Love Styles

In their study, Davis and Latty-Man (Reference Davis and Latty-Mann1987) examined how Lee's color-of-love model (Reference Lee1973) is associated with the five clusters of Davis and Todd's (Reference Davis, Todd, Davis and Mitchell1982, Reference Davis, Todd, Duck and Perlman1985) relationship assessment scale, which includes the dimensions of viability, intimacy, care, passion, and a series of negative feelings, exemplified by conflict and ambivalence. The color-of-love model suggests six love styles — Eros (romantic, passionate love), Storge (friendship love), Pragma (rational love), Ludus (game-playing love), Mania (possessive, dependent love), and Agape (all-giving, selfless love). The study showed that Eros, Agape, and Ludus strongly predicted the six global clusters — viability, intimacy, passion, care, satisfaction, and conflict/ambivalence — whereas Pragma, Mania, and Storge made little contribution to their prediction.

Richardson, Medvin, and Hammock (Reference Richardson, Medvin and Hammock1988) examined the association of Lee's six love styles with relationship satisfaction. It was found that Ludus was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction. Eros was positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Agape showed the same pattern as Eros. Storge and Pragma were found to be unrelated to relationship satisfaction, and Mania was found to be negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction.

In exploring the association of love styles with relationship satisfaction, Hendrick, Hendrick, and Adler (Reference Hendrick, Hendrick and Adler1988) found that the perception of a partner's love style (especially Eros, Ludus, and Agape) was substantially correlated with the individual's own relationship satisfaction. The individual's own love styles were also highly predictive of the individual's relationship satisfaction. For men, relationship satisfaction was best predicted by passionate love (Eros) and self-esteem, and the absence of game-playing love (Ludus). For women, passionate love and the absence of both game-playing and possessive love (Mania) best predicted relationship satisfaction (Hendrick et al., Reference Hendrick, Hendrick and Adler1988). The same study found that dating couples who stayed together versus those who broke up were higher in passionate love and lower in game-playing love.

Meeks, Hendrick, and Hendrick (Reference Meeks, Hendrick and Hendrick1998) found Eros, Agape, Storge, and Mania to be positively related with relationship satisfaction, and Ludus to be negatively related to relationship satisfaction. Eros, Agape, Storge, and Ludus (negatively) were all found to predict relationship satisfaction.

Self-Verification and Self-Enhancement

Researchers have shown a lot of interest in examining the impact of self-verifying and self-enhancing feedback from partners in close relationships. Research has documented significant effects of partner self-verification (Katz, Anderson, & Beach, Reference Katz, Anderson and Beach1996; Schafer, Wickrama, & Keith, Reference Schafer, Wickrama and Keith1996; Swann, Hixon, & De La Ronde, Reference Swann, Hixon and De La Ronde1992) and self-enhancement (Katz et al., Reference Katz, Anderson and Beach1996; Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994) on measures of relationship quality.

Self-verification theory suggests that individuals prefer information that is consistent with their self-concept. Self-enhancement theory suggests that individuals prefer positive feedback about the self.

Adopting a self-enhancement perspective, Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996a, Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b) demonstrated that people are most satisfied when their partners perceive them more positively than they perceive themselves. Other research guided by a self-verification perspective shows that people are sometimes more intimate and committed in their relationships when their partners verify their self-conceptions, or when their partners view them in a fashion consistent with how they view themselves, even when they view themselves negatively (Swann, Reference Swann, Jr, Suls and Greenwald1983; Swann et al., Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994).

A number of studies show that people who are verified by their partners are characterised by higher levels of relationship quality than non-verified persons. More specifically, individuals receiving self-verifying partner feedback report greater intimacy (Katz et al., Reference Katz, Anderson and Beach1996; Swann et al., Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994), satisfaction (Katz et al., Reference Katz, Anderson and Beach1996), commitment (Swann et al., Reference Swann, Hixon and De La Ronde1992), and marital happiness (Schafer et al., Reference Schafer, Wickrama and Keith1996) than non-verified counterparts.

A key factor in maintaining successful social relations is recognising others’ perception towards oneself and being able to respond appropriately. Swann et al. (Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994) and Murray et al. (Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996a) found that individuals in short-term dating relationships reported greater intimacy in their relationships the more positively they were perceived by their partners, whereas verifying appraisals were not related to intimacy. Conversely, as the relationship matures and the relationship's future is no longer a central concern, Swann et al. (Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994) argued that the relationship becomes less evaluative and that verifying feedback, particularly of negative self-views, becomes an asset instead of being a threat to the stability of the relationship.

Research has demonstrated that individuals in long-term dating relationships may also respond positively to verification of their global self-concept. Katz et al. (Reference Katz, Anderson and Beach1997) found that women in long-term dating relationships reported greater satisfaction and intimacy with their partners when there was greater congruence between their reported global self-esteem and perceived partner appraisals.

Campbell, Lackenbauer, and Muise (Reference Campbell, Lackenbauer and Muise2006) found that for people with negative self-perceptions, verifying feedback resulted in more positive evaluations of the partner and relationship for people in long-term versus short-term relationships, but the results were mixed regarding the effects of enhancing feedback.

Past research has demonstrated that how people are perceived by their romantic partners, in relation to their self-perceptions, is strongly related to how satisfied they are in their relationships (Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996a), how close and intimate they feel in their relationships (Swann et al., Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994), and even how they alter their self-perceptions over time (Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b).

Swan et al. (Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994) found that self-verification from the partner was not associated with relationship intimacy among dating couples. Rather, dating individuals reported greater intimacy when partner feedback was more positive or self-enhancing, even when feedback was non-verifying.

Self-enhancing feedback has also been found to influence marital quality. Self-enhancement theory suggests that people are motivated to view themselves favourably (Jones, Reference Jones1973). Katz et al. (Reference Katz, Anderson and Beach1996) found that married individuals who received self-esteem enhancement reported greater satisfaction and greater intimacy than their counterparts. They further found that self-esteem verification from the spouse also impacted marital quality. Married individuals who reported higher levels of self-esteem verification evidenced greater satisfaction and greater intimacy than married individuals who reported lower levels of self-esteem verification.

Personality

Social and personality psychologists have long been interested in understanding how personality traits influence the quality of relationships (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, Reference Caspi, Roberts and Shiner2005). A number of researches, over the years, reveal unambiguously that there is a reliable association between self-reported personality traits and relationship quality (Karney & Bradbury, Reference Karney and Bradbury1997; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, Reference Robins, Caspi and Moffitt2000, Reference Robins, Caspi and Moffitt2002; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, Reference Watson, Hubbard and Wiese2000).

Many studies have examined which specific personality traits are most highly correlated with relationship satisfaction. For instance, low levels of negative personality traits such as neuroticism and negative emotionality have been consistently associated with self-reports of relationship quality and satisfaction (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, Reference Caughlin, Huston and Houts2000; Robins et al., Reference Robins, Caspi and Moffitt2002; Watson et al., Reference Watson, Hubbard and Wiese2000). A meta-analysis (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, Reference Heller, Watson and Ilies2004) found that overall neuroticism is the strongest personality correlate of marital satisfaction. Additionally, Karney and Bradbury (Reference Karney and Bradbury1997) have found that negative personality traits such as neuroticism are associated with decreased satisfaction from the onset of marriage.

Gattis, Berns, Simpson, and Christensen (Reference Gattis, Berns, Simpson and Christensen2004) found that neuroticism was significantly higher in a sample of distressed couples than in a sample of non-distressed couples. A study by Caughlin et al. (Reference Caughlin, Huston and Houts2000) found that trait anxiety is associated with marital satisfaction, and this association was largely explained by self-reports of communication patterns between partners. It is therefore clearly evident that the presence of highly neurotic individuals in relationships may have important implications for self-reported relationship quality and satisfaction (Robins et al., Reference Robins, Caspi and Moffitt2000).

Positive emotionality and other positive personality traits have also been frequently examined with respect to self-reported relationship quality. Robins et al. (Reference Robins, Caspi and Moffitt2002) found that positive emotionality was related to higher quality relationships and also low levels of negative relationship outcomes, such as self-reported conflict and abuse. Likewise, Watson et al. (Reference Watson, Hubbard and Wiese2000) examined personality and relationship satisfaction in a sample that included both married couples and a sample of dating couples. Specifically, they found that extraversion is associated with satisfaction in married couples and that conscientiousness and agreeableness are associated with satisfaction in dating couples. In another study (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, Reference Botwin, Buss and Shackelford1997), conscientious wives had husbands who were more sexually satisfied and conscientious husbands had wives who were more generally satisfied with their relationships.

Watson et al. (Reference Watson, Hubbard and Wiese2000) examined both self- and partner-reports of personality in dating and marital couples. In the sample of dating couples, conscientiousness and agreeableness, irrespective of who provided the data on personality (self or partner), were associated with both the males’ and females’ relationship satisfaction. Significant associations were also found for neuroticism and extraversion. In the sample of married couples, self-reports of extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism were all associated with self-reports of satisfaction, results that were corroborated by partners’ reports of personality.

Donnellan, Conger, and Bryant (Reference Donnellan, Conger and Bryant2004), in a sample of long-term married couples, found that for female participants, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness were associated with observed negative interactions. For the male participants, only neuroticism was significantly associated with observed quality. Another report drawn from the same study (Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, & Conger, Reference Donnellan, Larsen-Rife and Conger2005) examined committed relationships with a majority of married couples. In this study, positive emotionality was negatively correlated, and negative emotionality was positively associated, with negative interactions. Thus, some evidence for an association between personality and observed quality has emerged.

Holland and Roisman (Reference Holland and Roisman2008), in their study using multiple methods of relationship quality (self-report, observation, and physiological response), found that significant associations were identified between personality (in aggregate) and self-reported quality. In contrast, few significant associations were identified for both observed emotional tone and physiological responding. Moreover, the overall magnitude of the effect of personality traits in aggregate on non-self-report indicators of relationship quality was trivial across dating, engaged, and married couples. Few significant effects were found for each of the personality traits, a consistent pattern across informants, and indicators of quality did not clearly emerge for any specific personality trait. In addition, there was some heterogeneity in unique effects across couple type. The most consistent unique effects were found in the domain of self-reported quality — and conscientiousness was the most consistent predictor of this dependent measure. For example, among dating and engaged couples, individuals who were more conscientious reported higher quality relationships. In addition, married couples reported greater conscientiousness and also exhibited higher levels of skin conductance.

Interaction Patterns

Meeks, Hendrick, and Hendrick (Reference Meeks, Hendrick and Hendrick1998), in their study, found that individual's distributive conflict tactics (destructive statements, include criticism, showing anger, and sarcasm) predicted relationship satisfaction. The findings also showed that integrative conflict tactics (constructive statements, tactics that involve information sharing), and avoidant conflict tactics (topic shifting, denial of conflict, and semantic focus) were related to relationship satisfaction.

Gavin and Furman (Reference Gavin and Furman1996), in their study of adolescent girls’ relationships with mothers and same-sex best friends, posited harmony as an essential construct in understanding close relationships. Harmony is defined by frequent supportive interactions and infrequent conflictual interactions (p. 375), and is related to the level of cooperation and positive affect expressed in videotaped interactions. Gavin and Furman (Reference Gavin and Furman1996) even found that both mother-daughter dyads and best friend dyads in harmonious relationships were also better able to negotiate power in their interactions.

A construct similar to harmony in parent-child and best friend relationships has been found to have emerged in marital relationships. Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (Reference Gottman, Coan, Carrere and Swanson1998) tested the ratio-model or balance model that examines the level of positive affect relative to the level of negative affect. They found that couples who demonstrated a higher ratio of positive to negative affect in videotaped interactions described their marriages as happier.

Gottman et al. (Reference Gottman, Coan, Carrere and Swanson1998) also conceptualised husband-wife interaction in terms of interpersonal power. A pattern in which low-level negativity by the wives triggered defensive negative behavior by the husbands, interpreted as husbands’ unwillingness to accept influence from their wives, was associated with deterioration of marital quality.

Galliher, Welsh, Rostosky, and Kawaguchi (Reference Galliher, Welsh, Rostosky and Kawaguchi2004) examined the perception of four different interactions patterns — positive, negative, harmony, and influence of late adolescent couples in videotaped conversations and their self-report of global relationship quality on the basis of those interaction patterns. The findings showed that girlfriends’ perceptions of less conflict and greater harmony displayed by their boyfriends were associated with better overall relationship quality. In contrast, boyfriends’ perceptions of their own supportive behaviour and their own capacity to accept influence predicted better relationship quality. The findings also showed that girlfriends’ reports of relationship quality were predicted from perceptions of their boyfriends’ behaviours. In contrast, for boyfriends, it was their own behaviours that were most salient in predicting relationship quality.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to monitor one's own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions (Salovey & Mayer, Reference Salovey and Mayer1990).

Researchers have speculated about potential links between EI and relationship quality among couples (Fitness, Reference Fitness, Carriocchi, Forgas and Mayer2001; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, Reference Mayer, Caruso and Salovey1999). Noller, Beach, and Osgarby (Reference Noller, Beach, Osgarby, Halford and Markman1997) reviewed research showing that accuracy in expressing and recognising emotions correlates with couples’ reports of marital happiness. Carton, Kessler, and Pape (Reference Carton, Kesslar and Pape1999) found that sensitivity and accuracy in non-verbal communication predicts happiness.

Empathy, an important aspect of EI, is very likely one of the key factors that influence relationship satisfaction (Meeks et al., Reference Meeks, Hendrick and Hendrick1998). A significant component of empathy, perspective-taking, has been defined as the capability to understand another person and put oneself in that person's place (Long, Reference Long1990).

Individuals hold basic relationship expectations concerning the degree to which their partners should understand their point of view. The failure to fulfill these basic expectations consequently results in decreased relationship satisfaction (Long & Andrews, Reference Long and Andrews1990). Long (Reference Long1993) investigated perspective taking towards divorce. The findings indicate that individual's perspective-taking behaviour towards the spouse is related to greater relationship satisfaction and disinclination towards divorce.

Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, and Palfai (Reference Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, Palfai and Pannebaker1995) and Fitness (Reference Fitness, Carriocchi, Forgas and Mayer2001) found a positive association between emotion clarity, measured by the Trait-Meta Mood Scale (TMMS), and relationship satisfaction in couples. Partners with high emotion clarity (i.e., a clear understanding of their feelings when they are experienced) reported less difficulty in forgiving a partner-initiated conflict than those with low emotion clarity.

According to Fitness (Reference Fitness, Carriocchi, Forgas and Mayer2001), higher EI might enable people to more effectively manage the delicate emotional negotiations involved in seeking and granting forgiveness. Therefore, by implication, higher EI may lead to better management of disagreements, which in turn might predict less conflict and higher relationship satisfaction. Rusbult, Bissonnette, and Arriaga (Reference Rusbult, Bissonette, Ariaga and Bradbury1998) also noted the importance of emotion regulation in marital satisfaction. Their work showed that in comparison with unhappy spouses, happy spouses are more likely to accommodate than to retaliate during conflict.

Schutte, Malouff, Bobik, Coston, and Greeson (Reference Schutte, Malouff, Bobik, Coston and Greenson2001) found that EI correlated with reports of marital satisfaction. They also showed that individuals who perceived their partners to have higher EI reported significantly greater marital satisfaction. Brackett, Warner, and Bosco (Reference Brackett, Warner and Bosco2005) examined the association of EI with relationship quality outcomes. The study concludes that couples with both partners low in EI tended to have less positive relationship outcomes than couples in which at least one partner had high EI.

Partner Support

Brunstein, Dangelmayer, and Schultheiss (Reference Brunstein, Danglemayer and Schultheiss1996) found that people who reported greater goal support from their partners evaluated their relationships more positively. The support component most strongly related to relationship satisfaction, however, was how much partners directly contributed to or impeded goal accomplishment.

Fitzsimmons and Shah (Reference Fitzsimmons and Shah2008) also presented experimental evidence that others who are instrumental to goal success are evaluated more positively. In their studies, individuals reported greater closeness and displayed stronger approach tendencies towards people who were previously identified as helpful in achieving primed goals.

Cross-sectional associations between observed support behaviour and relationship wellbeing suggest that people who are more satisfied behave more positively and less negatively during support interactions (Lawrence et al., Reference Lawrence, Bunde, Barry, Brock, Sullivan, Pasch and Adams2008; Pasch & Bradbury, Reference Pasch and Bradbury1998). In a longitudinal study comparing the interaction behaviour of couples whose relationships were classified as distressed (separated, divorced, or low in satisfaction) versus satisfied two years later, Pasch and Bradbury (Reference Pasch and Bradbury1998) found that women in distressed couples offered less positive support and behaved more negatively. This longitudinal evidence indicates that lower levels of support by women reduces relationship satisfaction and increases instability.

According to Reis, Clark, and Holmes (Reference Reis, Clark, Holmes, Mashek and Aron2004), supportive behaviours have a positive influence on relationship security and satisfaction when partners are responsive, understanding, and validating. Cutrona, Shaffer, Wesner, and Gardner (Reference Cutrona, Shaffer, Wesner and Gardner2007) found that support that did not match recipients’ needs was associated with poorer concurrent satisfaction precisely because partners were judged to be less understanding.

Overall, Fletcher, and Simpson (Reference Overall, Fletcher and Simpson2010), in their study of the role of partner support in relationship quality, found that partners evaluated their relationships more positively when they behaved less negatively and provided more nurturant and action-facilitating support. The study further showed that this supportive behaviour of partners predicted recipients’ evaluations of relationship quality across the year.

Thus, the degree to which relationship partners actively assist and foster personal growth seems to be an important determinant of relationship wellbeing. When partners are less helpful, in contrast, people become less satisfied with their relationships (Overall et al., Reference Overall, Fletcher and Simpson2010).

Positive Bias and Accuracy

Most individuals are positively biased when evaluating their romantic relationships. This is supported by a large body of research showing that people systematically evaluate their own relationship as being more positive than what reality may suggest (Agnew, Loving, & Drigotas, Reference Agnew, Loving and Drigotas2001; MacDonald & Ross, Reference MacDonald and Ross1999; Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray and Holmes1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996a, Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b).

The ability of individuals to see their relationships and loved ones in an overly positive light appears to be the hallmark of most satisfying and enduring relationships (Murray, Reference Murray1999; Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray, Holmes, Fletcher and Fitness1996). Dating and married individuals who idealise their romantic partners report greater relationship satisfaction (Fowers, Lyons, & Montel, Reference Fowers, Lyons and Montel1996; Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996a, Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b), greater commitment to their relationships (Martz, Verette, Arriaga, Slovik, Cox, & Rusbult, Reference Martz, Verette, Arriaga, Slovik, Cox and Rusbult1998), greater love, greater trust, and less ambivalence and conflict in their relationships (Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray and Holmes1997). In general, the perception that one's relationship is consistent with one's ideals appears to foster higher perceptions of relationship quality (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, Reference Fletcher, Simpson and Thomas2000; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, Reference Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas and Giles1999).

Longitudinal research also shows that relationships are more likely to persist when people idealise their relationships (Fletcher et al., Reference Fletcher, Simpson and Thomas2000; Helgeson, Reference Helgeson1994; Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b; Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray and Holmes1997; Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, Reference Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich and Verette2000). Furthermore, early idealisation seems to forecast later increases in satisfaction (Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b; Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray and Holmes1997; Rusbult et al., Reference Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich and Verette2000), love, and trust (Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray and Holmes1997), and later decreases in doubt and conflict in the relationship (Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b; Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray and Holmes1997).

On the whole, research suggests that positively biased evaluations of a romantic relationship help people feel good about their relationships (Fletcher & Thomas, Reference Fletcher, Thomas, Fletcher and Fitness1996). Such bias allows individuals to maintain their conviction that their relationship is worth keeping, especially when the relationship may be threatened by feelings of doubt and uncertainty (Murray, Reference Murray1999).

However, research also suggests contradictory findings. A longitudinal study revealed that the more participants held idealistic beliefs about their relationships, the more difficulty they had adjusting to a later long-distance separation or dissolution (Helgeson, Reference Helgeson1994) perhaps because those with the most idealistic beliefs were also most committed to their relationships (Martz et al., Reference Martz, Verette, Arriaga, Slovik, Cox and Rusbult1998). This suggests that a more accurate understanding of the relationship may be more adaptive when relationship beliefs run the risk of being disconfirmed by a harsher reality.

Therefore, on the one hand, there exists considerable evidence in the close relationship literature suggesting that positively biased relationship perceptions are adaptive for the relationship (Murray, Reference Murray1999; Murray & Holmes, Reference Murray and Holmes1997) and on the other hand, this sense of security may be false (Helgeson, Reference Helgeson1994).

Researchers have argued that instead of positive bias it is best to accurately understand one's relationship, as accuracy has also been found to foster relationship quality (Kobak & Hazan, Reference Kobak and Hazan1991; Noller & Ruzzene, Reference Noller, Ruzzene, Fletcher and Fincham1991; Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, Reference Swann, De La Ronde and Hixon1994). There is growing consensus in the close relationship literature that accuracy and bias are independent and that they can co-exist in the evaluations people make about their relationships (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2002; Kenny & Acitelli, Reference Kenny and Acitelli2001; Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996a).

Gagné and Lydon (Reference Gagné and Lydon2004) believe that positive outcomes in the relationship depend on the presence of both positive bias and accuracy in people's evaluations of their loved ones. Positive bias is important because it sustains felt security; it helps people regulate their relationship feelings through the ups and downs of daily living. Without this bias, it could be difficult to maintain the conviction that the relationship is worth pursuing (Murray, Reference Murray1999).

Importantly, Gagné and Lydon (Reference Gagné and Lydon2004) believe that positive bias without accuracy, or accuracy without positive bias, can be harmful. Individuals who are positively biased but not accurate are probably very content in their relationships. However, this may result in ignoring epistemic needs, which may very well lead to poor decision making. Conversely, individuals who are accurate but not positively biased are likely to be despondent and resigned to their relationship fate. Therefore, both positive bias and accuracy together make a positive contribution to relationship quality.

Depression

The association between depression and relationship quality has been established by a number of researches (O'Mahen, Beach, & Banawan, Reference O'Mahen, Beach, Banawan, Harvey and Wenzel2001; Rehman, Gollan, & Mortimer, Reference Rehman, Gollan and Mortimer2008; Whisman, Reference Whisman and Beach2001). Much work suggests that depressive symptoms are detrimental to relationship quality. Whisman (Reference Whisman and Beach2001) documented a negative correlation between depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction. Other studies reveal longitudinal and reciprocal effects of depressive symptoms and marital distress over time (Fincham, Beach, Harold, & Osborne, Reference Fincham, Beach, Harold and Osborne1997; Kouros, Papp, & Cummings, Reference Kouros, Papp and Cummings2008; Kurdek, Reference Kurdek1998).

Knobloch & Knobloch-Feddars (Reference Knobloch and Knobloch-Feddars2010) found that people's depressive symptoms were negatively associated with their own dyadic adjustment and positively associated with their own relationship distress. The findings also showed that relational uncertainty — how unsure individuals are about their perceptions of a relationship (Knobloch, Reference Knobloch, Spitzberg and Cupach2007; Knobloch & Solomon, Reference Knobloch and Solomon1999) — may mediate the link between depressive symptoms and relationship quality.

Economic Factors

Economics is a key factor affecting relationship quality. Several studies have linked financial instability to relationship dissolution and divorce (Burstein, Reference Burstein2007; Hoffman & Duncan, Reference Hoffman and Duncan1995; Kalmijn, Loeve, & Manting, Reference Kalmijn, Loeve and Manting2007; Lewin, Reference Lewin2005; South, Reference South2001). Explanations for this link suggest that economic hardship may place stress on couples, thereby increasing conflict and leading eventually to divorce (Ono, Reference Ono1998; White & Rogers, Reference White and Rogers2000). Individuals might fight over limited resources and struggle with disappointment when financial means are meagre. Thus, economic circumstances may diminish relationship quality by increasing conflict and reducing intimacy.

Research suggests that financial strain increases couple-level violence for cohabiting and married couples (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, Reference Benson, Fox, DeMaris and Van Wyk2003; Fox, Benson, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, Reference Fox, Benson, Demaris and Van Wyk2002). Papp, Cummings, and Goeke-Morey (Reference Papp, Cummings and Goeke-Morey2009) found that married couples’ arguments over money were more intense and recurrent than other sources of disagreement. A study using a sample of both cohabiting and married couples found that family harmony was marginally related to income and perceived economic wellbeing (Fox & Chancey, Reference Fox and Chancey1998).

Most research on economic factors and violent conflict has combined married and cohabiting couples in one sample (e.g., Benson et al., Reference Benson, Fox, DeMaris and Van Wyk2003; Cunradi, Caetano, & Schafer, Reference Cunradi, Caetano and Schafer2002; DeMaris, Benson, Fox, Hill, & Van Wyk, Reference DeMaris, Benson, Fox, Hill and Van Wyk2003; Fox et al., Reference Fox, Benson, Demaris and Van Wyk2002; Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, Reference Van Wyk, Benson, Fox and DeMaris2003). These researches concluded that economic strain is positively related to violence in relationships, although there is disagreement regarding appropriate measures of economic distress.

De Maris et al. (Reference DeMaris, Benson, Fox, Hill and Van Wyk2003) found that partners’ unemployment and neighbourhood disadvantage were related to physical violence, whereas Cunradi et al. (Reference Cunradi, Caetano and Schafer2002) showed that income, but not unemployment, was negatively associated with violent conflict. Other studies have found a relationship between objective and subjective measures of financial strain and violent aggression toward female partners (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Fox, DeMaris and Van Wyk2003; Fox et al., Reference Fox, Benson, Demaris and Van Wyk2002; Van Wyk et al., Reference Van Wyk, Benson, Fox and DeMaris2003).

Hardie and Lucas (Reference Hardie and Lucas2010) examined the relationship between economic factors and two dimensions of relationship quality — affection and conflict. The findings show that economic factors play an important role in perceived relationship quality among young cohabiting and married couples.

The findings also suggest that the role of economic factors depends on the dimension of relationship quality that is examined. Affection appears to be particularly responsive to educational attainment. Economic factors play a larger role in the level of reported conflict for both cohabiting and married partners, and this relationship emerged regardless of the type of conflict: generalised or violent. The findings therefore suggest that economic wellbeing can improve positive measures of relationship quality and that economic hardship can play a role in instigating couple conflict (Hardie & Lucas, Reference Hardie and Lucas2010).

To sum up, a look back at more than two decades of research on relationship quality, love styles, self-verification and self-enhancement, personality, interaction patterns, emotional intelligence, partner support, positive bias and accuracy, depression, and economics are the factors that determine relationship quality.