Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2023 May 18;37(6):909–919. doi: 10.1037/fam0001111

Couples’ Communication Quality Differs by Topic

Danielle M Weber 1, Justin A Lavner 1, Steven R H Beach 1,2
PMCID: PMC10523945  NIHMSID: NIHMS1893582  PMID: 37199946

Abstract

Extensive research has demonstrated that couples’ communication quality is related to many aspects of couples’ lives, including relationship satisfaction. However, the possibility that the quality of couples’ communication might vary as a function of the topic of communication and the implications of this variability have received relatively little attention. Accordingly, this study sought to examine (a) within-person variability in communication quality between topics, (b) associations with relationship satisfaction, and (c) associations with stressors focal to specific topics. Black coparenting couples (N = 344) reported on their communication quality around four topics: finances, children, racial discrimination, and kinfolk. Results indicated that communication quality significantly differed across topics. Communication quality was lowest for finances and kinfolk, and significantly higher when discussing problems with children and highest when discussing racial discrimination. Moreover, communication quality when discussing finances, kinfolk, and racial discrimination each uniquely predicted relationship satisfaction, even after controlling for each other and for general communication skills. Experiencing more stress around finances and children were associated with poorer communication quality in the focal area (and for financial stress, in some other communication topics as well), whereas the extent of racial discrimination was not significantly associated with communication quality for any topic. These findings reveal significant variability in couples’ communication across topics and demonstrate that considering communication for different topics can offer unique information about couples’ relationship satisfaction beyond general communication skills. Further research examining topic-specific communication quality may enhance understanding of and interventions for couples’ communication.

Keywords: Couples, communication, conversation topic, relationship satisfaction, external stress

Communication is a core element of couple relationships and couple interventions (e.g., Baucom et al., 2020). A number of methodologies have been used to examine how couples communicate, ranging from standardized self-report measures to capture global perceptions of communication quality (e.g., Crenshaw et al., 2017) to observational paradigms in which couples engage in discussions about a particular topic(s) (e.g., Friedlander et al., 2019; Heyman, 2001). Results from these studies have generated important insights into how couples communicate, particularly the behavioral processes that unfold within couples’ communication (e.g., criticism, withdrawal) and how communication predicts relationship satisfaction and stability (for meta-analysis, see Kanter et al., 2022).

There has been much less attention to what couples communicate about—i.e., the topic of communication. Global self-report measures of communication quality ask couples to reflect on their communication across a variety of situations. Observational paradigms, though typically based on a specific topic of a couple’s choosing, nonetheless generally ignore what topics were discussed and focus instead on overall communication patterns (for exceptions, see Rauer et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2013a). Prevailing approaches have thus largely not considered how communication might vary by topic and the implications of this variability, despite Kurdek (1994) highlighting the importance of examining “what couples fight about” nearly 30 years ago. To address this gap, the current study used data from a sample of Black coparenting couples who reported on their communication quality around four different stressors (finances, racial discrimination, children, and kinfolk) in order to examine (a) within-person variability in communication quality between topics, (b) how communication quality in the different domains was associated with relationship satisfaction, and (c) how different stressors were associated with communication quality in the different domains. Positive romantic relationships are sources of resilience for Black Americans in the face of contextual stress (e.g., Beach et al., 2019), making it particularly important to understand factors underlying variability in relationship functioning.

Considering Variability in Couple Communication Between Topics

The limited prior research that has considered different communication topics suggests that there is likely to be some variability in communication quality depending on what couples are communicating about. One set of studies has examined which topics generally elicit more conflict by asking couples and/or experts to rate how difficult topics are to discuss (e.g., Jackson et al., 2016; Sanford, 2003) and/or how frequently different topics are a source of conflict (e.g., Stanley et al., 2002). Research has commonly found finances (Jackson et al., 2016; Rauer et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2013a) and in-laws (Rauer et al., 2020; Sanford, 2003) to be areas of challenge. Children are sometimes rated as a common source of conflict (Stanley et al., 2002; Papp et al., 2009; Papp, 2018), although other times are rated as lower in difficulty relative to other topics (Williamson et al., 2013a). These studies reveal some topics considered challenging, but the perceived difficulty or frequency of a topic does not necessarily convey information about the quality of communication around that topic. For example, finances might be rated as an area of difficulty because discussions about finances often become conflictual (i.e., a low-quality conversation) or because financial problems are difficult to resolve. Accordingly, these findings do not directly address variability in communication quality by topic.

Limited research has compared communication among couples communicating about different topics. In these studies, each couple provided a single sample of communication (Rauer et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2013a), which was categorized according to topic (e.g., money, children) and then compared across couples as a function of topic category. This work has suggested that communication processes can differ according to the topic. For example, communication about children (Williamson et al., 2013a) and relatives (Rauer et al., 2020) was associated with less positive or more negative observed communication. However, because couples provided a single sample of communication for these analyses, these conclusions are based on comparisons between couples who selected one topic and those who selected a different topic. It is therefore unclear whether these types of between-couple differences are also observed within a given couple, such that an individual couple is likely to communicate more poorly about children than they would a non-child topic, for example.

Studies examining within-couple variability in communication processes have yet to thoroughly consider variability by topic. Some studies have observed couples providing two samples of communication and have found differences in communication behaviors according to which partner raised a particular topic (e.g., Heavey et al., 1993; Heyman et al., 2009), but have not considered the impact of the topics themselves. Other studies have observed couples engage in different types of interactions (e.g., conflict-focused vs. support-focused; e.g., Cao et al., 2015; Sullivan et al., 2010), revealing within-couple communication differences based on the function of communication. Once again, within-couple differences based on the topics themselves were not considered. One recent study (Sullivan et al., 2022) observed sexual-minority couples communicating about heterosexist discrimination and a “general life stressor” of the couple’s choosing and found topic differences in observed support behavior (i.e., less negative support behavior when communicating about discrimination relative to a general stressor) but no differences in self-reported behavior. Other research has examined associations between self-reported communication patterns with frequencies of disagreements in different topics (Dew et al., 2012) or daily diary reports of the topic of naturally-occurring conflict (Papp et al., 2009; Papp, 2018). This research has suggested that for a given person, disagreements about finances were associated with more negative communication relative to non-financial topics (Dew et al., 2012; Papp et al., 2009). Moreover, conflict around children was associated with conflict strategies such as withdrawal and sadness (Papp, 2018). Importantly, these studies varied in the scope of topics, behaviors of interest, and samples represented, making direct comparisons difficult. Taken together, although existing research suggests that communication processes can vary for a given person, much remains to be understood regarding within-person variability in communication quality by topic.

To advance this work, the present study used data from 344 mixed-gender Black coparenting couples who self-reported their communication quality around four separate stressors that are common sources of difficulty for Black couples (Bryant et al., 2010): finances, problems with children, racial discrimination, and kinfolk. According to the sociocultural family stress model (McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018), Black families often experience numerous stressors stemming from systems of oppression, including racial discrimination and disproportionate levels of financial strain, that can have downstream effects on the family. Black couples also often contend with family responsibilities that require frequent communication, including responsibilities for children and caring for extended family members (see Bryant et al., 2010). It is thus important to understand how Black couples communicate around these salient and impactful issues.

All partners in the present study rated their communication quality in each of these domains using identical items, allowing for the examination of within-individual differences in communication about different topics. Our first aim was to examine (a) if there are within-person differences in communication quality between these topics, and (b) if, across the entire sample, some topics are rated as higher in communication quality relative to others. Based on the aforementioned findings showing that communication difficulty and processes can vary by topic (e.g., Dew et al., 2012; Rauer et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2013a), we hypothesized that there would likely be significant within-person variability in communication quality by topic (i.e., communication quality would differ across topics for a given person). We did not have hypotheses regarding whether communication quality for some topics would be rated higher than others (e.g., whether communication about finances would be lower quality than communication about kinfolk) given the lack of research on these topics and in this population to date.

Communication Topic and Relationship Satisfaction

If, as we expect, couples’ communication quality varies between topics, it is reasonable to wonder whether such variability is meaningful in other ways. Our second aim addressed this question by examining whether communication quality for the different topics was associated with relationship satisfaction. Communication processes are often associated with relationship satisfaction (e.g., Kanter et al., 2022), though little research has attended to communication around particular topics. However, some work has found that the frequency of disagreements about money were more associated with relationship satisfaction than were disagreements about other topics (Dew et al., 2012; Wheeler & Kerpelman, 2016). These findings suggest that there is the potential for unique patterns of association between communication quality across different topics and relationship satisfaction.

The sociocultural family stress model (McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018) argues that how Black couples cope with and respond to stressors influences subsequent family functioning. Therefore, high quality communication about the stressors under examination here (i.e., finances, problems with kids, racial discrimination, kinfolk) should relate to positive relationship adjustment. A more novel question is whether communication quality in each topic area is associated with relationship satisfaction after accounting for communication quality for the other topics. These types of unique associations would further the case that it is valuable to consider communication quality for different topics. Likewise, given the robust association between general communication skills and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Woodin, 2011), it is important to test whether there is any incremental utility of assessing communication focal to specific topics beyond the effect of general communication skills. We test these questions in the present study.

Stress and Communication Topic

For our third aim, we sought to understand why couples may have lower communication quality around a particular topic, focusing on how couples’ level of stress in different domains—namely finances, children, and racial discrimination1—was associated with communication quality around the different topics. The Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation model (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995) proposes that external stressors can influence how couples interact. Indeed, research has demonstrated associations between various stressors and couples’ communication. For example, stress related to finances can negatively impact couples’ communication (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2017; Williamson et al., 2013b). Moreover, more extensive child behavior problems have been associated with worse couple communication (Jenkins et al., 2005; Knopp et al., 2017). Results for racial discrimination have been less conclusive; racial discrimination has been associated with higher levels of conflict behaviors in some studies (Trail et al., 2012) and more positive support processes in others (Clavel et al., 2017).

We built on these findings to consider how domain-specific stress would be associated with domain-specific communication. We predicted that greater stress in a particular area (e.g., more financial strain) would be associated with worse reported communication quality for that specific topic. We also considered whether stressors exhibited crossover associations with communication quality for other topics. That is, stressors can have both narrow and broad associations with couple functioning, such that greater financial stress could be associated with both worse communication around finances and worse communication around children. Finally, in considering these questions, we acknowledged that these associations could be due to the association between stress and general communication processes (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2017; Williamson et al., 2013b), and thus repeated all analyses controlling for general communication.

Considering Variability by Gender

In examining each of the three aims, we were primarily interested in patterns across the entire sample. Nonetheless, some existing research has suggested that gender may be relevant in couple interactions around different topics. For example, Papp et al. (2009) found that discussions about money were associated with more angry behavior in husbands, but not wives, compared to non-money conflicts. Dew et al. (2012) found that husbands’ perceptions of financial disagreements were more strongly related to marital stability relative to wives’ reports of financial disagreements. These findings suggest that patterns in communication quality by topic—and their associations with other variables—could potentially vary for men and women. However, it is important to note that meta-analytic research on couple communication patterns has found that gender differences in conflict behavior are often small in magnitude (Woodin, 2011). Moreover, this past work has not focused specifically on Black families, for whom gender roles have been suggested to be less rigid (e.g., McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018). Accordingly, much remains to be understood regarding any potential gender differences in communication about topics of importance in Black couples. Thus, we tested whether any associations examined in the three aims might vary for men and women as an exploratory aim.

Method

Participants and Procedures

The sample included couples with at least one preadolescent or early-adolescent Black child in the home. These families were recruited for the Protecting Strong African American Families (ProSAAF) project, a clinical trial of a family-centered intervention to enhance couple, coparenting, and parent-child relationships in Black families living in the rural, southern U.S (see Barton et al., 2018). To be eligible, couples had to be living together, in a relationship for ≥ 2 years, and coparenting a Black child in the targeted age range for ≥ 1 year. The current study used baseline data and thus did not need to control for intervention condition.

Of the total sample of 346 families, 63% were married and had been married for 9.8 years on average (SD = 7.48) and unmarried couples had been living together for 6.7 years on average (SD = 5.42). Men were on average 39.9 years old (SD = 9.6) and women were 36.6 years old (SD = 7.45). The majority of couples could be classified as working poor: 51% had incomes <100% of the federal poverty level, and another 17% had incomes between 100–150% of that level. Median monthly income was $1,375 (SD = $1,375) for men and $1,220 (SD = $1,440) for women. Median education for men was high school or GED and for women was some college or trade school. The median number of children in the home was 3. The vast majority were mixed-gender couples (n =344), with two same-gender female couples. Given the exploratory interest in gender, only the 344 mixed-gender couples were included in the present analyses.

Potential families learned of the study through study advertisements and mail and phone from school lists. Project staff visited families’ homes and obtained consent, after which family members separately completed measures in home. This project received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Georgia and was not preregistered. Materials and analysis code are available by request from the corresponding author. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.

Measures

Communication quality by topic was assessed using a self-report measure created for this study. The measure was designed to briefly assess communication quality around select areas of importance for Black coparenting couples (e.g., Bryant et al., 2010) which were selected as foci for the intervention. Four subscales assessed quality of communication when discussing finances, problems with kids, racial discrimination, and kinfolk. Following a stem asking the participant to answer with respect to a specific topic (e.g., “When my partner and I talk about family finances…”), participants responded to five identical items capturing perceptions of these specific conversations, including “I feel heard” and “I feel supported” on a four-point Likert scale (from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree). All items are included in supplemental materials. A total score for each subscale was generated through summing each partner’s ratings on the five items,2 with a higher score indicating higher quality communication for that topic. In our analyzed sample, internal consistency across subscales was acceptable (αwomen = .85-.89; αmen = .77-.84).

General effective communication was assessed using a seven-item version of the Communication Skills Test (CST; Jenkins & Saiz, 1995), which captures effective communication patterns irrespective of communication topic (sample item: “When discussing an issue, my mate and I both take responsibility to keep us on track”). Items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale (from 1 = Almost never to 7 = Almost always) and summed to create total scores, with higher scores indicating more effective communication patterns (αwomen =.85; αmen =.82).

Relationship satisfaction was assessed using the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983). The QMI captures global perceptions of relationship satisfaction, thus avoiding potential confounding with measures of communication quality. For the first five items (sample item: “My partner and I have a good relationship”), participants rated their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). For the final item, participants answered “Which best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered, in your relationship?” on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Very unhappy, 2 = Unhappy, 3 = Happy, 4 = Very happy, 5 = Perfectly happy). The six items were summed to create total scores, with higher scores indicating greater relationship satisfaction (αwomen = .93; αmen = .92).

Financial strain was assessed using four items. Participants rated their level of agreement on items capturing their level of financial difficulties in different areas, including “We have enough money to afford the kind of food we need” (Conger et al., 1992) on a four-point Likert scale (from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree). Items were then reverse coded and summed to create total scores, such that higher scores indicated greater financial strain. In our analyzed sample, internal consistency was acceptable (αwomen = .81; αmen = .80).

Racial discrimination was assessed using the Daily Life Experiences subscale of the Racism and Life Experiences Scale (Harrell et al., 1997). Participants rated the frequency of their everyday experiences of racial discrimination (sample item: “being treated rudely or disrespectfully because of your race”) within the past six months on a four-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 2 = Once or twice, 3 = A few times, 4 = Frequently). Total scores were generated through summing the nine items, with higher scores indicating more racial discrimination (αwomen = .90; αmen = .92).

Child behavior problems were assessed using 26 items extracted from the parent report Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). Items included various problematic behaviors that can be observed in children, including 12 items assessing rule breaking behavior (e.g., “Breaks rules at home, school, or elsewhere”), 13 items assessing aggressive behavior (e.g., “Argues a lot”), and 1 item assessing depression (“Feels or complains that no one loves him/her”). Each item was rated on a three-point Likert scale (0 = Not true (as far as you know), 1 = Somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = Very true or often true) and total scores were generated through summing all items, with higher scores indicating more child behavior problems (αwomen = .87; αmen = .88).

Results

Analyses were conducted in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., 2013) using PROC MIXED, a multilevel modeling approach (MLM) that accounts for the nested (non-independent) structure of the data (i.e., male and female partners were in the same relationship). All predictors were mean centered. Gender was coded 0.5=women and −0.5=men, such that main effects represent the average of women and men. Random intercepts were estimated for all MLMs.

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables of interest are presented in Table 1. The mean scores for communication quality around different topics ranged from 15.86 (finances) to 17.00 (racial discrimination), with potential scores ranging from 4–20. The mean score for general effective communication was 34.29, with potential scores ranging from 7–49. Communication around each topic had moderate-to-large significant positive correlations with communication around the other topics (rs ranging from .41-.64). Additionally, communication around each topic had moderate-to-large significant positive correlations with general effective communication (rs ranging .34-.52). Because communication around each topic was significantly correlated with general communication, we proceeded with our plan to control for general effective communication in specified models.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Communication re: Finances 15.86 3.02 --
2. Communication re: Kids 16.40 2.85 0 64*** --
3. Communication re: Racial Discrimination 17.00 2.56 0 41*** 0.51*** --
4. Communication re: Kinfolk 15.97 2.48 0.51*** 0.53*** 0.53*** --
5. General Effective Communication 34.29 8.80 0.52*** 0 49*** 0 34*** 0 43*** --
6. Relationship Satisfaction 24.80 4.51 0.54*** 0 47*** 0 37*** 0 42*** 0.57*** --
7. Financial Strain 11.25 3.59 -0.18*** −0 19*** −0.13*** −0.13*** −0.15*** −0.26*** —
8. Racial Discrimination 16.23 6.11 −0.04 −0.04 0.01 −0.09* −0.02 −0.01 0.04
9. Child Behavior Problems 4.33 5.14 −0.12** −0.21*** −0.08* −0.12** −0.07 −0.08* 0.18*** 0.11**
Open in a new tab

Note. Correlation matrix generated in Mplus (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2015) using the Cluster command to account for the nested structure of the data.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

Beyond these bivariate associations, we conducted an exploratory analysis testing whether these associations between communication quality in each topic and general communication held after controlling for communication quality in other topics. To do so, we ran a two-level MLM (partners nested within couples) in which communication quality in all topics were entered simultaneously to predict general effective communication. Results indicated that communication quality around finances, children, and kinfolk (but not communication around racial discrimination) were each uniquely associated with general communication after controlling for communication in other areas (see Supplemental Table S1).

Other covariates considered for inclusion due to their potential to influence communication were marital status and length of cohabitation. Initial univariate tests of these variables’ associations with communication quality across topics (8 tests total) revealed one significant association between marital status and communication about racial discrimination (indicating higher quality communication for married relative to unmarried partners) and one significant association between length of cohabitation and communication quality about finances (indicating lower quality communication for individuals living together longer). Given the lack of a clear pattern of association between these variables and communication, the more parsimonious models excluding these covariates were retained.

Aim 1: Variability in Self-Reported Communication across Topics

To examine whether there was within-person variability in communication quality across different topics, we ran a three-level random-effects ANOVA model and partitioned the ratio of variance within individual (Level 1), within couple (Level 2), and between couples (Level 3). The random-effects ANOVA model revealed significant variance at each level (ps < .001), with 50.32% of the variance at Level 1 (within-partner), 28.86% of the variance at Level 2 (within-couple), and 20.82% of variance at Level 3 (between-couple). To further understand within-couple variance at Level 2, we computed descriptive statistics and correlations between men’s and women’s scores on the constructs of interest (see Supplemental Tables S2 and S3) and found significant, small-to-medium correlations between men’s and women’s scores on the same construct. Importantly, however, the largest percentage of variance in communication was at the within-person level, indicating that there was substantial variability in reported communication quality across the different topics for a given person.

We then examined differences in communication scores across the four topics (finances, kids, kinfolk, and racial discrimination). Data were structured within a three-level MLM, with communication topic nested within partner nested within couple. Communication scores were regressed onto topic, which was entered using separate dummy codes to facilitate specific contrasts; analyses were run multiple times with different reference categories to allow all possible comparisons. Given the exploratory aim to examine gender differences, the model also included gender and the interaction between gender and topic; all gender findings are described in the Exploratory Aim section.

Full results from the three-level MLM examining differences in communication quality scores between topics are reported in Table 2. Communication quality was rated as highest in the topic of racial discrimination, followed by problems with kids, kinfolk, and finances. Notably, ratings for almost all topics were significantly different—communication quality around racial discrimination was significantly higher than communication quality around kids, which was significantly higher than communication around kinfolk. Communication around kinfolk and finances did not significantly differ.

Table 2.

Differences in Communication Between Topics

Effect Reference Category: Finances Reference Category: Kids Reference Category: Racial Discrimination Reference Category: Kinfolk
B SE t p B SE t p B SE t p B SE t p
Intercept 15.86 0.11 138.14 <.001 16.40 0.11 142.84 <.001 17.00 0.11 148.02 <.001 15.97 0.11 139.08 <.001
Gender −0.17 0.18 −0.90 .370 −0.08 0.18 −0.44 .660 0.39 0.18 2.11 .035 0.35 0.18 1.90 .057
Communication re: Finances — — — — −0.54 0.10 −5.28 <.001 −1.14 0.10 −11.11 <.001 −0.11 0.10 −1.06 .288
Communication re: Kids 0.54 0.10 5.28 <.001 — — — — −0.60 0.10 −5.83 <.001 0.43 0.10 4.22 <.001
Communication re: Racial 1.14 0.10 11.11 <.001 0.60 0.10 5.83 <.001 — — — — 1.03 0.10 10.05 <.001
Discrimination
Communication re: Kinfolk 0.11 0.10 1.06 .288 −0.43 0.10 −4.22 <.001 −1.03 0.10 −10.05 <.001 — — — —
Gender*Finances — — — — −0.08 0.20 −0.41 .680 −0.56 0.20 −2.72 .007 −0.52 0.20 −2.53 .011
Gender*Kids 0.08 0.20 0.41 .680 — — — — −0.47 0.20 −2.31 .021 −0.43 0.20 −2.12 .034
Gender*Racial 0.56 0.20 2.72 .007 0.47 0.20 2.31 .021 — — — — 0.04 0.20 0.18 .853
Discrimination
 Simple slope: Women 1.41 0.14 9.78 <.001 0.83 0.14 5.76 <.001
 Simple slope : Men 0.86 0.14 5.94 <.001 0.36 0.14 2.50 .013
Gender*Kinfolk 0.52 0.20 2.53 .011 0.43 0.20 2.12 .034 −0.04 0.20 −0.18 .853 — — — —
 Simple slope: Women 0.37 0.14 2.54 .011 −0.21 0.14 −1.48 .138
 Simple slope : Men −0.15 0.14 −1.04 .299 −0.65 0.14 −4.48 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. Models were run with different reference categories (indicated in top row). For each model, each contrast represents the difference between communication for that topic relative to communication in the reference category. Gender coded 0.5 (Women) and -0.5 (Men).

Aim 2: Associations between Topic-Focal Communication and Relationship Satisfaction

We then examined how communication quality for each topic was associated with relationship satisfaction. Bivariate associations between communication quality for the different topics and relationship satisfaction were examined using correlations. Multivariate associations accounting for shared variability between topics were examined using a two-level MLM (partners nested within couples) in which relationship satisfaction was regressed onto communication quality for the four topics, which were entered simultaneously. Gender and the interaction between communication across topics and gender were also included.

Communication quality for each topic was significantly associated with relationship satisfaction in bivariate models, reflected in the moderate-to-large positive correlations (rs .37-.54; Table 1). Table 3 presents the results of the multivariate MLM of communication quality across topics predicting relationship satisfaction, with and without controlling for general effective communication. These analyses showed that communication quality for all four topics was significantly positively associated with relationship satisfaction, indicating that reporting higher quality communication around finances, kids, kinfolk, and racial discrimination, independent of the others, was associated with significantly higher relationship satisfaction. These results were similar when controlling for general effective communication as well, with the exception of communication around kids (which was no longer significant).

Table 3.

Multivariate Models Examining Associations between Communication by Topic and Relationship Satisfaction

Not Controlling for General Communication
 Controlling for General Communication
Effect B SE t p B SE t p
Intercept 24.79 0.15 165.01 <.001 24.80 0.14 177.24 <.001
Gender −0.97 0.26 −3.76 <.001 −0.94 0.24 −3.90 <.001
Communication re: Finances 0.49 0.06 7.74 <.001 0.33 0.06 5.52 <.001
Communication re: Kids 0.20 0.07 2.88 .004 0.08 0.07 1.28 .203
Communication re: Racial 0.16 0.07 2.38 .018 0.14 0.06 2.27 .024
 Discrimination Communication re: Kinfolk 0.25 0.07 3.39 .001 0.15 0.07 2.19 .029
Gender*Finances 0.31 0.12 2.57 .011 0.31 0.11 2.71 .007
 Simple slope: Women 0.64 0.08 7.71 <.001 0.49 0.08 6.16 <.001
 Simple slope: Men 0.33 0.09 3.59 <.001 0.18 0.09 2.07 .039
Gender*Kids −0.34 0.14 −2.51 .013 −0.30 0.13 −2.32 .021
 Simple slope: Women 0.03 0.09 0.32 .749 −0.06 0.09 −0.71 .477
 Simple slope: Men 0.37 0.10 3.68 <.001 0.23 0.10 2.43 .016
Gender*Racial Discrimination 0.11 0.13 0.80 .427 0.02 0.12 0.19 .849
Gender*Kinfolk −0.01 0.14 −0.05 .964 −0.002 0.14 −0.02 .988
General Effective Communication — — — — 0.18 0.02 9.96 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. Gender coded 0.5 (Women) and -0.5 (Men).

Aim 3: Associations between External Stressors and Topic-Focal Communication

Our third aim sought to understand how stress related to the different topics was associated with communication quality. We conducted a series of two-level MLMs (partners nested within couples) in which scores for each of the four communication topics (separately) were regressed onto the three stressors (financial strain, racist hassles, and child behavior problems). Stressors were entered into the model simultaneously to understand how each stressor uniquely related to communication quality, beyond the potential overlapping impact of the other stressors (e.g., child behavior problems could be higher in the context of greater financial strain). Gender and the interaction between each of the stressors and gender were also included. Given the number of effects tested in this aim, only findings significant at p<.01 will be discussed.

Table 4 presents the results of the MLMs of external stressors predicting communication quality for each of the topics, with and without controlling for general effective communication. Consistent with hypotheses, two of the three stressors were associated with communication focal to that area, both when and when not controlling for general effective communication: (1) higher financial strain was significantly associated with lower quality communication about finances, and (2) higher child behavior problems were significantly associated with lower quality communication about kids. In contrast, racial discrimination was not significantly associated with communication quality about racial discrimination in models with and without controls.

Table 4.

Associations between External Stressors and Communication by Topic

Not Controlling for General Communication
 Controlling for General Communication
Effect B SE t p B SE t p
Communication re: Finances
Intercept 15.97 0.14 113.21 <.001 15.91 0.12 134.85 <.001
Gender 0.27 0.23 1.20 .233 0.10 0.21 0.49 .626
Financial Strain −0.16 0.04 −4.48 <.001 −0.09 0.03 −2.99 .003
Racial Discrimination −0.02 0.02 −1.01 .313 −0.02 0.02 −0.95 .342
Child Behavior Problems −0.05 0.02 −2.05 .041 −0.03 0.02 −1.62 .106
Gender*Financial Strain −0.14 0.07 −2.11 .036 −0.08 0.06 −1.37 .173
 Simple slope: Women −0.23 0.05 −4.28 <.001
 Simple slope: Men −0.09 0.04 −2.00 .046
Gender*Racial Discrimination 0.002 0.04 0.06 .954 −0.03 0.03 −0.75 .453
Gender*Child Behavior Problems 0.01 0.04 0.29 .774 0.02 0.04 0.41 .683
General Communication — — — — 0.17 0.01 14.63 <.001
Communication re: Kids
Intercept 16.43 0.13 125.66 <.001 16.38 0.11 144.33 <.001
Gender 0.37 0.21 1.77 .078 0.21 0.19 1.11 .269
Financial Strain −0.15 0.03 −4.37 <.001 −0.09 0.03 −2.89 .004
Racial Discrimination −0.002 0.02 −0.09 .928 −0.001 0.02 −0.08 .936
Child Behavior Problems −0.09 0.02 −4.47 <.001 −0.08 0.02 −4.29 <.001
Gender*Financial Strain −0.04 0.06 −0.66 .511 0.005 0.06 0.09 .932
Gender*Racial Discrimination −0.01 0.03 −0.18 .855 −0.03 0.03 −0.98 .328
Gender*Child Behavior Problems 0.04 0.04 1.00 .320 0.04 0.03 1.08 .279
General Communication — — — — 0.15 0.01 13.69 <.001
Communication re: Racial Discrimination
Intercept 17.04 0.12 145.50 <.001 17.01 0.11 156.17 <.001
Gender 0.84 0.20 4.16 <.001 0.75 0.20 3.81 <.001
Financial Strain −0.14 0.03 −4.43 <.001 −0.10 0.03 −3.44 .001
Racial Discrimination 0.01 0.02 0.77 .444 0.01 0.02 0.93 .356
Child Behavior Problems −0.02 0.02 −1.15 .253 −0.01 0.02 −0.79 .429
Gender*Financial Strain −0.09 0.06 −1.52 .131 −0.06 0.06 −1.08 .283
Gender*Racial Discrimination −0.04 0.03 −1.11 .267 −0.05 0.03 −1.64 .102
Gender*Child Behavior Problems 0.06 0.04 1.55 .121 0.06 0.03 1.61 .109
General Communication — — — — 0.09 0.01 8.61 <.001
Communication re: Kinfolk
Intercept 16.00 0.11 141.63 <.001 15.96 0.10 159.58 <.001
Gender 0.60 0.20 3.10 .002 0.49 0.19 2.65 .008
Financial Strain −0.10 0.03 −3.46 .001 −0.06 0.03 −2.24 .026
Racial Discrimination −0.02 0.02 −1.56 .120 −0.02 0.01 −1.70 .091
Child Behavior Problems −0.05 0.02 −2.49 .013 −0.04 0.02 −2.09 .038
Gender*Financial Strain −0.06 0.06 −1.02 .309 −0.02 0.05 −0.42 .673
Gender*Racial Discrimination −0.02 0.03 −0.52 .604 −0.04 0.03 −1.25 .211
Gender*Child Behavior Problems 0.01 0.04 0.41 .681 0.02 0.03 0.54 .588
General Communication — — — — 0.11 0.01 11.65 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. Unadjusted and adjusted (i.e., controlling for general effective communication) models were analyzed separately for each communication topic. Gender coded 0.5 (Women) and −0.5 (Men).

Financial strain was also significantly associated with communication quality for all non-focal topics. Specifically, financial strain was significantly negatively associated with quality of communication about kids, racial discrimination, and kinfolk (the last of which became non-significant after controlling for general effective communication).

Exploratory Aim: Gender Differences in Communication Patterns and Correlates

Regarding gender differences across contrasts of topics (Aim 1), men and women primarily differed in the magnitude of main effects rather than demonstrating distinct patterns of difference. Communication quality around racial discrimination was significantly better than finances and kids for both women and men, but the magnitude of these two contrasts was larger for women than the corresponding differences for men. Additionally, a significant cross-topic difference emerged for one gender but not the other in two cases. First, women reported significantly better communication quality around kinfolk than for finances, but for men this difference was not significant. Second, men reported significantly better communication quality around kids than kinfolk, but for women this difference was not significant.

Examining gender differences in the association between communication and relationship satisfaction (Aim 2), two significant gender interactions emerged out of four tested. First, higher quality communication around finances was significantly positively associated with higher relationship satisfaction for both genders, though this association was stronger for women than men. Next, for men there was a significant positive association between communication quality around kids and relationship satisfaction, but this association was not significant for women. These differences remained significant when controlling for general effective communication.

Regarding gender differences in the association between stressors and communication (Aim 3), across 12 total gender interactions, no interactions were significant at p < .01.

Discussion

This investigation builds on an extensive literature primarily focused on how couples communicate to further explore what couples communicate about. We examined Black couples’ self-reported communication quality across several topics of importance in the lives of Black families—finances, kids, racial discrimination, and kinfolk (Bryant et al., 2010; McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018)—to identify (1) variability and systematic patterns in communication quality about these topics, (2) their unique associations with relationship satisfaction, and (3) how stress was associated with communication. Results revealed important variability in communication quality by topic and notable associations with relationship satisfaction and experienced stressors. In so doing, these findings demonstrate that considering what couples communicate about can offer new insights into our understanding of couple communication.

Our first set of findings demonstrated significant within-person variability in communication quality, indicating that communication quality is not necessarily equivalent across topics for a given person. Indeed, there was much more within-person variability in communication quality across topics than either within-couple or between-couple variability. Thus, although communication quality for one topic was significantly correlated with communication quality for the other topics, participants nonetheless reported that how well they communicated with their partner differed depending on what they were discussing.

Our findings revealed sample-level patterns of average differences. Communication quality was lowest when discussing finances and kinfolk, and significantly higher when discussing problems with kids and even higher when discussing racial discrimination. Previous research has suggested that couples may find conversations about finances and extended family challenging (e.g., Rauer et al., 2020), and conversations about finances have been associated with more negative communication behaviors (Dew et al., 2012; Papp et al., 2009). The present findings extend this work by showing that financial and family conversations are lower in quality relative to other topics for a given person. Past research on communication quality around children have been mixed. Although there is some evidence that conversations about kids are associated with less positive communication (Papp, 2018; Williamson et al., 2013a), other findings suggest that this topic is perceived to be less difficult than other topics (Williamson et al., 2013a). Finally, discussions around racial discrimination were rated highest in quality. Notably, outside of research examining Black couples’ conversations about racial socialization of their children (e.g., Jones & Neblett, 2019), research on couples’ communication topics has not explored communication about racial discrimination, likely because most research on couples has focused on predominantly White samples (Williamson et al., 2022). However, Clavél et al. (2017) found among a sample of Black couples that experiencing more racial discrimination was associated with more social support whereas financial strain was associated with less support; the authors argued that because racial discrimination is a stressor originating outside the relationship, partners may be more apt to provide more support. Indeed, McNeil Smith and Landor (2018) argue that when Black families ascribe stress to oppression, they are more likely to place blame in the “oppressive system and not within the self or family system” (p. 442–443). Therefore, communication quality around racial discrimination might be highest relative to other stressors because this topic might not engender as much hostility relative to topics in which partner behavior may be more likely to be involved (e.g., finances). Together, these findings are useful both for offering insights into the specific differences in communication quality between topics among this sample of Black couples living in the rural South, and for highlighting the more general point that individuals in relationships can vary in their communication quality depending on what is being discussed.

Our next set of findings revealed meaningful associations between communication quality in different topics and relationship satisfaction. Our bivariate findings indicated that higher quality communication in each area was associated with higher satisfaction, as expected. More notably, these associations remained significant after accounting for communication in other topics. Additionally, three of the four (communication quality around finances, kinfolk, and racial discrimination) remained significant after accounting for general communication skills. Accordingly, understanding how a couple communicates in one domain offers unique information about relationship satisfaction over and above all other communication indicators. Other studies have hinted that the frequency of disagreements in particular topics relative to others could relate to satisfaction (Dew et al., 2012; Wheeler & Kerpelman, 2016). Our findings further showed the robustness of these effects by accounting for couples’ general communication skills. Thus, these findings demonstrate that communication quality differs between topics and that considering this variability helps us better understand relationship satisfaction.

Our third set of findings indicate that certain stressors explained significant variance in communication quality focal to different topics beyond the effect of general communication skills. Specifically, greater stress around finances and kids were associated with worse communication quality in these respective areas. Additionally, greater financial strain had cross-topic associations with worse communication around kids and racial discrimination. Previous research has also suggested that stress around finances can impact communication broadly (e.g., Williamson et al., 2013b). Financial stress has been shown to have robust associations with poorer mental health (see Gallo & Mathews, 2003), which can then impact relationship processes (e.g., Masarik & Conger, 2017). Given its far-reaching effects, it is perhaps not surprising that stress around finances could cross over to impact communication quality around unrelated topics. Notably, racial discrimination was not associated with communication quality around racial discrimination or any topic. The impact of stress on Black families is related to the perception of the stressor (McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018). As discussed earlier, it may be that racial discrimination is recognized as a stressor originating outside of the relationship (as opposed to others such as finances where some blame could be assigned to a partner) and is thus less directly harmful to the relationship. Importantly, past work on how racial discrimination relates to couples’ communication about racial socialization of children has been mixed (Jones & Neblett, 2019). More research is clearly needed that examines more complex potential associations among the experience of stress, communication about stressors, and subsequent relationship outcomes. In total, these findings suggest that particular stressors may help explain communication in focal and even unrelated topics in Black couples.

Some of these findings differed for men and women, though overall the gender differences tended to reflect relative differences in degree. For example, although communication quality around racial discrimination was significantly higher than that around finances for women and men, the magnitude of this difference was larger for women than for men. Additionally, communication quality around finances was more strongly related to relationship satisfaction for women than men, and communication quality around kids was significantly related to relationship satisfaction for men but not for women. Finally, no significant gender differences emerged between stressors and communication quality. The fact that differences were primarily in the magnitude of effects rather than showing distinct patterns for men and women is in line with findings that suggest that gender differences in couples’ communication behaviors are often modest in size (Woodin, 2011). At the same time, future research might consider further explication of these gender differences among Black couples. Research has found that Black men and women can have different experiences of racial discrimination (e.g., McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018), financial strain, and parenting children (e.g., Bryant et al., 2010), which could potentially contribute to differences in communication quality around the topics observed in this study.

Limitations of the study should also be considered. For one, these were cross-sectional data, precluding conclusions about directionality and causality. Additionally, communication quality was assessed using a self-report measure which was created for the larger investigation. Although its internal consistency was acceptable (α = .77-.89), the measure has no history of prior empirical validation. Topics in the measure reflect major targets in the ProSAAF intervention, which were selected from research on central topics in the lives of Black families (e.g., Bryant et al., 2010); however, future research should consider additional topics relevant to Black families as well. Moreover, the study was limited to couples’ self-reported communication quality and we did not observe how couples communicated about these topics. Examining self-reported communication quality does have some advantages: couples can quickly provide self-reports of communication quality about various topics of interest, whereas an observational study of communication about multiple topics necessitates a greater time investment and would raise challenges regarding counterbalancing of topics to avoid order effects. Nevertheless, future research implementing multiple methodologies is desired. Moreover, given that we did not assess the frequency or perceived difficulty of topics, further research is needed to consider how communication quality relates to these dimensions. Additionally, because stress around kinfolk was not assessed, we were not able to examine how this stressor was associated with communication. Finally, this study involved mixed-gender Black couples in the rural Southeastern U.S. who were coparenting an early adolescent child, providing important insights about a population understudied in couples research (Williamson et al., 2022). Nonetheless, the results may not generalize to other couples, such as couples of other racial identities or interracial couples; same-gender, trans, or non-binary couples; couples in urban areas; or couples without a child, to name a few. Our hope is that future research applies this type of approach to understanding communication differences in other diverse samples to further our understanding of how couples’ communication can vary depending on what they are discussing.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present results have important implications for research and practice. In considering research, our findings demonstrated that communication quality assessed using a brief number of identical items applied to different topics is not uniform across topics, and may contribute to a better understanding of overall communication quality and relationship satisfaction. As such, a single self-report index of communication may not be sufficient to capture the nature of a couple’s communication problems and strengths, and risks obscuring the various ways that context-specific communication might differ and differentially relate to couple functioning. As such, more nuanced assessments considering topic may be valuable. These findings have implications for studies of couples’ observed communication as well. These types of studies typically do not report the specific communication topics discussed or consider communication topic among their research questions (with some exceptions, e.g., Williamson et al., 2013a). Going forward, it may be important for observational studies to report the range of topics discussed to provide greater context for interpreting the findings and to potentially consider this variability in analyses.

Regarding clinical practice, communication difficulties are a ubiquitous complaint in couples entering couple therapy (Doss et al., 2004). To aid in treatment planning, clinicians often assess couples’ general communication abilities. The present findings suggest that doing so may overlook important within-couple variability, which could have implications for further treatment planning. For instance, a couple may report that their communication is acceptable overall, but this global assessment might overlook how the couple has deficits in communication quality in some topics and strengths in other topics. If this global report does not flag particular attention for treatment planning, the couple’s unique needs in communication around particular challenging areas may be missed. Accordingly, it may be useful for therapists to assess how communication quality varies by topic. For example, they might consider asking if difficult communication dynamics arise in the context of particular topics. They might then create a list akin to an exposure hierarchy in which topics are listed according to relative difficulty and then intervene at a particular starting point on the hierarchy, working up to the topic of greatest difficulty. Clinicians could also consider assessing topics of relative strength and asking the couple to reflect on how communication in this context is different from when they discuss more challenging topics, then work with the couple to apply any already-present skills to the more difficult topics. For example, the present findings point to a potential area of strength for Black couples in communicating about racial discrimination relative to other stressors, which could be used to discuss couples’ resilience in the face of this pervasive stressor. Collectively, considering potential differences in communication quality by topic area might enhance understanding of a couple’s unique communication strengths and challenges and facilitate more effective implementation of therapeutic strategies to enhance communication.

Conclusion

In sum, the present study highlights the importance of considering communication topic in examinations of couples’ communication. We build upon some prior research to show that communication quality can vary across topics, highlighting topics of relative strength (racial discrimination, children) and difficulty (kinfolk, financial strain) among this sample of Black coparenting couples. Additionally, we demonstrate that understanding communication focal to different topics enhances our understanding of relationship satisfaction. Moving forward, greater consideration of communication topic across diverse samples of couples may enhance both basic understanding of and interventions for couples’ communication.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by award R01 AG059260 funded by the National Institute on Aging and R01 HD069439 funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Steven R. H. Beach, and by award P50 DA051361 to Steven R. H. Beach funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Materials and analysis code for this study are available by emailing the corresponding author.

Footnotes

1

Stress around kinfolk was not assessed in the study, precluding the examination of this factor.

2

Due to some item-level missingness for two items from the Kinfolk subscale, this subscale score was generated through averaging all items and then multiplying by the total number of items to avoid skewed scores from missing data. This procedure replicates a simple sum in the absence of missing data. The other subscales had no missing item-level data.

References

  1. Achenbach TM (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton AW, Beach SR, Wells AC, Ingels JB, Corso PS, Sperr MC, Anderson TN, & Brody GH (2018). The Protecting Strong African American Families program: A randomized controlled trial with rural African American couples. Prevention Science, 19(7), 904–913. 10.1007/s11121-018-0895-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baucom DH, Fischer MS, Corrie S, Worrell M, & Boeding SE (2020). Treating relationship distress and psychopathology in couples: A cognitive-behavioural approach. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beach SRH, Lei MK, Simons RL, Barr AB, Simons LG, Cutrona CE, & Philibert RA (2019). Perceived relationship support moderates the association of contextual stress with inflammation among African Americans. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(3), 338–348. 10.1037/fam0000509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bryant CM, Wickrama K, Bolland J, Bryant BM, Cutrona CE, & Stanik CE (2010). Race matters, even in marriage: Identifying factors linked to marital outcomes for African Americans. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(3), 157–174. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00051.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cao H, Fang X, Fine MA, Ju X, Lan J, & Liu X (2015). Beyond the average marital communication: Latent profiles of the observed interactions among Chinese newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(6), 850–862. 10.1037/fam0000126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Clavél FD, Cutrona CE, & Russell DW (2017). United and divided by stress: How stressors differentially influence social support in African American couples over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(7), 1050–1064. 10.1177/0146167217704195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Conger RD, Conger KJ, Elder GH Jr, Lorenz FO, Simons RL, & Whitbeck LB (1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63(3), 526–541. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01644.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Crenshaw AO, Christensen A, Baucom DH, Epstein NB, & Baucom BR (2017). Revised scoring and improved reliability for the Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 29(7), 913–925. 10.1037/pas0000385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crenshaw AO, Leo K, Christensen A, Hogan JN, Baucom KJ, & Baucom BR (2021). Relative importance of conflict topics for within-couple tests: The case of demand/withdraw interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(3), 377–387. 10.1037/fam0000782 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dew J, Britt S, & Huston S (2012). Examining the relationship between financial issues and divorce. Family Relations, 61(4), 615–628. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00715.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Doss BD, Simpson LE, & Christensen A (2004). Why do couples seek marital therapy? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(6), 608–614. 10.1037/0735-7028.35.6.608 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Friedlander ML, Lee M, & Escudero V (2019). What we do and do not know about the nature and analysis of couple interaction. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 8(1), 24–44. 10.1037/cfp0000114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gallo LC, & Matthews KA (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 10–51. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Harrell SP, Merchant M, & Young S (1997). Psychometric Properties of the Racism and Life Experiences Scales (RaLES). Chicago, IL: Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  16. Heavey CL, Layne C, & Christensen A (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: a replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 16–27. 10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Heyman RE (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 5–35. 10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Heyman RE, Hunt-Martorano AN, Malik J, & Slep AMS (2009). Desired change in couples: Gender differences and effects on communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 474–484. 10.1037/a0015980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackson GL, Trail TE, Kennedy DP, Williamson HC, Bradbury TN, & Karney BR (2016). The salience and severity of relationship problems among low-income couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 2–11. 10.1037/fam0000158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jenkins J, Simpson A, Dunn J, Rasbash J, & O’Connor TG (2005). Mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems: Shared and nonshared family risks. Child Development, 76(1), 24–39. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00827.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jenkins N, & Saiz CC (1995). The Communication Skills Test. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, Denver, CO. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones SCT, & Neblett EW (2019). Black parenting couples’ discussions of the racial socialization process: Occurrence and effectiveness. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(1), 218–232. 10.1007/s10826-018-1248-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kanter JB, Lavner JA, Lannin DG, Hilgard J, & Monk JK (2022). Does couple communication predict later relationship quality and dissolution? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(2), 533–551. 10.1111/jomf.12804 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Knopp K, Rhoades GK, Allen ES, Parsons A, Ritchie LL, Markman HJ, & Stanley SM (2017). Within- and between-family associations of marital functioning and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(2), 451–461. 10.1111/jomf.12373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kurdek LA (1994). Areas of conflict for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples: What couples argue about influences relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 923–934. 10.2307/353603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Masarik AS, & Conger RD (2017). Stress and child development: A review of the Family Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 85–90. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. McNeil Smith S, & Landor AM (2018). Toward a better understanding of African American families: Development of the sociocultural family stress model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 434–450. 10.1111/jftr.12260 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). [Google Scholar]
  30. Neff LA, & Karney BR (2017). Acknowledging the elephant in the room: How stressful environmental contexts shape relationship dynamics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 107–110. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Norton R (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 141–151. 10.2307/351302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Papp LM (2018). Topics of marital conflict in the everyday lives of empty nest couples and their implications for conflict resolution. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 17(1), 7–24. 10.1080/15332691.2017.1302377 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Papp LM, Cummings EM, & Goeke-Morey MC (2009). For richer, for poorer: Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family Relations, 58(1), 91–103. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rauer A, Sabey AK, Proulx CM, & Volling BL (2020). What are the marital problems of happy couples? A multimethod, two-sample investigation. Family Process, 59(3), 1275–1292. 10.1111/famp.12483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sanford K (2003). Problem–solving conversations in marriage: Does it matter what topics couples discuss? Personal Relationships, 10(1), 97–112. 10.1111/1475-6811.00038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. SAS Institute Inc. (2013). SAS/GRAPH 9.4: Reference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. [Google Scholar]
  37. Stanley SM, Markman HJ, & Whitton SW (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41(4), 659–675. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sullivan KT, Pasch LA, Johnson MD, & Bradbury TN (2010). Social support, problem solving, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 631–644. 10.1037/a0017578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sullivan TJ, O’Leary KD, & Davila J (2022). A multimethod examination of stress and support among sexual minority couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. 10.1177/02654075221145637 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Trail TE, Goff PA, Bradbury TN, & Karney BR (2012). The costs of racism for marriage: How racial discrimination hurts, and ethnic identity protects, newlywed marriages among Latinos. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 454–465. 10.1177/0146167211429450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wheeler B, & Kerpelman J (2016). Change in disagreements about money, time, and sex and marital outcomes. Journal of Relationships Research, 7, E6. 10.1017/jrr.2016.8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Williamson HC, Bornstein JX, Cantu V, Ciftci O, Farnish KA, & Schouweiler MT (2022). How diverse are the samples used to study intimate relationships? A systematic review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(4), 1087–1109. 10.1177/02654075211053849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Williamson HC, Hanna MA, Lavner JA, Bradbury TN, & Karney BR (2013a). Discussion topic and observed behavior in couples’ problem-solving conversations: Do problem severity and topic choice matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 27(2), 330–335. 10.1037/a0031534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Williamson HC, Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (2013b). Financial strain and stressful events predict newlyweds’ negative communication independent of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 65–75. 10.1037/a0031104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Woodin EM (2011). A two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: Meta-analytic findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 325–335. 10.1037/a0023791 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material
NIHMS1893582-supplement-Supplemental_Material.pdf (178.2KB, pdf)

RESOURCES