Trait Impulsivity and Newlyweds’ Marital Trajectories

Abstract

Despite impulsivity’s relation with interpersonal dysfunction, including romantic relationship dysfunction, surprisingly little research has examined the degree to which impulsivity predicts how marriages unfold over time. The current study used data from 172 newlywed couples to examine spouses’ impulsivity in relation to their 4-year trajectories of marital satisfaction, marital problems, relationship commitment, and verbal aggression, as well as their 10-year divorce rates. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity predicted their own intercepts of marital satisfaction and marital problems, reflecting lower levels of satisfaction and higher levels of problems. Wives’ impulsivity also predicted their relationship commitment and their verbal aggression intercepts. No cross-spouse effects or effects on slopes were found, and impulsivity did not predict 10-year divorce rates. These findings indicate that the relationship distress associated with impulsivity begins early in marriage, and suggest a need for further research on the processes by which impulsivity undermines marital quality.

Impulsivity is a widely recognized personality factor, broadly reflecting “the tendency to deliberate less than most people of equal ability before taking action” (Dickman, 1990, p. 95). In clinical samples and in the general population, impulsivity has been correlated with a wide range of impairments such as behavioral disinhibition, lack of planning, and interpersonal difficulties (e.g., Chamorro et al., 2012). Impulsivity is also associated with increased prevalence of psychiatric disorders (e.g., American Psychiatric Association, 2013), particularly externalizing disorders (Krueger et al., 2002) such as antisocial behavior and aggression (Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011) and substance use (e.g., Ruiz, Pincus, & Dickinson, 2003).

Impulsivity has also been associated with problematic behaviors in the context of romantic relationships, including higher levels of risky sexual behavior (Dir, Coskunpinar, & Cyders, 2014; Hoyle, Miller, & Fejfar, 2000), romantic relational aggression (Murray-Close, Ostroy, Nelson, Crick, & Coccaro, 2010), and domestic violence perpetration (Chamorro et al., 2012). There is also some indication that impulsivity is associated with less satisfying relationships. Among college students, higher levels of hyperactive-impulsive symptoms were associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction (Bruner, Kuryluk, & Whitton, 2015). Research on a community sample of married men (mean length of marriage = 7.4 years) indicated that higher levels of impulsivity were associated with lower levels of marital quality (Stuart & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2005). Stroud and colleagues (2010) investigated impulsivity using an actor-partner framework that examined the cross-sectional effect of one’s own and one’s spouse’s impulsivity on relationship satisfaction in a married sample (mean length of marriage = 8.8 years). No effects were found for wives’ impulsivity, but husbands’ impulsivity was related to lower levels of satisfaction for themselves and for their wives.

Longitudinal studies examining how impulsivity predicts the course of relationship dysfunction over time are limited. One study examined how spouses’ impulsivity assessed at the beginning of marriage was associated with marital quality and psychological aggression at 18 months and with physical aggression at 30 months (O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994). For husbands and wives, impulsivity was associated with higher levels of self-reported marital discord and higher levels of psychological aggression 18 months later, but not with physical aggression. Another study examined how husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity predicted the trajectory of physical aggression over the first 3 years of marriage (Langer, Lawrence, & Barry, 2008). Husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity scores predicted their own initial levels of physical aggression (i.e., significant intercepts), but no partner effects were found (e.g., husbands’ impulsivity did not predict wives’ aggression) nor were there effects for levels of change over time (i.e., slopes). Finally, a long-term longitudinal study that followed 300 couples over fifty years found that husbands’ and wives’ impulse control (as rated by informants) was negatively related to their marital satisfaction at a 45-year follow-up, and husbands’ impulse control was a predictor of divorce within the first 20 years of marriage (Kelly & Conley, 1987).

Although this research highlights associations between impulsivity and relationship dysfunction, critical gaps remain in our understanding of impulsivity’s effect on marital relationships. First, more research is needed to determine how impulsivity predicts how marriages unfold over time. In particular, it would be valuable to examine when the relational distress associated with impulsivity emerges. Most of the existing studies cannot distinguish whether impulsivity was associated with marital distress from the onset of the marriage, whether marital distress emerged over time, or some combination of the two. As described above, evidence from Langer and colleagues (2008) indicates that impulsivity was associated with the intercept of physical aggression, indicating impairment from the beginning of the marriage, but impulsivity did not predict differential changes over time. Whether this pattern is also true for other types of marital functioning such as satisfaction or relationship commitment remains an open question. Prospective, longitudinal studies that assess couples beginning in the earliest stages of marriage are needed to address these questions, as are methods of analysis that investigate change in functioning over time (i.e., slopes) in addition to initial level (i.e., intercepts; Atkins, 2005). Data on impulsivity and divorce earlier in the marital trajectory are also needed, as the only study to examine impulsivity and divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987) first examined divorce rates after 20 years of marriage, raising questions about whether divorce effects are also found earlier on.

There are other limitations to the existing literature as well. Only one study (Langer et al., 2008) has taken a dyadic approach to understanding how impulsivity affects marital quality over time (and this was only for physical aggression), limiting our ability to examine how impulsivity impacts both members of the couple. Doing so is important given evidence from cross-sectional studies that actor and partner effects may exist, at least for husbands’ impulsivity (Stroud et al., 2010). In addition, there has been a lack of clarity in the marital quality outcome variable, as previous studies among married samples have used marital quality measures that conflate overall global sentiments about the relationship with specific problem areas (see Fincham & Bradbury, 1987 for critique). Accordingly, it is unclear whether impulsivity affects couples’ positive evaluations of their relationship (their satisfaction), difficulties in their relationship (their problems), or their commitment to the relationship.

The current study addresses these gaps and builds on the existing literature using a community sample of 172 newlywed couples studied over the first 10 years of marriage.¹ Our primary aim was to examine how spouses’ impulsivity predicted four-year trajectories of marital quality (marital satisfaction, marital problems), relationship commitment, and verbal aggression. We considered impulsivity’s effect on intercepts, which reflect the initial level of these variables, as well as effects on slopes, which reflect differential changes over time (e.g., steeper declines in satisfaction over time). We examined actor (e.g., wives’ impulsivity to wives’ satisfaction) and partner (e.g., wives’ impulsivity to husbands’ satisfaction) effects to determine whether any effects for impulsivity are seen for the individual, the partner, or both members of the couple. We also examined whether spouses’ initial level of impulsivity predicted divorce 10 years later.

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, had been married less than 6 months, were between 18 and 35 years old, and had a minimum of 10 years of education. Couples who met these criteria were sent a letter requesting that they return a postcard if they wanted to participate. 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. These data reflect the 1990 Census racial breakdown of Los Angeles County.

Procedures

Eligible couples participated in a 3-hour lab session within 6 months of their wedding, in which they completed questionnaires and other tasks beyond the scope of the present study (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 dissolved) was assessed in telephone calls prior to the regular assessments and was again assessed after 10 years of marriage. Couples were paid $75 for lab sessions and $25 at each follow-up. Marital satisfaction, marital problems, and relationship commitment were assessed every six months at Times 1-8. Verbal aggression was assessed yearly at Times 1, 3, 5, and 7. Impulsivity was assessed at Time 1.

Attrition was low throughout the study. Of the original couples, 92% provided data at Time 2; 94% provided data at Time 3; 79% provided data at Time 4; 78% provided data at Time 5; 82% provided data at Time 6; 73% provided data at Time 7; and 73% provided data at Time 8 (median = 79%). Dissolution status was known for 92% of couples at 10-year follow-up. Twenty-two percent of couples divorced by 10-year follow-up (n = 38).²

To examine whether there was differential attrition based on spouses’ initial level of impulsivity, we tested whether husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity differed between couples providing data and those missing data at all follow-up assessments. Of the 14 tests from Time 2 to Time 8, only 2 were significant: husbands missing data at Times 5 and 7 had higher initial impulsivity scores. All other comparisons were non-significant (p > .10). Initial impulsivity for husbands and wives did not differ between couples providing data and those missing data at 10-year follow-up (both p > .10).

Measures

Impulsivity.

Impulsivity was assessed at Time 1 using 6 items from the Dysfunctional Impulsivity Inventory (Dickman, 1990; sample items: “I often say and do things without considering consequences”; “Often I don’t spend enough time thinking over a situation before I act”). Each item was rated on a scale from 1 (does not describe me) to 7 (describes me very well). Higher scores indicate more impulsivity. This measure had high internal consistency (α = .88 for husbands and .82 for wives) and was normally distributed for husbands and wives. Mean scores were 14.85 (SD = 7.34) for husbands and 12.56 (SD = 5.91) for wives. Husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity scores were not correlated, r = .05, p > .10.

Marital satisfaction.

We assessed spouses’ marital satisfaction using a version of the Semantic Differential (SMD; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). This measure asks spouses to rate their perceptions of their relationship on 7-point scales between 15 pairs of opposing adjectives (e.g., bad –good, dissatisfied–satisfied), yielding scores from 15 to 105 such that higher scores reflect more positive satisfaction with the relationship. Coefficient alpha was > .90 for husbands and for wives across all phases of the study. The mean cross-sectional correlation between husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction was .48.

Marital problems.

A modified version of 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). This measure lists 19 potential problem areas in a marriage (e.g., in-laws, sex) and asks participants to “indicate how much it is a source of difficulty or disagreement for you and your spouse” on a scale from 1 (not a problem) to 11 (major problem). We summed specific problem ratings into an overall index of problem severity. This measure had high internal consistency (α > .85) for husbands and wives across assessments. The mean cross-sectional correlation between husbands’ and wives’ problems was .43.

Relationship commitment.

Relationship commitment was assessed with 12 items from the Commitment Inventory (Stanley & Markman, 1992) every 6 months (eight times overall). Spouses rated items assessing relationship commitment (e.g., “I want my marriage to stay strong no matter what rough times we encounter”; “I want to have a strong identity as a couple with my partner”) on a 7-point scale, with higher scores indicating higher commitment. This measure had high internal consistency (mean α = .84 for husbands and .77 for wives across assessments). The mean cross-sectional correlation between husbands’ and wives’ commitment was .23.

Verbal aggression.

Verbal aggression (e.g., insulting, threatening) in the past year was assessed four times over the course of the study using the six-item Verbal Aggression subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979). Items were rated on a 3-point scale (0 = never, 1 = once, and 2 = twice or more). In the current sample, mean coefficient alpha across assessments was .72 for husbands and .75 for wives, and scores were normally distributed for husbands and wives. The mean cross-sectional correlation between husbands’ and wives’ verbal aggression was .41.

Means and standard deviations for all marital outcomes can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

	Time 1 Mean (SD)	Time 2 Mean (SD)	Time 3 Mean (SD)	Time 4 Mean (SD)	Time 5 Mean (SD)	Time 6 Mean (SD)	Time 7 Mean (SD)	Time 8 Mean (SD)
Marital satisfaction
Husbands	94.74 (9.61)	92.20 (12.44)	94.06 (11.00)	92.21 (12.58)	91.96 (14.45)	91.73 (13.54)	89.63 (15.65)	90.68 (15.05)
Wives	97.24 (8.36)	94.79 (12.17)	95.82 (11.82)	94.60 (12.05)	92.96 (15.56)	90.82 (17.12)	91.02 (16.74)	90.50 (16.60)
Marital problems
Husbands	49.82 (21.03)	—	50.14 (22.73)	52.41 (22.44)	51.61 (22.41)	51.83 (23.17)	51.34 (22.82)	52.63 (22.88)
Wives	44.74 (18.31)	—	46.03 (21.85)	47.51 (22.03)	49.22 (22.70)	49.64 (24.10)	51.32 (25.46)	52.51 (24.52)
Relationship commitment
Husbands	74.91 (7.11)	72.66 (9.18)	74.85 (8.35)	73.59 (8.62)	73.68 (8.55)	74.02 (8.44)	73.26 (9.26)	72.70 (9.18)
Wives	76.50 (5.52)	74.84 (6.71)	76.38 (7.01)	75.29 (6.97)	75.36 (7.78)	74.98 (7.95)	75.19 (7.81)	73.98 (8.01)
Verbal aggression
Husbands	3.47 (2.84)	—	3.30 (3.01)	—	3.36 (2.85)	—	3.14 (2.72)	—
Wives	4.01 (2.98)	—	3.81 (2.94)	—	3.79 (2.94)	—	3.75 (2.90)	—

Analytic Plan

We examined whether husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity were associated with marital trajectories over the newlywed years using growth curve analytic techniques and the HLM, 7.0 computer program (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2010). Growth curve analyses allow for a two-level process in data analysis. Level 1 allows for the estimation of within-subject trajectories of change (growth curve) for a variable, described by two parameters: an intercept (initial level of the variable) 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 (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:

$$\begin{gathered} \text{Level 1:}{Y}_{\text{ti}}(\text{Outcome})=(female{)}_{\text{ti}}[{\pi }_{\text{f0i}}+{\pi }_{\text{f1i}}(Time{)}_{\text{ti}}]+(male{)}_{\text{ti}}[{\pi }_{\text{m0i}}+{\pi }_{\text{m1i}}(Time{)}_{\text{ti}}]+{\mathrm{e}}_{\text{tij}} \\ \text{Level 2:}{\pi }_{\text{f0i}}(\text{wife intercept})={\beta }_{\text{f00}}+\text{husband impulsivity + wife impulsivity}+{\mu }_{\text{f0i}} \\ {\pi }_{\text{f1i}}(\text{wife slope})={\beta }_{\text{f10}}+\text{husband impulsivity + wife impulsivity}+{\mu }_{\text{f1i}} \\ {\pi }_{\text{m0i}}(\text{husband intercept})={\beta }_{\text{m00}}+\text{husband impulsivity + wife impulsivity}+{\mu }_{\text{m0i}} \\ {\pi }_{\text{m1i}}(\text{husband slope})={\beta }_{\text{m10}}+\text{husband impulsivity + wife impulsivity}+{\mu }_{\text{m1i}} \end{gathered}$$

These equations include separate intercepts and linear slopes for men and women, and sex-specific variance components at Level 2. Husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity were included simultaneously at Level 2, allowing us to examine how the parameters of spouses’ marital trajectories were affected by their own impulsivity and by their partner’s impulsivity (e.g., husbands’ marital problems predicted by their own impulsivity and by their wives’ impulsivity). We conducted four separate models, one for each of the outcome variables (marital satisfaction, marital problems, relationship commitment, and verbal aggression).

Results

Trait Impulsivity and Newlyweds’ Four-Year Marital Trajectories

For husbands (Table 2), their own impulsivity was significantly associated with the intercepts of their marital satisfaction and marital problems, such that husbands with higher levels of impulsivity reported lower levels of satisfaction and higher levels of problems. Husbands’ impulsivity was not a significant predictor of their commitment or verbal aggression, or of the slopes of marital satisfaction or marital problems (all p > .05). For wives (Table 3), impulsivity was significantly associated with the intercept of their marital satisfaction, marital problems, commitment, and verbal aggression, such that wives higher in impulsivity reported lower levels of marital satisfaction and commitment, and higher levels of problems and verbal aggression. Wives’ impulsivity was not significantly associated with the slopes of the outcome variables (all p > .05). Across analyses, there were no partner effects, such that wives’ impulsivity did not predict husbands’ marital trajectories nor did husbands’ impulsivity predict wives’ marital trajectories.

Table 2.

Husbands’ and Wives’ Impulsivity and Husbands’ Marital Trajectories

	Intercept			Linear Slope
	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	Effect size r	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	Effect size r
Marital satisfaction
Main effect	94.24 (0.76)	—	—	−0.72 (0.16)	−4.45**	0.32
Husband impulsivity	−0.19 (0.10)	−1.96*	0.15	0.00 (0.02)	0.10	0.01
Wife impulsivity	−0.01 (0.13)	−0.05	0.00	−0.03 (0.04)	−0.78	0.06
Marital problems
Main effect	49.95 (1.55)	—	—	0.50 (0.27)	1.86	0.14
Husband impulsivity	0.49 (0.22)	2.28*	0.17	0.03 (0.04)	0.79	0.06
Wife impulsivity	0.31 (0.28)	1.11	0.09	−0.03 (0.06)	−0.58	0.04
Relationship commitment
Main effect	74.33 (0.54)	—	—	−0.19 (0.10)	−1.87	0.14
Husband impulsivity	−0.12 (0.07)	−1.71	0.13	0.00 (0.02)	−0.26	0.02
Wife impulsivity	−0.14 (0.10)	−1.41	0.11	−0.01 (0.02)	−0.48	0.04
Verbal aggression
Main effect	3.51 (0.21)	—	—	−0.10 (0.07)	−1.31	0.10
Husband impulsivity	0.03 (0.03)	0.90	0.07	0.01 (0.01)	0.77	0.06
Wife impulsivity	0.02 (0.04)	0.61	0.05	0.01 (0.01)	0.46	0.04

Notes. Intercepts were significant p < .01 because the lowest possible score was greater than zero, so these statistics are not reported.

Husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity scores were grand-mean centered within sex. N = 172 couples. df = 169 for all analyses. Effect size r = sqrt [t²/(t² + df)].

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

Table 3.

Husbands’ and Wives’ Impulsivity and Wives’ Marital Trajectories

	Intercept			Linear Slope
	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	Effect size r	Estimate (SE)	t ratio	Effect size r
Marital satisfaction
Main effect	97.14 (0.67)	—	—	−1.26 (0.19)	−6.75**	0.46
Husband impulsivity	−0.02 (0.11)	−0.22	0.02	−0.03 (0.03)	−1.22	0.09
Wife impulsivity	−0.26 (0.11)	−2.38*	0.18	−0.03 (0.04)	−0.71	0.05
Marital problems
Main effect	44.66 (1.40)	—	—	1.12 (0.26)	4.37**	0.32
Husband impulsivity	0.14 (0.23)	0.60	0.05	0.05 (0.04)	1.27	0.10
Wife impulsivity	0.91 (0.33)	2.81**	0.21	0.04 (0.05)	0.69	0.05
Relationship commitment
Main effect	76.26 (0.40)	—	—	−0.35 (0.09)	−3.75**	0.28
Husband impulsivity	−0.01 (0.05)	−0.18	0.01	0.00 (0.01)	−0.14	0.01
Wife impulsivity	−0.23 (0.08)	−3.10**	0.23	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.53	0.04
Verbal aggression
Main effect	4.01 (0.21)	—	—	−0.07 (0.07)	−0.94	0.07
Husband impulsivity	0.02 (0.03)	0.71	0.05	0.00 (0.01)	0.13	0.01
Wife impulsivity	0.15 (0.04)	3.67**	0.27	−0.02 (0.01)	−1.75	0.13

Notes. Intercepts were significant p < .01 because the lowest possible score was greater than zero, so these statistics are not reported.

Husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity scores were grand-mean centered within sex. N = 172 couples. df = 169 for all analyses. Effect size r = sqrt [t²/(t² + df)].

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

Impulsivity and 10-Year Divorce Rates

We examined the association between impulsivity and 10-year divorce rates using binary logistic regressions. Whether entered individually or simultaneously, husbands’ and wives’ impulsivity did not significantly predict divorce (all p > .10).

Discussion

These data from 172 couples assessed over the first 10 years of marriage provide new insights into how impulsivity predicts the trajectory of newlywed marriage. Results indicated that husbands’ impulsivity was associated with the intercept (i.e., initial level) of their 4-year trajectories of marital satisfaction and marital problems, and wives’ impulsivity was associated with the intercept of their marital satisfaction, marital problems, relationship commitment, and verbal aggression. Effect sizes for these results were small in magnitude. No cross partner effects or effects on slopes were found, and impulsivity did not predict 10-year divorce rates.

Before discussing the broader implications of these results, it is important to acknowledge some limitations of this study. First, impulsivity was assessed using a single self-report measure, the Dickman Impulsiveness Inventory (Dickman, 1990). It is well-established that impulsivity is a broad construct with various dimensions (e.g., Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Our measure of impulsivity is highly correlated with the disinhibition versus constraint/ conscientiousness dimension of impulsivity, but less so with the other dimensions of impulsivity such as neuroticism/negative emotionality and extraversion/positive emotionality (Sharma, Markon, & Clark, 2014). As such, further research is needed on how these other types of impulsivity are associated with marital functioning. Second, impulsivity was assessed only at the first assessment. Although this design was ideal for examining the effect of initial levels of impulsivity and for disentangling intercept from slope effects, longitudinal assessment of impulsivity would allow for a more nuanced consideration of the dynamic interplay between impulsivity and marital functioning. Third, this was a community sample of heterosexual newlywed couples. More research is needed among clinical samples with greater severity of impulsivity, including among samples of individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders marked by impulsivity, and among samples with greater levels of marital distress. Finally, although the longitudinal design is a significant methodological strength, our study still 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.

Despite these limitations, these findings have significant implications for our understanding of how impulsivity affects marital functioning over time. Most importantly, our findings indicate that higher initial levels of impulsivity are associated with more initial marital distress (significant intercepts), but do not predict worsening distress over time (non-significant slopes). Notably, impairments were found in both positive (satisfaction) and negative (problems) dimensions of marital quality for husbands and wives, indicating that these marriages are marked by lower levels of satisfaction and higher levels of problems. These findings build on the only previous study to examine impulsivity in relation to newlyweds’ physical aggression trajectories (Langer et al., 2008), which similarly found only intercept effects. Additional research is needed to explore why individuals higher in impulsivity find their marriages less satisfying and experience more problems, with a particular focus on how the disinhibition/conscientiousness domain of impulsivity studied here serves to undermine marital quality. For example, to the extent that this type of impulsivity reflects a lack of premeditation (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001), spouses higher in impulsivity may be more likely to find the required negotiation and interdependence that comes with being in a committed relationship more frustrating or difficult, resulting in lower levels of satisfaction, or they may be more likely to engage in rash behaviors that create problems for their relationships. Future research is necessary to explore the mechanisms that explain these relations.

We also show that the effects of impulsivity were limited to one’s own ratings of marital quality, rather than extending to partners’ ratings. Previous studies have shown mixed results with regard to whether actor and partner effects are found for impulsivity, with one study showing both actor and partner effects for husbands’ impulsivity (Stroud et al., 2010) and the other showing only actor effects for both husbands and wives (Langer et al., 2008). Given that the study finding actor and partner effects was conducted when couples were married for an average of 9 years, it is possible that partner effects may only emerge later in the marital trajectory as spouses’ frustration increases or as spousal impulsivity causes problems due to its relations with behaviors such as substance use and abuse (e.g., Ruiz et al., 2003) or infidelity (Shackelford, Besser, & Goetz, 2008) that cause problems for relationships. This possibility could be examined in longitudinal studies with longer follow-up periods and repeated assessments of impulsivity that allow for more proximal measurements of impulsive behavior.

Initial impulsivity did not predict increased risk of divorce over the first 10 years of marriage. This finding differs from the only prior study that has examined impulsivity in relation to divorce, which showed that husbands’ impulse control was a predictor of divorce within the first 20 years of marriage (Kelly & Conley, 1987). These differences may be due to how impulsivity was assessed in the previous study – based on an average of informant reports, rather than participants’ own ratings – or because there was a longer follow up period. Nonetheless, the fact that couples in the current study with higher initial levels of trait impulsivity were able to maintain intact, albeit relatively lower quality, marriages across 10 years is noteworthy. Further research is needed to clarify the association between impulsivity and divorce at varying times in marriage, and to examine the factors that promote relationship stability among individuals higher in impulsivity.

In sum, these results indicate that impulsivity is associated with lower levels of marital quality from the very beginning of couples’ marital trajectories. These findings build on a growing body of work highlighting the interpersonal impairments associated with impulsivity (e.g., Chamorro et al., 2012), and call for further research examining how different domains of impulsivity affect marital functioning and the specific processes by which they do so.