couple

therapists often encourage partners to use selective attention, such as ignoring negative

behavior and focusing on positive behavior (e.g., Epstein & Baucom, 2002). Other forms

of cognitive maintenance involve forgiving one’s partner for transgressions (e.g.,


13

Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004) or reframing the wrongdoing via reformulating,

minimizing, or justifying the transgression within the context of the relationship (Roloff

& Cloven, 1994).

However, perceptions and interpretations of salient flaws in one’s partner

inevitably emerge and may engender doubts. These perceptions have the ability to

dramatically influence the ebb and flow of the future satisfaction and stability of the

relationship. Yet relationships function and flourish every day, which begs the question

of how this juxtaposition of hope and uncertainty seems possible.

It has been well documented that humans believe what they want or wish to

believe, even when faced with evidence that would directly contradict their beliefs (Jost,

Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2007). Research has shown that individuals are more likely to

attend to information that confirms their original impressions, rather than seeking

information that would run contradictory to their original assumptions (Nickerson, 1998).

Therefore, it is human nature for people to engage in a form of confirmatory bias, and

such cognitions can translate into romantic relationships. This is not a new concept as

Waller (1937) hypothesized that the idealization of one’s partner is an essential element

in the development of romantic relationships. This is consistent with the more modern

theory of social constructivism wherein individuals selectively piece together their reality

based on their cognitive perspectives.

Kunda (1990) postulated that when individuals are faced with a decision or the

need to make a judgment, the judgment is often grounded in their desired goals and

motives or “directional goals,” but also in some evidence. People do not haphazardly

come to conclusions merely to come to a conclusion; rather, grounded in their desired


14

goal, they will pull from memory evidence that supports their judgment and unknowingly

create an “illusion of objectivity” (p. 483). The same person who came to a conclusion

based on their directional goals and cognitive evidence might, in a different situation,

with different directional goals, draw from other evidence to come to an entirely different

conclusion based on the current context and directional goal. As Kunda (1990) suggests,

“people will come to believe what they want to believe only to the extent that reason

permits” and will sometimes be forced to concede their conclusions when confronted

with strong counter arguments (p. 483).

Relationship scholar Sandra Murray has developed a program of research based

on how partners perceive each other’s virtues and vices. She proposes that individuals

construct stories about their partners that diminish feelings of uncertainty concerning the

relationship. This cognitive display of optimism can propel partners to weave “stories

that depict potential faults or imperfection in the partners in the best possible light”

(Murray & Holmes, 1993, p. 707) and embellish a partner’s virtues and diminish their

faults (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a).

This relationship-affirming narrative is most noticeable during the early stages of

relationships as partners attend to the positive qualities of their new interest (Holmes &

Boon, 1990; Murray & Holmes, 1993). Inevitably, as time passes, interdependence

between partners increases, which gives way to a bevy of novel experiences across

broader and more varied domains. These new encounters will more than likely shed light

on previously unseen or unattended to negative attributes of the partner, sowing seeds of

doubt. Before partners abandon the relationship due to unmet expectations, Murray and

Holmes (1993) argue that the heightened commitment that comes with duration might


15

create reformulated positive illusions. These new positive illusions can then traverse the

doubt and disappointment and coincide with the original assumptions of their partner’s

affirming disposition. Despite new negative information, partners restructure their stories

to quell “uncertainty, essentially allowing individuals to commit to their partners without

fear or reservations” (Murray & Holmes, 1993, p. 708). In essence, partners reframe and

minimize their partners’ faults in the backdrop of surrounding virtues and create a mosaic

portrait of meaning and significance of the virtue or vice.

On the outset, this cognitive reframing might sound detrimental to the overall,

long-term satisfaction of the relationship; research tells a different story, however.

Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996b) proposed that not only is this a common

characteristic in relationships but a romantic necessity, essential to happiness. They argue

that the cognitive creation of idealized notions of the partner may actually insulate the

relationship from disappointment and disillusionment. In their study of over 121 dating

partners, Murray et al. (1996b) found that idealized images of their significant other

predicted stability and satisfaction over one year. Rather than creating a false sense of

hope, the authors argued, these idealized positive illusions may have engendered a

stronger sense of confidence in the relationship. In fact, women in the study who felt they

better understood their partners’ true selves were found to be the least happy. This may

suggest that when partners do have an accurate, less illusionary perception of their

partner’s frailties they might have less confidence in the stability of the relationship.

Partner Enhancement

Positive illusions are only one form of social cognition. A similar, yet distinctly

different one, is partner enhancement. Partner enhancement assumes that individuals


16

view their partner as more competent, skilled, or capable on a given attribute (e.g.,

agreeableness) than themselves. Two recent studies have looked closely at how partner

enhancement operates in romantic relationships. Morry et al. (2010) compared cross-sex

friendships, dating partners, and married partners on relationship quality (e.g., how one’s

partner meets one’s needs, expectations, and love for partner) and its effect on partner

enhancement. For dating and married partners, as relationship quality increase so did

partner enhancing cognitions on positive traits. This was not true for cross-sex

friendships. Compared to married and dating respondents, cross-sex friends were more

likely to partner enhance on negative traits. Although these findings are intriguing and

add to the literature on partner enhancement, one limitation to Morry et al.’s (2010) study

was that they only assessed one individual in the romantic partnerships. Busby et al.

(2009) assessed both partners’ perception of themselves and their partner the other using

a general measure of positive personality traits that originated from the Big Five model

used often in the field. Using the traits of openness and agreeableness, the authors created

the variable affability to measure partner enhancement. Their objectives were twofold:

(1) to explicate groups based on premarital and married couples’ patterns of partner

enhancement, and (2) to explore how partner ratings influenced relationship outcomes:

communication, expectations for change, satisfaction, and stability.

Busby and colleagues (2009) formed five partner-enhancement couple types—

partner-enhancing, same, self-enhancing, mixed self-enhancing, and mixed partner-

enhancing. Partner-enhancing couples were those in which both members of the couple

rated each other higher than they rated themselves. When both members of the dyad rated

themselves the same (i.e., neither self- nor partner-enhancing), they were categorized as


17

same couples. When both individuals rated themselves higher than the other, they were

categorized as self-enhancing couples. Regardless of gender, when one member of the

partnership rated himself or herself higher than the other and their partner rated himself

or herself the same or lower, they were categorized as mixed self-enhancing couples.

Finally, when one person rated the partner higher, regardless of gender, and the other

person rated himself or herself as the same, they were categorized as mixed partner-

enhancing couples.

The authors found that even after controlling for relationship length, couples in

which both partners perceived themselves as more affable than their partner experienced

lower relationship satisfaction and stability and higher levels of negative communication.

They were also more likely to want their partner to change. On the other hand, couples in

which both partners enhanced each other above themselves (i.e., partner enhancement)

experienced the highest scores on relationship satisfaction and stability, as well as lower

levels of negative communication and expectations for change. Further, the study

demonstrated the influence of partner enhancement on couples’ relationship stability

approximately one year later. The authors conclude that “relationships that do not possess

this partner-enhancing quality are vulnerable to serious problems” (p. 460). Partners who

fail to engage in partner enhancement may missing an important “reinforcing relationship

structure” that can lead to blame, lack of responsibility for problems, and conflict (Busby

et al., 2009). Taken together, these two studies lend support for the idea that identifying

potential predictors of partner enhancement is important to the study of martial

relationships to increase the likelihood of positive relationship outcomes such as stability

and satisfaction.


18

Predictors of Partner Enhancement

In this section, potential predictors of partner enhancement will be reviewed. The

predictors are categorized according to Larson and Homan’s (1994) ecosystemic levels:

family background characteristics (parental marital quality, parent-child relationship, and

family quality), individual traits and skills (self-esteem, attachment orientation,

relationship self-regulation, coming to terms), and social context (social network

approval from family and friends).

Family Background Characteristics

The field of social cognition assumes that an individual’s construction of reality is

based on a conglomeration of his or her experiences and associations with family,

friends, and social environments (Honeycutt & Cantrill, 2001). More specifically, most

scholars agree that an individual’s family of origin is the genesis from which most of the

developing human’s socialization is born (e.g., Busby, Gardner, & Taniguchi, 2005; Day,

2010); thus the family crucible becomes a fertile ground wherein individuals build mental

representations, process relationships, and act upon their natural urge to initiate and form

close associations with others (Fletcher et al., 2006).

Intergenerational transmission is the process of transmitting traditions, behaviors,

attitudes, beliefs, and communication styles from one generation to the next (Day, 2010).

A number of theorists have examined intergenerational transmission and socialization

processes within the family context (e.g., Bowen, 1978; Busby et al., 2005; Collins &

Read, 1990; Hoopes, 1987). Although many factors such as genetics, school, peers, and

church play a role in the social development of children, the family of origin usually


19

plays a much greater part in later development into adulthood (Busby et al., 2005;

although for a contrasting view, see Harris, 1998).

The assumption of intergenerational transmission is supported by abundant

empirical research on such factors as marital commitment (e.g., Amato & DeBoer, 2001),

marital violence (e.g., Wareham, Boots, & Chavez, 2009), premarital relationship quality

(e.g., Jacquet & Surra, 2001; Larson, Taggart-Reedy, & Wilson, 2001), volunteering

(e.g., Mustillo, Wilson, & Lynch, 2004), marital attitudes and readiness (e.g., Larson,

Benson, Wilson, & Medora, 1998), emotional dysregulation (e.g., Kim, Pears, Capaldi, &

Owen, 2009), divorce and marital quality (e.g., Amato, 1996), emotional expression (e.g.,

Smith & Ng, 2009), rituals (e.g., Homer, Freeman, Zabriskie, & Eggett, 2007),

relationship skills and commitment (e.g., Amato & Rogers, 1997), and parenting (e.g.,

Chen & Kaplan, 2001). What seem to be less documented in the literature are the effects

of family background on romantic partners’ cognitions toward their mate.

There are a number of family process and intergenerational theories in the field of

family studies. Bowen’s intergenerational family theory posits that relational patterns are

often replicated and reproduced from generation to generation (Bowen, 1978). It goes

beyond the view that individual’s psychological development is produced in isolation but

rather includes legacies from preceding generations, as well as significant interactions

with one’s nuclear family and family of origin (Bowen, 1978; Day, 2010). Behaviors are

reinforced or shaped by how social models are rewarded or not rewarded for their

behaviors (Yu & Adler-Baeder, 2007). Studying the association between family-of-origin

conflict interactions and future marital interactions and relationship adjustment, Whitton,

Waldinger, Schulz, Allen, Crowell, and Hauser, (2008) found that levels of hostility and


20

positive engagement expressed by parents were linked to later levels of hostility and

positive engagement of adult children and their spouses.

According to Busby and colleagues (2005), one of the preeminent duties of the

family is to help children integrate into adult life and relationships successfully. Studies

have shown that by looking at an individual’s family background dynamics such as the

perception of his or her parent’s marriage, parent-child relationship, and overall family

experiences, predictions can be made about the individual’s future relationship dynamics,

patterns, and cognitions (Holman & Associates, 2001). Research in the area of family

background influences on later relationship functioning suggests that children who grow

up in families that are cold, unsupportive, and neglectful may create a “cascade effect”

that begins early and continues to follow the path into adolescence and young adulthood,

and may subsequently affect romantic relationship outcomes (Gardner, Busby, &

Brimhall, 2007; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002).

Experiences gained within the family and in close associations with others create

cognitive constructs, or what some scholars term as “relationship schemas” (Baldwin,

1992; Planalp & Rivers, 1996). Relationship schemas are “ingrained beliefs of family

members about individual and family function . . . [and] are a significant part of what

constitutes the fabric of the family functioning” (Dattilio, 2005, p. 15). They are created

initially from past experiences, and then guide future interpretations of how the

experience fits within the self and what is attributed to the partner Holmes (2002).

Thus, whether through mental models, learning or intergenerational transmission,

family-of-origin influences should have an impact on various aspects of romantic

relationships, including social cognitions. The following variables (parental marital


21

quality, family atmosphere, and parent-child relationships) capture important

characteristic of a person’s family background (Busby, Gardener, & Taniguchi, 2005;

Holman & Associates, 2001; Kim et al., 2009) and, via one or more of the mechanisms

outlined above, ought to have an impact on spouses’ perceptions of one another.

Parental Marital Quality. Few areas of family research have received as much

attention as the link between parental divorce and its impact on the adult children’s own

relationships (Kim et al., 2009). Less attention has been paid to the quality of the parents’

marriage and its influence on the child’s adult romantic relationships (Amato &

Sobolewski, 2001). Much of children’s beliefs and attitudes about marriage are shaped by

their observations of parental conflict and patterns of interaction they viewed while

growing up (Hair, Anderson-Moore, Hadley, Kaye, Day, & Orthner, 2009). Children

build a repertoire of schemas and behaviors based on the observations of their parents in

their marital interaction processes (Bandura, 1977). These early pictures create cognitive

images of “how marriage practice might be or seems to be done, for better or worse”

(Marks, 1986, p. 13). However, few studies have attempted to examine the effects

parental marital quality may have on future cognitions about a romantic or marital

partner.

Parental marital quality is defined here as adult children’s perception of their

parents’ happiness in the marriage. Although the size of this association varies depending

on the study, research has clearly established that there is a positive association between

the marital quality of adult children’s parents and the quality of children’s own future

unions (Hair et al., 2009; Larson & Holman, 1994; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Holman &

Associates, 2001). Adults who remember their parents as having a poor marital


22

relationship tend to report more psychological and marital problems in their own lives

(e.g., Amato & Sobolewski, 2001). Further, Meredith and Holman (2001) found that

those who were the most satisfied in their marriage 6 years after the wedding perceived

their own parents’ marriage to be happier.

The predominant view is that by witnessing or experiencing parental discord,

children acquire maladaptive interpersonal repertoires (Story, Karney, Lawrence, &

Bradbury, 2004). Amato (1996) postulated that when the parental marriage is disrupted,

the socialization process inherent in the family of origin continues to teach children not

only about how to communicate but also about cognitive features such as trust and

appraisals of the belief in marriage.

In addition to the evidence that poor parental marital quality impacts the romantic

relationships of adult children, there is also some evidence that poor parental marital

quality might impact cognitions in later offspring marriages (e.g., Gardener, Busby, Burr,

& Lyon, 2011). Attitudes can be shaped by children’s perceptions of parental marital

quality. Kapinus (2005) found in a sample of young adults, that those who witnessed

long-term parental conflict were more likely to believe that their parents should have

divorced and had more tolerant views of divorce as a reasonable option if their marriage

was conflictual. Gardner et al. (2011) found that when partners perceived poor marital

relations in their family of origin, this affected their attributions about their partner’s

communication as well as the perceived kindness of the partner.

Family Quality. Another important glimpse into people’s perceptions of their

family of origin experiences is their perception of how supportive, safe, and loving their

family environment was. Healthy and supportive home environments create day-to-day


23

examples on which young adults can model their own intimate partnerships (Busby et al.,

2005), as well as shape important beliefs and attitudes about self, others, and

relationships, including young adult relationships outside the family (Topham, Larson, &

Holman, 2005). Research supports this notion. For instance, Busby et al. (2005) found

that young adults’ perceived family of origin experiences were significantly related to

self-esteem, attitudes about relationships, and future relationship satisfaction. Similarly,

Bertoni and Bodenmann (2010) found among 226 satisfied and dissatisfied European

couples that the quality of the relationship with one’s own family of origin was a

discriminating factor between the two groups. Studies such as these show the potential

power of family background influences on future marital outcomes.

Although the role of families in the reproduction of values, attitudes, and

behaviors across generation has been thoroughly researched, the part they play in the

reproduction of other kinds of more positive capital has received less attention. It stands

to reason that young adults who are reared in perceived emotionally supportive and safe

environments are better able to be emotionally and cognitively supportive of their

spouses and may engage in partner-enhancing practices.

Parent-Child Relationships. Much of a child’s socialization comes from the

parent-child relationship. The parent-child relationship is defined here as the individual’s

perception of the overall relationship they had with their parents, including feeling safe to

share feelings, participation in enjoyable activities, and physical affection. The parent-

child relationship can set the stage for extra-familial interpersonal relationships by

providing a powerful blueprint or model of interaction for one’s future relationships with

others. Relatively few studies have examined how the quality of the parent-child


24

relationship affects adult children’s cognitions about their romantic or marital partner.

Collins and Read (1990) stated, “the nature and quality of one’s close relationships in

adulthood are strongly influenced by affective events that took place in childhood,

particularly within the child-caretaker relationship” (p. 644). Further, cognitive schemas,

such as working models, have been found to be quite predictive of future relationship

quality (e.g., Cohn, Silver, Cowan, Cowan, & Pearson, 1992).

Unhealthy or difficult family background experiences may create negative

residuals on future relationships (e.g., Halford & Moore, 2002; Larson et al., 1998;

Stanley, 2001). Indeed, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have established a link

between supportive and positive interactions between parents and children and future

supportive and less hostile behaviors in the romantic relationships of adult children (e.g.,

Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). Participants who reported positive working models

of loving relationships with parents were more trusting of others, more likely to seek

comfort from their romantic partners during times of distress, and more likely to “open

up” to them (Black & Schutte, 2006). Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, and Conger (2005) also

found in their longitudinal study that the perceived quality of parenting predicted

subsequent behavior in romantic relationships, even after individual differences were

taken into account. Perren, Von Wyl, Burgin, Simoni, and Von Klitzing (2005) found in

their 1-year longitudinal study of 62 Swiss couples at pre- and post-birth that mothers

who recollected a positive home environment with parents reported no higher levels of

conflict at post-birth. These couples also exhibited a greater capacity to communicate

with their spouse compared to those who had negative family of origin experiences.

Conger et al. (2000) studied the reports of 193 young adults with regard to the quality of


25

nurturing and parenting they felt they received in 7th grade. The researchers found that

those young adults who reported more nurturing and involved parenting as 7th graders

also reported warmer, more supportive and less hostile romantic relationships 11 years

later. Taken together then, the literature on parents’ marital quality, family quality, and

the quality of the parent-child relationship reviewed in this section of family background

characteristics suggests that the perception of parents’ marital quality, family quality, and

the quality of the parent-child relationship may have an impact on individuals’

perceptions of their relationship partner. Thus,

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The better (or more positive) individuals’ perceptions of

parents’ marital quality, family quality, and the quality of the parent-child relationship,

the more likely individuals will enhance their partner.

Individuals’ Traits and Skills

Self-Esteem. According to Karney and Bradbury (1995), Larson and Holman

(1994), and Niehuis, Huston, and Rosenband (2006) and their models of predictors of

marital quality and stability, partners bring a variety of characteristics and experiences

into the marital relationship, such as family background experiences, personality traits,

and attitudes. The concept of self-esteem has long been a topic of great interest in the

field of psychology and, perhaps, one of the oldest and longest sustained topics of interest

(Mruk, 2006). Although scholars and theorists have differed on a myriad of ways to

operationalize, measure, and define self-esteem, it is generally accepted that self-esteem

refers to a person’s evaluation of or attitude toward him- or herself (Baumeister,

Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).


26

Studies on self-esteem have found it to be associated with a variety of

psychological issues. For instance, people with low self-esteem tend to be more self-

conscious, are less likely to take many risks, and often suffer from general depression,

pessimism, and loneliness (Mruk, 2006). People with high self-esteem, on the other hand,

have been found to be more autonomous and better able to deal with stress and to avoid

anxiety (Baumeister et al., 2003). They are also more confident that their friendly

overtures toward others will be reciprocated (Baldwin & Keelan, 1999). Overall, the

social lives of people with high self-esteem are far better, richer, and more satisfying than

the lives of people with low self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 2003).

People generally seek to avoid rejection and gain acceptance from those around

them (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 2010). The regard one receives from others

clearly impacts subsequent self-evaluations (Koch & Shepperd, 2008; Lemay &

Ashmore, 2006). What individuals think of themselves seems to be dependent, at least in

part, on the quality of their connections with others. Self-evaluations of self-esteem, in

turn, affect ensuing interactions with individuals or partners, who can provide further

evidence of interpersonal worth.

There seems to be no other adult relationship in which the possibility of rejection

or acceptance is more primed than within the context of romantic relationships (Murray

et al., 2002). Bellavia and Murray (2003) discovered in their study of 81 college students

in dating relationships that individuals with low self-esteem were more likely to overreact

to their partners’ negative moods, feel more rejected, and experience more hurt and

anger, than those with higher self-esteem. People who doubt themselves tend to also

doubt their intimate partners, and are typically less secure in their relationships than are


27

people with higher self-esteem (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Further, individuals

with more negative views of themselves tended to perceive their romantic partner in a

less than positive light (Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bellavia, & Rose, 2001). In contrast,

individuals with more positive perceptions of themselves tended to view their partners in

a more positive way. Murray et al. (2000) argue that for low self-esteem partners,

projection of self seems to be the norm. In other words, rather than gaining an accurate

perception of their partner’s love and admiration, low self-esteem partners may

incorrectly assume their partners see them the same way they see themselves. As a result,

this negative projection incites them to find fault in their partners or distance themselves

from their partners, choosing isolation over rejection. People are only likely to take the

psychological risk of feeling attached to and positive about their partners when they

believe their partner’s acceptance and love are secure (Murray et al., 2002).

Bellavia and Murray (2003) argue that partners with low self-esteem might

engage in an approach-avoidance cycle, wherein they desire acceptance on the one hand,

but fear rejection on the other hand, which then overrides their initial desire to accept

affirmation from their partner. This may create a pattern in which the low self-esteem

partner engages in hypothesis-testing interactions and seeks out incidents to confirm

his/her low self-esteem.

Low self-esteem individuals who believe their partners perceive shortcomings in

them tend to derogate their partners and withdraw (Murray et al., 2002). In contrast, high

self-esteem partners are generally less sensitive to rejection and able to uphold their

positive views of their partners. This finding suggests that self-esteem may be positively

related to partner enhancement. Thus,


28

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Greater self-esteem will be associated with more partner

enhancement.

Attachment Orientation. Much of what makes up a person’s personality, well-

being, and satisfaction with relationships is affected by their histories and experiences.

For decades, developmental researchers have known there is an inextricable link between

infants and their primary caregiver. Further, humans have a natural tendency to form and

keep close bonds with prominent figures in their life (Johnson, 2004). Primarily

conceived as a general personality development theory, Bowlby’s (1973) attachment

theory furthered the field of social cognition as he conceptualized mental representations

or what he called “internal working models.” Primary caregivers and other influential

individuals help developing children mold and form expectations toward social and

perhaps (future) romantic interactions. These working models are assumed to carry on,

often automatically and unconsciously, from the “cradle to the grave” and have been

found to be predictive of future romantic relationship satisfaction and outcomes (e.g.,

Collins, Ford, Guichard, & Allard, 2006; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Adult attachment

theory assumes that adults enter relationships with a unique set of experiences and

memories that make up their expectations of new relationships with others. Relationship

satisfaction, therefore, is contingent upon the basic needs of comfort and care being met

(Hazan & Shaver, 1994) and on how closely individuals find their relationships to match

their expectations. Further, the success of the romantic relationship rests on whether each

partner can trust that those needs will be accommodated (Johnson, 2004).

The area of adult attachment and romantic love took significant flight when

similar styles of attachment in infancy could also be observed among adults (Thompson,


29

1999) and within romantic relationships (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). In their pioneering

study, Hazan and Shaver (1987) found the same prominent attachment styles, namely,

secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent, to be prevalent in adulthood in roughly the

same proportions to those previously found in toddlers. Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) study

and those of other researchers (e.g., Gallo & Smith, 2001; Stackert & Bursick, 2002) are

important with regard to partner enhancement as they deal with cognitions about a

committed relationship. Hazen and Shaver (1987) remarked that “people with different

attachment orientations entertain different beliefs about the course of romantic love, the

availability and trustworthiness of love partners, and their own love-worthiness” (p. 521).

In addition to the above three-category framework favored by some, other adult-

attachment researchers define four prototypic attachment styles (secure, preoccupied,

dismissing, fearful), which are derived from two underlying dimensions: anxiety and

avoidance. The anxiety dimension generally refers to one’s sense of worth and perception

of other’s acceptance and is believed to represent the positive or negative nature of one’s

model of self. The avoidance dimension refers to the degree to which one approaches or

avoids intimacy and interdependence with others, and this dimension represents the

positive or negative nature of one’s model of others. Adults are considered securely

attached if they “are low in both attachment-related anxiety and avoidance; . . .

comfortable with intimacy, willing to rely on others for support, and confident that they

are valued by others” (Collins & Allard, 2001, p. 62).

When it comes to attachment orientations and cognitions in marriage, Crowell,

Treboux, and Waters (2002) found that respondents who were classified as more secure

also reported more positive feelings about their partner and relationship (greater


30

happiness and greater feelings of intimacy, passion, and dedication) as opposed to

insecure individuals. In addition, Stackert and Bursik (2002) found that insecurely

attached individuals were more likely to endorse relationship-specific irrational beliefs

than those with secure adult attachment styles. Moreover, Collins (1996) examined

attachment style differences when participants were given negative partner behavior

scenarios (e.g., “imagine that your partner didn’t comfort you when you were feeling

down”). Partners were asked to provide explanations (attributions) for their partners’

behavior. Results showed that, on average, securely attached adults provided more benign

and more relationship-enhancing attributions than insecurely attached adults. They also

had more confidence in their partner’s love and in their partner’s ability to be emotionally

responsive. Their insecure counterparts explained events in ways that expressed less

confidence in their partner’s love, less trust, as well as the belief that their partner was

purposely rejecting relationship closeness. Murray and colleagues’ (2000) work moreover

shows that individuals are less likely to engage in positive illusions when they feel more

insecure in their relationship and less loved by their partner. Therefore,

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The more individuals are avoidant or anxiously attached, the

less likely they are to enhance their partner. Conversely, the more individuals are

securely attached, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.

Relationship Self-Regulation Efforts and Strategies. Self-regulation is the

process by which individuals are able to engage in self-monitoring, adjust undesirable

behavior, and implement a given goal (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Vohs and Baumeister

(2004) explicitly define self-regulation as “the exercise of control over oneself, especially

with bringing the self into line with preferred standards . . . [Any] efforts by the human


31

self to alter any of its own inner state or responses . . . [such as] thoughts, emotions,

impulses or appetites, and task performances” (p. 2). The ability to self-regulate has been

linked to success in school, work, and overall positive mental health (Baumeister &

Vohs, 2007). Nevertheless, self-regulation has received little attention in the area of

romantic relationships, with the exception of a few notable studies (e.g., Halford,

Sanders, & Behrens, 1994; Wilson, Charker, Lizzio, Halford, & Kimlin, 2005).

Halford et al., (1994) were among the first to apply self-regulation to romantic

relationships and termed it relationship self-regulation. Relationship self-regulation

(RSR) refers to the extent to which each partner works at sustaining the relationship

(Wilson et al., 2005). Wilson et al. (2005) conceptualized it as partners self-appraising,

setting goals, and implementing change in relationship to themselves and their romantic

dyadic context. This process involves being able to describe one’s behavioral influence

on relationship satisfaction, setting specific goals to change deleterious behavior, and

taking intentional actions to carry out set goals (Halford, Lizzio, Wilson, & Occhipinti,

2007). Central to relationship self-regulation is the notion that individuals are

independent and agentic and can regulate their own behavior. Further, relationship self-

regulation distinctly involves the appraisal of behavior and actionable steps taken to

change negative behavior or increase positive behavior. Halford et al. (2007) found that

among couples who rated low on RSR after four years of marriage, they also had

relationships that were designated as distressed.

Canary and Dainton (2006) underscore the importance of cognitive maintenance

of relationships and that relationships can be kept up simply by thinking or attending to

them (Acitelli, 2001). One cognitive strategy to maintain romantic relationships is to use


32

benevolent cognitions. Benevolent cognitions can be defined as “interpreting negative

events in ways that allow each partner to maintain positive views of the relationship and

of each other” (McNulty et al., 2008, p. 631). McNulty and colleagues (2008) found that

among healthy couples, benevolent cognitions were helpful in maintaining satisfaction

but were not helpful in couples who were distressed; in fact, they potentially made the

relationship worse.

To the author’s knowledge, no studies have examined how one cognitive strategy,

such as RSR, may be related to other cognitive strategies, such as benevolent cognitions

or partner enhancement (the latter could be argued to be a form of benevolent cognition).

It seems conceivable, however, that individuals who work hard to improve their

relationship by working on themselves may also be motivated to perceive their partner in

a benevolent fashion, namely by viewing the partner as having a more positive

personality than they think they have themselves. Therefore,

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The more individuals engage in relationship self-regulation,

the more they will engage in partner enhancement.

Coming to Terms with One’s Family of Origin. The structure of the family and

family dynamics are ever changing in the modern world. It is fair to say that family-of-

origin experiences can have a deleterious or positive impact on future relationship

satisfaction. However, not all individuals from families with less than ideal experiences

go on to form negative believes about relationships or have poor relationships. Rather

than allow the past to affect their future, some people choose to redirect their future

family heritage toward a healthier family environment. Broderick (1988) introduced the

idea of becoming a “transitional character”, wherein an individual, through commitment


33

and determination, takes intentional steps to change the patterns of dysfunction and

subsequently comes to terms with his or her past, thereby forging new patterns of

functionality and emotional health.

Although specific events and processes of one’s family of origin are unalterable

and static, the way one cognitively works through the past is changeable (Framo, 1992).

From a clinical perspective, addressing the meanings one ascribes to past familial

experiences can allow clients to make sense of past events and dynamics, which can be

“restoried” to impact current goals, attitudes, expectations, and behaviors in relationships

(Holman & Associates, 2001). There is strong evidence for the continuity of early

developmental experiences from infancy to adulthood (e.g., Waters, Merrick, Treboux,

Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000) but scholars and clinicians also concur that early cognitive

representations are “open to revision” (Crowell, Treboux, Gao, Fyffe, Pan, & Waters,

2002) and often necessary for intervention (Stahmann, 2000). Indeed, a recent study

Martinson et al. (2010) found that among 6,000 couples who completed a relationship

assessment questionnaire, both men and women who reported unhealthy family-of-origin

experiences but had “come to terms” with their experiences, reported higher current

relationship satisfaction than those who reported they had not “come to terms” with their

family upbringing.

Coming to terms, then, involves giving new interpretation to and resolution of

past events (Martinson, 2006). For instance, adults may reexamine their family of origin

experiences and begin to understand why their parents acted the way they did and why

they made the choices they made (Burr & Klein, 1994). Although adult children may not

agree with the behavior or the choices of their parents, as adults they may be able to


34

understand and forgive their parents in a way that they were not able to understand and

forgive as a child (Hill, 2001; Stoop, 2011). This may allow them to recognize that

perceptions they have had as children of themselves and others were likely reflections of

their interpretation of past events. Therefore, perceptions they have as adults of

themselves and others (including their relationship partner) should not be based on these

past interpretations but based on current interpretations (Slife & Williams, 1995; Holman

& Associates, 2001). An adult, therefore, who has “come to terms”, should be able to

have mental models of themselves and their partner that are more rooted in the “here and

now” than the distorted past (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). These mental models would also

be more likely positive, focusing on healthier relationships, and making protection of the

self less necessary and allowing the person to see their partner in an enhanced fashion.

Therefore,

Hypothesis 5 (H5): The more individuals have come to terms with their family of

origin experiences, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.

Gender. Although the popular press thrives on the suggestion that men and

women are, metaphorically, from different planets, social science has combatted that idea

and shown that many of the differences between men and women are indeed there, but

exaggerated. Nevertheless, scholars have shown that when it comes to cognitions such as

attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Gallo & Smith, 2001), differences become more salient.

Gender is a common variable in marital and relationship studies (e.g., Honeycutt

& Cantrill, 2001). Gender can either be a “main-effect” focus of comparison (i.e., where

the primary analysis compares men’s and women’s means on some other variable) or a

moderator (e.g., if social support had a stronger association with depression in women


35

than in men). In their overview of premarital predictors of marital happiness, Larson and

Holman (1994) conclude: “Clearly, the roles of gender in making and breaking marital

relationships may be important, but it is not yet fully understood” (p. 231), especially

with regard to cognitions.

To my knowledge, only one study has examined differences between men and

women with regard to their desire to have partners who were better than themselves.

Clark, Dover, Geher, and Presson (2005) found that when participants were asked to rate

themselves relative to their same-sex peers and rate what their opposite-sex peers want in

a desired mate on 19 personal attributes or traits that might be of interest in mate

selection (e.g., honesty, attractiveness), both men and women desired partners who were

better than themselves on the 19 traits. However, women desired men to be better than

themselves on 15 of 19 traits, whereas men only desired their potential mate to be better

on five traits. The authors surmised that women may be more likely to view their male

counterpart as better than themselves to justify their “good” partner selection. Murray and

Holmes (1997), too, found that women depicted their dating partner or spouse more

virtuously (relative to an “average partner”) than men did. Therefore,

Hypothesis 6 (H6): There will be a significant difference between men’s and

women’s partner enhancement.

Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval

Relationships are neither developed nor sustained on an island; rather they are

embedded in a larger network of social relationships that influence them in a variety of

ways (Canary & Dainton, 2006; Etcheverry, Le, & Charania, 2008; Felmlee, 2001;

Fitzpatrick, 2012). The influence of a person’s social network has long been a predictor


36

of relationship processes (Larson & Holman, 1994). Felmlee (2001) found that “Even

when controlling for several dyadic variables, most social network measures tend to have

a statistically significant, and sometimes highly significant, impact on a relationship’s

stability” (p. 1278).

An individual’s social network is a “group of individuals who are tied together by

one or more types of exchanges” (Brown et al., 2010, p. 319) and can include family,

friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and others with whom the individual interacts

(Holman & Associates, 2001). Romantic dyads can be influenced by their social network

through opportunities (e.g., setting them up with friends), information (e.g., relationship

advice), and support (e.g., approval of the partner and/or the relationship) (Sprecher et al.,

2002).

In the past, romantic relationship research has been criticized for failing to

consider the role social network approval can play (Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000). Much of

the research on social network approval has focused on its effect on commitment,

satisfaction, and stability.

Research on the influence of parents and friends on one’s current romantic

relationship shows that social network approval increases the likelihood that the

relationship will be happy and stable (e.g., Felmlee, 2001; Sprecher et al., 2002). This is

true regardless of whether social network approval is operationalized as approval from

the entire social network lumped together in one item (e.g., Cox, Wexler, Rusbult, &

Gaines, 1997), as approval from friends (one item) vs. family members (another item)

(e.g., Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992) or averaged across individual items assessing approval

from individual network members (e.g., Etcheverry & Agnew, 2004). Nevertheless, for


37

the purposes of this study, social network approval was measured by a combination of

perceived approval from friends and parents. Most research on the effects of social

network approval utilizes either parents or friends and using a combined measure is rare.

Available research on one’s social network and its impact on marriage and the internal

processes within the marriage tends to be sparse (Sprecher et al., 2002).

It can be argued though that social networks continue to influence romantic

relationships even after the wedding (e.g., Bryant & Conger, 1999). Sprecher and

Felmlee (2000) posit that as relationships become more involved and increase in

commitment (i.e., marriage), partners’ social network approval should increase. Doxey

and Holman (2001) found a direct relationship between the social network approval

(combined friends and parents) of the relationship received premaritally and couples’

later marital satisfaction as they transitioned from engagement to marriage. Although the

literature has established that perceived approval from family and friends affects

relationship satisfaction and stability, the mechanism by which this occurs is not clear.

More unclear is how social network approval of family and friends may affect cognitions

towards one’s partner. Bryant and Conger (1999) argued that one’s parents, friends, and

other kin can “alter an individual definition of self by communicating their thoughts and

ideas about the individual’s actions . . . . [T]hose thoughts and ideas can influence the

initiation, maintenance, and dissolution of romantic relationships” (p. 438). More

specifically, family and friends’ approval or disapproval of the relationship affects how

individuals perceive their partner or spouse (Bryant & Conger, 1999). Agnew, Loving,

and Drigotas (2001) suggest that one’s social network will often solicit couple members’

own thoughts and opinions about the relationship and this information “may ultimately be


38

adopted by the relationship participant” (p. 1047). Perhaps an individual’s newly adopted

perceptions from their social network concerning their romantic partner could also

influence their positive or negative views of their partner. Sprecher et al. (2002) noted

that parents and other network members “who are involved with both partners are likely

to validate their relationship, give them positive feedback, and strengthen their dyadic

identity as a couple, processes that are likely to increase the satisfaction experienced in

the relationship” (p. 271). Finally, Berger (1979) suggests that if one’s network approves

of the relationship, one’s own uncertainty about the relationship decreases and changes

the perceptions contained within the relationship. Parents and friends who approve of

one’s marital relationship may, in fact, influence one’s own appreciation of one’s

partner’s qualities in and of themselves, but also in relation to one’s own qualities.

Parents and friends may even point out that a partner is well suited because he/she has

qualities the other is lacking or having less of. Thus, it is hypothesized that

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Greater social network approval of the relationship will be

associated with more partner enhancement.

Summary of Hypotheses and Research Question

Based on Larson and Holman’s (1994) conceptual model and the empirical

literature reviewed above, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The better individuals’ perceptions of parents’ marital quality, family

quality, and the quality of the parent-child relationship, the more individuals will

enhance their partner.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Greater self-esteem will be associated with more partner

enhancement.


39

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The more individuals are avoidant or anxiously attached, the less

likely they are to enhance their partner. Conversely, the more individuals are securely

attached, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The more individuals engage in relationship self-regulation, the more

likely they will engage in partner enhancement.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): The more individuals have come to terms with their family of origin

experiences, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): There will be a significant difference between men’s and women’s

partner enhancement.

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Greater social network approval of the relationship will be

associated with more partner enhancement.

Finally, although Larson and Holman (1994) are not very specific as to how

family background characteristics, individual traits and behaviors/skills, and contextual

factors should relate to one another, they speculated that in a multivariate path model,

family background characteristics would affect couple processes, such as cognitions

about the partner, via interpersonal traits and skills. The present study, thus, tests this

speculation. Accordingly, one area that will be explored is the mediated effects of family

background characteristics on partner enhancement through the other independent

variables. Hence:

RQ: Do self-esteem, avoidant and anxious attachment, relationship efforts and

strategies, coming to terms, and social network approval mediate the association

between family background characteristics and partner enhancement?


40

CHAPTER III

METHOD

This section outlines the analytical strategy used to test the aforementioned

research hypotheses. Additionally, this section will identify participants in the study,

discuss the procedure used in data collection, and identify measures utilized to assess

factors named in the previous section.

Sample

This research employed a cross-sectional subset of a larger, ongoing longitudinal

study of relationship development that is being sponsored by the RELATE Institute,

headquartered at Brigham Young University. The RELATE Institute is a nonprofit

consortium of researchers, clinicians, and family-life educators from the US. RELATE is

dedicated to the dual goals of understanding and strengthening premarital and marital

relationships. The RELATE project recruits couples via the Internet. Couples are often

directed to the RELATE site by word of mouth, relationship educators familiar with the

instrument, and via internet and newspaper ads.

Since 1999, more than 20,000 couples have completed the RELATE

questionnaire. New variables were added in 2009 that are used in the present study, and,

therefore, only couples who have taken the RELATE questionnaire since 2009 were

included in the final analysis. This brought the new data set to 2,933 couples. Because

this study focused on heterosexual married couples who reported being in their first

marriage, all participants who identified themselves as either single, never married,

cohabitating, married but separated, divorced, remarried, or widowed and who indicated


41

they had been married before were excluded from the final analysis. These exclusion

criteria brought the final sample down to 653 (N= 1306 individuals) married heterosexual

couples in their first marriage.

Husbands were on average 33 years old (mean = 32.8; SD = 10.5) and wives

were on average 31 years old (mean = 31.1; SD = 10.4). The range for the entire sample

was 19 to 75 years of age. Approximately 86% of the sample was Caucasian, 5% Latino,

4% African American, 2% Asian, 2% Mixed or Biracial, and 1% listed “Other.” The

measure of relationship length indicated that approximately 16% of the couples had been

married for six months or less, 10% between 7 – 12 months, 21% for 1 – 2 years, 15% for

3 – 5 years, 12% for 6 – 10 years, 6% for 11 – 15 years, 6% for 16 – 20 years, and 14%

for more than 20 years.

Regarding men’s highest educational attainment, less than 1% failed to complete

high school and another very small percentage (< 1%) obtained a high school

equivalency credential (General Educational Development; GED). Approximately 4%

completed a high school diploma, 10% completed some college but were not currently

enrolled, 27% completed some college and were currently enrolled, 8% obtained an

Associate’s degree, 20% earned a bachelor’s degree, 7% completed some graduate

schooling, and 21% completed a graduate degree. Less than 1% of the women completed

high school, less than 1% completed a GED, 2% obtained a high school diploma, 7%

completed some college (not currently enrolled), 33% completed college and were

currently enrolled, 11% earned an associate’s degree, 23% received a bachelor’s degree,

8% were currently enrolled in graduate school, and 15% obtained a graduate or

professional degree.


42

In terms of religious affiliation, approximately 55% of the men in the sample were

Latter-day Saints (Mormon), 13% Protestant, 12% were not affiliated with any religion,

8% members of “another religion,” 9% were Catholic, and 3% were Jewish.

Approximately 56% of the women in the sample were Latter-day Saints (Mormon), 15%

Protestant, 10% Catholic, 10% were not affiliated with any religion, 6% were members of

“another religion,” and less than 3% were Jewish.

In reference to current personal yearly income before taxes and deductions,

approximately 2% of the men reported “no income,” 27% reported under $20,000, 19%

reported $20,000 – $39,999, 16% reported $40,000 – $59,999, 9% reported $60,000 –

$79,999, 7% reported $80,000 – $99,999, 8% reported $100,000 – $139,999, 5% reported

$140,000 – $199,999, and 8% reported grossing more than $200,000 yearly. Almost 19%

of women reported making “no income,” whereas nearly 40% reported making under

$20,000, 15% reported $20,000 – $39,999, 10% reported $40,000 – $59,999, 5% reported

$60,000 – $79,999, 4% reported $80,000 – $99,999, 4% reported $100,000 – $139,999,

and just over 4% reported making more than $140,000 per year. A more detailed

breakdown of demographic characteristics of the sample is reported in Table 1.


43

Demographic Variables Men Women N % N % Age 19 – 21 17 2.6 117 17.9 22 – 25 193 29.6 147 22.5 26 – 30 142 21.8 125 19.1 31 – 35 98 15.0 79 12.1 36 – 40 53 8.2 59 8.9 41 – 45 49 7.5 34 5.2 46 – 50 40 6.1 45 6.9 51 – 55 37 5.6 31 4.7 56 years and older 23 3.7 14 2.3 Total 653 99.8 651 99.7 Relationship Length 0 – 3 months 63 9.6 65 10.0 4 – 6 months 42 6.4 36 5.5 7 – 12 months 63 9.6 67 10.3 1 – 2 years 131 20.1 134 20.5 3 – 5 years 100 15.3 95 14.5 6 – 10 years 77 11.8 75 11.5 11 – 15 years 39 6.0 42 6.4 16 – 20 years 40 6.1 37 5.7 More than 20 years 92 14.1 93 14.2 Total 647 99.1 644 98.6 Race African American 22 3.4 16 2.5 Asian 15 2.3 21 3.2 Caucasian 560 85.8 561 91.6 Latino (Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc.)

31 4.7 27 4.1

Mixed/Biracial 15 2.3 19 2.9 Other 9 1.4 9 1.4 Total 652 99.8 653 100 Religion Catholic 59 9.0 68 10.4 Protestant (Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, etc.)

87 13.3 97 14.9

Jewish 17 2.6 17 2.6 Latter-day Saint (Mormon) 360 55.1 362 55.4 Other 48 7.4 42 6.5 None 80 12.3 65 10.0 Total 653 100 651 99.7

Table 1. Sample Characteristics


44

Demographic Variables Men Women N % N % Education Completed Less than high school 6 .9 1 .2 High school equivalency (GED) 4 .6 2 .3 High school diploma 28 4.3 14 2.1 Some college, not currently enrolled 66 10.1 47 7.2 Some college, currently enrolled 175 26.8 216 33.1 Associate’s degree 52 8.0 72 11.0 Bachelor’s degree 132 20.2 150 23.0 Graduate or professional degree not completed 48 7.4 52 8.0 Graduate or professional degree completed 142 21.7 99 15.2 Total 653 100 653 100 Yearly Income None 15 2.3 121 18.5 Under $20,000 175 26.8 260 39.8 $20,000 – $39,999 123 18.8 98 15.0 $40,000 – $59,999 101 15.5 63 9.6 $60,000 – $79,999 56 8.6 30 4.6 $80,000 – $99,999 45 6.9 23 3.5 $100,000 – $139,999 54 8.3 23 3.5 $140,000 – $199,999 30 4.6 16 2.4 $200,000 and above 49 7.5 12 1.8 Total 648 99.2 656 98.9

Procedure

The RELATE questionnaire is an online (www.relate-institute.org) relationship

assessment tool used by family life educators, professional counselors, clergy, and

college instructors. Data obtained from the assessment have been used in multiple articles

that are currently published or in press (e.g., Busby, Carroll, & Willoughby, 2010;

Topham et al., 2005). All respondents completed a consent form prior to the completion

of the RELATE instrument. All data collection procedures were approved by the

Institutional Review Board at Brigham Young University. Because of legal reporting

Table 1. Sample Characteristics (Continued)

N = 653 couples; 1306 individuals

http://www.relate-institute.org/


45

requirements, participants are instructed that no one younger than age 18 years is to

participate in the RELATE questionnaire.

RELATE is a multidimensional comprehensive assessment instrument composed

of approximately 370 items designed to study the formation, maintenance, and break-up

of premarital and marital relationships. It assesses respondents’ perceptions about

themselves and their partner in four major adult romantic-relationship contexts: (a) the

individual (i.e., personality characteristics, values, beliefs), (b) the couple (i.e.,

communication, patterns of relating, conflict resolution), (c) the family (i.e., parents’

relationship, overall family quality), and (d) the social context (i.e., social support, race,

SES, religion).

Coupled partners are instructed to complete the questionnaire individually,

without consulting their partner. After completing RELATE separately, the partners

receive a detailed report about themselves and their relationship. The report shows them

how they compare to one another and identifies specific areas of strength in their

relationship as well as areas where improvement is needed.

Measures

Measures to test the statistical model were drawn from the RELATE

questionnaire. These assessed partner enhancement, self-esteem, anxious and avoidant

attachment orientation, family-of-origin, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to

terms, and social network approval. Correlations for all variables in the study can be

found in Table 2. Initially, all constructs (except partner enhancement, which involved a

difference-score format) were conceptualized as latent. These constructs, their respective

indicators, and factor loadings are shown in Table 3. An examination of the standardized


46

factor loadings for each of the manifest indicators representing their corresponding latent

constructs revealed that no indicators fell below the acceptable cut-off of .4 (Nunally &

Bernstein, 1994). Further, husbands and wives tended to have similar factor loadings on

all the variables. These analyses attest to the quality of the measures. However, as

discussed later, technical difficulties in the structural equation modeling required

converting all constructs except Family Background Characteristics to stand-alone

composite variables.

Partner enhancement. To measure partner enhancement, the Big Five

personality constructs (Biesanz & West, 2000; Costa & McCrae, 1988) were utilized (see

Draper & Holman, 2005, for description of the Big Five within the RELATE). In a

previous study using partner enhancement, Busby et al. (2009) created a general measure

of positive personality traits by combining the agreeable and openness scales as a

measure of positive personality and labeled it “affability.” Combining the agreeable and

openness scales has been shown to be strongly correlated and predictive of dating and

married couples’ satisfaction and stability one year later (Busby & Loyer-Carlson, 2003;

Draper & Holman, 2005).

The seven items making up the affability personality measure are one-word

descriptions such as kind, considerate, and flexible. Respondents were asked to rate how

often the items described themselves and their partners using a 5-point Likert-type

response scale ranging from never to very often. This resulted in a self- and partner-rating

for each member of a couple. In the present study, the enhancement measure was

computed by subtracting the self-rating from the partner-rating on the affability scale.

The measures of enhancement computed in this manner resulted in a scale in which a


47

high score was a positive number that equaled the degree to which the participant

enhanced their partner above self, whereas a low score created a negative value that

indicated the degree to which the participant enhanced the self above the partner.

Family Background Characteristics. The latent variable of family background

characteristics was made up of three subscales that measure perceived parental marital

happiness, family quality, and parent-child relationship. Parental marital happiness was

assessed with the Parents’ Marriage Scale. Three questions assessed the perceived

happiness of respondents’ parents’ marriage: “My father was happy in his marriage,”

“My mother was happy in her marriage,” and “I would like my marriage to be like my

parents’ marriage.” These items were answered on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and included a sixth option for individuals whose parents

were not married (doesn’t apply). Those who responded “doesn’t apply” were coded as

“missing.” Higher scores indicate greater perceived happiness in the parents’ marriage.

Cronbach’s α for parents’ marital happiness for men is .92 and for women is .93.

The next subscale assessed respondents’ perceived family quality. Four items

were used to assess the level of overall perceived family quality. Example items are,

“From what I experienced in my family, I think family relationships are safe, secure,

rewarding, worth being in, and a source of comfort” and “We had a loving atmosphere in

our family.” These items follow a 5-point Likert-type response scale format, anchored by

1 (strongly disagree) and to 5 (strongly agree). One item in the scale was reverse coded

wherein a lower rating indicated higher perceived quality. Scores can range from 1 to 5,

and higher scores indicate higher family quality. The Cronbach’s α for this measure was

.86 for men and .90 for women.


48

Perceived quality of the parent-child relationship was the final subscale in the

family background characteristics construct. This subscale assesses the participant’s

relationship with the father and with the mother during the participant’s childhood, with

higher scores indicating a more positive experience. Three items were used for each

parent. Example items are “My father/mother showed physical affection to me by

appropriate hugging and/or kissing,” “My father/mother participated in enjoyable

activities with me” and “My father/mother and I were able to share our feelings on just

about any topic without embarrassment or fear of hurt feelings.” Responses to the items

could range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sixth option was included

when the question did not apply, and these were coded as “missing.” Higher scores

indicate greater relationship quality with parents. Cronbach’s α for the measure of

relationship with one’s father was .77 for men and .82 for women. Cronbach’s α for the

measure of the relationship with one’s mother was .76 for men and .80 for women.

Individuals’ Traits and Skills.

Self-esteem. Four questions assessed individuals’ level of self-esteem. Example

items are “I feel I am a person of worth” and “I take a positive attitude toward myself.”

Responses to these four items could range from 1 (never) to 5 (often). Two items were

reversed scored to be consistent with the other items wherein higher scores indicate

higher self-esteem. Participants’ average score across the items can range from 1 to 5,

with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem. Cronbach’s α for this measure was .86

for men and .86 for women.

Attachment orientation. Adult attachment orientation was measured using the

Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ) (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). The AAQ


49

measures the degree of anxiety and avoidance orientations, with lower scores indicating

higher levels of secure attachment. There are eight avoidance and nine anxiety items on

the AAQ questionnaire; average scores, thus, can range from 1 to 7 for the avoidance

dimension and 1 to 7 for the anxiety dimension. Respondents will generate two separate

scores—one for avoidance and one for anxiousness. Sample items from the AAQ for the

avoidance scale are “I don’t like people getting too close to me” and “I’m comfortable

having others depend on me.” Sample items from the AAQ for anxiousness scale are “I

rarely worry about being abandoned by others” and “The thought of being left by others

rarely enters my mind.” Answer options to these items range from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α for the avoidance attachment scale was .83 for men

and .84 for women and .82 for the measure of anxious attachment for men and .87 for

women.

Relationship self-regulation efforts and strategies. Relationship efforts were

assessed using the Behavioral Self-Regulation for Effective Relationships Scale

(BSRERS), which contains both relationship efforts and strategies. The BSRERS has

been shown to have high validity for both self-RSR and partner-RSR ratings (Wilson et

al., 2005). The relationship efforts subscale contains four items. Responses were given on

a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very true). The

relationship efforts scale includes such items as “If things go wrong in the relationship I

tend to feel powerless” and “If my partner doesn’t appreciate the change efforts I am

making, I tend to give up.” Average scores (including necessary scale reversals) range

from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater relationship efforts. The Cronbach’s α

for the relationship efforts scale was .68 for men and .71 for women.


50

The relationship strategies subscale contains four items. Responses were given on

a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very true). The

relationship strategies scale includes items such as “I try to apply ideas about effective

relationships to improve our relationship” and “I actually put my intentions or plan for

personal change into practice.” Average scores (including necessary scale reversals)

range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more use of relationship strategies.

Cronbach’s α for the relationship strategies scale was .74 for men and .74 for women.

Coming to terms. Respondents’ ability to come to terms with difficulties in the

family of origin was assessed using the family influence scale. Respondents completed

three questions that measured the influence their family of origin had on their present

emotional functioning and the impact on their romantic relationships. The scale includes

questions such as “There are matters within my family experience that I’m still having

trouble dealing with or coming to terms with.” These items were answered on a 5-point

scale, with 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Two questions were reverse coded.

Average scores were computed across all items with higher scores indicating that the

participant had been better able to come to terms with family-of-origin experiences.

Cronbach’s α for this measure was .83 for men and .85 for women.

Contextual Factor: Social network approval.

The degree to which participants felt that their social network approved of their

current marriage was assessed by asking them indicate how much their father, mother,

and friends approved of their current marriage. There were three separate items for each

source (i.e., mother, father, friends).The original scale ranged from -2 (does not apply) to

4 (entirely). The options “Don’t know” (-1) as well as “Does not apply” (-2) were coded


51

as “missing.” Thus the final scale was anchored at 1 (not at all) and 4 (entirely).

Cronbach’s α for social network approval was .80 for men and .83 for women.


52

Table 2. Correlations for Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Self-esteem - -.304** -.354** .411** .376** -.371** .196** .239** -.046 2. Avoidant Attachment -.346** - .309** -.352** -.300** .382** -.185** -.302** .038 3. Anxious Attachment -.449** .365** - -.390** -.188** .382** -.320** -.361** -.277** 4. Relationship Efforts .413** -.433** -.432** - .535** -.319** .167** .212** .106** 5. Relationship Strategies .297** -.251** -.174** .494** - -.208** .090* .176** -.016 6. Coming to Terms -.358** .429** .331** -.306** -.114** - -.248** -.679** -.090* 7. Social Network Approval .195** -.195** -.312** .262** .140** -.222** - .230** .158** 8. Family Background Char. .240** -.325** -.232** .176** .084* -.676** .179** - .146** 9. Partner Enhancement -.081* .011 -.189** .102** .036 -.031 .321** .123** -

Note: ** p < .01. * p < .05. Correlations for husbands are above the diagonal; correlations for the wives are below the diagonal.


53

Latent Construct Indicators Men Loading

Women Loading

Self-esteem I take a positive attitude toward myself. .733 .716 I think I am no good at all. .841 .862 I feel I am a person of worth. .737 .671 I am inclined to think I am a failure. .808 .830 Avoidant Attachment I find it relatively easy to get close to others. .661 .692 I’m not very comfortable having to depend on other

people. .521 .561

I’m comfortable having others depend on me. .455 .425 I don’t like people getting too close to me. .824 .834 I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to others. .809 .816 I find it difficult to trust others completely. .699 .673 I’m nervous whenever anyone gets too close to me. .801 .853 Others often want me to be more intimate than I feel

comfortable being. .659 .668

Anxious Attachment I rarely worry about being abandoned by others. .625 .717 Others often are reluctant to get as close as I would

like. .540 .595

I often worry that my partner(s) don’t really love me. .741 .766 I rarely worry about my partner(s) leaving me. .681 .730 I often want to merge completely with others, and this

desire sometimes scares them away. .493 .578

I’m confident others would never hurt me by suddenly ending our relationship.

.695 .762

I usually want more closeness and intimacy than others do.

.478 .532

The thought of being left by others rarely enters my mind.

.764 .807

I’m confident that my partner(s) love me just as much as I love them.

.708 .728

RSR: Efforts If things go wrong in the relationship I tend to feel

powerless. .634 .609

I tend to fall back on what is comfortable for me in relationships, rather than trying new ways of relating.

.462 .557

Even when I know what I could do differently to improve things in the relationship, I cannot seem to change my behavior.

.630 .650

If my partner doesn’t appreciate the change efforts I am making, I tend to give up.

.648 .659

Table 3. Latent Constructs, Indicators, and Standardized Factor Loadings (All constructs except Family of Origin Characteristics were later converted to composite stand-alone variables)



54

Latent Construct Indicators Men Loading

Women Loading

RSR: Strategies I try to apply ideas about effective relationships to improve our relationship.

.567 .591

I actually put my intentions or plans for personal change into practice.

.695 .643

I give my partner helpful feedback on the ways she/he can help me achieve my goals.

.626 .638

If the way I’m approaching change doesn’t work, I can usually think of something different to try.

.706 .701

Coming to Terms There are matters from my family experience that I’m

still having trouble dealing with or coming to terms with.

.839 .825

There are matters from my family experience that negatively affect my ability to form close relationships.

.791 .794

I feel at peace about anything negative that happened to me in the family in which I grew up.

.749 .840

Family Background Char.

Parental Marital Happiness .629 .718

Family Quality .892 .965 Mother Parenting .543 .549 Father Parenting .570 .625

Table 3. Latent Constructs, Indicators, and Standardized Factor Loadings (Continued)



55

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

To evaluate the model and test the proposed hypotheses, the statistical program

AMOS 20.0 (Arbuckle, 2011) with Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML)

estimation was used. Methodologists regard FIML as a more accurate and powerful

technique for handling missing data than other methods (Russell, 2002; Schafer &

Graham, 2002). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether family

background characteristics (perceived parental marital happiness, family-of-origin

quality, and quality of the parent-child relationship) predict partner enhancement directly

and/or indirectly via contextual factors (social network approval of the relationship) and

individuals’ own traits and skills (self-esteem, attachment orientation, relationship self-

regulation efforts and strategies, and having come to terms with difficulties experienced

in the family of origin). A visual representation of the proposed structural model,

including the composite construct and latent constructs, the manifest indicators of male

and female partner enhancement, and hypothesized structural paths, is found in Figure 1.

As one can see, the original structural model contains 1 latent construct for family

background characteristics, 7 composite constructs for self-esteem, avoidant and anxious

attachment, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to terms, and social network

approval, and 1 composite construct for the outcome variable partner enhancement. Two

models are listed, one for husbands and one for wives. Note that a model with all latent

constructs was initially proposed, but technical difficulties (described below) required

conversion of most of the constructs to stand-alone composite variables.


56

Figure 1. Proposed Structural Equation Model

Male Partner Enhancement

Male Family Background Char.

Female Partner Enhancement

Female Family Background Char.

Female Coming to Terms

Female Social Network

Female Strategies

Female Efforts

Female Anxious Attachment

Female Avoidant Attachment

Female Self-Esteem

Male Social Network Approval

Male Avoidant Attachment

Male Efforts

Male Strategies

Male Coming to Terms

Male Anxious Attachment

Male Self-Esteem

RQ

RQ RQ

RQ RQ

RQ

RQ

RQ RQ

RQ

RQ

RQ

RQ

RQ

H1 +

H1 +

H2 + H3 -

H3 - H4+

H4+ H5+

H7+

H2 + H3 -

H3 - H4+

H4+ H5+

H7+


57

There are several structural paths in the proposed model based on the hypotheses for the

study (see Figure 1). For Hypothesis 1, there is a direct path from Family Background

Characteristics to Partner Enhancement. For Hypothesis 2, there is a direct path from Self-

Esteem to Partner Enhancement. For Hypothesis 3, there is a direct path from Avoidant

Attachment and Anxious Attachment to Partner Enhancement. For Hypothesis 4, there is a direct

path from Relationship Efforts and Relationship Strategies to Partner Enhancement. For

Hypothesis 5, there is a direct path from Coming to Terms to Partner Enhancement. For

Hypothesis 7, there is a direct path from Social Network Approval to Partner Enhancement. To

test the Research Question (RQ), “Do the independent variables, self-esteem, avoidant and

anxious attachment, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to terms, and social network

approval, mediate the association between family-of-origin and partner enhancement?”, Sobel

tests were conducted as this is considered appropriate for samples of 200 or larger (MacKinnon,

Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Finally, Hypothesis 6 (H6) was tested using a

paired samples t-test comparing husbands and wives with regard to their means on the dependent

variable, partner enhancement.

Model Testing

All 18 constructs (the same 9 in men and in women) were entered in the model as were

their corresponding manifest indicators (if applicable) and the outcome variable of partner

enhancement. Directional paths representing the stated hypotheses were entered as well. To

establish whether the model fit the data, the Chi-Square, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),

Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

goodness of fit indices were consulted. Whereas the Chi-Square index is greatly affected by

sample size, the TLI, CFI, and RMSEA fit indices are not. If the CFI and TLI are at or greater


58

than .9, the model is considered to be an acceptable fit for the data. For a model to be considered

an acceptable fit, the RMSEA needs to be equal to or less than .06 (Berndt, 1998).

The first attempt to fit the model resulted in poor model fit and a Heywood case (a

negative variance resulting in uninterpretable coefficients). To remedy this problem, all

independent variables except family-of-origin characteristics were modeled as composite rather

than latent constructs. This was done because several of these independent variables had only

two manifest indicators making estimation problematic. If a construct has only two manifest

indicators it will likely result in an unidentifiable model (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). After all

independent variables except family-of-origin characteristics were modeled as composite

constructs, the model was tested again. This time, the model had acceptable fit: χ2 (188, N = 653)

= 508.742, p < .001, TLI = .900, CFI = .937, and the RMSEA = .051.

Findings

Overall, of the 30 directional paths proposed, 26 were statistically significant (see Figure

2). These results are now reported with reference to the specific hypotheses.

Family Background Characteristics and Partner Enhancement.

Based on Larson and Holman (1994), analyses tested whether family background

characteristics, such as individuals’ perceptions of their parents’ marital quality, family quality,

and the quality of the parent-child relationship would have a subsequent effect on partner

enhancement.


59

Note. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; dotted lines indicate non-significant structural paths. Note: Coefficients in figure are standardized.

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model






Female Social Network Approval

Female Strategies

Female Efforts



Female Self-Esteem



Male Efforts

Male Strategies



Male Self-Esteem

.34**

-.41** -.33**

.28** .19**

-.78** .30**

.17*

-.18** .12**

-.29** .11*

-.03 .1

.1*

.33** -.4**

-.29** .24**

.12** -.78**

.22**

.17**

-.25** .1*

-.21** .07

.03 .12*

.31**

.16** -.16**


60

Thus, Hypothesis 1 (H1) predicted that the better (or more positive) individuals’

scores on the latent Family Background Characteristics construct (manifested by

perceptions of parents’ marital quality, family quality, and the quality of the parent-child

relationship), the more individuals would likely enhance their partner. The results of the

structural equation model support this hypothesis for both husbands and wives. The path

coefficients from Male Family Background Characteristics to Partner Enhancement and

from Female Family Background Characteristics to Partner Enhancement were .17 (p <

.05) and .17 (p < .01) respectively, indicating that for both husbands and wives, more

positive family-of-origin perceptions were associated with greater partner enhancement.

Individuals’ Own Traits and Skills and Partner Enhancement.

The ecosystemic model also predicted that the traits and skills individuals bring

into relationships would be associated with couple processes, such as partner

enhancement. It was hypothesized that greater self-esteem (H2), less anxious and

avoidant attachment orientations (H3), greater relationship self-regulation efforts and

strategies (H4), and having better come to terms with difficulties experienced in the

family of origin (H5) would each be associated with greater partner enhancement in both

husbands and wives. Support was only found, and partially at that, for hypotheses H3,

H4, and H5. Specifically, the findings for Hypothesis 2 showed that both husbands’ and

wives’ greater self-esteem was negatively associated with husbands’ and wives’

perceptions that their spouse had a more affable personality than they had themselves

(i.e., results were opposite in direction to prediction). The path coefficients from Male

Self-Esteem to Partner Enhancement and from Female Self-Esteem to Partner

Enhancement were -.18 (p < .01) and -.25 (p < .01), respectively. The negative


61

association suggests that greater self-esteem is associated with less partner enhancement

in both men and women.

Hypothesis 3 called for inverse relations between non-secure (avoidant or

anxious) attachment and partner enhancement. The findings suggest that husbands’ and

wives’ greater anxious attachment is associated with less partner enhancement (consistent

with the hypothesis), but that husbands’ and wives’ greater avoidant attachment is

associated with more partner enhancement (contrary to prediction). The path coefficients

from Male Anxious Attachment to Partner Enhancement and from Female Anxious

Attachment to Partner Enhancement were -.29 (p < .01) and -.21 (p < .01), respectively.

Those from Male Avoidant Attachment to Partner Enhancement and from Female

Avoidant Attachment to Partner Enhancement were .12 (p < .01) and .10 (p < .05),

respectively.

Hypothesis 4 stated that the more individuals engage in relationship self-

regulation, the more they would engage in partner enhancement. The findings only

partially supported this hypothesis. Specifically, husbands who reportedly put more effort

into their marriage also perceive their spouse as more affable than they perceive

themselves. The path coefficient from Male Relationship Efforts to Partner Enhancement

was .11 (p < .05). However, the path coefficient from Female Relationship Efforts to

Partner Enhancement was not statistically significant. Thus, this part of the hypothesis

was not supported. Also, the path coefficients from Male Relationship Strategies to

Partner Enhancement and from Female Relationship Strategies to Partner Enhancement

were not significant, suggesting that whether husbands and wives engage in strategies to


62

improve their marriage is not associated with whether they enhance their partner above

themselves.

With regard to Hypothesis 5 – the more individuals have come to terms with their

family of origin experiences, the more likely they are to enhance their partner – again

only partial support was found. Specifically, only wives (but not husbands), who had

better come to terms with their experiences in their family of origin were more likely to

engage in partner enhancement. The path coefficient from Male Coming to Terms to

Partner Enhancement was not statistically significant, whereas that from Female Coming

to Terms and Partner Enhancement was (coefficient = .12; p < .05). The finding for

women suggests that wives who have been able to come to terms with their experiences

in their family of origin are more likely to perceive their spouse in more positive terms

(i.e., has having a more affable personality) than themselves.

It was hypothesized (Hypothesis 6) that husbands and wives would differ in

terms of how much they would engage in partner enhancement (i.e., mean differences on

partner enhancement). However, the findings suggest that husbands and wives did not

differ in how much they perceive their spouse as more affable than themselves (see Table

4).The paired samples t-test that was carried out to test mean differences between

husbands and wives on levels of partner enhancement was not significant (t(652) = -.947, p

= .344). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported, indicating that the null hypothesis of

husbands and wives engaging equally in partner enhancement could not be rejected.

Mean differences between husbands and wives on all the other study variables are also

shown in Table 4.


63

Table 4. Mean Differences Between Husbands and Wives on Study Variables Husbands Wives M (SD) M (SD) Partner Enhancement -.12 (.68) -.08 (.68) Self-Esteem 4.29* (.66) 4.15 (.66) Avoidant Attachment 3.00* (1.00) 2.89 (1.04) Anxious Attachment 2.63* (.99) 2.77 (1.16) Relationship Strategies 3.52* (.63) 3.65 (.59) Relationship Efforts 3.21 (.64) 3.21 (.65) Coming to Terms 2.22* (1.01) 2.39 (1.05) Family Background Char. 3.79* (.74) 3.70 (.88) Social Network Approval 3.80* (.45) 3.74 (.52)

Contextual Factors and Partner Enhancement.

Larson and Holman (1994) argued that “Other ecosystems around the individual .

. . or the circumstances surrounding the courtship” (p. 231) may also affect couple

processes, such as individuals’ social cognitions about their partner. One of these

ecosystems or contexts these authors referred to was social network approval. It was

therefore hypothesized that greater approval of the relationship by family and friends

would be associated with more partner enhancement (Hypothesis 7). This hypothesis was

supported for both husbands and wives. The path coefficients from Male Social Network

Approval to Partner Enhancement and from Female Social Network Approval to Partner

Enhancement were .10 (p < .05) and .31 (p < .01), respectively. The statistically

significant path coefficients suggest that both husbands and wives who reported thinking

that their family and friends approve of their marriage are more likely to perceive their

spouse as more affable than themselves1.

Note: * Indicates husbands differ from wives at p < .05.

1 The full SEM model was run again limiting the sample to only respondents who provided all three data points on social network approval (i.e., mother’s, father’s, and friend’s approval). Despite the decreased sample size, results revealed a good fit (χ2 (178, N = 407) = 318.805, p < .001, TLI = .920, CFI = .952, RMSEA = .044).


64

Mediation Effects

In their discussion of their ecosystemic model, Larson and Holman (1994) were

not very specific as to how family background characteristics, individual traits and skills,

and contextual factors should relate to one another. However, they speculated that in a

multivariate path model, family background characteristics would affect couple

processes, such as cognitions about the partner, via interpersonal traits and skills. Thus,

the following Research Question was explored: Do self-esteem, avoidant and anxious

attachment, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to terms, and social network

approval mediate the association between family background characteristics and partner

enhancement? To address the research question, Sobel’s test (Baron & Kenny, 1986) was

computed for each mediating variable (self-esteem, avoidant and anxious attachment,

relationship self-regulation, coming to terms, social network approval). Sobel’s tests are

calculated using the following equation, z-value = a*b/SQRT(b2*sa2 + a2*sb2) where “b”

and “sb” represent the unstandardized coefficient “b” and the standard error of the “b” as

modeled in Figure 3 (below), and “a” and “sa” represent the unstandardized coefficient of

“a” and the standard error of “a.” Z-values represent mediated or indirect coefficients.

Mediator

IV DV

a b

c

Figure 3. Mediation


65

This was done for men and women separately. Tests revealed that Male Self-

Esteem (z = -3.64, p < .001), Male Avoidant Attachment (z = -2.79, p < .01), Male

Anxious Attachment (z = 5.30, p < .001), Male Relationship Efforts (z = 2.14, p < .05),

and Male Social Network Approval (z = 2.25, p < .05) mediated the relationship between

Male Family of Origin and Male Partner Enhancement. However, Male Relationship

Strategies and Male Coming to Terms did not mediate the relationship between Male

Family of Origin and Male Partner Enhancement. For females, tests revealed that Female

Self-Esteem (z = -4.77, p < .001), Female Avoidant Attachment (z = -2.23, p < .05),

Female Anxious Attachment (z = 4.10, p < .001), and Female Social Network Approval

(z = 4.44, p < .001) mediated the relationship between Female Family of Origin and

Female Partner Enhancement. However, Female Relationship Efforts, Female

Relationship Strategies, and Female Coming to Terms did not mediate the relationship

between Female Family of Origin and Female Partner Enhancement.

Although the findings above reveal a mediated relationship between family-of-

origin and partner enhancement, it should be understood that these mediated effects are

partial, and small. Computation of the SEM model minus the mediators revealed that the

standardized coefficient from Male Family Background Characteristics to Male Partner

Enhancement was β = .17. For females the standardized coefficient from Female Family

Background Characteristics to Female Partner Enhancement was β = .14 previous to

introducing the mediators. Inclusion of the mediators resulted in a coefficient of β = .17

for both men and women (Figure 2). Typically, inclusion of mediators reduces the

relationship between the antecedent and outcome variables. In women, however, the

association between Family Background and Partner Enhancement actually rose when


66

mediators were added (from β = .14 to .17). This finding may be due to some of the

indirect relationships being negative, which is balanced out by the antecedent-to-outcome

path becoming more strongly positive. Thus the mediational pathways appear complex

and only partially explain the relationship between Family Background Characteristics

and Partner Enhancement.

Supplementary Analyses

Because Hypothesis 4 was only supported for relationship efforts for husbands

and not wives and the relationship-strategies variable was not statistically significant for

husbands or wives, post hoc analyses were conducted to better understand the

relationship between relationship strategies/efforts and partner enhancement. Further, it

seemed prudent to also look at partner effects for self-esteem and attachment orientations.

Ten additional paths were included in the model to test partner effects of relationship

efforts and strategies, self-esteem, and attachment orientations on partner enhancement,

(see Figure 4). Kenny and Cook (1999) define partner effects as what occurs “when one

person is affected by the behavior or characteristics of his or her partner” (p. 433). The

model had acceptable fit: χ2 (146, N = 653) = 449.445, p < .001, TLI = .910, CFI = .947,

and the RMSEA = .048. The path coefficient from Male Relationship Efforts to Female

Partner Enhancement was -.088 (p < .05). This suggests that the more self-perceived

effort husbands put into the relationship, the more wives were likely to engage in partner

enhancing cognitions. The path coefficient from Male Relationship Strategies to Female

Partner Enhancement was -.094 (p < .05). This indicates that the more self-perceived

strategies husbands put into the relationship, the more likely wives were to engage in

partner enhancement. The path coefficient from Female Relationship Efforts to Male


67

Partner Enhancement was -.094 (p < .05). According to these results, the more self-

perceived effort wives put into the relationship, the more likely husbands were to engage

in partner enhancement. However, the path coefficient from Female Relationship

Strategies to Male Partner Enhancement was not statistically significant. Therefore,

regardless of the self-perceived strategies wives put into the relationship, it has no effect

on the likelihood of males engaging in partner enhancement.

The path coefficient from Male Self-Esteem to Female Partner Enhancement was

not significant and suggests that the level the husband’s self-esteem has little to no

bearing on whether or not their partner will engage in partner enhancement. The path

coefficients from Male Avoidant Attachment to Female Partner Enhancement, and

Female Avoidant Attachment to Male Partner Enhancement, were -.13 (p < .05) and -.10

(p < .05), respectively. For both husbands and wives, as avoidant attachment increases

the likelihood that their partner will engage in partner enhancement decreases. The path

coefficient from Male Anxious Attachment to Female Partner Enhancement was

significant at -.10 (p < .05); however this was not true for the path coefficient from

Female Anxious Attachment to Male Partner Enhancement. Wives’ level of anxious

attachment has no bearing on husbands’ likelihood of viewing his partner more positively

than he does himself.


68

Note. * = p < .05; dotted lines indicate non-significant structural paths.

Figure 4. Actor-Partner Effects Structural Equation Model





Female Social Network Approval

Female Strategies

Female Efforts



Female Self-Esteem



Male Efforts

Male Strategies



Male Self-Esteem


.34**

-.41** -.33**

.28** .19**

-.78** .30**

.17*

-.18** .12**

-.29** .11*

-.03 .1

.1*

.33**

-.4** -.29**

.24** .12**

-.78** .22**

.17**

-.25** .1*

-.21** .07

.03 .12*

.31**

.16** -.16**

-.09* -.10*

-.13* .01

-.10*

.06

-.09* .08

-.10*

.04


69

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

There is a limited amount of research on what factors influence positive

cognitions in relationships. Prior research on partner enhancement has focused on its

association with relationship quality/satisfaction (Busby et al., 2009; Morry et al., 2010).

Informed by Larson and Holman’s (1994) review, the present study used a subsample

comprised of heterosexual couples in their first marriage (N = 653 couples; 1306

individuals) drawn from the larger RELATE sample to study predictors of partner

enhancement. The results of this study suggest that partner enhancement is intricately

related to a number of individual, contextual, and relationship factors. Namely, individual

factors such as the partner’s self-esteem, attachment orientation, relationship self-

regulation, coming to terms, and perceptions of family-of-origin experiences predict their

tendency to engage in partner-enhancing cognitions. Furthermore, the results of this study

found that partner enhancement is influenced by one’s social context. Finally, although

one’s family of origin plays a significant role in predicting the tendency to view one’s

partner above the self, there are other factors that mediate that relationship.

Because literature is lacking on how individual, dyadic, and social factors

increase the likelihood of cognitions in romantic relationships, it is difficult to compare

results with previous research. The focus of this chapter is to examine the implications of

the findings outlined in Chapter IV. In order to facilitate the discussion of these points,

the chapter is partitioned into three main sections. First, the hypotheses will be reviewed

and all major findings associated with them will be elucidated. Second, limitations and


70

future directions will be addressed. Finally, the last section will explore possible

implications derived from the results of this study.

Discussion of Hypotheses and Research Question

Family Background Characteristics.

Hypothesis 1. Concerning Hypothesis 1, over and above the other variables, the

model illustrates that perceptions of family background experiences have a direct

influence on partner enhancement for both men and women. This lends support for the

general hypothesis that suggests that childhood and adolescence perceptions of parental

marriage, parent-child relationship, and overall family quality carry over into adulthood

and have an impact on individuals’ cognitions. One explanation for the link between

family-of-origin effects and partner enhancement may stem from how individuals

remember the past can influence their present goals, attitudes, and behaviors (Holman &

Associates, 2001), especially their current romantic relationships. This finding lends

further support for Larson and Holman’s (1994) ecological model wherein the

researchers postulated that individuals are embedded in their family background contexts

and this context, albeit small, influences relationship processes. Nevertheless, they

suggest that more longitudinal studies are needed to understand the long-term effects of

family background on future relationship processes. Therefore, it could be summarized

that not only do the perceptions of family-of-origin residuals affect marital cognitions

but, if spouses have adequately dealt with the difficulties in their family of origin, they

are better able to respond to their present partners and appraise them positively, even

more than themselves.


71

Individuals’ Traits and Skills

Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that greater self-esteem will be associated with

more partner enhancement. According to the results, the hypothesis was not supported. In

fact, partners’ greater self-esteem was associated with less partner enhancement. These

results are in contrast to other studies on partner cognitions and self-esteem (Murray et

al., 2001). In addition, Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) found that people who doubt

themselves tend to doubt their partners, which would lead to the conclusion that if

partners had low levels of self-esteem, they would be less likely to engage in partner

enhancement. Finally, Bellavia and Murray (2003) found that individuals with high self-

esteem were more likely to praise their partner and uphold their positive views of their

partner. It is curious that a variable that usually predicts positive marital cognitions,

would then be associated in the opposite direction. From the lens of similar research on

partner cognitions and views of self, partner enhancement should be tied positively with

self-esteem, but in this case it was not.

One explanation for this finding may be the high self-esteem means of both the

husbands (4.29; SD = .66) and wives (4.15; SD = .66), where the maximum possible

score is 5. These high means suggest that participants tended to view themselves quite

favorably. Thus, on the affability scale used to create the partner-enhancement measure,

high self-esteem individuals likely rated themselves highly, leaving little room for

participants to give their partners an even higher score. In other words, a ceiling effect

may have contributed to these results.

It should also be noted that no partner effects were found for self-esteem and

partner enhancement. This suggests that whether an individual is high or low on self-


72

esteem, this has no apparent influence on the likelihood that their partner will see them

more positively than they see themselves. Again, this finding goes against Larson and

Holman’s (1994) extensive literature review on the effects of individual traits such as

self-esteem.

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 stated that the more individuals are avoidant or

anxiously attached, the less likely they are to enhance their partner. It further stated that

the more individuals are securely attached, the more likely they are to enhance their

partner. According to the results, the hypothesis was partially supported. Husbands and

wives with higher scores on anxious attachment were less likely to engage in partner

enhancement. However, this was not true for partners who scored high on avoidant

attachment. Husbands and wives high on avoidant attachment were more (not less) likely

to engage in partner enhancement.

Although Larson and Holman (1994) do not explicitly discuss attachment

orientations and their effect on relationship outcomes, they do discuss individual traits

such as personality factors, neuroticism, and dysfunctional beliefs. The measure of

attachment does account for items of withdrawal, worry of abandonment, and confidence,

all of which can be related to individual factors included in Larson and Holman’s (1994)

model. Thus, these findings lend some support for individual traits influencing

relationship processes (e.g., cognitions, partner enhancement) outlined in their ecological

framework.

In regards to the finding that individuals high on anxious attachment are less

likely to perceive their partner as more affable than themselves, one explanation for this

is that highly anxious individuals tend to underperceive the amount of support that may


73

actually be available to them (Collins & Feeney, 2004b). Perhaps this also leads to them

underperceiving their partner in regards to themselves. Furthermore, when looking at the

individual items in the measurement of attachment orientations, this finding becomes

clearer. The anxious attachment scale measures the respondent’s level of feelings or

thoughts of abandonment, emotional intimacy, and love. If the partner has thoughts of

abandonment and feels less secure in the closeness their partner is providing, it seems

reasonable to assume they are not going to position their partners above themselves. By

doing so, this could perhaps further validate their intuitions that their partner is “too good

for them” and thus further embolden their insecure cognitions. In fact, Murray and

colleagues (2000) found that married partners idealized each other less when they did not

feel secure in the regard their partners had for them.

In regards to husbands and wives who scored high on avoidance being more

likely to engage in partner enhancement, this is a curious finding given past research.

Individuals high on avoidant attachment find it difficult to be close to others and seek to

elude emotional intimacy (Edelstein & Shaver, 2004). Perhaps they see their partners as

better than them on positive personality traits because they don’t feel the need to protect

themselves by cognitively depreciating their spouse. This may also be a way of

cognitively distancing their partner from them and further augmenting their independence

from their partner. Another explanation may be found in the literature suggesting that

avoidant individuals tend to lack interpersonal competence and skill (e.g. Anders &

Tucker, 2000) which may lead them to enhance their partners affable qualities (e.g.,

kindness) above themselves. Further, Fitzpatrick and Dunn (2011) found that avoidant

individuals were more likely to engage in self-criticism. Perhaps avoidant individuals in


74

this sample engaged in negative self-critiques and subsequently enhanced their partner

above themselves. Nevertheless, Collins and Feeney (2004a) argue that much of aversive

behaviors and cognitions that avoidant individuals display in intimate relationships is

usually only present during distressing experiences or when the “attachment system is

activated” (p. 179) in the relationship. Therefore, although the avoidant characteristics

may be present in the individual, at the time they completed the RELATE questionnaire

perhaps their relationship was on good and positive terms and they were able to

accentuate their partner above themselves.

Upon further investigation of attachment orientations and partner enhancement,

exploratory partner- effects analyses were run for both partners. Results indicated that at

least for avoidant attachment, when husbands and wives scored highly on this measure,

their partners were less likely to view them as better than them on positive personality

traits. In general, scholars have suggested that one of the primary goals of avoidant

individuals is to maintain an emotional and psychological distance (Rholes et al., 2011).

Avoidant adults also tend to self-disclose less, dislike physical and emotional intimacy

(Edelstein & Shaver, 2004), and grieve less following a breakup compared to

nonavoidant individuals (Fraley & Shaver, 1999). They have also been found to be less

likely to engage in receptivity, gazing, facial and vocal pleasantness, and attentiveness

activities during conversations (Collins & Feeney, 2004a). What may be occurring is that

partners may intuitively “pick-up” on their partner’s distancing behaviors or cognitions

and therefore view them as dismissing and less close and therefore less likely to view

them more positively than they do themselves. Future research might look at some


75

mediating factors between avoidant individuals and partner enhancement such as

commitment or satisfaction levels.

Further, the results also indicated that anxiety in husbands had an effect on (or at

least was associated correlationally with) their wives’ level of partner enhancement, but

this was not true for wives’ level of anxiousness and partner enhancement. It is true that

individuals low on anxious attachment measures seek closeness and feel secure that their

yearnings for closeness will be reciprocated (Collins & Allard, 1996). If one’s spouse

seeks closeness and mirrors behaviors that are consistent with confidence that it will be

returned, perhaps, in some way the partner will sense that confidence and in turn sees this

as a positive trait and thus engage in enhancement. Nevertheless, further research may

look at a potential gender difference when it comes to partner enhancement and anxious

attachment.

Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 stated that the more individuals engage in

relationship self-regulation, the more they will engage in partner enhancement.

According to the results, the hypothesis was, again, partially supported. For husbands,

their perceived efforts did designate a significant path. In other words, when husbands

perceive their relationship self-regulation efforts as high, they view their partner above

themselves on positive personality characteristics. In closer examination of the questions

measuring relationship efforts, men who do not feel discouraged when their efforts are

not working and believe they can change their behavior seem to view their partner more

positively than they view themselves. However, for women, their perceived efforts and

strategies put forth in the relationship did not predict partner enhancement.


76

One explanation for the finding concerning husbands could be that putting effort

into the relationship is intentional and proactive (Halford et al., 2007). It takes a frame of

mind that engenders positivity and thwarts discouragement. Perhaps husbands who

perceive their spouse as above themselves are putting forth the efforts because they view

their partner as worthy of those extra efforts—so worthy that they are above themselves

and therefore lead the husband to work harder to strengthen the relationship. The lack of

significance in relation to females’ perceived relationship self-regulation and partner

enhancement is curious, especially considering females tend to be designated as head of

relationship maintenance (Davis, 1999).

However, supplementary analyses looked closer at partner effects, which revealed

that husbands and wives are more likely to view their spouse more positively when they

perceive more effort in the relationship. In Fincham’s (2001) work on attributions, there

is a link between the implied intentions of one’s partner and marital satisfaction. Perhaps

partners are cognizant of their spouses’ relationship-regulating work and attribute the

goodwill to their partner and in turn create an affirmative assessment of their positive

personality characteristics. Results also revealed that when wives recognize their

spouse’s relationship strategies, this increases wives’ tendency to engage in partner

enhancement, but this was not true for husbands. It could be that men expect their wives

to be in charge of maintaining the relationship and that when his wife discovers that he is

actively thinking about the relationship and how to improve his behavior, this affects her

perception of him.

Here again, Larson and Holman’s (1994) model does not specifically designate

the individual trait of relational self-regulation. As noted previously, relationship self-


77

regulation is the ability to adjust one’s behavior and cognitions to better align themselves

with relational goals (Halford et al., 1994). Therefore, this variable suggests an addition

to Larson and Holman’s constellation of constructs by identifying one additional trait

(relationship self-regulation) that influences cognitive processes (at least for husbands)

such as partner enhancement.

Hypotheses 5. According to the results for Hypothesis 5, higher scores on wives’

ability to come to terms with their family of origin experiences predicted her likelihood

of engaging in partner enhancement. The hypothesis was not supported for husbands. The

support for the hypothesis in relation to women is consistent with some research that

indicates early childhood family environments tend to effect women more than men

(Holman & Associates, 2001). This may be due to women being more embedded in the

relational processes of their families and their tendency to set the emotional tone in the

home (Botkin, O’Neal-Weeks, & Morris, 2000). Nevertheless, the association here

between coming to terms and partner enhancement is weak, so any explanations must be

viewed cautiously.

Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 stated that there will be a significant difference

between men’s and women’s partner enhancement. According to the results, this

hypothesis was not supported. This finding is contrary to other studies on positive

cognitions toward one’s spouse. Murray and Holmes (1997) found that women tend to

depict their partners more positively than do men. However, other studies have found

inconsistent results in terms of gender differences and the idealization of partners

(Niehuis et al., 2011).


78

Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval.

Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 stated that greater social-network approval of the

relationship will be associated with more partner enhancement. According to the results,

this hypothesis was supported. For both husbands and wives, greater approval of the

relationship by family and friends was associated with more positive perceptions of the

spouse in relation to their perceptions of themselves on affability. This finding is

consistent with Larson and Holman’s (1994) review wherein other ecosystems that

surround the individuals, such as parents and friends approval, were found to affect

relationship processes.

One explanation for this link between social network approval and partner

enhancement could be that a network that approves of the spouse is most likely

interacting and communicating about the individual’s partner in a positive light. Perhaps

parents and friends are pointing out characteristics and behaviors that are affirmative,

thus further confirming and validating husbands’ and wives’ views of their partner.

Further, because network members are most likely to take an objective view of the

relationship, perhaps they can see positive traits and behaviors in in the partner that were

earlier unseen by the spouses (Felmlee, 2001) thus reducing uncertainty they may have.

Another explanation could be found in the sample itself.

It should be noted, however, for the wives, the significance is much more

pronounced as husbands’ coefficient was .1 (p < .05) and wives’ was .31 (p < .01). One

possible explanation for this is that some literature suggests that women are much more

affected by their social networks (e.g., Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000) perhaps because, on

average, women tend to self-disclose more details of their relationships and are more


79

prone to engage in relationship talk with friends and family than are men (e.g., Boden,

Fischer, & Niehuis, 2010; Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005).

Nevertheless, considering these results, it is important to avoid making any swift

assumptions of cause and effect. There is no evidence of the direction of the relationship.

It could be that when partners engage in positive cognitive enhancement, this may

transfer to their social network in the form of self-disclosure and, therefore, positively

affects friends' and family’s approval of the relationship. Further studies may address this

potential pathway.

In addition, this study did not differentiate between the influence of friends and

parents. Some scholars suggest that family members’ approval of the relationship may

have more of an impact on relationships than the influence of friends (Etchenvery &

Agnew, 2004; Holman & Associates, 2001). Future studies may seek to explore this

potential difference between the networks and partner enhancement. In addition, there

may be an unexplored link between parent-child relationships and parental approval.

Holman and Associates (2001) suggest that if the parent-child relationship during

childhood and adolescence was less than ideal, it seems reasonable that this may also

affect the approval of a romantic partner by the parents.

Mediation Effects

Research Question. As noted earlier, Larson and Holman (1994) emphasize that

an individuals’ family background characteristics, traits and skills, and contextual factors

should relate to each other; further, they point out that, in a mediational pathway, family

background characteristics would affect couple processes, such as cognitions about the

partner, through interpersonal traits and skills. The results of the supplementary analyses


80

indeed show some support for their conjecture. The mediation analyses indicate that,

although respondents’ perceptions of family background experiences increase the

likelihood of perceiving one’s partner above the self, they only account for a small

amount of variance (R2 = .03) in the model for both husbands and wives. Further,

mediation results showed that self-esteem, attachment orientations, and one’s social-

network approval of the relationship mediate the relationship between family-of-origin

perceptions and partner enhancement. It seems that how individuals perceive the

dynamics of their parents' marriage, their relationship with their parents during

childhood, and the overall family quality, plays a significant role in many variables

related to positive cognitions toward their spouse. Finally, husbands’ and wives’

perceived relationship strategies and their ability to come to terms with their family

background experiences did not mediate the relationship between family background

variables and partner enhancement.

Implications

This study was informed by Larson and Holman’s (1994) review of variables that

may affect couple relationships. Understanding the predictive factors that strengthen and

constrain romantic relationships is important to scholars of the family. However,

understanding how these factors shape partners’ cognitions is equally important as Busby

and colleagues (2009) found in their study of partner enhancement. The present study

highlighted the distal, proximal, and relational factors in play in the outcome of partner

enhancement. These findings have credence for family life educators and therapists in the

following ways:


81

First, despite the long-standing finding that self-esteem is beneficial to romantic

relationships, perhaps too much self-confidence can be detrimental. It is important that

partners understand the costs and benefits of attaining a positive outlook toward

themselves. Second, much has been written on the role of efforts and strategies in the

outcomes of marital satisfaction (e.g., Halford et al., 2007). However, how they predict

positive cognitions has been lacking in the research. This study revealed that husbands’

perceptions of their own effort and strategies increases the likelihood they will position

their wives above them on positive personality characteristics. This is important for

therapists and educators, because much of what they encourage and teach is behavioral in

nature. Helping husbands understand their intentional actions are not only helping them

view their partner more positively but their actions also increase their wife’s ability to see

them more positively may be beneficial.

Third, this study highlighted the impact of distal and proximal influences of one’s

family of origin and how participants' resiliency in the face of negative experiences

impacts their connubial relationship. For both men and women, their perception of their

parent’s marriage, family environment, and relationship with their parents predicted their

likelihood of cognitively viewing their spouse above themselves. Bowen’s (1978) family

therapy grounds most of its tenets of intergenerational transmission in the premise that

one’s family background can affect future relationships, attitudes, behaviors, and

cognitions. Helping clients understand one more way of how their background impacts

the way they see their partner can help in the change process. In addition, family life

education has historically paid little attention to background variables in curriculum.

These findings support the inclusion of distal variables, such as family-of-origin effects,


82

in relationship and parenting curricula. Further, at least for women, their ability to

reconcile their negative experiences from their family of origin is important for clients

and participants to understand as they seek to improve their marital relationship (Nichols,

2011).

Finally, one of the more robust findings in this study was wives’ social network

approval of their partner and how it predicts their likelihood of partner enhancing. Studies

reveal that one’s social network potentially can have a dramatic effect on the initiation,

intensity, and satisfaction of premarital and marital relationships (e.g., Kearns & Leonard,

2004; Tolhuizen, 1989). More specifically, women tend to be more impacted by their

social network than their male counterparts (e.g., Holman & Associates, 2001). This

finding specifically relates to premarital relationship education. It seems appropriate to

encourage women to pay close attention to their friends' and parent’s opinion of their

future mate as this will most likely affect their positive relationship cognitions. Educators

and counselors who work with premarital clients might encourage them to pay close

attention to individuals, such as friends and family who, perhaps, have a more objective

viewpoint of the relationship, its strengths, and “red flag” areas.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

Although this research expands previous work done on cognitions in romantic

relationships, this study has several limitations that suggest caution should be taken in

interpreting or generalizing the results. First, the sample was quite homogenous. Eighty-

six percent of the sample was Caucasian, over half of the sample had at least an

associate’s degree, over half of the sample made over $40,000 a year, and finally, over

half of the sample identified themselves as members of the Mormon faith. Future studies


83

might involve a sample that is more heterogeneous and, perhaps, control for religious

affiliation so generalizations to the larger population can be more reliable.

Second, this study utilized cross-sectional self-report data. This limits any inferences

of causation or the prediction of change over time. Relying exclusively on self-report data

can also produce biases as some of the variance accounted for may be due to the

idiosyncratic way in which individuals answer questions in the RELATE questionnaire.

Because cross-sectional data merely take a “snapshot” at one point in time, future

research might employ a longitudinal analysis to further explicate changes in partner

enhancement over time.

Third, the relatively short relationship length that was present among the respondents

could be a factor. Over 60% of couples indicated they had been married for 5 years or

less. Partners in the early years of their marriage may still be influenced by the

“honeymoon effect” wherein overly positive views of each other still reign. Future

research might further analyze differences in relationship length.

Fourth, the sample was narrowed down to first-time, heterosexual marriages, this

limited some ability to generalize. In addition, only viewing married couples may have

limited the results. It may be true that partners who are not married see their partners

differently. Therefore, expanding this line of inquiry to all types of relationships (e.g.,

cohabitating) may further the knowledge in this area.

Fifth, in relation to specific variables, future directions for this study might be to

control for self-esteem. By controlling for self-esteem it would isolate the variable and

the effects it has on the outcome variable. In this particular study, self-esteem seemed to

have a negative effect on partner enhancement wherein high scores reduced the


84

likelihood of partner enhancement. Further, the self-esteem scale utilized in this study

contained only 4 questions and it was derived from Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale that

contains 10 questions. Perhaps future studies could utilize Rosenberg’s (1965) full scale,

thus obtaining a more accurate measure of a partner’s self-esteem. Possible non-linear

relations using a more extensive self-esteem measure could be assessed (i.e., is there an

inflection point above which high self-esteem precludes partner enhancement?).

Sixth, the findings here and elsewhere in the literature that point to associations

between parental marital quality and adult child marital quality, Holman and Associates

(2001) suggest that perceptions of parental marital quality are more distal than other

family background factors, as children are not directly involved in the marital

relationship. Further, this study only measures the perceived marital happiness of the

respondent’s parents’ marriage. This is may be skewed slightly as it is based on

retrospective recollections of their parents’ marriage. Further, it may be that their parents

had a very good marriage despite conflict or that there was pseudo-mutuality and the

parents only argued behind closed doors. Therefore, future studies on cognitions and

parental marital quality may need to be methodologically longitudinal and assess the

parents’ actual marital quality. Furthermore, this study combined family background

variables (family quality, parental marital quality, and parent-child relationships). Future

research would do well to parse out these ecological influences and determine their

individual effects.

Future research on partner enhancement might also benefit by looking specifically

at relationship status (e.g., married versus dating partners). Additionally, although Busby

and colleagues’ (2009) study was longitudinal in nature, they only followed couples over


85

one year. Future studies may track changes over time as couples transition from their

premarital relationship to the early stages of marriage and on into the later stages.

Perhaps partner- enhancing cognitions experience an ebb and flow as relationships

change over time. Further, future studies on partner enhancement may want to explore

the influence of relationship length as a predictor or as a control variable.

Finally, in the measurement of partner enhancement, this study operationalized it

in terms of positive personality traits such as kindness and general affability. Future

research might explore the predictors, correlates, and consequences of enhancing one’s

partner above the self on other dimensions such as intelligence, parenting ability,

attractiveness, extroversion, honesty, communication skills, or coping with stress. For

example, if the outcome variable was enhancement of one’s partner on levels of

intelligence or communication ability, perhaps the results outlined in this study might

differ. Perhaps individuals whose social network approved of their partner may also see

them as more intelligent or better at communicating than they do themselves.

There are also many strengths of this study that are necessary to address. First, the

sample size was quite large with 653 couples. Second, couple data was utilized in the

analysis of the hypothesized variables. Using couple data is important as it gives an

accurate description of relational processes. Third, the results of this study shed new light

on the area of cognition, specifically partner enhancement, and relationship processes. It

is clear that this study has opened doors for other studies to explore the predictive factors

of family background, traits and skills, and contextual elements.


86

Conclusion

In summary, this research has provided insight into the possible associations

between individual and social variables on positive cognitions concerning one’s spouse.

It is clear that Larson and Holman’s (1994) enumeration of variables, although wide-

ranging in scope, needs to be revised to include other constructs such as attachment,

relationship self-regulation, coming to terms with family-of-origin issues, and cognitions

such as partner enhancement. The inclusion of these variables would allow their model to

be more comprehensive compared to when it was published almost 20 years ago.

Several questions were posed at the beginning of this study. The results of this

study have answered these questions but have also generated new questions. First, do

factors such as family background perceptions influence positive cognitions in marriage?

This study indicated that there is an association and that an individual’s perceived

experience during his or her childhood and adolescence does indeed increase the

likelihood that they will see their partner more positively than they see themselves.

Second, is there an association between individual traits and skills (e.g., self-esteem,

attachment orientations, self-regulatory efforts and strategies, and coming to terms with

one’s family background experiences) and partner-enhancing cognitions. The study

demonstrated that yes, there is an association between these factors and partner

enhancement and no, some do not, and that some have a negative correlation between

them (e.g., self-esteem). Finally, the question of social network approval and its

relationship to partner enhancement was posed. This study found strong support in the

affirmative to this question. Social network approval, especially for wives, leads them to

perceive their partner’s positive personality traits as stronger than they see their own.


87

This study also explored the potential mediating effects of individual variables

between family-of-origin and partner enhancement. It seems clear that partner

enhancement is an important variable in understanding romantic relationship research.

Very few studies focus on variables that predict cognitions, and the results of this study

are intriguing in that respect. This study sheds further light on the impact of family-of-

origin variables on cognitions and marital functioning. In addition, self-esteem clearly

plays a pivotal role when it comes to evaluating one’s partner. More studies on partner

enhancement need to unpack the nuances of self-esteem. Further, this study adds to the

social-network literature and opens the door to new pathways of research on cognitions

and their role in marital outcomes. Although Larson and Holman’s (1994) model was

comprehensive 20 years ago, it is clear that updates could be in order. Finally, these

results are important to family life educators and relationship therapists as they help

individuals and couples reflect upon the impact of their past and current perceptions.


88

REFERENCES

Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Maintaining and enhancing a relationship by attending to it. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 153-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042-1057. Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 58, 628-640. Amato, P. R. & DeBoer, D. (2001). The transmission of divorce across generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1038-1051. Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612-624. Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult children’s psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66, 900-921. Anders, S. L., & Tucker, J. S. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal communication competence, and social support. Personal Relationships, 7, 379- 389. Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM SPSS (Version 20.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484. Baldwin, M. W., & Keelan, J. P. R. (1999). Interpersonal expectations as a function of self-esteem and sex. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 822-833. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44.


89

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. New York: Academic Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D., (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 1-14. Bellavia, G., & Murray, S. L. (2003). Did I do that? Self-esteem-related differences in reaction to romantic partners’ moods. Personal Relationships, 10, 77-95. Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122-144). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwood. Berndt, A. E. (1998, August). “Typical” model features and their effects on goodness-of fit indices. Presented at the 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bertoni, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2010). Satisfied and dissatisfied couples: Positive and Negative dimensions, conflict styles, and relationship with family of origin. European Psychologist, 15, 175-184. Biesanz, J. C., & West, S. G. (2000). Personality coherence: Moderating self-other profile

agreement and profiles consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 425-437. Black, K. A., & Schutte, E. D. (2006). Recollections of being loved: Implications of childhood experiences with parents for young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1459-1480 Boden, J. S., Fischer, J. L., & Niehuis, S. (2010). Predicting marital adjustment from young adults’ initial levels and changes in emotional intimacy over time: A 25- year longitudinal study. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 121-134.

Botkin, D. R., O’Neal-Weeks, M., & Morris, J. E. (2000). Changing marriage role expectations:1961-1996. Sex Roles, 42, 933-942. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic. Broderick, C. B. (1988). Marriage and the family (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


90

Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & Maharaj, A. (2010). Social networks and marital stability Among black American and white American couples. In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 318-334). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bryant, C. M., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Martial success and domains of social support in long-term relationships: Does the influence of network members ever end? Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 437-450. Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on change in marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614-626. Burr, W. R., & Klein, S. R. (1994). Reexamining family stress. London: Sage Publications. Busby, D. M., Carroll, J. S., & Willoughby, B. J. (2010). Compatibility or restraint?: The effects of sexual timing on marriage relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 766-774. Busby, D. M., Gardner, B. C., & Taniguchi, N. (2005). The family of origin parachute model: Landing safely in adult romantic relationships. Family Relations, 54, 254- 264. Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009). The association between partner enhancement and self-enhancement and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 449-464. Busby, D. M., & Loyer-Carlson, V. (2003). Pathways to marriage: Premarital and early marital relationships. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Canary, D. J., & Dainton, M. (2006). Maintaining relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D.

Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 727- 743). New York: Cambridge University Press. Canary, D. J., & Emmers-Somer, T. M. (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal

relationship. New York: Guilford Press. Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 17-31.


91

Clark, S. C., Dover, A. M., Geher, G., & Presson, P. K. (2005). Perceptions of self and of ideal mates: Similarities and differences across the sexes. Current Psychology, 24, 180-202. Cohn, D. A., Silver, D. H., Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., & Pearson, J. (1992). Working models of childhood attachment and couple relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 432-449. Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810- 832. Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2001). Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 60-85). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004a). An attachment theory perspective on cloeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163-188). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004b). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363-383. Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., & Allard, L. M. (2006). Working models of

attachment and attribution processes in intimate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 201-219.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644- 663. Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237. Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. B., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 218-235.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse rating on the Neo personality inventory. New York: Guilford Press.


92

Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (2002). Stability of attachment representations: The transition to marriage. Developmental Psychology, 38, 467-479.

Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., Gao, Y., Fyffe, C., Pan, H., & Waters, E. (2002). Assessing secure base behavior in adulthood: Development of a measure, links to adult attachment representations, and relations to couples’ communication and reports of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 38, 679-693. Dattilio, F. M. (2005). The restructuring of family schemas: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 15-30. Day, R. D. (2010). Introduction to family processes (5th ed). New York, NY: Routledge. Davis, K. E. (1999). What attachment styles and love styles add to the understanding of commitment and relatinship stability. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.) Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 221-238). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562-576. Doxey, C., & Holman, T. B. (2001). Social contexts influencing marital quality. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp.119-140). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Draper, T. W., & Holman, T. B. (2005). Locating the big five personality factors in the RELATE relationship evaluation measures. Psychological Reports, 97, 877-886. Edelstein, R. S., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Avoidant attachment: Exploration of an oxymoron. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 397-414). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Epstein, N. B., & Baucom, D. H. (2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Etcheverry, P. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409-428. Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., & Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence. Personal Relationships, 15, 281-295.


93

Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259-1287. Fincham, F. D. (2001). Attributions in close relationships: From balkanization to integration. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 3-31). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1999). Marriage in the new millennium: Is there a place for social cognition in marital research? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 685-704. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 630-649. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72-81. Fitzpatrick, J. (2012). Support and interference from social network members: A conceptual framework. In M. E. Paludi (Ed.), The Psychology of Love (Vol. 1, pp. 73-88). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Fitzpatrick, J., & Dunn, T. (2011, October). The associations among persnal factors, interpersonal competeence and avoidant attachment among young adults. Poster presetnted at the Fifth Conference on Emerging Adulthood, Providence, RI. Fletcher, G. J. O., Overall, N. C., & Friesen, M. D. (2006). Social cognition in intimate

relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 353-368). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Loss and bereavement: Attachment theory and recent controversies concerning “grief work” and the nature of detachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 735-759). New York: Guilford Press. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154. Framo, J. L. (1992). Family-of-origin therapy. An intergenerational approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Gallo, L. C., & Smith, T. W. (2001). Attachment style in marriage: Adjustment and responses to interaction. Journal of Social and personal Relationships, 18, 263- 289.


94

Gardner, B. C., Busby, D. M., & Brimhall, A. S. (2007). Putting emotional reactivity in its place? Exploring family-of-origin influences on emotional reactivity, conflict and satisfaction in premarital couples. Contemporary Family Theory, 29, 113- 127. Gardener, B. C., Busby, D. M., Burr, B. K., & Lyon, S. E. (2011). Getting to the root of

relationship attributions: Family-of-origin perspectives on self and partner views. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33, 253-272.

Gottman, J. M., & Driver, J. L. (2005). Dysfunctional marital conflict and everyday marital interaction. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43, 63-77. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41, 83-96. Hair, E. C., Anderson-Moore, K., Hadley, A. M., Kaye, K., Day, R., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Profiles of relationships quality. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 189-217. Halford, W. K., Lizzio, A. Wilson, K. L., & Occhipinti, S. (2007). Does working at your

marriage help? Couple relationship self-regulation and satisfaction in the first 4 years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 185-194.

Halford, W. K., & Moore, E. (2002). Relationship education and the prevention of couple

relationship problems. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couples therapy (3rd ed., pp. 400-419). New York: Guilford.

Halford, W. K., Sanders, M. R., & Behrens, B. C. (1994). Self-regulation in behavioral couples therapy. Behavior Therapy, 25, 431-452. Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do.

New York: Free Press. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on

close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22. Hill, E. W. (2001). Understanding forgiveness as discovery: Implications for marital and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23, 369-384.


95

Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (1998). Premarital predictors of relationship outcomes: A 15- year follow up of the Boston couples study. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.). The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 237-278). New York: Cambridge University Press. Holman, T. B., & Associates. (2001). Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Holman, T. B., Larson, J. H., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing marital quality. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp.105-117). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Holmes, J. G. (2002). Interpersonal expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: An interdependence theory perspective. Personal Relationships, 9, 1- 26. Holmes, J. G., & Boon, S. D. (1990). Developments in the field of close relationship: Creating foundations for interventions strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 23-41. Homer, M. M., Freeman, P. A., Zabriskie, R. B., & Eggett, D. L. (2007). Rituals and

relationships: Examining the relationship between family of origin rituals and young adult attachment. Marriage & Family Review, 42(1), 5-27.

Honeycutt, J. M., & Cantrill, J. G. (2001). Cognition, communication, and romantic

relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hoopes, M. H. (1987). Multigenerational systems: Basic assumptions. American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 195-205. Huston, T. L., Niehuis, S., & Smith, S. E. (2001). The early marital roots of conjugal distress and divorce. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 116-119 Jacquet, S. E., & Surra, C. A. (2001). Parental divorce and premarital couples: Commitment and other relationship characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 627-638. Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2007). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 1 16.


96

Kapinus, C. A. (2005). The effect of parental marital quality on young adults’ attitudes toward divorce. Sociological Perspectives, 48, 319-335. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Cognition and the development of close relationships. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Social cognition (pp. 194-221). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kearns, J. N., & Leonard, K. E. (2004). Social networks, structural interdependence, and marital quality over the transition to marriage: A prospective analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 383-395.

Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448. Kim, H. K., Pears, K. C., Capaldi, D. M., & Owen, L. D. (2009). Emotion dysregulation in the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 585-595. Koch, E. J., & Shepperd, J. A. (2008). Testing competence and acceptance explanation of self-esteem. Self and Identity, 7, 54-74. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480- 498. Larson, J. H., Benson, M. J., Wilson, S. M., & Medora, N. (1998). Family-of-origin influences on marital attitudes and readiness for marriage in late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 750-768. Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (1994). Premarital predictors of marital quality and stability. Family Relations, 43, 228-237. Larson, J. H., Taggart-Reedy, M., & Wilson, S. M. (2001). The effects of perceived

dysfunctional family-of-origin rules on the dating relationships of young adults. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23, 489-512.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-62). San Diego: Academic Press.


97

Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Ashmore, R. D. (2006). The relationship of social approval contingency to trait self-esteem: Cause, consequence, or moderator? Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 121-139. Lewis, R. B., & Spainer, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Ney, and I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 268-294). New York: Free Press. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. Maner, J. K., & Miller, S. L. (2011). The evolution of romantic relationships: Adaptive

challenges and relationship cognition in emerging adulthood. In F. D. Fincham and M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Marks, S. R. (1986). Three corners: Exploring marriage and the self. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. L. (2010). Fighting for your marriage: A deluxe revised edition of the classic best seller for enhancing marriage and preventing divorce. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Martinson, V. K. (2006). How coming to terms with difficulties in the family of origin positively influences adult children’s relationship/martial quality. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from etd.lib.byu.edu/collection.html. Martinson, V. K., Holman, T. B., Larson, J. H., & Jackson, J. B. (2010). The relationship

between coming to terms with family-of-origin difficulties and adult relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 207-217.

McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M., & Karney, B. R. (2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship maintenance: “Don’t sweat the small stuff”. . . . But it is not all small stuff. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 631-646. Meredith, D. B., & Holman, T. B. (2001). Breaking up before and after marriage. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 47-77). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.


98

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Morry, M. M., Reich, T., & Kito, M. (2010). How do I see you relative to myself? Relationship quality as a predictor of self- and partner-enhancement within cross- sex friendships, dating relationship, and marriages. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 369-392. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707-722. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusion in romantic

relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586-604. Murray, S. L., Homes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). The benefits of positive illusions:

Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155-1180. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478-498. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G., & Rose, P. (2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 423-436. Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Bellavia, G. M., Holmes, J. G., & Kusche, A. G. (2002). When rejection stings: How self-esteem constrains relationship-enhancement processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 556-573. Mustillo, S., Wilson, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2004). Legacy volunteering: A test of two theories of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 530-541. Mruk, C. J. (2006). Self-esteem: Research, theory, and practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Springer Publishing Company. Neff, A. L., & Karney, B. R. (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 594- 607.


99

Nichols, M. P. (2011). The essential of family therapy (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. Niehuis, S., Huston, T. L., & Rosenband, R. (2006). From courtship into marriage: A new

developmental model and methodological critique. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 23-47.

Niehuis, S., Lee, K.-H., Reifman, A., Swenson, A., & Hunsaker, S. (2011). Idealization and disillusionment in intimate relationships: A review of theory, method, and research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 273-302.

Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Perren, S., Von Wyl, A., Burgin, D., Simoni, H., & Von Klitzing, K. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of marital quality across the transition to parenthood. Family Process, 44, 441-459. Planalp, S., & Rivers, M. (1996). Changes in knowledge of personal relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 299-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Raykov, T, & Marcouldes, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social

environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-336.

Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. H. (1994). When partners transgress: Maintaining violated

relationships. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 23-43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A., Wildschut, T., Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 521-545.


100

Russell, D. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in PSPB. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629-1646.

Sacco, W. P., & Phares, V. (2001). Partner appraisal and marital satisfaction: The role of self-esteem and depression. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 504-513. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.

Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177. Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,

371-390. Simpson, J. S., Rholes, S. W., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An

attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899- 914. Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995).What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden

assumptions in the behavioral sciences. London: Sage Publications.

Smith, S. D., & Ng, K. (2009). Association between adult romantic attachment styles and family-of-origin expressive atmosphere. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 17, 220-228. Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7, 325-340. Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888-900. Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the “Romantic Beliefs Scale” and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 6, 387-411. Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and change in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 257-284). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stackert, R. A., & Bursik, K. (2002). Why am I unsatisfied? Adult attachment style, gendered irrational relationship beliefs, and young adult romantic relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1419-1429.


101

Stahmann, R. F. (2000). Premarital counseling: A focus for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 104-116. Stanley, S. M. (2001). Making a case for premarital education. Family Relations, 50, 272- 280. Stoop, D. (2011). Forgiving our parents forgiving ourselves. Ventura, CA: Regal. Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1139-1162. Story, L. B., Karney, B. R., Lawrence, E., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Interpersonal mediators in the intergenerational transmission of marital dysfunction. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 519-529. Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 265-286). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tolhuizen, J. H. (189). Communication strategies for intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use and structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 413-434. Topham, G. L., Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (2005). Family-of-origin predictors of hostile conflict in early marriage. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27, 101-121. Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Waller, W. (1937). The rating and dating complex. American Sociological Review, 2, 727-734. Wamboldt, F., & Reiss, D. (1989). Defining a family heritage and a new relationship: Two central themes in the making of a marriage. Family Process, 28, 317-335. Wareham, J., Boots, D. P., & Chavez, J. M. (2009). A test of social learning and

intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 163-173. Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684-689.


102

Whitton, S. W., Waldinger, R. J., Schultz, M. S., Allen, J. P., Crowell, J. A., & Hauser, S. T. (2008). Prospective associations form family-of-origin interactions to adult marital interactions and relationship adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 274-286. Williamson, D. S., & Bray, J. H. (1988). Family development and change across the generations: An intergenerational perspective. In D. J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the life cycle (pp. 357-384). New York, NY: Guilford. Wilson, K. L., Charker, J., Lizzio, A., Halford, K., & Kimlin, S. (2005). Assessing how much couples work at their relationships: The behavioral self-regulation for effective relationships scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 385-393. Yu, T., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). The intergenerational transmission of relationship quality: The effects of parental remarriage quality on young adults’ relationships. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 4, 87-101.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES...position, my dissertation, and my family. I would also like...

Documents

Transcript of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES...position, my dissertation, and my family. I would also like...