Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms and Newlyweds’ Observed Communication, Partner Characteristics, and Longitudinal Marital Outcomes

Abstract

Given borderline personality disorder (BPD)’s relation with interpersonal dysfunction, there is substantial interest in understanding BPD’s effect on marriage. The current study used data from a community sample of 172 newlywed couples to examine spouses’ BPD symptoms in relation to their observed communication, partner BPD symptoms, 4-year marital quality trajectories, and 10-year divorce rates. BPD symptoms were correlated cross-sectionally with more negative skills during observational problem-solving and social support tasks, and spouses reporting more BPD symptoms were married to partners reporting more BPD symptoms. Longitudinally, hierarchical linear modeling of newlyweds’ 4-year marital trajectories indicated that BPD symptoms predicted the intercept of marital quality for spouses and their partners, reflecting lower levels of marital satisfaction and higher levels of marital problems. BPD symptoms did not predict 10-year divorce rates. These findings highlight the chronic relationship impairment associated with BPD symptoms, indicate that distress begins early in marriage, and suggest that partners with higher levels of BPD symptoms remain in more troubled marriages.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by emotional, behavioral, and interpersonal dysregulation (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and substantial impairment across multiple domains (e.g., Skodol et al., 2005). In particular, BPD is associated with dysfunctional interpersonal relationships (e.g., Stepp, Pilkonis, Yaggi, Morse, & Feske, 2009). BPD symptoms are also associated with difficulties in romantic relationships, including communication problems (Bouchard, Sabourin, Lussier, & Villeneuve, 2009), more negative attributions for partners’ behaviors (Bhatia, Davila, Eubanks-Carter, & Burckell, 2013), and aggression toward one’s partner (South, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2008; Weinstein, Gleason, & Oltmanns, 2012). Individuals higher in BPD symptoms and their partners report lower levels of relationship satisfaction (South et al., 2008; Stroud, Durbin, Saigal, & Knobloch-Fedders, 2010), and borderline symptoms are associated with increased risk of having been divorced (Whisman & Schonbrun, 2009), though these results are inconsistent (Disney, Weinstein, & Oltmanns, 2012).

Longitudinal studies examining the associations between BPD symptoms and interpersonal dysfunction over time similarly reveal poor outcomes. BPD symptoms in adolescent women were associated with poorer relationship quality, greater likelihood of abuse by a romantic partner, and lower levels of partner satisfaction when assessed 4 years later (Daley, Burge, & Hammen, 2000). Ten-year data from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study indicate that patients diagnosed with BPD report significant impairments in their “spouse/partner” role (Gunderson et al., 2011).

Despite this research highlighting associations between BPD and relationship dysfunction, critical gaps remain in our understanding of BPD’s effect on marital relationships. First, although cross-sectional studies demonstrate that BPD symptoms are impairing for marriages of varying durations, they leave open questions about exactly when this distress emerged, including whether BPD symptoms were associated with relationship dysfunction from the beginning of marriage, whether distress emerged over time, or some combination of the two. Prospective, longitudinal studies that assess couples beginning in the earliest stages of marriage are needed to address these important developmental questions, as are methods of analysis that investigate change in functioning over time (slopes) in addition to initial level (intercepts; Atkins, 2005). Prospective data on the long-term effects of BPD symptoms on divorce rates are also needed; prior studies examining whether BPD symptoms were associated with a higher likelihood of having ever been divorced cannot directly address whether BPD symptoms predict divorce.

Second, few studies have taken a dyadic approach to understanding how BPD symptoms manifest in relationships (cf. Daley et al., 2000; Stroud et al., 2010). This limits our ability to examine how BPD symptoms impact both members of the couple and to address other questions such as the degree of homophily in BPD symptoms between partners. These questions are important given theoretical arguments that assortative mating may partly explain the relational dysfunction associated with BPD (Zanarini et al., 2015) and empirical evidence indicating that almost half of the male dating partners of female patients with BPD met criteria for one or more personality disorders (Bouchard et al., 2009).

Third, although previous findings have shown robust associations between BPD symptoms and self-reports of verbal aggression, there has been limited work examining BPD’s association with couples’ observed communication behavior. Observational coding of couples’ communication is a common paradigm in the relationship literature (e.g., Gottman, 1994), and offers a more objective rating of couples’ communication behaviors than do couples’ self-reports. The one study to examine observational ratings of couples’ communication in relation to BPD found that couples in which women were diagnosed with BPD showed more negative behaviors during problem-solving conversations than nonclinical couples (de Montigny-Malenfant et al., 2013). To date, however, no work has examined whether BPD symptoms are associated with observed negative communication in community samples, whether similar impairments are seen for positive communication, or whether impairments are seen in other types of communication such as social support.

The current study addresses these gaps using a community sample of 172 newlywed couples studied over the first 10 years of marriage.¹ First, we examined the correlation between husbands’ and wives’ BPD symptoms to address questions about assortative mating. Second, we examined how spouses’ BPD symptoms were associated with their observed positive and negative communication during problem-solving and social support tasks. Third, we examined how BPD symptoms predicted four-year marital satisfaction and marital problem trajectories. We included actor (e.g., wives’ BPD symptoms to wives’ satisfaction) and partner (e.g., wives’ BPD symptoms to husbands’ satisfaction) effects to determine whether any effects for BPD symptoms are seen for the individual, the partner, or both members of the couple. Last, we examined whether BPD symptoms predicted divorce over 10 years.

Method

Participants

Couples were identified from marriage licenses filed in Los Angeles County between May 1993 and January 1994. Marriage licenses were screened to identify couples who were married for the first time, married less than 6 months, between 18 and 35 years old, and had at least 10 years of education. Couples who met criteria were sent a letter requesting that they return a postcard if they wanted to participate. Of the 3,606 letters that were sent, 637 couples (17.8%) expressed interest in participating. Interested couples were interviewed by telephone to ensure that they met all inclusion criteria, including the additional criteria that they had no children, were not currently expecting a child, could read and speak English, were living together, and had no plans to leave the area. Eligible couples were invited to participate. The first 172 couples who met the screening criteria and kept their scheduled laboratory appointment comprised the sample.

Husbands averaged 27.6 years of age (SD = 3.9) and 15.6 years of education (SD = 2.2), with a median income between $21,000 and $30,000. Sixty-seven percent were Caucasian, 15% were Latino-Chicano, 13% were Asian American–Pacific Islanders, and 4% were African-American. Wives averaged 26.0 years of age (SD = 3.4) and 16.2 years of education (SD = 2.0), with a median income between $11,000 and $20,000. Sixty-one percent were Caucasian, 16% were Latina-Chicana, 15% were Asian American–Pacific Islanders, and 5% were African-American.

Procedures

Eligible couples participated in a 3-hour lab session within 6 months of their wedding, in which they completed questionnaires and interaction tasks (Time 1). After 6 months, spouses completed and returned questionnaires via mail (Time 2), and 6 months later participated in a second laboratory session (Time 3). Assessments at Times 4–8 were conducted via mail at 6-month intervals. Relationship status (intact versus divorced) was assessed in telephone calls prior to the regular assessments and assessed again after 10 years of marriage. Couples were paid $75 for lab sessions and $25 at each follow-up. Marital satisfaction and marital problems were assessed at Times 1–8.² The PDQ-R, FFI-BPD, and communication were assessed at Time 1.

Measures

BPD symptoms

BPD symptoms were assessed using 12 true/false self-report items from the BPD subscale of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised (PDQ-R; Hyler & Rieder, 1987), which corresponds to diagnostic criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R; American Psychiatric Association, 1987). Coefficient alpha was .54 for husbands and .61 for wives in this sample. Mean BPD symptom counts on the PDQ-R were 2.34 (SD = 1.81) for husbands and 2.76 (SD = 2.06) for wives. Eighty-five percent of participants reported at least 1 symptom of BPD, and 10% of participants reported 5 or more symptoms. The BPD symptoms were normally distributed for husbands and wives.

We also used a trait-based assessment of BPD (FFI-BPD; Few et al., 2015) constructed using 24 items from the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989). The FFI-BPD is highly correlated with measures of BPD in undergraduate, community, and clinical samples. In the current sample, α was.74 for husbands and .76 for wives. Mean scores on the FFI-BPD measure were 60.37 (SD = 8.57) for husbands and 57.55 (SD = 8.96) for wives. The FFI-BPD symptoms were normally distributed for husbands and wives.

The two measures of BPD symptoms were correlated r = 0.45 for husbands and 0.51 for wives, which fall within the range of associations between the FFI-BPD and other measures of BPD (0.35 to 0.72; Few et al., 2015).

Marital satisfaction

The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983) asks spouses to report the extent to which they agree or disagree with general statements about their marriage. Higher scores on this 6-item scale reflect greater satisfaction. The QMI was assessed every six months (eight times overall). Coefficient alpha was > .90 for husbands and wives across assessments.

Marital problems

The Marital Problems Inventory (Geiss & O’Leary, 1981) was used to assess spouses’ perceptions of marital problems every six months, except at Time 2 (seven times overall). Spouses rated 19 potential problem areas in a marriage (e.g., in-laws, sex) on a scale from 1 (not a problem) to 11 (major problem); ratings were summed to create a composite index of problem severity. Coefficient alpha was > .85 for husbands and wives across assessments.

Problem-solving skills

In Time 1 lab sessions, each spouse identified a source of tension in the relationship to discuss with the partner for 10 minutes. The Kategoriensystem für Partnerschaftliche Interaktion (KPI; Hahlweg et al., 1984) was used to code the skills displayed in these two interactions. The KPI consists of 27 codes and is used to code each speaking turn in an interaction. On the basis of factor analyses, the skill codes in the present study were reduced to a positive skills variable (summation of skills such as direct expression of feelings, wishes and needs, constructive solution, and compromise) and a negative skills variable (summation of skills such as devaluation of partner, denial of responsibility, and yes but–sentences). Composite variables were calculated by summing the scores on each index across the husband and wife problem topics. Interobserver agreement was adequate: intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = .84 (husbands’ positive skills), .62 (husbands’ negative skills), .90 (wives’ positive skills), and .75 (wives’ negative skills).

Support behavior

Spouses engaged in two additional 10-minute conversations, in each of which one randomly selected partner was instructed to “talk about something you would like to change about yourself” that was not a source of tension in the marriage. The other partner was instructed to respond as he or she normally would if this topic came up between them. Trained observers coded each speaking turn for the spouse who had chosen the topic (the “helpee”) and the spouse who was responding (the “helper”). The supportiveness of the helper’s behaviors was coded with the Social Support Interaction Coding System (SSICS; Pasch, Harris, Sullivan, & Bradbury, 2004). Each speaking turn by the helpers was rated as either positive or negative (e.g., criticizes or blames spouse; minimizes or maximizes the scope of the problem), and positive behavior was further delineated as positive emotional (e.g., statement that reassures, consoles, or provides encouragement), positive instrumental (e.g., makes specific suggestions), or positive other (e.g., general analysis of the problem). A summary positive helper code was created to simplify analyses by summing the three positive codes. ICCs indicated adequate interobserver reliability (.80 and .86 for helpers’ negative and positive support, respectively).

Means and standard deviations for these assessments are provided in supplemental materials.

Results

Cross-Sectional Associations

We began by examining the degree to which husbands’ and wives’ BPD symptoms were correlated, which they were: r = 0.29 for both the PDQ-R and the FFI-BPD, p < .01. Next, we examined correlations between BPD and observed communication (Table 1). For husbands, higher levels of BPD symptoms (FFI-BPD only) were associated with more negative skills during the problem-solving and social support tasks, as well as fewer positive skills during the problem-solving task. For wives, higher levels of BPD symptoms (PDQ-R and FFI-BPD) were associated with more negative skills during both tasks.

Table 1.

Within- Spouse Correlations between BPD Symptoms and Observed Communication

	Husbands’ BPD Symptoms		Wives’ BPD Symptoms
	PDQ-R	FFI-BPD	PDQ-R	FFI-BPD
Problem-solving skills
Positive	− 0.01	−0.19*	−0.08	−0.13
Negative	0.07	0.19*	0.15*	0.19*
Social support behavior
Positive	− 0.01	−0.08	−0.11	−0.08
Negative	0.07	0.20**	0.19*	0.22**

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

BPD Symptoms and Newlyweds’ Four-Year Marital Trajectories

To examine whether husbands’ and wives’ BPD symptoms were associated with trajectories of marital satisfaction and marital problems over the early years of marriage, we used growth curve analytic techniques and the HLM 7.0 computer program. Growth curve analysis allows for a two-level process in data analysis. Level 1 allows for the estimation of within-subject trajectories of change for a variable, described by two parameters: an intercept (initial level) and a slope (rate of change over time). Level 2 allows for the examination of between-subjects differences in these parameters using individual-level predictors.

Husbands’ and wives’ data were estimated simultaneously within the same equations (as opposed to nesting spouses within couples; Atkins, 2005). Time was uncentered so that the intercept terms (B_f00 and B_m00) could be interpreted as the value at the initial assessment, and each follow-up assessment was equal to 1 unit (e.g., Time 2 was entered as 1). We used the following equations:

$$\text{Level}1:Y_{\text{ti}}(\text{Outcome})={(\mathit{female})}_{\text{ti}}[{\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{f}0\mathrm{i}}+{\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{f}1\mathrm{i}}{(\mathit{Time})}_{\text{ti}}]+{(\text{male})}_{\text{ti}}[{\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{m}0\mathrm{i}}+{\mathrm{\pi }}_{\text{m1i}}{(\mathit{Time})}_{\text{ti}}]+{\mathrm{e}}_{\text{tij}}$$

$$\begin{array}{l}\text{Level}2:{\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{f}0\mathrm{i}}(\text{wife}\text{intercept})={\mathrm{\beta }}_{\mathrm{f}00}+\text{husband}\text{symptoms}+\text{wife}\text{symptoms}+{\mathrm{\mu }}_{\mathrm{f}0\mathrm{i}}\\ {\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{f}1\mathrm{i}}(\text{wife}\text{slope})={\mathrm{\beta }}_{\mathrm{f}10}+\text{husband}\text{symptoms}+\text{wife}\text{symptoms}+{\mathrm{\mu }}_{\mathrm{f}1\mathrm{i}}\\ {\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{m}0\mathrm{i}}(\text{husband}\text{intercept})={\mathrm{\beta }}_{\mathrm{m}00}+\text{husband}\text{symptoms}+\text{wife}\text{symptoms}+{\mathrm{\mu }}_{\mathrm{m}0\mathrm{i}}\\ {\mathrm{\pi }}_{\mathrm{m}1\mathrm{i}}(\text{husband}\text{slope})={\mathrm{\beta }}_{\mathrm{m}10}+\text{husband}\text{symptoms}+\text{wife}\text{symptoms}+{\mathrm{\mu }}_{\mathrm{m}1\mathrm{i}}\end{array}$$

These equations include separate intercepts and linear slopes for men and women, and sex-specific variance components at Level 2. Husbands’ and wives’ BPD symptoms were included simultaneously at Level 2, thus testing how spouses’ marital trajectories were affected by their own symptoms and their partner’s symptoms. This procedure accommodates missing data, so we estimated marital trajectories using all available data. We conducted four separate models, one for marital satisfaction and one for marital problems, run separately for the PDQ-R and the FFI-BPD.

For the PDQ-R (Table 2), wives’ BPD symptoms were associated with lower initial levels of marital satisfaction and higher initial levels of marital problems for themselves and for their husbands (all p < .01). Wives’ BPD symptoms did not predict the slope of marital satisfaction or marital problems, and husbands’ symptoms did not predict intercepts or slopes.³

Table 2.

Husbands’ and Wives’ BPD Symptoms and Marital Satisfaction and Problems Trajectories: Results from the PDQ-R

	Intercept			Linear Slope
	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	r	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	r
Marital satisfaction
Husbands
Main effect	40.88 (0.34)	—	—	−0.42 (0.08)	−5.43**	0.39
Husband symptoms	−0.13 (0.21)	−0.60	0.05	0.01 (0.04)	0.15	0.01
Wife symptoms	−0.80 (0.23)	−3.56**	0.27	0.00 (0.03)	−0.02	0.00
Wives
Main effect	41.47 (0.33)	—	—	−0.49 (0.08)	−6.19**	0.43
Husband symptoms	0.00 (0.18)	−0.01	0.00	−0.02 (0.05)	−0.33	0.03
Wife symptoms	−0.56 (0.20)	−2.75**	0.21	−0.04 (0.03)	−1.31	0.10
Marital problems
Husbands
Main effect	50.16 (1.46)	—	—	0.45 (0.27)	1.69	0.13
Husband symptoms	1.05 (0.90)	1.17	0.09	0.06 (0.14)	0.41	0.03
Wife symptoms	3.82 (0.82)	4.69**	0.34	−0.15 (0.15)	−1.02	0.08
Wives
Main effect	44.89 (1.35)	—	—	1.05 (0.26)	4.08**	0.30
Husband symptoms	−0.19 (0.78)	−0.24	0.02	0.11 (0.15)	0.73	0.06
Wife symptoms	3.80 (0.68)	5.57**	0.40	0.01 (0.09)	0.10	0.01

Note. Intercepts were significant p < .01 because the lowest possible score was greater than zero. Husbands’ and wives’ BPD scores were centered around their own mean. Effect size r = sqrt [t²/(t² + df)]; see Buck and Neff (2012) for example. N = 169 couples. df = 166 for all analyses.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

For the FFI-BPD (Table 3), the findings for wives replicated the PDQ-R results, such that wives’ FFI-BPD symptoms were associated with lower initial levels of marital satisfaction and higher levels of marital problems for themselves and for their husbands, and no effects were found for slopes. For husbands, significant effects emerged. Husbands’ FFI-BPD symptoms predicted lower levels for their own satisfaction intercept and steeper declines in their wives’ satisfaction slope. Husbands’ FFI-BPD symptoms also predicted higher problem intercepts for themselves and for their wives.⁴

Table 3.

Husbands’ and Wives’ BPD Symptoms and Marital Satisfaction and Problems Trajectories: Results from the FFI-BPD

	Intercept			Linear Slope
	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	r	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	r
Marital satisfaction
Husbands
Main effect	40.90 (0.33)	—	—	−0.41 (0.08)	−5.45**	0.39
Husband symptoms	−0.13 (0.05)	−2.71**	0.20	0.00 (0.01)	0.37	0.03
Wife symptoms	−0.14 (0.04)	−3.23**	0.24	0.00 (0.01)	−0.22	0.02
Wives
Main effect	41.52 (0.32)	—	—	−0.51 (0.08)	−6.51**	0.45
Husband symptoms	−0.06 (0.04)	−1.46	0.11	−0.02 (0.01)	−2.08*	0.16
Wife symptoms	−0.13 (0.04)	−3.62**	0.27	0.00 (0.01)	0.09	0.01
Marital problems
Husbands
Main effect	49.99 (1.41)	—	—	0.47 (0.27)	1.75	0.13
Husband symptoms	0.81 (0.20)	4.03**	0.30	−0.02 (0.03)	−0.46	0.04
Wife symptoms	0.59 (0.18)	3.21**	0.24	0.00 (0.03)	0.13	0.01
Wives
Main effect	44.65 (1.29)	—	—	1.13 (0.26)	4.37**	0.32
Husband symptoms	0.44 (0.15)	2.98**	0.22	0.04 (0.03)	1.35	0.10
Wife symptoms	0.81 (0.17)	4.77**	0.34	−0.01 (0.03)	−0.25	0.02

Note. Intercepts were significant p < .01 because the lowest possible score was greater than zero. Husbands’ and wives’ BPD scores were centered around their own mean. Effect size r = sqrt [t²/(t² + df)]. N = 172 couples. df = 169 for all analyses.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

BPD Symptoms and 10-Year Divorce Rates

Last, we used binary logistic regressions to examine whether BPD symptoms predicted 10-year divorce rates. Twenty-two percent of couples divorced by 10-year follow-up (n = 38). For both the PDQ-R and the FFI-BPD, husbands’ and wives’ BPD symptoms did not significantly predict divorce when analyzed individually, simultaneously, or with their interaction (all p > .05; see supplemental materials).

Discussion

Borderline personality disorder is consistently associated with relationship dysfunction, but empirical research on how it affects marriage over time is limited. These data from 172 couples assessed over the first 10 years of marriage provide new insights into BPD symptoms in the context of newlywed marriage. First, individuals reporting BPD symptoms tended to be married to partners who also reported more BPD symptoms, consistent with the hypothesis that individuals with BPD engage in assortative mating (Zanarini et al., 2015). It would be valuable for future studies to examine the mate selection processes leading to these pairings, and to further consider the impact of homophily on marital dynamics. Second, BPD symptoms were correlated with negative skills observed during problem-solving and social support tasks for wives (PDQ-R and FFI-BPD) and husbands (FFI-BPD only). These results build on prior findings in which couples in which the wife was diagnosed with BPD displayed more negative skills during problem-solving conversations than did nonclinical couples (de Montigny-Malenfant et al., 2013), and indicate that BPD symptoms are associated with heightened levels of negative communication among community samples as well.

Third, longitudinal data on marital quality and divorce allowed us to prospectively examine how BPD symptoms predicted how marriages unfolded over time. Wives’ BPD symptoms (PDQ-R and FFI-BPD) predicted worse intercepts for themselves and for their spouses, reflecting lower levels of marital satisfaction and higher levels of marital problems. Husbands’ FFI-BPD symptoms predicted worse problem intercepts for themselves and for their wives, worse satisfaction intercepts for themselves, and worse satisfaction slopes for their wives. Effects were in the small range for marital satisfaction and the small-to-moderate range for marital problems. All results remained significant when controlling for observed communication, except husbands’ FFI-BPD symptoms no longer predicted their wives’ satisfaction slopes. BPD symptoms did not predict 10-year divorce rates.

Before discussing the broader implications of these results, it is important to acknowledge some of the study’s limitations. First, although BPD symptoms were assessed with two measures, including one based on DSM-III-R symptoms (PDQ-R) and one that was more trait based (FFI-BPD), additional research is needed using other more rigorous assessments, including semi-structured diagnostic interviews (e.g., Weinstein et al., 2012) and informant reports (South et al., 2008), to provide a more robust assessment of BPD symptoms. Given that results for husbands differed across our two assessment measures, these other assessments will also be valuable for clarifying the nature of these effects for men.⁵ Second, this was a community sample of newlywed couples. Additional research is needed on the newlywed trajectories of clinical samples with greater symptom severity (e.g., Zanarini et al., 2015). Finally, our study captures only a portion of a marital relationship. Additional data on marital quality beyond the fourth year of marriage, and on divorce rates beyond the tenth year of marriage, would be valuable.

Notwithstanding these limitations, these findings have significant implications for our understanding of how BPD symptoms affect marital functioning. Most importantly, the longitudinal analyses indicated that the impairment associated with BPD symptoms was typically present from the beginning of couples’ marriages. Over time, BPD symptoms were significantly correlated with spouses’ own marital quality and their partners’ marital quality (see supplemental material), indicating that couples with more BPD symptoms were relatively more distressed than other couples throughout the newlywed years. However, these significant correlations were primarily due to the initial association between BPD symptoms and marital quality (significant intercepts) rather than differential changes in functioning over time, as there was only one significant slope effect (husband FFI-BPD to wives’ satisfaction). Thus, consistent with the enduring dynamics model of marital functioning in which couples’ difficulties arise early in marriage and are maintained over time (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001), BPD symptoms generally impair marital quality early on, with lasting effects as time passes.

Higher levels of BPD symptoms did not predict increased risk of divorce, which differs from some research showing associations between BPD symptoms and divorce (Whisman & Schonbrun, 2009, but see Disney et al., 2012). Importantly, our findings were not an artifact of differential attrition; the difference in results may instead be due to the age of our sample, raising the possibility that more divorces could occur later on, or because prior work used cross-sectional designs that could not examine causality in the manner tested here. Regardless, these couples’ ability to maintain intact marriages across 10 years is noteworthy. This pattern could indicate some degree of adaptation, but also suggests that individuals higher in BPD symptoms may be unwilling or unable to leave more troubled marriages, consistent with research indicating that anxiously attached individuals whose partners do not meet their needs are less likely to end their relationships (Slotter & Finkel, 2009). Future research is needed to explore the individual and relational outcomes associated with remaining in these more distressing marriages.

Taken together, these results indicate that BPD symptoms impair couples’ functioning, and that relational distress was typically present early in couples’ marriages. These findings underscore the importance of examining relationship functioning prospectively and longitudinally to understand how BPD symptoms affect marital functioning, and call for further research examining the processes by which BPD affects marital dynamics.

General Scientific Summary.

Individuals higher in borderline personality disorder (BPD) symptoms report dysfunctional romantic relationships, including poorer communication and lower levels of relationship quality. This study indicates that individuals higher in BPD symptoms tend to marry other individuals high in BPD symptoms; that problematic communication patterns can be observed during couple interactions; and that lower levels of relationship quality are present from the beginning of marriage rather than emerging gradually over time.