Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 19.
Published in final edited form as: Fam J Alex Va. 2017 May 22;25(3):208–214. doi: 10.1177/1066480717710644

Empathy and Romantic Relationship Quality among Cohabitating Couples: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model

Emilio C Ulloa 1, Julia F Hammett 2,*, Nicole A Meda 1, Salvador J Rubalcava 1
PMCID: PMC10950301  NIHMSID: NIHMS1928740  PMID: 38505465

Abstract

This study employed a dyadic data analysis approach to examine the association between partners’ empathy and relationship quality among cohabitating couples. Data were collected from 374 cohabitating but non-married couples, who were participants in the Wave 3 Romantic Pairs Subsample of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Men’s higher empathy was related to their own perceptions of better relationship quality and women’s higher empathy was related to their own as well as their partner’s perceptions of better relationship quality. These findings show that individuals’ abilities to be understanding, compassionate, and sympathetic may be related to the overall feeling of satisfaction and love in romantic relationships. The only effect that did not reach statistical significance was the partner effect from men’s empathy to women’s relationship quality. Although previous research with married couples has shown that men’s empathy may play a more important role in shaping couples’ perceptions of relationship quality, according to the current findings, these findings may not extend to cohabitating couples. The current results provide beneficial guidance to clinicians working with distressed, non-married couples.

Keywords: Dyadic Data, Couples, Empathy, Relationship Quality, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), Young Adults

Intimate relationships are important to individuals’ well being. Functional relationships, such as those relationships marked by happiness and satisfaction, have been found to be associated with better psychological health, physical health, and longevity, whereas dysfunctional relationships, such as those relationships marked by distress and dissatisfaction, have been found to be associated with a variety of negative consequences, including increased levels of stress and depressive symptomatology (e.g., Davila, 2011; Fincham, Beach, Harold, & Osborne, 1997; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; Robles, 2014; Welsh, Grello, & Harper, 2003). Thus, it is important to better understand the factors that may be associated with higher or lower relationship quality, with the ultimate goal of preventing or decreasing relationship distress. Perceived relationship quality is based on several factors, including commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, love, and satisfaction (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000) and these factors, in turn, are associated with a variety of other constructs, with empathy being one of the key components (Cramer & Jowett, 2010). In the context of romantic relationships, empathy describes individuals’ ability to actively understand how their partners feel and may help them anticipate and thereby potentially avoid conflict. However, research on the association between empathy and relationship quality is mainly based on married couples, who may differ in several ways from their non-married counterparts (Dush & Amato, 2005). Since cohabitation without marriage has become increasingly popular in recent years (Bumpass & Lu, 2000) and is thus a main focus for those working with romantic partners, the present study set out to explore whether the association between empathy and relationship quality, as established among married couples, would extend to this specific population.

A positive association between empathy and relationship quality is well established in the academic literature (e.g., Cramer & Jowett, 2010; Kimmes, Bercik, Edwards, & Wetchler, 2014). It is likely that individuals who are able to understand their partners’ feelings and viewpoints are better able to approach conflict in a more prosocial way, which in turn accounts for higher perceived relationship quality. Furthermore, the association between empathy and relationship quality may be somewhat stronger for men than for women (e.g., Busby & Gardner, 2008; Rowan, Compton, & Rust, 1995). However, it is possible that this disparity could be due to a ceiling effect of women’s mean empathy scores, which generally tend to be higher than men’s scores as opposed to a true difference in strength of association (Rowan et al., 1995). Unfortunately, the previous body of literature on empathy in romantic relationships is predominantly based on married couples. The few studies that include couples or individuals of other relationship statuses in their samples have predominantly failed to clearly distinguish between the different types but have rather lumped all couples into one group.

Over the past decades, the number of cohabitating couples, as defined as couples living together in an intimate union without marriage, has increased dramatically in the United States (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). Furthermore, previous research indicates that married and non-married couples differ in important ways. For example, evidence from a longitudinal study of couples of varying relationship statuses suggests that a couple’s progression into a more committed relationship (e.g. from cohabitation to marriage) is associated with an increase in relationship happiness (Dush & Amato, 2005). In addition, married couples exhibit better executive control, an important cognitive factor in resolving conflict that is also related to empathy (Decety & Lamm, 2006), than cohabitating couples (Bouchard & Saint-Aubin, 2015). Thus, it is likely that the relationship between empathy and relationship quality would also differ between cohabitating versus married couples. Theoretically, knowing whether the association between empathy and relationship quality differs between cohabitating versus married couples would provide information about the way in which romantic relationships may change throughout the development of a relationship. Practically, exploring whether findings based on married couples extend to non-married couples might help inform therapists working with couples at different relationship stages. This knowledge could be used to design effective marriage preparation workshops (e.g., the Premarital Relationship Enhancement Program [PREP]; Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993) as well as couples’ therapies.

This study set out in an effort to clarify the association between empathy and relationship quality in the specific population of cohabitating couples. Furthermore, since individuals tend to overestimate the positivity of their own behaviors and attributes (Bailey & Kelly, 1984; John & Robins, 1994; Rusbult, Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000; Taylor & Brown, 1988) and since the most influential predictors of couple outcomes appear to be an individual’s ratings of their partner (Busby, Holman, & Taniguchi, 2001; Miczo, Sergin, & Allspach, 2001; Saffrey, Bartholomew, Scharfe, Henderson, & Koopman, 2003), we decided to use the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) to examine this association. The APIM simultaneously explores actor effects, which represent the association of each individual’s predictor variable and his or her own outcome, as well as partner effects, which represent the association between each individual’s predictor variable and his or her partner’s outcome. In addition, the APIM allows to explicitly account for the potential contribution of partners’ behaviors and unmeasured variables in shaping empathy and relationship quality. This distinction between actor and partner effects is important and provides interesting information not previously explored in the literature on relationship quality and empathy.

Our hypotheses were based on the APIM and the results of previous studies (e.g., Busby & Gardner, 2008; Rowan, Compton, & Rust, 1995). Specifically, similar to married couples, we predicted to find both actor and partner effects for men and women, indicating that higher empathy would be related to higher relationship quality. We expected to find stronger actor effect for men than for women as well as stronger partner effects from men’s empathy to women’s relationship quality than for women’s empathy to men’s relationship quality, indicating that men’s higher empathy would be related to their own as well as their female partner’s higher relationship quality.

Method

Participants and Procedure

This study used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Add Health began in 1995 and assessed health-related behaviors among adolescents and their outcomes during young adulthood (see Harris et al., 2009 for study design). In the original Add Health study, individuals completed in-home interviews at four separate time points (referred to as “waves”). In the present study, analyses were conducted using the Romantic Pairs subsample from Wave 3 (collected in 2001–2002). The full Wave 3 data set contains 15,170 participants. From this wave, 1,507 respondents were pre-selected to participate in the Romantic Pairs subsample, meaning that they were invited to recruit their current romantic partners to participate in the study. In order to be eligible for the Add Health Romantic Pairs subsample, couples had to be heterosexual, in a current relationship, at least 18 years of age, and be listed as one of the most important relationships. If partners agreed to participate and fulfilled the eligibility requirements, both members of the couple were included in the Romantic Pairs subsample.

In Wave 3 of Add Health, participants were given the opportunity to provide information on as many (current and past) romantic relationships as they desired to list. To facilitate matching of dyadic partners and to ensure that partners reported information about one another, the final sample used for analysis included only those couples from the Romantic Pairs subsample, in which both partners indicated that they were involved in only one current relationship at the time of study conduction and in which both partners agreed that they were currently cohabitating (N = 374 couples). The present study was conducted with approval of the respective Institutional Review Board (IRB). In the original Add Health study, informed consent/assent was obtained from all study participants.

Materials

Empathy (antecedents).

Empathy was assessed using four observed items taken from the Bem Sex Role Inventory instrument (Bem, 1974), which asked participants to indicate how often each of the statements provided was true of them. These four items were combined into a latent variable. This measure of empathy has been utilized in previous research using the Add Health Wave 3 sample (Galinski & Sonenstein, 2012). Items were: “I am sympathetic,” “I am sensitive to the needs of others,” “I am understanding,” and “I am compassionate.” All items were rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (never or almost never true) to 7 (always or almost always true).

Relationship quality (outcomes).

Relationship quality was measured using three individual observed items assessing relationship satisfaction, love towards one’s partner, and perceived love from one’s partner. These three items were combined into a latent variable. Relationship satisfaction was assessed with the item, “In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship with <PARTNER>?” This item was rated on a 5-point scale from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Love towards one’s partner was assessed with the item, “How much do you love <PARTNER>?” and perceived love from one’s partner was assessed with the item, “How much do you think <PARTNER> loves you?” These two items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (a lot).

Covariates.

Men’s and women’s age were included as covariates in all analyses. For means and standard deviations of all study variables, please refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of all Study Variables

Variables All Men Women
M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD) n
Sympathy (E1) 5.60 (1.51) 705 5.30 (1.53) 332 5.92* (1.40) 332
Sensitivity (E2) 5.51 (1.46) 713 5.19 (1.41) 340 5.86* (1.39) 340
Understanding (E3) 5.81 (1.29) 718 5.62 (1.30) 345 6.02* (1.25) 345
Compassion (E4) 5.67 (1.39) 715 5.36 (1.44) 342 6.02* (1.23) 342
Satisfaction (RQ1) 3.67 (0.67) 704 3.67 (0.65) 331 3.66 (0.69) 331
Love (RQ2) 2.86 (0.44) 740 2.82 (0.50) 366 2.90* (0.37) 366
Partner’s love (RQ3) 2.87 (0.42) 738 2.85 (0.45) 364 2.90 (0.39) 364
Age 22.61 (3.02) 748 23.49* (3.17) 374 21.73 (2.59) 374
Open in a new tab
*

This mean is significantly higher than the other gender’s mean, p < .05

Analytical Approach

A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to assess the APIM. The APIM is a high-quality analytic approach that is widely used in dyadic research involving romantic dyads, friend dyads, and parent-child dyads (Kenny et al., 2006). Mplus Version 7 with MLR as the default estimator was used to conduct all analyses. Our model included the latent variables men’s empathy, women’s empathy, men’s relationship quality, and women’s relationship quality. Empathy was indicated by four observed variables and relationship quality was indicated by three observed variables, as described in the measures section. In the APIM, men and women’s empathy were added as antecedents and men and women’s relationship quality were added as outcome variables (see Figure 1). Direct paths from men’s empathy to men’s relationship quality and from women’s empathy to women’s relationship quality (actor effects) as well as from men’s empathy to women’s relationship quality and from women’s empathy to men’s relationship quality (partner effects) were modeled. In addition, men’s and women’s age were entered into the model. Finally, men’s and women’s empathy and relationship quality scores were allowed to correlate with each other. This correlation is usually represented in APIM figures by using double-headed arrows between both partners’ predictor variables. In an attempt to keep our figure (which shows not only the standard APIM framework but also paths between each latent variable and its observed variables) as simple as possible, we did not include these arrows in our figure.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Results of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model for the Association between Empathy and Relationship Quality Among Cohabitating Couples.

Note. **p < .01; *p <.05

To test whether actor and partner effects were significantly different for men and women, we generated nested models by constraining paths to be equal and compared the constrained models with the baseline (unconstrained) models. As solutions with fewer factors always fit worse, a significant p-value indicates that the solution with more factors is a significantly better fit (i.e., actor or partner effects should not be constrained to be equal as they do in fact differ significantly). If the test is non-significant, it suggests that the addition of the additional factor does not significantly improve the fit of the data (i.e., actor and partner effects do not differ significantly).

Overall model fit was determined using the recommendations by Bentler (2007). In this study, the (a) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), with values greater than .95 indicating reasonable model fit and values greater than .90 indicating a plausible model; (b) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), an absolute index of overall model fit with values less than .08 indicative acceptable model fit and values less than .05 indicative of good model fit; and (c) the standardized root mean residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999), an absolute index of overall model fit with values less than .08 indicative acceptable model fit and values less than .05 indicative of good model fit, were used. The likelihood ratio χ2 is also reported for completeness.

Results

As can be seen in Table 1, women scored significantly higher than men on all four empathy variables. There were no significant differences on men’s and women’s relationship quality variables, except for the item asking about love towards one’s partner, on which women scored significantly higher than men. Finally, men were significantly older than women. Men’s and women’s empathy (predictor variables) were positively correlated (r = .19, p < .05) and men’s and women’s relationship quality (outcome variables) were also positively correlated (r = .04, p < .05).

The APIM exploring actor and partner effects of empathy on relationship quality fit fairly well (CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05; χ2 [95, N = 374] = 179.53, p < .001). As shown in Figure 1, all standardized factor loadings were generally large and statistically significant for empathy (values ranged from .71 to .81 for men and .80 to .87 for women) and relationship quality (values ranged from .57 to .98 for men and .37 to .84 for women). Both actor effects as well as the partner effect for women’s empathy to men’s relationship quality were found to be significant. Higher men’s empathy was associated with higher men’s relationship quality (β = .26, p < .001). Furthermore, higher women’s empathy was associated with higher women’s relationship quality (β = .21, p = .002) and higher men’s relationship quality (β = .14, p = .02). The partner effect for men’s empathy to women’s relationship quality was non-significant. Comparing the constrained model with the baseline model revealed that neither the actor effects nor the partner effects of empathy and relationship quality were significantly different for men and women (Δχ2 (1) = 2.03, ns; Δχ2 (1) = 1.03, ns).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the association between cohabitating couples’ empathy and the quality of their romantic relationships to compare whether results would be similar to already established findings among married couples. Our predictions were partially supported: Although most effects showed a positive and statistically significant association between empathy and relationship quality, associations between the two variables were of similar strength for men and women, thus contradicting our expectation that the actor effect for men would be stronger than the actor effect for women and that the partner effect from men’s empathy to women’s relationship quality would be stronger than the partner effect from women’s empathy to men’s relationship quality. In fact, the partner effect from men’s empathy to women’s relationship quality did not reach statistical significance, whereas the partner effect from women’s empathy to men’s relationship quality did reach significance. Thus, the present findings support that in general, individuals, who are able to understand their partners’ feelings and points of view, may have it easier to approach conflict in a more prosocial way. As a result, conflicts are less likely to escalate and therefore, partners may be more satisfied with their relationships and more in love with each other.

However, even though previous research (e.g., Rowan et al., 1995) suggests that married men’s empathy may play a more important role in marital relationships than does married women’s empathy, these findings did not extend to the current sample of cohabitating couples. The non-significant partner effect from men’s empathy to women’s relationship quality could be explained by the fact that cohabitating women may not yet have internalized the role of their male partners as serving as the family’s caretakers (Hood, 1986). Thus, whether their male partners are particularly empathetic or not may not be associated with women’s levels of satisfaction and love in the relationship. Furthermore, considering society’s view of women as the more empathic gender, in cohabiting relationships, women may be more satisfied because they feel they are playing the role they should be playing as a woman (Surrey, 1985). Alternatively, women may associate feeling empathy for someone with feelings of love, and may thus experience higher relationship quality.

There is some previous research that is in line with the differing influence of cohabitating men’s and women’s behaviors on their partners’ relationship satisfaction. For example, Smith, Ciarrochi, and Heaven (2008) found that women’s conflict communication patterns, specifically their reports of avoidance and withholding, predicted declines in men’s satisfaction (as well as their own satisfaction) over time. However, the partner effect from men’s conflict communication patterns on women’s satisfaction was not significant. The authors speculate that since women tend to be the initiators of problem-solving discussions and men tend to avoid and withdraw more than women, couples’ issues are unlikely to be discussed and resolved if women avoid discussion of relationship problems. As a result, satisfaction for both partners may decline. This highlights the importance of women’s communication to relationship functioning. Since empathy is related to communication behaviors as well as to relationship satisfaction (e.g., Hogan & Henley, 1970), similar factors may be at play in the association between empathy and relationship quality. It may be that cohabitating women’s ability to be empathetic may be more important to both their own and their male partners’ relationship quality because of the importance of empathy to inter-partner communication and problem-solving.

In addition, other factors that are important to relationship functioning among cohabitating couples may help explain the differential partner effects for cohabitating men’s and women’s empathy on the quality of their relationships as compared to married couples. For example, Shafer, Jensen, and Larson (2012) showed that the effort partners invest in their relationships is strongly and positively associated with satisfaction and stability for various types of couples, including married as well as cohabitating couples. However, effort tends to be more strongly associated with satisfaction in marriage than cohabiting relationships but there are no union type differences in the role of effort on relationship stability. Similarly, Willoughby and Belt (2016) found that an intent to delay marriage and a lower importance placed on marriage tend to predict lower relationship well-being for cohabitating couples, including lower satisfaction, stability, and communication. Furthermore, when female partners had a greater intention to marry than male partners, couples began to report lower assessments of couple well-being. These findings support that marital orientations and engagement status are important indicators of relationship well-being for many cohabitating couples. Furthermore, these results provide evidence that not all cohabiting couples are the same, which may have important considerations related to the current research on empathy and relationship quality. It may be that the couples included in our sample were less engaged in future marriage and were thus less similar to married couples for whom the association between men’s empathy and marital functioning has been found to be stronger than the association between women’s empathy and marital functioning (Rowan et al., 1995).

Strengths and Limitations

Several features of the study’s design and methodology strengthen our confidence in the present findings. First and foremost, we employed a dyadic data analysis approach allowing us to examine both individual-level and relationship-level effects of the association between empathy and relationship quality. The statistical methodology used in this study, the APIM, addresses non-independence of dyadic data, integrates both actor effects and partner effects in the same analysis, and allows for the correlation of predictor variables (Kenny et al., 2006). Furthermore, the large, nationally representative sample used may increase generalizability of our results as well as power, thereby heightening the chances of detecting existing effects.

Nevertheless, these findings need to be interpreted in light of several limitations. Although the sample was relatively large and nationally representative, overall levels of empathy and relationship quality were high and variability of these main study variables was relatively low. Variability in participants’ age was also low. Although the range of ages represented was wide (nearly 20 years), as the means and standard deviations presented in Table 1 suggest, this range was due to outliers and overall, this was a relatively young sample. Thus, it is possible that the observed effects may only apply to young, non-distressed adults who are in the formative years of their romantic relationships. In addition, the use of a correlational design prevents us from inferring causal relations between the study variables. Furthermore, this study relied solely on self-report and the measures of empathy and relationship quality included in the Add Health study employed relatively few items. Physiological indexes of empathy (e.g., Eisenberg, 1990) and longer, already established measures might shed additional light on the results reported here. Finally, but importantly, most effect sizes were relatively small.

Future Research

Future research might benefit from addressing the aforementioned limitations. For example, researchers exploring the association between empathy and relationship quality might consider collecting data at more than one time point, complementing self-report measures with physiological measures of empathy (e.g., Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014), and employing complete and established measures of empathy, relationship satisfaction, love, and quality.

In addition, it would be interesting to examine potential mechanisms underlying the differences in the empathy-relationship quality association among samples of differing relationship statuses. For example, it remains questionable whether gender role expectations and commitment play a role in the association between empathy and relationship quality for married versus non-married couples. It might also be useful to attempt to test whether the current findings will hold across different types of samples, such as samples including couples in distressed and highly dysfunctional relationships, couples of various ages (particularly older couples as the current sample was fairly young), couples with differing cultural or national backgrounds, as well as same-sex couples.

Practical Implications

Dissatisfaction with the quality of one’s intimate relationship is one of the most prevalent reasons why individuals may seek mental health services, including couples therapy (Schonbrun & Whisman, 2010). The current analyses identified one possible correlate of relationship distress, namely low empathy and showed that this correlate is not only a concern when working with married couples but also when working with those couples who are cohabitating without marriage. Our findings might be useful in guiding therapy approaches aimed at increasing the quality of cohabitating partners’ relationships.

Furthermore, our findings indicate that not only individuals’ own empathy but also the empathy that individuals perceive from their partners may be related to relationship quality. For cohabitating couples, this appears to be especially true for women’s empathy. Thus, it may not be sufficient to only work on individuals’ own empathic expression in therapy. Individuals also need to learn to perceive and acknowledge the empathy that is being expressed by their partners. Otherwise, increasing empathic expressions may remain ineffective (Kimmes et al., 2014). Some forms of therapy, such as Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT; see Greenberg & Johnson, 1988) and Mindfulness-Based Relationship Enhancement (see Carson, Carson, Gil, & Baucom, 2004), already exist, which focus on the dyadic and reciprocal effects of empathy. In addition, psychoeducation aimed at helping couples recognize how empathy looks and feels could be a helpful component of couple’s therapy because it would enable individuals to recognize their partners’ empathic expressions (Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014).

Conclusions

This study suggests that a lack of empathy among cohabitating couples, including a lack of sympathy, sensitivity, understanding, and compassion, may translate into lower relationship quality, including lower relationship satisfaction, love towards one’ partner, and love perceived from one’s partner. Additional research replicating these findings is needed in order to examine if the present findings generalize to other populations (e.g., older cohabitating couples or same-sex couples) and to explore the mechanisms at play in this association before clear recommendations for clinical practice can be made. Nevertheless, these findings may provide a useful basis for such future studies and may provide beneficial guidance to clinicians working with distressed, non-married couples.

Author Note.

This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

References

  1. Bailey RC, & Kelley M (1984). Perceived physical attractiveness in early, steady and engaged daters. The Journal of Psychology, 116, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bem SL (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentler PM (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentler PM (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 825–829. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bouchard G, & Saint-Aubin J (2015). Executive control of married and cohabiting couples. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 58–62. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bumpass LL, & Lu H-H (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Busby D, & Gardner B (2008). How do I analyze thee? let me count the ways: Considering empathy in couple relationships using self and partner ratings. Family Process, 47(2), 229–242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Busby DM, Holman TB, & Taniguchi N (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the individual, family, cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations, 50, 308–316. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carson JW, Carson KM, Gil KM, & Baucom DH (2004). Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy, 35(3), 471–494. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cramer D, & Jowett S (2010). Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 327–349. [Google Scholar]
  11. Davila J (2011). Romantic relationships and mental health in emerging adulthood. In Fincham FD, Cui M, Fincham FD, Cui M (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 275–292). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Decety J, & Lamm C (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146–1163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dush CMK, & Amato PR (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenberg N (1990). Empathy and its development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fincham FD, Beach SRH, Harold GT, & Osborne LN (1997). Marital satisfaction and depression: Different causal relationships for men and women? Psychological Science, 8(5), 351–357. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fletcher GJ, Simpson JA, & Thomas G (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenberg LS, & Johnson SM (1988). Emotionally focused therapy for couples. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris KM, Halpern CT, Whitsel E, Hussey J, Tabor J, Entzel P, & Udry JR (2009). The national longitudinal study of adolescent to adult health: Research design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design
  19. Hogan R, & Henley N (1970). A test of the empathy-effective communication hypothesis. Center for Social Organization of Schools Report, Johns Hopkins U, 84, 21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/615735831?accountid=14512 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hood JC (1986). The provider role: Its meaning and measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(2), 349–359. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu L-T, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  22. John OP, & Robins RW (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206–219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Analyzing mixed independent variables: The actor-partner interdependence model. In Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (Eds.), Dyadic data analysis (pp. 144–184). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, & Newton TL (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kimmes J, Bercik J, Edwards A, & Wetchler J (2014). Self and other ratings of dyadic empathy as predictors of relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(5), 426–437. [Google Scholar]
  26. Markman HJ, Renick MJ, Floyd FJ, Stanley SM, & Clements M (1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4-and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Miczo N, Sergin C, & Allspach LE (2001). Relationship between nonverbal sensitivity, encoding, and relational satisfaction. Communication Reports, 14, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  28. Perrone-McGovern K, Oliveira-Silva P, Simon-Dack S, Lefdahl-Davis E, Adams D, McConnell J, Howell D, Hess R, Davis A, & Goncalves O (2014). Effects of empathy and conflict resolution strategies on psychophysiological arousal and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 39(1), 19–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Robles TF (2014). Marital quality and health: Implications for marriage in the 21st century. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 23(6), 427–432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rowan D, Compton W, & Rust J (1995). Self-actualization and empathy as predictors of marital satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 77(3 Pt 1), 1011–1016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rusbult CE, Lange PA, Wildschut T, Yovetich NA, & Verette J (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 521–545. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Saffrey C, Bartholomew K, Scharfe E, Henderson AJ, & Koopman R (2003). Self- and partner-perceptions of interpersonal problems and relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 117–139. [Google Scholar]
  33. Schonbrun YC, & Whisman MA (2010). Marital distress and mental health care service utilization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 732–736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Shafer K, Jensen TM, & Larson JH (2014). Relationship effort, satisfaction, and stability: Differences across union type. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40(2), 212–232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith L, Ciarrochi J, & Heaven PC (2008). The stability and change of trait emotional intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction: A one-year longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 738–743. [Google Scholar]
  36. Steiger JS (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Surrey JL (1985). The” self-in-relation”: A theory of women’s development. Wellesley, Mass.: Wellesley College, Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. [Google Scholar]
  38. Taylor SE, & Brown J (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental healthy. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Welsh DP, Grello CM, & Harper MS (2003). When love hurts: Depression and adolescent romantic relationships. In Florsheim P, Florsheim P (Eds.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 185–211). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  40. Willoughby BJ, & Belt D (2016). Marital orientation and relationship well-being among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(2), 181–192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES