Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2019 Feb 14;33(5):597–606. doi: 10.1037/fam0000512

Beyond Destructive Conflict: Implications of Marital Tension for Marital Well-being

Jasmine A Manalel a,*, Kira S Birditt b, Terri L Orbuch c, Toni C Antonucci b,d
PMCID: PMC6663571  NIHMSID: NIHMS1015758  PMID: 30762408

Abstract

The present study expanded upon existing literature to investigate a broader construct of negativity, marital tension, and its implications for marital well-being across the early years of marriage. Marital tension captures feelings of irritation, resentment, and disappointment surrounding the relationship, and is distinct from conflict and specific conflict strategies. Longitudinal data spanning 16 years from the Early Years of Marriage Study (n = 373 couples) were analyzed using actor-partner interdependence models. Competing hypotheses derived from the enduring dynamics and emergent distress models of marriage were tested using measures of both partners’ marital tension in Year 1 of marriage, as well as changes in marital tension from Year 1. Husbands and wives who reported greater marital tension in Year 1 of marriage, or showed increases in tension from Year 1, reported lower marital well-being. The link between respondents’ own Year 1 tension and marital well-being was strengthened by their partners’ reports of tension, but an amplification effect of both partners’ changes in marital tension was observed only among wives. These results persisted even after accounting for the influence of destructive conflict. Findings provide evidence for both models of marriage, indicating that negativity should be assessed more broadly, include both members of the couple, and recognize the critical role of early marital tension as well as increased tension for marital well-being.

Keywords: marriage, tension, marital satisfaction, dyadic, longitudinal

Marriages are often characterized by their positive and negative dimensions in terms of whether they are supportive and satisfying and/or conflictual and tense (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). Prior research has empirically demonstrated that positive and negative dimensions are not simply opposite ends of the same continuum, but rather distinct constructs (Fincham & Linfield, 1997; Galinsky & Waite, 2014; Rogge, Fincham, Crasta, & Maniaci, 2016). Indeed, individuals often experience simultaneously positive and negative feelings towards their spouse (Fingerman, Hay, Birditt, & Hay, 2004).

In this study, marital well-being is defined as a multifaceted construct that captures the positive dimension of the marital tie, including marital happiness, marital satisfaction, and perceived relationship stability (Crohan & Veroff, 1989; Veroff, Douvan, & Hatchett, 1995). Marital tension, on the other hand, encompasses a wide range of negative emotions, cognitions, and perceptions associated with the spousal tie, including irritation, disappointment, and resentment, capturing a negative dimension of marital relations (Birditt, Wan, Orbuch, & Antonucci, 2017). In a departure from the literature on negativity within marriage, we argue that it is distinct from conflict and specific conflict strategies.

Most research has converged on three types of conflict strategies: constructive, destructive, and withdrawal (Birditt, Brown, Orbuch, & McIlvane, 2010; Kurdek, 1995). Constructive behaviors entail overtly positive reactions to conflict, like active listening and calmly discussing the problem, whereas withdrawal behaviors describe maladaptive disengagement from conflict, such as keeping quiet or avoiding the problem (Birditt et al., 2010). Destructive conflict behaviors are overtly negative reactions, including yelling and criticism. In the present study we focus on destructive conflict behaviors because they are particularly damaging to marital well-being, having been linked to lower marital satisfaction (Kurdek, 1995) and divorce (Birditt et al., 2010; Gottman et al., 1998). Extensive work on destructive conflict captures a key behavioral component of spousal relations, but research on affective and cognitive components is more limited (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). We sought to address this limitation with our measure of marital tension, a broader measure of negativity within marriage. Although distinct, the positive and negative aspects of marital quality are related, but the extent to which they are linked over time is unclear. The present study examines whether couples’ reports of marital tension are associated with marital well-being across the first sixteen years of marriage.

Theoretical Framework

This study is guided by two competing models of marriage, the enduring dynamics (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000) and emergent distress model (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001). According to the enduring dynamic model, partners’ patterns of behavior are established early in their relationship and remain stable throughout the course of marriage (Caughlin et al., 2000). The rationale for this model is that couples are aware of each other’s shortcomings early in the relationship and marry despite them, thus maintaining the same patterns of behavior over time. In contrast, the emergent distress model of marriage posits that couples begin with mostly positive feelings toward each other and about the marriage, but as the relationship progresses, negative feelings emerge and increase. Previous longitudinal studies have shown evidence of increased negativity among married individuals over time (Birditt et al., 2017; Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006). Many empirical tests of this theory operationalize “distress” as overt conflict or marital problems (Lavner, Karney, & Bradbury, 2014). In a departure from this literature, we assert that marital tension more broadly captures feelings of negativity about the spousal relationship that occur throughout a marriage.

In the present study, we used these models of marriage to make different predictions about how marital tension is linked to marital well-being across the first sixteen years of marriage (Supplemental Figure 1). Depending on which model of marriage is being tested, tension must be examined differently: (1) marital tension in the first year of marriage; and (2) changes in marital tension from the first year of marriage to each subsequent year. Each of these measures of tension focuses on a different mechanism through which marital tension is linked to marital well-being. The enduring dynamics model of marriage suggests that initial evaluations of tension in the first year of marriage will have a lasting effect on marital well-being in subsequent years. In contrast, the emergent distress model suggests that increases in marital tension, rather than the initial feelings, will be associated with decreased marital well-being over the course of a marriage. In other words, changes in marital tension will have an effect on marital well-being beyond the initial level of tension at the beginning of marriage.

The present study also draws upon interdependence theory, which suggests that, to the extent that a couple is interdependent, each partner has the ability to influence the other’s outcomes (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Individuals’ own feelings of tension may erode feelings of happiness and perceptions of stability in marriage, perhaps by causing them to experience less intimacy, fewer positive interactions, and less support. Individuals’ perceptions of marital well-being may be influenced by their partners’ feelings of marital tension in a similar manner. For example, individuals might express marital tension by withdrawing, acting moody, or expressing disappointment, thereby causing the partner to evaluate the marriage less positively. Such dyadic crossover effects are often found among spouses (Neff & Karney, 2007). It is also important to examine individual and partner perceptions simultaneously in terms of whether those perceptions are concordant or discordant. One’s own feelings of tension may have a stronger impact on marital well-being when his/her partner also feels greater tension. In addition, dyads can have different perceptions of the same relationship (e.g., Acitelli, Douvan, & Veroff, 1993). Thus, we consider both the individual’s and their spouse’s perceptions of marital tension when evaluating implications for marital well-being.

Implications of Marital Tension for Marital Well-Being

Previous studies linking conflict behaviors and resolutions strategies to various components of marital well-being, while informative, focus on a relatively narrow scope of negativity (Gottman et al., 1998; Kulik, Walfisch, & Liberman, 2016; Schneewind & Gerhard, 2002). Feelings of marital tension can vary in terms of frequency and intensity, like conflicts, but tension is often more subtle than overt conflict, making it a more understated and insidious form of negativity. In addition, couples may experience conflict infrequently but still harbor negative thoughts and feelings about each other or their relationship. Marital tension captures a broader scope of negativity, whether it stems directly from conflict or otherwise. We predict that feelings of marital tension will be linked to marital well-being, over and above destructive conflict.

Tension has been examined in other close social ties, namely intergenerational relationships, with implications for a number of outcomes, ranging from physiological to psychosocial (e.g., Birditt, Manalel, Kim, Zarit, & Fingerman, 2017). Results from a recent study on marital tension revealed that higher levels of marital tension as well as increases in marital tension as reported by wives, but not husbands, were associated with a greater likelihood of divorce (Birditt et al., 2017). In contrast, levels of tension in the first year of marriage and average level of tension over the course of marriage were not associated with divorce. Findings from this study are congruent with the emergent distress model of marriage, but not with the enduring dynamics model, and suggest that increases in marital tension will be associated with lower marital well-being over time.

Many dyadic investigations of marriage suggest that the strongest effects occur when both partners report similar behaviors (e.g., conflict resolution strategies) or evaluations (Birditt et al., 2010; Kurdek, 1995). The concept of negative reciprocity describes the multiplicative effect or concordance of both partners’ behaviors on marital well-being. Negativity expressed and perceived by both partners might be particularly damaging to marital well-being. According to negative reciprocity, the compounding effect of both partners’ marital tension would result in stronger links between marital tension and marital well-being when both partners report high levels of or increases in marital tension.

Gender Differences in the Effects of Marital Tension

Gender differences in marital tension and marital well-being are not well understood. The research to date is inconclusive regarding whether husbands or wives are more negatively affected by marital tension. One body of literature suggests that wives are more affected by their husbands’ stress (Almeida & Kessler, 1998), emotions (Larson & Almeida, 1999), and opinions of the relationship (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994) than the reverse. However, a recent meta-analysis showed no evidence of gender differences in the effects of negative quality spousal ties on physical health (Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014), and other studies suggest that husbands are more affected by the negative aspects of their relationships than wives (Birditt, Newton, Cranford, & Ryan, 2016; Boerner, Jopp, Carr, Sosinsky, & Kim, 2014). In the present study we examine whether there are gender differences in the effects of marital tension on marital well-being, but we do not make specific predictions regarding the direction of effects.

Sociodemographic and Life Course Factors

We also consider sociodemographic characteristics and life course variables that can contribute to evaluations of marital well-being and include them as covariates. Studies of marital well-being have found that Black individuals report lower levels of marital happiness (Birditt, Hope, Brown, & Orbuch, 2012; Broman, 2005) and higher rates of divorce (Orbuch, Veroff, Hassan, & Horrocks, 2002). Crohan and Veroff (1989) found that higher income and higher educational attainment were both linked to increased marital well-being. Similarly, Orbuch et al. (2002) found that higher education was protective against divorce, indicating that educational attainment is linked to marital stability. Cohabitation before marriage and presence of premarital children have been found to be associated with lower levels of marital happiness, marital quality, and higher likelihood of divorce (Crohan & Veroff, 1989; Timmer & Orbuch, 2001).

Present Study

This study contributes to the existing literature by examining marital tension and its implications for marital well-being within couples across the first sixteen years of marriage using longitudinal data from newlywed couples. It extends previous research and addresses limitations in a number of ways. First, we look beyond the presence of marital conflict and examine marital tension. Furthermore, past research frequently examines divorce as the main outcome, thus assessing the longevity of marriage rather than individuals’ subjective evaluations of their marriages. Next, many studies of marital well-being assess married individuals, rather than couples. By using reports from both husbands and wives in the present study, we are able to assess partner effects of marital tension, as well as gender differences within couples, in the link between marital tension and marital well-being. Finally, although the number of longitudinal studies assessing the marital dyad is growing, relatively few studies go beyond the first few years of marriage. By leveraging unique data and study design, we addressed two main questions:

  1. Is marital tension associated with lower levels of marital well-being among couples across the first 16 years of marriage, and do these links vary by gender? We test competing hypotheses derived from the enduring dynamics and emergent distress models of marriage. Specifically, we examine the implications of marital tension in the first year of marriage, as well as the implications of changes in marital tension from the first year of marriage, for marital well-being in subsequent years. In addition to the main effects of individuals’ own and partners’ marital tension on marital well-being, we also predict that individuals’ reports of marital tension will be moderated by those of their partners.

  2. Is marital tension associated with marital well-being beyond the use of destructive conflict strategies? We hypothesize that even after accounting for both partners’ use of destructive conflict, individual and partner reports of marital tension, as well as their interaction, will still be associated with lower marital well-being.

Method

Participants

Participants are from the Early Years of Marriage Study (EYM), which began in 1986. The data collection was funded by NICHD (R01 HD40778; Orbuch, PI) and was approved by the University Institutional Review Board. Couples were re-interviewed in Years 2, 3, 4, 7, and 16. The original sample of couples was recruited from those who applied for a marriage license in Wayne County, Michigan from April through June 1986 (Veroff et al., 1995). It included 746 individuals in 373 newlywed couples (174 White American and 199 Black American) in their first marriage in Year 1. On average, husbands were age 27 and wives were age 24. They were interviewed between the first four to nine months of marriage. We compared the EYM sample to the General Social Survey (GSS) data from 1980–1994, which is a nationally representative sample, and found that there were no differences between the EYM sample and the GSS first married sample by race, income, education, likelihood of cohabitation, parental status, and employment status (see Orbuch et al., 2002). This indicates that our initial sample was representative of the married U.S. population in general. Participants completed face-to-face interviews in their homes with race-matched interviewers in Years 1, 3, 7 and 16, and brief telephone interviews in Years 2 and 4. Spouses were interviewed separately and then together as a couple.

Attrition.

The response rate varied across waves with an average of 80% of the original sample participating (range 70–93%; calculated by dividing the total number of husbands or wives interviewed by the number eligible to participate). The divorce rate increased over time from 9% in Year 2 to 46% by Year 16. The response rate for Year 16 was 75% (n = 528), which included 320 married individuals (130 Black, 190 White). This attrition rate is consistent with other longitudinal studies, such as the National Survey of Families and Households, which reports a 23% attrition rate for Blacks and a 15% rate for Whites from 1987 to 1994.

Divorced participants were not asked to report on their marital tensions. Due to both divorce and attrition, response rates for the marital tension items decreased over time: 99.6% in Year 1, 91.4% in Year 2, 65.7% in Year 3, 63.9% in Year 4, 45.2% in Year 7, and 42.8% in Year 16. A total of 226 participants (30.3%) had all six waves of data, 131 (17.6%) had five, 118 (15.8%) had four, 80 (10.7%) had three, 139 (18.6%) had two, and 52 (7.0%) participants had one wave. Hence, the majority of respondents (n = 555; 74.4%) had at least three waves of data. The present study included those couples who had at least two years, including Year 1, of marital tension and marital well-being data for both members of the dyad, resulting in 676 participants in 338 couples (see Table 1 for sample description). These selection criteria ensured that respondents would have complete data for both measures of marital tension. To assess the power of the models including multiple waves of data, a power analysis was conducted using an effective sample size which considered the dyadic, longitudinal data (N = 117 couples x 6 waves + 65 × 5 + 59 × 4 + 38 × 3 + 58 × 2; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Using a design effect of 3.38 (Birditt et al., 2010), the effective sample size (1493/3.38) is 441.7. With a multilevel model including 16 predictors, we have a power of .96 to detect effect sizes as small as .04.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics on Sociodemographics and Marital Evaluations (n = 676 individuals)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 7 Year 16
H W H W H W H W H W H W
Marital Tension M 2.36 2.52 2.25 2.45 2.38 2.60 2.16 2.47 2.48 2.65 2.54 2.47
SD 0.75 0.74 0.80 0.78 0.71 0.71 0.78 0.81 0.65 0.67 0.74 0.76
n 338 338 331 333 243 247 232 241 167 169 158 158
Paired t-test t 3.42*** 3.91*** 4.00*** 4.61*** 2.80** −0.83
Marital well-being M 3.69 3.67 3.59 3.52 3.62 3.51 3.60 3.50 3.60 3.56 3.56 3.54
SD 0.43 0.45 0.57 0.65 0.51 0.61 0.57 0.69 0.47 0.54 0.52 0.59
n 338 338 331 333 260 263 232 241 169 170 159 158
Paired t-test t −0.85 −2.18* −3.83*** −1.88 −1.40 −0.86
Destructive Conflict M 1.91 2.07 1.94 2.09 1.79 1.96 1.82 1.83
SD 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.75 0.59 0.71 0.70 0.67
n 241 267 234 233 158 158 141 141
Paired t-test t 3.43*** 2.90** 3.16** 0.11
Sociodemographics
Age (Years) M 26.01 24.04
SD 4.02 3.78
Black % 50.6
Household Income
 Under 20,000 % 24.6 24.6
 20,000–40,000 % 42.3 44.1
 Above 40,000 % 29.0 26.0
Education (Years) M 13.18 13.20
SD 1.91 1.87
Cohabited (Months) M 11.23 10.72
SD 20.26 19.37
Premarital children % 33.1 38.5
Open in a new tab

Notes: H = Husbands; W = Wives. Differences between husbands and wives at each wave were tested using paired t-tests.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001;

A selection analysis comparing the respondents who were included with those who were removed revealed that the analytic sample reported more years of education (t = −3.28, p < .001), greater income (t = −3.15, p <.01), were more likely to be White (χ(1)= 22.04, p < .001), and less likely to have premarital children (χ(1)= 9.13, p < .01). There were no significant differences in age (t = 0.56, ns) or months of cohabitation (t = 1.41, ns).

Measures

Marital well-being.

In Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 16, participants completed five marital well-being items including: how happy would you describe your marriage (very happy [1] to not too happy [4]); how certain would you say you are that the two of you will be married five years from now (very certain [1] to not at all certain [4]); how stable do you feel your marriage is (very stable [1] to not at all stable [4]); how often have you considered leaving in the last few months (often [1] to never [4]); and how satisfied are you with your marriage (very satisfied [1] to very dissatisfied [4]). All items were reverse-coded with the exception of considering leaving and were averaged so that a higher score indicated greater marital well-being (Crohan & Veroff, 1989; Veroff et al., 1995). Alphas ranged from .85 to .90 for wives and from .82 to .87 for husbands demonstrating excellent reliability across all years of the study.

Marital tension.

In Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 16, participants indicated how frequently in the past month they felt irritated or resentful about things their spouses did or did not do, and how frequently they felt tense from fighting, arguing, or disagreeing with their spouses from often (1) to never (4). These items were reverse-coded and averaged so that higher scores indicated greater marital tension (Veroff et al., 1995). Due to the 2-item scales, Spearman-Brown coefficients were calculated to estimate reliability at each wave (Cortina, 1993), and were an average of .71 for wives (range = .66 −.77) and .65 for husbands (range= .55 −.71). The two measures of tension used in the present study were Year 1 tension and change in tension from Year 1, which was computed by subtracting Year 1 tension from tension reported in each subsequent year (i.e., Years 2, 3, 4, 7, and 16). It should be noted that this change score captures change from only Year 1, versus trajectories of change. Positive change scores reflected an increase in marital tension from Year 1, whereas negative scores reflected a decrease.

Destructive conflict behaviors.

Participants indicated how true each statement was of their last disagreement from not at all true (1) to very true (4). Destructive conflict behaviors included four items, which were averaged to create a single score for destructive conflict: I yelled and shouted at my spouse; I insulted my spouse or called him or her names; I brought up things that happened long ago; and I had to have the last word. The scale was included in Years 1, 3, 7, and 16 and was internally consistent across the years (α = .60 – .74). Similar to marital tension, two measures were used in the analysis, destructive conflict in Year 1 and changes in destructive conflict from Year 1 to each subsequent year (i.e., Years 3, 7, and 16).

To more precisely identify the underlying latent constructs of the 11 items measuring marital tension, marital well-being, and destructive conflict, we conducted a factor analysis using principal axis factoring with a varimax rotation. All items had primary loadings over 0.3. Factor 1 represented marital well-being, Factor 2 represented destructive conflict, and Factor 3 represented marital tension, verifying that the factor structure is consistent with how these constructs were operationalized in the present study (Supplemental Table 1).

Time.

Time was coded as the year of marriage in which data were collected, including years 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 16, and centered on Year 1.

Sociodemographic factors.

A number of sociodemographic characteristics assessed in Year 1 were used as covariates. Age measured the participant’s age in 1986 (year 1 of marriage). Race was coded dichotomously as Black (1) and White (−1). For household income, participants indicated the total income of all members of their household in 1986 before taxes (i.e., salaries, dividends, interest) based on a series of income ranges. The possible income ranges were finely defined at the lower income ranges (e.g., $3,000-$4,999) to broader ranges at the highest income ranges (e.g., $60,000-$74,999). The midpoints of these categories were used as the scores to approximate a continuous variable. Income was log transformed due to a positive skew. Education measured educational attainment in years as of 1986 ranging from 0 to 17+ (graduate and professional degrees). Months of cohabitation was measured as the number of months participants lived with their partner prior to their marriage in 1986. Presence of premarital children was coded to indicate whether participants had children prior to marriage (1) or not (−1).

Analysis Strategy

Descriptive statistics (Table 1) and correlations (Supplemental Table 2) were calculated for the study variables at each of the six years of assessment. A series of t-tests were conducted to examine whether there were differences between husbands (H) and wives (W) in marital tension, marital well-being, and destructive conflict at each wave. In preparation for the multilevel analysis, we ensured that all statistical assumptions (e.g., homogeneity of variances, normality of residuals) were met through visual inspection of graphs. We also explored the correlations across all study variables and found multicollinearity (r ≥ .90) would not be a concern for subsequent analyses.

Research questions were addressed using longitudinal Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (APIMs; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006), and estimated with multilevel modeling using MIXED in SPSS Version 25.0. The APIM consists of two components: the actor effect describes the unique effect of a person’s own predictor on his or her own outcome, whereas the partner effect describes the unique effect of their partner’s predictor on the actor’s outcome. Although longitudinal dyadic data consists of three conceptual levels of analysis (i.e., time, individual, and dyad), the estimated multilevel models have two levels. The lower level represents variability due to within person repeated measures and the upper level represents variability across couples (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). To address the research questions, the time-varying predictors of marital tension and destructive conflict were represented with two separate variables in order to model the effects of person-level differences (level 2, or Year 1) and time-level changes (level 1, or change from Year 1) (Hoffman, 2015; Hoffman & Stawski, 2009). The within-person variables have time-specific values that at Years 2, 3, 4, 7, and 16 reflect the deviance from the person-specific Year 1 value, measuring change in marital tension from Year 1 of marriage to each subsequent year. The between-person variables were grand-mean centered to have identical values across all waves that reflect the deviance at Year 1 from the initial sample mean (i.e., where 0 represents the sample mean). Similarly, all continuous, time-invariant Year 1 covariates were grand-mean centered, whereas all categorical variables were effect-coded (1, −1).

The following analysis treated couples as distinguishable by gender, based on results from maximum likelihood estimation indicating that the constraints required for an indistinguishable model significantly worsened model fit relative to treating gender as distinguishable. Separate intercepts and slopes of actor and partner tension were estimated for husbands and wives. The longitudinal APIM allowed us to test both actor and partner effects of marital tension on marital well-being within each wave across 16 years of marriage with the repeated observations serving to strengthen the precision of the estimates of actor and partner effects (Kashy & Donnellan, 2012). Gender differences in the effects of marital tension were assessed using additional test statements within the MIXED command in conjunction with graphs. Random effects in the model included random intercepts for husbands and wives, random slopes for actor tension for husbands and wives, and residual variances. Four covariances were also estimated between partners’: (1) intercepts, (2) slopes for actor Year 1 tension, (3) slopes for actor change from Year 1 tension, and (4) residuals. The model also allowed for correlated errors between husbands and wives within each year using a heterogeneous compound error structure (CSH). Autocorrelation of the residuals was taken into account by including the actor’s marital well-being reported in the previous year in the models.

Models addressing the first research aim were estimated in two steps. First, we considered whether marital tension of both partners, Year 1 tension (level-2 effect) and changes in tension from Year 1 (level-1 effect), were associated with marital well-being within each year (Model 1). Next, we included interactions between actor and partner tension to assess whether partner tension moderated the influence of actor tension on marital well-being for both measures of tension (Year 1 and change from Year 1; Model 2). To address the second aim, both partners’ reports of destructive conflict were added to the model as predictors, represented with a Year 1 level-2 effect variable and a change from Year 1 level-1 effect. Because destructive conflict was only measured in Years 1, 3, 7, and 16, this model included a smaller sample of couples with at least two years of data on destructive conflict (n = 324 individuals in 162 couples). Covariates included time and several Year 1 factors: race, age, education, presence of premarital children, months of cohabitation before marriage, household income. Model fit of nested models was assessed by subtracting the −2 log likelihood estimations of models and examining differences on a chi-square distribution with degrees of freedom equaling the change in number of parameters (Singer & Willett, 2003). This also provides a measure of effect size, as there is no clear consensus in the literature for how effect sizes should be estimated in multilevel models.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for marital tension, marital well-being, and destructive conflict at each wave. Overall, husbands and wives reported low levels of tension. Tension was greater among wives than husbands in all years except for Year 16, as revealed by t-tests. Marital well-being was moderate to high in all years, and wives reported lower marital well-being than husbands in Years 2 and 3. Destructive conflict strategies were relatively infrequent and wives reported greater use of destructive conflict strategies than husbands in Years 1, 3 and 7. A correlation matrix between marital well-being, marital tension, and destructive conflict shows that although these constructs are related, they remain distinct (Supplemental Table 2). Marital tension negatively correlated with marital well-being in each year, ranging from moderate to strong (r range = −.63 to −.43 for husbands and −.65 to −.45 for wives). Marital tension was positively correlated with destructive conflict, ranging from small to moderate (r range = .28 to .40 for husbands and .19 to .38 for wives).

Marital Well-Being over Time as a Function of Marital Tension

Results of the longitudinal APIM examining links between Year 1 tension and marital well-being revealed that there were significant main effects of actor and partner marital tension for both husbands and wives (Table 2; Model 1). Respondents reported lower marital well-being when they (husbands: b = −0.30, p < .001; wives: b = −0.41, p < .001) and their partners (husbands: b = −0.14, p < .001; wives: b = −0.14, p < .001) reported greater tension in Year 1. Simple slope analyses revealed that the actor effect was greater for wives than for husbands. The negative effect of their own Year 1 marital tension on marital well-being was stronger for wives than for husbands. Model 2 revealed a significant actor by partner interaction of Year 1 marital tension for husbands and wives. Individual tension was associated with lower marital well-being especially when partners also reported high tension (Figure 1). Tests of gender differences were not significant, indicating that the link between individuals’ evaluations of Year 1 tension and marital well-being over time was moderated by partners’ Year 1 tension for both husbands (Figure 1A) and wives (Figure 1B). These results are consistent with the predictions based on the enduring dynamics model of marriage regarding the long-lasting influence of Year 1 tension. Changes in marital tension from Year 1 also showed significant actor and partner main effects on marital well-being over time (Table 2; Model 1). For years in which husbands (b = −27, p < .001) and wives (b = −34, p < .001) reported increases in marital tension from Year 1, as well as years in which their partners (husbands: b = −0.11, p < .001; wives: b = −0.15, p < .001) reported increases in marital tension, marital well-being was lower. In other words, increases in marital tension from Year 1 were associated with lower marital well-being. There were no significant gender differences in the link between changes in tension and marital well-being. Further, we observed an interaction between the effects of actor and partner changes in marital tension from Year 1 (Table 2; Model 2). Analyses of simple slopes indicated a significant gender difference such that this interaction was observed among wives only (Figure 2). Wives reported the lowest levels of marital well-being in years in which both they and their husbands reported increases in tension from Year 1. These findings were consistent with the prediction based on the emergent distress model of marriage, but only for wives.

Table 2.

Marital Well-being Across 16 Years of Marriage as a Function of Year 1 Marital Tension and Changes from Year 1 (N = 676 individuals in 338 couples)

Model 1 b (SE) Model 2 b (SE)
Husband Wife Husband Wife
Intercept 3.57***
(0.02)		 3.50***
(0.03)		 3.58***
(0.02)		 3.52***
(0.03)
Y1 Tension
 Actor −0.30*** (0.03) −0.41*** (0.04) ^ −0.29*** (0.03) −0.42*** (0.04) ^
 Partner −0.14*** (0.03) −0.14*** (0.03) −0.15*** (0.03) −0.13*** (0.03)
 Actor x Partner −0.07*
(0.04)		 −0.09*
(0.04)
Change in Tension from Y1
 Actor −0.27***
(0.02)		 −0.34***
(0.03)		 −0.27***
(0.02)		 −0.33***
(0.03)
 Partner −0.11***
(0.02)		 −0.15*** (0.02) −0.11*** (0.02) −0.14*** (0.02)
 Actor x Partner −0.02 (0.02) −0.10*** (0.02) ^
Covariates
Time −0.002
(0.003)		 −0.001
(0.003)		 −0.002
(0.003)		 −0.0002 (0.003)
Previous Marital WB 0.10***
(0.03)		 0.17***
(0.03)		 0.10***
(0.03)		 0.17***
(0.03)
Variance estimates
Intercept 0.01 (0.01)* 0.02 (0.01)* 0.01 (0.01)* 0.02 (0.01)*
Y1 Actor Tension 0.03**
(0.01)		 0.05**
(0.02)		 0.03**
(0.01)		 0.05**
(0.02)
Change in Tension 0.04*** (0.01) 0.05*** (0.01) 0.04***
(0.01)		 0.05*** (0.01)
Within residual 0.10*** (0.01) 0.13*** (0.01) 0.11***
(0.01)		 0.14*** (0.01)
-2LL 1850.849 1826.607
-2LL change 469.235*** 24.242***
Open in a new tab

Notes. −2LL = −2 log likelihood. Y1 = Year 1. b = unstandardized beta. SE = Standard Error.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

^

test of difference in slopes between husbands and wives is statistically significant. −2LL change for Model 1 represents change from covariate only model (−2LL = 2320.084).

Models also controlled for age (years), education (years), income (log), cohabitation (months), and presence of premarital children for both actor and partner, and couple race (1=Black).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Predicted marital well-being over time for husbands (A) and wives (B) as a function of their own and their partners’ marital tension in Year 1. 1A) Simple slopes for Wife Year 1 Tension Low: b = −0.24, t = −6.85, p < .001; High: b = −0.35, t = −8.17, p < .001. 1B) Simple slopes for Husband Year 1 Tension Low: b = −0.35, t = −7.37, p < .001; High: b = −0.48, t = −9.19, p < .001.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Predicted marital well-being for wives as a function of their own and their husbands’ changes in tension from Year 1. Simple slopes for husband tension increase: b = 0.49, t = 12.32, p < .001; Simple slope for husband tension decrease: b = 0.23, t = 6.21, p < .001

Role of Destructive Conflict

Finally, we estimated the model described above, controlling for both partners’ use of destructive conflict strategies to determine whether marital tension was associated with marital well-being after accounting for destructive conflict (Supplemental Table 3). To do this we first re-estimated the models above with and without destructive conflict using a sample with complete data on destructive conflict (n = 324). The marital tension findings with the smaller sample were somewhat different from the full sample, most likely due to reduced power of the smaller sample. Specifically, the interaction between actor and partner Year 1 tension was no longer significant for husbands or wives. Similarly, although the actor by partner interaction of change in marital tension from Year 1 yielded the same pattern of results, the test of the gender difference was no longer statistically significant. When destructive conflict was added to the model, model fit did not significantly improve (χ (4) = 7.26, n.s.) and destructive conflict was not associated with marital well-being. The same pattern of findings remained indicating that marital tension was associated with marital well-being beyond destructive conflict.

Discussion

The present study investigated a broader construct of negativity, marital tensions, and its implications for marital well-being throughout the early years of marriage. In doing so, it expanded upon existing literature on conflict and conflict strategies within marriage. In particular, this study revealed that marital tension is uniquely associated with marital well-being above and beyond destructive conflict. Findings also suggest that it is important to examine marital tension of both members of the couple. Indeed, tension appears to be particularly damaging when it is experienced simultaneously by both members of the couple.

Links Between Marital Tension and Marital Well-Being

In order to test both the enduring dynamics model of marriage and the emergent distress model of marriage, we examined the effects of Year 1 marital tension and change in tension from Year 1. Results of the present study indicated that initial levels of marital tension as well as changes in tension throughout marriage were associated with marital well-being, providing evidence for both models of marriage and suggesting that these are not necessarily competing models. Rather, both models might describe distinct, but simultaneous, mechanisms by which marital tension influences marital well-being. Further, nuanced findings on the gender differences in these effects suggest that these mechanisms vary between husbands and wives.

Enduring dynamics.

Reports of higher levels of marital tension in Year 1 were associated with lower marital well-being over time. The lasting influence of Year 1 tension is consistent with the enduring dynamics model of marriage, which posits that behaviors early in marriage are stable and exert influences on marital well-being over time. Further, there was evidence of interaction effects between actor and partner reports of Year 1 tensions for husbands and wives, indicating a long-term cumulative effect of both partners’ evaluations of marital tension on marital well-being. The negative reciprocity model provides an explanation for the compounding effects of both partners’ feelings of Year 1 tension on marital well-being. According to this model, the negativity of one partner increases that of the other partner, resulting in reciprocal feelings of tension (Gottman, 1994). An alternative, but related, explanation is escalation, whereby one partner’s negativity is met with more intense negative feelings by the other partner (Gottman et al., 1998). The interactive effect of both partners’ marital tension on marital well-being is similar to other findings that demonstrate amplification effects of couples’ concordant behaviors or feelings (e.g., Birditt et al., 2010).

Emergent distress.

The inverse relationship between increases in marital tension and marital well-being is consistent with the emergent distress model, which suggests that when negativity between spouses emerges and increases, the quality of the marriage is eroded (Birditt et al., 2010; Huston et al., 2001). Furthermore, increases in marital tension were associated with the lowest levels of marital well-being among wives for years in which their husbands also reported an increase in marital tension. In contrast to Year 1 tension, the cumulative effect of changes in tension was observed only among wives. The gender differences observed in the interactive effect of actor and partner marital tension were consistent with findings suggesting that wives are more negatively influenced by fluctuations in their husband’s tension than the reverse. Women have long been referred to as the barometer of the spousal relationship (Floyd & Markman, 1983) and may be more sensitive to both partners’ feelings of tension. Negative reciprocity and escalation may be particularly harmful to wives’ feelings of satisfaction and happiness in marriage. These findings reiterate that the emergent distress model describes the link between marital tension and marital well-being especially for wives.

Implications for Research & Practice

Even when taking into account destructive conflict and changes in destructive conflict, the same pattern of findings remained for marital tension. The marriage literature focuses on marital conflict and its impact on marital well-being, including the dimensions of happiness, satisfaction, and stability. Destructive conflict strategies have been shown to be particularly harmful to marital well-being. Few studies make the distinction between underlying tension and overt conflict. While most previous tests of various models of marriage have examined conflict behaviors (Birditt et al., 2010) or marital problems (Lavner et al., 2014), the present study examined negativity more broadly through the measure of marital tension. Results from the present study, however, show the unique implications of broader marital tension and suggest that it is indeed a distinct construct that should be considered in research and in clinical practice. Like conflict, it can vary in terms of intensity and frequency, but it is not always overt. Despite its subtleties, marital tension is harmful to marital well-being beyond destructive conflict, and should be given consideration in research on negativity within the spousal tie.

Furthermore, most previous studies test the assumption that marital distress leads to divorce, however, marital longevity is not the only indicator of marital success. In this study we focused on marital well-being and demonstrated that negativity in the marriage does indeed have a negative impact on individuals’ assessment of the quality of their marriage. It is important to evaluate not only marital longevity, but also marital well-being given it is significantly linked to a multitude of health and well-being outcomes (Kamp, Taylor, Kroeger, & Dush, 2014; Robles et al., 2014). Stable, but unhappy marriages are not uncommon, and have been shown to be detrimental to physical and mental health, and psychological well-being (Chapman & Guven, 2016; Davila & Bradbury, 2001). Findings of the present study clarify and extend the enduring dynamics and emergent distress models of marriage to additional domains of marital functioning. This study also examines a possible mechanism by which marital tension leads to divorce, marital well-being, a potential target of interventions in clinical or therapeutic settings.

Our findings provide corroborating evidence that it is essential to consider both partners’ perspectives when evaluating marital tension. An individual’s marital well-being was influenced by his/her own reports of marital tension as well as his/her partner’s reports, as hypothesized based on interdependence theory. This finding contributes to existing literature by indicating that spouses are not only affected by each other’s overt behaviors, such as conflict, but also by broader feelings of tension, resentment, and negativity. It is important to recognize that perceptions of tension may vary between partners, and they are not necessarily harmful. Practitioners might address couples’ resentment, irritation, and tension with partners more often and with greater consideration. More research is needed, however, to assess what couples can do to reduce marital tension. Interventions aimed at improving marital well-being should include assessments of both partners’ tension, as well as how tension is handled, to fully understand couples’ relationship functioning.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the unique strengths of the data and study design, there are several limitations that should be addressed in future research. Most notably, the bulk of the data reported in this manuscript come from the late 1980s and early 1990s. As a result, these findings could be viewed as somewhat dated given the dramatic changes in the institution of marriage in the 21st century (e.g., greater likelihood of premarital cohabitation, older age at first marriage; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007). Couples experience changes in marital well-being (Birditt et al., 2012; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010), marital tension (Birditt et al., 2017), marital conflict (Kamp Dush & Taylor, 2012; Lavner et al., 2014), and conflict strategies (Birditt et al., 2010) over time. It could be that increases or decreases in marital tensions are more strongly linked to marital well-being at different stages of the relationship. Likewise, because change in marital tension and destructive conflict was measured as change from Year 1 only, rather than year to year, we do not capture trajectories of change over time. However, trajectories of marital tension (Birditt et al., 2017), marital conflict (Birditt et al., 2010), and marital well-being (Birditt et al., 2012) have previously been identified and linked to divorce. Because questionnaires were not administered between Years 7 and 16, it was difficult to assess how marital tension influenced future assessments of marital well-being. Thus, we cannot make causal claims about the direction of the effect. Prior evidence suggests that marital tension may predict marital well-being (e.g., Kurdek, 1995), rather than the reverse, or that the link may be bidirectional (e.g., Lavner, Karney, & Bradbury, 2016). Studies with more frequent data points would be better suited to address these issues.

Future studies could also expand on the measures used in the current study to more precisely assess different aspects of marital tension and destructive conflict. For example, future measures could disentangle tension that stems from conflict versus other sources. Likewise, the present study measured destructive conflict behaviors of couples’ last conflict, which may not be representative of their typical conflict strategies. Future studies should consider other measures of conflict, ranging from day-to-day minor disagreements or annoyances to more extreme cases of inter-partner violence. Similarly, marital interactions and their implications for marital well-being need to be examined within the broader day-to-day context of spouses’ lives (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Daily diary studies of couples would provide greater insight into the day-to-day expression and implications of marital tension. The implications of marital tension for health and well-being have not been explored, including how marital tension gets under the skin.

Overall this study provides evidence for the link between marital tension and marital well-being across the first 16 years of marriage, even when accounting for destructive conflict, which has been a major focus of previous research. It is essential to assess negativity within relationships more broadly as well as both partners’ evaluations. Insight gained from this study can be used to inform future research to further disentangle the predictors, processes, and implications of integrative marital feelings within the spousal tie.

Supplementary Material

1
2
3
4

Acknowledgments

Author note: The research in this article was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD40778) to the third author. Results from this study were presented at the International Association for Relationships Research 2018 conference. These data have been analyzed extensively, and a comprehensive list of publications are provided at http://projects.isr.umich.edu/eym/publications.html. We thank Angela Turkelson for her assistance with the analyses.

References

  1. Acitelli LK, & Antonucci TC (1994). Gender Differences in the Link Between Marital Support and Satisfaction in Older Couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 688–698. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.688 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Acitelli LK, Douvan E, & Veroff J (1993). Perceptions of Conflict in the First Year of Marriage: How Important are Similarity and Understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 10.1177/0265407593101001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Almeida DM, & Kessler RC (1998). Everyday stressors and gender differences in daily distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 670–680. 10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Birditt KS, Brown E, Orbuch TL, & McIlvane JM (2010). Marital Conflict Behaviors and Implications for Divorce Over 16 Years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1188–1204. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00758.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Birditt KS, Hope S, Brown E, & Orbuch T (2012). Developmental Trajectories of Marital Happiness Over 16 Years. Research in Human Development, 9(2), 126–144. 10.1080/15427609.2012.680844 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Birditt KS, Manalel JA, Kim K, Zarit SH, & Fingerman KL (2017). Daily interactions with aging parents and adult children: Associations with negative affect and diurnal cortisol. Journal of Family Psychology. 10.1037/fam0000317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Birditt KS, Newton NJ, Cranford JA, & Ryan LH (2016). Stress and negative relationship quality among older couples: Implications for blood pressure. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(5), 775–785. 10.1093/geronb/gbv023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Birditt KS, Wan WH, Orbuch TL, & Antonucci TC (2017). The development of marital tension: Implications for divorce among married couples. Developmental Psychology. 10.1037/dev0000379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boerner K, Jopp DS, Carr D, Sosinsky L, & Kim SK (2014). His and her marriage? the role of positive and negative marital characteristics in global marital satisfaction among older adults. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69(4), 579–589. 10.1093/geronb/gbu032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolger N, & Laurenceau J-P (2013). Intensive Longitudinal Analysis. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bradbury TN, Fincham FD, & Beach SRH (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(November), 964–980. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Broman CL (2005). Marital Quality in Black and White Marriages. Journal of Family Issues, 26(4), 431–441. 10.1177/0192513X04272439 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Caughlin JP, Huston TL, & Houts RM (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 326–336. 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chapman B, & Guven C (2016). Revisiting the Relationship Between Marriage and Wellbeing: Does Marriage Quality Matter? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 533–551. 10.1007/s10902-014-9607-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cortina JM (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Crohan SE, & Veroff J (1989). Dimensions of Marital Well-Being among White and Black Newlyweds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(2), 373–383. 10.2307/352500 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Davila J, & Bradbury TN (2001). Attachment insecurity and the distinction between unhappy spouses who do and do not divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 371–393. 10.1037//0893-3200.15.3.371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fincham FD, & Linfield KJ (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11(4), 489–502. 10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.489-502 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fingerman KL, Hay EL, Birditt KS, & Hay L (2004). The Best of Ties, the Worst of Ties: Close, Problematic, and Ambivalent Social Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 792–808. [Google Scholar]
  20. Floyd FJ, & Markman HJ (1983). Observational biases in spouse observation: toward a cognitive/behavioral model of marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 450–457. 10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Galinsky AM, & Waite LJ (2014). Sexual Activity and Psychological Health As Mediators of the Relationship Between Physical Health and Marital Quality. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69(2013), 1–11. 10.1093/geronb/gbt165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gottman JM (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gottman JM, Coan J, Carrere S, Swanson C, Gottman JM, Coan J, … Swanson C (1998). Predicting Marital Happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(1), 5–22. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoffman L (2015). Longitudinal Analysis: Modeling Within-person Fluctuation and Change Bayesian {Biostatistics}. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoffman L, & Stawski RS (2009). Persons as Contexts: Evaluating Between-Person and Within-Person Effects in Longitudinal Analysis. Research in Human Development, 6(2–3), 97–120. 10.1080/15427600902911189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, & George LJ (2001). The Connubial Crucible: Newlywed Years as Predictors of Marital Delight, Distress, and Divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237–252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kamp CM, Taylor MG, Kroeger R. a, & Dush CMK (2014). Marital Happiness and Psychological Well-Being Across the Life Course. Family Relations, 57(April), 211–226. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00495.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kamp Dush CM, & Taylor MG (2012). Trajectories of Marital Conflict Across the Life Course: Predictors and Interactions With Marital Happiness Trajectories. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 341–368. 10.1177/0192513X11409684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (1995). The Longitudinal Course of Marital Quality and Stability : A Review of Theory , Method , and Research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. 10.1037//0033-2909.118.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kashy DA, & Donnellan MB (2012). Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Data from Dyads and Groups In Deaux K & Snyder M (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.013.0009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelley HH, & Thibaut JW (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kulik L, Walfisch S, & Liberman G (2016). Spousal conflict resolution strategies and marital relations in late adulthood. Personal Relationships, 23(3), 456–474. 10.1111/pere.12137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kurdek LA (1995). Predicting Change in Marital Satisfaction from Husbands ’ and Wives ’ Conflict Resolution Styles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(1), 153–164. [Google Scholar]
  35. Larson RW, & Almeida DM (1999). Emotional Transmission in the Daily Lives of Families: A New Paradigm for Studying Family Process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1), 5 10.2307/353879 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lavner JA, & Bradbury TN (2010). Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over the newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1171–1187. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00757.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lavner JA, Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (2014). Relationship Problems Over the Early Years of Marriage : Stability or Change ? Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 979–985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lavner JA, Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (2016). Does Couples’ Communication Predict Marital Satisfaction, or Does Marital Satisfaction Predict Communication? Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(June), n/a–n/a. 10.1111/jomf.12301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Neff LA, & Karney BR (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 594–607. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00394.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Orbuch TL, Veroff J, Hassan H, & Horrocks J (2002). Who will divorce: A 14-year longitudinal study of black couples and white couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(2), 179–202. [Google Scholar]
  41. Robles TF, Slatcher RB, Trombello JM, & McGinn MM (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187. 10.1037/a0031859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rogge RD, Fincham FD, Crasta D, & Maniaci MR (2016). Positive and negative evaluation of relationships: Development and validation of the positive- negative relationship quality (PN-RQ) scale. Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 1028–1043. 10.1037/pas0000392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schneewind K. a., & Gerhard A-K (2002). Relationship Personality, Conflict Resolution, and Marital Satisfaction in the First 5 Years of Marriage. Family Relations, 51(1), 63–71. 10.2307/3700300 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Singer JD, & Willett JB (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Snijders TAB, & Bosker RJ (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stevenson B, & Wolfers J (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27–52. 10.2139/ssrn.1007827 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Timmer SG, & Orbuch TL (2001). The links between premarital parenthood, meanings of marriage, and marital outcomes. Family Relations, 50(2), 178–185. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00178.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Umberson D, Williams K, Powers DA, Liu H, & Needham B (2006). You make me sick: marital quality and health over the life course. J Health Soc Behav, 47(1), 1–16. 10.2307/30040295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Veroff J, Douvan E, & Hatchett SJ (1995). Marital Instability: A Social and Behavioral Study of the Early Years. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1015758-supplement-1.docx (36KB, docx)
2
NIHMS1015758-supplement-2.docx (16.1KB, docx)
3
NIHMS1015758-supplement-3.docx (20.6KB, docx)
4
NIHMS1015758-supplement-4.docx (17.1KB, docx)

RESOURCES