Table 3.

Associations between Dyadic Communication and Relationship Outcomes Five Years Post-Therapy

Rating	Pre-therapy to Post-therapy Change		Post-therapy Levels		Post-therapy to 2-year Follow-up Change
	B(SE)	d	B(SE)	d	B(SE)	d
Associations between treatment response and communication
Quality	5.94 (1.82)***	.45	7.03 (2.11)***	.54	−2.09 (2.07)	−.16
Negative Reciprocitya	−0.06 (0.05)	−.19	−0.09 (0.06)	−.27	−0.06 (0.07)	−.12
Positive Reciprocitya	0.17 (0.06)**	.41	0.20 (0.07)**	.50	−0.03 (0.08)	−.05
WD/HW	−0.05 (0.06)	−.11	−0.03 (0.07)	−.08	0.05 (0.08)	.11
HD/WW	0.04 (0.05)	.09	0.04 (0.06)	.10	−0.01 (0.07)	−.03
Vulnerability/Empathy	0.15 (0.07)*	.38	0.20 (0.06)**	.50	−0.14 (0.07)*	−.36
Associations between relationship stability and communication
Quality	4.17 (2.06)*	.33	8.19 (2.37)***	.64	−1.40 (261)	−.11
Negative Reciprocitya	−0.05 (0.06)	−.10	−0.19 (0.07)**	−.44	−0.16 (0.07)*	−.36
Positive Reciprocitya	0.08 (0.06)	.17	0.24 (0.08)**	.48	−0.04 (0.12)	−.08
WD/HW	−0.04 (0.06)	−.09	−0.06 (0.08)	−.14	0.20 (0.08)*	.47
HD/WW	0.03 (0.05)	.08	0.01 (0.08)	.01	0.04 (0.10)	.09
Vulnerability/Empathy	0.14 (0.07) †	.35	0.25 (0.07)***	.63	−0.11 (0.11)	−.28

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients for effects of treatment response and relationship stability represent the magnitude of the difference between the two levels (since for treatment response, nonresponder = −.5, responder = .5, and stability, divorced = −.5, intact = .5) controlling for therapy type and distress level. See text for results of tests of simple effects.

^aNegative reciprocity models included couple-average of individual negativity, and positive reciprocity models included couple-average individual positivity, as covariates. Thus, these results are unique associations between relationship outcomes and dyadic communication after controlling for individual communication.

d = Cohen’s d.

^†p < .10,

^*p < .05,

^**p <. 01,

^***p <. 001