PREDICTING RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

The Effect of Social Comparison & Personality

Grace White, B.S. & Jerry Suls, Ph. D.

INTRODUCTION

Why Study Relationships? Have a larger impact overall life

satisfaction than job, income, community, or even physical health (Harvey &

Weber, 2002).

A growing decline in marriage and an increase in cohabitating relationships (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2004).

Understanding the strategies employed in evaluating, maintaining, and coping in relationships is very important

INTRODUCTION

What is social comparison?

Involves comparing one’s own opinions and abilities in a certain domain to another person’s (Festinger, 1954).

Comparisons can provide a way of understanding one’s position or performance in a domain in relation to that of others.

Are all comparisons equal? Do we need to examine different types to better understand associations?

SOCIAL COMPARISONS IN RELATIONSHIPS

Referential ComparisonsComparisons of one’s own relationship to that

of others’ relationships (e.g. family, friends, strangers).

Relational ComparisonsComparison of oneself to one’s partner.

Temporal ComparisonsComparison of current relationship status to

its status at some time in the past, or future status.

Can also be comparison of past relationship to current relationship.

PERSONALITY & RELATIONSHIPS

Exchange OrientationPartners’ subjective evaluation of equityPredictive of lower levels of marital

satisfaction (Murstein, Cerreto, & MacDonald, 1977).

Correlated with referential comparisons

NeuroticismTendency to experience negative emotionsPredictive of lower levels of marital

satisfaction & divorce (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Rogge et. al.,2006)

CURRENT STUDY Hypotheses:

1. Referential, relational, and temporal comparisons should be positively associated

2. Comparisons should be positively associated with relationship satisfaction ; Incremental validity of using relational comparisons.

3. Exchange orientation and neuroticism should be negatively associated with satisfaction; exchange orientation should be associated with comparisons.

CURRENT STUDY Method

110 female participants recruited from an Elementary Psychology course

Was approximately 18.76 (SD= .80) years of age, with 84.5% were freshman and 93.6% of the reported race/ethnicity as Caucasian.

participants received informed consent documents, questionnaires of the variables of interest and a debriefing statement; earned research credit hours as compensation.

CURRENT STUDY Measures

Hatfield Global Measure (α = .85)- 7-point Likert response format. (Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher,

Utne, & Hay, 1985) Exchange Orientation Scale (α = .75)- 5-

point Likert response format. “I feel resentment if I believe I have spent more on a friend’s present than (s)he has spent on mine.” (Murstein et al., 1977).

Big Five Inventory (BFI) neuroticism subscale (α = .85) 5-point Likert response format. Indicate how much listed characteristics described you:“is depressed, blue,” “worries a lot,” or “can be moody.” (John,

Donahue, & Kentle, 1991)

CURRENT STUDY Measures

Adapted form Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) (a = .90) contains 6 items with 7-point scale . Wording in the item “Our marriage is strong” was changed to “Our relationship is strong.”

Frequency:3 items on 7-point Likert scale 1 (never) to 7 (always) asked how often individuals thought of: current partner (relational); others relationships (referential); past partners (temporal)

RESULTSTable 1 Bivariate Correlations among Predictor and Outcome Variables

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Hatfield Comparisons Relational

.-----

2. Hatfield Comparisons Referential .40** .-----

3. Hatfield Comparisons Temporal

.33** .63** .----

4. Frequency Partner .06 .18 .09 .----

5. Frequency Past Partner .03 -.28** -.22* -.06 .----

6. Frequency Others -.09 -.18 -.02 .09 .04

.----

7. BFI Neuroticism .02 -.11 -.02 -.18 .19* .10 .----

8. Exchange Orientation -.03 -.09 -.09 -.19* .11 -.11 -.22* .----

9. QMI Satisfaction .44** .63** .49** .27** -.19* -.05 -.17 -.06 .----

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01.

RESULTS

All comparisons independently, significantly predict relationship satisfaction (p < .0001)

After controlling for referential and temporal comparisons, relational comparison still significantly predict satisfaction (p < .05).

Neuroticism marginally predicted satisfaction ( p =.06)

CONCLUSIONS

Comparisons: coping or maintenance?

All comparisons are not equal (e.g. temporal)

Frequency and relationship satisfaction

Limitations

Acknowledgements Undergraduate RAs of HEARTS lab:

Bryan Koestner & Danielle Theirault

Dr. Jerry Suls