Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Mar 27;52(2):e70131. doi: 10.1111/jmft.70131

Relationship Stress and Suicidal Ideation: A Daily Diary Study

Heather A Love 1,✉, Chuong Bui 2, Preston Morgan 3
PMCID: PMC13409201  PMID: 41891512

ABSTRACT

Prior research on relationship stress and suicidal ideation has relied primarily on cross‐sectional designs, limiting understanding of daily fluctuations and within‐person processes. This study examined associations between relationship stress and suicidal ideation through the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide using a 10‐day daily diary design. Participants (N = 84) were adults in romantic relationships reporting depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation. Multilevel modeling revealed that individuals with higher average relationship stress reported higher levels of perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation. Within‐person analyses showed that on days with elevated relationship stress, participants experienced same‐day increases in burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation, but no next‐day effects. Mediation analyses demonstrated that perceived burdensomeness mediated the same‐day association between daily relationship stress and suicidal ideation. Findings suggest that relationship stress contributes to suicidal ideation by intensifying feelings of being a burden. Results support couple‐focused interventions addressing relationship stress and perceived burdensomeness to reduce suicide risk.

Keywords: couples, daily diary, romantic relationships, stress, suicidal ideation

1. Introduction

Romantic relationships play an integral role in adults' lives, including the mental health and well‐being of both partners (Whisman and Baucom 2012). Research examining the link between romantic relationships and mental health has revealed that poorer mental health is associated with worse romantic relationship quality, both cross‐sectionally (Whisman 2001) and over time (Gustavson et al. 2012; Whisman and Uebelacker 2009; Whisman et al. 2021). Furthermore, improvements to relational well‐being are associated with greater impacts on individual mental health than the inverse (i.e., improvements to individual mental health have less impact on relational well‐being; Braithwaite and Holt‐Lunstad 2017; Morgan et al. 2018). This difference in the reciprocal effects, therefore, indicates a need to address relational difficulties if improvements in mental health are desired. Prior research demonstrates that relationship stress and conflict are significant risk factors for suicide ideation and attempts (Ho Choi et al. 2013; Robustelli et al. 2015), making this a critical area of intervention to address in adults with suicidal ideation.

Intradyadic stress, or stressors experienced within the couple relationship, includes negative interactions, conflict, difficulties with partner's behaviors, or feeling neglected or ignored by the romantic partner (Bodenmann 2005; Bodenmann et al. 2007). The role of stress experienced both within and outside of relationships has been extensively researched in their association with relationship and mental health outcomes (e.g., Whisman et al. 2021). Frequent experiences of relationship stress may also reduce the relationship quality over time (Falconier 2005), increasing the potential for later relationship dissolution (Bodenmann et al. 2007). Thus, in addition to posing a risk for both suicidal ideation and attempts, relationship stress also increases the potential for later relationship dissolution, which is itself a prominent risk factor for suicide (Batterham et al. 2014; Ide et al. 2010; Kõlves et al. 2012; Love et al. 2017; Stack and Scourfield 2015). Further, continued conflict or stress with a former relational partner after a separation or divorce is also associated with a higher risk for suicidal ideation (Love et al. 2018). In summary, examining how relationship stress impacts suicidal ideation is essential for identifying new areas of intervention, particularly by addressing couple dynamics.

1.1. Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (IPTS)

The IPTS (Joiner 2005; Van Orden et al. 2012) posits that suicidal behavior arises from the interaction of interpersonal and capability‐based factors. Specifically, suicidal desire is theorized to emerge when individuals simultaneously experience thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness. Thwarted belongingness reflects chronic feelings of social disconnection, loneliness, or lack of reciprocal care, whereas perceived burdensomeness involves the belief that one is a liability to others and that one's death would be worth more than one's life. When these two interpersonal states co‐occur and are accompanied by a sense of hopelessness about their change, they give rise to suicidal desire. However, suicidal desire alone is insufficient for suicidal behavior. IPTS further proposes that the capability to enact suicide (referred to as acquired capability) develops through repeated exposure to painful and provocative experiences, which reduce fear of death and increase tolerance for physical pain. Such exposures may occur in the context of persistent interpersonal distress associated with thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness, thereby linking interpersonal risk to increased suicide capability. Empirical research has consistently supported the central role of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness in the development of suicidal ideation (Chu et al. 2017; Ma et al. 2016; Ribeiro and Joiner 2009).

On the basis of the theoretical explanation provided by the IPTS, romantic relationships have strong potential to influence individual perceptions of thwarted belonging and burdensomeness. Theoretical arguments have linked romantic relationship factors to IPTS constructs, thwarted belongingness, and perceived burdensomeness. Specifically, difficulties within romantic relationships, such as low relationship satisfaction and heightened conflict, have been theorized to contribute to thwarted belongingness by undermining feelings of connection and closeness with one's partner (Kazan et al. 2016). In addition, these same relationship problems may relate to perceived burdensomeness through increased self‐blame and beliefs about being a liability to the partner (Till et al. 2016). Notably, the studies reviewed below primarily examine romantic relationship satisfaction and related relationship difficulties, situating the present study within this specific relational context. There exist few studies in which IPTS constructs are actually measured in conjunction with relationship variables. One recent study (Love and Morgan 2024) revealed that relationship satisfaction did not predict changes in suicidal ideation over a 10‐day period. This study also assessed the interaction effects between relationship satisfaction and thwarted belonging, as well as relationship satisfaction and perceived burdensomeness. However, these interactions were also nonsignificant. The authors note that although relationship satisfaction has been identified as a protective factor against suicidal ideation and behaviors (e.g., Blow et al. 2019; Till et al. 2016), its relative stability over time may limit its ability to detect short‐term influences on thwarted belonging, perceived burden, or suicidal ideation (Love and Morgan 2024).

1.2. Present Study

Although the literature on suicidality and romantic relationships is increasing, there are two important gaps in the suicide literature that we aim to address. First, recent literature using intensive longitudinal designs reveals the need to study how suicidal ideation fluctuates and what is associated with these fluctuations (Davidson et al. 2017) to better understand and intervene. Although ecological momentary assessment studies have been instrumental in capturing momentary, within‐day variability in suicidal ideation, daily diary approaches address complementary gaps by reducing participant burden, allowing examination of day‐level patterns, and temporal ordering of suicide‐related thoughts and experiences across longer timeframes. Prior literature notes the need to examine suicidality over time, but the majority of longitudinal studies were over large periods of time (e.g., Castellví et al. 2017) or primarily of adolescent and young adult samples (e.g., Miranda‐Mendizabal et al. 2019). The few studies that used daily diary methods were of adolescent samples (Al‐Dajani et al. 2022; Czyz et al. 2021; Franz et al. 2021; Miller et al. 2017), creating a gap in the literature about how prior evidence applies to adult samples.

Importantly, romantic couple interactions and relationship stressors also vary substantially from day to day (see Cooper et al. 2019 for review), suggesting that their associations with suicidal ideation and its underlying interpersonal mechanisms may also operate on short time scales. However, existing research linking relationship stress to suicidality has relied primarily on cross‐sectional designs, long‐term longitudinal studies with widely spaced assessments, or psychological autopsies (see Kazan et al. 2016). These approaches are limited in their ability to capture proximal, within‐person associations between daily relationship stress and suicidal ideation. As a result, it remains unclear whether day‐to‐day fluctuations in relationship stress correspond to contemporaneous changes in thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, and suicidal ideation. Intensive longitudinal designs, such as daily diary methods, are therefore needed to elucidate these short‐term processes and more precisely identify interpersonal risk pathways. Accordingly, the present study examines daily associations between intradyadic stress, interpersonal risk factors, and suicidal ideation using a daily diary approach.

The second gap is that there are scant empirical tests of the IPTS theoretical connections in romantic relationships. For instance, it remains unknown whether perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belonging mediate the association between relationship stress and suicidal ideation. Kleiman et al. (2017) identified that hopelessness, burdensomeness, and loneliness (a proxy for thwarted belonging in the present study) all varied considerably in short periods, as did suicidal ideation, but this study did not account for romantic relationship variables. While recent research has examined the impact of relationship satisfaction and perceived burdensomeness, as well as relationship satisfaction and thwarted belongingness, on suicidal ideation, these moderation effects were not significant (Morgan et al. 2025). However, this prior study did not assess how relational stress (a distinct construct from relationship satisfaction; Randall and Bodenmann 2017) impacted either motivations for suicide or suicidal ideation.

Further, this prior study did not assess the potential mediation effects of thwarted belonging or perceived burdensomeness. Theoretically, when adults experience higher relationship stress, they may then perceive higher burdensomeness or thwarted belonging, which then increases their suicidal risk. Examining this mediation is important because perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belonging are key motivators for suicide. Yet, it remains untested if these motivators mediate the association between relationship stress and suicidal ideation. Identifying these associations would aid clinicians and researchers in better understanding how suicidal risk increases as a result of relationship stress.

The present study seeks to expand on prior research by investigating a known influence on suicidal ideation, relationship stress, via daily diary reports on relationship stress, perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation. Thus, the present study sought to answer the following three research questions:

Do individuals who experience higher average relationship stress over time report higher average levels of burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation?

Is greater relationship stress associated with greater burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation on the same day and/or on the next day?

Does burdensomeness and/or thwarted belonging mediate the within‐person association between relationship stress and suicide ideation?

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedures

Participants for this study were recruited from Prolific. Participants had to meet the following inclusion criteria: at least 19 years old, living in the United States, self‐reported experience of depressive symptoms, in a romantic relationship of at least 6 months (aforementioned inclusion criteria were taken from prescreener Prolific account information), and experiencing suicidal thoughts (assessed in a brief screening assessment using the Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale [SIDAS]; see below). Depressive symptoms were selected as a prescreener to promote the study to a sample most likely to be eligible; participants self‐reported the presence of depressive symptoms in the Prolific prescreener, indicating current or recent depressive experiences. Approximately half of those who accessed the study indicated suicidal ideation in the brief screening assessment. If eligible for the full study, participants completed a baseline assessment, which assessed demographics, mental health, and relationship dynamics. Following the baseline assessment, participants completed 10 days of daily diary surveys that assessed ongoing mental health, including suicidal ideation, burdensomeness, and thwarted belonging, as well as relationship dynamics, including relationship stress. Participants were compensated for each survey they completed and were awarded a bonus payment for completing 75% or more of the daily diary surveys. This study received IRB approval from the first author's institution and required that participants consent to the study before each survey.

2.2. Sample Characteristics

Table 1 presents a summary of sample characteristics (N = 84). Participants were on average 37.4 years old. About 47.6% of the sample identified as men, 45.2% women, and 7.1% nonbinary. Regarding race, 69.1% were White, 9.5% Black, and 21.4% other races, including mixed races. The majority of them were either married (40.5%) or seriously dating (42.9%) and were living together (76.2%). On average, participants were in their current romantic relationship for 9.6 years. Half of the sample (53.7%) currently had no children, 25% one child, and 21.4% two children or more. Two‐thirds (72.6%) had never broken up during the course of their current romantic relationship. One‐third (35.7%) was currently receiving mental health treatment, 38.1% had previously received treatment, and 26.2% never received treatment. Approximately 23.8% of the participants resided in urban areas, 57.5% in suburban areas, and 19.1% in rural areas. In terms of highest education, 47.6% had a bachelor's degree or higher. About half (53.6%) were full‐time employed, 20.2% part‐time, and 26.2% unemployed.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics (N = 84).

Frequency (%) or mean (sd), range
Age 37.4 (12.5), 20–77
Gender
Man 40 (47.6%)
Woman 38 (45.2%)
Nonbinary or gender diverse 6 (7.1%)
Race
White 58 (69.1%)
Black 8 (9.5%)
More than one race 5 (5.9%)
Others 13 (15.5%)
Sexual orientation
Straight or heterosexual 53 (63.1%)
Gay 4 (4.8%)
Lesbian 4 (4.8%)
Bisexual 14 (16.7%)
Others 9 (10.7%)
Relationship status
Married 34 (40.5%)
Seriously dating 36 (42.9%)
Others 14 (16.6%)
Living situation
Not living together 15 (17.9%)
Live together 64 (76.2%)
Long‐distance relationship 5 (6.0%)
Ever broken up
Yes 23 (27.4%)
No 61 (72.6%)
Mental health treatment
Current 30 (35.7%)
Before 32 (38.1%)
Never 22 (26.2%)
Education
HS diploma 14 (16.7%)
Some college or associate degree 30 (35.7%)
Bachelor degree or higher 40 (47.6%)
Employment
Not employed 22 (26.2%)
Part‐time 17 (20.2%)
Full‐time 45 (53.6%)
Geographic location
Rural 16 (19.1%)
Suburban 48 (57.1%)
Urban 20 (23.8%)
Number of children
0 45 (53.6)
1 21 (25.0)
2+ 18 (21.4)
Relationship length 9.6 (10.0), 0–55 years
BL relationship stress 21.0 (7.0), 10–40
BL burdensomeness 18.8 (9.4), 3–42
BL thwarted belonging 34.5 (11.3), 9–62
BL suicide ideation 3.0 (2.1), 0–10
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: BL, baseline; HS, high school.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Suicidal Ideation

Suicidal ideation was assessed at baseline and in each daily diary survey using the first item of the five‐item SIDAS (van Spijker et al. 2014). This item assesses frequency of suicidal thoughts: “In the past month, how often have you had thoughts about suicide?” from 0 (Never) to 10 (Always). The item was modified for the present study to read: “Since the last survey, how often have you had thoughts about suicide?” The decision to use only the first item only for this measure was due to multiple reasons. First, there was a need for sensitivity in the change of frequency in thoughts from day to day as opposed to other rarer outcomes assessed by this measure (e.g., “How close have you come to making a suicide attempt?”). Second, many participants did not accurately interpret the second item of the scale (“How much control did you have over these thoughts?”; reverse‐coded item), leading us to be unable to use this item. Finally, the reliability for this scale varied across the 10 days even after removing the second item (α = 0.668–0.855), signaling the overall measure may not be accurately assessing daily severity.

2.3.2. Burdensomeness and Thwarted Belonging

The Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (Van Orden et al. 2012) was used to assess perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belonging. This 15‐item scale included six items to evaluate perceived burdensomeness (e.g., “These days, I think my death would be a relief to the people in my life.”) and nine items to assess thwarted belonging (e.g., “These days, other people care about me.”). The measure instructions were adapted to reflect daily experiences (i.e., “Today, …”) for daily diary surveys. Higher summed scores indicated higher perceptions of burdensomeness and thwarted belonging. Each subscale had high internal reliability at baseline (burdensomeness, α = 0.95; thwarted belonging, α = 0.89) and across the 10 days (burdensomeness, α = 0.964–0.977; thwarted belonging, α = 0.912–0.939).

2.3.3. Relationship Stress

Relationship stress was measured using the Multidimensional Stress Questionnaire for couples (Bodenmann 2006). Specifically, the 10‐item intradyadic stress subscale was used to assess stress experienced within the couple relationship, such as conflict or controlling/unpleasant behaviors. Participants rated each item using a four‐point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Highly stressful) for the past 7 days at baseline, then daily for the daily diary. Higher summed scores indicated higher relationship stress. This subscale had high internal reliability at baseline (α = 0.90) and across the 10 days (α = 0.897–0.935).

2.4. Analytic Plan

We specified and estimated two‐level mixed‐effects models to examine the within‐person processes between relationship stress (independent variable) and burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation (dependent variables). Relationship stress underwent person‐mean centering to separate the within‐ from the between‐person variations. The resulting centered variable (Cen_Stress) captured the within‐person association between stress and burdensomeness and thwarted belonging (RQ2). Because longitudinal data are strictly ordered in time, it is possible that concurrent changes in the independent and the dependent variables are due to the passage of time (or to “third” variables correlated with the passage of time). For this reason, variable Time, indexing the ordinal time point (Day) of the diary (0–10) was included as a predictor in the model. Another level‐1 predictor was 1‐day lag of relationship stress (Stress_L1). At level 2, the individual‐specific average stress (Avg_Stress) was incorporated as a predictor to capture the between‐person association between stress and burdensomeness/belonging (RQ1) Other level‐2 predictors included age (Years), gender (men, women, and nonbinary), employment status (full‐time, part‐time, and unemployed), number of children, relationship length (Years), and baseline relationship stress assessed 1 week before the 10‐day dairy period. The models had a random intercept and a random effect of Cen_Stress. An autoregressive structure (AR(1)) was used for the level‐1 error terms to account for possible residual autocorrelation.

For research question 3 (RQ3), Figure 1 depicts the within‐person path diagram corresponding to our analysis that examined the indirect pathways from relationship stress to suicidal ideation via burdensomeness and thwarted belonging. Beneath the path diagram were the multilevel equations that were estimated simultaneously. Our analysis was based on Bauer et al.'s (2006) work. In this approach, the indirect effect of X on Y through M is equal to the sum of (1) the product of the X‐to‐M and the M‐to‐Y coefficients for the typical subject, and (2) the covariance of between‐subjects differences in the X‐to‐M and M‐to‐Y relationships (i.e., covariance of the random effects). To obtain such covariance, all relevant equations (i.e., equation for suicidal ideation, and equations for burdensomeness and thwarted belonging, Figure 1) were estimated simultaneously. Moreover, the X‐to‐M and the M‐to‐Y coefficients were allowed to vary between subjects (i.e., random effects). Bolger and Laurenceau (2013, Chapter 9) provided details on how to estimate this type of model using SAS and Mplus. The 95% CI for the indirect paths was obtained using Monte Carlo simulation (Preacher and Selig 2012). All analyses were carried out using SAS/STAT 15.4. Maximum likelihood provides valid inference under the assumption of missing at random (MAR) (Enders 2010). The analyses made use of all available data from all 84 subjects at baseline, which helped make the assumption of MAR plausible (Baker 2019). Missingness ranged from 8% to 25% across the 10 days. Predictors of missingness (age, gender, employment status, number of children, and relationship length) were included in the model.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Within‐subject path diagram. X, M 1, M 2, and Y contain within‐subject variation only. To reduce clutter, we omitted time as a predictor. Subscript j represents subjects, i repeated measures.

3. Results

We summarize the results here and use a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). For research question 1, the between‐person associations between relationship stress and burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation were significant (variable Avg_Stress, Table 2). People who experienced higher average relationship stress across the 10‐day diary period also tended to experience higher average burdensomeness (p = 0.021), thwarted belonging (p = 0.016), and suicidal ideation (p < 0.001).

Table 2.

Estimates for the associations between relationship stress and thwarted belongingness, burdensomeness, and suicidal ideation.

Thwarted belongingness Burdensomeness Suicidal ideation
B SE p B SE p B SE p
Cen_Stress 0.483 0.140 0.001 0.614 0.081 < 0.001 0.097 0.024 < 0.001
Stress_L1 −0.022 0.124 0.858 0.027 0.060 0.657 0.001 0.013 0.919
Time −0.112 0.167 0.505 −0.023 0.085 0.787 −0.013 0.019 0.506
Avg_Stress 0.500 0.211 0.021 0.632 0.253 0.016 0.129 0.026 < 0.001
Gender (woman) −3.661 1.910 0.060 −2.971 2.278 0.198 −0.276 0.239 0.252
Gender (nonbinary) 0.223 3.411 0.948 1.129 4.299 0.794 0.084 0.461 0.856
Employment (part‐time) −0.885 2.663 0.741 −3.139 3.211 0.332 −0.214 0.348 0.541
Employment (full‐time) −4.902 2.255 0.033 −3.342 2.676 0.218 −0.193 0.278 0.490
Children −0.734 0.984 0.459 −0.943 1.160 0.420 −0.160 0.120 0.185
Rel_Length 0.048 0.126 0.707 −0.070 0.150 0.641 −0.017 0.016 0.273
BL_Stress 0.235 0.160 0.146 −0.171 0.189 0.370 −0.056 0.020 0.006
Age −0.123 0.099 0.219 0.095 0.119 0.427 0.029 0.013 0.023
Open in a new tab

Note: Cen_Stress = person‐mean centered relationship stress; Stress_L1 = 1‐day lag of Cen_Stress; Avg_Stress = individual‐specific average relationship stress over the 10‐day diary period; Rel_Length = relationship length; BL_Stress = Baseline relationship stress assessed 1 week prior to the 10‐day daily diary.

The current data lent also lent support for within‐person associations between relationship stress (variable Cen_Stress, Table 2) and burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation (research question 2). On days where participants experienced greater relationship stress, they also tended to experience greater burdensomeness (p < 0.001) and thwarted belonging (p = 0.001) as well as have higher suicidal ideation (p < 0.001). On the contrary, the 1‐day lagged effects of relationship stress (variable Stress_L1, Table 2) on burdensomeness (p = 0.657), thwarted belonging (p = 0.858), and suicidal ideation (p = 0.919) did not attain statistical significance.

Table 3 presents the relevant outputs for the within‐subject mediation analysis (research question 3, as depicted in Figure 1). The results supported several direct pathways. Relationship stress was associated with higher burdensomeness (denoted a 1) (p < 0.001) and higher thwarted belonging (a 2) (p < 0.001). Burdensomeness was associated with higher suicidal ideation (b 1) (p < 0.001), but thwarted belonging was not associated with suicidal ideation (b 2) (p = 0.577). Notably, relationship stress was associated with higher suicidal ideation (c) (p < 0.001), after controlling for burdensomeness and thwarted belonging. The indirect path from relationship stress to suicidal ideation through burdensomeness was significant (95% CI = [0.017; 0.076]). On the contrary, the indirect path from relationship stress to suicidal ideation through thwarted belonging did not attain significance (95% CI = [−0.019; 0.010]). Overall, the results suggested that on days when a typical person experienced greater relationship stress, their romantic relationship tended to feel more burdensome, which in turn was associated with higher suicidal ideation.

Table 3.

Within‐subject mediation outputs.

B SE p
Equation for burdensomeness
Cen_Stress (a 1) 0.582 0.079 < 0.001
Time −0.083 0.063 0.183
Equation for belongingness
Cen_Stress (a 2) 0.553 0.132 < 0.001
Time 0.009 0.123 0.943
Equation for suicide ideation
Cen_Stress (c) 0.044 0.011 < 0.001
Cen_Burdensomeness (b 1) 0.068 0.016 < 0.001
Cen_Belongingness (b 2) 0.003 0.006 0.577
Time −0.016 0.011 0.153
Cov(a 1j , b 1j ) 0.006 0.010 0.581
Cov(a 2j , b 2j ) −0.006 0.007 0.358
a 1 + b 1 + Cov(a 1j , b 1j ) = 0.046; 95% CI = [0.017; 0.076]
a 2 + b 2 + Cov(a 2j , b 2j ) = −0.004; 95% CI = [−0.019; 0.010]
Open in a new tab

Notes: Cen_Stress = person‐mean centered relationship stress;

Cen_Burdensomeness = person‐mean centered burdensomeness;

Cen_Belongingness = person‐mean centered belongingness.

4. Discussion

We sought to examine the longitudinal associations between suicidal ideation and daily reports of relationship stress, perceived burdensomeness, and thwarted belonging. Using an online daily diary sample, we were able to examine the implications of IPTS in adults with suicidal ideation who were in romantic relationships. Overall, the results provided mixed support for our research questions.

4.1. Relationship Stress Across 10 Days

First, the results provided substantial evidence for our first research question: we found that people who have higher average stress over a 10‐day period tend to have higher average experiences of burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation. This finding is consistent with prior literature, in which relationship stress was positively associated with suicidal ideation (Ho Choi et al. 2013; Robustelli et al. 2015). However, this finding contributes to existing literature as it reveals associations between relationship stress and perceived burdensomeness, as well as between relationship stress and thwarted belonging. While these variables have been hypothesized to be associated previously (e.g., Carter et al. 2024), this is the first study to test and establish these relationships. These results contribute to the mixed literature about short‐term impacts of relationship stress on suicidal ideation; however, it continues to demonstrate that relationship stress may have a direct impact on perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belonging. The mediation analysis suggested that relationship stress has both direct (RQ1) and indirect (RQ2) effects on suicide ideation. Taken together, this suggests, from an IPTS perspective, that adults who experience higher relationship stress tend to perceive themselves as a burden and tend to think that they do not belong. This provides important theoretical and important support for romantic relationships as a unique context for IPTS and is discussed in more depth below.

4.2. Relationship Stress Same‐Day Effects

Our second research question was partially supported, with evidence for same‐day effects but not next‐day effects. On days when participants experienced higher relationship stress, they also reported higher perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation. However, relationship stress did not predict these outcomes on the following day. From a dyadic stress perspective, this pattern is consistent with conceptualizations of relationship stress as episodic and often time‐limited, particularly in community samples. Dyadic stress models emphasize that interpersonal stressors frequently arise from discrete events (e.g., conflict and miscommunication) and are often followed by dyadic coping, repair, or emotion regulation processes that mitigate their longer‐term impact (Bodenmann 2005; Falconier and Kuhn 2019). As a result, the consequences of relationship stress may be most pronounced within the same day rather than persisting across days.

This interpretation is further supported by daily diary and experience‐sampling research demonstrating that interpersonal stress is more strongly associated with same‐day affective and cognitive responses than with lagged outcomes, particularly when stressors are acute rather than chronic (Bolger et al. 1989; Almeida 2005). In contrast, prior studies linking relationship satisfaction to later suicidal ideation have focused on global evaluations of the relationship, which may reflect more stable relational schemas and thus be more likely to exert longitudinal effects (Blow et al. 2019; Khalifian et al. 2020, 2022), though this may not be consistent for nonmilitary populations (e.g., Love and Morgan 2024). The present findings, therefore, suggest that relationship stress may function as an acute risk factor for suicidal ideation, producing immediate elevations in risk that do not necessarily spill over into the next day in low‐risk, community samples.

4.3. Perceived Burdensomeness Mediates Relationship Stress and Suicidal Ideation

Next, our mediation analyses suggested that perceived burdensomeness mediated the association between relationship stress and suicidal ideation (RQ3). Specifically, higher relationship stress was associated with higher perceived burdensomeness, which in turn was associated with higher suicidal ideation on the same day. These findings clarify a key interpersonal mechanism through which relationship stress contributes to suicidal ideation by intensifying momentary feelings of being a burden on one's partner. From an IPTS perspective, these results emphasize the proximal timing of perceived burdensomeness as a risk process, suggesting that elevations in burdensomeness operate as a state‐like mechanism that links acute relationship stress to suicidal ideation within the same day, rather than as a delayed or cumulative process. This temporal specificity helps refine IPTS by highlighting perceived burdensomeness as a mechanism that is particularly sensitive to immediate relational stressors.

In contrast, thwarted belonging did not mediate the association between relationship stress and suicidal ideation. While this was an unexpected finding, it contributes to the complexity surrounding the interpersonal influences on suicidal ideation. These findings may reflect how perceived burdensomeness is more sensitive to acute interpersonal stressors within romantic relationships. However, replication across diverse samples, stressor types, and relationship contexts will be important for clarifying the boundary conditions under which each IPTS construct operates as a mechanism of risk.

4.4. Clinical Implications

Prior research suggests that although mental health and romantic relationships are reciprocally associated, improvements in individual mental health do not consistently lead to improvements in relationship functioning, whereas improvements in romantic relationships more reliably predict subsequent improvements in mental health (Braithwaite and Holt‐Lunstad 2017; Whisman and Baucom 2012). The present findings extend this work by highlighting relationship stress as an acute, proximal correlate of suicidal ideation that operates through same‐day increases in perceived burdensomeness. Rather than suggesting broad or long‐term causal effects, these results underscore the clinical relevance of addressing momentary relational stressors that may precipitate short‐term elevations in suicide risk.

Interventions that target reductions in couple conflict, improvements in conflict management, and dyadic coping may be particularly well‐suited to addressing these acute risk processes and preparing couples to address them independently. Consistent with this interpretation, a recent couple‐based intervention for veterans and their romantic partners demonstrated improvements in communication and relationship satisfaction alongside reductions in veterans' perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belonging, and suicidal ideation (Khalifian et al. 2022). Although the present study did not evaluate treatment outcomes, this work provides an illustrative example of how targeting relational processes may indirectly reduce suicide risk by attenuating interpersonal mechanisms, such as perceived burdensomeness.

Importantly, the current findings suggest that clinicians may benefit from assessing not only relationship stress and suicidal ideation, but also how relational stressors shape clients' momentary perceptions of being a burden on their partner. Intervening at this level may facilitate conversations around roles, expectations, and mutual support, as well as promote repair following relational stress. From an interpersonal perspective, couples who are better able to interrupt or resolve conflicts before they escalate may be less likely to experience acute spikes in perceived burdensomeness and, in turn, increases in suicidal ideation (Joiner 2005; Van Orden et al. 2010).

4.5. Limitations and Future Directions

Though the present study makes several valuable contributions to the literature, there are several limitations to be acknowledged. First, the sample was recruited entirely from Prolific, an online study recruitment platform. Though the participants in this sample were diverse in gender, age, sexual orientation, and overall relationship status, the sample overall was limited (N = 84) and may not be reflective of broader populations. Although the number of participants was modest (N = 84), the intensive longitudinal daily diary design (10 repeated assessments per participant) increased statistical power for detecting within‐person effects in multilevel models, which were the primary focus of the present study (Bolger and Laurenceau 2013; McNeish and Stapleton 2016).

This sample was limited in that participants had relatively low levels of suicidal ideation, both at baseline and across the 10 days. Future research may reveal different associations with samples that have a higher risk for suicide as well as more robust measures of suicidal ideation severity; though we intended to use the full SIDAS for our study, participant misinterpretation of the second item and inconsistent reliabilities across the 10 days led to us restricting our analyses to only the first item (frequency of thoughts since prior survey). Depressive symptoms were used as a screening inclusion, but were not included in these analyses due to conceptual and empirical overlap with suicidal ideation. Although this enabled us to present clear evidence of the interactions between relational stress and suicidal ideation, evidence about the role or impact of depressive symptoms and relational stress is not included. Regarding the time sequencing of this study, participants were able to complete each daily survey at any time in a 24‐h window; it is possible that the time of day in which the surveys were completed not only varied from day to day, but that responses may have been influenced by time of day and wakefulness. Finally, future research should examine whether these within‐person processes differ between treatment‐seeking and nontreatment‐seeking populations.

In addition, future research is also encouraged to assess other types of relational stress or conflict, including intimate partner violence, and to employ dyadic designs that assess both partners' perspectives. Although the present study assessed relationship stress using single‐partner reports, which capture individuals' subjective experiences relevant to IPTS processes, this approach cannot account for partner perceptions, reciprocal influences, or discrepancies between partners' reports. As such, conclusions are limited to individual‐level experiences of relationship stress within romantic relationships rather than dyadic relationship processes. Future research is recommended to examine these processes at the couple‐level using dyadic samples.

Despite these limitations, the use of this intensive longitudinal design allowed us to examine the participants in significantly more depth than prior studies, resulting in evidence about two dynamic processes (relational stress and suicidal ideation) and their association with one another. Future studies are also encouraged to further assess the associations between relationship dynamics (including relational stress) and suicidal ideation using both romantic partners. This broader perspective would reveal significantly more information about the intradyadic processes that may influence motivations for suicide and suicidal ideation, yielding valuable implications for couple therapy.

5. Conclusion

The role of relationship stress has been identified as a risk factor for suicidal ideation and behaviors, predominantly in cross‐sectional or retrospective studies. However, findings across this literature have been mixed, particularly with respect to whether relationship factors exert direct effects on suicidal ideation or operate indirectly through interpersonal mechanisms, and whether these associations hold at the day‐to‐day level rather than at global levels of relationship satisfaction or distress. The present study extends this literature by providing prospective, within‐person evidence that fluctuations in relationship stress across a 10‐day period are associated not only with suicidal ideation, but also with key motivational constructs from the IPTS (i.e., perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belonging). Importantly, perceived burdensomeness emerged as a mechanism through which relationship stress exacerbated suicidal ideation over time. These findings help clarify inconsistencies in prior research by demonstrating that relationship stress confers risk through dynamic interpersonal processes rather than solely through global relationship dissatisfaction, underscoring the potential utility of relationally focused interventions for suicidal ideation.

Acknowledgments

The project was funded by the University of Alabama Office of Research and Economic Development.

References

  1. Almeida, D. M. 2005. “Resilience and Vulnerability to Daily Stressors Assessed via Diary Methods.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 14, no. 2: 64–68. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00336.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐Dajani, N. , Horwitz A. G., and Czyz E. K.. 2022. “Does Coping Reduce Suicidal Urges in Everyday Life? Evidence From a Daily Diary Study of Adolescent Inpatients.” Depression and Anxiety 39, no. 6: 496–503. 10.1002/da.23253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, S. G. 2019. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation With Missing Outcomes: From Simplicity to Complexity.” Statistics in Medicine 38, no. 22: 4453–4474. 10.1002/sim.8319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Batterham, P. J. , Fairweather‐Schmidt A. K., Butterworth P., Calear A. L., Mackinnon A. J., and Christensen H.. 2014. “Temporal Effects of Separation on Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviours.” Social Science & Medicine (1982) 111: 58–63. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer, D. J. , Preacher K. J., and Gil K. M.. 2006. “Conceptualizing and Testing Random Indirect Effects and Moderated Mediation in Multilevel Models: New Procedures and Recommendations.” Psychological Methods 11, no. 2: 142–163. 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blow, A. J. , Farero A., Ganoczy D., Walters H., and Valenstein M.. 2019. “Intimate Relationships Buffer Suicidality in National Guard Service Members: A Longitudinal Study.” Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior 49, no. 6: 1523–1540. 10.1111/sltb.12537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bodenmann, G. 2005. “Dyadic Coping and Its Significance for Marital Functioning.” In Couples Coping With Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping, edited by Revenson T., Kayser K., and Bodenmann G., 33–50. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bodenmann, G. 2006. Multidimensionaler Stressfragebogen für Paare [Multidimensional Stress Questionnaire]. University of Fribourg. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bodenmann, G. , Ledermann T., and Bradbury T. N.. 2007. “Stress, Sex, and Satisfaction in Marriage.” Personal Relationships 14: 551–569. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolger, N. , DeLongis A., Kessler R. C., and Schilling E. A.. 1989. “Effects of Daily Stress on Negative Mood.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, no. 5: 808–818. 10.1037//0022-3514.57.5.808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolger, N. , and Laurenceau J. P.. 2013. Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Braithwaite, S. , and Holt‐Lunstad J.. 2017. “Romantic Relationships and Mental Health.” Current Opinion in Psychology 13: 120–125. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carter, S. P. , Cobb E., Novak L. A., et al. 2024. “The Importance of Romantic Relationships in Preventing Suicide.” Journal of Family Theory & Review 16, no. 2: 352–373. 10.1111/jftr.12559. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Castellví, P. , Lucas‐Romero E., Miranda‐Mendizábal A., et al. 2017. “Longitudinal Association Between Self‐Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors and Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Affective Disorders 215: 37–48. 10.1016/j.jad.2017.03.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chu, C. , Buchman‐Schmitt J. M., Stanley I. H., et al. 2017. “The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of a Decade of Cross‐National Research.” Psychological Bulletin 143, no. 12: 1313–1345. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooper, A. N. , May R. W., and Fincham F. D.. 2019. “Stress Spillover and Crossover in Couple Relationships: Integrating Religious Beliefs and Prayer.” Journal of Family Theory & Review 11, no. 2: 289–314. 10.1111/jftr.12330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Czyz, E. K. , Glenn C. R., Arango A., Koo H. J., and King C. A.. 2021. “Short‐Term Associations Between Nonsuicidal and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: A Daily Diary Study With High‐Risk Adolescents.” Journal of Affective Disorders 292: 337–344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davidson, C. L. , Anestis M. D., and Gutierrez P. M.. 2017. “Ecological Momentary Assessment Is a Neglected Methodology in Suicidology.” Archives of Suicide Research 21, no. 1: 1–11. 10.1080/13811118.2015.1004482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Enders, C. K. 2010. Applied Missing Data Analysis. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Falconier, M. K. 2005. “Economic Strain, Friends' Support, and Relationship Satisfaction in Argentinean Couples: Paths of Influence and Gender Differences.” ProQuest diss. and Theses Global (304993052). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/economic-strain-friends-support-relationship/docview/304993052/se-2.
  21. Falconier, M. K. , and Kuhn R.. 2019. “Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 571. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Franz, P. J. , Kleiman E. M., and Nock M. K.. 2021. “Reappraisal and Suppression Each Moderate the Association Between Stress and Suicidal Ideation: Preliminary Evidence From a Daily Diary Study.” Cognitive Therapy and Research 45, no. 6: 1120–1127. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10608-021-10214-8. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gustavson, K. , Røysamb E., Soest T., Helland M. J., Karevold E., and Mathiesen K. S.. 2012. “Reciprocal Longitudinal Associations Between Depressive Symptoms and Romantic Partners' Synchronized View of Relationship Quality.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 29, no. 6: 776–794. 10.1177/0265407512448264. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ho Choi, K. , Wang S. M., Yeon B., et al. 2013. “Risk and Protective Factors Predicting Multiple Suicide Attempts.” Psychiatry Research 210, no. 3: 957–961. 10.1016/j.psychres.2013.09.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ide, N. , Wyder M., Kolves K., and De Leo D.. 2010. “Separation as an Important Risk Factor for Suicide: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Family Issues 31, no. 12: 1689–1716. 10.1177/0192513X10365317. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Joiner, T. 2005. Why People Die by Suicide. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kazan, D. , Calear A. L., and Batterham P. J.. 2016. “The Impact of Intimate Partner Relationships on Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviours: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Affective Disorders 190: 585–598. 10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Khalifian, C. E. , Leifker F., Morland L. A., Depp C., Glynn S., and Bryan C.. 2020. “Treatment for Relationships and Safety Together (TR&ST): A Novel Couples‐Based Suicide‐Specific Intervention.” Behavior Therapist 43, no. 8: 318–325. [Google Scholar]
  29. Khalifian, C. E. , Leifker F. R., Knopp K., et al. 2022. “Utilizing the Couple Relationship to Prevent Suicide: A Preliminary Examination of Treatment for Relationships and Safety Together.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 78, no. 5: 747–757. 10.1002/jclp.23251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kleiman, E. M. , Turner B. J., Fedor S., Beale E. E., Huffman J. C., and Nock M. K.. 2017. “Examination of Real‐Time Fluctuations in Suicidal Ideation and Its Risk Factors: Results From Two Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 126, no. 6: 726–738. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/abn0000273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kõlves, K. , Ide N., and De Leo D.. 2012. “Fluctuations of Suicidality in the Aftermath of a Marital Separation: 6‐Month Follow‐Up Observations.” Journal of Affective Disorders 142, no. 1–3: 256–263. 10.1016/j.jad.2012.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Love, H. A. , Durtschi J. A., Ruhlmann L. M., and Nelson Goff B. S.. 2018. “Army Soldiers and Suicidal Thoughts: The Impact of Negative Relationship Dynamics Moderated by the Dissolution of Romantic Relationships.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 44, no. 2: 265–276. 10.1111/jmft.12252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Love, H. A. , and Morgan P.. 2024. “The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide and Relationship Satisfaction: A Daily Diary Study.” Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 12: 1138. 10.3390/bs14121138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Love, H. A. , Nalbone D. P., Hecker L. L., Sweeney K. A., and Dharnidharka P.. 2017. “Suicidal Risk Following the Termination of Romantic Relationships.” Crisis 39, no. 3: 166–174. 10.1027/0227-5910/a000484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ma, J. , Batterham P. J., Calear A. L., and Han J.. 2016. “A Systematic Review of the Predictions of the Interpersonal–Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior.” Clinical Psychology Review 46: 34–45. 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. McNeish, D. M. , and Stapleton L. M.. 2016. “The Effect of Small Sample Size on Two‐Level Model Estimates: A Review and Illustration.” Educational Psychology Review 28, no. 2: 295–314. 10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller, A. B. , Eisenlohr‐Moul T., Giletta M., et al. 2017. “A Within‐Person Approach to Risk for Suicidal Ideation and Suicidal Behavior: Examining the Roles of Depression, Stress, and Abuse Exposure.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 85, no. 7: 712–722. 10.1037/ccp0000210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Miranda‐Mendizabal, A. , Castellví P., Parés‐Badell O., et al. 2019. “Gender Differences in Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents and Young Adults: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Longitudinal Studies.” International Journal of Public Health 64: 265–283. 10.1007/s00038-018-1196-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Morgan, P. C. , Durtschi J. A., and Kimmes J. G.. 2018. “Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction Associated With Shifts in Dyadic Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms in German Couples Across Four Years.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 44, no. 4: 655–670. 10.1111/jmft.12302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Morgan, P. C. , Love H. A., and Morlan G.. 2025. “Expanding Theoretical Perspectives on the Associations Between Relationship Satisfaction and Suicidal Ideation.” Family Relations 75 2: 1043–1053. 10.1111/fare.70115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Orden, K. A. , Cukrowicz K. C., Witte T. K., and T. E. Joiner, Jr . 2012. “Thwarted Belongingness and Perceived Burdensomeness: Construct Validity and Psychometric Properties of the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire.” Psychological Assessment 24, no. 1: 197–215. 10.1037/a0025358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Preacher, K. J. , and Selig J. P.. 2012. “Advantages of Monte Carlo Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects.” Communication Methods and Measures 6, no. 2: 77–98. 10.1080/19312458.2012.679848. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Randall, A. K. , and Bodenmann G.. 2017. “Stress and Its Associations With Relationship Satisfaction.” Current Opinion in Psychology 13: 96–106. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ribeiro, J. D. , and Joiner T. E.. 2009. “The Interpersonal–Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior: Current Status and Future Directions.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 65, no. 12: 1291–1299. 10.1002/jclp.20621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Robustelli, B. L. , Trytko A. C., Li A., and Whisman M. A.. 2015. “Marital Discord and Suicidal Outcomes in a National Sample of Married Individuals.” Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior 45, no. 5: 623–632. 10.1111/sltb.12157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. van Orden, K. A. , Witte T. K., Cukrowicz K. C., Braithwaite S. R., Selby E. A., and Joiner T. E. Jr, 2010. “The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide.” Psychological Review 117, no. 2: 575–600. 10.1037/a0018697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. van Spijker, B. A. J. , Batterham P. J., Calear A. L., et al. 2014. “The Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale (SIDAS): Community‐Based Validation Study of a New Scale for the Measurement of Suicidal Ideation.” Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior 44, no. 4: 408–419. 10.1111/sltb.12084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Stack, S. , and Scourfield J.. 2015. “Recency of Divorce, Depression, and Suicide Risk.” Journal of Family Issues 36, no. 6: 695–715. 10.1177/0192513X13494824. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Till, B. , Tran U. S., and Niederkrotenthaler T.. 2017. “Relationship Satisfaction and Risk Factors for Suicide.” Crisis 38: 7–16. 10.1027/0227-5910/a000407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Whisman, M. A. 2001. “The Association Between Depression and Marital Dissatisfaction.” In Marital and Family Processes in Depression: A Scientific Foundation for Clinical Practice, edited by Beach S. R. H., 3–24. American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10350-001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Whisman, M. A. , and Baucom D. H.. 2012. “Intimate Relationships and Psychopathology.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 15: 4–13. 10.1007/s10567-011-0107-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Whisman, M. A. , Sbarra D. A., and Beach S. R. H.. 2021. “Intimate Relationships and Depression: Searching for Causation in the Sea of Association.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 17, no. 1: 233–258. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-103323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Whisman, M. A. , and Uebelacker L. A.. 2009. “Prospective Associations Between Marital Discord and Depressive Symptoms in Middle‐Aged and Older Adults.” Psychology and Aging 24, no. 1: 184–189. 10.1037/a0014759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES