Personality Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction among ...

Brigham Young University Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2005-07-08

Personality Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction among Personality Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction among

Engaged and Married Couples: An Analysis of Actor and Partner Engaged and Married Couples: An Analysis of Actor and Partner

Effects Effects

Nicole L. Mead Brigham Young University - Provo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Mead, Nicole L., "Personality Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction among Engaged and Married Couples: An Analysis of Actor and Partner Effects" (2005). Theses and Dissertations. 552. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/552

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

http://home.byu.edu/home/

http://home.byu.edu/home/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F552&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/419?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F552&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/552?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fetd%2F552&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected],%[email protected]

PERSONALITY PREDICTORS OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION AMONG

ENGAGED AND MARRIED COUPLES: AN ANALYSIS OF ACTOR

AND PARTNER EFFECTS

by

Nicole L. Mead

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Marriage, Family and Human Development

School of Family Life

Brigham Young University

August 2005

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL

of a thesis submitted by

Nicole L. Mead

This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory. ___________________________ ____________________________________ Date Thomas B. Holman, Chair ___________________________ ____________________________________ Date Thomas Draper ___________________________ ____________________________________ Date Joseph A. Olsen

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the master’s thesis of Nicole L. Mead in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style requirements; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the university library.

___________________________ ____________________________________ Date Thomas B. Holman

Chair, Graduate Committee Accepted for the Program ____________________________________ Thomas Draper Graduate Coordinator Marriage, Family and Human Development Accepted for the School ____________________________________ James M. Harper Director, School of Family Life

ABSTRACT



AND PARTNER EFFECTS

Nicole L. Mead

Marriage, Family and Human Development

School of Family Life

Master of Science

With a sample of 3,436 engaged and married couples, this study explores the

prediction of relationship satisfaction using the personality traits of neuroticism,

depression, kindness, impulsivity, flexibility, self-esteem, and extraversion while

utilizing controls for non-independent couple data in structural equation modeling. Both

actor effects (the impact of an individual’s personality on his or her own satisfaction) and

partner effects (the impact of the partner’s personality on satisfaction) are examined,

including comparisons of the relative strength of each for males and females. A

comparison is also made of engaged and married couples to determine if relationship

status acts as a moderator. A separate model is estimated for each personality trait, and

all the models show excellent fit statistics. Findings show significant, negative actor and

partner effects for neuroticism, depression, and impulsivity, and significant, positive actor

and partner effects for kindness, flexibility, and self-esteem among both engaged and

married couples. Extraversion has some significant positive effects but is a weaker

predictor. Actor effects are generally stronger than partner effects among the engaged

couples in the sample, however among married couples the actor and partner effects are

more often of equal magnitude. Many paths differ significantly between engaged and

married couples, and in each case the paths are stronger among married couples. These

findings support the idea that a variety of personality traits are important predictors of

satisfaction, and that both actor and partner effects need to be considered. Findings also

give evidence that relationship status acts as a moderator, indicating that personality may

be a stronger predictor of satisfaction among married couples than engaged couples.

With some traits, an engaged individual’s own personality may be a more powerful

predictor of his or her satisfaction than the partner’s personality, while both spouse’s

traits may be equally predictive of a married individual’s satisfaction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................................................1

Review of Literature .....................................................................................................5

Personality Traits and Relationship Satisfaction ...............................................5

Neuroticism ...........................................................................................5

Depression .............................................................................................7

Kindness ................................................................................................7

Other Personality Traits ........................................................................8

The Moderating Effect of Relationship Status ......................................10

Hypotheses ........................................................................................................11

Methods .........................................................................................................................13

Sample ...............................................................................................................13

Procedure ..........................................................................................................14

Instrumentation .................................................................................................15

Marital Satisfaction ...............................................................................15

Personality .............................................................................................15

Results ...........................................................................................................................16

Analysis of Model Fit .......................................................................................19

Major Findings ..................................................................................................19

Engaged Couples ..................................................................................20

Married Couples ....................................................................................22

The Impact of Relationship Status ........................................................24

Discussion .....................................................................................................................24

Limitations ........................................................................................................29

Implications for Future Research ......................................................................31

Conclusion ........................................................................................................32

References .....................................................................................................................34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Theoretical Model ......................................................................................40

Figure 2 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Neuroticism ............41

Figure 3 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Depression ..............42

Figure 4 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Kindness .................43

Figure 5 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Impulsivity .............44

Figure 6 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Flexibility ...............45

Figure 7 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Self-Esteem ............46

Figure 8 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Extraversion ...........47

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sample Characteristics ................................................................................48

Table 2 Scale Reliability Measures for Study Variables .........................................49

Table 3a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Neuroticism Items ....50

Table 3b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction

and Neuroticism Items ................................................................................51

Table 4a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Depression Items ......52


and Depression Items ..................................................................................53

Table 5a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Kindness Items .........54


and Kindness Items .....................................................................................55

Table 6a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Impulsivity Items .....56


and Impulsivity Items .................................................................................57

Table 7a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Flexibility Items .......58


and Flexibility Items ...................................................................................59

Table 8a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Self-Esteem Items ....60


and Self-Esteem Items ................................................................................61

Table 9a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Extraversion Items ...62


and Extraversion Items ...............................................................................63

Table 10 Actor and Partner Effects of Personality Dimensions on Relationship

Satisfaction: Engaged Couples (Unstandardized coefficients) ...................64

Table 11 Actor and Partner Effects of Personality Dimensions on Relationship

Satisfaction: Married Couples (Unstandardized coefficients) ....................65

Table 12 Tests of Equal Actor and Partner Effects, Equal Effects of Predictors, and

Equal Effects on Outcomes Models: Engaged Couples .............................66

Table 13 Tests of Equal Actor and Partner Effects, Equal Effects of Predictors, and

Equal Effects on Outcomes Models: Married Couples ...............................67

Table 14 Test of Equal Actor and Partner Effects between Engaged and Married

Groups .........................................................................................................68

1



AND PARTNER EFFECTS

Introduction

Marital satisfaction is one of the most researched topics surrounding marriage

(Fincham & Linfield, 1997), and for dating or other non-married couples the parallel

construct of relationship satisfaction has come to be just as widely studied. Whether

called satisfaction, quality, or happiness, the construct is usually conceptualized as an

individual’s subjective evaluation of the marriage or relationship, and is most often

measured as an individual variable (Anderson, Russell, & Schumm, 1983). Poor quality

marriages and relationships may detract from an individual’s quality of life, and can be a

source of significant stress (Burman & Margolin, 1992). Research has found that marital

discord, separation and divorce have negative consequences for the mental and physical

health of spouses (Bloom, Asher, & White, 1978; Gottman, 1993; Wallerstein, 1986), as

well as their children (Fergusson & Horwood, 2001). Therefore, understanding the

factors underlying satisfying relationships and marriages is important in understanding

how successful relationships can be achieved, which can in turn contribute to the overall

well-being of individuals and families.

As early researchers began to study differences between happy and unhappy

marriages, their work was deeply influenced by personality theory, and generally

addressed the question “are some personality traits more ideally suited to successful

marriage?” (Gottman & Notarius, 2002, p. 159). In time, researchers began to expand

their interest to include other predictors of relationship satisfaction, and for a time

2

personality-focused research fell out of favor as interpersonal processes became the

preferred emphasis for many researchers (Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004).

However, there is a current resurgence of interest in the influence of more stable

intrapersonal factors on marital satisfaction, in part because of the difficulty in predicting

marital satisfaction from couple conflict alone, and a growing recognition that

interpersonal processes may be influenced by underlying personality traits (Gattis et al.;

Karney & Bradbury, 1997).

The results of early research suggested a connection between personality and

relationship satisfaction, although psychologists have struggled with the

conceptualization and measurement of personality. Over time the field has come to a

general acceptance of a useful conceptualization called the five-factor model of

personality (also called the big five), a model that grew out of studies in natural language.

Initially, 1,500 trait adjectives were identified in the English language, which were then

combined into broader, more basic dimensions until analyses arrived at a replicable five-

factor structure (McCrae, 1991). This structure includes the dimensions of neuroticism

(also called emotional instability, negative affectivity, or nervousness), extraversion

(sociability and energy), openness (originality and intellectual curiosity), agreeableness

(sympathy and cooperation), and conscientiousness (a sense of competence and control).

Measurements based on this model of personality have proven to have good reliability

and validity, and encompass many of the previously used models of personality in a

simple organization (McCrae).

Research has shown that these five personality characteristics are useful in

assessing the association between personality and marital adjustment, and they are

3

commonly used in relationship research. A variety of other traits have also been included

in this research, however, and many of them also appear to be useful predictors of

relationship satisfaction. In a comprehensive literature review of longitudinal studies on

change in the quality and stability of marriage over time, Karney and Bradbury (1995)

found that a striking diversity of personality factors have been examined in this body of

research (56 traits in all). However, the most consistent finding across all of the studies

was that neuroticism is linked to more negative marital outcomes. The authors suggested

that further research was needed to make the influence of the other various personality

characteristics more clear, and to explain the link between personality and relationship

satisfaction more thoroughly.

Since the Karney and Bradbury (1995) article, the body of research examining the

impact of personality on relationship satisfaction has continued to expand. An

assortment of questions have been examined, including: how similarity or dissimilarity in

spouses’ personality impacts satisfaction (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Gattis et

al., 2004; Nemechek & Olsen, 1999; Watson et al., 2004); the role of individual ideals

regarding a spouse’s personality, and how this affects mate selection and satisfaction

(Botwin, et al.); ways in which the relationship between personality and relationship

satisfaction differ from distressed/clinical couples to non-distressed couples (Gattis et

al.); and how the relationship between personality and relationship satisfaction is

mediated by couple interaction processes or other variables (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts,

2000; Holman et al., 2001; Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Miller, Caughlin, & Huston, 2003;

Schneewind & Gerhard, 2002). Researchers have also sought to unravel the relative

importance of actor effects, or the way an individual’s personality influences his or her

4

own relationship satisfaction, and partner effects, or the way the spouse’s personality

influences an individual’s relationship satisfaction (Lavee & Adital, 2004; Whisman,

Uebelacker, & Weinstock, 2004), a topic that was often overlooked in early research.

Despite the wide growth of research in this area, certain challenges remain that

have not been addressed in many of these studies. First, most studies fail to distinguish

between married and unmarried couples, using a sample of married couples only or using

a mixed sample, thereby not allowing for the examination of how the relationship

between personality and relationship satisfaction may be moderated by relationship

status. Furthermore, to clearly understand the effects of personality it is important to

analyze husbands and wives separately, and to use data from both spouses rather than just

one (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Some studies fail to do this, while those that do use

data from both spouses face the further challenge of dealing with the non-independent

nature of dyadic data because of the correlation between spouses’ scores, which can bias

findings (Kenny, 1996). Researchers are beginning to use innovative techniques to deal

with the problem of non-independence with structural equation modeling (Miller et al.,

2003; Robins, Caspri, & Moffitt, 2000; Whisman et al., 2004). The current study will

employ these statistical techniques to answer the following research questions:

R1 What is the impact of a variety of personality characteristics (neuroticism,

depression, impulsivity, kindness, flexibility, self-esteem, and extraversion)

on relationship satisfaction for males and females, including both actor

effects and partner effects, when controlling for the effects of non-

independence?

5

R2 Are actor effects and partner effects equally important for predicting the

impact of personality traits on males’ and females’ relationship

satisfaction?

R3 What is the moderating role of relationship status (engaged vs. married)

on these effects?

Review of Empirical Literature

The research questions are used to guide the review of literature. Research

linking each personality trait of interest to relationship satisfaction is reviewed, including

research examining the actor effects and partner effects of personality for men and

women. This is followed with research relating to the moderating effects of relationship

status.

Personality Traits and Relationship Satisfaction

Neuroticism

In their review of the longitudinal research on marital satisfaction, Karney and

Bradbury (1995) report that the most consistent and prominent result within the

personality research is that neuroticism (sometimes called emotional instability, negative

affectivity, or anxiety) is linked to dissatisfaction in relationships. Indeed, subsequent

research continues to replicate this finding (Gattis et al., 2004; Karney & Bradbury,

1997).

The literature indicates that there is a strong negative actor effect for neuroticism

among both men and women (Lavee & Adital, 2004; Watson et al., 2004), although in

one article the actor effect was reported to be stronger among women than men

(Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999). Most research also indicates that neuroticism has

6

a negative partner effect, meaning men and women whose spouse or partner is high in

neuroticism tend to report lower relationship satisfaction (Bouchard et al.; Watson et al.).

One contrasting study conducted with a Jewish sample found a partner effect of

husbands’ neuroticism on wives’ satisfaction, but no partner effect for wives’ neuroticism

on husbands’ satisfaction (Lavee & Adital, 2004). In another study examining

positive/negative temperaments and emotional states, which are linked to neuroticism, it

was reported that there were equal actor and partner effects for women, meaning both

their own emotions and their husbands’ emotions were equally predictive of lower

satisfaction. For husbands, however, the actor effects were reported to be stronger,

meaning their own emotions predict their dissatisfaction more strongly than was the case

for their wives (Blum & Mehrabian, 1999).

Neuroticism has been linked to several mediating variables, including negative

interaction behaviors (Caughlin et al., 2000), and coping strategies used during conflict

(Bouchard, 2003), indicating that neuroticism may negatively impact relationships partly

through its impact on couple interaction processes. Neuroticism in wives has also been

linked to husbands’ perceived likelihood of the wives having an affair, indicating that

neuroticism may also impact marriage through the way spouses perceive each other (Buss

& Shackelford, 1997). Researchers suggest that neuroticism may negatively impact

marital adjustment not only in the way a spouse views his or her neurotic partner, but also

because the general negative affectivity of the neurotic spouse may mean he or she is less

likely to view their partners in positive or idealized terms, which also leads to lower

adjustment in the relationship (Bouchard et al., 1999).

7

Depression

Depression is another trait that has been widely examined in conjunction with

relationships and found to have a powerful negative effect. Research reports that there is

a strong negative actor effect for depression among both men and women (Sacco &

Phares, 2001; Whisman et al., 2004), and that there is also a significant negative partner

effect for depression (Whisman et al.). Husbands with depressive symptoms have

specifically been found to report lower relationship satisfaction in a Jewish sample

(Lavee & Adital, 2004). Part of the negative impact of depression on relationship

satisfaction may be due to its link with unrealistic perfectionism in women (Dimitrovsky,

Levy-Shiff, & Schattner-Zanany, 2002), its impact on conflict resolution and other

interaction behaviors (Marchand, 2004; Schmaling & Jacobson, 1990), and with its

negative impact on women’s attachment security in romantic relationships (Carnelley,

Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994).

Kindness

In contrast to the negative predictive power of neuroticism and depression,

kindness has been associated with higher levels of satisfaction in close relationships. A

relatively early study (Antill, 1983) found that high femininity in both males and females

was predictive of higher relationship satisfaction for both sexes. Miller et al. (2003)

explained that typically feminine traits include understanding, trait expressiveness, and

kindness, and that these link what was termed femininity with relationship satisfaction for

both males and females. Individuals with these traits likely take a communal approach

rather than an exchange approach to relationships, and therefore may be less likely to

8

monitor the partner’s shortcomings, and more likely to be affectionate and responsive

(Miller et al.).

Agreeableness, one of the big five personality factors, is highly related to

kindness and has been found to be strongly associated with relationship satisfaction

through both actor effects and partner effects (Botwin et al., 1997; Watson et al., 2004).

Women who are high in agreeableness view their husbands as less likely to have an affair

than do wives who are low in agreeableness (Buss & Shackelford, 1997), which supports

the idea that partners high in agreeableness and kindness have more positive perceptions

of each other, which in turn may lead to greater satisfaction for both partners.

Other Personality Traits

In addition to neuroticism, depression, and kindness, several other personality

traits could be used as predictors of relationship satisfaction including impulsivity,

flexibility, self-esteem, and extraversion. Impulsivity and flexibility have been less

widely studied in the relationship satisfaction literature. The results of one study

examining the role of desirability of different traits indicated that having a partner whose

temperament tended toward more positive emotional states is associated with greater

satisfaction in relationships, while temperaments characterized by negative emotional

states are associated with dissatisfaction (Blum & Mahrabian, 1999). The authors

suggested that personality traits associated with positive or negative temperaments would

be similarly related to satisfaction. Impulsivity is often measured by irritability,

becoming easily upset, and similar measures. Given that an impulsive personality is

related to a lack of response inhibition, which can translate into becoming easily irritated

or angered in interpersonal interactions, it is reasonable that the negativity associated

9

with this trait may cause it to have a negative impact on relationship satisfaction for both

men and women. To support this, research has indicated that a couple interaction pattern

characterized by anger, negativity, and an attack/defend pattern is predictive of divorce

within the first ten years of marriage (Gottman & Levenson, 2002). Another study found

that wives who did not get along with their husbands and who had chronic trouble

becoming sexually aroused are higher in anxiety and impulsivity (Kupfer, Rosenbaum, &

Detre, 1977).

Flexibility, in contrast to impulsivity, is characteristic of those with more relaxed,

easy-going personalities, thus it is reasonable that flexibility may be related to higher

relationship satisfaction for males and females. When asked to rank order 40 personality

traits in terms of how desirable they are in a romantic partner, flexibility was not very

highly ranked by men or women, indicating many couples do not consider this trait to be

as central to relationship success as other traits are (Blum & Mahrabian, 1999).

However, one theoretical model used by family therapists, the Circumplex Model of

Marital and Family Systems, suggests that flexibility is one of the three central

dimensions of functional marital and family systems, along with cohesion and

communication (Olsen, 1999). This model suggests that couples who have a healthy

level of flexibility in their leadership, roles, and relationship rules will be higher

functioning than couples with overly rigid or overly chaotic levels of flexibility. Thus,

individuals whose personalities are characterized by flexibility may have higher levels of

satisfaction than those who are very low in flexibility, and may also be more likely to

have satisfied spouses or partners, as long as the flexibility leads to balance in the

relationship.

10

Another trait that relates closely to positive temperaments and emotional states is

self-esteem. One study indicated that having high self-esteem predicted an individual’s

own relationship satisfaction for both men and women (Sacco & Phares, 2001). Another

study found that self-esteem was a positive predictor of one’s own marital satisfaction for

both males and females, partially mediating the relationship between each individual’s

past relationship with his or her parents, and his or her current relationship satisfaction

(Holman, Larson, & Olsen, 2001). Self-esteem was also found to correlate positively

with individuals’ own levels of global satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and emotional

satisfaction in marriage for both husbands and wives, and to correlate negatively with

various complaints about the spouse for both men and women (Shackelford, 2001). This

may indicate that, although not tested directly, there may also be positive partner effects

for self-esteem.

A final trait of interest is extraversion. This is also one of the big five, and has

been more widely examined as it relates to relationship satisfaction, however past

research indicates that extraversion may not hold as much importance for relationships as

do other characteristics (Botwin et al., 1997). Although this trait was found to be

associated with the manipulation tactics used during relational interaction (Buss, 1992),

extraversion generally yields mixed results or does not contribute to the explanation of

the variance in relationship satisfaction (Bouchard et al., 1999; Watson et al., 2004).

The Moderating Effect of Relationship Status

Some researchers have suggested that the variables predicting relationship

satisfaction at one stage in a relationship may differ from those that are important during

other stages, as relationships change and evolve (Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Watson,

11

Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). This implies that the relative importance of different traits in

predicting relationship satisfaction among couples who are engaged verses those who are

married may differ. The majority of the studies examining personality and relationship

satisfaction use samples that consist only of married couples, only dating couples, or that

mix both married and unmarried couples within the same analysis. This does not allow

researchers to examine the moderating effect of relationship status. One study, however,

did directly test for differences in the way that personality impacts relationship

satisfaction among dating couples and married couples using the five-factor model of

personality (Watson et al., 2000). The authors report differences between dating and

married couples. Extraversion was more strongly correlated with a person’s own

satisfaction among married couples than among dating couples, while conscientiousness

and agreeableness were more strongly correlated with a person’s own satisfaction among

dating couples. This study gives evidence that relationship status may be an important

moderating variable to take into consideration, however little more is known about its

moderating effects for couples because it is so uncommonly examined in the literature.

Hypotheses

Past research indicates that personality is one important factor to consider in

understanding the foundations for relationship satisfaction. A vast array of studies have

shown that many traits are good predictors, but there is still some uncertainty as to the

specific importance of actor and partner effects for many traits, and little is known about

the moderating impact of relationship status. Furthermore, using structural equation

modeling more powerful statistical models are now available that are useful in dealing

with the dyadic data fundamental to this domain of research. The current study will

12

examine the impact of personality on relationship satisfaction while controlling for non-

independence, and will test the following nine hypotheses which are based on the review

of literature:

H1 Neuroticism will have negative actor effects and partner effects on

relationship satisfaction, for both males and females.

H2 Depression will have negative actor effects and partner effects on


H3 Kindness will have positive actor effects and partner effects on


H4 Impulsivity will have negative actor effects and partner effects on


H5 Flexibility will have positive actor effects and partner effects on


H6 Self-esteem will have positive actor effects and partner effects on


H7 Extraversion will not have significant actor effects or partner effects on

relationship satisfaction, for either males or females.

H8 Actor effects will be stronger than partner effects for each personality

trait, for both males and females.

H9 Relationship status (whether a couple is engaged or married) will yield a

significant moderating effect on the relationship between each personality

trait and relationship satisfaction.

13

The general model used to test these hypotheses is shown in Figure 1. For this

model, the couple is the unit of analysis. Data from each partner will be used to evaluate

the relationship between each personality trait and relationship satisfaction, including

both actor effects (paths a and d) and partner effects (paths b and c). The model also

takes into account the non-independent nature of the dyadic data used, allowing for a

correlation between partners’ scores at the residual level.

Methods

Sample

The sample is divided into a married group and an engaged group, thus

descriptive statistics will be reported separately for each. There are 1,803 heterosexual

couples in the engaged group, with mean ages of 28 for the men and 26 for the women.

Twenty-nine percent of the males and 32% of the females were currently enrolled in

college, while 21% of the males and 14% of the females were not enrolled in college and

had a high school education or less. Fifty-one percent of the males and 55% of the

females had some sort of degree beyond high school. Eighty-seven percent of the males

and 88% of the females were Caucasian. The dominant religious affiliation in the sample

was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. LDS, Latter-day Saints, or

Mormons), with 34% of the males and 35% of the females selecting LDS as their

religious affiliation. The second largest religious group included those selecting

Protestant as their religious affiliation, with 26% of the men and 29% of the women.

There are 1,633 couples in the married group, with mean ages of 34 for the men

and 32 for the women. Seventeen percent of the males and 18% of the females were

currently enrolled in college, while 23% of the males and 24% of the females were not

14

enrolled in college and had a high school education or less. Sixty percent of the males

and 58% of the females had some sort of advanced degree beyond high school. Eighty-

eight percent of both the males and the females were Caucasian. Forty-seven percent of

the males and 48% of the females chose LDS as their religious affiliation, while 24% of

the males and 25% of the females are affiliated with a Protestant faith. Table 1 shows the

sample characteristics for engaged males, engaged females (n = 1,803), married males,

and married females (n = 1,633).

Procedure

Data were collected using a relationship survey called the RELATionship

Evaluation (RELATE). The purpose of the survey is twofold, serving both as an outreach

tool to help couples learn about their relationships, and as a tool to gather relationship

data. RELATE contains 271 questions designed to measure respondents’ perceptions

about themselves, their partners, and the relationship. Questions focus on four domains

shown to be predictive of marital quality, including individual characteristics

(personality, styles of interacting, values and beliefs), couple characteristics (couple

communication, patterns of relating, and conflict resolution), family background (parent’s

couple relationship, parent-child relationships, and overall family tone), and social

context (social support, race, SES, religion, and cultural beliefs). RELATE was

administered as a paper-pencil survey from 1997 to 2000, then beginning in 2001 data

were also gathered online at the RELATE website (www.relate-institute.org). RELATE

is generally administered as part of a college course on family relationships, in a

workshop setting, or in a counseling setting, although some couples take RELATE after

simply finding it on the Internet. Each partner in a couple is instructed to complete the

15

survey independently, after which the couple receives a detailed printout including

information about different aspects of the relationship based on their answers to the

survey. (For more information on RELATE, see Busby, Holman, and Taninguchi, 2001).

Instrumentation

Marital Satisfaction

The dependent latent variable used in this study is relationship satisfaction. Five

indicator variables were used in which respondents were asked to rate how personally

satisfied they felt with various aspects of the relationship, including love, conflict

resolution, relationship equality, communication, and the overall relationship. Responses

were given on a five point scale, ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.

The scale has slightly better reliability among married couples than among engaged

couples. The alpha was .85 for engaged males and females, .90 for married males, and

.92 for married females.

Personality

The independent latent variables used in this study included seven personality

traits. All of the items asked participants to rate how well they felt different adjectives or

short phrases described themselves, using a 5-point scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 =

sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = very often. Items from each scale did not appear next to

each other in the questionnaire, but were ordered randomly. Neuroticism was measured

using the four adjectives “worrier,” “fearful,” “tense,” and “nervous.” Depression used

three items, including “sad and blue,” “feel hopeless,” and “depressed.” Kindness

included the four items “considerate,” “loving,” “kind,” and “friendly.” The impulsivity

scale used two items, including “fight with others/lose temper,” and “easily irritated or

16

mad.” Flexibility was measured using the four items “open minded,” “flexible,” “easy

going,” and “adaptable.” The self-esteem scale used four items, including “I take a

positive attitude toward myself,” “I think I am no good at all” (reverse coded), “I feel I

am a person of worth,” and “I am inclined to think I am a failure” (reverse coded).

Finally, extraversion was measured using the four items “talkative,” “quiet” (reverse

coded), “shy” (reverse coded), and “outgoing.” Reliability measures are adequate for all

of the scales, with alpha scores ranging from .70 to .86. Reliability measures for these

scales can be found in Table 2.

Results

The analyses of this study were conducted using Analysis of Moment Structures

(AMOS, v. 4.01; Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999), a structural equation modeling (SEM)

program. A separate model was run for each personality trait as shown in Figure 1, and

each model had two groups (engaged and married). In order to control for the biasing

effects of non-independence inherent to the dyadic data used in this study, corresponding

error terms for male and female items in each path model were allowed to correlate

(Kenny, 1996; Miller et al., 2003). Using SEM offers the advantage of testing actor

effects, or the impact of an individual’s personality on his or her own relationship

satisfaction, and while controlling for the expected correlation between partners’ scores,

simultaneously testing partner effects, or the way each partner’s personality crosses over

to influence the other’s satisfaction. Such an approach is a dramatic improvement over

past analytic methods that could not examine the influence of both partner’s personality

on both partner’s relationship satisfaction with such stringent controls. Additionally,

SEM makes the process of comparing alternative nested models simple, which

17

streamlines the process of comparing the engaged and married groups and testing for

equal actor and partner effects. The drawback of using these particular SEM models,

however, is that each personality characteristic is analyzed in a separate model which

does not allow a test of how each trait contributes to relationship satisfaction while

controlling for the other traits.

To test if actor effects and partner effects are equivalent in strength for males and

females, additional nested models are created with corresponding paths constrained to

have a single value (path a with path d, then path b with path c). When probability values

for the difference in the χ2 test are less than .05, this indicates that the constrained model

and the unconstrained model differ significantly from one another, and we cannot treat

the paths as equal. To test whether actor or partner effects are stronger, two kinds of

models are used. First, the equal effects of predictor models will constrain path a with

path b to test for equal effects of female predictors, and path c with path d to test for

equal effects of male predictors. This simply tests if females’ traits have an equal impact

on female and male satisfaction, and males’ traits have an equal impact on female and

male satisfaction. Next, the equal effects on outcomes models will constrain path a with

path c to test for equal effects on female outcomes, and path b with path d to test for

equal effects on male outcomes. This tests whether the male and the female traits are

equally predictive of male satisfaction, and if male and the female traits are equally

predictive of female satisfaction. Using both tests allows a more fine-grained comparison

of the relative importance of actor and partner effects for both males and females.

Finally, to test for moderation of relationship status, corresponding paths are constrained

across the engaged and married groups (i.e. path a will be constrained across groups, path

18

b will be constrained across groups, etc.), and we compare the χ2 value of the constrained

model with that for the baseline model to determine if the paths can be considered to be

equal across groups.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among relationship satisfaction

variables and personality variables can be found in Table 3 (neuroticism), Table 4

(depression), Table 5 (kindness), Table 6 (impulsivity), Table 7 (flexibility), Table 8

(self-esteem), and Table 9 (extraversion). Part a of each table shows within-person

correlations between personality items and satisfaction items for the engaged and married

groups, while part b of each table shows between-person correlations for the engaged and

married groups (i.e. the correlation between the male and the female’s scores on the

items). Within three scales used in the models, certain individual items were highly

correlated, and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that there was cross-loading

between these items, thus they were allowed to correlate in order to improve model fit.

Within the relationship satisfaction scale, the item “love” was allowed to correlate with

the item “overall relationship.” That these items are highly correlated means that

respondents are viewing them very similarly. Also within the relationship scale, the item

“how conflicts are resolved” was allowed to correlate with the item “quality of

communication,” which is reasonable considering both are communication related items.

Two very similar items in the self-esteem scale were allowed to correlate, the item “I

think I am no good at all,” and “I am inclined to think I am a failure.” Within the

extraversion scale, “talkative” was allowed to correlate with its negative form, “shy.”

19

Analysis of Model Fit

In order to evaluate model fit, several fit measures are presented. The χ2 statistic

and two incremental fit indexes will be presented, in line with Hoyle and Panter’s (1995)

recommendation to report both absolute fit indexes and incremental fit indexes. The

incremental indexes used are the Tucker and Lewis (1973) index (TLI, or alternately the

NNFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI), both of which provide values ranging from

zero to 1, with values close to .95 indicative of good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Additionally, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is presented along

with 90% confidence intervals (Steiger, 1990). Values below .05 indicate good model fit

(McDonald & Ho, 2002). Based on these criteria, all of the models showed excellent fit

statistics (neuroticism: χ2 = 857.9, d. f. = 240, p < .001, TLI = .972, CFI = .978, RMSEA

= .027, 90% interval lo = .025, high = .029; depression: χ2 = 566.4, d. f. = 180, p < .001,

TLI = .983, CFI = .987, RMSEA = .025, 90% interval lo = .023, high = .027; kindness: χ2

= 1045.9, d. f. = 240, p < .001, TLI = .963, CFI = .971, RMSEA = .031, 90% interval lo

= .029, high = .033; impulsivity: χ2 = 610.1, d. f. = 124, p < .001, TLI = .972, CFI = .981,

RMSEA = .034, 90% interval lo = .031, high = .036; flexibility: χ2 = 653.4, d. f. = 238, p

< .001, TLI = .980, CFI = .985, RMSEA = .023, 90% interval lo = .020, high = .025; self-

esteem: χ2 = 766.5, d. f. = 236, p < .001, TLI = .979, CFI = .984, RMSEA = .026, 90%

interval lo = .024, high = .028; extraversion: χ2 = 683.1, d. f. = 236, p < .001, TLI = .981,

CFI = .985, RMSEA = .023, 90% interval lo = .021, high = .026).

Major Findings

Unstandardized path coefficients for all seven models are presented in Table 10

(engaged couples) and Table 11 (married couples). Additionally, Figures 2 through 8

20

present graphical representations of the models with unstandardized and standardized

path coefficients, as well as R-squared measures of the satisfaction variables for each of the

personality traits respectively which reflect the zero-order relationship of the predictors

with the outcome. Results for engaged couples are presented first, followed by results for

married couples, and a discussion on the moderation analyses.

Engaged Couples

In line with hypothesis one through hypothesis six, there were significant,

negative actor and partner effects for the traits of neuroticism, depression, and

impulsivity, and significant, positive actor and partner effects for the traits of kindness,

flexibility, and self-esteem for both males and females. Contrary to hypothesis seven,

there were significant, positive actor effects for the trait of extraversion for both males

and females, and a significant, positive partner effect from males’ extraversion to

females’ relationship satisfaction. However, even the significant path coefficients for

extraversion were very small (the largest significant path had an unstandardized

coefficient of .096). Extraversion accounted for a very small proportion of the variance

in relationship satisfaction, (R2 = .01 for females, .02 for males). The greatest proportion

of the variance was accounted for by impulsivity and depression, with R-squared values

ranging from .12 to .19. Analyses revealed that the magnitude of actor effects and the

magnitude of partner effects did not differ between males and females (i.e. path a and

path d did not differ significantly in any of the models, and path b and path c did not

differ significantly in any of the models; see the test for equal actor and partner effects in

Table 12).

21

In order to test the relative importance of actor and partner effects, two tests were

used (see Table 12). The test for equal effects of predictors tested whether the females’

personality had an equal impact on their own relationship satisfaction and their partners’

relationship satisfaction, and whether the males’ personality had an equal impact on their

own relationship satisfaction and their partners’ relationship satisfaction for each trait

(i.e. if path a is equal to path b, and if path c is equal to path d). The test of equal effects

on outcomes examined if the females’ and the males’ personality affected female

satisfaction equally, and if the females’ and the males’ personality affected male

satisfaction equally (i.e. if path a is equal to path c, and if path b is equal to path d).

Finding that there are inequalities in these tests indicate that the actor and partner effects

are not of equal magnitude. In support of hypothesis 8, for the traits of neuroticism,

depression, kindness, and self-esteem, there were significant differences found for both

males and females in all tests. In each instance, the result indicated that the actor effect

was statistically stronger than the partner effect for males and females, both when testing

equal effects of predictors, and when testing equal effects on outcomes. For the traits

impulsivity and extraversion, however, there was no difference found in the test of equal

effects of female predictors or equal effects on female outcomes. Examination of the

path coefficients revealed that the male actor effect in these models was significantly

stronger than each of the other three paths, while the other paths did not differ

significantly. This indicates that for males, their own impulsivity and extraversion have a

greater impact on their relationship satisfaction than their partners’, while for females

their own and their partners’ traits are equally important (although it is noteworthy that

extraversion has relatively weak predictive power, thus a comparison of the paths in the

22

extraversion model may be largely unimportant among engaged couples). For the trait

of flexibility, there was no difference found for the test of equal effects of female

predictors. This indicates that females’ flexibility is equally important to their own and

their partners’ satisfaction. In terms of the other tests for flexibility, the male actor effect

was significantly stronger than either partner effect.

Married Couples

Again, in line with hypothesis one through hypothesis six, there were significant,

negative actor and partner effects for the traits of neuroticism, depression, and

impulsivity, and significant, positive actor and partner effects for the traits of kindness,

flexibility, and self-esteem for both males and females. Depression explained the greatest

proportion of the variance with an R-squared of .22 for both males and females. Next in

importance were impulsivity and self-esteem, with R-squared values ranging from .12 to

.17. Extraversion continued to explain almost none of the variance. For the trait of

extraversion, males’ extraversion had a significant, positive relationship with both male

and female relationship satisfaction, but neither the actor nor partner effects of female

extraversion were significant. Analyses revealed that the magnitude of actor effects and

the magnitude of partner effects did not differ between males and females for most of the

models (i.e. path a and path d did not differ significantly, and path b and path c did not

differ significantly; see the test for equal actor and partner effects in Table 13). There

were two exceptions, however. There was a significantly stronger actor effect for female

depression than male depression, and a significantly stronger actor effect for male

extraversion than female extraversion.

23

In contrast to the results for engaged couples, however, there were fewer

differences in the relative importance of actor and partner effects among married couples

(see Table 13). For the traits of impulsivity, kindness, and flexibility, there were no

significant differences in either the tests for equal effects of predictors, or tests for equal

effects of outcomes. This indicates that for these traits, actor and partner effects are of

similar importance for both males and females. For the trait of depression, the female

actor effect was of a larger magnitude than any of the other paths in the model, while

none of the other paths significantly differed from one another. Thus for females, actor

effects of depression are more important to relationship satisfaction than the partner

effect, but for males the actor and partner effects are equally important. For the trait of

neuroticism, the path from female neuroticism to male relationship satisfaction was

significantly lower than any of the other paths in the model, while none of the other paths

significantly differed from one another. This indicates that for male relationship

satisfaction, the actor affect of neuroticism is more important than the partner effect, but

for female relationship satisfaction both actor and partner effects are of equal importance.

For self-esteem, all of the tests indicated there was a significant difference except for the

test for equal effects on female outcomes. The male actor effect was higher than the

other paths, and the partner effect from female self-esteem to male relationship

satisfaction was lower than the other paths. This indicates that for male relationship

satisfaction, the actor effect of self-esteem is more important than the partner effect, but

for female relationship satisfaction, the actor effect and the partner effect are of equal

importance. Finally, for extraversion, the only test indicating a significant difference

between paths was the test for equal effects on male outcomes. In this case, the actor

24

effect of extraversion was stronger for males than the partner effect, but for females

neither actor nor partner effects were more important.

The Impact of Relationship Status

Moderation occurs when a variable changes any of the causal relationships in a

model (Kenny, 2004). In line with the several differences already reported in the above

results for engaged and married couples, there were many significant differences found in

the paths across groups, indicating that relationship status does indeed provide a

moderating effect on the association between personality and relationship satisfaction.

Table 14 shows tests of equivalence for each individual path in each model. All four

paths (a, b, c, and d) differed significantly between engaged and married couples for the

traits of depression and self-esteem, but for neuroticism only the actor effect of male

neuroticism (path d) and the partner effect of male neuroticism on female satisfaction

(path c) differed significantly between groups. Three of the paths differed for kindness

(b, c, and d), while the female actor effect (path a) did not differ between groups. For

impulsivity three paths differed (a, b and c), but the path for male actor effects (path d)

did not differ between groups. For flexibility, the only path that did differ from engaged

to married couples was the partner effect of male flexibility on female relationship

satisfaction (path c), and for extraversion none of the paths differed significantly between

groups. It is notable that in every instance where a path was different between the

engaged group and the married group, the coefficient was higher for the married couples.

Discussion

The present study examined the impact of seven personality characteristics on

relationship satisfaction for males and females, including both actor and partner effects,

25

while controlling for the effects of non-independence common to dyadic data. In their

broadest application the findings indicate that personality is indeed among the factors

needed to understand and predict relationship satisfaction among both dating and married

couples. While recognizing that other types of predictors could have greater predictive

power overall, the results nevertheless underscore the role that personality plays in the

larger drama of relationship functioning. Furthermore, the results echo previous studies

in confirming the importance of both actor and partner effects when considering the place

of personality in relationships. However, another finding more unique to this study was

that the relative impact of personality on satisfaction may be affected by a couples’

current stage in the relationship, as evidenced by the moderating role of relationship

status on the findings. This implies that it is important to take into account the evolving

and changing nature of relationships, and recognize that different predictors may play

stronger or weaker relative roles at different stages.

Several specific hypotheses were tested, with intriguing results. The first six

hypotheses predicted that there would be significant actor and partner effects for

neuroticism, depression, kindness, impulsivity, flexibility, and self-esteem, all of which

were found to be significant in the expected direction for both males and females, among

both engaged and married couples. In hypothesis seven it was proposed that extraversion

would not be a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction. Some of the paths in the

extraversion models did emerge to be significant, however even the significant path

coefficients were small in magnitude, particularly among engaged couples, and very little

of the overall variance in satisfaction was predicted by extraversion. Thus, there was

26

little evidence that extraversion was an important predictor, particularly for engaged

couples.

Hypothesis eight predicted that actor effects would be stronger than partner

effects for each personality trait, for both males and females. Among engaged couples

this was largely supported. There were just two notable exceptions. First, the actor effect

for male impulsivity was stronger than either partner effect, but the actor effect for

female impulsivity was not statistically stronger than the partner effects. Of the studies

reviewed here, none has closely examined the way the trait of impulsivity predicts

relationship satisfaction. However, one possibility is that the partner effects of this trait

are somewhat stronger than expected, reaching a level similar to the female actor effect,

because of the association of impulsivity to negative interactive patterns (such as

fighting, losing one’s temper, and becoming easily irritated). Such interaction patterns

have been found to have strong negative consequences for relationships (Gottman &

Levenson, 2002), thus these negative behaviors might cause this trait to have stronger

relative partner effects than some of the other traits. It is also possible that males high in

impulsivity are more prone to have negatively biased perceptions of their partners, thus

reporting lower relationship satisfaction which leads to a higher male actor effect.

The second exception to hypothesis eight among engaged couples was that

females’ flexibility had as much impact on their partners’ satisfaction as it had on their

own. Theory suggests that a balance in the level of flexibility is one of the central

dimensions of relationship functioning (Olsen, 1999). This finding suggests that engaged

males place high value on a flexible personality in their partners.

27

While generally supported among engaged couples, more unexpected results

emerged when examining hypothesis eight among married couples. Tests showed that

there were no statistical differences in the relative importance of actor and partner effects

for the traits of impulsivity, kindness, or flexibility. Thus, the satisfaction of married

partners is equally impacted by their own and their partners’ characteristics for these

traits. There were few differences in the relative strength of actor and partner paths for

depression, except that females’ actor effect was stronger than the other three paths. This

indicates that, while partner effects are highly important, females in particular are more

impacted by their own depression than their partners’ level of depression. Past studies

indicate that depression is particularly linked to unrealistic perfectionism in women

(Dimitrovsky et al., 2002), and that depression negatively impacts females’ attachment

security in romantic relationships (Carnelley et al., 1994). These findings may partly

explain the relatively strong actor effect for female depression.

All of the paths in the neuroticism model were equally important, except the path

leading from female neuroticism to male satisfaction, which was significantly lower in

importance. While most past research reports significant negative partner effects for

neuroticism, Blum and Mehrabian (1999) found a similar pattern in which the

temperament and emotionality of both partners predicted wives’ satisfaction, but the actor

effects had a stronger impact than the partner effects on husbands’ satisfaction. The

authors suggest this may be due in part to women’s higher emotional empathy, leading

them to be more impacted by their partners’ emotional states than are men.

Self-esteem presented an unusual pattern, in which the male actor effect was the

strongest path, the female actor effect and the partner effect of male self-esteem on

28

female satisfaction were of equal strength, and the partner effect of female self-esteem on

male satisfaction was of relatively less strength. Thus for males, their own self-esteem is

of much greater significance, while for women both partners’ self-esteem is important to

satisfaction. For men, this could indicate that their feelings about themselves and their

feelings about the marriage are highly related, while their wives’ self-esteem does not

influence their perceptions of the relationship as much. This could also indicate, again,

that women have a higher level of empathy towards husbands’ feelings, resulting in a

higher partner effect on women’s satisfaction.

A final unexpected finding was that, while extraversion was generally

unimportant as a predictor, the male actor effect for extraversion among married couples

was of somewhat greater significance than any of the other paths for this trait. It is

possible that married males who are high in extraversion are more communicative and

engaged in the relationship, thus leading them to have a slightly higher level of

satisfaction than less open males.

Despite these exceptions, by and large there were notably fewer differences in the

statistical strength of actor and partner effects among married couples than were found

among engaged couples. Generally speaking, actor effects are more powerful than

partner effects in predicting satisfaction among engaged couples, but both play a strong

role in the satisfaction of married couples. Robins et al. (2000) suggest that “the presence

of both actor and partner effects would suggest that personality has an effect on the actual

quality of the relationship and not just on the individual’s perception of the relationship

(which may be biased by idealization, self-deception, mood-congruent cognition, and

other psychological processes)” (p. 252). This observation implies that actor effects arise

29

in part because an individual’s personality biases his or her perception of the relationship,

while partner effects are more squarely reflective of the impact of personality on the

quality of the relationship itself. While there are significant actor and partner effects for

both engaged and married couples, the fact that partner effects emerge as notably stronger

predictors for married couples may indicate that personality is playing a larger role in the

actual quality of the relationship than occurs before a couple marries. This may happen

because married couples, due to the longer duration of their relationship, higher levels of

formal commitment, or greater integration of daily routines, have transitioned from being

somewhat separate individuals to being a more integrated couple unit, influencing one

another more powerfully than before.

Echoing these findings, the final hypothesis proposed that relationship status

would yield a significant moderating effect on the relationship between personality and

satisfaction. Tests were run on each path in each model, and findings indicated that for

all of the traits except flexibility and extraversion, most or all of the path coefficients

differed between the engaged and married groups. Strikingly, for every path that did

show a difference between groups, the coefficient was higher among married couples

than among engaged couples. Thus, not only was relationship status an important

moderator, but this further demonstrated that engaged couples and married couples differ

in important ways, as personality may play a stronger role in predicting the satisfaction of

married couples.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that suggest caution should be taken in

interpreting or generalizing the results. First, because of the nature of the models used,

30

each personality trait was analyzed separately. Thus, while some traits did emerge

having stronger path coefficients and predicting greater proportions of the variance in

relationship satisfaction, caution should be taken in generalizing this to the relative

importance of these traits because each was analyzed without controlling of the effects of

the others. While impulsivity and depression were generally stronger predictors than

some of the other traits, it is unknown if their impact would remain dominant if the traits

were placed in the same model for a direct comparison. Along these lines, it is

interesting that neuroticism did not emerge as having dramatically stronger predictive

strength than other traits although it has been the focus of so much past research.

Depression appeared to be a stronger negative predictor in this study, similar to past

findings that depression had more predictive power than anxiety (similar to neuroticism)

when placed in the same model (Whisman et al., 2004). These findings suggest that

limiting the use of personality variables to just neuroticism leaves blind spots in research,

although again this study does not clearly show just what the relative importance of

neuroticism when controlling for other traits.

Another limitation is that this study used cross-sectional, self-report data. This

does not allow for the examination of causation or the prediction of changes in levels of

satisfaction over time. Relying exclusively on self-report data can also produce biases,

because some of the variance in scores may be due to the idiosyncratic way in which

individuals answer questions in the survey. Furthermore, while there were differences

found between the engaged and married groups, these groups had differences beyond

relationship status (age, educational attainment, religious affiliation, and length of

31

relationship), therefore conclusions cannot be drawn with certainty that relationship

status itself is the cause of differences between these groups.

Implications for Future Research

The findings of this study raise several important implications for future research

in this area. First, this study confirms the suggestion made by past researchers that

considering both actor and partner effects is crucial in research for a comprehensive

understanding of the associations between personality and relationship satisfaction

(Robins et al., 2000; Whisman et al., 2004). This study further demonstrated that testing

both equal effects of predictors and equal effects on outcomes is useful in understanding

the fine-grained differences between actor and partner effects for each gender. Second,

this study suggests that traits besides neuroticism are important for researchers to include

as variables potentially influencing relationship satisfaction. Traits that are less

commonly included in personality/relationship research, such as impulsivity, may be

important to include in the future. Third, and perhaps most unique to this study, the

findings suggest that relationship status is an important moderating variable to explore

further. Although relationship status has been largely ignored, researchers have

suggested that relationships change over time as they move through different stages, and

the factors most relevant to satisfaction may shift across these transitions (Karney &

Bradbury, 1997; Watson et al., 2000). One very useful and instructive line of research

would follow couples longitudinally across the transition to marriage and other important

transitions, examining both how well premarital personality factors predict later levels of

marital satisfaction, and the ways in which the relative importance of personality traits

may shift over time.

32

Beyond the scope of this study there are further steps for research to expand upon.

One important addition to this area would be to conduct studies in which the traits used

here could be compared more directly with one another, placing them in the same model

to allow for a greater understanding of their relative importance while controlling for the

effects of the others. Also, beyond just comparing these traits, as suggested by many past

researchers it is important to take our basic findings about the relevance of personality

and eventually find its place in the larger context of other important variables affecting

relationships. For example, many researchers both suggest and have found supporting

evidence for the idea that intrapersonal variables, including personality variables, are

mediated by interpersonal variables (such as communication) in predicting relationship

outcomes (Buss, 1992; Caughlin et al., 2000; Gottman & Notarius, 2002). Other

mediating variables may also be important, such as adult attachment (Carnelley et al.,

1994), attributions and perceptions (Bouchard et al., 1999; Buss & Shackelford, 1997),

and stressful life events (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Additionally, not only are there

important mediators to consider between personality and satisfaction, but an expanded

model suggested by Holman and Linford (2001) also places individual characteristics

like personality as the mediators between the effect of family-of-origin factors and social

connections on marital quality. As the relative relationships between predictive variables

is made clear, our overall understanding of the complexities underlying relationship

functioning will deepen.

Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to study the impact of seven personality traits on

relationship satisfaction using up-to-date statistical controls, including an examination of

33

both actor and partner effects, and an exploration of the moderating impact of

relationship status. Findings support past research in demonstrating that personality

factors are significant predictors of satisfaction, and that both actor and partner effects are

of interest. This study adds to past research in suggesting that testing both equal effects

of predictors and equal effects on outcomes is useful in understanding the fine-grained

differences between actor and partner effects for each gender. Furthermore, this study

adds to past research in demonstrating that relationship status has an intriguing and

significant moderating influence on the relationship between personality and satisfaction.

Continuing to increase our understanding of the factors that contribute to satisfying

relationships will better inform and prepare future scholars, clinicians, and families to

strengthen relationships and marriages, contributing to the well-being of both families

and individuals.

34

References

Anderson, S. A., Russell, C. S., & Schumm, W. R. (1983). Perceived marital quality and

family life-cycle categories: A further analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family,

45, 127-139.

Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145-155.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SmallWaters.

Bloom, B., Asher, S., & White, S. (1978). Marital disruption as a stressor: A review and

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 867-894.

Blum, J. S., & Mehrabian, A. (1999). Personality and temperament correlates of marital

satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 67, 93-125.

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate

preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of

Personality, 65, 107-136.

Bouchard, G. (2003). Cognitive appraisals, neuroticism, and openness as correlates of

copings strategies: An integrative model of adaptation to marital difficulties.

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35, 1-12.

Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment:

Utility of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage and Family,

61, 651-660.

Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital

relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological

Bulletin, 112, 39-63.

35

Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship

evaluation of the individual, family, cultural, and couple contexts. Family

Relations, 50(4), 308-316.

Buss, D. M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships: Five personality factors in

interactional context. Journal of Personality, 60, 477-499.

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of

marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193-221.

Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., and Jaffe, K. (1994). Depression, working

models of others, and relationship functioning. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66, 127-140.

Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality matter in

marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital

satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326-336.

Dimitrovsky, L., Levy-Shiff, R., & Schattner-Zanany, I. (2002). Dimensions of

depression and perfectionism in pregnant and non-pregnant women: Their levels

of interrelationships and their relationship to marital satisfaction. Journal of


Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2001). The Christchurch Health and Development

Study: Review of findings on child and adolescent mental health. Australian and

New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 287-296.

Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses

feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology,

11, 489-502.

36

Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or

strange birds? Thies among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital

quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 564-574.

Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family


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.

Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2002). Marital research in the 20th century and a

research agenda for the 21st century. Family Processes, 41, 159-197.

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: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Holman, T. B., & Linford, S. T. (2001). Premarital factors and later marital quality and

stability. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or

breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 105-117). New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Holman, T. B., Linford, S. T., Brooks, K. R., Olsen, S. F., Rhoades, C. J., & Carroll, J. S.

(2001). Putting it all together: Four longitudinal, multivariate models of

premarital prediction of marital quality. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital

prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 165-

189). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

37

Hoyle, R. H., Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H.

Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications

(pp.158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6, 1-55.

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., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the

trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

72, 1075-1092.

Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.

Kenny, D. A. (2004, July 28). Moderator variables. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from

http://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm.

Kupfer, D. J., Rosenbaum, J. F., & Detre, T. P. (1977). Personality style and sexual

functioning among psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Sex Research, 13, 257-266.

Lavee, Y., & Adital, B. (2004). Emotional expressiveness and neuroticism: Do they

predict marital quality? Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 620-627.

Marchand, J. F. (2004). Husbands’ and wives’ marital quality: The role of adult

attachment orientations, depressive symptoms, and conflict resolution behaviors.

Attachment and Human Development, 6, 99-112.

38

McCrae, R. R. (1991). The five-factor model and its assessment in clinical settings.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 399-414.

McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural

equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.

Miller, P. J. E., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. C. (2003). Trait expressiveness and marital

satisfaction: The role of the idealization process. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 65, 978-995.

Nemechek, S., & Olson, K. R. (1999). Five-factor personality similarity and marital

adjustment. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 309-318.

Olsen, D. H. (1999). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Retrieved April

19, 2004 from http://www.lifeinnovations.com/pdf/circumplex.pdf.

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship:

Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationships. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251-259.

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.

Schneewind, K. A., & Gerhard, A. (2002). Relationship personality, conflict resolution,

and marital satisfaction in the first 5 years of marriage. Family Relations, 51, 62-

71.

Schmaling, K. B., & Jacobson, N. S. (1990). Marital interaction and depression. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 229-236.

Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Individual

Differences, 30, 371-390.

39

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval

estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood

factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.

Wallerstein, J. S. (1986). Women after divorce: Preliminary report from a ten-year

follow-up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 65-77.

Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affect as

predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships from self- and partner-ratings.

Journal of Personality, 68, 413-449.

Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J. & Berry, D. S. (2004).

Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed

couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029-1068.

Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., & Weinstock, L. M. (2004). Psychopathology and

marital satisfaction: The importance of evaluating both partners. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 830-838.

40

Figure 1

Theoretical Model

Female Personality Trait

Male Personality Trait

Female Satisfaction

Male Satisfaction

Love

Conflict Resolution

Relationship Equality

Communication

Overall Relationship

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a

b

c

d

41

Figure 2 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Neuroticism Engaged Couples

Female Neuroticism

Male Neuroticism

Female Satisfaction

R2 = .07

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .06

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a -.23(-.23)

b -.13(-.13)

c -.13(-.13)

d -.22(-.21)

Nervous

Tense

Fearful

Worrier

Nervous

Tense

Fearful

Worrier

e13

e16

Married Couples

Female Neuroticism

Male Neuroticism

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .05

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .06

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a -.31(-.16)

b -.19(-.11)

c -.33(-.16)

d -.38(-.21)

Nervous

Tense

Fearful

Worrier

Nervous

Tense

Fearful

Worrier

e13

e16

Note. Standardized paths shown in parentheses, all paths are significant (p < .05).

42

Figure 3 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Depression Engaged Couples

Female Depression

Male Depression

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .12

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .15

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Sad and blue

Feel hopeless

Depressed

Sad and blue

Feel hopeless

Depressed

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a -.27(-.29)

b -.18(-.18)

c -.14(-.15)

d -.29(-.31)

Married Couples

Female Depression

Male Depression

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .22

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .22

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Sad and blue

Feel hopeless

Depressed

Sad and blue

Feel hopeless

Depressed

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a -.61(-.36)

b -.42(-.29)

c -.40(-.24)

d -.47(-.32)


43

Figure 4 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Kindness Engaged Couples

Female Kindness

MaleKindness

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .11

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .11

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .35(.27)

b .17(.13)

c .19(.16)

d .36(.29)

Friendly

Kind

Loving

Considerate

Friendly

Kind

Loving

Considerate

e13

e16

Married Couples

Female Kindness

MaleKindness

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .10

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .12

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .43(.18)

b .42(.20)

c .58(.24)

d .57(.27)

Friendly

Kind

Loving

Considerate

Friendly

Kind

Loving

Considerate

e13

e16


44

Figure 5 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Impulsivity Engaged Couples

Female Impulsivity

Male Impulsivity

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .15

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .19

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Fights

Easily irritated

Fights

Easily irritated

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e14

e12

e15

d1

d2

a -.21(-.27)

b -.19(-.23)

c -.19(-.23)

d -.27(-.32)

Married Couples

Female Impulsivity

Male Impulsivity

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .15

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .17

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Fights

Easily irritated

Fights

Easily irritated

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e14

e12

e15

d1

d2

a -.39(-.26)

b -.40(-.29)

c -.36(-.26)

d -.32(-.26)


45

Figure 6 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Flexibility Engaged Couples

Female Flexibility

Male Flexibility

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .08

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .13

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .29(.23)

b .23(.17)

c .17(.14)

d .39(.30)

Adaptable

Easy-going

Flexible

Open minded

Adaptable

Easy-going

Flexible

Open minded

e13

e16

Married Couples

Female Flexibility

Male Flexibility

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .06

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .07

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .35(.15)

b .34(.16)

c .47(.20)

d .46(.22)

Adaptable

Easy-going

Flexible

Open minded

Adaptable

Easy-going

Flexible

Open minded

e13

e16


46

Figure 7 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Self-esteem Engaged Couples

Female Self-esteem

Male Self-esteem

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .10

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .10

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .22(.27)

b .09(.11)

c .10(.12)

d .24(.28)

Failure

Worth

No good

Pos. Attitude

Failure

Worth

No good

Pos. Attitude

e13

e16

Married Couples

Female Self-esteem

Male Self-esteem

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .12

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .15

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .38(.25)

b .27(.21)

c .31(.19)

d .41(.29)

Failure

Worth

No good

Pos. Attitude

Failure

Worth

No good

Pos. Attitude

e13

e16


47

Figure 8 Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients: Extraversion Engaged Couples

Female Extraversion

Male Extraversion

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .01

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .02

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .08(.11)

b .04(.05) ns

c .04(.06)

d .10(.14)

Outgoing

Shy

Quiet

Talkative

Outgoing

Shy

Quiet

Talkative

e13

e16

Married Couples

Female Extraversion

Male Extraversion

Female Satisfaction

R 2 = .01

Male Satisfaction

R 2 = .02

Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


Love

Conflict Resolution


Communication


e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e13

e14

e12

e15

e16

d1

d2

a .05(.03) ns

b .02(.01) ns

c .10(.07)

d .16(.13)

Outgoing

Shy

Quiet

Talkative

Outgoing

Shy

Quiet

Talkative

e13

e16

Note. Standardized paths shown in parentheses, all paths except those noted ns are

significant (p < .05).

48

Table 1

Sample Characteristics (N = 3,436 couples)

Engaged Males

(n = 1,803)

Engaged Females

(n = 1,803)

Married Males

(n = 1,633)

Married Females

(n = 1,633) Mean or % Mean or % Mean or % Mean or % Age 28 26 34 32 Education High School or less 21% 14% 23% 24% Enrolled in College 29% 32% 17% 18% College Degree 51% 55% 60% 58% Race Caucasian 87% 88% 88% 88% African American 2% 2% 2% 2% Asian 3% 4% 2% 3% American Indian 1% 1% 1% 2% Latino 3% 2% 2% 3% Mixed/Biracial 2% 2% 2% 1% Other 3% 1% 2% 2% Religious Affiliation Latter-day Saint 34% 35% 47% 48% Protestant 26% 29% 24% 25% Catholic 14% 13% 10% 11% Jewish 2% 2% 1% 1% None 16% 13% 12% 8% Other 8% 8% 6% 7%

49

Table 2

Scale Reliability Measures for Study Variables (alpha coefficients)

Engaged Males

(n = 1,803)

Engaged Females

(n = 1,803)

Married Males

(n = 1,633)

Married Females

(n = 1,633) Relationship Satisfaction .85 .85 .90 .92 Neuroticism .77 .76 .75 .77 Depression .82 .81 .85 .84 Kindness .73 .72 .74 .75 Impulsivity .74 .75 .75 .75 Flexibility .70 .72 .71 .75 Self-esteem .82 .82 .85 .86 Extraversion .80 .81 .81 .81

50

M Fe R N

Table 3a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Neuroticism Items

Engaged Couples

ales males elationship Satisfaction Items euroticism Items Overall Worrier Nervous M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Fearful Tense Love 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 - .45 .50 .49 .69 -.11 -.10 -.10 -.07 Conflict 3.8 .0 3.8 .1 . . . - - -Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .50 . .5 .5 -. -. -.Co 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .6 .5 .6 -. -. -. -.

4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .66 Worrier 2.7 1.0 3.3 1.0 -.07 -.09 -.10 -.10 -.10 - .43 .47 .49 Fearful 2.3 0.8 2.7 0.8 -.06 -.04 -.10 -.09 -.10 .44 - .36 .47

2.8 0.8 3.0 0.8 2.5 0.7 2.7 0.8 -.06 -.10 -.10 -.05 -.10 .49 .45 .49 -

1

1

42 - 59

.52 -

70 2

54 8

.14 15

.08 11

-.15 -.14

.10 12

mm. Overall

.42 8 .54

5 .58

- .58

0 -

16 -.11

10 -.12

17 -.11

10 -.05

Tense Nervous

-.14 -.18 -.19 -.19 -.17 .51 .35 - .43

Ma oupl

Fe les Relationship Satisfaction Items Neuroticism Items

rried C es

Males ma M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Worrier Fearful Tense Nervous Love 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.2 - .61 .62 .64 .79 -.07 -.10 -.13 -.06 Conflict 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .57 - .66 .76 .70 -.12 -.10 -.15 -.07 Equality 3.7 1.0 3.7 1.1 .61 .64 - .65 .69 -.12 -.11 -.14 -.08 Co 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .6 .7 .6 -. -. -. -.

4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 .76 .64 .63 .70 - -.06 -.07 -.13 -.04 Worrier 2.8 1.0 3.3 1.0 -.07 -.10 -.12 -.11 -.09 - .45 .49 .51 Fea 2.4 0.8 2.7 0.8 -. -. -. -. -. .3 .4

2.9 0.8 3.1 0.8 .49 2.5 0.7 2.7 0.8 -.05 -.08 -.10 -.08 -.06 .46 .48 .45 -

mm. Overall

0 2 0 - .75 11 10 13 04

rful Tense Nervous

09 -.14

08 -.19

10 -.20

09 -.20

10 -.17

.43 - .34

7 -

8 .44

Note. s are abo e the diago al; all correlations are significant ( < .05). Correlations for males are below the diagonal, for female v n p

Table 3b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction and Neuroticism Items

Engaged Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Neuroticism Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Worrier Fearful Tense Nervous Love .28 .25 .25 .26 .34 -.07 -.10 -.12 -.11 Conflict .24 .47 .33 .43 .35 -.16 -.18 -.20 -.14 Equality .20 .29 .29 .31 .28 -.11 -.14 -.13 -.12 Communication .30 .44 .33 .49 .40 -.15 -.15 -.16 -.14 Overall .25 .29 .27 .32 .36 -.10 -.13 -.15 -.11 Worrier -.11 -.07 -.08 -.08 -.14 -.06 -.02ns -.05 -.02ns

Fearful -.12 -.11 -.13 -.13 -.16 -.03ns .03ns .03ns .01ns

Tense -.15 -.21 -.19 -.19 -.23 .05 .07 .08 .07 Nervous -.06 -.07 -.08 -.07 -.10 .01ns .06 .05 .05ns

Married Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Neuroticism Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Worrier Fearful Tense Nervous Love .52 .46 .45 .49 .55 -.12 -.15 -.22 -.16 Conflict .47 .55 .46 .54 .52 -.13 -.14 -.22 -.13 Equality .45 .45 .44 .48 .51 -.13 -.13 -.23 -.16 Communication .50 .53 .47 .60 .55 -.11 -.14 -.22 -.15 Overall .55 .50 .48 .55 .61 -.11 -.16 -.22 -.15 Worrier -.09 -.10 -.10 -.11 -.11 -.17 -.04ns -.02ns -.03ns

Fearful -.14 -.14 -.16 -.15 -.16 -.04ns -.02ns .05 -.01ns

Tense -.22 -.22 -.19 -.23 -.24 -.01ns .05 .12 .08 Nervous -.13 -.12 -.12 -.13 -.14 -.03ns .02ns .06 .02ns

Note. All correlations except those noted ns are significant (p < .05).

51

52

M Fe R D

Table 4a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Depression Items

Engaged Couples

ales males elationship Satisfaction Items epression Items Love Overall Sad/blue M SD M SD Conflict Equality Comm. Hopeless Depressed Love 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 - .45 .50 .49 .69 -.16 -.16 -.16 Conflict 3.8 .0 3.8 .1 . . .Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .50 . .5 .5 -. -.Co 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .6 .5 .6 -. -. -.

4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .66 Sad/blue 2.4 0.7 2.6 0.6 -.17 -.18 -.19 -.21 -.21 - .53 .66 Hopeless 1.9 0.8 2.0 0.8 -.20 -.17 -.22 -.20 -.21 .52 - .59

2.1 0.8 2.3 0.8

1

1

42 - 59

.52 -

70 2

54 8

-.22 -.20

-.15 18

-.20 19

mm. Overall

.43 8 .54

5 .58

- .58

0 -

22 -.19

15 -.15

20 -.19

Depressed -.20 -.19 -.22 -.23 -.24 .67 .61 - Married Couples

Fe ales Relationship Satisfaction Items Depression Items Males m M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Sad/blue Hopeless Depressed Lo 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 .4 .5 .6 -. -. -.ve - 5 0 .49 9 25 28 28 Conflict 3.8 1.0 3.8 1.1 Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .61 .64 - .52 .58 -.26 -.32 -.29 Comm. 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .60 .72 .60 - .60 -.26 -.30 -.28 Ov 4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .7 .6 .6 .7 - -. -. -.Sad/blue 2.4 0.8 2.7 0.7 -.22 -.19 -.21 -.23 -.23 - .59 .70 Hopeless 2.1 0.9 2.2 0.9 -.25 -.25 -.27 -.26 -.26 .61 - .64

2.3 0.8 2.5 0.8 -. -. -. -. -. .6

.57 - .52 .70 .54 -.26 -.28 -.26

erall 6 4 3 0 26 28 28

Depressed 26 25 25 27 27 .70 6 - Note. s are above the diagonal; all correlations are significant (p < .05).

Correlations for males are below the diagonal, for female

Table 4b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction and Depression Items

Engaged Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Depression Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Sad/blue Hopeless Depressed Love .28 .25 .25 .26 .34 -.09 -.10 -.10 Conflict .24 .47 .33 .43 .35 -.12 -.12 -.14 Equality .20 .29 .29 .31 .28 -.13 -.12 -.14 Communication .30 .44 .33 .49 .40 -.15 -.13 -.16 Overall .25 .29 .27 .32 .36 -.09 -.10 -.09 Sad/blue -.12 -.18 -.15 -.18 -.18 .10 .08 .11 Hopeless -.09 -.09 -.08 -.09 -.12 .11 .14 .13 Depressed -.10 -.16 -.13 -.16 -.17 .12 .13 .16 Married Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Depression Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Sad/blue Hopeless Depressed Love .52 .46 .45 .49 .55 -.19 -.22 -.19 Conflict .47 .55 .46 .54 .52 -.18 -.22 -.20 Equality .45 .45 .44 .48 .51 -.17 -.24 -.19 Communication .50 .53 .47 .60 .55 -.16 -.23 -.20 Overall .55 .50 .48 .55 .61 -.20 -.26 -.24 Sad/blue -.19 -.20 -.20 -.21 -.21 .07 .12 .11 Hopeless -.22 -.24 -.25 -.26 -.24 .13 .19 .14 Depressed -.21 -.22 -.24 -.25 -.24 .11 .14 .16 Note. All correlations are significant (p < .05). 53

54 Table 5a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Kindness Items

Engaged Couples

Males Females Relationship Satisfaction Items Kindness Items M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Consid. Loving Kind Friendly Love 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 - .45 .50 .49 .69 .10 .22 .12 .16 Conflict 3.8 1.0 3.8 1.1 .42 - .52 .70 .54 .15 .18 .14 .16 Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .50 .59 - .52 .58 .16 .16 .09 .12 Comm. 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .43 .68 .55 - .60 .16 .18 .13 .16 Overall 4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .66 .54 .58 .58 - .13 .20 .11 .13 Consid. 4.2 0.6 4.3 0.6 .15 .18 .17 .16 .14 - .35 .48 .30 Loving 4.3 0.7 4.5 0.6 .28 .22 .21 .21 .25 .36 - .43 .37 Kind 4.3 0.6 4.4 0.6 .17 .15 .14 .14 .13 .49 .45 - .44 Friendly 4.3 0.6 4.5 0.6 .12 .12 .12 .10 .11 .31 .34 .48 - Married Couples

Males Females Relationship Satisfaction Items Kindness Items M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Consid. Loving Kind Friendly Love 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.2 - .61 .62 .64 .79 .02ns .25 .11 .08 Conflict 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .57 - .66 .76 .70 .05 .22 .10 .08 Equality 3.7 1.0 3.7 1.1 .61 .64 - .65 .69 .06 .20 .09 .07 Comm. 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .60 .72 .60 - .75 .07 .25 .12 .10 Overall 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 .76 .64 .63 .70 - .02 ns .26 .09 .07 Consid. 4.0 0.7 4.2 0.6 .14 .16 .13 .17 .12 - .38 .50 .33 Loving 4.0 0.7 4.3 0.7 .27 .22 .21 .24 .28 .41 - .50 .34 Kind 4.1 0.6 4.3 0.6 .14 .14 .14 .17 .13 .52 .50 - .49 Friendly 4.2 0.7 4.3 0.7 .12 .11 .17 .12 .10 .32 .36 .43 - Note. Correlations for males are below the diagonal, for females are above the diagonal; all correlations except those noted ns are


Table 5b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction and Kindness Items

Engaged Couples

Relationship Satisfaction Items Kindness Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Consid. Loving Kind Friendly Love .28 .25 .25 .26 .34 .17 .24 .19 .15 Conflict .24 .47 .33 .43 .35 .25 .22 .23 .21 Equality .20 .29 .29 .31 .28 .19 .19 .19 .17 Communication .30 .44 .33 .49 .40 .22 .25 .24 .22 Overall .25 .29 .27 .32 .36 .20 .24 .23 .17 Considerate .24 .26 .23 .27 .26 .18 .20 .20 .19 Loving .29 .23 .22 .27 .30 .18 .20 .22 .20 Kind .20 .19 .19 .22 .22 .17 .20 .20 .17 Friendly .14 .17 .17 .18 .15 .16 .17 .17 .14 Married Couples

Relationship Satisfaction Items Kindness Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Consid. Loving Kind Friendly Love .52 .46 .45 .49 .55 .28 .40 .31 .27 Conflict .47 .55 .46 .54 .52 .32 .37 .33 .27 Equality .45 .45 .44 .48 .51 .29 .34 .31 .24 Communication .50 .53 .47 .60 .55 .32 .39 .33 .29 Overall .55 .50 .48 .55 .61 .32 .42 .34 .28 Considerate .35 .36 .34 .37 .36 .21 .25 .24 .21 Loving .44 .42 .40 .44 .47 .27 .35 .29 .27 Kind .36 .35 .34 .37 .36 .23 .28 .24 .21 Friendly .30 .28 .28 .29 .28 .20 .23 .21 .13 Note. All correlations are significant (p < .05).

55

56

M Fe R Imp

Table 6a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Impulsivity Items Engaged Couples

ales males elationship Satisfaction Items ulsivity Items Love Conf Overall Figh e M SD M SD lict Equality Comm. ts IrritablLove 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 - .45 .50 .49 .69 -.10 -.11 Conflict 3.8 .0 3.8 .1 . . . - -.Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .50 . .5 .5 -.Co 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .6 .5 .6 -. -.

4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .66 Fights 2.2 0.8 2.3 0.8 -.13 -.24 -.19 -.23 -.17 - -.60 Irritable 2.4 0.8 2.6 0.8 -.14 -.26 -.23 -.25 -.20 .58 -

1

1

42 - 59

.52 -

70 2

54 8

.25 -.17

23 17

mm. Overall

.43 8 .54

5 .58

- .58

0 -

21 -.14

22 -.15

Ma d Coupl

Fe les Rela hip Sat action I Im ity It

rrie es

Males ma tions isf tems pulsiv ems M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Fights Irritable Love 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.2 - .61 .62 .64 .79 -.20 -.18 Conflict Equality Comm.

3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .5 .6 .7 -. -.3.7 1.0 3.7 1.1 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .60 .72 .60 - .75 -.19 -.20

Overall 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 .76 .64 .63 .70 - -.17 -.14 Fig 2.4 0.8 2.5 0.8 -. -. -. -. .

2.6 0.8 2.8 0.8 -.12 -.19 -.20 -.19 -.15 .60 -

7 .61

- .64

6 -

.76

.65 0

.69 22

-.21 20

-.17

hts Irritable

16 24 22 22 -.19 - 60

Not elati s fo mal are elow iagon r fem re abo e diag all correlations are significant (p < .05).

e. Corr on r es b the d al, fo ales a ve th onal;

Table 6b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction and Impulsivity Items Engaged Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items

Male Impulsivity Items

Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Fights Irritable Love .28 .25 .25 .26 .34 -.14 -.18 Conflict .24 .47 .33 .43 .35 -.25 -.28 Equality .20 .29 .29 .31 .28 -.18 -.21 Communication .30 .44 .33 .49 .40 -.22 -.25 Overall .25 .29 .27 .32 .36 -.16 -.21 Fights -.16 -.26 -.19 -.21 -.20 .17 -.17 Irritable -.16 -.27 -.21 -.25 -.21 .15 .16 Married Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items

Male Impulsivity Items

Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Fights Irritable Love .52 .46 .45 .49 .55 -.26 -.30 Conflict .47 .55 .46 .54 .52 -.28 -.32 Equality .45 .45 .44 .48 .51 -.27 -.32 Communication .50 .53 .47 .60 .55 -.25 -.30 Overall .55 .50 .48 .55 .61 -.26 -.30 Fights -.24 -.28 -.25 -.25 -.26 .14 .18 Irritable -.28 -.30 -.27 -.31 -.31 .12 .15 Note. All correlations are significant (p < .05).

57

58

M Fe R F

Table 7a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Flexibility Items

Engaged Couples

ales males elationship Satisfaction Items lexibility Items Love Conf Overall Open m. Adapt. M SD M SD lict Equality Comm. Flexible Easy Love 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 - .45 .50 .49 .69 .09 .08 .10 .09 Conflict 3.8 .0 3.8 .1 . . . . . .Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .50 . .5 .5 . .Co 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .6 .5 .6 .1 .1 .1 .1

4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .66 Open mind 4.0 0.7 4.0 0.7 .13 .15 .13 .14 .10 - .39 .31 .36 Flexible 4.0 0.7 3.9 0.7 .11 .17 .15 .17 .10 .38 - .42 .53

4.2 0.7 4.0 0.7 Adaptable 4.1 0.7 4.0 0.7 .12 .17 .17 .18 .12 .36 .47 .33 -

1

1

42 - 59

.52 -

70 2

54 8

15 11

14 11

15 .10

.16

.13 mm.

Overall .43 8

.54 5

.58 -

.58 0

- 3

.08 4

.08 3

.10 5

.09

Easy going .13 .16 .18 .15 .16 .29 .40 - .38

Fe les Relationship Satisfaction Items Flexibility Items

Married Couples

Males ma M SD M SD Lo Con ve flict Equality Comm. Overall Open m. Flexible Easy Adapt. Love 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.2 - .61 .62 .64 .79 .10 .08 .11 .08 Conflict 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .57 - .66 .76 .70 .09 .10 .12 .08 Equality 3.7 1.0 3.7 1.1 .61 .64 - .65 .69 .08 .09 .08 .05 Co 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .6 .7 .6 .1 .1 .1 .0Overall 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 .76 .64 .63 .70 - .05 .06 .10 .06 Open mind 3.9 0.8 3.8 0.7 .09 .12 .10 .12 .09 - .43 .32 .39

3.9 0.7 3.8 0.7 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .4 .5Eas g 4.1 0.8 3.8 0.8 .28

4.0 0.7 3.9 0.7 .12 .13 .14 .14 .06 .40 .49 .35 -

mm. 0 2 0 - .75 1 0 1 9

Flexible y goin

Adaptable

6 .13

0 .11

9 .13

0 .14

0 .17

.41 - .36

5 -

5 .48

Note. s are above the diagon correlations are significant (p Correlations for males are below the diagonal, for female al; all < .05).

Table 7b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction and Flexibility Items

Engaged Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Flexibility Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Open m. Flexible Easy Adapt. Love .28 .25 .25 .26 .34 .03ns .02ns .04ns .02ns

Conflict .24 .47 .33 .43 .35 .11 .14 .11 .10 Equality .20 .29 .29 .31 .28 .06 .09 .11 .07 Communication .30 .44 .33 .49 .40 .08 .09 .08 .06 Overall .25 .29 .27 .32 .36 .05 .05 .06 .02ns

Open mind .03ns .09 .05 .06 .05 .10 .04ns .01ns .02ns

Flexible .07 .10 .13 .12 .12 .04ns .01ns .02ns .02ns

Easy going .07 .11 .11 .08 .10 .04ns .01ns .02ns .02ns

Adaptable .08 .11 .12 .09 .10 .07 .03ns .05 .06 Married Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Flexibility Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Open m. Flexible Easy Adapt. Love .52 .46 .45 .49 .55 .08 .08 .10 .13 Conflict .47 .55 .46 .54 .52 .12 .09 .11 .12 Equality .45 .45 .44 .48 .51 .12 .09 .12 .14 Communication .50 .53 .47 .60 .55 10 .08 .10 .13 Overall .55 .50 .48 .55 .61 .09 .08 .11 .13 Open mind .09 .09 .09 .09 .06 .04ns .03ns .02ns .03ns

Flexible .07 .10 .10 .07 .07 -.01ns -.02ns -.05 -.01ns

Easy going .10 .11 .10 .08 .07 -.02ns -.03ns -.04ns .01ns

Adaptable .10 .11 .12 .09 .08 .02ns -.01ns -.05 -.01ns


59

60

M Fe R S

Table 8a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Self-Esteem Items

Engaged Couples

ales males elationship Satisfaction Items elf-Esteem Items Love Overall Pos att. Failure M SD M SD Conflict Equality Comm. No good Worth Love 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 - .45 .50 .49 .69 .18 .12 .18 .15 Conflict 3.8 .0 3.8 .1 . . . . .Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .50 . .5 .5 .2 .10 .1Co 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .6 .5 .6 .2 .1 .1 .1

4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .66 Positive att. 4.2 0.7 4.1 0.7 .17 .18 .21 .21 .17 - .46 .65 .46 No good (r) 4.5 0.7 4.5 0.7 .12 .10 .14 .14 .14 .49 - .52 .61

4.4 0.7 4.4 0.7 Failure (r) 4.4 0.8 4.3 0.8 .14 .14 .16 .17 .17 .51 .60 .46 -

1

1

42 - 59

.52 -

70 2

54 8

20 0

.12 17 7

.12

.14 mm.

Overall .43 8

.54 5

.58 -

.58 0

- 0

.18 0

.11 7

.15 2

.15

Worth .17 .16 .16 .16 .15 .61 .51 - .48

Fe les Relationship Satisfaction Items Self-Esteem Items

Married Couples

Males ma M SD M SD Lo Con Comm. Ov No gve flict Equality erall Pos att. ood Wo Fairth lure Love 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.2 - .61 .62 .64 .79 .19 .19 .21 .22 Conflict 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .57 - .66 .76 .70 .17 .16 .19 .21 Equality 3.7 1.0 3.7 1.1 .61 .64 - .65 .69 .18 .19 .22 .21 Co 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .6 .7 .6 .2 .1 .2 .2Overall 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 .76 .64 .63 .70 - .16 .16 .18 .20 Positive att. 4.1 0.7 3.9 0.8 .20 .18 .23 .19 .18 - .55 .70 .53 No 4.4 0.8 4.3 0.8 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .6 .6

4.2 0.8 4.2 0.8 .69 (r) 4.2 0.9 4.1 0.9 .21 .20 .24 .23 .21 .56 .68 .52 -

mm. 0 2 0 - .75 1 8 1 1

good (r) Worth Failure

8 .21

0 .20

5 .26

1 .20

1 .20

.53 - .56

2 -

7 .56

Note. s are above the diagon correlations are significant (p Correlations for males are below the diagonal, for female al; all < .05).

Table 8b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction and Self-Esteem Items

Engaged Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Self-Esteem Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Pos att. No good Worth Failure Love .28 .25 .25 .26 .34 .10 .06 .10 .09 Conflict .24 .47 .33 .43 .35 .13 .10 .11 .12 Equality .20 .29 .29 .31 .28 .11 .09 .08 .09 Communication .30 .44 .33 .49 .40 .13 .10 .11 .09 Overall .25 .29 .27 .32 .36 .09 .07 .05 .08 Positive attitude .06 .12 .08 .12 .11 .12 .08 .11 .09 No good (r) .04 .07 .06 .08 .12 .11 .15 .12 .14 Worth .08 .10 .07 .11 .12 .15 .10 .14 .12 Failure (r) .07 .04 .06 .05 .12 .08 .11 .07 .13 Married Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Self-Esteem Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Pos att. No good Worth Failure Love .52 .46 .45 .49 .55 .13 .16 .17 .15 Conflict .47 .55 .46 .54 .52 .14 .17 .14 .16 Equality .45 .45 .44 .48 .51 .13 .17 .14 .17 Communication .50 .53 .47 .60 .55 .15 .16 .15 .16 Overall .55 .50 .48 .55 .61 .16 .19 .17 .20 Positive attitude .15 .14 .16 .17 .15 .10 .10 .13 .08 No good (r) .15 .15 .16 .17 .16 .11 .17 .14 .16 Worth .17 .18 .19 .19 .16 .12 .12 .16 .10 Failure (r) .15 .14 .18 .15 .18 .07 .12 .11 .13 Note. All correlations are significant (p < .05).

61

62 Table 9a Correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Extraversion Items

Engaged Couples

Males Females Relationship Satisfaction Items Extraversion Items M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Talkative Quiet Shy OutgoingLove 4.6 0.6 4.7 0.6 - .45 .50 .49 .69 .05 .05 .02 ns .10 Conflict 3.8 1.0 3.8 1.1 .42 - .52 .70 .54 .04ns .04 ns .05 .13 Equality 4.2 0.8 4.3 0.8 .50 .59 - .52 .58 .06 .06 .06 .12 Comm. 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.0 .43 .68 .55 - .60 .06 .06 .07 .13 Overall 4.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 .66 .54 .58 .58 - .06 .05 .01 ns .10 Talkative 3.5 0.9 3.8 0.8 .06 .07 .08 .11 .08 - .53 .43 .54 Quiet (r) 2.9 0.8 3.1 0.7 .04 ns .06 .04 ns .06 .08 .54 - .58 .49 Shy (r) 3.3 0.9 3.4 0.9 .04 ns .08 .09 .10 .06 .43 .54 - .56 Outgoing 3.8 0.8 3.9 0.9 .08 .09 .08 .09 .07 .51 .44 .54 - Married Couples

Males Females Relationship Satisfaction Items Extraversion Items M SD M SD Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Talkative Quiet Shy OutgoingLove 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.2 - .61 .62 .64 .79 .03 ns .02 ns .00 ns .05 ns

Conflict 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .57 - .66 .76 .70 .01 ns -.03 ns -.02 ns .02 ns

Equality 3.7 1.0 3.7 1.1 .61 .64 - .65 .69 .02 ns .01 ns .02 ns .03 ns

Comm. 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.2 .60 .72 .60 - .75 .04 ns -.01 ns -.01 ns .05 Overall 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 .76 .64 .63 .70 - .06 .02 ns -.02 ns .03 ns

Talkative 3.3 0.9 3.7 0.9 .06 .07 .09 .07 .05 - .49 .40 .56 Quiet (r) 2.8 0.8 3.0 0.7 .09 .08 .09 .09 .09 .54 - .57 .50 Shy (r) 3.3 0.9 3.3 0.9 .07 .08 .10 .06 .06 .42 .55 - .58 Outgoing 3.6 0.9 3.7 0.9 .09 .08 .13 .09 .09 .54 .50 .53 - Note. Correlations for males are below the diagonal, for females are above the diagonal; all correlations except those noted ns are


Table 9b Correlations between Male and Female Scores on Relationship Satisfaction and Extraversion Items

Engaged Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Extraversion Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Talkative Quiet Shy OutgoingLove .28 .25 .25 .26 .34 .05 .04ns .03ns .03ns

Conflict .24 .47 .33 .43 .35 .04ns .02 ns .05 .01ns

Equality .20 .29 .29 .31 .28 .04ns .03 ns .04ns .01ns

Communication .30 .44 .33 .49 .40 .04ns .02 ns .03 ns .00ns

Overall .25 .29 .27 .32 .36 .04ns .03 ns .01 ns .01ns

Talkative .03ns .01ns -.01ns .04ns .04ns -.10 -.07 -.02ns .00ns

Quiet (r) .04ns .00ns .01ns .05 .05 -.07 -.05 -.01ns -.01ns

Shy (r) .03ns .04ns -.01ns .04ns .03ns -.03ns -.03ns .04vs .02ns

Outgoing .07 .05 .04 .07 .07 -.01ns -.02ns .04vs .05 Married Couples

Male Relationship Satisfaction Items Male Extraversion Items Female Items Love Conflict Equality Comm. Overall Talkative Quiet Shy OutgoingLove .52 .46 .45 .49 .55 .04ns .07 .03ns .05ns

Conflict .47 .55 .46 .54 .52 .03ns .04ns .04ns .02ns

Equality .45 .45 .44 .48 .51 .02ns .05ns .02ns .02ns

Communication .50 .53 .47 .60 .55 .06 .08 .05 .03ns

Overall .55 .50 .48 .55 .61 .04ns .09 -.05ns .04ns

Talkative .01ns .03ns -.02ns .02ns .03ns -.13 -.12 -.08 -.08 Quiet (r) -.01ns -.07 -.03ns -.01ns .00ns -.10 -.05 -.06 -.04ns

Shy (r) -.02ns -.02ns .00ns .00ns -.01ns -.07 -.05 -.00ns -.02ns

Outgoing .04ns -.01ns .01ns .02ns .02ns -.05 -.07 -.04ns -.01ns


63

64 Table 10

Actor and Partner Effects of Personality Dimensions on Relationship Satisfaction: Engaged Couples (Unstandardized coefficients)

Actor Effects Partner Effects

Males’ Satisfaction Females’ Satisfaction Males’ Satisfaction Females’ Satisfaction

Predictor Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

Neuroticism -.222 .031 -.231 .030 -.135 .030 -.132 .030

Depression -.287 .026 -.272 .027 -.176 .027 -.138 .025

Kindness .360 .038 .353 .040 .167 .039 .193 .036

Impulsivity -.271 .027 -.208 .025 -.187 .025 -.194 .026

Flexibility .387 .041 .294 .038 .225 .038 .174 .038

Self-esteem .238 .025 .218 .024 .089 .024 .103 .024

Extraversion .096 .019 .078 .020 .039ns .021 .044 .019

Note. All parameters except those noted ns are statistically significant (p < .05).

Table 11

Actor and Partner Effects of Personality Dimensions on Relationship Satisfaction: Married Couples (Unstandardized coefficients)


Males’ Satisfaction Females’ Satisfaction Males’ Satisfaction Females’ Satisfaction

Predictor Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

Neuroticism -.377 .055 -.311 .058 -.194 .051 -.330 .062

Depression -.467 .039 -.606 .046 -.424 .040 -.396 .044

Kindness .572 .063 .432 .072 .420 .071 .575 .063

Impulsivity -.319 .043 -.395 .050 -.395 .046 -.360 .049

Flexibility .458 .065 .355 .070 .341 .062 .470 .074

Self-esteem .407 .040 .377 .042 .272 .036 .309 .045

Extraversion .161 .036 .049ns .043 .016ns .038 .103 .041


65

66 Table 12

Tests of Equal Actor and Partner Effects, Equal Effects of Predictors, and Equal Effects on Outcomes Models: Engaged Couples

Equal Actor and Partner Effects Equal Effects of Predictors Equal Effects on Outcomes

Equal Actor Effects

Equal Partner Effects

Equal Actor and Partner

Effects

Equal Effects of Female

Predictors

Equal Effects of

Male Predictors

Equal Effects of Predictors

Equal Effects on

Female Outcomes

Equal Effects on

Male Outcomes

Equal Effects on Outcomes

d.f. Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

2 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

2 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

2

Neuroticism .040ns .004ns .043ns 10.220 8.706 18.057 5.266 3.929 18.085

Depression .146ns 1.023ns 2.619ns 12.446 32.492 39.271 11.388 7.594 35.120

Kindness .015ns .219ns .259ns 22.118 20.971 36.960 8.000 11.117 36.985

Impulsivity 2.570ns .034ns 4.103ns .755ns 8.565 8.568 .126ns 4.216 6.752

Flexibility 2.777ns .883ns 7.715 3.265ns 30.053 31.902 4.620 8.182 24.877

Self-esteem .298ns .143ns .299ns 29.110 29.053 46.829 9.501 15.186 46.948

Extraversion .431ns .026ns .461ns 3.651ns 7.975 12.023 1.632ns 4.335 11.578


Table 13

Tests of Equal Actor and Partner Effects, Equal Effects of Predictors, and Equal Effects on Outcomes Models: Married Couples

Equal Actor and Partner Effects Equal Effects of Predictors Equal Effects on Outcomes

Equal Actor Effects

Equal Partner Effects

Equal Actor and Partner

Effects

Equal Effects of Female

Predictors

Equal Effects of

Male Predictors

Equal Effects of Predictors

Equal Effects on

Female Outcomes

Equal Effects on

Male Outcomes

Equal Effects on Outcomes

d.f. Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

2 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

2 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

1 Δχ 2

2

Neuroticism .686ns 2.884ns 3.103ns 7.228 1.022ns 8.189 .051ns 5.938 9.900

Depression 5.003 .205ns 8.011 25.283 4.077ns 26.498 9.596 .513ns 21.715

Kindness 2.078ns 2.558ns 2.725ns .044ns .003ns .050ns 1.867ns 2.713ns 2.834ns

Impulsivity 1.121ns .255ns 1.449ns .000ns 1.812ns 1.820ns .226ns 1.220ns 1.578ns

Flexibility 1.212ns 1.847ns 1.914ns .066ns .043ns .106ns 1.335ns 1.772ns 1.881ns

Self-esteem .246ns .363ns .367ns 10.572 7.758 15.243 1.016ns 5.275 16.644

Extraversion 4.374 2.715ns 4.598ns 1.052ns 3.642ns 5.308ns .965ns 8.877 11.098


67

68 Table 14

Test of Equal Actor and Partner Effects between Engaged and Married Groups


Unstandardized coefficients: Male

actor effects

Equal Male Actor

Effects

Unstandardized coefficients: Female

actor effects

Equal Female Actor

Effects

Unstandardized coefficients: Partner

effects on male satisfaction

Equal Partner

Effects on Male

Outcomes

Unstandardized coefficients: Partner

effects on female satisfaction

Equal Partner

Effects on Female

Outcomes

d.f.

Engaged

Married Δχ 2

1

Engaged

Married Δχ 2

1

Engaged

Married Δχ 2

1

Engaged

Married Δχ 2

1

Neuroticism -.222 -.377 5.993 -.231 -.311 1.528ns -.135 -.194 1.023ns -.132 -.330 8.375

Depression -.287 -.467 14.610 -.272 -.606 40.285 -.176 -.424 26.651 -.138 -.396 26.096

Kindness .360 .572 8.426 .353 .432 .895ns .167 .420 11.487 .193 .575 22.551

Impulsivity -.271 -.319 .789ns -.208 -.395 11.621 -.187 -.395 16.820 -.194 -.360 9.835

Flexibility .387 .458 .859ns .294 .355 .576ns .225 .341 2.533ns .174 .470 12.880

Self-esteem .238 .407 12.887 .218 .377 11.057 .089 .272 17.851 .103 .309 16.187

Extraversion .096 .161 2.512ns .078 .049ns .376ns .039ns .016ns .296ns .044 .103 1.766ns


Personality Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction among ...

Documents

Transcript of Personality Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction among ...