. 2021 May 24;48(4):534–549. doi: 10.1177/01461672211016920

Table 2.

Summary of Within-Person Cross-Lagged Effects for Positive Communication and Relationship Satisfaction.

Within-person results	Within-partner comm. model					Cross-partner comm. model
Within-person results	W1	W2	W3	W4	W5	W1	W2	W3	W4	W5
Positive communication-to-satisfaction lagged paths
Cross-lagged paths: Pos. _W-1 to F. Sat.
Study 1: Pos. Not assessed
Study 2: Obs. Pos._W-1 → F. Sat.	–	−.05^a	−.03^a	−.03^a	−.04^a	–	.00^g	.00^g	.00^g	.00^g
Study 2: S. R. Pos._W-1 → F. Sat.	–	−.01^b	−.02^b	−.02^b	−.02^b	–	−.05^h	−.04^h	−.04^h	−.04^h
Study 3: Pos._W-1 → F. Sat.	–	.00^c	.00^c	.00^c	.00^c	–	.03ⁱ	.02ⁱ	.02ⁱ	.02ⁱ
Cross-lagged paths: Pos. _W-1 to M. Sat.
Study 1: Pos. Not assessed
Study 2: Obs. Pos._W-1 → M. Sat.	–	.05^m	.04^m	.03^m	.06^m	–	.10^s	.06^s	.06^s	.09^s
Study 2: S. R. Pos._W-1 → M. Sat.	–	−.05ⁿ	−.05ⁿ	−.05ⁿ	−.07ⁿ	–	.03^t	.05^t	.05^t	.07^t
Study 3: Pos._W-1 → M. Sat.	–	−.02^o	−.01^o	−.01^o	−.01^o	–	−.07^*	.02	.05	.14^*
Satisfaction-to-positive communication lagged paths
Cross-lagged paths: F. Sat. _W-1 to Pos.
Study 1: Pos. Not assessed
Study 2: F. Sat._W-1 → Obs. Pos.	–	−.05^d	−.08^d	−.07^d	−.07^d	–	.02^j	.04^j	.02^j	.02^j
Study 2: F. Sat._W-1 → S. R. Pos.	–	−.03^e	−.04^e	−.04^e	−.05^e	–	.00^k	.00^k	.00^k	.00^k
Study 3: F. Sat._W-1 → Pos.	–	.00^f	.00^f	.00^f	.00^f	–	.02^l	.02^l	.02^l	.02^l
Cross-lagged paths: M. Sat. _W-1 to Pos.
Study 1: Pos. Not assessed
Study 2: M. Sat._W-1 → Obs. Pos.	–	−.03^p	−.04^p	−.02^p	−.02^p	–	.16	.08	.21^*	−.25^*
Study 2: M. Sat._W-1 → S. R. Pos.	–	.03^q	.03^q	.03^q	.03^q	–	.02^u	.03^u	.02^u	.03^u
Study 3: M. Sat._W-1 → Pos.	–	−.02^r	−.02^r	−.02^r	−.03^r	–	−.01^v	−.01^v	−.01^v	−.01^v

Note. Standardized estimates.

^a–v Corresponding coefficients are constrained to equality. Significant effects are shown in bold for emphasis. _W-1 = preceding wave. F. = female partner; M. = male partner; Pos. = positive communication; Sat. = relationship satisfaction; W = wave; Obs. = observed; S. R. = self-reported. Positive communication was not assessed in Study 1.

p < .05.