Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Identifying the Predictive Influence of Family Background Characteristics, Individual Traits and Skills, and Contextual Factors on
Partner Enhancement in Marital Relationships
by
Jeremy S. Boden, B.S., M.S.
A Dissertation
In
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES
Texas Tech University
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of:
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Sylvia Niehuis, Ph.D. Dissertation Chair
Dean M. Busby, Ph.D. Jacki Fitzpatrick, Ph.D. Alan Reifman, Ph.D.
Accepted Dominick Casadonte
Interim Dean of the Graduate School December, 2012
Copyright © 2012 Jeremy Scott Boden
All Rights Reserved
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my profound gratitude to all the members of my
dissertation committee. I am deeply grateful for their time, attention, and mentoring
provided on my behalf in completing this document.
I am indebted to Dr. Sylvia Niehuis for her tireless efforts. Her dedication through
the process was deeply appreciated. Despite my many foibles, she was kind, patient, and
direct with both my strengths and weakness.
I appreciate Dr. Alan Reifman’s efforts in assisting me with the methods and data
analysis sections and, as one of my favorite teachers at Texas Tech University, it was a
pleasure working with him on this project.
I would like to thank Dr. Dean Busby for access to the RELATE data set and for
his approachable mentoring along the way. I would also like to express my immense
gratitude to Frank Poulsen who sat patiently in his office while I riddled him with
questions about SEM.
I would like to thank Dr. Jacki Fitzpatrick, not only for her help and feedback on
this dissertation but for her mentoring during my tenure at Texas Tech University. I owe
much of my skill, love, and passion for teaching to her. She stretched me in ways I didn’t
think were possible.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention all of the other faculty members who helped
me along the way. Dr. Judy Fisher for helping with my first publication; Dr. Miriam
Mulsow for accepting me to the program and for her enthusiasm; Dr. Elisabeth Sharp for
opening my eyes to a greater perspective of thinking; Dr. Jason Whiting for one of my
favorite jobs at the TTREI and for all of his encouragement, mentoring, and, friendship;
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
iii
and Dr. Mary Moline at Loma Linda University for creating a love for couples therapy,
and for her love and concern for me as a person. I am also grateful to Dr. Steven Clark at
Utah Valley University for his support while I tried to balance a full-time faculty
position, my dissertation, and my family. I would also like to thank all my friends at
Texas Tech who saw me through the darkest and joyful points in my life: Gail Bentley,
Shara Jackson, and Sothy Eng. Finally, I am thankful to the Texas Tech HDFS
department and Texas Tech Graduate School for their financial assistance and support.
To my wife, Daria, the few words that I write here do not adequately describe the
love and support you provided. None of what I have accomplished would have been
possible without your unfailing dedication. Quite simply, I could not have asked for a
finer friend and companion. Elisabeth, Hannah, Leah, and Nicolas you bring balance to
my life and remind me, daily, of what is eternally important. I would also like to thank
my parents who were a constant support. I always knew they were proud of me. Finally, I
must thank my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ who provide the ultimate purpose in my
life and have given me all that I have and, without them, nothing would be possible.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Predictive Factors 3
Theoretical Context 7
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9
Theoretical Framework 9
Background on Social Cognition 12
Partner Enhancement 15
Predictors of Partner Enhancement 18
Family Background Characteristics 18
Parental Marital Quality 21
Family Quality 22
Parent-Child Relationships 23
Individuals’ Traits and Skills 25
Self-Esteem 25
Attachment Orientation 28
Relationship Self-Regulation Efforts and Strategies 30
Coming to Terms with One’s Family of Origin 32
Gender 34
Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval 35
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
v
Summary of Hypotheses and Research Question 38
CHAPTER 3: METHOD 40
Sample 40
Procedure 44
Measures 45
Partner Enhancement 46
Family Background Characteristics 47
Parental Marital Quality 47
Family Quality 47
Parent-Child Relationships 48
Individuals’ Traits and Skills 48
Self-Esteem 48
Attachment Orientation 48
Relationship Self-Regulation Efforts 49 and Strategies Coming to Terms with One’s Family of Origin 50
Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval 50
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 55
Model Testing 57
Findings 58
Family Background Characteristics 58 and Partner Enhancement
Individuals’ Own Traits and Skills 60 and Partner Enhancement
Contextual Factors and Partner Enhancement 63
Mediation Effects 64
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
vi
Supplementary Analyses 66
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 69
Discussion of Hypotheses and Research Question 70
Family Background Characteristics and Partner Enhancement 70
Hypothesis 1 70
Individuals’ Own Traits and Skills and Partner Enhancement 71
Hypothesis 2 71
Hypothesis 3 72
Hypothesis 4 75
Hypothesis 5 77
Hypothesis 6 77
Contextual Factors and Partner Enhancement 78
Hypothesis 7 78
Mediation Effects 79
Implications 80
Limitations and Future Directions for Research 82
Conclusion 87
REFERENCES 89
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
vii
ABSTRACT
The study of cognitions and partner perceptions in the context of romantic
relationships has seen much attention the last decade. How partners evaluate each other
relative to how they evaluate themselves on a given attribute has been shown to influence
relationships processes. When an individual (perceiver) evaluates his or her partner more
favorably than the original perceiver views him or herself, “partner enhancement” is said
to occur. This study sought to investigate the antecedents to partner enhancement in a
sample of 653 married couples. Family background characteristics, self-esteem,
attachment orientations, relationship self-regulation, and social network approval were
used to predict partner enhancement. Results revealed that family background
characteristics, anxious and avoidant attachment, self-esteem, and social network
approval were all associated with partner enhancement for both husbands and wives.
However, self-esteem and avoidant attachment had an opposite effect on partner
enhancement than was hypothesized. Suggestions for future research and practical
implications for relationship education and therapy are discussed.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
viii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Sample Characteristics 42
2. Correlations for Study Variables 52
3. Latent Constructs, Indicators, and Standardized Factor Loadings 53
4. Mean Differences Between Husbands and Wives on Study Variables 64
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Proposed Structural Equation Model 56
2. Structural Equation Model 59
3. Mediation 64
4. Actor-Partner Effects Structural Equation Model 68
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The investigation of cognitions and partner perceptions has been a major focus in
the study of close relationships (Fletcher, Overall, & Friesen, 2006). Considerable
interest has been paid to how social cognitions may affect the satisfaction and stability of
dating and marital relationships (e.g., Canary & Dainton, 2006; Maner & Miller, 2011;
McNulty, O’Mara, & Karney, 2008; Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, &
Verette, 2000). The way one views one’s partner can have a dramatic effect on
relationship outcomes (Niehuis, Lee, Reifman, Swenson, & Hunsaker, 2011). In general,
research suggests that when partners have a positive view of each other, there is a
positive influence on relational outcomes (e.g., Sacco & Phares, 2001). One form of
cognition that has been found to play a role in relationship outcomes is partner
enhancement. Partner enhancement assumes that individuals view their partner as more
competent, skilled, or capable on a given attribute (e.g., affability) than themselves.
Only two studies so far have examined partner enhancement. Busby, Holman, and
Niehuis (2009) created a five-fold typology based on how both individuals in a romantic
partnership perceived themselves in relation to one another with regard to their affable
personality. The researchers found that couples in which both individuals perceived their
partner as more affable than themselves (i.e., partner enhancement) experienced less
negative communication, held fewer expectations for change, and had higher scores on
relationship satisfaction and stability at Time 1. Further, enhancing one’s partner above
one’s self was also associated with relationship stability one year later (Time 2). In
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
2
contrast, couples in which both individuals perceived themselves as better than their mate
on affability experienced higher levels of negative communication and lower relationship
satisfaction and stability at Time 1.
Morry, Reich, and Kito (2010) looked at relationship types (i.e., friendship,
dating, and marriage), relationship quality, and partner enhancement. They found that
dating and married partners’ (but not friends’) who reported higher relationship quality
(i.e., meeting one’s needs, love for partner, and expectations) were more likely to
enhance their partner on positive traits (e.g., openness) but not on negative traits.
Researchers also measured partner enhancement for negative traits (e.g., moody). An
individual could enhance their partner if they rated the target (i.e., friend or partner)
lower on the scale than they did themselves. Results indicated that only cross-sex friends
were more likely to partner enhance than were dating or married partners.
Both studies found a significant positive association between partner
enhancement and relationship satisfaction/quality. Given this positive relationship and its
implication for long-term relationship quality and stability, it is important to understand
what might make some individuals more (or less) likely to enhance their spouse above
themselves. Previous studies have identified the influence of partner enhancement on
marital relationships (e.g., Busby et al., 2009; Morry et al., 2010). This study seeks
empirically to gain a better understanding of the “roots” of partner enhancement by
drawing on review article by Larson and Holman (1994) that identifies a variety of
factors (such as self-esteem, attachment, family background, and social network
approval) that might predict partner enhancement as well as additional variables that have
been identified since then.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
3
Predictive Factors
Family background characteristics (e.g., relationship with parents) have been
found to be predictive of romantic relationship outcomes (Holman & Associates, 2001).
It is well researched that children develop relational cognitions and expectations as they
grow up and that these perceptions influence their attitudes, values, and behaviors (Day,
2010). Examining family background variables in relation to cognitions is important in
the study of romantic relationships because of the powerful effect cognitions have on
relational outcomes (Fincham & Beach, 1999). Past research on the link between family
background experiences and future marital outcomes has focused mainly on conflict,
divorce, aggression, satisfaction, and stability. It is important to extend and expand this
important content area to cognitions that partners have about one another. To the author’s
knowledge, no study has linked family background characteristics to partner
enhancement in marriage either directly or indirectly.
In addition to family background variables, individuals’ traits and skills have been
a staple in relationship research. Factors such as self-esteem, attachment, relationship
self-regulation (i.e., efforts and strategies individuals use to direct their thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors to improve their relationship), and coming to terms with family
background experiences have found their way into decades of research. Self-esteem has
been linked not only to a variety of marital dynamics, such as jealousy and infidelity
(e.g., Shackelford, 2001), but also to dating and married partner’s social perceptions. For
instance, Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (2000) found that dating and married partners with
low self-esteem dramatically underestimated how positively their partners perceived
them. Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) also found that partners with
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
4
low self-esteem seem to disparage their partners compared to those with high self-esteem.
Self-esteem, therefore, plays an important role in how individuals perceive themselves
and their partner. This study will seek to examine the relationship between self-esteem
and partner enhancement, thereby extending the literature in both of these areas.
Adult attachment has been a topic of interest in romantic relationships since
Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) article, which established the link between adult attachment
and romantic relationship functioning. In reference to attachment, Collins and Allard
(2001) state, “As individuals enter new relationships, they bring with them a history of
social experiences and a unique set of memories, beliefs, and expectations that guide how
they interact with others and how they construct their social world” (p. 60). They further
suggest that the cognitions that individuals create in the pre-adult stage of development
can specifically be influential in the context of romantic relationships. Much research on
attachment and marriage has focused on specific attachment orientations and their
association with marital outcomes. Only recently have studies begun to link attachment
orientations to specific cognitions such as attributions (e.g., Gallo & Smith, 2001) and
irrational relationship beliefs (e.g., Stackert & Bursik, 2002). To the author’s knowledge,
no study has examined how attachment orientations may affect how individuals view
their partner in relation to themselves. Thus, this study intends to fill in this gap in the
literature.
A vast body of research has shown that individuals who are able to direct their
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in order to accomplish a given goal (i.e., using self-
regulation strategies and efforts) enjoy a variety of personal benefits (e.g., Baumeister,
Heatherton, & Tice, 1994; Locke & Latham, 2002). Self-regulatory strategies and efforts
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
5
and how relational goals are obtained have recently found their way into research on
marriage. Self-regulation in relationships is the process of looking inward at one’s self
rather than placing blame on one’s partner for relationship deficiencies. Further,
relationship self-regulation (RSR) focuses on “how partners successfully change their
own behavior within the relationship rather than on the occurrence of specific
relationship behaviors” (Halford, Lizzio, Wilson, & Occhipinti, 2007, p. 187). Studies
have demonstrated that when individuals proactively put effort into and implement
strategies to improve themselves and thereby their relationship, they experience greater
relationship satisfaction (e.g., Halford, & Moore, 2002). Nevertheless, the literature on
RSR has predominantly focused on how one’s perceived relational efforts and strategies
affect stability and satisfaction. To the author’s knowledge, no research has examined
whether relationship self-regulation is associated with cognitions about one’s partner. It
could be that when partners perceive that they are putting forth efforts and strategies into
improving themselves and their relationship that this might affect their perception of their
partner.
Although there has been an abundant amount of research on the link between
family background dynamics and future relationship outcomes, few studies have looked
at an individual’s ability to overcome negative family experiences. Some clinical
perspectives posit that individuals who are able to grow from their past negative family
experiences are better able to approach life successfully (Bowen, 1978). Even though
past events cannot be altered, the impact they have on present goals, attitudes,
expectations, and behaviors can be changed (Holman & Associates, 2001). Martinson,
Holman, Larson, and Jackson (2010) found that when adult individuals come to terms
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
6
with their negative family of origin experiences, they tend to report more relationship
satisfaction compared to those who have not emotionally resolved or processed their
difficult family background experiences. If one is able to come to terms with one’s
negative family background experiences, this will likely also affect one’s cognitions
about one’s partner. This study, therefore, seeks to explore the potential link between
coming to terms with one’s family background and one’s perceptions of one’s partner in
relation to oneself.
Finally, contextual factors that surround relationships are also important to
consider when discussing relationships (Larson & Holman, 1994), particularly the degree
to which one’s social network (i.e., family and friends) approves of one’s marital
relationship. Generally speaking, the literature on social network approval has focused
primarily on premarital, rather than marital relationships. However, Brown, Orbuch, and
Maharaj (2010) note, “social networks can be a valuable resource and provide various
types of social capital to . . . married couples” (p. 320). In addition, Sprecher, Felmlee,
Orbuch and Willetts (2002) argue that social networks continue to influence relationship
processes even after the relationship enters into greater mutuality, such as marriage. The
majority of the literature has focused on how social network approval affects overall
relationship satisfaction/quality and stability, but has not paid much attention to the
specific mechanisms by which this effect may occur. However, some scholars have
suggested that because individuals compare their own opinions with those of friends and
family, married individuals may use those evaluations as a yardstick to measure their own
opinions of their spouse and relationship (Bryant & Conger, 1999). Therefore, this study
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
7
seeks to examine whether family and friends’ approval of one’s marital relationship
affects whether one perceives one’s spouse to be more affable than oneself.
Theoretical Context
Larson and Holman (1994), motivated by the high rate of marital dissolution in
the United States and its effects on society, set out to gain a better understanding of
factors during dating and courtship that might have an influence on subsequent marital
quality and stability. The researchers conducted a comprehensive review of the literature
dated from 1975 to 1992. Based on their findings, they put forth a conceptual model that
allows researchers to derive hypotheses about individual as well as simultaneous effects
of spouses’ family background characteristics, traits, skills, cognitions, and experiences,
as well as various contexts, on marital quality and stability. The present study identifies
variables from this ecosystemic model to examine whether family background
characteristics (perceived parental marital happiness, family-of-origin quality, and
quality of the parent-child relationship) predict partner enhancement directly and/or
indirectly via contextual factors (social-network approval of the relationship) and
individuals’ own traits and skills (self-esteem, attachment orientation, relationship self-
regulation efforts and strategies, and having come to terms with difficulties experienced
in the family of origin). Therefore, this study seeks to obtain a better understanding of the
construct of partner enhancement and its potential predictors. This study utilizes Larson
and Holman’s (1994) ecological model of relationship quality and stability as a source of
ideas, but the study is primarily empirical in nature.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
8
To do this, the present study utilizes a cross-sectional subset (N = 653
heterosexual couples in their first marriage) of a larger, ongoing longitudinal study of
relationship development, sponsored by the RELATE Institute. The RELATE is a
multidimensional and comprehensive assessment instrument that assesses both spouses’
family background characteristics; traits, skills, cognitions; current relationship
functioning; and perceptions of approval of the marriage from family and friends. It
makes it possible, therefore, for the present study to seek answers to questions not
addressed by previous research, such as: Are individuals who believe that their parents
had a good marriage, who recall a positive parent-child relationship, and who believed
they grew up in a safe, appropriate, and happy family environment, more likely to
enhance their partner, or are such individuals more prone to perceive their partner as less
affable than themselves? Are individuals with an insecure attachment orientation or who
have not come to terms with difficulties they experienced in their family of origin, or who
suffer from low self-esteem more likely to overcome these “liabilities” in their marriages
by enhancing the partner above themselves, or are they more likely to perceive their
partner in a more negative light relative to themselves? Finally, are individuals whose
family and friends approve of their marriage more likely to enhance their partner’s
qualities above their own, or are such individuals more likely to enhance themselves
above their partner? By answering questions like these, the present study will hopefully
be of great value not only to researchers in the field of cognitions and relationships, but
also to relationship educators of both premarital and marital curricula, and to cognitive-
behavioral therapists helping distressed couples.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
9
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section discusses Larson and Holman’s (1994) ecological model of
premarital predictors of marital quality and stability and then provides a background on
close relationship research with regard to social cognition in general and partner
enhancement in particular. Next, the empirical research regarding hypothesized
predictors of partner enhancement, namely family background characteristics,
individuals’ traits and skills, and contextual factors are examined. Each predictor section
concludes with a statement of hypothesis derived from the theoretical framework used
and the empirical literature reviewed. The chapter ends with a summary of the hypotheses
and one exploratory research question.
Theoretical Framework
Drawing upon 50 years of cross-sectional and longitudinal literature, Larson and
Holman (1994) developed an ecosystemic model of premarital predictors of marital
quality and stability. The authors argue that there are three major influences that predict
marital quality and stability: background and contextual factors, individual traits and
behaviors/skills, and couple interactional processes. According to their model, a couple is
“a developing system that can and does respond to influences from within and without
the system. The relationship develops at a number of levels, including the individual,
couple, and contextual levels. The relationship at all levels is dynamic rather than linear,
changing and evolving rather than static” (p. 229). Individuals are embedded within their
family of origin background and social context. These two areas (family background and
context) are assumed to shape each partner’s individual traits and behaviors/skills, such
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
10
as their attitudes, beliefs, and skills that they bring into their relationship. Couple’s
interactional processes also have an impact on the evolving couple. How similar or
different the partners are on (a) a variety of demographic variables, such as race, age,
intelligence; (b) with regard to attitudes, values, and beliefs; and (c) how well they know
each other, whether they cohabit, engage in premarital sex, and how well they
communicate with one another, all have an effect on how smoothly the couple’s
relationship evolves over time and how happy and stable the couple’s relationship is
likely going to be.
Larson and Holman’s (1994) model has helped advance the area of premarital
predictors of marital success and failure, by systematically summarizing and organizing a
plethora of research on variables associated with marital satisfaction, adjustment,
happiness, and stability, into a framework that allows researchers to formulate and test
hypotheses. However, their model, helpful as it is, is not explicit with regard to social
cognitions that result from other dynamics occurring between the partners. This “flaw”
can be attributed to the relative lack of research on social cognitions in the context of
predictors of marital success and failure during the 1980s and 1990s. Historically
speaking, before the 1980s, most researchers devoted their attention to demographic and
background variables, as well as to premarital attitudes pertaining to courtship and
marriage. A clear shift in focus occurred in the 1990s, however, toward the study of
dyadic factors. Parallel to the shift in attention from individual and background variables
to dynamic couple concepts, the earlier focus of identifying factors that facilitate the
selection of “the right” person has been supplemented by greater consideration given to
behavioral propensities that can be modified in order to help couples enhance the quality
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
11
of their relationships (Cate & Lloyd, 1992; Wamboldt & Reiss, 1989). However, as
Niehuis, Huston, and Rosenband (2006) have pointed out, cognitions and evaluations of
relationships, such as feelings of love and ambivalence, evaluations of the relationship,
such as satisfaction, and perceptions of the partner, had been woefully ignored. Thus,
Larson and Holman’s (1994) model focuses on homogeny, premarital events (e.g.,
cohabitation, premarital pregnancy and birth), and behavioral interaction in the category
labeled couple interactional processes, but does not list relationship cognitions within
this category as well (as Niehuis et al., 2006 would suggest researchers do). However,
had empirical research been done on dyadic perceptions by the time Larson and Holman
developed their model, these authors would in all likelihood have included these as part
of couple interactional processes. With this in mind, then, Larson and Holman’s (1994)
model would suggest the following associations:
• Family background characteristics, such as individuals’ perceptions of their
parents’ marital quality, family quality, and the quality of the parent-child
relationship should have a subsequent effect on couple interactional processes,
including partners’ perceptions of one another;
• individuals’ own traits and behaviors/skills that they bring into relationships
should be associated with couple processes, such as partner enhancement; and
• “other ecosystems around the individual… or the circumstances surrounding the
courtship” (p. 231), such as social network approval, should affect couple
processes, such as individuals’ social cognitions about their partner.
Based on variables and ideas from Larson and Holman’s (1994) ecosystemic
model, the present study examines whether and how selected factors embedded within
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
12
the family background (e.g., perception of parents’ marital quality, parent-child
relationship, family environment), within individual traits and behaviors (e.g., self-
esteem, attachment orientation) and within the social context (e.g., social network
approval) predict a particular form of social cognition: partner enhancement.
Background on Social Cognition
Research on the topic of marriage has seen a great increase in the last 10 years
(Fincham & Beach, 2010). This expanded work has spanned several disciplines and
topics such as psychological factors, sociodemographics, parenting, and physical and
mental health. However, much of the marital research has focused on predictive factors
of divorce (e.g., Amato & Rogers, 1997; Gottman & Levenson, 2002; Huston, Niehuis, &
Smith, 2001), such as conflict (e.g., Gottman & Driver, 2005) or the impact of stress on
marriage (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2007; Story & Bradbury, 2004). Nevertheless, research on
the impact of cognitions is important in understanding not only the demise of
relationships but how relationships flourish and the mechanisms at work (Maner &
Miller, 2011).
Evidence has shown that the modal course of relationship development
experiences can often lead to a “cognitive shift” for partners wherein the dramatic
upswing of positive feelings drifts into feelings of disenchantment (e.g., Karney,
McNulty, & Bradbury, 2004; Niehuis et al., 2011). Acitelli (2001) argued that
relationships can be maintained simply by cognitively attending to them. Couple
therapists often encourage partners to use selective attention, such as ignoring negative
behavior and focusing on positive behavior (e.g., Epstein & Baucom, 2002). Other forms
of cognitive maintenance involve forgiving one’s partner for transgressions (e.g.,
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
13
Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004) or reframing the wrongdoing via reformulating,
minimizing, or justifying the transgression within the context of the relationship (Roloff
& Cloven, 1994).
However, perceptions and interpretations of salient flaws in one’s partner
inevitably emerge and may engender doubts. These perceptions have the ability to
dramatically influence the ebb and flow of the future satisfaction and stability of the
relationship. Yet relationships function and flourish every day, which begs the question
of how this juxtaposition of hope and uncertainty seems possible.
It has been well documented that humans believe what they want or wish to
believe, even when faced with evidence that would directly contradict their beliefs (Jost,
Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2007). Research has shown that individuals are more likely to
attend to information that confirms their original impressions, rather than seeking
information that would run contradictory to their original assumptions (Nickerson, 1998).
Therefore, it is human nature for people to engage in a form of confirmatory bias, and
such cognitions can translate into romantic relationships. This is not a new concept as
Waller (1937) hypothesized that the idealization of one’s partner is an essential element
in the development of romantic relationships. This is consistent with the more modern
theory of social constructivism wherein individuals selectively piece together their reality
based on their cognitive perspectives.
Kunda (1990) postulated that when individuals are faced with a decision or the
need to make a judgment, the judgment is often grounded in their desired goals and
motives or “directional goals,” but also in some evidence. People do not haphazardly
come to conclusions merely to come to a conclusion; rather, grounded in their desired
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
14
goal, they will pull from memory evidence that supports their judgment and unknowingly
create an “illusion of objectivity” (p. 483). The same person who came to a conclusion
based on their directional goals and cognitive evidence might, in a different situation,
with different directional goals, draw from other evidence to come to an entirely different
conclusion based on the current context and directional goal. As Kunda (1990) suggests,
“people will come to believe what they want to believe only to the extent that reason
permits” and will sometimes be forced to concede their conclusions when confronted
with strong counter arguments (p. 483).
Relationship scholar Sandra Murray has developed a program of research based
on how partners perceive each other’s virtues and vices. She proposes that individuals
construct stories about their partners that diminish feelings of uncertainty concerning the
relationship. This cognitive display of optimism can propel partners to weave “stories
that depict potential faults or imperfection in the partners in the best possible light”
(Murray & Holmes, 1993, p. 707) and embellish a partner’s virtues and diminish their
faults (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a).
This relationship-affirming narrative is most noticeable during the early stages of
relationships as partners attend to the positive qualities of their new interest (Holmes &
Boon, 1990; Murray & Holmes, 1993). Inevitably, as time passes, interdependence
between partners increases, which gives way to a bevy of novel experiences across
broader and more varied domains. These new encounters will more than likely shed light
on previously unseen or unattended to negative attributes of the partner, sowing seeds of
doubt. Before partners abandon the relationship due to unmet expectations, Murray and
Holmes (1993) argue that the heightened commitment that comes with duration might
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
15
create reformulated positive illusions. These new positive illusions can then traverse the
doubt and disappointment and coincide with the original assumptions of their partner’s
affirming disposition. Despite new negative information, partners restructure their stories
to quell “uncertainty, essentially allowing individuals to commit to their partners without
fear or reservations” (Murray & Holmes, 1993, p. 708). In essence, partners reframe and
minimize their partners’ faults in the backdrop of surrounding virtues and create a mosaic
portrait of meaning and significance of the virtue or vice.
On the outset, this cognitive reframing might sound detrimental to the overall,
long-term satisfaction of the relationship; research tells a different story, however.
Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996b) proposed that not only is this a common
characteristic in relationships but a romantic necessity, essential to happiness. They argue
that the cognitive creation of idealized notions of the partner may actually insulate the
relationship from disappointment and disillusionment. In their study of over 121 dating
partners, Murray et al. (1996b) found that idealized images of their significant other
predicted stability and satisfaction over one year. Rather than creating a false sense of
hope, the authors argued, these idealized positive illusions may have engendered a
stronger sense of confidence in the relationship. In fact, women in the study who felt they
better understood their partners’ true selves were found to be the least happy. This may
suggest that when partners do have an accurate, less illusionary perception of their
partner’s frailties they might have less confidence in the stability of the relationship.
Partner Enhancement
Positive illusions are only one form of social cognition. A similar, yet distinctly
different one, is partner enhancement. Partner enhancement assumes that individuals
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
16
view their partner as more competent, skilled, or capable on a given attribute (e.g.,
agreeableness) than themselves. Two recent studies have looked closely at how partner
enhancement operates in romantic relationships. Morry et al. (2010) compared cross-sex
friendships, dating partners, and married partners on relationship quality (e.g., how one’s
partner meets one’s needs, expectations, and love for partner) and its effect on partner
enhancement. For dating and married partners, as relationship quality increase so did
partner enhancing cognitions on positive traits. This was not true for cross-sex
friendships. Compared to married and dating respondents, cross-sex friends were more
likely to partner enhance on negative traits. Although these findings are intriguing and
add to the literature on partner enhancement, one limitation to Morry et al.’s (2010) study
was that they only assessed one individual in the romantic partnerships. Busby et al.
(2009) assessed both partners’ perception of themselves and their partner the other using
a general measure of positive personality traits that originated from the Big Five model
used often in the field. Using the traits of openness and agreeableness, the authors created
the variable affability to measure partner enhancement. Their objectives were twofold:
(1) to explicate groups based on premarital and married couples’ patterns of partner
enhancement, and (2) to explore how partner ratings influenced relationship outcomes:
communication, expectations for change, satisfaction, and stability.
Busby and colleagues (2009) formed five partner-enhancement couple types—
partner-enhancing, same, self-enhancing, mixed self-enhancing, and mixed partner-
enhancing. Partner-enhancing couples were those in which both members of the couple
rated each other higher than they rated themselves. When both members of the dyad rated
themselves the same (i.e., neither self- nor partner-enhancing), they were categorized as
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
17
same couples. When both individuals rated themselves higher than the other, they were
categorized as self-enhancing couples. Regardless of gender, when one member of the
partnership rated himself or herself higher than the other and their partner rated himself
or herself the same or lower, they were categorized as mixed self-enhancing couples.
Finally, when one person rated the partner higher, regardless of gender, and the other
person rated himself or herself as the same, they were categorized as mixed partner-
enhancing couples.
The authors found that even after controlling for relationship length, couples in
which both partners perceived themselves as more affable than their partner experienced
lower relationship satisfaction and stability and higher levels of negative communication.
They were also more likely to want their partner to change. On the other hand, couples in
which both partners enhanced each other above themselves (i.e., partner enhancement)
experienced the highest scores on relationship satisfaction and stability, as well as lower
levels of negative communication and expectations for change. Further, the study
demonstrated the influence of partner enhancement on couples’ relationship stability
approximately one year later. The authors conclude that “relationships that do not possess
this partner-enhancing quality are vulnerable to serious problems” (p. 460). Partners who
fail to engage in partner enhancement may missing an important “reinforcing relationship
structure” that can lead to blame, lack of responsibility for problems, and conflict (Busby
et al., 2009). Taken together, these two studies lend support for the idea that identifying
potential predictors of partner enhancement is important to the study of martial
relationships to increase the likelihood of positive relationship outcomes such as stability
and satisfaction.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
18
Predictors of Partner Enhancement
In this section, potential predictors of partner enhancement will be reviewed. The
predictors are categorized according to Larson and Homan’s (1994) ecosystemic levels:
family background characteristics (parental marital quality, parent-child relationship, and
family quality), individual traits and skills (self-esteem, attachment orientation,
relationship self-regulation, coming to terms), and social context (social network
approval from family and friends).
Family Background Characteristics
The field of social cognition assumes that an individual’s construction of reality is
based on a conglomeration of his or her experiences and associations with family,
friends, and social environments (Honeycutt & Cantrill, 2001). More specifically, most
scholars agree that an individual’s family of origin is the genesis from which most of the
developing human’s socialization is born (e.g., Busby, Gardner, & Taniguchi, 2005; Day,
2010); thus the family crucible becomes a fertile ground wherein individuals build mental
representations, process relationships, and act upon their natural urge to initiate and form
close associations with others (Fletcher et al., 2006).
Intergenerational transmission is the process of transmitting traditions, behaviors,
attitudes, beliefs, and communication styles from one generation to the next (Day, 2010).
A number of theorists have examined intergenerational transmission and socialization
processes within the family context (e.g., Bowen, 1978; Busby et al., 2005; Collins &
Read, 1990; Hoopes, 1987). Although many factors such as genetics, school, peers, and
church play a role in the social development of children, the family of origin usually
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
19
plays a much greater part in later development into adulthood (Busby et al., 2005;
although for a contrasting view, see Harris, 1998).
The assumption of intergenerational transmission is supported by abundant
empirical research on such factors as marital commitment (e.g., Amato & DeBoer, 2001),
marital violence (e.g., Wareham, Boots, & Chavez, 2009), premarital relationship quality
(e.g., Jacquet & Surra, 2001; Larson, Taggart-Reedy, & Wilson, 2001), volunteering
(e.g., Mustillo, Wilson, & Lynch, 2004), marital attitudes and readiness (e.g., Larson,
Benson, Wilson, & Medora, 1998), emotional dysregulation (e.g., Kim, Pears, Capaldi, &
Owen, 2009), divorce and marital quality (e.g., Amato, 1996), emotional expression (e.g.,
Smith & Ng, 2009), rituals (e.g., Homer, Freeman, Zabriskie, & Eggett, 2007),
relationship skills and commitment (e.g., Amato & Rogers, 1997), and parenting (e.g.,
Chen & Kaplan, 2001). What seem to be less documented in the literature are the effects
of family background on romantic partners’ cognitions toward their mate.
There are a number of family process and intergenerational theories in the field of
family studies. Bowen’s intergenerational family theory posits that relational patterns are
often replicated and reproduced from generation to generation (Bowen, 1978). It goes
beyond the view that individual’s psychological development is produced in isolation but
rather includes legacies from preceding generations, as well as significant interactions
with one’s nuclear family and family of origin (Bowen, 1978; Day, 2010). Behaviors are
reinforced or shaped by how social models are rewarded or not rewarded for their
behaviors (Yu & Adler-Baeder, 2007). Studying the association between family-of-origin
conflict interactions and future marital interactions and relationship adjustment, Whitton,
Waldinger, Schulz, Allen, Crowell, and Hauser, (2008) found that levels of hostility and
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
20
positive engagement expressed by parents were linked to later levels of hostility and
positive engagement of adult children and their spouses.
According to Busby and colleagues (2005), one of the preeminent duties of the
family is to help children integrate into adult life and relationships successfully. Studies
have shown that by looking at an individual’s family background dynamics such as the
perception of his or her parent’s marriage, parent-child relationship, and overall family
experiences, predictions can be made about the individual’s future relationship dynamics,
patterns, and cognitions (Holman & Associates, 2001). Research in the area of family
background influences on later relationship functioning suggests that children who grow
up in families that are cold, unsupportive, and neglectful may create a “cascade effect”
that begins early and continues to follow the path into adolescence and young adulthood,
and may subsequently affect romantic relationship outcomes (Gardner, Busby, &
Brimhall, 2007; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002).
Experiences gained within the family and in close associations with others create
cognitive constructs, or what some scholars term as “relationship schemas” (Baldwin,
1992; Planalp & Rivers, 1996). Relationship schemas are “ingrained beliefs of family
members about individual and family function . . . [and] are a significant part of what
constitutes the fabric of the family functioning” (Dattilio, 2005, p. 15). They are created
initially from past experiences, and then guide future interpretations of how the
experience fits within the self and what is attributed to the partner Holmes (2002).
Thus, whether through mental models, learning or intergenerational transmission,
family-of-origin influences should have an impact on various aspects of romantic
relationships, including social cognitions. The following variables (parental marital
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
21
quality, family atmosphere, and parent-child relationships) capture important
characteristic of a person’s family background (Busby, Gardener, & Taniguchi, 2005;
Holman & Associates, 2001; Kim et al., 2009) and, via one or more of the mechanisms
outlined above, ought to have an impact on spouses’ perceptions of one another.
Parental Marital Quality. Few areas of family research have received as much
attention as the link between parental divorce and its impact on the adult children’s own
relationships (Kim et al., 2009). Less attention has been paid to the quality of the parents’
marriage and its influence on the child’s adult romantic relationships (Amato &
Sobolewski, 2001). Much of children’s beliefs and attitudes about marriage are shaped by
their observations of parental conflict and patterns of interaction they viewed while
growing up (Hair, Anderson-Moore, Hadley, Kaye, Day, & Orthner, 2009). Children
build a repertoire of schemas and behaviors based on the observations of their parents in
their marital interaction processes (Bandura, 1977). These early pictures create cognitive
images of “how marriage practice might be or seems to be done, for better or worse”
(Marks, 1986, p. 13). However, few studies have attempted to examine the effects
parental marital quality may have on future cognitions about a romantic or marital
partner.
Parental marital quality is defined here as adult children’s perception of their
parents’ happiness in the marriage. Although the size of this association varies depending
on the study, research has clearly established that there is a positive association between
the marital quality of adult children’s parents and the quality of children’s own future
unions (Hair et al., 2009; Larson & Holman, 1994; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Holman &
Associates, 2001). Adults who remember their parents as having a poor marital
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
22
relationship tend to report more psychological and marital problems in their own lives
(e.g., Amato & Sobolewski, 2001). Further, Meredith and Holman (2001) found that
those who were the most satisfied in their marriage 6 years after the wedding perceived
their own parents’ marriage to be happier.
The predominant view is that by witnessing or experiencing parental discord,
children acquire maladaptive interpersonal repertoires (Story, Karney, Lawrence, &
Bradbury, 2004). Amato (1996) postulated that when the parental marriage is disrupted,
the socialization process inherent in the family of origin continues to teach children not
only about how to communicate but also about cognitive features such as trust and
appraisals of the belief in marriage.
In addition to the evidence that poor parental marital quality impacts the romantic
relationships of adult children, there is also some evidence that poor parental marital
quality might impact cognitions in later offspring marriages (e.g., Gardener, Busby, Burr,
& Lyon, 2011). Attitudes can be shaped by children’s perceptions of parental marital
quality. Kapinus (2005) found in a sample of young adults, that those who witnessed
long-term parental conflict were more likely to believe that their parents should have
divorced and had more tolerant views of divorce as a reasonable option if their marriage
was conflictual. Gardner et al. (2011) found that when partners perceived poor marital
relations in their family of origin, this affected their attributions about their partner’s
communication as well as the perceived kindness of the partner.
Family Quality. Another important glimpse into people’s perceptions of their
family of origin experiences is their perception of how supportive, safe, and loving their
family environment was. Healthy and supportive home environments create day-to-day
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
23
examples on which young adults can model their own intimate partnerships (Busby et al.,
2005), as well as shape important beliefs and attitudes about self, others, and
relationships, including young adult relationships outside the family (Topham, Larson, &
Holman, 2005). Research supports this notion. For instance, Busby et al. (2005) found
that young adults’ perceived family of origin experiences were significantly related to
self-esteem, attitudes about relationships, and future relationship satisfaction. Similarly,
Bertoni and Bodenmann (2010) found among 226 satisfied and dissatisfied European
couples that the quality of the relationship with one’s own family of origin was a
discriminating factor between the two groups. Studies such as these show the potential
power of family background influences on future marital outcomes.
Although the role of families in the reproduction of values, attitudes, and
behaviors across generation has been thoroughly researched, the part they play in the
reproduction of other kinds of more positive capital has received less attention. It stands
to reason that young adults who are reared in perceived emotionally supportive and safe
environments are better able to be emotionally and cognitively supportive of their
spouses and may engage in partner-enhancing practices.
Parent-Child Relationships. Much of a child’s socialization comes from the
parent-child relationship. The parent-child relationship is defined here as the individual’s
perception of the overall relationship they had with their parents, including feeling safe to
share feelings, participation in enjoyable activities, and physical affection. The parent-
child relationship can set the stage for extra-familial interpersonal relationships by
providing a powerful blueprint or model of interaction for one’s future relationships with
others. Relatively few studies have examined how the quality of the parent-child
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
24
relationship affects adult children’s cognitions about their romantic or marital partner.
Collins and Read (1990) stated, “the nature and quality of one’s close relationships in
adulthood are strongly influenced by affective events that took place in childhood,
particularly within the child-caretaker relationship” (p. 644). Further, cognitive schemas,
such as working models, have been found to be quite predictive of future relationship
quality (e.g., Cohn, Silver, Cowan, Cowan, & Pearson, 1992).
Unhealthy or difficult family background experiences may create negative
residuals on future relationships (e.g., Halford & Moore, 2002; Larson et al., 1998;
Stanley, 2001). Indeed, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have established a link
between supportive and positive interactions between parents and children and future
supportive and less hostile behaviors in the romantic relationships of adult children (e.g.,
Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). Participants who reported positive working models
of loving relationships with parents were more trusting of others, more likely to seek
comfort from their romantic partners during times of distress, and more likely to “open
up” to them (Black & Schutte, 2006). Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, and Conger (2005) also
found in their longitudinal study that the perceived quality of parenting predicted
subsequent behavior in romantic relationships, even after individual differences were
taken into account. Perren, Von Wyl, Burgin, Simoni, and Von Klitzing (2005) found in
their 1-year longitudinal study of 62 Swiss couples at pre- and post-birth that mothers
who recollected a positive home environment with parents reported no higher levels of
conflict at post-birth. These couples also exhibited a greater capacity to communicate
with their spouse compared to those who had negative family of origin experiences.
Conger et al. (2000) studied the reports of 193 young adults with regard to the quality of
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
25
nurturing and parenting they felt they received in 7th grade. The researchers found that
those young adults who reported more nurturing and involved parenting as 7th graders
also reported warmer, more supportive and less hostile romantic relationships 11 years
later. Taken together then, the literature on parents’ marital quality, family quality, and
the quality of the parent-child relationship reviewed in this section of family background
characteristics suggests that the perception of parents’ marital quality, family quality, and
the quality of the parent-child relationship may have an impact on individuals’
perceptions of their relationship partner. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The better (or more positive) individuals’ perceptions of
parents’ marital quality, family quality, and the quality of the parent-child relationship,
the more likely individuals will enhance their partner.
Individuals’ Traits and Skills
Self-Esteem. According to Karney and Bradbury (1995), Larson and Holman
(1994), and Niehuis, Huston, and Rosenband (2006) and their models of predictors of
marital quality and stability, partners bring a variety of characteristics and experiences
into the marital relationship, such as family background experiences, personality traits,
and attitudes. The concept of self-esteem has long been a topic of great interest in the
field of psychology and, perhaps, one of the oldest and longest sustained topics of interest
(Mruk, 2006). Although scholars and theorists have differed on a myriad of ways to
operationalize, measure, and define self-esteem, it is generally accepted that self-esteem
refers to a person’s evaluation of or attitude toward him- or herself (Baumeister,
Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
26
Studies on self-esteem have found it to be associated with a variety of
psychological issues. For instance, people with low self-esteem tend to be more self-
conscious, are less likely to take many risks, and often suffer from general depression,
pessimism, and loneliness (Mruk, 2006). People with high self-esteem, on the other hand,
have been found to be more autonomous and better able to deal with stress and to avoid
anxiety (Baumeister et al., 2003). They are also more confident that their friendly
overtures toward others will be reciprocated (Baldwin & Keelan, 1999). Overall, the
social lives of people with high self-esteem are far better, richer, and more satisfying than
the lives of people with low self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 2003).
People generally seek to avoid rejection and gain acceptance from those around
them (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 2010). The regard one receives from others
clearly impacts subsequent self-evaluations (Koch & Shepperd, 2008; Lemay &
Ashmore, 2006). What individuals think of themselves seems to be dependent, at least in
part, on the quality of their connections with others. Self-evaluations of self-esteem, in
turn, affect ensuing interactions with individuals or partners, who can provide further
evidence of interpersonal worth.
There seems to be no other adult relationship in which the possibility of rejection
or acceptance is more primed than within the context of romantic relationships (Murray
et al., 2002). Bellavia and Murray (2003) discovered in their study of 81 college students
in dating relationships that individuals with low self-esteem were more likely to overreact
to their partners’ negative moods, feel more rejected, and experience more hurt and
anger, than those with higher self-esteem. People who doubt themselves tend to also
doubt their intimate partners, and are typically less secure in their relationships than are
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
27
people with higher self-esteem (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Further, individuals
with more negative views of themselves tended to perceive their romantic partner in a
less than positive light (Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bellavia, & Rose, 2001). In contrast,
individuals with more positive perceptions of themselves tended to view their partners in
a more positive way. Murray et al. (2000) argue that for low self-esteem partners,
projection of self seems to be the norm. In other words, rather than gaining an accurate
perception of their partner’s love and admiration, low self-esteem partners may
incorrectly assume their partners see them the same way they see themselves. As a result,
this negative projection incites them to find fault in their partners or distance themselves
from their partners, choosing isolation over rejection. People are only likely to take the
psychological risk of feeling attached to and positive about their partners when they
believe their partner’s acceptance and love are secure (Murray et al., 2002).
Bellavia and Murray (2003) argue that partners with low self-esteem might
engage in an approach-avoidance cycle, wherein they desire acceptance on the one hand,
but fear rejection on the other hand, which then overrides their initial desire to accept
affirmation from their partner. This may create a pattern in which the low self-esteem
partner engages in hypothesis-testing interactions and seeks out incidents to confirm
his/her low self-esteem.
Low self-esteem individuals who believe their partners perceive shortcomings in
them tend to derogate their partners and withdraw (Murray et al., 2002). In contrast, high
self-esteem partners are generally less sensitive to rejection and able to uphold their
positive views of their partners. This finding suggests that self-esteem may be positively
related to partner enhancement. Thus,
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
28
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Greater self-esteem will be associated with more partner
enhancement.
Attachment Orientation. Much of what makes up a person’s personality, well-
being, and satisfaction with relationships is affected by their histories and experiences.
For decades, developmental researchers have known there is an inextricable link between
infants and their primary caregiver. Further, humans have a natural tendency to form and
keep close bonds with prominent figures in their life (Johnson, 2004). Primarily
conceived as a general personality development theory, Bowlby’s (1973) attachment
theory furthered the field of social cognition as he conceptualized mental representations
or what he called “internal working models.” Primary caregivers and other influential
individuals help developing children mold and form expectations toward social and
perhaps (future) romantic interactions. These working models are assumed to carry on,
often automatically and unconsciously, from the “cradle to the grave” and have been
found to be predictive of future romantic relationship satisfaction and outcomes (e.g.,
Collins, Ford, Guichard, & Allard, 2006; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Adult attachment
theory assumes that adults enter relationships with a unique set of experiences and
memories that make up their expectations of new relationships with others. Relationship
satisfaction, therefore, is contingent upon the basic needs of comfort and care being met
(Hazan & Shaver, 1994) and on how closely individuals find their relationships to match
their expectations. Further, the success of the romantic relationship rests on whether each
partner can trust that those needs will be accommodated (Johnson, 2004).
The area of adult attachment and romantic love took significant flight when
similar styles of attachment in infancy could also be observed among adults (Thompson,
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
29
1999) and within romantic relationships (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). In their pioneering
study, Hazan and Shaver (1987) found the same prominent attachment styles, namely,
secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent, to be prevalent in adulthood in roughly the
same proportions to those previously found in toddlers. Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) study
and those of other researchers (e.g., Gallo & Smith, 2001; Stackert & Bursick, 2002) are
important with regard to partner enhancement as they deal with cognitions about a
committed relationship. Hazen and Shaver (1987) remarked that “people with different
attachment orientations entertain different beliefs about the course of romantic love, the
availability and trustworthiness of love partners, and their own love-worthiness” (p. 521).
In addition to the above three-category framework favored by some, other adult-
attachment researchers define four prototypic attachment styles (secure, preoccupied,
dismissing, fearful), which are derived from two underlying dimensions: anxiety and
avoidance. The anxiety dimension generally refers to one’s sense of worth and perception
of other’s acceptance and is believed to represent the positive or negative nature of one’s
model of self. The avoidance dimension refers to the degree to which one approaches or
avoids intimacy and interdependence with others, and this dimension represents the
positive or negative nature of one’s model of others. Adults are considered securely
attached if they “are low in both attachment-related anxiety and avoidance; . . .
comfortable with intimacy, willing to rely on others for support, and confident that they
are valued by others” (Collins & Allard, 2001, p. 62).
When it comes to attachment orientations and cognitions in marriage, Crowell,
Treboux, and Waters (2002) found that respondents who were classified as more secure
also reported more positive feelings about their partner and relationship (greater
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
30
happiness and greater feelings of intimacy, passion, and dedication) as opposed to
insecure individuals. In addition, Stackert and Bursik (2002) found that insecurely
attached individuals were more likely to endorse relationship-specific irrational beliefs
than those with secure adult attachment styles. Moreover, Collins (1996) examined
attachment style differences when participants were given negative partner behavior
scenarios (e.g., “imagine that your partner didn’t comfort you when you were feeling
down”). Partners were asked to provide explanations (attributions) for their partners’
behavior. Results showed that, on average, securely attached adults provided more benign
and more relationship-enhancing attributions than insecurely attached adults. They also
had more confidence in their partner’s love and in their partner’s ability to be emotionally
responsive. Their insecure counterparts explained events in ways that expressed less
confidence in their partner’s love, less trust, as well as the belief that their partner was
purposely rejecting relationship closeness. Murray and colleagues’ (2000) work moreover
shows that individuals are less likely to engage in positive illusions when they feel more
insecure in their relationship and less loved by their partner. Therefore,
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The more individuals are avoidant or anxiously attached, the
less likely they are to enhance their partner. Conversely, the more individuals are
securely attached, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.
Relationship Self-Regulation Efforts and Strategies. Self-regulation is the
process by which individuals are able to engage in self-monitoring, adjust undesirable
behavior, and implement a given goal (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Vohs and Baumeister
(2004) explicitly define self-regulation as “the exercise of control over oneself, especially
with bringing the self into line with preferred standards . . . [Any] efforts by the human
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
31
self to alter any of its own inner state or responses . . . [such as] thoughts, emotions,
impulses or appetites, and task performances” (p. 2). The ability to self-regulate has been
linked to success in school, work, and overall positive mental health (Baumeister &
Vohs, 2007). Nevertheless, self-regulation has received little attention in the area of
romantic relationships, with the exception of a few notable studies (e.g., Halford,
Sanders, & Behrens, 1994; Wilson, Charker, Lizzio, Halford, & Kimlin, 2005).
Halford et al., (1994) were among the first to apply self-regulation to romantic
relationships and termed it relationship self-regulation. Relationship self-regulation
(RSR) refers to the extent to which each partner works at sustaining the relationship
(Wilson et al., 2005). Wilson et al. (2005) conceptualized it as partners self-appraising,
setting goals, and implementing change in relationship to themselves and their romantic
dyadic context. This process involves being able to describe one’s behavioral influence
on relationship satisfaction, setting specific goals to change deleterious behavior, and
taking intentional actions to carry out set goals (Halford, Lizzio, Wilson, & Occhipinti,
2007). Central to relationship self-regulation is the notion that individuals are
independent and agentic and can regulate their own behavior. Further, relationship self-
regulation distinctly involves the appraisal of behavior and actionable steps taken to
change negative behavior or increase positive behavior. Halford et al. (2007) found that
among couples who rated low on RSR after four years of marriage, they also had
relationships that were designated as distressed.
Canary and Dainton (2006) underscore the importance of cognitive maintenance
of relationships and that relationships can be kept up simply by thinking or attending to
them (Acitelli, 2001). One cognitive strategy to maintain romantic relationships is to use
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
32
benevolent cognitions. Benevolent cognitions can be defined as “interpreting negative
events in ways that allow each partner to maintain positive views of the relationship and
of each other” (McNulty et al., 2008, p. 631). McNulty and colleagues (2008) found that
among healthy couples, benevolent cognitions were helpful in maintaining satisfaction
but were not helpful in couples who were distressed; in fact, they potentially made the
relationship worse.
To the author’s knowledge, no studies have examined how one cognitive strategy,
such as RSR, may be related to other cognitive strategies, such as benevolent cognitions
or partner enhancement (the latter could be argued to be a form of benevolent cognition).
It seems conceivable, however, that individuals who work hard to improve their
relationship by working on themselves may also be motivated to perceive their partner in
a benevolent fashion, namely by viewing the partner as having a more positive
personality than they think they have themselves. Therefore,
Hypothesis 4 (H4): The more individuals engage in relationship self-regulation,
the more they will engage in partner enhancement.
Coming to Terms with One’s Family of Origin. The structure of the family and
family dynamics are ever changing in the modern world. It is fair to say that family-of-
origin experiences can have a deleterious or positive impact on future relationship
satisfaction. However, not all individuals from families with less than ideal experiences
go on to form negative believes about relationships or have poor relationships. Rather
than allow the past to affect their future, some people choose to redirect their future
family heritage toward a healthier family environment. Broderick (1988) introduced the
idea of becoming a “transitional character”, wherein an individual, through commitment
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
33
and determination, takes intentional steps to change the patterns of dysfunction and
subsequently comes to terms with his or her past, thereby forging new patterns of
functionality and emotional health.
Although specific events and processes of one’s family of origin are unalterable
and static, the way one cognitively works through the past is changeable (Framo, 1992).
From a clinical perspective, addressing the meanings one ascribes to past familial
experiences can allow clients to make sense of past events and dynamics, which can be
“restoried” to impact current goals, attitudes, expectations, and behaviors in relationships
(Holman & Associates, 2001). There is strong evidence for the continuity of early
developmental experiences from infancy to adulthood (e.g., Waters, Merrick, Treboux,
Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000) but scholars and clinicians also concur that early cognitive
representations are “open to revision” (Crowell, Treboux, Gao, Fyffe, Pan, & Waters,
2002) and often necessary for intervention (Stahmann, 2000). Indeed, a recent study
Martinson et al. (2010) found that among 6,000 couples who completed a relationship
assessment questionnaire, both men and women who reported unhealthy family-of-origin
experiences but had “come to terms” with their experiences, reported higher current
relationship satisfaction than those who reported they had not “come to terms” with their
family upbringing.
Coming to terms, then, involves giving new interpretation to and resolution of
past events (Martinson, 2006). For instance, adults may reexamine their family of origin
experiences and begin to understand why their parents acted the way they did and why
they made the choices they made (Burr & Klein, 1994). Although adult children may not
agree with the behavior or the choices of their parents, as adults they may be able to
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
34
understand and forgive their parents in a way that they were not able to understand and
forgive as a child (Hill, 2001; Stoop, 2011). This may allow them to recognize that
perceptions they have had as children of themselves and others were likely reflections of
their interpretation of past events. Therefore, perceptions they have as adults of
themselves and others (including their relationship partner) should not be based on these
past interpretations but based on current interpretations (Slife & Williams, 1995; Holman
& Associates, 2001). An adult, therefore, who has “come to terms”, should be able to
have mental models of themselves and their partner that are more rooted in the “here and
now” than the distorted past (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). These mental models would also
be more likely positive, focusing on healthier relationships, and making protection of the
self less necessary and allowing the person to see their partner in an enhanced fashion.
Therefore,
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The more individuals have come to terms with their family of
origin experiences, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.
Gender. Although the popular press thrives on the suggestion that men and
women are, metaphorically, from different planets, social science has combatted that idea
and shown that many of the differences between men and women are indeed there, but
exaggerated. Nevertheless, scholars have shown that when it comes to cognitions such as
attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Gallo & Smith, 2001), differences become more salient.
Gender is a common variable in marital and relationship studies (e.g., Honeycutt
& Cantrill, 2001). Gender can either be a “main-effect” focus of comparison (i.e., where
the primary analysis compares men’s and women’s means on some other variable) or a
moderator (e.g., if social support had a stronger association with depression in women
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
35
than in men). In their overview of premarital predictors of marital happiness, Larson and
Holman (1994) conclude: “Clearly, the roles of gender in making and breaking marital
relationships may be important, but it is not yet fully understood” (p. 231), especially
with regard to cognitions.
To my knowledge, only one study has examined differences between men and
women with regard to their desire to have partners who were better than themselves.
Clark, Dover, Geher, and Presson (2005) found that when participants were asked to rate
themselves relative to their same-sex peers and rate what their opposite-sex peers want in
a desired mate on 19 personal attributes or traits that might be of interest in mate
selection (e.g., honesty, attractiveness), both men and women desired partners who were
better than themselves on the 19 traits. However, women desired men to be better than
themselves on 15 of 19 traits, whereas men only desired their potential mate to be better
on five traits. The authors surmised that women may be more likely to view their male
counterpart as better than themselves to justify their “good” partner selection. Murray and
Holmes (1997), too, found that women depicted their dating partner or spouse more
virtuously (relative to an “average partner”) than men did. Therefore,
Hypothesis 6 (H6): There will be a significant difference between men’s and
women’s partner enhancement.
Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval
Relationships are neither developed nor sustained on an island; rather they are
embedded in a larger network of social relationships that influence them in a variety of
ways (Canary & Dainton, 2006; Etcheverry, Le, & Charania, 2008; Felmlee, 2001;
Fitzpatrick, 2012). The influence of a person’s social network has long been a predictor
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
36
of relationship processes (Larson & Holman, 1994). Felmlee (2001) found that “Even
when controlling for several dyadic variables, most social network measures tend to have
a statistically significant, and sometimes highly significant, impact on a relationship’s
stability” (p. 1278).
An individual’s social network is a “group of individuals who are tied together by
one or more types of exchanges” (Brown et al., 2010, p. 319) and can include family,
friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and others with whom the individual interacts
(Holman & Associates, 2001). Romantic dyads can be influenced by their social network
through opportunities (e.g., setting them up with friends), information (e.g., relationship
advice), and support (e.g., approval of the partner and/or the relationship) (Sprecher et al.,
2002).
In the past, romantic relationship research has been criticized for failing to
consider the role social network approval can play (Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000). Much of
the research on social network approval has focused on its effect on commitment,
satisfaction, and stability.
Research on the influence of parents and friends on one’s current romantic
relationship shows that social network approval increases the likelihood that the
relationship will be happy and stable (e.g., Felmlee, 2001; Sprecher et al., 2002). This is
true regardless of whether social network approval is operationalized as approval from
the entire social network lumped together in one item (e.g., Cox, Wexler, Rusbult, &
Gaines, 1997), as approval from friends (one item) vs. family members (another item)
(e.g., Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992) or averaged across individual items assessing approval
from individual network members (e.g., Etcheverry & Agnew, 2004). Nevertheless, for
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
37
the purposes of this study, social network approval was measured by a combination of
perceived approval from friends and parents. Most research on the effects of social
network approval utilizes either parents or friends and using a combined measure is rare.
Available research on one’s social network and its impact on marriage and the internal
processes within the marriage tends to be sparse (Sprecher et al., 2002).
It can be argued though that social networks continue to influence romantic
relationships even after the wedding (e.g., Bryant & Conger, 1999). Sprecher and
Felmlee (2000) posit that as relationships become more involved and increase in
commitment (i.e., marriage), partners’ social network approval should increase. Doxey
and Holman (2001) found a direct relationship between the social network approval
(combined friends and parents) of the relationship received premaritally and couples’
later marital satisfaction as they transitioned from engagement to marriage. Although the
literature has established that perceived approval from family and friends affects
relationship satisfaction and stability, the mechanism by which this occurs is not clear.
More unclear is how social network approval of family and friends may affect cognitions
towards one’s partner. Bryant and Conger (1999) argued that one’s parents, friends, and
other kin can “alter an individual definition of self by communicating their thoughts and
ideas about the individual’s actions . . . . [T]hose thoughts and ideas can influence the
initiation, maintenance, and dissolution of romantic relationships” (p. 438). More
specifically, family and friends’ approval or disapproval of the relationship affects how
individuals perceive their partner or spouse (Bryant & Conger, 1999). Agnew, Loving,
and Drigotas (2001) suggest that one’s social network will often solicit couple members’
own thoughts and opinions about the relationship and this information “may ultimately be
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
38
adopted by the relationship participant” (p. 1047). Perhaps an individual’s newly adopted
perceptions from their social network concerning their romantic partner could also
influence their positive or negative views of their partner. Sprecher et al. (2002) noted
that parents and other network members “who are involved with both partners are likely
to validate their relationship, give them positive feedback, and strengthen their dyadic
identity as a couple, processes that are likely to increase the satisfaction experienced in
the relationship” (p. 271). Finally, Berger (1979) suggests that if one’s network approves
of the relationship, one’s own uncertainty about the relationship decreases and changes
the perceptions contained within the relationship. Parents and friends who approve of
one’s marital relationship may, in fact, influence one’s own appreciation of one’s
partner’s qualities in and of themselves, but also in relation to one’s own qualities.
Parents and friends may even point out that a partner is well suited because he/she has
qualities the other is lacking or having less of. Thus, it is hypothesized that
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Greater social network approval of the relationship will be
associated with more partner enhancement.
Summary of Hypotheses and Research Question
Based on Larson and Holman’s (1994) conceptual model and the empirical
literature reviewed above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The better individuals’ perceptions of parents’ marital quality, family
quality, and the quality of the parent-child relationship, the more individuals will
enhance their partner.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Greater self-esteem will be associated with more partner
enhancement.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
39
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The more individuals are avoidant or anxiously attached, the less
likely they are to enhance their partner. Conversely, the more individuals are securely
attached, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): The more individuals engage in relationship self-regulation, the more
likely they will engage in partner enhancement.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The more individuals have come to terms with their family of origin
experiences, the more likely they are to enhance their partner.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): There will be a significant difference between men’s and women’s
partner enhancement.
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Greater social network approval of the relationship will be
associated with more partner enhancement.
Finally, although Larson and Holman (1994) are not very specific as to how
family background characteristics, individual traits and behaviors/skills, and contextual
factors should relate to one another, they speculated that in a multivariate path model,
family background characteristics would affect couple processes, such as cognitions
about the partner, via interpersonal traits and skills. The present study, thus, tests this
speculation. Accordingly, one area that will be explored is the mediated effects of family
background characteristics on partner enhancement through the other independent
variables. Hence:
RQ: Do self-esteem, avoidant and anxious attachment, relationship efforts and
strategies, coming to terms, and social network approval mediate the association
between family background characteristics and partner enhancement?
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
40
CHAPTER III
METHOD
This section outlines the analytical strategy used to test the aforementioned
research hypotheses. Additionally, this section will identify participants in the study,
discuss the procedure used in data collection, and identify measures utilized to assess
factors named in the previous section.
Sample
This research employed a cross-sectional subset of a larger, ongoing longitudinal
study of relationship development that is being sponsored by the RELATE Institute,
headquartered at Brigham Young University. The RELATE Institute is a nonprofit
consortium of researchers, clinicians, and family-life educators from the US. RELATE is
dedicated to the dual goals of understanding and strengthening premarital and marital
relationships. The RELATE project recruits couples via the Internet. Couples are often
directed to the RELATE site by word of mouth, relationship educators familiar with the
instrument, and via internet and newspaper ads.
Since 1999, more than 20,000 couples have completed the RELATE
questionnaire. New variables were added in 2009 that are used in the present study, and,
therefore, only couples who have taken the RELATE questionnaire since 2009 were
included in the final analysis. This brought the new data set to 2,933 couples. Because
this study focused on heterosexual married couples who reported being in their first
marriage, all participants who identified themselves as either single, never married,
cohabitating, married but separated, divorced, remarried, or widowed and who indicated
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
41
they had been married before were excluded from the final analysis. These exclusion
criteria brought the final sample down to 653 (N= 1306 individuals) married heterosexual
couples in their first marriage.
Husbands were on average 33 years old (mean = 32.8; SD = 10.5) and wives
were on average 31 years old (mean = 31.1; SD = 10.4). The range for the entire sample
was 19 to 75 years of age. Approximately 86% of the sample was Caucasian, 5% Latino,
4% African American, 2% Asian, 2% Mixed or Biracial, and 1% listed “Other.” The
measure of relationship length indicated that approximately 16% of the couples had been
married for six months or less, 10% between 7 – 12 months, 21% for 1 – 2 years, 15% for
3 – 5 years, 12% for 6 – 10 years, 6% for 11 – 15 years, 6% for 16 – 20 years, and 14%
for more than 20 years.
Regarding men’s highest educational attainment, less than 1% failed to complete
high school and another very small percentage (< 1%) obtained a high school
equivalency credential (General Educational Development; GED). Approximately 4%
completed a high school diploma, 10% completed some college but were not currently
enrolled, 27% completed some college and were currently enrolled, 8% obtained an
Associate’s degree, 20% earned a bachelor’s degree, 7% completed some graduate
schooling, and 21% completed a graduate degree. Less than 1% of the women completed
high school, less than 1% completed a GED, 2% obtained a high school diploma, 7%
completed some college (not currently enrolled), 33% completed college and were
currently enrolled, 11% earned an associate’s degree, 23% received a bachelor’s degree,
8% were currently enrolled in graduate school, and 15% obtained a graduate or
professional degree.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
42
In terms of religious affiliation, approximately 55% of the men in the sample were
Latter-day Saints (Mormon), 13% Protestant, 12% were not affiliated with any religion,
8% members of “another religion,” 9% were Catholic, and 3% were Jewish.
Approximately 56% of the women in the sample were Latter-day Saints (Mormon), 15%
Protestant, 10% Catholic, 10% were not affiliated with any religion, 6% were members of
“another religion,” and less than 3% were Jewish.
In reference to current personal yearly income before taxes and deductions,
approximately 2% of the men reported “no income,” 27% reported under $20,000, 19%
reported $20,000 – $39,999, 16% reported $40,000 – $59,999, 9% reported $60,000 –
$79,999, 7% reported $80,000 – $99,999, 8% reported $100,000 – $139,999, 5% reported
$140,000 – $199,999, and 8% reported grossing more than $200,000 yearly. Almost 19%
of women reported making “no income,” whereas nearly 40% reported making under
$20,000, 15% reported $20,000 – $39,999, 10% reported $40,000 – $59,999, 5% reported
$60,000 – $79,999, 4% reported $80,000 – $99,999, 4% reported $100,000 – $139,999,
and just over 4% reported making more than $140,000 per year. A more detailed
breakdown of demographic characteristics of the sample is reported in Table 1.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
43
Demographic Variables Men Women N % N % Age 19 – 21 17 2.6 117 17.9 22 – 25 193 29.6 147 22.5 26 – 30 142 21.8 125 19.1 31 – 35 98 15.0 79 12.1 36 – 40 53 8.2 59 8.9 41 – 45 49 7.5 34 5.2 46 – 50 40 6.1 45 6.9 51 – 55 37 5.6 31 4.7 56 years and older 23 3.7 14 2.3 Total 653 99.8 651 99.7 Relationship Length 0 – 3 months 63 9.6 65 10.0 4 – 6 months 42 6.4 36 5.5 7 – 12 months 63 9.6 67 10.3 1 – 2 years 131 20.1 134 20.5 3 – 5 years 100 15.3 95 14.5 6 – 10 years 77 11.8 75 11.5 11 – 15 years 39 6.0 42 6.4 16 – 20 years 40 6.1 37 5.7 More than 20 years 92 14.1 93 14.2 Total 647 99.1 644 98.6 Race African American 22 3.4 16 2.5 Asian 15 2.3 21 3.2 Caucasian 560 85.8 561 91.6 Latino (Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc.)
31 4.7 27 4.1
Mixed/Biracial 15 2.3 19 2.9 Other 9 1.4 9 1.4 Total 652 99.8 653 100 Religion Catholic 59 9.0 68 10.4 Protestant (Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, etc.)
87 13.3 97 14.9
Jewish 17 2.6 17 2.6 Latter-day Saint (Mormon) 360 55.1 362 55.4 Other 48 7.4 42 6.5 None 80 12.3 65 10.0 Total 653 100 651 99.7
Table 1. Sample Characteristics
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
44
Demographic Variables Men Women N % N % Education Completed Less than high school 6 .9 1 .2 High school equivalency (GED) 4 .6 2 .3 High school diploma 28 4.3 14 2.1 Some college, not currently enrolled 66 10.1 47 7.2 Some college, currently enrolled 175 26.8 216 33.1 Associate’s degree 52 8.0 72 11.0 Bachelor’s degree 132 20.2 150 23.0 Graduate or professional degree not completed 48 7.4 52 8.0 Graduate or professional degree completed 142 21.7 99 15.2 Total 653 100 653 100 Yearly Income None 15 2.3 121 18.5 Under $20,000 175 26.8 260 39.8 $20,000 – $39,999 123 18.8 98 15.0 $40,000 – $59,999 101 15.5 63 9.6 $60,000 – $79,999 56 8.6 30 4.6 $80,000 – $99,999 45 6.9 23 3.5 $100,000 – $139,999 54 8.3 23 3.5 $140,000 – $199,999 30 4.6 16 2.4 $200,000 and above 49 7.5 12 1.8 Total 648 99.2 656 98.9
Procedure
The RELATE questionnaire is an online (www.relate-institute.org) relationship
assessment tool used by family life educators, professional counselors, clergy, and
college instructors. Data obtained from the assessment have been used in multiple articles
that are currently published or in press (e.g., Busby, Carroll, & Willoughby, 2010;
Topham et al., 2005). All respondents completed a consent form prior to the completion
of the RELATE instrument. All data collection procedures were approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Brigham Young University. Because of legal reporting
Table 1. Sample Characteristics (Continued)
N = 653 couples; 1306 individuals
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
45
requirements, participants are instructed that no one younger than age 18 years is to
participate in the RELATE questionnaire.
RELATE is a multidimensional comprehensive assessment instrument composed
of approximately 370 items designed to study the formation, maintenance, and break-up
of premarital and marital relationships. It assesses respondents’ perceptions about
themselves and their partner in four major adult romantic-relationship contexts: (a) the
individual (i.e., personality characteristics, values, beliefs), (b) the couple (i.e.,
communication, patterns of relating, conflict resolution), (c) the family (i.e., parents’
relationship, overall family quality), and (d) the social context (i.e., social support, race,
SES, religion).
Coupled partners are instructed to complete the questionnaire individually,
without consulting their partner. After completing RELATE separately, the partners
receive a detailed report about themselves and their relationship. The report shows them
how they compare to one another and identifies specific areas of strength in their
relationship as well as areas where improvement is needed.
Measures
Measures to test the statistical model were drawn from the RELATE
questionnaire. These assessed partner enhancement, self-esteem, anxious and avoidant
attachment orientation, family-of-origin, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to
terms, and social network approval. Correlations for all variables in the study can be
found in Table 2. Initially, all constructs (except partner enhancement, which involved a
difference-score format) were conceptualized as latent. These constructs, their respective
indicators, and factor loadings are shown in Table 3. An examination of the standardized
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
46
factor loadings for each of the manifest indicators representing their corresponding latent
constructs revealed that no indicators fell below the acceptable cut-off of .4 (Nunally &
Bernstein, 1994). Further, husbands and wives tended to have similar factor loadings on
all the variables. These analyses attest to the quality of the measures. However, as
discussed later, technical difficulties in the structural equation modeling required
converting all constructs except Family Background Characteristics to stand-alone
composite variables.
Partner enhancement. To measure partner enhancement, the Big Five
personality constructs (Biesanz & West, 2000; Costa & McCrae, 1988) were utilized (see
Draper & Holman, 2005, for description of the Big Five within the RELATE). In a
previous study using partner enhancement, Busby et al. (2009) created a general measure
of positive personality traits by combining the agreeable and openness scales as a
measure of positive personality and labeled it “affability.” Combining the agreeable and
openness scales has been shown to be strongly correlated and predictive of dating and
married couples’ satisfaction and stability one year later (Busby & Loyer-Carlson, 2003;
Draper & Holman, 2005).
The seven items making up the affability personality measure are one-word
descriptions such as kind, considerate, and flexible. Respondents were asked to rate how
often the items described themselves and their partners using a 5-point Likert-type
response scale ranging from never to very often. This resulted in a self- and partner-rating
for each member of a couple. In the present study, the enhancement measure was
computed by subtracting the self-rating from the partner-rating on the affability scale.
The measures of enhancement computed in this manner resulted in a scale in which a
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
47
high score was a positive number that equaled the degree to which the participant
enhanced their partner above self, whereas a low score created a negative value that
indicated the degree to which the participant enhanced the self above the partner.
Family Background Characteristics. The latent variable of family background
characteristics was made up of three subscales that measure perceived parental marital
happiness, family quality, and parent-child relationship. Parental marital happiness was
assessed with the Parents’ Marriage Scale. Three questions assessed the perceived
happiness of respondents’ parents’ marriage: “My father was happy in his marriage,”
“My mother was happy in her marriage,” and “I would like my marriage to be like my
parents’ marriage.” These items were answered on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and included a sixth option for individuals whose parents
were not married (doesn’t apply). Those who responded “doesn’t apply” were coded as
“missing.” Higher scores indicate greater perceived happiness in the parents’ marriage.
Cronbach’s α for parents’ marital happiness for men is .92 and for women is .93.
The next subscale assessed respondents’ perceived family quality. Four items
were used to assess the level of overall perceived family quality. Example items are,
“From what I experienced in my family, I think family relationships are safe, secure,
rewarding, worth being in, and a source of comfort” and “We had a loving atmosphere in
our family.” These items follow a 5-point Likert-type response scale format, anchored by
1 (strongly disagree) and to 5 (strongly agree). One item in the scale was reverse coded
wherein a lower rating indicated higher perceived quality. Scores can range from 1 to 5,
and higher scores indicate higher family quality. The Cronbach’s α for this measure was
.86 for men and .90 for women.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
48
Perceived quality of the parent-child relationship was the final subscale in the
family background characteristics construct. This subscale assesses the participant’s
relationship with the father and with the mother during the participant’s childhood, with
higher scores indicating a more positive experience. Three items were used for each
parent. Example items are “My father/mother showed physical affection to me by
appropriate hugging and/or kissing,” “My father/mother participated in enjoyable
activities with me” and “My father/mother and I were able to share our feelings on just
about any topic without embarrassment or fear of hurt feelings.” Responses to the items
could range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sixth option was included
when the question did not apply, and these were coded as “missing.” Higher scores
indicate greater relationship quality with parents. Cronbach’s α for the measure of
relationship with one’s father was .77 for men and .82 for women. Cronbach’s α for the
measure of the relationship with one’s mother was .76 for men and .80 for women.
Individuals’ Traits and Skills.
Self-esteem. Four questions assessed individuals’ level of self-esteem. Example
items are “I feel I am a person of worth” and “I take a positive attitude toward myself.”
Responses to these four items could range from 1 (never) to 5 (often). Two items were
reversed scored to be consistent with the other items wherein higher scores indicate
higher self-esteem. Participants’ average score across the items can range from 1 to 5,
with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem. Cronbach’s α for this measure was .86
for men and .86 for women.
Attachment orientation. Adult attachment orientation was measured using the
Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ) (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). The AAQ
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
49
measures the degree of anxiety and avoidance orientations, with lower scores indicating
higher levels of secure attachment. There are eight avoidance and nine anxiety items on
the AAQ questionnaire; average scores, thus, can range from 1 to 7 for the avoidance
dimension and 1 to 7 for the anxiety dimension. Respondents will generate two separate
scores—one for avoidance and one for anxiousness. Sample items from the AAQ for the
avoidance scale are “I don’t like people getting too close to me” and “I’m comfortable
having others depend on me.” Sample items from the AAQ for anxiousness scale are “I
rarely worry about being abandoned by others” and “The thought of being left by others
rarely enters my mind.” Answer options to these items range from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α for the avoidance attachment scale was .83 for men
and .84 for women and .82 for the measure of anxious attachment for men and .87 for
women.
Relationship self-regulation efforts and strategies. Relationship efforts were
assessed using the Behavioral Self-Regulation for Effective Relationships Scale
(BSRERS), which contains both relationship efforts and strategies. The BSRERS has
been shown to have high validity for both self-RSR and partner-RSR ratings (Wilson et
al., 2005). The relationship efforts subscale contains four items. Responses were given on
a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very true). The
relationship efforts scale includes such items as “If things go wrong in the relationship I
tend to feel powerless” and “If my partner doesn’t appreciate the change efforts I am
making, I tend to give up.” Average scores (including necessary scale reversals) range
from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater relationship efforts. The Cronbach’s α
for the relationship efforts scale was .68 for men and .71 for women.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
50
The relationship strategies subscale contains four items. Responses were given on
a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very true). The
relationship strategies scale includes items such as “I try to apply ideas about effective
relationships to improve our relationship” and “I actually put my intentions or plan for
personal change into practice.” Average scores (including necessary scale reversals)
range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more use of relationship strategies.
Cronbach’s α for the relationship strategies scale was .74 for men and .74 for women.
Coming to terms. Respondents’ ability to come to terms with difficulties in the
family of origin was assessed using the family influence scale. Respondents completed
three questions that measured the influence their family of origin had on their present
emotional functioning and the impact on their romantic relationships. The scale includes
questions such as “There are matters within my family experience that I’m still having
trouble dealing with or coming to terms with.” These items were answered on a 5-point
scale, with 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Two questions were reverse coded.
Average scores were computed across all items with higher scores indicating that the
participant had been better able to come to terms with family-of-origin experiences.
Cronbach’s α for this measure was .83 for men and .85 for women.
Contextual Factor: Social network approval.
The degree to which participants felt that their social network approved of their
current marriage was assessed by asking them indicate how much their father, mother,
and friends approved of their current marriage. There were three separate items for each
source (i.e., mother, father, friends).The original scale ranged from -2 (does not apply) to
4 (entirely). The options “Don’t know” (-1) as well as “Does not apply” (-2) were coded
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
51
as “missing.” Thus the final scale was anchored at 1 (not at all) and 4 (entirely).
Cronbach’s α for social network approval was .80 for men and .83 for women.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
52
Table 2. Correlations for Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Self-esteem - -.304** -.354** .411** .376** -.371** .196** .239** -.046 2. Avoidant Attachment -.346** - .309** -.352** -.300** .382** -.185** -.302** .038 3. Anxious Attachment -.449** .365** - -.390** -.188** .382** -.320** -.361** -.277** 4. Relationship Efforts .413** -.433** -.432** - .535** -.319** .167** .212** .106** 5. Relationship Strategies .297** -.251** -.174** .494** - -.208** .090* .176** -.016 6. Coming to Terms -.358** .429** .331** -.306** -.114** - -.248** -.679** -.090* 7. Social Network Approval .195** -.195** -.312** .262** .140** -.222** - .230** .158** 8. Family Background Char. .240** -.325** -.232** .176** .084* -.676** .179** - .146** 9. Partner Enhancement -.081* .011 -.189** .102** .036 -.031 .321** .123** -
Note: ** p < .01. * p < .05. Correlations for husbands are above the diagonal; correlations for the wives are below the diagonal.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
53
Latent Construct Indicators Men Loading
Women Loading
Self-esteem I take a positive attitude toward myself. .733 .716 I think I am no good at all. .841 .862 I feel I am a person of worth. .737 .671 I am inclined to think I am a failure. .808 .830 Avoidant Attachment I find it relatively easy to get close to others. .661 .692 I’m not very comfortable having to depend on other
people. .521 .561
I’m comfortable having others depend on me. .455 .425 I don’t like people getting too close to me. .824 .834 I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to others. .809 .816 I find it difficult to trust others completely. .699 .673 I’m nervous whenever anyone gets too close to me. .801 .853 Others often want me to be more intimate than I feel
comfortable being. .659 .668
Anxious Attachment I rarely worry about being abandoned by others. .625 .717 Others often are reluctant to get as close as I would
like. .540 .595
I often worry that my partner(s) don’t really love me. .741 .766 I rarely worry about my partner(s) leaving me. .681 .730 I often want to merge completely with others, and this
desire sometimes scares them away. .493 .578
I’m confident others would never hurt me by suddenly ending our relationship.
.695 .762
I usually want more closeness and intimacy than others do.
.478 .532
The thought of being left by others rarely enters my mind.
.764 .807
I’m confident that my partner(s) love me just as much as I love them.
.708 .728
RSR: Efforts If things go wrong in the relationship I tend to feel
powerless. .634 .609
I tend to fall back on what is comfortable for me in relationships, rather than trying new ways of relating.
.462 .557
Even when I know what I could do differently to improve things in the relationship, I cannot seem to change my behavior.
.630 .650
If my partner doesn’t appreciate the change efforts I am making, I tend to give up.
.648 .659
Table 3. Latent Constructs, Indicators, and Standardized Factor Loadings (All constructs except Family of Origin Characteristics were later converted to composite stand-alone variables)
N = 653 couples; 1306 individuals
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
54
Latent Construct Indicators Men Loading
Women Loading
RSR: Strategies I try to apply ideas about effective relationships to improve our relationship.
.567 .591
I actually put my intentions or plans for personal change into practice.
.695 .643
I give my partner helpful feedback on the ways she/he can help me achieve my goals.
.626 .638
If the way I’m approaching change doesn’t work, I can usually think of something different to try.
.706 .701
Coming to Terms There are matters from my family experience that I’m
still having trouble dealing with or coming to terms with.
.839 .825
There are matters from my family experience that negatively affect my ability to form close relationships.
.791 .794
I feel at peace about anything negative that happened to me in the family in which I grew up.
.749 .840
Family Background Char.
Parental Marital Happiness .629 .718
Family Quality .892 .965 Mother Parenting .543 .549 Father Parenting .570 .625
Table 3. Latent Constructs, Indicators, and Standardized Factor Loadings (Continued)
N = 653 couples; 1306 individuals
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
55
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
To evaluate the model and test the proposed hypotheses, the statistical program
AMOS 20.0 (Arbuckle, 2011) with Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML)
estimation was used. Methodologists regard FIML as a more accurate and powerful
technique for handling missing data than other methods (Russell, 2002; Schafer &
Graham, 2002). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether family
background characteristics (perceived parental marital happiness, family-of-origin
quality, and quality of the parent-child relationship) predict partner enhancement directly
and/or indirectly via contextual factors (social network approval of the relationship) and
individuals’ own traits and skills (self-esteem, attachment orientation, relationship self-
regulation efforts and strategies, and having come to terms with difficulties experienced
in the family of origin). A visual representation of the proposed structural model,
including the composite construct and latent constructs, the manifest indicators of male
and female partner enhancement, and hypothesized structural paths, is found in Figure 1.
As one can see, the original structural model contains 1 latent construct for family
background characteristics, 7 composite constructs for self-esteem, avoidant and anxious
attachment, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to terms, and social network
approval, and 1 composite construct for the outcome variable partner enhancement. Two
models are listed, one for husbands and one for wives. Note that a model with all latent
constructs was initially proposed, but technical difficulties (described below) required
conversion of most of the constructs to stand-alone composite variables.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
56
Figure 1. Proposed Structural Equation Model
Male Partner Enhancement
Male Family Background Char.
Female Partner Enhancement
Female Family Background Char.
Female Coming to Terms
Female Social Network
Female Strategies
Female Efforts
Female Anxious Attachment
Female Avoidant Attachment
Female Self-Esteem
Male Social Network Approval
Male Avoidant Attachment
Male Efforts
Male Strategies
Male Coming to Terms
Male Anxious Attachment
Male Self-Esteem
RQ
RQ RQ
RQ RQ
RQ
RQ
RQ RQ
RQ
RQ
RQ
RQ
RQ
H1 +
H1 +
H2 + H3 -
H3 - H4+
H4+ H5+
H7+
H2 + H3 -
H3 - H4+
H4+ H5+
H7+
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
57
There are several structural paths in the proposed model based on the hypotheses for the
study (see Figure 1). For Hypothesis 1, there is a direct path from Family Background
Characteristics to Partner Enhancement. For Hypothesis 2, there is a direct path from Self-
Esteem to Partner Enhancement. For Hypothesis 3, there is a direct path from Avoidant
Attachment and Anxious Attachment to Partner Enhancement. For Hypothesis 4, there is a direct
path from Relationship Efforts and Relationship Strategies to Partner Enhancement. For
Hypothesis 5, there is a direct path from Coming to Terms to Partner Enhancement. For
Hypothesis 7, there is a direct path from Social Network Approval to Partner Enhancement. To
test the Research Question (RQ), “Do the independent variables, self-esteem, avoidant and
anxious attachment, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to terms, and social network
approval, mediate the association between family-of-origin and partner enhancement?”, Sobel
tests were conducted as this is considered appropriate for samples of 200 or larger (MacKinnon,
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Finally, Hypothesis 6 (H6) was tested using a
paired samples t-test comparing husbands and wives with regard to their means on the dependent
variable, partner enhancement.
Model Testing
All 18 constructs (the same 9 in men and in women) were entered in the model as were
their corresponding manifest indicators (if applicable) and the outcome variable of partner
enhancement. Directional paths representing the stated hypotheses were entered as well. To
establish whether the model fit the data, the Chi-Square, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
goodness of fit indices were consulted. Whereas the Chi-Square index is greatly affected by
sample size, the TLI, CFI, and RMSEA fit indices are not. If the CFI and TLI are at or greater
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
58
than .9, the model is considered to be an acceptable fit for the data. For a model to be considered
an acceptable fit, the RMSEA needs to be equal to or less than .06 (Berndt, 1998).
The first attempt to fit the model resulted in poor model fit and a Heywood case (a
negative variance resulting in uninterpretable coefficients). To remedy this problem, all
independent variables except family-of-origin characteristics were modeled as composite rather
than latent constructs. This was done because several of these independent variables had only
two manifest indicators making estimation problematic. If a construct has only two manifest
indicators it will likely result in an unidentifiable model (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). After all
independent variables except family-of-origin characteristics were modeled as composite
constructs, the model was tested again. This time, the model had acceptable fit: χ2 (188, N = 653)
= 508.742, p < .001, TLI = .900, CFI = .937, and the RMSEA = .051.
Findings
Overall, of the 30 directional paths proposed, 26 were statistically significant (see Figure
2). These results are now reported with reference to the specific hypotheses.
Family Background Characteristics and Partner Enhancement.
Based on Larson and Holman (1994), analyses tested whether family background
characteristics, such as individuals’ perceptions of their parents’ marital quality, family quality,
and the quality of the parent-child relationship would have a subsequent effect on partner
enhancement.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
59
Note. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; dotted lines indicate non-significant structural paths. Note: Coefficients in figure are standardized.
Figure 2. Structural Equation Model
Male Partner Enhancement
Male Family Background Char.
Female Partner Enhancement
Female Family Background Char.
Female Coming to Terms
Female Social Network Approval
Female Strategies
Female Efforts
Female Anxious Attachment
Female Avoidant Attachment
Female Self-Esteem
Male Social Network Approval
Male Avoidant Attachment
Male Efforts
Male Strategies
Male Coming to Terms
Male Anxious Attachment
Male Self-Esteem
.34**
-.41** -.33**
.28** .19**
-.78** .30**
.17*
-.18** .12**
-.29** .11*
-.03 .1
.1*
.33** -.4**
-.29** .24**
.12** -.78**
.22**
.17**
-.25** .1*
-.21** .07
.03 .12*
.31**
.16** -.16**
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
60
Thus, Hypothesis 1 (H1) predicted that the better (or more positive) individuals’
scores on the latent Family Background Characteristics construct (manifested by
perceptions of parents’ marital quality, family quality, and the quality of the parent-child
relationship), the more individuals would likely enhance their partner. The results of the
structural equation model support this hypothesis for both husbands and wives. The path
coefficients from Male Family Background Characteristics to Partner Enhancement and
from Female Family Background Characteristics to Partner Enhancement were .17 (p <
.05) and .17 (p < .01) respectively, indicating that for both husbands and wives, more
positive family-of-origin perceptions were associated with greater partner enhancement.
Individuals’ Own Traits and Skills and Partner Enhancement.
The ecosystemic model also predicted that the traits and skills individuals bring
into relationships would be associated with couple processes, such as partner
enhancement. It was hypothesized that greater self-esteem (H2), less anxious and
avoidant attachment orientations (H3), greater relationship self-regulation efforts and
strategies (H4), and having better come to terms with difficulties experienced in the
family of origin (H5) would each be associated with greater partner enhancement in both
husbands and wives. Support was only found, and partially at that, for hypotheses H3,
H4, and H5. Specifically, the findings for Hypothesis 2 showed that both husbands’ and
wives’ greater self-esteem was negatively associated with husbands’ and wives’
perceptions that their spouse had a more affable personality than they had themselves
(i.e., results were opposite in direction to prediction). The path coefficients from Male
Self-Esteem to Partner Enhancement and from Female Self-Esteem to Partner
Enhancement were -.18 (p < .01) and -.25 (p < .01), respectively. The negative
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
61
association suggests that greater self-esteem is associated with less partner enhancement
in both men and women.
Hypothesis 3 called for inverse relations between non-secure (avoidant or
anxious) attachment and partner enhancement. The findings suggest that husbands’ and
wives’ greater anxious attachment is associated with less partner enhancement (consistent
with the hypothesis), but that husbands’ and wives’ greater avoidant attachment is
associated with more partner enhancement (contrary to prediction). The path coefficients
from Male Anxious Attachment to Partner Enhancement and from Female Anxious
Attachment to Partner Enhancement were -.29 (p < .01) and -.21 (p < .01), respectively.
Those from Male Avoidant Attachment to Partner Enhancement and from Female
Avoidant Attachment to Partner Enhancement were .12 (p < .01) and .10 (p < .05),
respectively.
Hypothesis 4 stated that the more individuals engage in relationship self-
regulation, the more they would engage in partner enhancement. The findings only
partially supported this hypothesis. Specifically, husbands who reportedly put more effort
into their marriage also perceive their spouse as more affable than they perceive
themselves. The path coefficient from Male Relationship Efforts to Partner Enhancement
was .11 (p < .05). However, the path coefficient from Female Relationship Efforts to
Partner Enhancement was not statistically significant. Thus, this part of the hypothesis
was not supported. Also, the path coefficients from Male Relationship Strategies to
Partner Enhancement and from Female Relationship Strategies to Partner Enhancement
were not significant, suggesting that whether husbands and wives engage in strategies to
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
62
improve their marriage is not associated with whether they enhance their partner above
themselves.
With regard to Hypothesis 5 – the more individuals have come to terms with their
family of origin experiences, the more likely they are to enhance their partner – again
only partial support was found. Specifically, only wives (but not husbands), who had
better come to terms with their experiences in their family of origin were more likely to
engage in partner enhancement. The path coefficient from Male Coming to Terms to
Partner Enhancement was not statistically significant, whereas that from Female Coming
to Terms and Partner Enhancement was (coefficient = .12; p < .05). The finding for
women suggests that wives who have been able to come to terms with their experiences
in their family of origin are more likely to perceive their spouse in more positive terms
(i.e., has having a more affable personality) than themselves.
It was hypothesized (Hypothesis 6) that husbands and wives would differ in
terms of how much they would engage in partner enhancement (i.e., mean differences on
partner enhancement). However, the findings suggest that husbands and wives did not
differ in how much they perceive their spouse as more affable than themselves (see Table
4).The paired samples t-test that was carried out to test mean differences between
husbands and wives on levels of partner enhancement was not significant (t(652) = -.947, p
= .344). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported, indicating that the null hypothesis of
husbands and wives engaging equally in partner enhancement could not be rejected.
Mean differences between husbands and wives on all the other study variables are also
shown in Table 4.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
63
Table 4. Mean Differences Between Husbands and Wives on Study Variables Husbands Wives M (SD) M (SD) Partner Enhancement -.12 (.68) -.08 (.68) Self-Esteem 4.29* (.66) 4.15 (.66) Avoidant Attachment 3.00* (1.00) 2.89 (1.04) Anxious Attachment 2.63* (.99) 2.77 (1.16) Relationship Strategies 3.52* (.63) 3.65 (.59) Relationship Efforts 3.21 (.64) 3.21 (.65) Coming to Terms 2.22* (1.01) 2.39 (1.05) Family Background Char. 3.79* (.74) 3.70 (.88) Social Network Approval 3.80* (.45) 3.74 (.52)
Contextual Factors and Partner Enhancement.
Larson and Holman (1994) argued that “Other ecosystems around the individual .
. . or the circumstances surrounding the courtship” (p. 231) may also affect couple
processes, such as individuals’ social cognitions about their partner. One of these
ecosystems or contexts these authors referred to was social network approval. It was
therefore hypothesized that greater approval of the relationship by family and friends
would be associated with more partner enhancement (Hypothesis 7). This hypothesis was
supported for both husbands and wives. The path coefficients from Male Social Network
Approval to Partner Enhancement and from Female Social Network Approval to Partner
Enhancement were .10 (p < .05) and .31 (p < .01), respectively. The statistically
significant path coefficients suggest that both husbands and wives who reported thinking
that their family and friends approve of their marriage are more likely to perceive their
spouse as more affable than themselves1.
Note: * Indicates husbands differ from wives at p < .05.
1 The full SEM model was run again limiting the sample to only respondents who provided all three data points on social network approval (i.e., mother’s, father’s, and friend’s approval). Despite the decreased sample size, results revealed a good fit (χ2 (178, N = 407) = 318.805, p < .001, TLI = .920, CFI = .952, RMSEA = .044).
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
64
Mediation Effects
In their discussion of their ecosystemic model, Larson and Holman (1994) were
not very specific as to how family background characteristics, individual traits and skills,
and contextual factors should relate to one another. However, they speculated that in a
multivariate path model, family background characteristics would affect couple
processes, such as cognitions about the partner, via interpersonal traits and skills. Thus,
the following Research Question was explored: Do self-esteem, avoidant and anxious
attachment, relationship efforts and strategies, coming to terms, and social network
approval mediate the association between family background characteristics and partner
enhancement? To address the research question, Sobel’s test (Baron & Kenny, 1986) was
computed for each mediating variable (self-esteem, avoidant and anxious attachment,
relationship self-regulation, coming to terms, social network approval). Sobel’s tests are
calculated using the following equation, z-value = a*b/SQRT(b2*sa2 + a2*sb2) where “b”
and “sb” represent the unstandardized coefficient “b” and the standard error of the “b” as
modeled in Figure 3 (below), and “a” and “sa” represent the unstandardized coefficient of
“a” and the standard error of “a.” Z-values represent mediated or indirect coefficients.
Mediator
IV DV
a b
c
Figure 3. Mediation
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
65
This was done for men and women separately. Tests revealed that Male Self-
Esteem (z = -3.64, p < .001), Male Avoidant Attachment (z = -2.79, p < .01), Male
Anxious Attachment (z = 5.30, p < .001), Male Relationship Efforts (z = 2.14, p < .05),
and Male Social Network Approval (z = 2.25, p < .05) mediated the relationship between
Male Family of Origin and Male Partner Enhancement. However, Male Relationship
Strategies and Male Coming to Terms did not mediate the relationship between Male
Family of Origin and Male Partner Enhancement. For females, tests revealed that Female
Self-Esteem (z = -4.77, p < .001), Female Avoidant Attachment (z = -2.23, p < .05),
Female Anxious Attachment (z = 4.10, p < .001), and Female Social Network Approval
(z = 4.44, p < .001) mediated the relationship between Female Family of Origin and
Female Partner Enhancement. However, Female Relationship Efforts, Female
Relationship Strategies, and Female Coming to Terms did not mediate the relationship
between Female Family of Origin and Female Partner Enhancement.
Although the findings above reveal a mediated relationship between family-of-
origin and partner enhancement, it should be understood that these mediated effects are
partial, and small. Computation of the SEM model minus the mediators revealed that the
standardized coefficient from Male Family Background Characteristics to Male Partner
Enhancement was β = .17. For females the standardized coefficient from Female Family
Background Characteristics to Female Partner Enhancement was β = .14 previous to
introducing the mediators. Inclusion of the mediators resulted in a coefficient of β = .17
for both men and women (Figure 2). Typically, inclusion of mediators reduces the
relationship between the antecedent and outcome variables. In women, however, the
association between Family Background and Partner Enhancement actually rose when
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
66
mediators were added (from β = .14 to .17). This finding may be due to some of the
indirect relationships being negative, which is balanced out by the antecedent-to-outcome
path becoming more strongly positive. Thus the mediational pathways appear complex
and only partially explain the relationship between Family Background Characteristics
and Partner Enhancement.
Supplementary Analyses
Because Hypothesis 4 was only supported for relationship efforts for husbands
and not wives and the relationship-strategies variable was not statistically significant for
husbands or wives, post hoc analyses were conducted to better understand the
relationship between relationship strategies/efforts and partner enhancement. Further, it
seemed prudent to also look at partner effects for self-esteem and attachment orientations.
Ten additional paths were included in the model to test partner effects of relationship
efforts and strategies, self-esteem, and attachment orientations on partner enhancement,
(see Figure 4). Kenny and Cook (1999) define partner effects as what occurs “when one
person is affected by the behavior or characteristics of his or her partner” (p. 433). The
model had acceptable fit: χ2 (146, N = 653) = 449.445, p < .001, TLI = .910, CFI = .947,
and the RMSEA = .048. The path coefficient from Male Relationship Efforts to Female
Partner Enhancement was -.088 (p < .05). This suggests that the more self-perceived
effort husbands put into the relationship, the more wives were likely to engage in partner
enhancing cognitions. The path coefficient from Male Relationship Strategies to Female
Partner Enhancement was -.094 (p < .05). This indicates that the more self-perceived
strategies husbands put into the relationship, the more likely wives were to engage in
partner enhancement. The path coefficient from Female Relationship Efforts to Male
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
67
Partner Enhancement was -.094 (p < .05). According to these results, the more self-
perceived effort wives put into the relationship, the more likely husbands were to engage
in partner enhancement. However, the path coefficient from Female Relationship
Strategies to Male Partner Enhancement was not statistically significant. Therefore,
regardless of the self-perceived strategies wives put into the relationship, it has no effect
on the likelihood of males engaging in partner enhancement.
The path coefficient from Male Self-Esteem to Female Partner Enhancement was
not significant and suggests that the level the husband’s self-esteem has little to no
bearing on whether or not their partner will engage in partner enhancement. The path
coefficients from Male Avoidant Attachment to Female Partner Enhancement, and
Female Avoidant Attachment to Male Partner Enhancement, were -.13 (p < .05) and -.10
(p < .05), respectively. For both husbands and wives, as avoidant attachment increases
the likelihood that their partner will engage in partner enhancement decreases. The path
coefficient from Male Anxious Attachment to Female Partner Enhancement was
significant at -.10 (p < .05); however this was not true for the path coefficient from
Female Anxious Attachment to Male Partner Enhancement. Wives’ level of anxious
attachment has no bearing on husbands’ likelihood of viewing his partner more positively
than he does himself.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
68
Note. * = p < .05; dotted lines indicate non-significant structural paths.
Figure 4. Actor-Partner Effects Structural Equation Model
Male Family Background Char.
Female Partner Enhancement
Female Family Background Char.
Female Coming to Terms
Female Social Network Approval
Female Strategies
Female Efforts
Female Anxious Attachment
Female Avoidant Attachment
Female Self-Esteem
Male Social Network Approval
Male Avoidant Attachment
Male Efforts
Male Strategies
Male Coming to Terms
Male Anxious Attachment
Male Self-Esteem
Male Partner Enhancement
.34**
-.41** -.33**
.28** .19**
-.78** .30**
.17*
-.18** .12**
-.29** .11*
-.03 .1
.1*
.33**
-.4** -.29**
.24** .12**
-.78** .22**
.17**
-.25** .1*
-.21** .07
.03 .12*
.31**
.16** -.16**
-.09* -.10*
-.13* .01
-.10*
.06
-.09* .08
-.10*
.04
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
69
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
There is a limited amount of research on what factors influence positive
cognitions in relationships. Prior research on partner enhancement has focused on its
association with relationship quality/satisfaction (Busby et al., 2009; Morry et al., 2010).
Informed by Larson and Holman’s (1994) review, the present study used a subsample
comprised of heterosexual couples in their first marriage (N = 653 couples; 1306
individuals) drawn from the larger RELATE sample to study predictors of partner
enhancement. The results of this study suggest that partner enhancement is intricately
related to a number of individual, contextual, and relationship factors. Namely, individual
factors such as the partner’s self-esteem, attachment orientation, relationship self-
regulation, coming to terms, and perceptions of family-of-origin experiences predict their
tendency to engage in partner-enhancing cognitions. Furthermore, the results of this study
found that partner enhancement is influenced by one’s social context. Finally, although
one’s family of origin plays a significant role in predicting the tendency to view one’s
partner above the self, there are other factors that mediate that relationship.
Because literature is lacking on how individual, dyadic, and social factors
increase the likelihood of cognitions in romantic relationships, it is difficult to compare
results with previous research. The focus of this chapter is to examine the implications of
the findings outlined in Chapter IV. In order to facilitate the discussion of these points,
the chapter is partitioned into three main sections. First, the hypotheses will be reviewed
and all major findings associated with them will be elucidated. Second, limitations and
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
70
future directions will be addressed. Finally, the last section will explore possible
implications derived from the results of this study.
Discussion of Hypotheses and Research Question
Family Background Characteristics.
Hypothesis 1. Concerning Hypothesis 1, over and above the other variables, the
model illustrates that perceptions of family background experiences have a direct
influence on partner enhancement for both men and women. This lends support for the
general hypothesis that suggests that childhood and adolescence perceptions of parental
marriage, parent-child relationship, and overall family quality carry over into adulthood
and have an impact on individuals’ cognitions. One explanation for the link between
family-of-origin effects and partner enhancement may stem from how individuals
remember the past can influence their present goals, attitudes, and behaviors (Holman &
Associates, 2001), especially their current romantic relationships. This finding lends
further support for Larson and Holman’s (1994) ecological model wherein the
researchers postulated that individuals are embedded in their family background contexts
and this context, albeit small, influences relationship processes. Nevertheless, they
suggest that more longitudinal studies are needed to understand the long-term effects of
family background on future relationship processes. Therefore, it could be summarized
that not only do the perceptions of family-of-origin residuals affect marital cognitions
but, if spouses have adequately dealt with the difficulties in their family of origin, they
are better able to respond to their present partners and appraise them positively, even
more than themselves.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
71
Individuals’ Traits and Skills
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that greater self-esteem will be associated with
more partner enhancement. According to the results, the hypothesis was not supported. In
fact, partners’ greater self-esteem was associated with less partner enhancement. These
results are in contrast to other studies on partner cognitions and self-esteem (Murray et
al., 2001). In addition, Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) found that people who doubt
themselves tend to doubt their partners, which would lead to the conclusion that if
partners had low levels of self-esteem, they would be less likely to engage in partner
enhancement. Finally, Bellavia and Murray (2003) found that individuals with high self-
esteem were more likely to praise their partner and uphold their positive views of their
partner. It is curious that a variable that usually predicts positive marital cognitions,
would then be associated in the opposite direction. From the lens of similar research on
partner cognitions and views of self, partner enhancement should be tied positively with
self-esteem, but in this case it was not.
One explanation for this finding may be the high self-esteem means of both the
husbands (4.29; SD = .66) and wives (4.15; SD = .66), where the maximum possible
score is 5. These high means suggest that participants tended to view themselves quite
favorably. Thus, on the affability scale used to create the partner-enhancement measure,
high self-esteem individuals likely rated themselves highly, leaving little room for
participants to give their partners an even higher score. In other words, a ceiling effect
may have contributed to these results.
It should also be noted that no partner effects were found for self-esteem and
partner enhancement. This suggests that whether an individual is high or low on self-
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
72
esteem, this has no apparent influence on the likelihood that their partner will see them
more positively than they see themselves. Again, this finding goes against Larson and
Holman’s (1994) extensive literature review on the effects of individual traits such as
self-esteem.
Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 stated that the more individuals are avoidant or
anxiously attached, the less likely they are to enhance their partner. It further stated that
the more individuals are securely attached, the more likely they are to enhance their
partner. According to the results, the hypothesis was partially supported. Husbands and
wives with higher scores on anxious attachment were less likely to engage in partner
enhancement. However, this was not true for partners who scored high on avoidant
attachment. Husbands and wives high on avoidant attachment were more (not less) likely
to engage in partner enhancement.
Although Larson and Holman (1994) do not explicitly discuss attachment
orientations and their effect on relationship outcomes, they do discuss individual traits
such as personality factors, neuroticism, and dysfunctional beliefs. The measure of
attachment does account for items of withdrawal, worry of abandonment, and confidence,
all of which can be related to individual factors included in Larson and Holman’s (1994)
model. Thus, these findings lend some support for individual traits influencing
relationship processes (e.g., cognitions, partner enhancement) outlined in their ecological
framework.
In regards to the finding that individuals high on anxious attachment are less
likely to perceive their partner as more affable than themselves, one explanation for this
is that highly anxious individuals tend to underperceive the amount of support that may
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
73
actually be available to them (Collins & Feeney, 2004b). Perhaps this also leads to them
underperceiving their partner in regards to themselves. Furthermore, when looking at the
individual items in the measurement of attachment orientations, this finding becomes
clearer. The anxious attachment scale measures the respondent’s level of feelings or
thoughts of abandonment, emotional intimacy, and love. If the partner has thoughts of
abandonment and feels less secure in the closeness their partner is providing, it seems
reasonable to assume they are not going to position their partners above themselves. By
doing so, this could perhaps further validate their intuitions that their partner is “too good
for them” and thus further embolden their insecure cognitions. In fact, Murray and
colleagues (2000) found that married partners idealized each other less when they did not
feel secure in the regard their partners had for them.
In regards to husbands and wives who scored high on avoidance being more
likely to engage in partner enhancement, this is a curious finding given past research.
Individuals high on avoidant attachment find it difficult to be close to others and seek to
elude emotional intimacy (Edelstein & Shaver, 2004). Perhaps they see their partners as
better than them on positive personality traits because they don’t feel the need to protect
themselves by cognitively depreciating their spouse. This may also be a way of
cognitively distancing their partner from them and further augmenting their independence
from their partner. Another explanation may be found in the literature suggesting that
avoidant individuals tend to lack interpersonal competence and skill (e.g. Anders &
Tucker, 2000) which may lead them to enhance their partners affable qualities (e.g.,
kindness) above themselves. Further, Fitzpatrick and Dunn (2011) found that avoidant
individuals were more likely to engage in self-criticism. Perhaps avoidant individuals in
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
74
this sample engaged in negative self-critiques and subsequently enhanced their partner
above themselves. Nevertheless, Collins and Feeney (2004a) argue that much of aversive
behaviors and cognitions that avoidant individuals display in intimate relationships is
usually only present during distressing experiences or when the “attachment system is
activated” (p. 179) in the relationship. Therefore, although the avoidant characteristics
may be present in the individual, at the time they completed the RELATE questionnaire
perhaps their relationship was on good and positive terms and they were able to
accentuate their partner above themselves.
Upon further investigation of attachment orientations and partner enhancement,
exploratory partner- effects analyses were run for both partners. Results indicated that at
least for avoidant attachment, when husbands and wives scored highly on this measure,
their partners were less likely to view them as better than them on positive personality
traits. In general, scholars have suggested that one of the primary goals of avoidant
individuals is to maintain an emotional and psychological distance (Rholes et al., 2011).
Avoidant adults also tend to self-disclose less, dislike physical and emotional intimacy
(Edelstein & Shaver, 2004), and grieve less following a breakup compared to
nonavoidant individuals (Fraley & Shaver, 1999). They have also been found to be less
likely to engage in receptivity, gazing, facial and vocal pleasantness, and attentiveness
activities during conversations (Collins & Feeney, 2004a). What may be occurring is that
partners may intuitively “pick-up” on their partner’s distancing behaviors or cognitions
and therefore view them as dismissing and less close and therefore less likely to view
them more positively than they do themselves. Future research might look at some
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
75
mediating factors between avoidant individuals and partner enhancement such as
commitment or satisfaction levels.
Further, the results also indicated that anxiety in husbands had an effect on (or at
least was associated correlationally with) their wives’ level of partner enhancement, but
this was not true for wives’ level of anxiousness and partner enhancement. It is true that
individuals low on anxious attachment measures seek closeness and feel secure that their
yearnings for closeness will be reciprocated (Collins & Allard, 1996). If one’s spouse
seeks closeness and mirrors behaviors that are consistent with confidence that it will be
returned, perhaps, in some way the partner will sense that confidence and in turn sees this
as a positive trait and thus engage in enhancement. Nevertheless, further research may
look at a potential gender difference when it comes to partner enhancement and anxious
attachment.
Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 stated that the more individuals engage in
relationship self-regulation, the more they will engage in partner enhancement.
According to the results, the hypothesis was, again, partially supported. For husbands,
their perceived efforts did designate a significant path. In other words, when husbands
perceive their relationship self-regulation efforts as high, they view their partner above
themselves on positive personality characteristics. In closer examination of the questions
measuring relationship efforts, men who do not feel discouraged when their efforts are
not working and believe they can change their behavior seem to view their partner more
positively than they view themselves. However, for women, their perceived efforts and
strategies put forth in the relationship did not predict partner enhancement.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
76
One explanation for the finding concerning husbands could be that putting effort
into the relationship is intentional and proactive (Halford et al., 2007). It takes a frame of
mind that engenders positivity and thwarts discouragement. Perhaps husbands who
perceive their spouse as above themselves are putting forth the efforts because they view
their partner as worthy of those extra efforts—so worthy that they are above themselves
and therefore lead the husband to work harder to strengthen the relationship. The lack of
significance in relation to females’ perceived relationship self-regulation and partner
enhancement is curious, especially considering females tend to be designated as head of
relationship maintenance (Davis, 1999).
However, supplementary analyses looked closer at partner effects, which revealed
that husbands and wives are more likely to view their spouse more positively when they
perceive more effort in the relationship. In Fincham’s (2001) work on attributions, there
is a link between the implied intentions of one’s partner and marital satisfaction. Perhaps
partners are cognizant of their spouses’ relationship-regulating work and attribute the
goodwill to their partner and in turn create an affirmative assessment of their positive
personality characteristics. Results also revealed that when wives recognize their
spouse’s relationship strategies, this increases wives’ tendency to engage in partner
enhancement, but this was not true for husbands. It could be that men expect their wives
to be in charge of maintaining the relationship and that when his wife discovers that he is
actively thinking about the relationship and how to improve his behavior, this affects her
perception of him.
Here again, Larson and Holman’s (1994) model does not specifically designate
the individual trait of relational self-regulation. As noted previously, relationship self-
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
77
regulation is the ability to adjust one’s behavior and cognitions to better align themselves
with relational goals (Halford et al., 1994). Therefore, this variable suggests an addition
to Larson and Holman’s constellation of constructs by identifying one additional trait
(relationship self-regulation) that influences cognitive processes (at least for husbands)
such as partner enhancement.
Hypotheses 5. According to the results for Hypothesis 5, higher scores on wives’
ability to come to terms with their family of origin experiences predicted her likelihood
of engaging in partner enhancement. The hypothesis was not supported for husbands. The
support for the hypothesis in relation to women is consistent with some research that
indicates early childhood family environments tend to effect women more than men
(Holman & Associates, 2001). This may be due to women being more embedded in the
relational processes of their families and their tendency to set the emotional tone in the
home (Botkin, O’Neal-Weeks, & Morris, 2000). Nevertheless, the association here
between coming to terms and partner enhancement is weak, so any explanations must be
viewed cautiously.
Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 stated that there will be a significant difference
between men’s and women’s partner enhancement. According to the results, this
hypothesis was not supported. This finding is contrary to other studies on positive
cognitions toward one’s spouse. Murray and Holmes (1997) found that women tend to
depict their partners more positively than do men. However, other studies have found
inconsistent results in terms of gender differences and the idealization of partners
(Niehuis et al., 2011).
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
78
Contextual Factor: Social Network Approval.
Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 stated that greater social-network approval of the
relationship will be associated with more partner enhancement. According to the results,
this hypothesis was supported. For both husbands and wives, greater approval of the
relationship by family and friends was associated with more positive perceptions of the
spouse in relation to their perceptions of themselves on affability. This finding is
consistent with Larson and Holman’s (1994) review wherein other ecosystems that
surround the individuals, such as parents and friends approval, were found to affect
relationship processes.
One explanation for this link between social network approval and partner
enhancement could be that a network that approves of the spouse is most likely
interacting and communicating about the individual’s partner in a positive light. Perhaps
parents and friends are pointing out characteristics and behaviors that are affirmative,
thus further confirming and validating husbands’ and wives’ views of their partner.
Further, because network members are most likely to take an objective view of the
relationship, perhaps they can see positive traits and behaviors in in the partner that were
earlier unseen by the spouses (Felmlee, 2001) thus reducing uncertainty they may have.
Another explanation could be found in the sample itself.
It should be noted, however, for the wives, the significance is much more
pronounced as husbands’ coefficient was .1 (p < .05) and wives’ was .31 (p < .01). One
possible explanation for this is that some literature suggests that women are much more
affected by their social networks (e.g., Sprecher & Felmlee, 2000) perhaps because, on
average, women tend to self-disclose more details of their relationships and are more
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
79
prone to engage in relationship talk with friends and family than are men (e.g., Boden,
Fischer, & Niehuis, 2010; Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005).
Nevertheless, considering these results, it is important to avoid making any swift
assumptions of cause and effect. There is no evidence of the direction of the relationship.
It could be that when partners engage in positive cognitive enhancement, this may
transfer to their social network in the form of self-disclosure and, therefore, positively
affects friends' and family’s approval of the relationship. Further studies may address this
potential pathway.
In addition, this study did not differentiate between the influence of friends and
parents. Some scholars suggest that family members’ approval of the relationship may
have more of an impact on relationships than the influence of friends (Etchenvery &
Agnew, 2004; Holman & Associates, 2001). Future studies may seek to explore this
potential difference between the networks and partner enhancement. In addition, there
may be an unexplored link between parent-child relationships and parental approval.
Holman and Associates (2001) suggest that if the parent-child relationship during
childhood and adolescence was less than ideal, it seems reasonable that this may also
affect the approval of a romantic partner by the parents.
Mediation Effects
Research Question. As noted earlier, Larson and Holman (1994) emphasize that
an individuals’ family background characteristics, traits and skills, and contextual factors
should relate to each other; further, they point out that, in a mediational pathway, family
background characteristics would affect couple processes, such as cognitions about the
partner, through interpersonal traits and skills. The results of the supplementary analyses
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
80
indeed show some support for their conjecture. The mediation analyses indicate that,
although respondents’ perceptions of family background experiences increase the
likelihood of perceiving one’s partner above the self, they only account for a small
amount of variance (R2 = .03) in the model for both husbands and wives. Further,
mediation results showed that self-esteem, attachment orientations, and one’s social-
network approval of the relationship mediate the relationship between family-of-origin
perceptions and partner enhancement. It seems that how individuals perceive the
dynamics of their parents' marriage, their relationship with their parents during
childhood, and the overall family quality, plays a significant role in many variables
related to positive cognitions toward their spouse. Finally, husbands’ and wives’
perceived relationship strategies and their ability to come to terms with their family
background experiences did not mediate the relationship between family background
variables and partner enhancement.
Implications
This study was informed by Larson and Holman’s (1994) review of variables that
may affect couple relationships. Understanding the predictive factors that strengthen and
constrain romantic relationships is important to scholars of the family. However,
understanding how these factors shape partners’ cognitions is equally important as Busby
and colleagues (2009) found in their study of partner enhancement. The present study
highlighted the distal, proximal, and relational factors in play in the outcome of partner
enhancement. These findings have credence for family life educators and therapists in the
following ways:
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
81
First, despite the long-standing finding that self-esteem is beneficial to romantic
relationships, perhaps too much self-confidence can be detrimental. It is important that
partners understand the costs and benefits of attaining a positive outlook toward
themselves. Second, much has been written on the role of efforts and strategies in the
outcomes of marital satisfaction (e.g., Halford et al., 2007). However, how they predict
positive cognitions has been lacking in the research. This study revealed that husbands’
perceptions of their own effort and strategies increases the likelihood they will position
their wives above them on positive personality characteristics. This is important for
therapists and educators, because much of what they encourage and teach is behavioral in
nature. Helping husbands understand their intentional actions are not only helping them
view their partner more positively but their actions also increase their wife’s ability to see
them more positively may be beneficial.
Third, this study highlighted the impact of distal and proximal influences of one’s
family of origin and how participants' resiliency in the face of negative experiences
impacts their connubial relationship. For both men and women, their perception of their
parent’s marriage, family environment, and relationship with their parents predicted their
likelihood of cognitively viewing their spouse above themselves. Bowen’s (1978) family
therapy grounds most of its tenets of intergenerational transmission in the premise that
one’s family background can affect future relationships, attitudes, behaviors, and
cognitions. Helping clients understand one more way of how their background impacts
the way they see their partner can help in the change process. In addition, family life
education has historically paid little attention to background variables in curriculum.
These findings support the inclusion of distal variables, such as family-of-origin effects,
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
82
in relationship and parenting curricula. Further, at least for women, their ability to
reconcile their negative experiences from their family of origin is important for clients
and participants to understand as they seek to improve their marital relationship (Nichols,
2011).
Finally, one of the more robust findings in this study was wives’ social network
approval of their partner and how it predicts their likelihood of partner enhancing. Studies
reveal that one’s social network potentially can have a dramatic effect on the initiation,
intensity, and satisfaction of premarital and marital relationships (e.g., Kearns & Leonard,
2004; Tolhuizen, 1989). More specifically, women tend to be more impacted by their
social network than their male counterparts (e.g., Holman & Associates, 2001). This
finding specifically relates to premarital relationship education. It seems appropriate to
encourage women to pay close attention to their friends' and parent’s opinion of their
future mate as this will most likely affect their positive relationship cognitions. Educators
and counselors who work with premarital clients might encourage them to pay close
attention to individuals, such as friends and family who, perhaps, have a more objective
viewpoint of the relationship, its strengths, and “red flag” areas.
Limitations and Future Directions for Research
Although this research expands previous work done on cognitions in romantic
relationships, this study has several limitations that suggest caution should be taken in
interpreting or generalizing the results. First, the sample was quite homogenous. Eighty-
six percent of the sample was Caucasian, over half of the sample had at least an
associate’s degree, over half of the sample made over $40,000 a year, and finally, over
half of the sample identified themselves as members of the Mormon faith. Future studies
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
83
might involve a sample that is more heterogeneous and, perhaps, control for religious
affiliation so generalizations to the larger population can be more reliable.
Second, this study utilized cross-sectional self-report data. This limits any inferences
of causation or the prediction of change over time. Relying exclusively on self-report data
can also produce biases as some of the variance accounted for may be due to the
idiosyncratic way in which individuals answer questions in the RELATE questionnaire.
Because cross-sectional data merely take a “snapshot” at one point in time, future
research might employ a longitudinal analysis to further explicate changes in partner
enhancement over time.
Third, the relatively short relationship length that was present among the respondents
could be a factor. Over 60% of couples indicated they had been married for 5 years or
less. Partners in the early years of their marriage may still be influenced by the
“honeymoon effect” wherein overly positive views of each other still reign. Future
research might further analyze differences in relationship length.
Fourth, the sample was narrowed down to first-time, heterosexual marriages, this
limited some ability to generalize. In addition, only viewing married couples may have
limited the results. It may be true that partners who are not married see their partners
differently. Therefore, expanding this line of inquiry to all types of relationships (e.g.,
cohabitating) may further the knowledge in this area.
Fifth, in relation to specific variables, future directions for this study might be to
control for self-esteem. By controlling for self-esteem it would isolate the variable and
the effects it has on the outcome variable. In this particular study, self-esteem seemed to
have a negative effect on partner enhancement wherein high scores reduced the
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
84
likelihood of partner enhancement. Further, the self-esteem scale utilized in this study
contained only 4 questions and it was derived from Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale that
contains 10 questions. Perhaps future studies could utilize Rosenberg’s (1965) full scale,
thus obtaining a more accurate measure of a partner’s self-esteem. Possible non-linear
relations using a more extensive self-esteem measure could be assessed (i.e., is there an
inflection point above which high self-esteem precludes partner enhancement?).
Sixth, the findings here and elsewhere in the literature that point to associations
between parental marital quality and adult child marital quality, Holman and Associates
(2001) suggest that perceptions of parental marital quality are more distal than other
family background factors, as children are not directly involved in the marital
relationship. Further, this study only measures the perceived marital happiness of the
respondent’s parents’ marriage. This is may be skewed slightly as it is based on
retrospective recollections of their parents’ marriage. Further, it may be that their parents
had a very good marriage despite conflict or that there was pseudo-mutuality and the
parents only argued behind closed doors. Therefore, future studies on cognitions and
parental marital quality may need to be methodologically longitudinal and assess the
parents’ actual marital quality. Furthermore, this study combined family background
variables (family quality, parental marital quality, and parent-child relationships). Future
research would do well to parse out these ecological influences and determine their
individual effects.
Future research on partner enhancement might also benefit by looking specifically
at relationship status (e.g., married versus dating partners). Additionally, although Busby
and colleagues’ (2009) study was longitudinal in nature, they only followed couples over
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
85
one year. Future studies may track changes over time as couples transition from their
premarital relationship to the early stages of marriage and on into the later stages.
Perhaps partner- enhancing cognitions experience an ebb and flow as relationships
change over time. Further, future studies on partner enhancement may want to explore
the influence of relationship length as a predictor or as a control variable.
Finally, in the measurement of partner enhancement, this study operationalized it
in terms of positive personality traits such as kindness and general affability. Future
research might explore the predictors, correlates, and consequences of enhancing one’s
partner above the self on other dimensions such as intelligence, parenting ability,
attractiveness, extroversion, honesty, communication skills, or coping with stress. For
example, if the outcome variable was enhancement of one’s partner on levels of
intelligence or communication ability, perhaps the results outlined in this study might
differ. Perhaps individuals whose social network approved of their partner may also see
them as more intelligent or better at communicating than they do themselves.
There are also many strengths of this study that are necessary to address. First, the
sample size was quite large with 653 couples. Second, couple data was utilized in the
analysis of the hypothesized variables. Using couple data is important as it gives an
accurate description of relational processes. Third, the results of this study shed new light
on the area of cognition, specifically partner enhancement, and relationship processes. It
is clear that this study has opened doors for other studies to explore the predictive factors
of family background, traits and skills, and contextual elements.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
86
Conclusion
In summary, this research has provided insight into the possible associations
between individual and social variables on positive cognitions concerning one’s spouse.
It is clear that Larson and Holman’s (1994) enumeration of variables, although wide-
ranging in scope, needs to be revised to include other constructs such as attachment,
relationship self-regulation, coming to terms with family-of-origin issues, and cognitions
such as partner enhancement. The inclusion of these variables would allow their model to
be more comprehensive compared to when it was published almost 20 years ago.
Several questions were posed at the beginning of this study. The results of this
study have answered these questions but have also generated new questions. First, do
factors such as family background perceptions influence positive cognitions in marriage?
This study indicated that there is an association and that an individual’s perceived
experience during his or her childhood and adolescence does indeed increase the
likelihood that they will see their partner more positively than they see themselves.
Second, is there an association between individual traits and skills (e.g., self-esteem,
attachment orientations, self-regulatory efforts and strategies, and coming to terms with
one’s family background experiences) and partner-enhancing cognitions. The study
demonstrated that yes, there is an association between these factors and partner
enhancement and no, some do not, and that some have a negative correlation between
them (e.g., self-esteem). Finally, the question of social network approval and its
relationship to partner enhancement was posed. This study found strong support in the
affirmative to this question. Social network approval, especially for wives, leads them to
perceive their partner’s positive personality traits as stronger than they see their own.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
87
This study also explored the potential mediating effects of individual variables
between family-of-origin and partner enhancement. It seems clear that partner
enhancement is an important variable in understanding romantic relationship research.
Very few studies focus on variables that predict cognitions, and the results of this study
are intriguing in that respect. This study sheds further light on the impact of family-of-
origin variables on cognitions and marital functioning. In addition, self-esteem clearly
plays a pivotal role when it comes to evaluating one’s partner. More studies on partner
enhancement need to unpack the nuances of self-esteem. Further, this study adds to the
social-network literature and opens the door to new pathways of research on cognitions
and their role in marital outcomes. Although Larson and Holman’s (1994) model was
comprehensive 20 years ago, it is clear that updates could be in order. Finally, these
results are important to family life educators and relationship therapists as they help
individuals and couples reflect upon the impact of their past and current perceptions.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
88
REFERENCES
Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Maintaining and enhancing a relationship by attending to it. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 153-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042-1057. Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 628-640. Amato, P. R. & DeBoer, D. (2001). The transmission of divorce across generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1038-1051. Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612-624. Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult children’s psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66, 900-921. Anders, S. L., & Tucker, J. S. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal communication competence, and social support. Personal Relationships, 7, 379- 389. Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM SPSS (Version 20.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484. Baldwin, M. W., & Keelan, J. P. R. (1999). Interpersonal expectations as a function of self-esteem and sex. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 822-833. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
89
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. New York: Academic Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D., (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 1-14. Bellavia, G., & Murray, S. L. (2003). Did I do that? Self-esteem-related differences in reaction to romantic partners’ moods. Personal Relationships, 10, 77-95. Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122-144). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwood. Berndt, A. E. (1998, August). “Typical” model features and their effects on goodness-of fit indices. Presented at the 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Bertoni, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2010). Satisfied and dissatisfied couples: Positive and Negative dimensions, conflict styles, and relationship with family of origin. European Psychologist, 15, 175-184. Biesanz, J. C., & West, S. G. (2000). Personality coherence: Moderating self-other profile
agreement and profiles consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 425-437. Black, K. A., & Schutte, E. D. (2006). Recollections of being loved: Implications of childhood experiences with parents for young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1459-1480 Boden, J. S., Fischer, J. L., & Niehuis, S. (2010). Predicting marital adjustment from young adults’ initial levels and changes in emotional intimacy over time: A 25- year longitudinal study. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 121-134.
Botkin, D. R., O’Neal-Weeks, M., & Morris, J. E. (2000). Changing marriage role expectations:1961-1996. Sex Roles, 42, 933-942. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic. Broderick, C. B. (1988). Marriage and the family (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
90
Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & Maharaj, A. (2010). Social networks and marital stability Among black American and white American couples. In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 318-334). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bryant, C. M., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Martial success and domains of social support in long-term relationships: Does the influence of network members ever end? Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 437-450. Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on change in marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614-626. Burr, W. R., & Klein, S. R. (1994). Reexamining family stress. London: Sage Publications. Busby, D. M., Carroll, J. S., & Willoughby, B. J. (2010). Compatibility or restraint?: The effects of sexual timing on marriage relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 766-774. Busby, D. M., Gardner, B. C., & Taniguchi, N. (2005). The family of origin parachute model: Landing safely in adult romantic relationships. Family Relations, 54, 254- 264. Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009). The association between partner enhancement and self-enhancement and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 449-464. Busby, D. M., & Loyer-Carlson, V. (2003). Pathways to marriage: Premarital and early marital relationships. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Canary, D. J., & Dainton, M. (2006). Maintaining relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D.
Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 727- 743). New York: Cambridge University Press. Canary, D. J., & Emmers-Somer, T. M. (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal
relationship. New York: Guilford Press. Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 17-31.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
91
Clark, S. C., Dover, A. M., Geher, G., & Presson, P. K. (2005). Perceptions of self and of ideal mates: Similarities and differences across the sexes. Current Psychology, 24, 180-202. Cohn, D. A., Silver, D. H., Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., & Pearson, J. (1992). Working models of childhood attachment and couple relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 432-449. Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810- 832. Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2001). Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 60-85). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004a). An attachment theory perspective on cloeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163-188). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004b). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363-383. Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., & Allard, L. M. (2006). Working models of
attachment and attribution processes in intimate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 201-219.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644- 663. Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237. Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. B., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 218-235.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse rating on the Neo personality inventory. New York: Guilford Press.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
92
Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (2002). Stability of attachment representations: The transition to marriage. Developmental Psychology, 38, 467-479.
Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., Gao, Y., Fyffe, C., Pan, H., & Waters, E. (2002). Assessing secure base behavior in adulthood: Development of a measure, links to adult attachment representations, and relations to couples’ communication and reports of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 38, 679-693. Dattilio, F. M. (2005). The restructuring of family schemas: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 15-30. Day, R. D. (2010). Introduction to family processes (5th ed). New York, NY: Routledge. Davis, K. E. (1999). What attachment styles and love styles add to the understanding of commitment and relatinship stability. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.) Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 221-238). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562-576. Doxey, C., & Holman, T. B. (2001). Social contexts influencing marital quality. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp.119-140). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Draper, T. W., & Holman, T. B. (2005). Locating the big five personality factors in the RELATE relationship evaluation measures. Psychological Reports, 97, 877-886. Edelstein, R. S., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Avoidant attachment: Exploration of an oxymoron. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 397-414). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Epstein, N. B., & Baucom, D. H. (2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Etcheverry, P. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409-428. Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., & Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence. Personal Relationships, 15, 281-295.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
93
Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259-1287. Fincham, F. D. (2001). Attributions in close relationships: From balkanization to integration. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 3-31). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1999). Marriage in the new millennium: Is there a place for social cognition in marital research? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 685-704. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 630-649. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72-81. Fitzpatrick, J. (2012). Support and interference from social network members: A conceptual framework. In M. E. Paludi (Ed.), The Psychology of Love (Vol. 1, pp. 73-88). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Fitzpatrick, J., & Dunn, T. (2011, October). The associations among persnal factors, interpersonal competeence and avoidant attachment among young adults. Poster presetnted at the Fifth Conference on Emerging Adulthood, Providence, RI. Fletcher, G. J. O., Overall, N. C., & Friesen, M. D. (2006). Social cognition in intimate
relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 353-368). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Loss and bereavement: Attachment theory and recent controversies concerning “grief work” and the nature of detachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 735-759). New York: Guilford Press. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154. Framo, J. L. (1992). Family-of-origin therapy. An intergenerational approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Gallo, L. C., & Smith, T. W. (2001). Attachment style in marriage: Adjustment and responses to interaction. Journal of Social and personal Relationships, 18, 263- 289.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
94
Gardner, B. C., Busby, D. M., & Brimhall, A. S. (2007). Putting emotional reactivity in its place? Exploring family-of-origin influences on emotional reactivity, conflict and satisfaction in premarital couples. Contemporary Family Theory, 29, 113- 127. Gardener, B. C., Busby, D. M., Burr, B. K., & Lyon, S. E. (2011). Getting to the root of
relationship attributions: Family-of-origin perspectives on self and partner views. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33, 253-272.
Gottman, J. M., & Driver, J. L. (2005). Dysfunctional marital conflict and everyday marital interaction. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43, 63-77. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41, 83-96. Hair, E. C., Anderson-Moore, K., Hadley, A. M., Kaye, K., Day, R., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Profiles of relationships quality. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 189-217. Halford, W. K., Lizzio, A. Wilson, K. L., & Occhipinti, S. (2007). Does working at your
marriage help? Couple relationship self-regulation and satisfaction in the first 4 years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 185-194.
Halford, W. K., & Moore, E. (2002). Relationship education and the prevention of couple
relationship problems. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couples therapy (3rd ed., pp. 400-419). New York: Guilford.
Halford, W. K., Sanders, M. R., & Behrens, B. C. (1994). Self-regulation in behavioral couples therapy. Behavior Therapy, 25, 431-452. Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do.
New York: Free Press. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on
close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22. Hill, E. W. (2001). Understanding forgiveness as discovery: Implications for marital and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23, 369-384.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
95
Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (1998). Premarital predictors of relationship outcomes: A 15- year follow up of the Boston couples study. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.). The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 237-278). New York: Cambridge University Press. Holman, T. B., & Associates. (2001). Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Holman, T. B., Larson, J. H., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing marital quality. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp.105-117). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Holmes, J. G. (2002). Interpersonal expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: An interdependence theory perspective. Personal Relationships, 9, 1- 26. Holmes, J. G., & Boon, S. D. (1990). Developments in the field of close relationship: Creating foundations for interventions strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 23-41. Homer, M. M., Freeman, P. A., Zabriskie, R. B., & Eggett, D. L. (2007). Rituals and
relationships: Examining the relationship between family of origin rituals and young adult attachment. Marriage & Family Review, 42(1), 5-27.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Cantrill, J. G. (2001). Cognition, communication, and romantic
relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hoopes, M. H. (1987). Multigenerational systems: Basic assumptions. American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 195-205. Huston, T. L., Niehuis, S., & Smith, S. E. (2001). The early marital roots of conjugal distress and divorce. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 116-119 Jacquet, S. E., & Surra, C. A. (2001). Parental divorce and premarital couples: Commitment and other relationship characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 627-638. Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2007). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 1 16.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
96
Kapinus, C. A. (2005). The effect of parental marital quality on young adults’ attitudes toward divorce. Sociological Perspectives, 48, 319-335. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Cognition and the development of close relationships. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Social cognition (pp. 194-221). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kearns, J. N., & Leonard, K. E. (2004). Social networks, structural interdependence, and marital quality over the transition to marriage: A prospective analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 383-395.
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448. Kim, H. K., Pears, K. C., Capaldi, D. M., & Owen, L. D. (2009). Emotion dysregulation in the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 585-595. Koch, E. J., & Shepperd, J. A. (2008). Testing competence and acceptance explanation of self-esteem. Self and Identity, 7, 54-74. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480- 498. Larson, J. H., Benson, M. J., Wilson, S. M., & Medora, N. (1998). Family-of-origin influences on marital attitudes and readiness for marriage in late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 750-768. Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (1994). Premarital predictors of marital quality and stability. Family Relations, 43, 228-237. Larson, J. H., Taggart-Reedy, M., & Wilson, S. M. (2001). The effects of perceived
dysfunctional family-of-origin rules on the dating relationships of young adults. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23, 489-512.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-62). San Diego: Academic Press.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
97
Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Ashmore, R. D. (2006). The relationship of social approval contingency to trait self-esteem: Cause, consequence, or moderator? Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 121-139. Lewis, R. B., & Spainer, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Ney, and I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 268-294). New York: Free Press. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. Maner, J. K., & Miller, S. L. (2011). The evolution of romantic relationships: Adaptive
challenges and relationship cognition in emerging adulthood. In F. D. Fincham and M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Marks, S. R. (1986). Three corners: Exploring marriage and the self. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. L. (2010). Fighting for your marriage: A deluxe revised edition of the classic best seller for enhancing marriage and preventing divorce. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Martinson, V. K. (2006). How coming to terms with difficulties in the family of origin positively influences adult children’s relationship/martial quality. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from etd.lib.byu.edu/collection.html. Martinson, V. K., Holman, T. B., Larson, J. H., & Jackson, J. B. (2010). The relationship
between coming to terms with family-of-origin difficulties and adult relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 207-217.
McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M., & Karney, B. R. (2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship maintenance: “Don’t sweat the small stuff”. . . . But it is not all small stuff. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 631-646. Meredith, D. B., & Holman, T. B. (2001). Breaking up before and after marriage. In T. B. Holman (Ed.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or breakup: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 47-77). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
98
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Morry, M. M., Reich, T., & Kito, M. (2010). How do I see you relative to myself? Relationship quality as a predictor of self- and partner-enhancement within cross- sex friendships, dating relationship, and marriages. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 369-392. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 707-722. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusion in romantic
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586-604. Murray, S. L., Homes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). The benefits of positive illusions:
Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155-1180. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478-498. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G., & Rose, P. (2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 423-436. Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Bellavia, G. M., Holmes, J. G., & Kusche, A. G. (2002). When rejection stings: How self-esteem constrains relationship-enhancement processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 556-573. Mustillo, S., Wilson, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2004). Legacy volunteering: A test of two theories of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 530-541. Mruk, C. J. (2006). Self-esteem: Research, theory, and practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Company. Neff, A. L., & Karney, B. R. (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 594- 607.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
99
Nichols, M. P. (2011). The essential of family therapy (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. Niehuis, S., Huston, T. L., & Rosenband, R. (2006). From courtship into marriage: A new
developmental model and methodological critique. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 23-47.
Niehuis, S., Lee, K.-H., Reifman, A., Swenson, A., & Hunsaker, S. (2011). Idealization and disillusionment in intimate relationships: A review of theory, method, and research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 273-302.
Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Perren, S., Von Wyl, A., Burgin, D., Simoni, H., & Von Klitzing, K. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of marital quality across the transition to parenthood. Family Process, 44, 441-459. Planalp, S., & Rivers, M. (1996). Changes in knowledge of personal relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 299-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Raykov, T, & Marcouldes, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social
environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-336.
Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. H. (1994). When partners transgress: Maintaining violated
relationships. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 23-43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A., Wildschut, T., Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 521-545.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
100
Russell, D. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in PSPB. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629-1646.
Sacco, W. P., & Phares, V. (2001). Partner appraisal and marital satisfaction: The role of self-esteem and depression. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 504-513. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177. Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,
371-390. Simpson, J. S., Rholes, S. W., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899- 914. Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995).What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden
assumptions in the behavioral sciences. London: Sage Publications.
Smith, S. D., & Ng, K. (2009). Association between adult romantic attachment styles and family-of-origin expressive atmosphere. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 17, 220-228. Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7, 325-340. Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 888-900. Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the “Romantic Beliefs Scale” and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 6, 387-411. Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and change in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 257-284). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stackert, R. A., & Bursik, K. (2002). Why am I unsatisfied? Adult attachment style, gendered irrational relationship beliefs, and young adult romantic relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1419-1429.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
101
Stahmann, R. F. (2000). Premarital counseling: A focus for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 104-116. Stanley, S. M. (2001). Making a case for premarital education. Family Relations, 50, 272- 280. Stoop, D. (2011). Forgiving our parents forgiving ourselves. Ventura, CA: Regal. Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1139-1162. Story, L. B., Karney, B. R., Lawrence, E., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Interpersonal mediators in the intergenerational transmission of marital dysfunction. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 519-529. Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 265-286). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tolhuizen, J. H. (189). Communication strategies for intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use and structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 413-434. Topham, G. L., Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (2005). Family-of-origin predictors of hostile conflict in early marriage. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27, 101-121. Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Waller, W. (1937). The rating and dating complex. American Sociological Review, 2, 727-734. Wamboldt, F., & Reiss, D. (1989). Defining a family heritage and a new relationship: Two central themes in the making of a marriage. Family Process, 28, 317-335. Wareham, J., Boots, D. P., & Chavez, J. M. (2009). A test of social learning and
intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 163-173. Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684-689.
Texas Tech University, Jeremy S. Boden, December 2012
102
Whitton, S. W., Waldinger, R. J., Schultz, M. S., Allen, J. P., Crowell, J. A., & Hauser, S. T. (2008). Prospective associations form family-of-origin interactions to adult marital interactions and relationship adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 274-286. Williamson, D. S., & Bray, J. H. (1988). Family development and change across the generations: An intergenerational perspective. In D. J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the life cycle (pp. 357-384). New York, NY: Guilford. Wilson, K. L., Charker, J., Lizzio, A., Halford, K., & Kimlin, S. (2005). Assessing how much couples work at their relationships: The behavioral self-regulation for effective relationships scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 385-393. Yu, T., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). The intergenerational transmission of relationship quality: The effects of parental remarriage quality on young adults’ relationships. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 4, 87-101.