Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Jun 5;52(3):e70149. doi: 10.1111/jmft.70149

It Takes Two to Tango: The Interplay of Partners' Communicated Perspective‐Taking, Positive Relational Experience During Conflict and Relationship Satisfaction in Young Adult Couples

Marianne Emond 1,✉, Brenda Ramos 1, Florence Léonard 1, Katherine Péloquin 1, Marie‐Ève Daspe 1
PMCID: PMC13238303  PMID: 42246434

ABSTRACT

Research has yet to clarify the relational mechanisms through which communicated perspective‐taking (CPT) during conflict relates to overall relationship satisfaction, and prior studies have largely overlooked its dynamic and interactive nature, often examining partners' contributions separately. To address these gaps, this study employed an observational dyadic design to examine, in a sample of 178 young adult couples, the unique and joint contributions of partners' CPT during conflict to their relationship satisfaction, as well as the role of positive relational experience during conflict in these associations. Results showed that an individual's CPT was positively associated with their own and their partner's relationship satisfaction, through both their own and their partner's greater positive relational experience during the conflict discussion. Partners' CPT also interacted in association with relational experience and relationship satisfaction. Findings underscore the potential role of positive relational experience and the inherently dyadic and interactive nature of CPT within couple interactions.

Keywords: communicated perspective‐taking, conflict, couples, observational, relationship satisfaction, young adults

1.

Effective conflict management is crucial in romantic relationships, as conflicts, when handled constructively, can foster relational growth and enhance relationship satisfaction instead of being harmful (Ha et al. 2019; Ostenson and Zhang 2014). While conflict management is challenging for all age groups, it is particularly difficult for young adults, who are still developing conflict resolution skills and have limited experience with serious romantic relationships (Halpern‐Meekin et al. 2013; Johnson et al. 2015). Communicated perspective‐taking (CPT), i.e., partners' ability to explicitly acknowledge, attend to, and validate each other's perspectives during conflict, lies at the core of effective conflict management and is closely associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Kellas et al. 2017; Schröder‐Abé and Schütz 2011). However, the results of previous studies offer limited insight into the mechanisms through which CPT during discrete conflict episodes contributes to overall relationship well‐being. Theoretical work suggests that the partners' subjective experience of their couple interactions, including conflictual ones, accumulate over time and color their evaluation of their relationship, ultimately affecting their satisfaction (e.g., Bradbury and Fincham 1991). Examining how CPT relates to partners' positive experience of each other (i.e., feelings of closeness, being understood, being supported) during conflict discussions may uncover key insights into the relational factors that enhance relationship satisfaction. The current study, conducted among young adult couples, employed a dyadic observational design to examine whether each partner's CPT during a conflictual interaction uniquely and jointly relates to their relationship satisfaction, through their positive relational experience of the interaction. Clarifying these links may shed light on how CPT operates within the broader dynamics of couple interaction, offering insight into the relational processes that support satisfaction.

2. Perspective‐Taking

Perspective‐taking is a multifaceted set of skills that encompasses disposition, motivation, and contextual efforts to recognize and understand the thoughts, feelings, and viewpoints of others (Gasiorek and Ebesu Hubbard 2017; Gehlbach 2004; Wolgast et al. 2020). Traditionally conceptualized as an intellectual or internal cognitive process associated with the cognitive component of empathy (Davis 1980), perspective‐taking is also increasingly viewed as a practical skill that enriches understanding, strengthens communication dynamics, and shapes how people perceive and interpret others' messages (Gasiorek and Ebesu Hubbard 2017; Gehlbach 2004). Within interpersonal and family communication research, perspective‐taking has been conceptualized as part of an interactional and meaning‐making process emerging through storytelling and dialog, where individuals co‐construct understanding of difficult experiences (e.g., Koenig Kellas 2022; Koenig Kellas and Kranstuber Horstman 2015; Koenig Kellas and Trees 2005; 2006). In this line of research, studies have examined more specifically how perspective‐taking is expressed and constructed in interactions, identifying a set of verbal and nonverbal behaviors through which individuals explicitly acknowledge, attend to, and validate each other's viewpoints in their exchanges, referred to as communicated perspective‐taking (CPT; Koenig Kellas et al. 2013; 2017; 2021). Across this body of work, CPT has been consistently positively associated with individual (e.g., mental health, perceived stress, well‐being; Horstman et al. 2016; Horstman 2019; Koenig Kellas et al. 2010) and relational functioning (e.g., satisfaction, cohesion, perceived support; Horstman and Holman 2018; Koenig Kellas 2005; Trees and Kellas 2009) across a range of interpersonal contexts.

Despite the benefits of CPT, interactional partners often struggle to effectively communicate their understanding of each other's perspective, especially during emotionally charged interactions (Horstman and Holman 2018; Kellas et al. 2017). More specifically, in romantic relationships, CPT may be more difficult to enact during conflicts, as both partners are personally and emotionally invested in the situation (Kellas et al. 2017; Pistrang et al. 2002). Given that conflicts inherently involve differing perspectives and may potentially threaten the relationship, partners may be tempted to minimize, disregard, or fail to understand each other's viewpoints (Cuperman et al. 2011; Ickes et al. 2005). This challenge is especially pronounced among young adults, as research has shown that they tend to struggle with perspective‐taking in romantic conflicts due to their limited experience with conflict management in serious relationships (Feiring et al. 2018a; Feiring et al. 2018b). Nevertheless, when partners successfully demonstrate perspective‐taking during conflict despite these challenges, they may show understanding even in disagreement, potentially fostering a more constructive and satisfying resolution, which in turn could promote greater relational satisfaction (Kellas et al. 2017; Péloquin and Lafontaine 2010).

3. Perspective‐Taking and Relationship Satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction can be defined as the individual's overall subjective assessment of the positive and negative dimensions of their romantic relationship (Fallis et al. 2016; Graham et al. 2011; Ward et al. 2009). Perspective‐taking during conflict is widely recognized as an adaptive process linked to greater relationship satisfaction (e.g., Cahill et al. 2020; Davis and Oathout 1987; Levesque et al. 2014; Péloquin and Lafontaine 2010). It is suggested that when partners actively seek to understand each other's perspective, they are more likely to see and understand one another within their respective viewpoints, which in turn deepens their emotional bond, enhances intimacy, and fosters greater relationship satisfaction over time (Long and Andrews 1990; Péloquin and Lafontaine 2010). This is consistent with meta‐analytic results showing that self‐reported perspective‐taking is significantly and positively associated with relationship satisfaction, both for the individual's own satisfaction and the partner's satisfaction (Cahill et al. 2020). However, nearly all studies on perspective‐taking and relationship satisfaction have relied on global self‐report measures that assess the cognitive ability to imagine the other's experience, while overlooking its practical and interactional manifestations in social exchanges (i.e., CPT). This latter ability may be equally or even more important to relationship satisfaction, as it reflects an active effort to overtly demonstrate understanding and validation rather than merely imagining the other's experience.

While CPT has been examined in couples across different interactional contexts (e.g., Koenig Kellas et al. 2010, 2013; Horstman and Holman 2018), only two observational studies have specifically examined externally rated partners' CPT during romantic conflict discussions in relation to relationship satisfaction, both showing a positive association between an individual's CPT and their partner's relationship satisfaction (Kellas et al. 2017; Schröder–Abé and Schütz 2011). These promising findings could be further expanded in two ways. First, and drawing from the principles of interdependence theory (Kelley et al. 1983), a comprehensive understanding of how partners' perspective‐taking contributes to relationship processes requires examining their conjunction rather than treating them as independent factors. However, existing research has yet to determine whether relationship satisfaction is shaped by the combined level of both partners' CPT during conflict, or if higher CPT in one partner can compensate for a lower level in the other. Recent findings showing an interaction between partners' CPT in relation to intimate partner violence (e.g., Emond et al. 2025) offer initial empirical support for the relevance of examining how both partners' CPT jointly shape relationship dynamics. Second, existing observational studies provide limited insight into the mechanisms through which perspective‐taking expressed during specific conflict interactions translates into broader relationship satisfaction.

4. Positive Relational Experience During Conflict as an Explanatory Mechanism

According to the contextual model of marital interaction (Bradbury and Fincham 1991), it is the partners' experience and appraisal of the interaction, including thoughts, feelings, and reactions to the interaction, rather than the interaction itself, that ultimately drives changes in relationship quality. Building on this framework, partners' subjective experience of their interactions may act as a key mechanism linking CPT in particular conflict discussions to overall relationship satisfaction. Focusing specifically on partners' relational experience during the discussion, namely how each experiences the other in the interaction, constitutes a direct way to empirically test the theoretical claim that perspective‐taking contributes to relationship satisfaction by fostering feelings of being understood, valued, and validated (Long and Andrews 1990; Péloquin and Lafontaine 2010). To our knowledge, only one study has examined the associations between perspective‐taking during a conflict and partners' relational experience during the discussion, showing positive links between perspective‐taking and both partners' feelings of closeness (Schröder–Abé and Schütz 2011). However, as this study relied on a single item measuring perceived closeness, it remains unclear whether positive relational experience in a broader sense (e.g., feeling understood, supported) may also be relevant to CPT. Moreover, whether positive relational experiences during conflict serve as a key pathway through which CPT contributes to overall relationship satisfaction has not yet been formally tested. Finally, as most previous studies on CPT have focused on older heterosexual couples, the present study stands out by examining an inclusive sample of young adult couples, a population more likely to struggle with conflict management (Halpern‐Meekin et al. 2013; Johnson et al. 2015) and perspective‐taking (Feiring et al. 2018a; Feiring et al. 2018b).

5. The Current Study

Using a dyadic and observational design, this study aimed to examine, in an inclusive sample of young adult couples, the unique and joint contributions of both partners' CPT during a conflict discussion to their relationship satisfaction, as well as the explanatory role of positive relational experience during the discussion in these associations. Figure 1 displays the complete hypothesized moderated mediation model.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Moderated mediation model. Notes. P1 = Partner 1. P2 = Partner 2. To simplify the figure, covariates are not depicted.

We first expected that higher levels of an individual's CPT during the conflict discussion would be associated with both their own and their partner's greater relationship satisfaction. Second, we expected significant indirect associations from an individual's higher CPT to both partners' greater relationship satisfaction, through a more positive relational experience for both partners during the conflict. Finally, given the limited empirical evidence from prior studies, interactions between partners' CPT in association with relationship satisfaction and positive relational experience were examined in an exploratory manner.

Considering prior research indicating that relationship satisfaction tends to decline as relationship length increases (e.g., Bühler et al. 2021), is lower in women compared to men (e.g., Jackson et al. 2014), and in cohabiting compared to non‐cohabiting couples (e.g., Rhoades et al. 2012), we considered relationship length, gender identity, and cohabitation status as potential covariates. Moreover, as conflict intensity could influence the partner's relational experience during the conflict, perceived conflict intensity during the discussion was also considered as a potential covariate.

6. Methods

6.1. Participants

An inclusive convenience sample of 178 Canadian young adult couples from the general population was recruited through advertisements on social media. To be eligible for the study, both partners had to meet the following criteria: (1) being aged between 18 and 29, (2) being in a relationship for at least 2 months, (3) having access to a confidential common space with internet connection, (4) having access to a computer with webcam in order to participate in a virtual session via Zoom, (5) having access to an electronic device to complete online questionnaires, and (6) being able to understand written and spoken French. This study was open to couples of all genders and sexual orientations, and various relationship/sexual exclusivity agreements (e.g., monogamous, open, monogamish, polyamory). Polyamorous couples were required to select one partner with whom to participate in all aspects of the study. Out of the 404 couples who expressed interest in the study, 190 declined participation and 21 were found ineligible after screening. Among the 193 eligible couples who completed the questionnaires, 15 withdrew before the virtual session. Thus, the final sample consisted of 178 couples (n = 356 participants).

Participants were aged between 18 and 29 years old (M = 23.44; SD = 2.85). The sample included 53.1% women, 42.7% men, 3.4% non‐binary, queer, or gender fluid, 0.3% two‐spirit, 0.3% agender, and 0.3% individuals who preferred not to specify. For principal occupation, 64% were students, 30.3% were employed full‐time or part‐time and 5.6% had other occupations (e.g., maternity leave, unemployment). Most participants had an annual income below $15,000 (43.5%), 38.2% earned between $15,000 and $45,000 and 18.3% had an income exceeding $45,000. Most participants had completed either a university degree (52.8%) or a college degree (34.8%). The majority of participants identified as White (80.6%), with others identifying as East Asian (3.4%), Latin American (2.8%), Arab (2.2%), other cultural identities (3.7%, e.g., Black, Caribbean, South‐East Asian, West Asian), or multiple cultural identities (7.3%). In terms of sexual orientation, 67.4% of participants identified as heterosexual, 8.4% as gay or lesbian, 8.1% as bisexual, 6.5% as pansexual, 3.9% as heteroflexible, 2.2% as queer, 2.2% selected “other” (e.g., gray sexual, demisexual), and 1.1% were questioning their sexual orientation.

The sample included 143 man‐woman couples, 20 woman‐woman couples, 3 man‐man couples, and 12 couples in which at least one partner identified with a gender identity other than man or woman. Most couples were either cohabiting (48.3%) or not living together (47.2%), with a small proportion being married (4.5%). Couples' relationships ranged from 2 months to 12 years (M = 34.35 months; SD = 27.31). Exclusivity agreements varied among couples: 87.9% were exclusive, 6.4% allowed non‐exclusivity for one partner, and 5.7% permitted it for both partners. Only a minority of couples had children (1.7%).

6.2. Procedure

This study is a secondary data analysis from a larger research project aimed at better understanding communication within young adults' romantic relationships, conducted from July 2021 to August 2022. As data collection took place during the COVID‐19 pandemic, this project was adapted to take place entirely online. This project was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee for Education and Psychology of the Université de Montréal, in accordance with the institution's Policy on Research Involving Human Participants.

This study required couples to (1) complete an initial online self‐report questionnaire and (2) attend a virtual session via Zoom. Compensation for each couple included CAN $20 upon completion of the initial questionnaire and an additional CAN $60 for participating in the virtual session. A week prior to the virtual session, each partner received a secure link to individually complete a series of self‐report questionnaires on the Qualtrics Research Suites online platform, which generally lasted around 1 h. Afterward, couples attended a virtual observational session conducted by two researchers, lasting approximately 2.5 h. During this session, couples completed short online surveys and participated in three video‐recorded discussions between partners, conducted in the following order: 1) date planning, 2) conflict discussion, and 3) sharing positive aspects of the relationship. The current study focused solely on data from the conflict discussion. Prior to this discussion, each partner individually selected, among a 27‐item checklist of common conflictual themes adapted from the Adolescent Couples' Issues Checklist (Welsh et al. 2001) and the Partner Issue Checklist (Capaldi et al. 1994), those generating the most disagreement within their relationship. Experimenters then conducted brief (5‐min) individual interviews with each partner separately to clarify the nature of these conflicts, identify the most conflicting themes and emotionally prepare them for the discussion. These interviews took place in separate rooms, with one partner on Zoom and the other over the phone. After consulting each other, the experimenters proposed the three themes that appeared most conflictual for the couple, which may have been reported by one or both partners. Couples then engaged in a 10‐min recorded discussion, focusing on at least one of the disagreement themes proposed by the experimenters. Partners were physically together in the same room during the discussion and were instructed to face and speak directly to each other rather than to face the computer. During this discussion, the experimenters muted their microphones, turned off their webcams, and recorded the interaction via screen recording of the partners' video feed. Following the discussion, each partner individually filled out a questionnaire regarding their experience during the interaction.

6.3. Measures

6.3.1. Sociodemographic Information and Covariates

The initial self‐report questionnaire gathered data on cohabitation status (recoded; 0 = not living together, 1 = living together), length of the relationship (in months, continuous), and gender identity (recoded; 0 = woman, 1 = man, 2 = gender diversity). The perceived intensity of the conflict discussion (“To what extent did you feel like you were in conflict with your partner in this discussion?”; 5‐point Likert scale; 0 = not at all, 4 = very much) was self‐reported immediately after the discussion.

6.3.2. Relationship Satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was measured in the initial self‐reported questionnaire using the 4‐item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS‐4; Sabourin et al. 2005). The DAS‐4 is a shorter version of the original 32‐item DAS (Spanier 1976), specifically designed to measure relationship satisfaction (e.g., “In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well?”). Items are rated on varying Likert‐type scales, a higher score indicating higher relationship satisfaction (scores range = 0‐21). An overall relationship satisfaction score is obtained by summing all items. The DAS‐4 has demonstrated good internal consistency across both distressed and non‐distressed couples (α = 0.81‐0.92; Sabourin et al. 2005). In the present study, the DAS‐4 showed adequate internal consistency (ω = 0.77).

6.3.3. Communicated Perspective‐Taking (CPT)

The Communicated Perspective‐Taking Rating System (Kellas et al. 2017) was used to objectively assess the CPT skills of each partner during the conflict discussion. This coding system assesses verbal and non‐verbal expressions of perspective‐taking across multiple dimensions, based on each partner's behavior throughout the entire video recording of a conflict discussion. It consists of five distinct dimensions: (1) conversational attentiveness, (2) creating space for the partner to speak, (3) agreement and understanding, (4) affective tone (mood), and (5) validating the partner's identity. It also includes two global dimensions: (1) overall attentiveness to the partner's perspective and (2) overall confirmation of the partner's perspective. Behaviors are coded on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 (low, strong lack of perspective‐taking behaviors or strong demonstration of negative behaviors) to 5 (high, strong degree of perspective‐taking behavior and no negative behaviors), with a score of 3 indicating a mix of positive and negative behaviors or neither positive nor negative behaviors related to the coded dimension. Ratings reflect a global, integrative judgment of the partner's behavior across the entire interaction, based on frequency, intensity, and salience of behaviors. Coders were instructed to watch the conflict discussion three times: initially, to observe the interaction globally without coding, followed by separate viewings for each partner to focus on relevant behaviors for each dimension to be coded. Following these viewings, coders assigned a single global rating per dimension for each partner. Two trained coders, supervised by the first author, coded all couples, and the coding team held weekly meetings to address coding questions and prevent coding drift. After averaging scores for each dimension across coders, partners' global perspective‐taking scores were computed by summing these average scores on the seven dimensions. This coding system demonstrated excellent interrater reliability in its validation study (ICC = 0.74‐0.90 for the individual dimensions; ICC = 0.93 for the global score; Kellas et al. 2017). In the present study, the coding system also demonstrated strong interrater reliability across all dimensions (ICC = 0.83‐0.89) and an even higher reliability for the global score (ICC = 0.96). In line with the original operationalization by Kellas et al. (2017), only the global score was used in this study. In the present sample, the global CPT score demonstrated excellent internal consistency (ω = 0.93).

6.3.4. Positive Relational Experience During the Conflict Discussion

Each partner's positive relational experience during the conflict discussion was assessed immediately after the discussion using five items. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each item represented their experience during the conflict discussion (e.g., “Understood by my partner”, “Close to my partner”) on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). These items correspond to various aspects of a positive relational experience during a conflict discussion as examined in previous studies (e.g., Gordon and Chen 2016; Margolin et al. 2022; Schröder–Abé and Schütz 2011). A confirmatory factor analysis using a dyadic CFA approach for indistinguishable dyads (Olsen and Kenny 2006) supported a unidimensional factor structure for this questionnaire (with a significant covariance between the item “Close to my partner” and the item “Safe with my partner”), with acceptable model fit, χ2(41) = 67.66, p = 0.005; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.03, 0.08]; SRMR = 0.08, and standardized factor loadings ranging from 0.64 to 0.81. The global score was computed by summing all items, with a higher score representing a more positive relational experience during the conflict discussion. The five items showed good internal consistency (ω = 0.87).

6.4. Data Analysis

Descriptive and correlational analyses were performed using SPSS 29. Main statistical analyses were performed using Mplus 8 (Muthén and Muthén 2017) and were based on the Actor‐Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al. 2006) for indistinguishable dyads given the inclusion of dyads of all gender identities. Accounting for the interdependence of dyadic data, this model allows for the concurrent analysis of actor effects (i.e., association between an individual's independent variable and their own dependent variable) and partner effects (i.e., association between an individual's independent variable and their partner's dependent variable). Given that dyads were indistinguishable, partners were randomly assigned to “partner 1” and “partner 2” and in the different models, means, variances, intercepts, residual variances, and covariance matrices, as well as the corresponding actor and partner effects, were constrained to equality across partners (Olsen and Kenny 2006).

A first model was conducted to examine the associations between each partner's CPT during the conflict discussion and their relationship satisfaction. A second model, based on the Actor‐Partner Interdependence Moderation Model (APIMoM; Garcia et al. 2015), was conducted by including an interaction term between both partners' CPT in association with relationship satisfaction. Significant interactions were decomposed by examining the simple slopes of the associations between one partner's CPT and the outcomes (actor or partner) at high (1 SD above the mean) and low levels (1 SD below the mean) of the other partner's CPT. In order to examine the explanatory role of positive relational experience during conflict in the association between each partner's CPT and relationship satisfaction, a third path analysis model based on the Actor‐Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM; Ledermann et al. 2011) was conducted. The significance of indirect effects was assessed using confidence intervals (95% CI) with 10,000 bootstrap samples. Finally, to examine the full moderated mediation model (see Figure 1), we combined the APIMeM and APIMoM frameworks, by adding an interaction term between both partners' CPT to the mediation model, in order to examine its effect on both positive relational experience during conflict and relationship satisfaction. All continuous variables were standardized in Mplus using its default standardization procedure, which by default standardizes each variable independently and is based on the overall distribution of each variable. Standardized coefficients (β) are reported for direct regression paths, whereas unstandardized coefficients (b) are reported for indirect effects and simple slopes.

The models were estimated using Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR) and missing data ( < 5% in the current sample) were handled using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML; Muthén and Muthén 1998–). The online questionnaires included three attention‐check items. Data from participants who failed two or more of these items (n = 7) were considered invalid and recoded as missing. Since their partners' data were valid, all couples were included, with missing data handled in the analysis.

Following recommended procedures for indistinguishable dyadic models (Peugh et al. 2013; Olsen and Kenny 2006), model fit was evaluated for each model by estimating a null model (i.e., means and variances constrained to equality, covariances fixed to zero), a saturated model (i.e., all means, variances, and covariances constrained to equality), and the analytical model (i.e., means, variances, and covariances constrained to equality and some hypothesized associations freely estimated). Adjusted model fit indices for the different analytical models were then computed manually using the χ2 and degrees of freedom from the null, saturated, and analytical models, thereby removing misfit attributable to the arbitrary designation of dyad members (Peugh et al. 2013). To assess model fit, commonly used goodness‐of‐fit indices were used (Schermelleh‐Engel et al. 2003): chi‐square (χ2; non‐significant = acceptable), comparative fit index (CFI; ≥ 0.90 acceptable; ≥ 0.95 good), Tucker‐Lewis index (TLI; ≥ 0.90 acceptable; ≥ 0.95 good) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; ≤ 0.08 adequate; ≤ 0.06 good).

6.5. Statistical Power

As the current study relied on a secondary dataset with a predetermined sample sized, an a priori power analysis could not be conducted. Therefore, we conducted sensitivity power analyses (Lakens 2022) using Monte Carlo simulations in R to estimate the statistical power for both direct, indirect, and interaction effects with a fixed sample size but varying effect sizes. For direct and indirect effects, we examined power for small to moderate effect sizes (β =0.15–0.25), based on previous meta‐analytic findings on the direct actor and partner associations between CPT and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Cahill et al. 2020). Results indicated that, with the current sample of 178 couples (n = 356 individuals), power to detect direct effects ranged from 0.54 to 0.98 for β = 0.15, and increased progressively with effect size, exceeding 0.80 beginning at approximately β = 0.21. Power to detect indirect effects ranged from 0.38 to 0.87 for β = 0.15, and exceeded 0.80 beginning at approximately β = 0.22. Overall, this study was adequately powered to detect small to moderate direct and indirect effects once effect sizes reached approximately β = 0.21‐0.22, whereas smaller effects may have remained underpowered. For interaction effects, effect sizes were specified as increases in explained variance (R2) attributable to the interaction term, consistent with Cohen's (1988) benchmarks and evidence that interaction effects are typically small in applied research. Power ranged from 0.32 for an interaction effect of 0.05 (ΔR2 ≈ 0.002) to 0.98 for an interaction effect of 0.15 (ΔR2 ≈ 0.018), and exceeded 0.80 once the interaction effect size reached approximately 0.10 (ΔR2 ≈ 0.008). This study was thus adequately powered to detect small to moderate interaction effects once effect sizes reached approximately 0.10, whereas smaller interaction effects may not have been sufficiently powered.

7. Results

7.1. Descriptive Analyses

Means, standard deviations, range, and bivariate correlations for all study variables and covariates are reported in Table 1. Within‐person and cross‐partner correlations showed that CPT, positive relational experience during the conflict discussion, and relationship satisfaction were significantly and positively correlated with each other. Cross‐partner correlations for the same variable showed that all variables of interest significantly and positively correlated between partners. Regarding the covariates, cohabitation status was not associated with relationship satisfaction, and thus was not included in the main analyses. Relationship length and perceived conflict intensity were significantly and negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, while perceived conflict intensity was also negatively associated with positive relational experience during conflict. As a result, both were included as covariates in all models to control for their contribution to relationship satisfaction and positive relational experience. Results of two‐way repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant main effect of gender identities on relationship satisfaction, F (2, 339) = 1.31, p = 0.270, and no significant interaction effect between gender and partner (i.e., actor and partner effect) on relationship satisfaction, F (2, 339) = 0.91, p = 0.404. Gender was therefore not included as a covariate.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations among the study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Communicated perspective‐taking 0.71*** 0.39*** 0.24*** −0.18*** −0.10* −0.29***
2. Positive relational experience during conflict 0.39*** 0.53*** 0.34*** −0.04 −0.15** −0.44***
3. Relationship satisfaction 0.25*** 0.37*** 0.51*** −0.20*** −0.09 −0.20***
4. Relationship length −0.18*** −0.04 −0.20*** 1 0.44*** 0.08
5. Cohabitation statusa −0.10* −0.15** −0.09 0.44*** 1 −0.11*
6. Perceived conflict intensity −0.28*** −0.58*** −0.27*** 0.08 −0.11* 0.38***
Mean 23.04 16.13 16.99 34.35 — 0.99
Standard deviation 5.72 4.20 2.70 27.31 — 1.09
Range 7‐35 0‐20 8‐21 2‐147 0‐1 0‐4
Open in a new tab

Note: Cross‐partner correlations are above the diagonal. Correlations on the diagonal are cross‐partner correlations for the same variable. Relationship length is in months. Cohabitation status was dichotomized (0 = no cohabitation; 1 = cohabitation).

Abbreviation: CPT, communicated perspective‐taking.

a

Point‐biserial correlations. Within‐person correlations are below the diagonal.

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001.

7.2. Main Analyses

Table S1 presents the goodness‐of‐fit statistics for all models, which consistently indicated an acceptable fit to the data. However, because these models were near‐saturated (df = 1–2), goodness‐of‐fit indices may have limited discriminatory value and should therefore be interpreted with caution.

7.2.1. Direct Associations between CPT and Relationship Satisfaction

A path analysis model was tested to assess the direct associations between both partners' CPT during conflict and relationship satisfaction, controlling for relationship length and perceived conflict intensity. Results (see Table 2, Model 1) showed no significant associations between an individual's CPT and their own or their partner's relationship satisfaction. This model explained 13% of the variance in relationship satisfaction. When the interaction term between both partners' CPT was included in the model (see Table 2, Model 2), the direct associations between CPT and both partners' relationship satisfaction remained non‐significant, and the interaction term was also non‐significant. This model explained 14% of the variance in relationship satisfaction. Regarding the covariates, only an individual's perceived conflict intensity was significantly and negatively associated with their own relationship satisfaction in both models.

Table 2.

Parameter estimates of the actor‐partner interdependence models predicting relationship satisfaction.

Predictors Model 1 Direct effects of CPT Model 2 Interaction between partners’ CPT Model 3 Indirect effects through positive relational experience during conflict Model 4 Moderated mediation model
β (S.E.) p β (S.E.) p β (S.E.) p β (S.E.) p
Associations with relationship satisfaction
CPT A 0.11 (0.07) 0.111 0.12 (0.07) 0.079 0.05 (0.07) 0.483 0.06 (0.07) 0.384
CPT P 0.06 (0.06) 0.293 0.08 (0.06) 0.221 0.01 (0.06) 0.909 0.02 (0.06) 0.762
Relationship length −0.14 (0.07) 0.055 −0.14 (0.08) 0.072 −0.17 (0.06) 0.009 −0.16 (0.06) 0.010
Perceived conflict intensity A −0.18 (0.05) 0.001 −0.18 (0.05) 0.001 −0.03 (0.06) 0.677 −0.02 (0.06) 0.764
Perceived conflict intensity P −0.07 (0.05) 0.176 −0.07 (0.05) 0.172 0.08 (0.06) 0.165 0.08 (0.06) 0.130
CPT A* CPT P 0.06 (0.04) 0.099 0.12 (0.05) 0.024
Positive relational experience during conflict A 0.25 (0.06) 0.000 0.26 (0.06) 0.000
Positive relational experience during conflict P 0.22 (0.07) 0.001 0.23 (0.07) 0.001
Associations with positive relational experience during conflict
CPT A 0.13 (0.06) 0.024 0.11 (0.06) 0.041
CPT P 0.13 (0.06) 0.026 0.12 (0.06) 0.040
Relationship length 0.06 (0.06) 0.316 0.05 (0.06) 0.358
Perceived conflict intensity A −0.43 (0.04) 0.000 −0.43 (0.04) 0.000
Perceived conflict intensity P −0.21 (0.05) 0.000 −0.21 (0.05) 0.000
CPT A* CPT P −0.09 (0.05) 0.036
Open in a new tab

Note: Significant associations are in bold.

Abbreviations: A, actor association; CPT, communicated perspective‐taking; P, partner association.

7.2.2. Indirect Associations through Positive Relational Experience During Conflict

A path analysis model was tested to assess the indirect associations between partners' CPT during conflict and relationship satisfaction through positive relational experience during conflict, controlling for relationship length and perceived conflict intensity. Results (see Table 2, Model 3) again showed that an individual's CPT had no significant direct associations with either their own or their partner's relationship satisfaction. However, there was a significant positive association with both their own and their partner's positive relational experience during the conflict discussion. The results also showed significant positive associations between an individual's positive relational experience during the conflict discussion and their own and their partner's relationship satisfaction.

As for indirect effects, results showed that an individual's CPT was positively associated with their own relationship satisfaction, through their own (b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.003, 0.067]) and their partner's (b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.002, 0.068]) greater positive relational experience during the conflict discussion. Indirect effects also showed that an individual's CPT was positively associated with their partner's relationship satisfaction, through their own (b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.003, 0.073]) and their partner's (b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.002, 0.060]) greater positive relational experience during the conflict discussion. This model accounted for 21% of the variance in relationship satisfaction and 44% in positive relational experience during conflict.

7.2.3. Moderated Mediation Model

The moderated mediation model (see Table 2, Model 4) showed the same associations as in Model 3. As for the interaction with the partner's CPT, results indicated that both partners' CPT interacted to predict positive relational experience during conflict and relationship satisfaction. When decomposing the interaction for the actor effect of CPT on relationship satisfaction (see Figure 2a), simple slope tests indicated that an individual's CPT was only significantly and positively associated with their own relationship satisfaction at high levels of the partner's CPT. When decomposing the interaction for the partner effect (see Figure 2b), simple slopes were not significant at either high or low levels of the individual's CPT. Regarding the associations between CPT and relational experience during the conflict discussion, simple slope tests for the actor effect (see Figure 2c) showed that an individual's CPT was only significantly and positively associated with their own positive relational experience at low levels of the partner's CPT. For partner effect (see Figure 2d), simple slope tests indicated that the partner's CPT was only significantly and positively associated with the individual's positive relational experience during conflict at low levels of the individual's CPT.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Simple slopes for the effect of partners' communicated perspective‐taking on relationship satisfaction (panels a, b) and positive relational experience (panels c, d). Note: Low and high represent scores at 1 SD below and 1 SD above the mean, respectively.

For conditional indirect effects, simple slope tests revealed that the indirect effects of an individual's CPT on their own relationship satisfaction via both their own (b = 0.05, p = 0.019) and their partner's positive relational experience (b = 0.05, p = 0.044) were significant only when their partner's CPT was low (1 SD below the mean). These effects were not significant at high levels (1 SD above the mean) of their partner's CPT (b = 0.01, p = 0.546 and b = 0.01, p = 0.541, respectively). Results of simple slope tests also revealed that the indirect effect of an individual's CPT on their partner's relationship satisfaction was significant through both their own (b = 0.05, p = 0.031) and their partner's positive relational experience during conflict (b = 0.05, p = 0.024) only when their partner's CPT was low (1 SD below the mean). These indirect effects were not significant at high levels (1 SD above the mean) of their partner's CPT (b = 0.01, p = 0.547 and b = 0.01, p = 0.534, respectively). This model explained 22% of the variance in relationship satisfaction and 45% in positive relational experience during conflict. Regarding the covariates, relationship length was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, while an individual's perceived conflict intensity was negatively associated with both their own and their partner's positive relational experience during conflict in both Models 3 and 4.

8. Discussion

Research has yet to clarify the relational factors underlying how CPT during a specific conflict contributes to overall relationship satisfaction, and past studies have not fully captured its dynamic and interactive nature, often focusing on actor and partner effects without examining how partners' CPT jointly shapes relational outcomes. To address these gaps, this study employed a dyadic and observational design to investigate, in an inclusive community sample of young adult couples, the unique and joint contributions of both partners' CPT during a conflict discussion to their relationship satisfaction, as well as the explanatory role of positive relational experience. Results mostly supported our hypothesized moderated mediation model. Findings underscore that 1) positive relational experience may play a role in the association between CPT during conflict and relationship satisfaction, and 2) partners' CPT are interactively associated with relational experience and relationship satisfaction, beyond each partner's individual level of CPT.

8.1. CPT and Relationship Satisfaction

Contrary to our hypothesis and prior studies (e.g., Kellas et al. 2017; Schröder–Abé and Schütz 2011), our study found no unique associations between an individual's CPT and their own or their partner's relationship satisfaction. These results are surprising, especially considering that existing research consistently supports the links between both cognitive and communicated perspective taking and relationship satisfaction (Cahill et al. 2020; Kellas et al. 2017). This discrepancy may stem from our inclusion of meaningful covariates (i.e., relationship length and perceived conflict intensity), which were not accounted for in prior research. As both of these constructs tend to explain substantial variance in relationship satisfaction (Bühler et al. 2021; Woodin 2011), their inclusion may have attenuated the associations previously attributed to CPT, underscoring the need to account for these factors in future research on CPT.

Importantly, and despite the absence of unique associations between each partner's CPT and relationship satisfaction, our results highlight the interactive nature of partners' CPT in relation to relationship satisfaction. The positive association between an individual's CPT and their own satisfaction (i.e., actor effect) was significant only when their partner's CPT was high. This suggests that reciprocity from the partner may be important in understanding how one partner's CPT skills relate to their own overall satisfaction within the relationship. In other words, the benefits of CPT for one's own satisfaction are observed only when both partners actively engage in mutual understanding and validation. While this study is the first, to our knowledge, to specifically examine the interaction between partners' CPT in association with relationship satisfaction, the findings align with recent research highlighting that the interplay between both partners' CPT, rather than each partner's abilities in isolation, may be particularly important in understanding relationship dynamics (Emond et al. 2025). Notably, however, the interaction between partners' CPT in association with relationship satisfaction only emerged when accounting for partners' positive relational experience during the discussion. This suggests that the association between CPT and relationship satisfaction may mask distinct underlying mechanisms, making it difficult to detect more specific patterns involving the interplay of partners' CPT. By isolating the pathway through positive relational experience during conflict, we were able to uncover an interactive pattern that was not apparent in the overall association. In other words, including positive relational experience in the model may have helped disentangle the seemingly overlapping processes through which CPT contributes to relationship satisfaction. However, it is also possible that the emergence of a significant interaction effect reflects redistribution in shared variance among variables after accounting for positive relational experience. Additional research will be needed to clarify these findings and better understand the processes underlying the interaction between partners' CPT and relationship satisfaction.

8.2. CPT and Positive Relational Experience During Conflict

As hypothesized, findings revealed unique positive associations between an individual's CPT and both their own and their partner's positive relational experience during the conflict discussion. This aligns with previous research showing positive associations between CPT and both partners' perceived closeness during the conflict discussion (Schröder–Abé and Schütz 2011). However, our results extend these past findings by demonstrating that CPT is linked to a broader sense of positive relational experience, encompassing various indicators such as feeling close, supported, understood, and safe.

Nevertheless, our results also revealed a more complex picture, suggesting that the positive associations between an individual's CPT and their own and their partner's positive relational experience during the conflict discussion were significant only when the other partner's CPT was low. This suggests a compensatory dynamic in the way CPT relates to both partners' positive relational experience during conflict. Specifically, when one partner exhibits lower levels of CPT, the other's CPT skills appear to play a more central role in fostering both partners' positive relational experience during conflict. In contrast, when one partner demonstrates high levels of CPT, the abilities of the other partner do not appear to provide additional advantages, possibly because the benefits of CPT are already maximized within the dyad (i.e., flat slope on the graph; Figure 2, panel c‐d). Taken together, these results suggest that as soon as one partner demonstrates a high level of CPT during the conflict discussion, its protective effect extends to both partners' positive relational experience during this discussion. This aligns with the interaction pattern identified in a study on CPT and intimate partner violence (Emond et al. 2025), which also highlighted a compensatory dynamic in which one partner's CPT can help offset the other's lower CPT in relation to psychological violence perpetration.

8.3. The Contribution of Positive Relational Experience During Conflict

As expected, our study also revealed a unique positive association between an individual's positive relational experience during the conflict discussion and both partners' relationship satisfaction. These results are consistent with previous findings indicating that feeling understood during conflict can buffer against its negative impact on relationship satisfaction (Gordon and Chen 2016). Including additional indicators of positive relational experiences during conflict (e.g., feeling close, supported, and safe), our study underscores the importance of how partners perceive and relate to one another during conflict, as experiencing relational warmth, connection, and safety in these challenging moments appears to be associated with greater relationship satisfaction.

In addition, and consistent with our hypothesis, positive relational experience during conflict acted as an explanatory mechanism linking CPT to relationship satisfaction, across all paths involving both actor and partner effects. Overall, these results align with the theoretical propositions of Bradbury and Fincham's (1991) contextual model of marital interactions, which posits that it is the individual's experience of the interaction that ultimately drives changes in relationship satisfaction. These findings may also be understood through communicated narrative sense‐making theory, which proposes that CPT, through partners' mutual efforts to understand and validate each other's perspectives, may support joint relational sense‐making during conflict discussions, a process theorized to be associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Koenig Kellas and Trees 2006; Koenig Kellas 2022). Taken together, these frameworks help contextualize the present findings by emphasizing that the association between CPT and relationship satisfaction may be explained, in part, by how conflict interactions are experienced and interpreted within the relationship.

For actor effects, the results indicate that an individual's CPT was positively associated with their own relationship satisfaction, through their own and their partner's greater positive relational experience during the conflict discussion. It seems that individuals who are more skilled at CPT may help foster a more secure and emotionally responsive interactional climate between partners, which in turn may be associated with the individual's own sense of connection and relational satisfaction. These findings are consistent with research showing that one's own relational behaviors can shape the dyadic context in ways that ultimately feed back into one's own relationship outcomes (e.g., Debrot et al. 2012; Smith et al. 2008).

Regarding partner effects, our findings indicated that an individual's CPT was positively associated not only with their own relationship satisfaction, but also with their partner's satisfaction, both through their own and their partner's greater positive relational experience during the conflict. These results provide empirical support for theoretical claims that an individual's CPT may be associated with their partner's relationship satisfaction through interactions in which the partner feels seen, understood, and emotionally validated (Long and Andrews 1990; Kellas et al. 2017; Péloquin and Lafontaine 2010). Thus, it appears that CPT may enable individuals to respond in ways that are more attuned to their partner's thoughts and emotions, fostering relational dynamics where partners feel emotionally aligned and mutually responsive during the discussion, which may in turn be linked to greater relationship quality.

Of note, our results again suggested an interactive effect between partners' CPT, in which the indirect links from an individual's CPT to partners' relationship satisfaction were significant only at low levels of the other's CPT. This indicates that when one partner reports low CPT, the other partner's CPT is significantly associated with both their own and their partner's positive relational experience during conflict, which in turn is linked to greater relationship satisfaction for both partners. These findings are consistent with the compensatory pattern observed in the interaction between partners' CPT in relation to positive relational experience during conflict, suggesting that one partner's CPT may be especially beneficial when the other is less able to engage in perspective‐taking.

These compensatory patterns contrast with the interaction pattern observed for the direct association between CPT and relationship satisfaction, which demonstrated that CPT was linked to greater satisfaction for the individual only when both partners reported high levels of CPT. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that in the context of a specific conflict, one partner's CPT may be enough to foster a positive interactional climate. In contrast, more enduring outcomes like overall satisfaction may require sustained mutual engagement. This suggests that the contribution of CPT may vary depending on whether we consider specific interactions or broader relationship functioning. Taken together, our findings support the principles of interdependence theory (Kelley et al. 1983) with respect to CPT, suggesting that it is the combination of partners' skills, rather than their individual contributions, that provides a better understanding of relational processes.

8.4. Limitations and Future Directions

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of certain limitations. First, although this study demonstrated indirect effects, its cross‐sectional design prevents drawing causal conclusions or confirming mediation. Considering the temporal ordering of the measures, such that relationship satisfaction was assessed approximately 1 week prior to the conflict discussion, whereas CPT and positive relational experience were assessed during and immediately following the discussion, it is possible that relationship satisfaction shaped partners' interactions and experiences during the conflict discussion, instead of partners' interactions and experiences during the conflict discussion shaping relationship satisfaction. Longitudinal or experimental studies using temporally ordered assessments are necessary to better establish the directionality of the associations and determine whether positive relational experience mediates the association between CPT and relationship satisfaction. Second, sensitivity power analyses indicated that the study may have been underpowered to detect smaller direct, indirect, and interaction effects. As such, non‐significant findings should be interpreted with caution, as they may reflect limited statistical power rather than the absence of an effect. Similarly, some significant effects observed in the present study fell below the estimated power threshold and therefore should also be interpreted cautiously, as their magnitude may be overestimated. Third, using a convenience sample of young adult couples may have introduced self‐selection bias, as couples who perceive themselves as good communicators might be more inclined to participate in communication studies, potentially restricting the generalizability of our results. Fourth, since our study focused specifically on young adults, who tend to face unique challenges with conflict management and perspective‐taking, and are generally more satisfied with their relationships, our findings may not be generalizable to other age groups (e.g., older, established couples) and clinical populations (e.g., distressed couples). Fifth, although conducting the observational session via Zoom in participants' homes strengthened the ecological validity of our study compared to traditional laboratory settings, the conflicts observed in this context remain typically less intense and negative than those naturally occurring in real‐life (Heyman et al. 2001). This may limit the extent to which our findings capture the full complexity and emotional intensity of everyday couple conflicts. Finally, while observer‐coded measures help reduce the social desirability bias inherent to self‐report measures, they may overlook subtle aspects of couple communication, as external observers lack access to the couple's relational history and dynamics. Future studies could benefit from combining observational and self‐ and partner‐reported assessments of CPT skills during lab‐based conflict discussions to provide a more comprehensive understanding. In addition, given the interaction effects observed between partners' CPT in the present study, future research could use dyadic response surface analysis to examine how specific configurations of partners' CPT, such as similarity (e.g., both partners being high in CPT) and discrepancy (e.g., one partner being high in CPT and the other low), are associated with relationship functioning.

8.5. Clinical Implications

The findings of this study point to two central clinical implications for couple therapists. First, findings from this study suggest that CPT may represent a set of key interactional behaviors through which partners can transform conflict discussions into moments of mutual recognition rather than opposition. When partners actively seek to understand each other's perspectives and recognize their legitimacy, they may help create a space where each person's experience can be seen and understood, which in turn may support emotional connection and relationship satisfaction. Second, the interaction effects observed between partners' CPT highlight the importance of adopting a fundamentally relational lens when understanding relationship functioning and difficulties, as partners' behaviors and abilities can only be meaningfully understood within the interactional dynamic they co‐construct. Any clinical understanding that does not account for both partners' contributions to the dynamic may therefore offer an incomplete picture of what is occurring within the relationship. Together, these findings align with core principles of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFCT; Johnson 2004), which conceptualizes relationship distress as emerging from dysfunctional interactional cycles and aims to support the development of an empathic stance toward each partner's experience, as well as a shared understanding of relational difficulties that takes into account both partners' experiences. More concretely, these findings suggest that therapists should support behaviors that communicate understanding and validation of the partner's perspective in couple conflict (e.g., asking questions to better understand the partner's experience, allowing space for the partner to express their point of view, reflecting to check understanding, explicitly acknowledging the legitimacy of their experience), thereby fostering exchanges marked by mutual recognition. These findings also suggest that therapists should focus on the interactional process unfolding between partners rather than on individual behavior alone, recognizing that partners' contributions are interdependent and that changes in one partner's responses may shift the interaction toward more constructive exchanges. Taken together, the present findings suggest that the goal of couple therapy may not be to eliminate inevitable differences in perspective during conflict, but rather to support interactions in which both partners' perspectives can be expressed, understood, and held simultaneously, as it is this mutual recognition that ultimately appears to be associated with greater relationship satisfaction.

9. Conclusion

The findings of this study highlight that efforts to acknowledge a partner's perspective and express understanding and validation during conflict, even in the presence of disagreement, may foster a more positive emotional and relational climate, which in turn may be linked to greater relationship satisfaction for both partners. They also reveal two distinct patterns of interaction between partners' CPT, depending on whether the focus is on the immediate experience of a conflict or on broader relationship satisfaction. In the context of a specific conflict, when one partner shows low CPT, the other partner's skills become especially important and can play a key role in fostering a more positive relational experience for both partners during the interaction. In contrast, sustaining higher global relationship satisfaction may require both partners to engage actively in CPT. These findings offer a helpful reminder for both therapists and couples: while it takes two to tango, and sustained mutual engagement may ultimately be needed to support relationship satisfaction over time, one partner can nevertheless shift the dance of a specific interaction and open the door to more satisfying exchanges.

Supporting information

Supporting File

JMFT-52-0-s001.docx (54.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the couples who participated in the study. This work has been supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et Culture (FRQSC) [under Grant number 2020‐NP‐266284] and graduate scholarships from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and FRQSC awarded to Marianne Emond.

Data Availability Statement

This study was not preregistered. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Bradbury, T. N. , and Fincham F. D.. 1991. “A Contextual Model for Advancing the Study of Marital Interaction.” In Cognition in Close Relationships, edited by Fletcher G. J. O. and Fincham F. D., 127–147. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bühler, J. L. , Krauss S., and Orth U.. 2021. “Development of Relationship Satisfaction Across the Life Span: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 147, no. 10: 1012–1053. 10.1037/bul0000342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cahill, V. A. , Malouff J. M., Little C. W., and Schutte N. S.. 2020. “Trait Perspective Taking and Romantic Relationship Satisfaction: A Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Family Psychology 34, no. 8: 1025–1035. 10.1037/fam0000661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Capaldi, D. M. , Wilson J., and Collier M.. 1994. “ The Partners Issues Checklist [Unpublished instrument].” In Oregon Social Learning Center. Eugene. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203771587. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuperman, R. , Howland M., Ickes W., and Simpson J. A.. 2011. “Motivated Inaccuracy: Past and Future Directions.” In Managing Interpersonal Sensitivity: Knowing When and When not to Understand Others, edited by Smith J. L., Ickes W., Hall J. A., and Hodges S. D., 215–233. Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  7. Davis, M. H. 1980. “A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy.” JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 10: 85. [Google Scholar]
  8. Davis, M. H. , and Oathout H. A.. 1987. “Maintenance of Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships: Empathy and Relational Competence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, no. 2: 397–410. 10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Debrot, A. , Cook W. L., Perrez M., and Horn A. B.. 2012. “Deeds Matter: Daily Enacted Responsiveness and Intimacy in Couples' Daily Lives.” Journal of Family Psychology 26, no. 4: 617–627. 10.1037/a0028666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Emond, M. , Ramos B., Pudelko A., et al. 2025. “Dispositional and Communicated Dyadic Perspective‐Taking During Conflicts and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration in Young Adult Couples.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42: 2729–2752. 0(0). 10.1177/02654075251349349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fallis, E. E. , Rehman U. S., Woody E. Z., and Purdon C.. 2016. “The Longitudinal Association of Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction in Long‐Term Relationships.” Journal of Family Psychology 30, no. 7: 822–831. 10.1037/fam0000205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Feiring, C. , Markus J., and Simon V. A.. 2018a. “Romantic Conflict Narratives in Emerging Adult Couples: Viewpoint and Gender Matter.” Family Process 59, no. 1: 127–141. 10.1111/famp.12418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Feiring, C. , Simon V. A., and Markus J.. 2018b. “Narratives About Specific Romantic Conflicts: Gender and Associations With Conflict Beliefs and Strategies.” Journal of Counseling & Development 96, no. 3: 254–266. 10.1002/jcad.12200. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcia, R. L. , Kenny D. A., and Ledermann T.. 2015. “Moderation in the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model.” Personal Relationships 22, no. 1: 8–29. 10.1111/pere.12060. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gasiorek, J. , and Ebesu Hubbard A. S.. 2017. “Perspectives on Perspective‐Taking in Communication Research.” Review of Communication 17, no. 2: 87–105. 10.1080/15358593.2017.1293837. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gehlbach, H. 2004. “A New Perspective on Perspective Taking: A Multidimensional Approach to Conceptualizing An Aptitude.” Educational Psychology Review 16: 207–234. 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034021.12899.11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gordon, A. M. , and Chen S.. 2016. “Do You Get Where I'm Coming From?: Perceived Understanding Buffers Against the Negative Impact of Conflict on Relationship Satisfaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110, no. 2: 239–260. 10.1037/pspi0000039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, J. M. , Diebels K. J., and Barnow Z. B.. 2011. “The Reliability of Relationship Satisfaction: A Reliability Generalization Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Family Psychology 25, no. 1: 39–48. 10.1037/a0022441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ha, T. , Kim H., and McGill S.. 2019. “When Conflict Escalates into Intimate Partner Violence: The Delicate Nature of Observed Coercion in Adolescent Romantic Relationships.” Development and Psychopathology 31, no. 5: 1729–1739. 10.1017/S0954579419001007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Halpern‐Meekin, S. , Manning W. D., Giordano P. C., and Longmore M. A.. 2013. “Relationship Churning, Physical Violence, and Verbal Abuse in Young Adult Relationships.” Journal of Marriage and Family 75, no. 1: 2–12. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01029.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Heyman, R. E. 2001. “Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations.” Psychological Assessment 13, no. 1: 5–35. 10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Horstman, H. K. 2019. “Young Adult Women's Narrative Resilience in Relation to Mother‐Daughter Communicated Narrative Sense‐Making and Well‐Being.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36, no. 4: 1146–1167. 10.1177/0265407518756543. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Horstman, H. K. , and Holman A.. 2018. “Communicated Sense‐Making After Miscarriage: A Dyadic Analysis of Spousal Communicated Perspective‐Taking, Well‐Being, and Parenting Role Salience.” Health Communication 33, no. 10: 1317–1326. 10.1080/10410236.2017.1351852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Horstman, H. K. , Maliski R., Hays A., Cox J., Enderle A., and Nelson L. R.. 2016. “Unfolding Narrative Meaning Over Time: The Contributions of Mother–Daughter Conversations of Difficulty on Daughter Narrative Sense‐Making and Well‐Being.” Communication Monographs 83, no. 3: 326–348. 10.1080/03637751.2015.1068945. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ickes, W. , Simpson J. A., and Orina M.. 2005. “Empathic Accuracy and Inaccuracy in Close Relationships.” In Other minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide Between Self and Others, edited by Malle B. F. and Hodges S. D., 310–322. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jackson, J. B. , Miller R. B., Oka M., and Henry R. G.. 2014. “Gender Differences in Marital Satisfaction: A Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Marriage and Family 76, no. 1: 105–129. 10.1111/jomf.12077. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson, S. M. 2004. The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: Creating Connection (2e éd.). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnson, W. L. , Manning W. D., Giordano P. C., and Longmore M. A.. 2015. “Relationship Context and Intimate Partner Violence From Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Journal of Adolescent Health 57, no. 6: 631–636. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kellas, J. K. , Baker J., Cardwell M., Minniear M., and Horstman H. K.. 2021. “Communicated Perspective‐Taking (CPT) and Storylistening: Testing the Impact of Cpt in the Context of Friends Telling Stories of Difficulty.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 38, no. 1: 19–41. 10.1177/0265407520955239. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kellas, J. K. , Carr K., Horstman H. K., and Dilillo D.. 2017. “The Communicated Perspective‐Taking Rating System and Links to Well‐Being in Marital Conflict.” Personal Relationships 24, no. 1: 185–202. 10.1111/pere.12177. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelley, H. H. , Berscheid E., Christensen A., et al. 1983. “Analyzing Close Relationships.” In Close Relationships, edited by Kelley In. H. H., Berscheid E., Christensen A., Harvey J. H., Huston T. L., Levinger G., McClintock E., Peplau L. A., Peterson D. R., 20–67. W.H. Freeman & Co. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kenny, D. A. , Kashy D. A., and Cook W. L.. 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Koenig Kellas, J. 2005. “Family Ties: Communicating Identity Through Jointly Told Stories.” Communication Monographs 72, no. 4: 365–389. 10.1080/03637750500322453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Koenig Kellas, J. 2022. “Communicated Narrative Sense‐making Theory.” In Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication, edited by Braithwaite In. D. O. and Schrodt P., (3rd ed., 117–129. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  35. Koenig Kellas, J. , Trees A. R., Schrodt P., LeClair‐Underberg C., and Willer E. K.. 2010. “Exploring Links Between Well‐Being and Interactional Sense‐Making in Married Couples' Jointly Told Stories of Stress.” Journal of Family Communication 10, no. 3: 174–193. 10.1080/15267431.2010.489217. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Koenig Kellas, J. , and Trees A. R.. 2005. “Rating Interactional Sense‐making in the Process of Joint Storytelling.” In The Sourcebook of Nonverbal Measures: Going Beyond Words, edited by Manusov In. V., 281–294. Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  37. Koenig Kellas, J. , and Trees A. R.. 2006. “Finding Meaning in Difficult Family Experiences: Sense‐Making and Interaction Processes During Joint Family Storytelling.” Journal of Family Communication 6, no. 1: 49–76. 10.1207/s15327698jfc0601_4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Koenig Kellas, J. , and Kranstuber Horstman H.. 2015. “Communicated Narrative Sense‐Making: Understanding Family Narratives, Storytelling, and the Construction of Meaning Through a Communicative Lens.” In The SAGE handbook of family communication, edited by Turner In. L. and West R., 76–90. Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  39. Koenig Kellas, J. , Willer E. K., and Trees A. R.. 2013. “Communicated Perspective‐Taking During Stories of Marital Stress: Spouses' Perceptions of One Another's Perspective‐Taking Behaviors.” Southern Communication Journal 78, no. 4: 326–351. 10.1080/1041794X.2013.815264. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lakens, D. 2022. “Sample Size Justification.” Collabra: Psychology 8, no. 1), Article : 33267. 10.1525/collabra.33267. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ledermann, T. , Macho S., and Kenny D. A.. 2011. “Assessing Mediation in Dyadic Data Using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 18, no. 4: 595–612. 10.1080/10705511.2011.607099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Levesque, C. , Lafontaine M. F., Caron A., Flesch J. L., and Bjornson S.. 2014. “Dyadic Empathy, Dyadic Coping, and Relationship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Model.” Europe's Journal of Psychology 10, no. 1: 118–134. 10.5964/ejop.v10i1.697. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Long, E. C. , and Andrews D. W.. 1990. “Perspective Taking as a Predictor of Marital Adjustment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, no. 1: 126–131. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.126. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Margolin, G. , Daspe M.‐È., Timmons A. C., et al. 2022. “What Happens When Romantic Couples Discuss Personal Loss? Relational, Emotional, and Physiological Impacts.” Journal of Family Psychology 36, no. 6: 863–873. 10.1037/fam0000979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Muthén, L. K. , and Muthén B. O.. 1998–2017. “Mplus user's guide.” In Muthén & Muthén (1998, 8th ed. [Google Scholar]
  46. Olsen, J. A. , and Kenny D. A.. 2006. “Structural Equation Modeling With Interchangeable Dyads.” Psychological Methods 11, no. 2: 127–141. 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ostenson, J. A. , and Zhang M.. 2014. “Reconceptualizing Marital Conflict: A Relational Perspective.” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 34, no. 4: 229–242. 10.1037/a0034517. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Péloquin, K. , and Lafontaine M. F.. 2010. “Measuring Empathy in Couples: Validity and Reliability of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for Couples.” Journal of Personality Assessment 92, no. 2: 146–157. 10.1080/00223890903510399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Peugh, J. L. , DiLillo D., and Panuzio J.. 2013. “Analyzing Mixed‐Dyadic Data Using Structural Equation Models.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 20, no. 2: 314–337. 10.1080/10705511.2013.769395. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Pistrang, N. , Picciotto A., and Barker C.. 2002. “The Communication of Empathy in Couples During the Transition to Parenthood.” Journal of Community Psychology 29, no. 6: 615–636. 10.1002/jcop.2000. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rhoades, G. K. , Stanley S. M., and Markman H. J.. 2012. “The Impact of the Transition to Cohabitation on Relationship Functioning: Cross‐Sectional and Longitudinal Findings.” Journal of Family Psychology 26, no. 3: 348–358. 10.1037/a0028316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sabourin, S. , Valois P., and Lussier Y.. 2005. “Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale With a Nonparametric Item Analysis Model.” Psychological Assessment 17, no. 1: 15–27. 10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Schermelleh‐Engel, K. , Moosbrugger H., and Müller H.. 2003. “Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness‐Of‐Fit Measures.” Methods of Psychological Research Online 8, no. 2: 23–74. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schröder–Abé, M. , and Schütz A.. 2011. “Walking in Each Other's Shoes: Perspective Taking Mediates Effects of Emotional Intelligence on Relationship Quality.” European Journal of Personality 25, no. 2: 155–169. 10.1002/per.818. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Smith, L. , Heaven P. C. L., and Ciarrochi J.. 2008. “Trait Emotional Intelligence, Conflict Communication Patterns, and Relationship Satisfaction.” Personality and Individual Differences 44, no. 6: 1314–1325. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Spanier, G. B. 1976. “Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 38, no. 1: 15–28. 10.2307/350547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Trees, A. R. , and Kellas J. K.. 2009. “Telling Tales: Enacting Family Relationships in Joint Storytelling About Difficult Family Experiences.” Western Journal of Communication 73, no. 1: 91–111. 10.1080/10570310802635021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ward, P. J. , Lundberg N. R., Zabriskie R. B., and Berrett K.. 2009. “Measuring Marital Satisfaction: A Comparison of the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Satisfaction With Married Life Scale.” Marriage & Family Review 45, no. 4: 412–429. 10.1080/01494920902828219. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Welsh, D. P. , Grello C. M., Dickson J. W., and Harper M. S.. 2001. The Adolescent Couples' Issues Checklist [Unpublished questionnaire]. Knoxville: University of Tennessee. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wolgast, A. , Tandler N., Harrison L., and Umlauft S.. 2020. “Adults' Dispositional and Situational Perspective‐Taking: A Systematic Review.” Educational Psychology Review 32, no. 2: 353–389. 10.1007/s10648-019-09507-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Woodin, E. M. 2011. “A Two‐Dimensional Approach to Relationship Conflict: Meta‐Analytic Findings.” Journal of Family Psychology 25, no. 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

Supporting File

JMFT-52-0-s001.docx (54.4KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

This study was not preregistered. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Journal of Marital and Family Therapy are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES