Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2021 Jun 10;36(2):236–245. doi: 10.1037/fam0000870

Impact of Expectation Violation on Relationship Satisfaction Across the Transition to Parenthood

Danielle M Mitnick 1, Richard E Heyman 1, Amy M Smith Slep 1, Jill Giresi 1, Jacqueline E Shanley 1
PMCID: PMC8660929  NIHMSID: NIHMS1725600  PMID: 34110846

Abstract

This study examined whether violations of partner expectations — and attributions and perceptions of these violations — are associated with relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. First-time parents (N=99) mixed-sex couples completed mail-in packets during pregnancy (Time 1; T1) and when their babies were 3–5 months old (Time 2; T2). Hypotheses were largely confirmed. Multilevel modeling results indicated a significant T1-to-T2 decrease in relationship satisfaction. Expectation violations significantly predicted change in satisfaction; undermet expectations are associated with decreased satisfaction. T2 perception of expectation confirmation predicted change in satisfaction at T2 and moderated the relationship between expectation violation and relationship satisfaction. Likewise, benign postnatal attributions was significantly associated with change in satisfaction at T2 and moderated the relationship between expectation violation and relationship satisfaction. Clinical and research implications are discussed.

Keywords: Transition to parenthood, relationship satisfaction, expectations, attributions, prenatal expectations

The birth of a first child, although commonly thought of as a joyous event, represents a major transition for the members of the couple individually and the dyad as a unit. Among the many changes documented in couples is a decline in relationship satisfaction after the birth of the first child (e.g., Mitnick et al., 2009). This decrease in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood is, on average, small and statistically significant but does not appear to be statistically different from that in non-parents over a similar period (Mitnick et al., 2009). Still, a variety of relationship satisfaction trajectories are evident across the transition to parenthood. For example, in their study of new parents, Cowan and Cowan (1995) found subgroups who experienced relationship satisfaction decreases, increases, and stability during this period. Because the transition to parenthood does not appear to be a monolithic challenge that causes universal deterioration in relationship satisfaction, it is crucial to understand for whom the negative impact exists and what processes might contribute to that impact.

Violation of parenthood expectations

In response to the uncertainty of the upcoming transition, expectant parents develop a variety of expectations, usually optimistic (Belsky et al., 1986; Harwood et al., 2007), about what parenthood will be like. However, these expectations are not always matched by experience (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2007), and this can contribute to distress. Expectation violation theory posits that (a) violations of expectations—whether positive or negative—cause arousal and focus on the meaning of the violation and (b) negative violations produce unfavorable evaluations (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Accordingly, negatively violated expectations about parenthood (e.g., about physical well-being, maternal competence, maternal satisfaction) have been linked to worse adjustment to parenthood (e.g., Kluwer, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2007).

Negatively violated parenthood expectations have also been linked to relationship dissatisfaction (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2007). Theoretically, negatively violated relationship expectations in interpersonal contexts will increase uncertainty about the violator and the relationship. Indeed, extended periods of uncertainty have a demonstrated negative impact on relationship satisfaction and stability (Berger, 1987), including for new parents (Theiss et al., 2013). Thibaut and Kelley (1959) posit that individuals are satisfied with a life domain only when their expectations for relationships meet or exceed a comparison level of what they believe they could receive in other relationships. Research has supported these hypotheses, finding that negative violations of general domains of expectations (e.g., about support or parenting satisfaction) have been associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2007). Expectations about one’s partner likely have the highest impact on relationship satisfaction. Studies of pre-parenthood expectations have mostly focused on the division of labor and have found that women whose partners engage in fewer household chores than expected are less satisfied with their postnatal relationships (Ruble et al., 1988), whereas men whose partners engage in more childcare tasks than expected are more satisfied. Fathers seem to experience over-met expectations, whereas mothers more often experience under-met expectations (Biehle & Michelson, 2012), although when father’s expectations are under-met, they experience loss of marital love (Holmes et al., 2013).

However, a deeper picture of partner expectations — including thoughts about partner satisfaction and competence in the parenting role, changes to couple interactions, and partner reactions to parenting (e.g., becoming more caring in general) — has only been explored limitedly and could offer a more complete picture of the domains of partner expectations that impact this transition. For example, Pancer et al. (2000) found that first-time expectant mothers who engaged in positive, more simplistic thinking experienced decreased marital adjustment postpartum. For first-time fathers, on the other hand, the relationship between complex thinking and adjusting to parenting was not statistically significant (Pancer et al., 2000). The current study tests whether these violated partner expectations are associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction.

Research on expectations suggests that there are a variety of ways discrepancies between expectations and experiences might be cognitively processed, and these factors could affect a distal outcome such as satisfaction (Hackel & Ruble, 1992). It is possible, then, that it is how a person reacts to or processes the expectation violation that affects relationship satisfaction. The current study focuses on the cognitive moderators of the association between expectation violation and relationship dissatisfaction. In other words, we will examine whether the way one perceives one’s experiences to match prior expectations, as well as the causes to which one attributes the experience-expectation discrepancy, affect relationship satisfaction.

Perception of the expectation violation

One cognitive phenomenon that likely plays a role is perceptual confirmation, the likelihood that an expectancy about a person or interaction will bias the consequent evaluation to be expectation-consistent (Darley & Fazio, 1980; Jones, 1986). Merely having the expectation can cause the target’s behavior to be selectively attended to, interpreted, or remembered in a fashion that is consistent with the expectation (Darley & Fazio, 1980; Darley & Gross, 1983). There is evidence that perceptual confirmation biases exist on a large scale, even in the face of strong disconfirming evidence (Traut-Mattausch et al., 2004). In an observational study of 82 newlywed couples, McNulty and Karney (2002) found that expectations about the upcoming couple interaction predicted appraisals of that interaction, independently of objective behaviors observed during the conversation. Therefore, it seems possible that some new parents might be inclined to view their experiences as more consistent with their expectations simply due to perceptual confirmation biases. This study will test for the presence of this cognitive process and whether it moderates the relationship between expectation violation and relationship satisfaction.

Attributions about expectation violation

Another cognitive process that could moderate the link between expectancy disconfirmation and relationship satisfaction is how that expectancy violation is attributed. The concept of attributions describes the attributor’s conclusion about the cause of an event. Central to couple relationships is the extent to which a person attributes negative intent or blameworthiness to his/her partner for a negative event, in this case, a violation of an expectation (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). Hostile attributions regarding one’s partner’s behavior have been linked to worse concurrent and later relationship satisfaction (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). It seems plausible that attributions might play a crucial role in how expectancy disconfirmations are interpreted and how this impacts consequent relationship satisfaction. McNulty and Karney (2004) found that when partners displayed a positive attributional style at the start of marriage, positive expectations about the marriage were associated with stable satisfaction; however, when partners had a negative attributional style, positive expectations were associated with declines in relationship satisfaction. However, the confirmation or disconfirmation of the expectations was not measured, and the attributional style was only assessed early in marriage. Additionally, attributions regarding postpartum changes to partners’ sexual life has been linked with lower relationship satisfaction. Vannier et al. (2018) found when first-time mothers attribute partner responsibility, or blame, for sexual concerns, they experience a decline in sexual and relationship satisfaction, especially when these attributions are external and stable.

Current Study

In summary, we first hypothesize that relationship satisfaction will decline from pregnancy to postnatal assessment. Secondly, we hypothesize that negative partner expectation violation across the transition to parenthood—experiences being less positive than expected—will be associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction. Third, we hypothesize that how this expectation violation is cognitively processed (e.g., perceptual confirmation) will predict relationship satisfaction. Further, (Hypothesis 3.1) perceptual confirmation of the expectations, despite behavioral violation, is predicted to moderate the relationship between expectation violation and relationship satisfaction; in other words, despite differences between actual experiences and previous expectations, those who perceive their expectations to have been met or exceeded will experience greater relationship satisfaction than those who perceive that their expectations have not been met. Fourth, we hypothesize that benign attributions about experiences will be positively associated with T2 relationship satisfaction change. We hypothesize (Hypothesis 4.1) that more benign attributions are predicted to moderate the relationship between expectation violation and relationship satisfaction; in other words, when prenatal expectations and postnatal experience do not conform, those who attribute that discrepancy to benign causes, compared with hostile ones, will preserve relationship satisfaction more.

Method

All study procedures were approved by the Stony Brook University Institutional Review Board.

Participants

A total of 99 mixed-sex couples participated both prenatally (Time 1; T1) and when their babies were 3–5 months old (Time 2; T2). Participants were expectant first-time parents who were married or living with a partner, were at least 18 years old, and could speak and read English. Recruitment was done via (a) in-person recruitment in (1) Obstetrics/Gynecology offices within a 20-mile radius of the Stony Brook University hospital and (2) prenatal classes through those offices, (b) brochures in the waiting rooms of those offices, and (c) word-of-mouth referrals. As incentives, couples completing the T1 questionnaires received a gift basket of a lullaby CD, baby bottle, and a coupon. After T2 packets were completed, couples were entered into drawings for gift cards from baby stores or local restaurants.

Table 1 provides demographic details of the sample at T1 and T2. The length between completion of T1 assessment and completion of T2 assessment was M = 20.91 weeks (SD = 7.68 weeks). The age of infants at T2 completion was M = 15.14 weeks (SD = 4.82).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables

Men Women
T1 T2 T1 T2
Age — M (SD) 31.41 (4.85) 31.85 (4.72) 29.69 (4.37) 30.21 (4.32)
Married (%) 90.90 91.00 90.90 88.00
Ethnicity
 White (%) 80.80 - 83.30 -
 Black/African-Amåerican (%) 1.00 - 0.90 -
 Hispanic/Latino/a (%) 11.10 - 8.30 -
 Other (%) 10.10 - 7.40 -
Occupation
 Full-time (%) 86.00 87.00 67.00 57.50
 Part-time (%) 4.00 2.00 16.00 11.10
 Students (%) 9.00 9.00 7.00 8.10
 Homemakers (%) 0.00 1.00 6.00 20.20
 Unemployed (%) 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.10
Education
 < HS (%) 4.10 2.00 2.00 1.90
 HS graduate (%) 13.10 10.10 8.60 4.60
 Some college (%) 21.40 18.20 15.20 12.00
 College graduate (%) 32.40 34.30 26.50 29.60
 Master’s (%) 20.70 24.20 39.70 40.70
 Professional/Doctoral (%) 8.30 11.10 7.90 11.10
Open in a new tab

Note.

T1 = Time 1 (prenatal assessment). T2=Time 2 (postnatal, when infants were M = 15.14 [SD=4.82] weeks old.

Procedure

Participants were recruited during the third trimester of pregnancy for their first child (T1). For in-person recruitment, graduate students and undergraduate research assistants visited OB/GYN offices approximately 3–5 times per week in Suffolk County, NY. In the waiting room, recruiters approached expectant parents to tell them about the research project and asked them a few questions to see if they qualified. If eligible and interested, recruiters recorded potential participants’ contact information and gave them a packet for themselves and their partners. Mothers-to-be were asked for potential ways of contacting the fathers (e.g., cell or home phone calls, texting, emailing). Enclosed in the packets were a cover letter instructing participants to complete the questionnaires privately and independently, a letter of assent (indicating that by returning the completed packets, they assent to participate in the study), the questionnaires, a contact information form, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. When possible, participants completed questionnaires in the waiting room and return to the recruiter. Otherwise, recruiters followed up with participants by calling them 3–4 days later to remind them to return the packets.

Participants who completed T1 questionnaires (i.e., expectations, relationship satisfaction) were contacted around the time of their expected due dates to ascertain when the baby was actually born. Eleven weeks after the birth of the child, the researchers mailed the parents T2 packets to complete between the 12th and 16th weeks. This time frame was chosen because it is a typical time point used in transition to parenthood studies (e.g., Cox et al., 1999; Wright et al., 1986), and was found to be sufficient to both capture transition processes and observe the effect of this transition on relationship satisfaction. At T2, participants completed assessments of their experiences, perception of their expectation confirmation, attributions about their expectancy disconfirmation, and their relationship satisfaction. These assessments were completed through mail-in packets. Follow-up phone calls were made to remind parents to send the packets back within the time frame.

Measures

Relationship Assessments

Couple Satisfaction Index-32

(Funk & Rogge, 2007). The CSI-32 is a 32-item measure that assesses relationship satisfaction; higher values represent more relationship satisfaction (range: 0–161). The CSI-32—developed through principal components analysis and application of item response theory to a pool of items from seven widely used measures—is far more precise and has greater power to detect differences in satisfaction than earlier scales. It has excellent convergent and concurrent validity. Internal consistency was high (T1: men: α = 0.91, women: α = 0.90; T2: men: α = 0.96, women: α = 0.96).

Partner Expectations.

This 58-item measure, developed for this study, assessed T1 predictions of the partner’s behavior once the baby comes (i.e., how one thinks one’s partner will be or behave when the baby is 3–4 months). The items were pooled or adapted from measures of expectations (i.e., Coleman et al., 1997; Harwood et al., 2007; Kalmuss et al., 1992). The statements asked about the partner in the relationship (e.g., “My partner is sensitive to my feelings”), the partner as a parent (e.g., “My partner will show too little attention to the baby”), and the partner’s reactions to parenthood (e.g., “Being a parent will make my partner feel frustrated”). Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from either 0 (almost never) to 4 (almost always) or from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The items of this measure were reviewed by experts on children and families for content validity. Items were reverse-scored when appropriate, and items were summed such that the higher scores indicate more positive expectations (range = 0–232). Internal consistency was good (men: α = 0.91; women: α = 0.92).

Partner Experiences.

This 58-item scale reworded the Partner Expectations measure to assess experiences during parenthood at T2 (i.e., all items were in present tense). Items were reverse-scored when appropriate and summed such that higher scores indicate more positive experiences (range = 0–232). Internal consistency was good (men: α = 0.92; women: α = 0.94).

Perception of expectation confirmation.

This measure, developed for this project, assessed at T2 the degree to which individuals perceived their expectations about their partner to have been met. This 58-item measure repeated all items from the Partner Expectations Measure and asked participants to think about how their partner’s behavior related to the expectations they had during pregnancy. Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (much worse than I expected) to 4 (much better than I expected), and scores are summed such that higher scores indicate more positive experiences (range = 0 –232). Internal consistency was high (men: α = 0.98; women: α = 0.98).

Partner attributions — Modified

(adapted from O’Leary et al., 2007). The Partner Attributions (PA) measure is a 33-item measure that presents individuals with possible attributions for partners not meeting their expectations. For each possible attribution, individuals rate how often the reason is true on a 6-point scale from 0 (always true) to 5 (never true). The statements vary in degree of responsibility and blame attributed to the partner (i.e., how much the partner has control over the behavior, how much the partner is acting with negative intent). Fourteen of the items are partner-responsibility attributions (e.g., “because my partner doesn’t like to put his needs aside,” “because my partner is lazy”), which are summed to create the Partner Responsibility Attribution subscale. Lower scores indicate more benign partner attributions. The remaining 19 items are distractor attributions, 7 of which are partner-situational attributions (e.g., “because my partner is still adjusting to having a baby”), and 12 of which are self-responsibility attributions (e.g., “because I don’t give my partner a chance”). The original scale has strong concurrent validity (Foran & Slep, 2007). Internal consistency was high (men: α = 0.95; women: α = 0.94).

Relationship Attributions Measure –Modified

(adapted from Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). The Relationship Attributions Measure (RAM) is a 24-item measure that presents individuals with four negative behaviors or events that are typical in marriage (e.g., “Your partner does not pay attention to what you are saying,” “Your partner is cool and distant”). For each negative event, individuals rate their agreement with six attribution statements on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). Attribution statements are grouped among causal attributions (i.e., locus, globality, and stability of the cause of the behavior) and responsibility attributions (i.e., intentionality, selfish motivation, and blameworthiness of partner). Lower scores indicate more benign partner attributions. In the current adaptation, the four stimulus items (i.e., the negative events) were replaced with several sample violated expectations from which participants could choose so that the negative event represented something the individual had experienced (e.g., “Your partner is in a good mood less than you expected;” “Your partner does laundry less than you expected”). If none of the choices were true for this individual, there was an “other” option that allowed participants to fill in their own violated expectation. The original RAM has demonstrated convergent validity (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). In the current study, only attributions about negatively violated expectations were scored. Internal consistency was high (men: α = 0.93; women: α = 0.91).

A composite attribution score was calculated from Partner Attributions and the RAM. Because the two attribution measures were significantly correlated (r = 0.66, p < .001), each scale was standardized, and the two were averaged to create a composite attribution score; more positive attribution scores are representative of more benign attributions, and more negative scores are representative of more hostile attributions.

Results

Data were examined for completeness, and mean substitution for missing items was used in computing summary scales except when more than 30% of items on a variable were missing. All study variables were examined for normality and transformed when appropriate. Relationship satisfaction and the relationship attributions measure were transformed to normality through logarithmic transformations, and the partner attributions measure transformed to normality through a square root transformation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In addition, all predictor variables were centered based on the grand mean (Kenny et al., 2006). Table 2 shows descriptive statistics and correlations of main study variables. We used multi-level modeling (MLM) within SPSS to account for non-independence of the dyadic data (e.g., partners’ T2 relationship satisfaction scores: r = 0.537, p < 0.001). All models specify that individuals are nested within couples, and time is a repeated factor across couples. Power analysis for the current analyses indicated power = 0.961, p = 0.05).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of Study Variables

Variable M (SD) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Men
 (1) T1 CSI 145.10 (14.49) 0.76*** 0.55*** 0.47*** 0.12 −0.47*** −0.43***
 (2) T2 CSI 139.22 (19.78) 0.45*** 0.70*** 0.19 −0.60*** −0.63***
 (3) T1 Expectation Scale 187.63 (19.42) 0.57** 0.17 −0.37** −0.32**
 (4) T2 Experience Scale 193.10 (19.70) 0.31** −0.61** −0.65***
 (5) T2 Perception Scale 149.20 (34.11) −0.33** −0.10
 (6) T2 Relationship Attributions 57.19 (19.75) 0.66***
 (7) T2 Partner Attributions 13.11 (11.78) -
Women
 (1) T1 CSI 145.88 (11.28) 0.61*** 0.60*** 0.58*** 0.36*** −0.42*** −0.54***
 (2) T2 CSI 137.70 (22.78) 0.39*** 0.84*** 0.52*** −0.55*** −0.65***
 (3) T1 Expectation Scale 189.04 (18.82) 0.60*** 0.31** −0.53*** −0.49***
 (4) T2 Experience Scale 185.91 (26.05) 0.61*** −0.69*** −0.70***
 (5) T2 Perception Scale 147.51 (36.56) 0.52*** −0.32**
 (6) T2 Relationship Attributions 65.47 (21.06) 0.67***
 (7) T2 Partner Attributions 13.26 (12.67) -
Open in a new tab

Note:

CSI = Couples Satisfaction Index T1 = Time 1 (prenatal assessment). T2=Time 2 (postnatal, when infants were M = 15.14 [SD=4.82] weeks old).

*

p<0.05

**

p<0.01

***

p<0.001

Hypothesis 1:

Change in relationship satisfaction

To test the hypothesis that relationship satisfaction will significantly decrease over time, relationship satisfaction was predicted in an MLM model, in which the level-one variables were time and gender, and the level-two variable was couple membership. There was a significant decrease in relationship satisfaction from T1 to T2 (B = −0.77, SE = 0.54, p < .001). The effects for both gender and the gender × time interaction were non-significant. Descriptively, we found that 65% of men and 71% of women experienced a decrease in relationship satisfaction, whereas 30% of men and 24% percent of women experienced an increase in satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2:

Expectation violations and T2 relationship satisfaction

To test hypothesis 2 — that expectation violation is positively associated with T2 relationship satisfaction (controlling for T1 satisfaction) — a T2 relationship satisfaction residualized score was obtained by regressing T1 relationship satisfaction on T2 relationship satisfaction. (We will refer to this residualized variable as “change in relationship satisfaction” at T2.) Additionally, an expectation violations score was calculated by taking an individual’s experiences score and subtracting his or her expectations score; negative scores indicate negative expectation violation, and positive scores indicate positive expectation violation or expectations being surpassed. The residualized T2 relationship satisfaction change score was then predicted in an MLM model, in which the level-one variables were gender, expectation violations, and gender x expectation violations, and the level-two variable was couple membership. Significant actor (B = 1.17, SE = 0.18, p < 0.01) and partner (B = 0.59, SE = 0.18, p = 0.001) effects of expectation violations on relationship satisfaction were found. In other words, when one’s own and one’s partner’s experiences are better than expected, this is positively associated with one’s own relationship change at T2. No significant main effect for gender nor gender x expectation violations interaction was found in this domain (see Table 3 for full results).

Table 3.

Parameter Estimates of Model 2 — Examination of Impact of Expectations and Experiences on Relationship Satisfaction

Fixed components B SE p
Intercept .01 0.02 .794
Gender −.01 0.02 .449
Actor Expectation Violations 1.17 0.18 .000
Partner Expectation Violations .58 0.18 .001
Gender × Actor Expectation Violations −.10 0.18 .578
Gender × Partner Expectation Violations .17 0.18 .358
Open in a new tab

Hypothesis 3:

Perception of expectation confirmation and T2 relationship satisfaction

To test hypothesis 3—that perception of expectation confirmation is positively associated with T2 relationship satisfaction after controlling for T1 satisfaction—the residualized T2 relationship satisfaction change score was predicted in an MLM model, in which the level-one variables were gender, the perception score, and the gender × perception interaction, and the level-two variable was couple membership. A significant actor effect (B = 0.00, SE = 0.00, p = 0.003) of perception on relationship satisfaction change at T2 was found. In other words, one’s own perception of expectation confirmation was positively associated with one’s own relationship satisfaction change at T2. There was no significant partner effect for perception, gender difference, nor a gender x perception interaction found in this domain (see Table 4 for full results).

Table 4.

Parameter Estimates of Models 3 and 3.1

Fixed components Model 3 Model 3.1
B SE p B SE p
Intercept .00 .02 .863 .02 .02 .343
Gender .00 .02 .821 −.01 .02 .543
Actor Expectation Violations .99 .20 .000
Partner Expectation Violations .52 .20 .010
Actor Perception .00 .00 .003 .00 .00 .104
Partner Perception .00 .00 .379 .00 .00 .691
A Expectation Violations × A Perception −.01 .01 .002
P Expectation Violations × P Perception −.00 .01 .329
Gender × A Expectation Violations .09 .21 .668
Gender × P Expectation Violations .15 .21 .470
Gender × A Perception −.00 .00 .122 .00 .00 .697
Gender × P Perception .00 .00 .423 −.00 .00 .383
Gender × A Expectation Violations × A Perception −.00 .01 .860
Gender × P Expectation Violations × P Perception −.00 .01 .705
Open in a new tab

Note.

A = Actor; P = Partner

Hypothesis 3.1:

Perception of expectation confirmation moderates relationship between expectation violations and T2 relationship satisfaction

To test hypothesis 3.1 — that perception of expectation confirmation will moderate the association between expectation violations, their interaction, and change in relationship satisfaction (i.e., relationship satisfaction after controlling for T1 satisfaction) was predicted in an MLM model, in which the level-one variables were gender, the perception score, expectation violations and all 2- and 3-way interactions, and the level-two variable was couple membership. Similar to Hypothesis 2 findings, significant actor (B = 0.99, SE = 0.20, p < 0.001) and partner effects (B = 0.52, SE = 0.20, p =0.01) of expectation violations on relationship satisfaction change at T2 were found. In other words, when one’s own and one’s partner’s experiences were better than expected, this is positively associated with one’s own relationship satisfaction change at T2. Conversely, there were no significant actor or partner main effects for perception (See Table 4).

There was a significant actor effect of expectation violations x perception on satisfaction change at T2 (B = −0.01, SE = 0.00, p =0.002). We used Preacher et al.’s (2006) methods and companion website (http://www.quantpsy.org/interact/) to decompose the 2-way interaction. Consistent with our hypothesis, traditional tests of simple effects revealed a negative change in marital satisfaction for individuals who reported experiences worse than expected (compared to neutral or better-than-expected experiences) and more negative perceptions (−1 SD), B = 1.46, SE = 0.15, p < .001. Furthermore, analysis of simple slopes indicates a positive change in marital satisfaction at T2 for individuals who reported experiences as better than expected (compared to neutral or worse-than-expected experiences) and more positive perceptions (+1 SD), B = 0.53, SE = 0.13, p <.001(See Figure 1). Examination of regions of significance revealed that individuals reported significant changes in satisfaction when perceptions of experiences were lower than 44.47 (roughly +1 SD above the mean; B = 0.36, SE = 0.18, p = .05).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Expectation Violations x Perception on T2 Satisfaction

Note: Negative scores for expectation violations indicate under-met expectations; positive scores indicate over-met expectations.

There was no significant effect of one’s partner’s expectation violations and perception on one’s own satisfaction change at T2. Further, no significant gender differences were found on relationship satisfaction change (See Table 4).

Hypothesis 4:

Attributions and relationship satisfaction change at T2

To test hypothesis 4 — that more benign attributions about experiences will be positively associated with T2 relationship satisfaction change — the residualized T2 relationship satisfaction change score was predicted in an MLM model, in which the level-one variables were gender, the composite attribution score, and the gender × attribution interaction, and the level-two variable was couple membership. Both significant actor (B = 0.43, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001) and partner (B = 0.18, SE = 0.09, p = 0.043) effects of attributions on relationship satisfaction were found. In other words, one’s own and one’s partner’s attributions were positively associated with one’s own relationship satisfaction change at T2, such that more benign attributions are associated with higher relationship satisfaction. No significant gender differences were found in this domain (see Table 5 for full results).

Table 5.

Parameter Estimates of Models 4 and 4.1

Fixed components Model 4 Model 4.1
B SE p B SE p
Intercept −.01 .02 .779 .02 .02 .260
Gender .00 .02 .880 −.01 .02 .557
Actor Expectation Violations .84 .19 .000
Partner Expectation Violations .40 .19 .030
Actor Attribution .43 .09 .000 .26 .09 .003
Partner Attribution .18 .09 .043 .06 .09 .476
A Expectation Violations × A Attribution −2.49 .90 .006
P Expectation Violations × P Attribution −2.11 .89 .019
Gender × A Expectation Violations −.01 .19 .979
Gender × P Expectation Violations .06 .19 .727
Gender × A Attribution .08 .10 .429 .07 .09 .412
Gender × P Attribution −.09 .10 .348 −.06 .09 .501
Gender × A Expectation Violations × A Attribution −1.17 .90 .197
Gender × P Expectation Violations × P Attribution 1.42 .90 .113
Open in a new tab

Note.

A = Actor; P = Partner

Hypothesis 4.1:

Attributions moderate relationship between experience-expectation discrepancy and T2 relationship satisfaction

To test hypothesis 4.1 — that attributions will moderate the association between expectation violation and T2 relationship satisfaction after controlling for T1 satisfaction—the residualized T2 relationship satisfaction change score was predicted in an MLM model, in which the level-one variables were gender, the attributions score, expectation violations score, and all 2- and 3-way interactions, and the level 2 variable was couple membership.

Significant actor (B = 0.84, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001) and partner effects (B = 0.40, SE = 0.18, p = 0.03) of expectation violations on relationship satisfaction change were found, consistent with previous findings that when one’s own and one’s partner’s experiences are better than expected, individuals experience higher relationship satisfaction change at T2. A significant interaction was found between one’s own expectation violations and one’s own attributions on relationship satisfaction change (B = −2.49, SE = 0.90, p = 0.006). We used Preacher et al.’s (2006) methods and website to decompose the 2-way interaction. Consistent with our hypothesis, traditional tests of simple effects revealed a negative change in marital satisfaction for individuals who reported experiences worse than expected (compared to neutral or better-than-expected experiences) and more hostile attributions (+1 SD), B = 1.36, SE = 0.01, p < .001. Furthermore, analysis of simple slopes revealed that there was a positive change in marital satisfaction at T2 for individuals who reported experiences as better than expected (compared to neutral or worse-than-expected experiences) and benign attributions (−1 SD), B = 0.33, SE = 0.12, p = .009 (See Figure 2). Examination of regions of significance revealed that individuals reported significant differences in change in satisfaction when attributions were lower than 0.23 (+1 SD above the mean; B = 0.26, SE = 0.13, p = .05).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Actor and Partner Expectation Violations x Attributions on T2 Satisfaction

Note: Negative scores for expectation violations indicate under-met expectations; positive scores indicate over-met expectations. Actor: Benign attributions B = 0.33, hostile attributions B = 1.36; Partner: Benign attributions B = −0.06, hostile attributions B = 0.83

Additionally, a significant interaction was found for one’s partner’s expectation violations and partner’s attributions on one’s own relationship satisfaction change (B = −2.10, SE = 0.89, p = 0.019). Results were parallel to the actor interaction above and were consistent with our hypothesis. Traditional tests of simple effects revealed a negative change in marital satisfaction for individuals whose partner reported experiences worse than expected (compared to neutral or better-than-expected experiences) and partner’s more hostile attributions (+1 SD), B = 0.83, SE = 0.06, p < .001). Furthermore, analysis of simple slopes revealed that there was a positive change in marital satisfaction at T2 for individuals whose partner reported experiences as better than expected (compared to neutral or worse-than-expected experiences) and partner’s benign attributions (−1 SD), B = −0.06, SE = 0.03, p = .05 (See Figure 2). Examination of regions of significance revealed that individuals reported significant differences in change in satisfaction when partner’s attributions were lower than 0.17 (about ½ SD above the mean; B = 0.04, SE = 0.02, p = .05).

There was no effect of gender in this model (See Table 5).

Discussion

As predicted, relationship satisfaction significantly decreased across the transition to parenthood. Partner expectation disconfirmation, perceptions of expectation confirmation, and attributions were significantly associated with relationship satisfaction. As predicted, one’s own perceptions of expectation confirmation also moderated the association between one’s expectation violations and relationship satisfaction. Additionally, attributions of expectation violations moderated this association as well. The following discussion will further explore these findings and their implications.

This study explored cognitive processes associated with the transition to parenthood and their impact on relationship satisfaction changes. A significant decrease in relationship satisfaction was found from pregnancy to early parenthood. Although there is evidence that the decrease in satisfaction found during this transition is not necessarily unique to couples having a baby (Mitnick et al., 2009), results indicating that rates of deterioration in relationship satisfaction increase across the transition to parenthood suggest that this transition represents an early step in a deteriorating trajectory of relationship quality (Lawrence et al., 2007).

Consistent with previous research (Cowan & Cowan, 1995), we found that most men and women (65, 71%) experienced a decrease in relationship satisfaction, whereas a sizeable minority of men and women (30, 24%) experienced an increase in satisfaction. This highlights the importance of this developmental period. In the context of an average decline in relationship satisfaction, there is a good deal of variability in responses to this transition, underscoring that not all couples are affected in the same way by becoming parents. This suggests that the way this transition is experienced and cognitively processed might differentially affect one’s relationship over time. Considering both that most couples traverse this developmental milestone, and that relationship quality is related to physical and emotional health outcomes for both parents and children, greater insight into what factors might moderate the negative impact on relationship satisfaction, as well as what targets of intervention might be most fruitful, is of great importance.

In this study, expectations being surpassed was associated with improved satisfaction, whereas expectations not being met was associated with more deterioration in postnatal relationship satisfaction. Considering the generally positive nature of the expectations and experiences in this sample, it seems that especially high expectations can leave one vulnerable for disappointment in the relationship if or when experiences do not meet those expectations (Kalmuss et al., 1992; Harwood et al., 2007). Though past research found similar results concerning expectations about parenthood, the self, and one’s partner’s childcare duties (e.g., Kalmuss et al., 1992), this study extends those findings to more comprehensive expectations about one’s partner as a co-parent. Further research should explore which components of partner expectations are most prone to violation and which impact relationship satisfaction change the most. In addition, future research could also determine the predictors of experience, with the hope of identifying and intervening with couples whose expectations are unlikely to be fulfilled.

Positive perceptions of one’s partner were related to postnatal relationship satisfaction improvement. These perceptions also moderated the relationship between expectation violation and relationship satisfaction. When one’s expectations are unmet, positive perceptions somewhat buffer the detrimental impact on relationship satisfaction. Likewise, when one’s expectations are surpassed, having a positive, compared with a negative, perception yields relationship satisfaction improvement. Therefore, it seems that perception can serve as a protective or enhancing factor in this process. This is consistent with research on the cognitive correlates of subjective well-being, which finds that happy participants interpret their life circumstances more positively than unhappy participants (Seidlitz et al., 1997). The current study suggests a parallel association between interpreting one’s partner’s behavior as better than one expected and reporting improvements in satisfaction. This then raises questions about what individual or relationship factors might contribute to better perception. The literature on negative cognitive bias suggests correlates with depression (Beck, 2008), neuroticism, extraversion (Hayes & Johnson, 2002), and negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984). Future research should further develop the predictors and correlates of perception that might be relevant to the transition to parenthood, to offer better insight into any malleable clinical targets for prevention or intervention.

Similarly, in the current study, attributions were associated with satisfaction, and more benign attributions about negatively violated expectations were associated with improvements in satisfaction. This is consistent with prior research that correlates less global, stable, and blaming attributions with higher relationship satisfaction (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). This indicates that attributions could be a fruitful clinical target, in that they offer a means by which one can influence one’s own satisfaction and that therapeutic efforts to change attributions have evidenced success (e.g., Baucom et al., 2008; Bugental et al., 2002). Furthermore, because explanatory style for negative events is considered to be relatively stable (Buchanan et al., 2013), and early attributional styles of newlyweds have been shown to predict trajectories of satisfaction over the first several years of marriage (Durtschi et al., 2011), perhaps attributional style could be a target of prevention efforts. This type of attributional retraining component has been incrementally successful when included in programs to prevent child abuse (Bugental et al., 2002). Prevention programs for relationships such as PREP (Markman et al., 2010) address expectations and attributions (e.g., attributions of problems to communication deficits rather than partner characteristics are encouraged); however, it is not known if an explicit focus on expectations and attributions improves prevention outcomes (Kelly & Fincham, 1999). Future research could test the efficacy of clinical prevention and intervention efforts for pregnant couples or new parents that specifically target attributions, especially as they involve the partners’ changed or unexpected behaviors.

There were no significant gender findings in this study. Although we must be tentative in our interpretation of these results awaiting replication, it seems to suggest that these processes are not functioning differently for men and women.

This study possesses several strengths. First, one of the criticisms of some of the past research on the transition to parenthood is the lack of attention to fathers (e.g., Harwood et al., 2007). Equal numbers of men and women in the current study allowed for gender comparisons and expansion of theory regarding how mothers and fathers experience this transition. Furthermore, we used multilevel modeling to fully exploit the dyadic data. Second, the measurement of expectations extended beyond both expectations about the self in parenthood and expectations about how much childcare the partner will do. This allowed for a richer assessment of the many types of expectations one holds for one’s partner across this transition that impact consequent relationship satisfaction.

The study also has several limitations. First, the sample was highly educated. Perhaps as a consequence, the sample was slightly older; the mean age of our mothers at T1 was 29.69, compared with a national mean age of first-time mothers of 26.3 (Mathews & Hamilton, 2016). We cannot assume that expectations and experiences are generalizable to younger, less educated couples, and replication in a more representative sample is needed. Second, relationship satisfaction levels were generally fairly high regardless; thus, this study may not reflect the full range of expectant couples. Finally, results may have been shaped by the exclusive use of self-report methods; future studies could use observational methods to ensure that the results are not primarily due to shared method variance.

This study suggests a number of important clinical directions that can be achieved either via prevention or intervention to help preserve parents’ relationship quality and its consequent trajectory. Prenatal classes or other prevention efforts could expand their focus to help pregnant couples to have realistic expectations of their partners, to communicate those expectations clearly, and to establish less hostile attribution styles. Prenatal prevention programs should address not only expectations about parenthood regarding the self and the baby but also different facets of partner expectations, including expectations about behavior (e.g., childcare duties), reactions to the baby (e.g., tolerance of messiness, lovingness), personal factors (e.g., being in a good mood), and relationship changes (e.g., getting along, disagreeing about baby care, being supportive). This study’s findings also offer empirical support for intervention targets after the birth of the child. Interventions in early parenthood can assist individuals in realizing their partners’ expectations in actual experience when possible, in viewing the causes for their expectation violations more benignly, and even in gaining insight into possible cyclical problematic patterns between partner behavior and individual attributions.

This manuscript is based on the doctoral dissertation of Danielle Mitnick. Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Science of Behavior Change Common Fund Program and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research through an award administered by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research [1UH2DE025980–01]. The views presented here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Baucom DH, Epstein NB, LaTaillade JJ, & Kirby JS (2008). Cognitive-behavioral couple therapy. In Gurman AS (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy, 4th Ed. (pp. 31–72). Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beach SRH, Katz J, Kim S, & Brody GH (2003). Prospective Effects of Marital Satisfaction on Depressive Symptoms in Established Marriages: A Dyadic Model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(3), 355–371. 10.1177/0265407503020003005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck AT (2008). The evolution of the cognitive model of depression and its neurobiological correlates. The American journal of psychiatry, 165(8), 969–977. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08050721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Belsky J, Ward M, & Rovine M. (1986). Prenatal expectations, postnatal experiences and the transition to parenthood. In Ashmore R. & Brodzinsky D. (Eds.), Thinking about the family (pp. 139–145). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berger CR (1987). Communication under uncertainty. In Roloff ME & Miller GR (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 39–62). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  6. Biehle SN, & Mickelson KD (2012). First-time parents’ expectations about the division of childcare and play. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 36–45. 10.1037/a0026608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bögels SM, & Brechman-Toussaint ML (2006). Family issues in child anxiety: Attachment, family functioning, parental rearing and beliefs. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(7), 834–856. 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bradbury TN, & Fincham FD (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3–33. 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buchanan GM, Seligman ME, & Seligman M. (Eds.). (2013). Explanatory style. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bugental DB, Ellerson PC, Lin EK, Rainey B, Kokotovic A, & O’Hara N. (2002). A cognitive approach to child abuse prevention. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3), 243–258. 10.1037/0893-3200.16.3.243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Burgoon JK, & Hale JL (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58–79. 10.1080/03637758809376158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Coleman P, Nelson ES, & Sundre DL (1999). The relationship between prenatal expectations and postnatal attitudes among first-time mothers. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 17(1), 27–39. 10.1080/02646839908404582 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cowan C, & Cowan P. (1995). Interventions to Ease the Transition to Parenthood: Why They Are Needed and What They Can Do. Family Relations, 44(4), 412–423. 10.2307/584997 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cox MJ, Paley B, Burchinal M, & Payne CC (1999). Marital perceptions and interactions across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), 611–625. 10.2307/353564 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Coyne JC, Rohrbaugh MJ, Shoham V, Sonnega JS, Nicklas JM, & Cranford JA (2001). Prognostic importance of marital quality for survival of congestive heart failure. American Journal of Cardiology, 88(5), 526–529. 10.1016/s0002-9149(01)01731-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Darley JM, & Fazio RH (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychology, 35(10), 867–881. 10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Darley JM, & Gross PH (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 20–33. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Durtschi JA, Fincham FD, Cui M, Lorenz FO, & Conger RD (2011). Dyadic Processes in Early Marriage: Attributions, Behavior, and Marital Quality. Family relations, 60(4), 421–434. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00655.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fincham FD, & Bradbury TN (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The Relationship Attribution Measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 457–468. 10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Foran HM, & Slep AMS (2007). Validation of a self-report measure of unrealistic relationship expectations. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 382–396. 10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Funk JL, & Rogge RD (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harwood K, McLean N, & Durkin K. (2007). First-time mothers’ expectations of parenthood: What happens when optimistic expectations are not matched by later experiences? Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 1–12. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hayes N. & Johnson S. (2002). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 723–727. 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00057-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Holmes E, Sasaki T, & Hazen N. (2013). Smooth versus rocky transitions to parenthood: Family systems in development context. Family Relations, 62, 824–837. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones EE (1986). Interpreting interpersonal behavior: The effects of expectancies. Science, 234(4772), 41–46. 10.1126/science.234.4772.41 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kalmuss D, Davidson A, & Cushman L. (1992). Parenting expectations, experiences, and adjustment to parenthood: A test of the violated expectations framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3), 516–526. 10.2307/353238 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kelly AB, & Fincham FD (1999). Prevent marital distress: What does research offer? In Berger R. & Hannah MT (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy (p. 361–390). Brunner/Mazel. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, & Wilson SJ (2017). Lovesick: how couples’ relationships influence health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13 (1) 421–443. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kimmel PL, Peterson RA, Weihws KL, Shidler N, Simmens SJ, Alleyne S, Cruz I, Yanovski JA, Veis JH & Phillips TM (2000). Dyadic relationship conflict, gender, and mortality in urban hemodialysis patients. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 11(8), 1518–1525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kluwer ES (2010). From partnership to parenthood: A review of marital change across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(2), 105–125. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00045.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kouros CD, Papp LM, Goeke-Morey MC, & Cummings EM (2014). Spillover between marital quality and parent–child relationship quality: Parental depressive symptoms as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 315. 10.1037/a0036804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lawrence E, Nylen K, & Cobb RJ (2007). Prenatal expectations and marital satisfaction over the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 155–164. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Loving TJ, & Slatcher RB (2013). Romantic relationships and health. In Simpson JA & Campbell L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 617–637). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Markman HJ, Stanley SM, & Blumberg SL (2010). Fighting for your marriage (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mathews TJ, & Hamilton BE (2016). Mean age of mothers is on the rise: United States, 2000–2014. NCHS data brief, (232), 1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. McNulty JK, & Karney BR (2002). Expectancy confirmation in appraisals of marital interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 764–775. 10.1177/0146167202289006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. McNulty JK, & Karney BR (2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 729–743. 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mitnick DM, Heyman RE, & Slep AMS (2009). Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(6), 848–852. 10.1037/a0017004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. O’Leary KD, Slep AMS, & O’Leary SG (2007). Multivariate models of men’s and women’s partner aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 752–764. 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.752 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pancer SM, Pratt M, Hunsberger B, & Gallant M. (2000). Thinking ahead: Complexity of expectation and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality, 68(2), 253–279. 10.1111/1467-6494.00097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, & Bauer DJ (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. 10.3102/10769986031004437 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Seidlitz L Jr., Wyer RS, & Diener E. (1997). Cognitive correlates of subjective well-being: The processing of valenced life events by happy and unhappy persons. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 240–256. 10.1006/jrpe.1997.2184 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  45. Theiss JA, Estlein R, & Weber KM (2013). A longitudinal assessment of relationship characteristics that predict new parents’ relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 216–235. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01406.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Thibaut JW & Kelley HH (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  47. Traut-Mattausch E, Schulz-Hardt S, Greitemeyer T, & Frey D. (2004). Expectancy confirmation in spite of disconfirming evidence: The case of price increases due to the introduction of the Euro. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(6), 739–760. 10.1002/ejsp.228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Vannier SA, Adare KE, & Rosen NO (2018). Is it me or you? First-time mothers’ attributions for postpartum sexual concerns are associated with sexual and relationship satisfaction in the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 577–599. 10.1177/0265407517743086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Watson D, & Clark LA (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 465–490. 10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wright PJ, Henggeler SW, & Craig L. (1986). Problems in paradise? A longitudinal examination of the transition to parenthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 7(3), 277–291. 10.1016/0193-3973(86)90035-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES