The Big Five and Enduring Marriages

5/28/2018 The Big Five and Enduring Marriages

1/24

The Big Five and enduring marriagesq

M. Brent Donnellan,a,* Rand D. Conger,a

and Chalandra M. Bryantb

a University of California, Davis, USAb Iowa State University, USA

Available online 25 March 2004

Abstract

The present investigation tested the relations between the Big Five dimensions of person-

ality and the marital relationships of over 400 couples using both observational and question-

naire data. Four major findings emerged from these analyses. First, self-reports of neuroticism

were positively correlated with negative interactions and negatively correlated with global

evaluations of the marriage. Second, self-reports of agreeableness were negatively correlatedwith negative interactions and generally positively correlated with global evaluations of the

marriage. Third, self-reports of openness were negatively correlated with observer reports of

negative interactions. Fourth, self-reports of openness by wives were positively correlated with

global reports of sexual satisfaction. These findings suggest that agreeableness and openness

deserve increased attention as significant correlates of close relationships. Discussion empha-

sizes the importance of intrapersonal factors for understanding marital relationships.

2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Big five; Personality; Marriage; Marital interaction; Close relationships

q

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (GrantsMH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH48165, and MH51361), the National Institute on Drug Abuse

(Grant DS05347), the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (Grant MCJ-109572), the MacArthur

Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk

Settings, and the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station (Project No. 3320). Kali H.

Trzesniewski and Dannelle Larsen-Rife provided helpful comments on an earlier draft. Xiaojia Ge and

Richard W. Robins provided valuable background insight. Janet N. Melby graciously provided

interobserver reliabilities.* Corresponding author. Present address: Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East

Lansing, MI 48823, USA. Fax: 1-517-432-2476.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M.B. Donnellan).

0092-6566/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.001

Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 481504

www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

JOURNAL OFRESEARCH INPERSONALITY


2/24

1. Introduction

The present investigation explores whether or not personality characteristics influ-

ence observable marital interactions and global evaluations of the marriage. Our

broad objective is to help integrate the intrapersonal perspective with the interper-

sonal perspective in the study of marital relationships. The intrapersonal perspective

views personality dispositions as a major influence on marital functioning, whereas

the interpersonal perspective views interactions between spouses as a major influence

on marital functioning. Several scholars have noted that these perspectives are com-

plementary and have advanced hypotheses linking personality traits to interpersonal

interactions (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1988; Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000;

Huston & Houts, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kelly & Conley, 1987).The common thread among these hypotheses is the proposition that personality

traits influence how well couples interact with one another. For example, Karney

and Bradbury (1995) propose that personality dispositions such as emotional insta-

bility or neuroticism create enduring vulnerabilities that affect how couples adapt

to stressful experiences. This adaptation impacts overall relationship satisfaction.

Similarly, Bradbury and Fincham (1988) argue that personality helps define aspects

of the distal context that affect actual day-to-day marital interactions. Huston and

Houts (1998) suggest that personality contributes to the psychological infrastruc-

ture of enduring relationships and are therefore key predictors of relationship suc-

cess and/or dysfunction. These propositions all predict that marital interaction

patterns are influenced by the personalities of the individuals in the relationship.

Based on this theoretical perspective, we explicitly test the hypothesis that the

links between the Big Five dimensions of personality (extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) and global marital eval-

uations are mediated by negative marital interactions marked by high hostility and

low warmth. Empirical support of this hypothesis will advance our understanding of

the factors that foster dissatisfying marriages and help further integrate the study of

marital interactions with one of the major organizing frameworks in personality psy-

chology, the Big Five (e.g., Funder, 2001; John & Srivastava, 1999; but see Block,

1995, 2001). To our knowledge, few studies have attempted this sort of integration

with multiple informant data.

2. A review of earlier research

2.1. Personality and relationship satisfaction

In classic research, Terman and his colleagues (1938) used descriptors of neurot-

icism such as moody and irritable to describe unhappily married wives and hus-

bands. A significant body of research linking neuroticism or negative emotionality

to relationship satisfaction supports this insight (e.g., Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabou-

rin, 1999; Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Caughlin et al., 2000; Eysenck &

Wakefield, 1981; Karney & Bradbury, 1995, 1997; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Robins,

482 M.B. Donnellan et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 481504


3/24

Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000, 2002; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). For instance, ac-

quaintance-rated neuroticism was linked to marital satisfaction in a longitudinal

study that spanned 50 years (Kelly & Conley, 1987) and Karney and Bradbury

(1995) estimated that the impact of neuroticism on marital satisfaction using Pear-

sons r was ).19 for wives and ).13 for husbands in their meta-analysis. All told,

the relation between neuroticism and relationship satisfaction has replicated across

studies, methods, nations, and eras.

Relatively less is known about how the other four factors relate to dimensions of

marital relationships. This is because only a handful of studies have used all five fac-

tors to examine the relation between personality and measures of marital quality

(e.g., Botwin et al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 1999; Watson et al., 2000). For example,

Watson et al. (2000) found that agreeableness and conscientiousness were positivelyrelated to relationship satisfaction in dating couples while extraversion was posi-

tively related to satisfaction in married couples. In another study, spouse reports

of general marital satisfaction were positively associated with partner reports of

agreeableness and openness (Botwin et al., 1997). These same researchers demon-

strated that wife reports of general marital satisfaction were associated with husband

reports of conscientiousness.

In summary, neuroticism has been linked to the quality of marital relationships in

several studies and there are suggestions in the literature that many of the other Big

Five factors are linked to close relationships. One goal of the present study is to ex-

amine the associations between all five personality factors and marital variables in a

sample of enduring marriages using data from multiple informants. This design

feature allows us to focus on cross-method associations (e.g., correlations between

self-reports of personality and spouse reports of marital evaluations) to address

the criticism that the associations between personality traits and martial variables

are largely an artifact of shared method variance (e.g., Gottman, 1998).

2.2. Personality and marital interaction

Over the last three decades, behavioral interaction research has accumulated an

impressive body of evidence linking observed negative interactions between wives

and husbands to marital dissatisfaction and divorce (for reviews see Gottman,

1994, 1998). This research suggests that unchecked and escalating hostile exchanges

lacking in warmth are key predictors of marital dissatisfaction and dissolution.

Therefore, one plausible way that personality dispositions influence global marital

outcomes is by increasing or decreasing the frequency and/or intensity of these de-structive interactions.

Despite this conceptual understanding, few studies have examined this process di-

rectly with observational data. Caughlin et al. (2000) explored the relations between

neuroticism and observed spousal negativity in a 13-year longitudinal investigation.

Consistent with the above hypothesis, they concluded that much of the relation be-

tween neuroticism and marital satisfaction was attributable to negative communica-

tion patterns. Spouses higher in neuroticism were more likely to communicate their

negative affect toward their partner, which in turn, had a deleterious impact on

M.B. Donnellan et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 481504 483


4/24

relationship satisfaction. Few other studies have empirically linked Big Five traits

other than neuroticism to observed marital interactions.

Nonetheless, agreeableness may be an important personality predictor of marital

functioning because there is evidence that this personality dimension is an important

influence on interpersonal interactions (e.g., Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Graziano,

Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000). This

literature suggests that more agreeable individuals are better able to regulate emo-

tions during interpersonal interactions, which facilitates smoother interpersonal en-

counters. By extension, agreeable spouses may be better equipped to handle the

conflicts that arise in marriages and this disposition may reduce the frequency

and/or intensity of negative interactions. However, few studies have linked agree-

ableness to observable marital interactions or even to global evaluations of mar-riages. For example, Karney and Bradbury (1995) included only three studies

linking agreeableness to marital satisfaction in their meta-analysis (the effect size us-

ing Pearsons rwas .05 for wives and .03 for husbands).

There may be links between the other Big Five traits and marital interactions, par-

ticularly conscientiousness and openness. Robins et al. (2000) speculated that indi-

viduals high in constraint (akin to conscientiousness) have the self-control to

constructively manage the conflicts that inevitably arise in relationships. Individuals

low in conscientiousness may inadvertently escalate negativity by responding impul-

sively or rashly to their partners. Moreover, conscientious spouses may simply evoke

less spousal criticism, which in turn, may reduce the amount and/or intensity of neg-

ative marital interactions. Spouses high in openness may adopt a more intellectual

approach to problem solving, may have a more flexible attitude towards change,

and may be more willing to analyze their relationship. These behaviors and attitudes

would likely facilitate the constructive management of conflict. It should be noted,

however, that these links are speculative and need empirical support.

3. The present investigation

Drawing on the research and the theoretical ideas just reviewed, the present re-

search addresses three major questions: (a) How well do the Big Five predict obser-

vable negative marital interaction patterns? (b) How well do the Big Five predict

marital quality and sexual satisfaction using cross-informant data (i.e., how well

do self-reports of personality predict spousal evaluations of the relationship)? (c)

Do marital interactions mediate the relation between personality and global evalua-tions of the marriage?

This investigation extends previous research in several ways. First, we test the re-

lations between the Big Five traits and marital variables with a conservative ap-

proach using multiple informant data. This approach is superior to investigations

that exclusively use self-reports because it rules out the possibility that shared meth-

od variance is responsible for the associations between personality and relationship

variables. Moreover, relatively few studies have linked personality traits to observed

interactions in close relationships (Cooper & Sheldon, 2002). Second, our initial



5/24

sample of 418 couples provides increased statistical power to detect relations be-

tween constructs. Third, we use four waves of prospective, longitudinal data so we

can test for possible linkages between a broad set of intrapersonal individual differ-

ences and changes in marital outcomes over time.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Sample

The couples in this investigation were participants in a larger project designed to

study the impact of economic stress on rural families and children (IYFP: Iowa

Youth and Families Project). The study began in 1989 with a sample of 451 Euro-

pean American, lower-middle and middle class families living in north central Iowaand has been described in detail elsewhere (e.g., Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999).

Analyses reported here are based on an initial sample of 418 wives and husbands

with complete personality scores and marital outcomes from the 1990 wave of data

collection (in which 424 total families participated or approximately 94% of the ini-

tial sample).

We analyzed relationship information collected from the 418 participants during

the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994 waves of data collection. Slight attrition occurred at

subsequent waves (e.g., 96% of the families from 1990 participated in 1991) which

caused missing data at one or more waves. Moreover, 25 of the 418 couples experi-

enced divorce and/or separation by 1994 and therefore had missing data at one or

more waves of assessment. Couples that divorced or separated did not differ from

the other couples in terms of their personality (all ts


6/24

participate. A personal visit was made to families without telephones. About 78% of

the eligible families agreed to take part in the study. Participating family members

were paid approximately $10/h of participation.

In each year of the study, families were visited twice in their homes. During the

first visit, each family member completed a series of questionnaires that included

the marital evaluations. In 1990, participants completed the self-report measure of

the Big Five personality traits. The second visit occurred within a fortnight of the

first visit and consisted of a series of four video-taped interactions. The first two in-

teractions involved the whole family and the third task involved the siblings. For the

present study, we used the fourth task, a 25 min marital interaction observation,

when spouses discussed several topics including the history of their relationship,

the current status of their relationship, areas of agreement and disagreement in theirrelationship, and their future plans together. In 1990, a total of 414 couples in our

sample participated in the observational research task.

The video-taped marital interactions were rated by trained observers who used the

Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby & Conger, 2001) to measure aspects

of couple interaction that were of theoretical importance and interest for the broad

goals of the IYFP. All observers received 200 h of training (20 h peer week for 10

weeks) and passed extensive reliability tests before coding taped interactions. Once

coders were reliable, they attended at least two maintenance training sessions each

week to ensure continued reliability. To assess interobserver reliability, approxi-

mately 25% of all video-tapes were independently rated by a second observer at each

wave. These independent ratings were used to generate intraclass correlations (Suen

& Ary, 1989). A complete description of all rating and task procedures along with

scale definitions is available from the second author.

3.1.3. Measures

Personality. The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989) was used to measure person-

ality in 1990. The NEO-FFI is 60-item self-report questionnaire that assess each of

the five factors of personality (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neu-

roticism, and openness to experience) with 12 items. Wives and husbands rated each

statement using a 5-point scale (1, Strongly agree and 5, Strongly Disagree) and the

scales were coded such that higher scores reflected greater extraversion, agreeable-

ness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Table 1 displays

descriptive statistics and scale inter-correlations for the NEO-FFI.

We found a few statistically significant associations between the personalities of

husbands and wives (p< :05). Specifically, spousal reports of neuroticism and open-ness were positively correlated (r :16 for neuroticism and r :17 for openness).There were no other statistically significant correlations between the two spouses

on the same personality traits. An examination of the cross-trait associations re-

vealed that husband reports of agreeableness and conscientiousness were both neg-

atively correlated with wife reports of neuroticism (r :11 for husband reports ofagreeableness and r 12 for husband reports of conscientiousness). Husband re-

ports of neuroticism were also negatively related to wife reports of openness

(r :12).



7/24

3.1.4. Negative marital interactions (high hostile/low warmth interactions)

Observer reports. Trained observers rated wives and husbands on high hostile/low

warmth behaviors expressed to one another during the marital observation task at

each wave using a 9-point scale (1, the behavior is not at all characteristic of the in-

dividual and 9, the behavior is very characteristic of the individual). Seven rating

scales were aggregated at each wave to form the observer rating of negative interac-

tions: angry coercion, antisocial behavior, hostility, communication quality (reverse

scored), listener responsiveness (reverse scored), prosocial behavior (reverse scored),

andwarmth(reverse scored). The average of the intraclass correlations at each wave

is reported in parentheses (wife to husband/husband to wife). Angry coercion mea-

sured control attempts that included threats or coercion (.64/.59). Antisocial behavior

measured the amount of defiant, resistant, and insensitive behavior (.64/.63). Hostility

measured the amount of hostile and critical behavior (.78/.76). Communication quality

measured the ability of the target spouse to clearly and appropriately express her/his

feelings and points of view to her/his partner (.54/.51). Listener responsiveness mea-

sured the target spouses verbal and non-verbal behaviors that indicated attentiveness

to her/his partner (.54/.61). Prosocial behavior measured helpfulness and sensitivity

(.44/.50). Warmthmeasured expressions of care, concern, and support (.59/.67).

The observer ratings of negative marital interactions had adequate internal con-sistency for both wives and husbands at each wave (a range for wife as tar-

get .79.84; a range for husband as target .77.79). Negative interactions

exhibited a large degree of rank-order consistency across time (for wives: e.g., rbe-

tween 1990 and 1991 .55, rbetween 1991 and 1992 .55, and rbetween 1992 and

1994 .54; for husbands: the same coefficients were .48, .57, and .56, respectively).

These correlations suggest that stability in negative interactions was an objective

property of the relationship, evident to outside observers. Descriptive statistics for

all marital variables are reported in Table 2.

Table 1

Descriptive information for the NEO-FFI for wives and husbands

Mean SD a Scale inter-correlations

E A C N O

Wife self-report

Extraversion (E) 3.35 .45 .79

Agreeableness (A) 3.81 .32 .69 .29

Conscientiousness (C) 3.74 .44 .83 .34 .23

Neuroticism (N) 2.68 .56 .87 ).43 ).40 ).38

Openness (O) 3.08 .43 .72 .28 .09 .10 ).20

Husband self-report

Extraversion (E) 3.21 .40 .75 Agreeableness (A) 3.57 .33 .69 .27

Conscientiousness (C) 3.64 .41 .82 .35 .27

Neuroticism (N) 2.48 .51 .87 ).38 ).33 ).48

Openness (O) 2.95 .35 .60 .19 .02 .09 ).18

*p


8/24

Questionnaire reports. At each wave, wives and husbands were asked how often

their spouses engaged in eight behaviors during the last month using a 7-point scale

(1, Always and 7, Never). Sample items include, Shout or yell at you because she

(he) was mad at you and Act loving and affectionate toward him (her). These be-

haviors reflected the occurrence of interactions that were either high in hostility (e.g.,

getting angry) or low in warmth (e.g., infrequently acting loving and affectionate).

This measure was coded so that higher scores reflected a greater frequency of highhostile/low warmth interactions. Partner reports by both wives and husbands had

good internal consistency at each wave (arange for wife reports of husband behav-

ior .89.92; a range for husband reports of wife behavior .91.92). Partner re-

ports were correlated with observer reports (e.g., r :33 for wife target behaviorin 1991 and r :41 for wife target behavior in 1992; r :35 for husband target be-havior in 1991 and r :40 for husband target behavior in 1992).

Wives and husbands answered the same set of questions regarding their own be-

haviors using the same 7-point scale. This measure was coded so that higher scores

Table 2

Descriptive statistics for relationship variables

Wife Husband Correlation between wife

and husband measures

Observer reports: negative interactions

1990 4.21 (1.11) 4.17 (.96) .58

1991 4.62 (1.24) 4.60 (1.16) .62

1992 4.25 (1.32) 4.26 (1.12) .55

1994 4.73 (1.26) 4.61 (1.25) .63

Questionnaire reports: negative interactions

Self-reports

1990 2.77 (.84) 2.81 (.74) .50

1991 2.81 (.91) 2.78 (.78) .481992 2.76 (.86) 2.77 (.74) .47

1994 2.51 (.72) 2.52 (.67) .47

Partner reports

1990 2.70 (.96) 2.55 (.97) .51

1991 2.70 (.98) 2.60 (1.10) .54

1992 2.70 (.99) 2.60 (1.02) .52

1994 2.66 (.88) 2.54 (.87) .48

Global evaluations: sexual satisfaction

1990 3.64 (.75) 3.61 (.66) .62

1991 3.56 (.76) 3.52 (.70) .60

1992 3.55 (.76) 3.54 (.68) .59

1994 3.36 (.72) 3.36 (.66) .60

Global evaluations: marital quality1990 .00 (.96) .00 (.95) .50

1991 .00 (.95) .00 (.91) .52

1992 .00 (.92) .00 (.89) .43

1994 .00 (.94) .00 (.89) .48

Note. All correlations are significant atp< :05.



9/24

reflected a greater frequency of high hostile/low warmth behaviors. Both wife and

husband self-reports had good internal consistency at each wave (a range for wife

reports .88.90; a range for husband reports .85.88). Self-reports and partner

reports of the same target behaviors were significantly related indicating strong in-

ter-reporter agreement (e.g., r :56 for wife target behavior in 1991 and r :54for wife target behavior in 1992; r :52 for husband target behavior for both1991 and 1992). Self-reports were also related to observer reports (e.g., r :36 forwife target behavior in 1991 and r :45 for wife target behavior in 1992; r :38for husband target behavior for both 1991 and 1992).

Questionnaire responses of negative interactions demonstrated a substantial

amount of rank-order stability (for wife self-reports: e.g., r between 1990 and

1991 .77, rbetween 1991 and 1992 .82, and rbetween 1992 and 1994 .77; forhusbands self-reports: the same coefficients were .78, .80, and .78, respectively). Part-

ner reports exhibited a similar level of rank-order stability as self-reports (for wife

reports of husband behavior: e.g., r between 1990 and 1991 .78, rbetween 1991

and 1992 .80, and rbetween 1992 and 1994 .74; for husband reports of wife be-

haviors: the same coefficients were .78, .83, and .79, respectively). Considering these

retest correlations in conjunction with the retest correlations for observer reports

suggests that the interaction patterns we measured were a relatively stable aspect

of the marital relationships of our sample.

3.1.5. Global assessments of the marital relationship

Marital quality. Marital quality was measured using 2 items that tapped the

spouses overall feelings of happiness and satisfaction with the marriage. Spouses

were asked to respond to how happy they were with their marital relationship using

a 6-point scale (0, extremely unhappy and 5, extremely happy) and to respond to

how dissatisfied they were with their relationship using a 5-point scale (1, completely

satisfied and 5, not at all satisfied). The question concerning dissatisfaction was re-

verse coded so that higher scores reflected greater satisfaction. Both questions were

standardized and then averaged together to provide an index of each spouse s overall

assessment of marital quality. This was defendable because the two items were

strongly correlated at each wave (rs for wives ranged from .68 to .84;rs for husbands

ranged from .57 to .78). Marital quality demonstrated rank-order consistency across

time (for wives: e.g., rbetween 1990 and 1991 .68, rbetween 1991 and 1992 .65,

andrbetween 1992 and 1994 .61; for husbands: the same coefficients were .70, .66,

and .54, respectively). These retest correlations were consistent with previous re-

search indicating stability in marital outcomes (e.g., Johnson, Amoloza, & Booth,1992; Johnson & Booth, 1988).

Marital sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction was measured using an 8-item scale

specifically developed for the IYFP. Spouses were asked how much they agreed or

disagreed with a given statement about the quality of the sexual aspects of their mar-

riage using a 5-point scale (1, strongly agree and 5, strongly disagree). This measure

was scored so that higher scores reflected greater sexual satisfaction. Sample items

include, The sexual part of my marriage is just right for me and My husband

(or wife) and I have a wonderful sex life. This measure had good internal consis-



10/24

tency for wives and husbands at each wave (arange for wife report .80.89;arange

for husband report .72.87). Similar to the other relationship measures for this

sample, wife and husband reports of marital sexual satisfaction were relatively stable

across time (for wives: e.g., r between 1990 and 1991 .79, r between 1991 and

1992 .80, and rbetween 1992 and 1994 .77; for husbands: the same coefficients

were .76, .81, and .74, respectively).

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Overview

We first conducted our correlational and mediational analyses on the 1990 assess-

ment to test our hypotheses about the associations between personality traits andmarital variables. These results are reported and discussed below. We repeated these

same analyses with the average of each construct across the four-waves of data (see

Huston & Houts, 1998 for a similar analytic strategy) and the results were quite sim-

ilar to those reported and discussed in this paper. In subsequent sections we report

our attempts at longitudinal analyses using personality to predict changes in marital

variables over time.

Relationship measures for wives and husbands were correlated as seen in Table 2.

For example, correlations between wife and husband reports of marital quality

ranged from .43 to .52. These represent moderate to strong effect sizes and are quite

reasonable because both partners are reporting about their evaluations of the same

marriage. Accordingly, these variables should be treated cautiously in data analyses

given their strong associations (e.g., Kashy & Snyder, 1995; Kenny, 1998). Given this

interdependence between wife and husband reports of the marital variables, we also

conducted analyses on the couple average of the marital variables (following Ken-

nys, 1998 simple solution to the interdependence problem). We computed a couple

average for questionnaire reports of negative interactions by taking the average of all

four measures (see Tables 3 and 4).

3.2.2. Cross-sectional analyses

3.2.2.1. Does personality predict negative marital interactions and relationship

evaluations?. Wife and husband reports of the Big Five in 1990 were correlated

with relationship variables in 1990 as shown in Tables 3 and 4. We emphasize cross-

informant associations (e.g., wife reports of personality and husband reports of his

and her behavior) that were statistically significant (p< :05) because these associa-tions are not as subject to concerns over shared method variance. We followed

Cohens (1988) often cited rule of thumb for interpreting correlations: an rof .1 was

considered small, an rof .3 was considered moderate, and an rof .5 or larger was

considered large (see McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000).

Negative interactions. Observed negative interactions by wives were associated

with wife reports of agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness (r :13, r :17,and r :18, respectively) and husband reports of neuroticism (r :11). Observednegative interactions by husbands were associated with wife reports of openness



11/24

(r :12) and husband reports of agreeableness and openness (r :26 andr :13). Similarly, wife and husband reports of agreeableness, neuroticism, andopenness were related to observed negative interactions at the couple level.

Although these correlations were relatively small in magnitude, observational

data provides a very rigorous test of the impact of broad personality traits on rela-

tionships. Moreover, self-reports of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroti-

cism were related to cross-informant questionnaire assessments of negative marital

interactions (e.g., wife reports of conscientiousness predicted husband reports of

his own negative interactions). Thus, it appears that agreeableness, conscientious-

ness, neuroticism, and openness are linked with behaviors related to the marriage

and that shared method variance is not a viable alternative explanation for these

relations.Global assessments of the relationship. Wife reports of agreeableness, neuroticism,

and openness were associated with husband reports of sexual satisfaction (r :10,r :17, and r :17, respectively), whereas wife reports of agreeableness and neu-roticism were correlated with husband reports of marital quality (r :13 andr :20). Husband reports of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticismwere correlated with wife reports of sexual satisfaction (r :10, r :15, andr :15, respectively) whereas husband reports of conscientiousness and neuroti-cism were correlated with wife reports of marital quality (r :14 and r :13).

Table 3

Cross-sectional correlations between wife reports of personality and relationship variables

Wife report of personality

E A C N O


Wife target .01 ).13 ).03 .17 ).18

Husband target .07 ).06 ).08 .09 ).12

Couple average .04 ).11 ).06 .15 ).17


Wife self-reports ).22 ).31 ).24 .37 ).20

Report on wife by husband ).09 ).17 ).04 .22 ).12

Husband self-reports )

.04 )

.14

)

.11

.21

)

.12

Report on husband by wife ).10 ).16 ).23 .29 ).15

Couple average ).14 ).23 ).19 .33 ).18


Wife self-reports .15 .17 .16 ).24 .21

Husband self-reports .03 .10 .02 .17 ).17

Couple average .11 .15 .10 ).23 .22

Global evaluations: marital quality


Husband self-reports .07 .13 .07 ).20 .04

Couple average .10 .14 .13 ).25 .03

Note. E, extraversion; A, agreeableness; C, conscientiousness; N, neuroticism; O, openness to expe-

rience. Coefficients in bold are significant cross-informant relations.*p< :05.



12/24

These cross-method results indicate that self-reports of personality predict spousal

evaluations of the relationship. Similar results were evident when global evaluations

of the relationship at the couple level were considered.

3.2.2.2. Do negative interactions mediate the relation between personality and global

assessments of the marriage?. We correlated observed negative interactions in 1990

with relationship variables in 1990 to determine whether or not there was evidence

for a link between our proposed mediator and relationship outcomes. It makes little

sense to proceed with tests of mediation if there is no evidence for this link. Observer

reports of the couple average of negative interactions were negatively correlated with

the couple average of sexual satisfaction (r :32) and negatively correlated withthe couple average of marital quality (r :39). Although we considered the couplelevel associations, the cross-partner associations were also statistically significant and

were of a similar magnitude (e.g., the correlation between observer reports of wife

negative interactions and husband reports of marital quality was ).29). These results

indicate that observed negative interactions were associated with negative global

evaluations of the relationship. Based on this evidence, we tested the hypothesis that

the impact of broad personality traits on global evaluations of the relationship was

mediated by observed negative interactions.

Table 4

Cross-sectional correlations between husband reports of personality and relationship variables

Husband report of personality

E A C N O


Wife Target .03 ).09 ).08 .11 ).08

Husband Target ).07 ).26 ).03 .08 ).13

Couple Average ).02 ).19 ).06 .11 ).11


Wife self-reports ).02 ).10 ).12 .11 ).09

Report on wife by husband ).09 ).23 ).19 .18 ).01

Husband self-reports )

.19

.29

)

.27

.29

)

.09Report on husband by wife ).03 ).14 ).08 .12 ).04

Couple average ).09 ).22 ).19 .21 ).07




Couple average .07 .16 .20 ).19 .03

Global evaluations: marital quality



Couple average .14 .19 .19 ).21 .02

Note. E, extraversion; A, agreeableness; C, conscientiousness; N, neuroticism; O, openness to expe-

rience. Coefficients in bold are significant cross-informant relations.*p


13/24

Overview of our approach to mediation. To address our research questions we fol-

lowed the causal steps procedure identified by Baron and Kenny (1986: see also

Holmbeck, 1997; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Shrout

& Bolger, 2002). We used the couple average of the marital variables to obviate con-

cerns over the lack of independence between husband and wife reports. In the first

step, a marital outcome was regressed on a given personality trait which provided

an estimate of the direct effect of personality on global marital outcomes. The second

step involved regressing negative interactions on personality, which provided evi-

dence for a link between personality traits and the proposed mediator. At the third

step, the marital outcome in question was regressed on personality traits and nega-

tive interactions. This step provided evidence linking negative interactions to marital

outcomes and provided information concerning how controlling for negative inter-actions affected the relation between a given personality trait and a given marital

outcome.

We were interested in drawing one of two commonly drawn conclusions from

these analyses, either that our data were consistent with complete mediation or par-

tial mediation. Based on current conventions, a conclusion of complete mediation is

typically drawn if there is no evidence that the coefficient for personality in Step 3 is

different from zero (e.g., the confidence interval for the coefficient includes zero or

the significance test is not statistically significant). A conclusion of partial mediation

is typically drawn if there is simply evidence that the coefficient for personality in

Step 3 is reduced from its value in Step 1. We did not expect to find consistent evi-

dence for complete mediation because this situation is a rather atypical in psycholog-

ical research (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

We expected to find evidence for partial mediation because we explicitly recog-

nized that the true causal process linking broad personality traits to global eval-

uations of the relationship is likely to be complicated. It may also involve

mechanisms not explicitly tested in this paper. Shrout and Bolger (2002) provide

an extended explanation (pp. 432434) of the various reasons why researchers often

find evidence for partial mediation in their analyses. Indeed, we readily acknowledge

that our process model linking personality traits to marital outcomes via observed

martial interactions is literally false (e.g., MacCallum, 2003). At best, our model is

a useful approximation of a complicated process. Given this situation, it would be

unreasonable to expect to find widespread evidence of complete mediation.

It is important to emphasize that the procedures and logic of mediational analyses

are still evolving (e.g., Collins, Graham, & Flaherty, 1998; MacKinnon et al., 2002;

Shrout & Bolger, 2002) and our results should be interpreted in light of a couple ofthese issues. First, MacKinnon et al. (2002) reviewed the various approaches to me-

diation and concluded that the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach has low Type I

error rates but consequently it has relatively low statistical power. The technique

we employed is thus very conservative. Although we acknowledged the increased risk

of Type II errors with this method, we believed that taking such a conservative ap-

proach was important in light of the critical stance adopted by some researchers con-

cerning the importance of personality traits for understanding marital functioning.

However, the observed pattern of correlations was consistent with our underlying



14/24

process model: personality traits were linked to observed marital interactions and

observed marital interactions were linked with marital outcomes.

A second issue concerning our approach to mediation is also worth noting. Spe-

cifically, there is discussion concerning the importance of Step 1 for mediation (e.g.,

Collins et al., 1998; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Holmbeck (1997, p. 602) pointed out

that an indirect effect between personality and marital outcomes is still possible even

if there is no evidence linking particular personality traits directly to marital out-

comes. Shrout and Bolger (2002) recommend that Step 1 is retained [only] in spe-

cific cases in which theory suggests that the associations are large or medium in size

(p. 430). We expected that effect sizes concerning the impact of broad personality

traits on marriages would tend to be small to medium, both in terms of theory

(e.g., the notion that personality helps form the distal context of the relationship:Bradbury & Fincham, 1988) and on previous results (e.g., Karney & Bradbury,

1995). Therefore, it was unclear that satisfying Step 1 was crucial or even reasonable

for conducting our mediational analyses.

Nevertheless, in the interest of taking a conservative approach, we followed Baron

and Kennys (1986) original formulation and restricted our analyses to those cases

where the correlational analysis provided evidence for a link between a particular

personality trait and the couple average of the marital evaluations (e.g., wife reports

of neuroticism and the couple average of marital quality). This decision also had the

practical benefit of reducing the total number of mediational analyses we conducted.

Accordingly, the criticism that our results capitalized on chance is less likely to be

valid.

We took a final step to ensure a very strict test of our mediational hypothesis. We

used observer reports of martial interactions to obviate concerns surrounding in-

flated associations due to shared method variance. Considering these steps as a

whole, we employed a relatively strict test of our mediational hypothesis. Our view

was that if our hypothesis survives this rigorous of a test, then we would be in a bet-

ter position to endorse the somewhat controversial notion that knowing something

about each partners broad personality traits is useful for understanding their behav-

ior in romantic relationships (see Gottman, 1998 and Robins et al., 2000 for a further

discussion of this issue).

Results of tests of mediation. Table 5 displays the results for wife reports of per-

sonality. Table 5 displays results from Step 3 of the regression analyses given that

the results for Steps 1 and 2 are redundant with information already presented in Ta-

ble 3 (i.e., links between personality and global evaluations and links between per-

sonality and negative interactions). We found support for the hypothesis thatnegative martial interactions partially mediate the association between the personal-

ity traits of wives and global evaluations of the marriage. All indirect effects were sta-

tistically significant at p< :05 based on Sobel tests (all values were greater than2.03). Following Shrout and Bolger (2002) we computed the ratio of the indirect ef-

fect over the total effect for each mediational analysis. These ratios are displayed in

Table 5 and ranged from .17 to .29.

Table 6 displays the results for husband reports of personality. We found support

for the hypothesis that the negative martial interactions partially mediate the associ-



15/24

ation between the personality of husbands and global evaluations of the marriage.

The indirect effects were all statistically significant atp< :05 (Sobel test values great-er than 2.16) and the ratios of the indirect effects to the total effects ranged from .16

to .38.

Ancillary analyses. We repeated our analyses using different endogenous variables

to address concerns with shared method variance. For example, we used wife reports

of personality to predict observer reports of her negative interactions and husband

Table 5

Tests of mediation for wife reports of personality

Wife report of personality Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness

Couple average of the

marital evaluation

Sexual

satisfaction

Marital

quality

Sexual

satisfaction

Marital

quality

Sexual

satisfaction

Step 3: predict DV from personality controlling for couple average of negative interactions

b for personality trait .13 .11 ).19 ).20 .17

b for observed negative

Interactions

).31 ).38 ).29 ).36 ).29

R2 .12 .17 .14 .19 .13

Assessment of the strength of mediation

Indirect effect .03 .04 )

.04 )

.05 .05Total effect .15 .14 ).23 ).25 .22

Ratio of the indirect effect

to the total effect

.20 .29 .17 .20 .23

Conclusion Partial

mediation

Partial

mediation

Partial

mediation

Partial

mediation

Partial

mediation

Note. All coefficients statistically significant atp< :05 unless otherwise noted.

Table 6

Tests of mediation for husband reports of personality

Husband report of Personality Agreeableness Neuroticism

Couple average of the marital evaluation Sexual

satisfaction

Marital

quality

Sexual

satisfaction

Marital

quality

Step 3: predict DV from personality controlling for couple average of negative interactions

b for personality trait .10 .13 ).16 ).17

b for observed negative interactions ).30 ).37 ).30 ).37

R2 .11 .17 .13 .18

Assessment of the strength of mediation

Indirect effect .06 .07 ).03 ).04

Total effect .16 .19 ).19 ).21

Ratio of the indirect effect to the total

effect

.38 .37 .16 .19

Conclusion Partial

mediation

Partial

mediation

Partial

mediation

Partial

mediation

Note. All coefficients statistically significant atp< :05 unless otherwise noted.



16/24

reports of marital outcomes. The results for wife reports of personality were similar

to those reported in Table 5 except that we found evidence for complete mediation in

one instance. It appeared that the effect of wife reports of agreeableness on husband

reports of sexual satisfaction was completely mediated by observer reports of her

negative interactions (bfor agreeableness controlling for negative interactions .08,

p ns). We also used the same strategy for husband reports of personality and only

needed to conduct the analysis for husband reports of agreeableness and wife reports

of sexual satisfaction given the correlational findings. It appeared that this effect was

fully mediated by observer reports of his negative interactions (b for agreeableness

controlling for negative interactions .05, p ns).

3.2.3. Longitudinal analysesOverview. We explored the possibility that personality was related to changes in

marital interactions and marital evaluations using two approaches. First, we con-

ducted a set of growth models in the structural equation modeling (SEM) framework

(Duncan, Duncan, Strycker, Li, & Alpert, 1999; Singer & Willett, 2003; Willet &

Sayer, 1994). Growth modeling is one of the most highly recommended procedures

for studying change (e.g., Rogosa, Brandt, & Zimowski, 1982; Singer & Willett,

2003; Willett, Singer, & Martin, 1998). Second, we conducted a more traditional re-

gression-based approach to longitudinal data by regressing each of the 1994 marital

variables on the respective 1990 marital variables and reports of personality.

Growth curve modeling approach. We followed a two-step procedure for these

analyses drawing on recommendations found in Singer and Willet (2003; see also

Muthen & Curran, 1997 for similar advice). In Step 1, we estimated basic growth

models for each of the marital variables. We introduced personality as a predictor

of the growth curve parameters in Step 2 (e.g., the intercept and slope parameters

in a linear change model) provided that the model in Step 1 met three criteria. First,

the model in Step 1 had to produce sensible parameter estimates. Models that pro-

duced Heywood cases were naturally discarded. Lorenz, Wickrama, and Conger

(2004) suggest that Heywood cases may indicate an absence of systematic change

over time. Second, there needed to be statistically significant estimates of variances

associated with change parameters (e.g., the slope parameter in a linear model).

This condition is reasonable given that it makes little sense to try to examine predic-

tors of change when there is little variability to predict. Given that we already dem-

onstrated how personality was related to initial status in martial variables (i.e., the

1990 assessment) in Tables 3 and 4, we knew it would be redundant to focus on per-

sonality as a predictor of variability around the intercept. Finally, the growth modelsin Step 1 had to adequately fit the data (e.g., the covariances and means reproduced

by the statistical model had to be reasonably close to their values in the original

data set). To be sure, we relied on very liberal estimates of overall model fit such

as RMSEA values around .10 and/or v2/degree of freedom ratios of 3.0 or less

(see Byrne, 2001).

We specified the growth models so that the intercept represented values of the

marital variables in 1990. In all analyses, we began with a linear model of change

based on previous research (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Kurdek, 1998).



17/24

We elected to modify the linear models if they had an overall poor fit to the data by

correlating adjacent error terms in the basic linear model (Muthen & Curran, 1997)

and/or by modeling a quadratic growth term. It should be noted that we were limited

to relatively simple growth functions because we had only four data points (e.g., cu-

bic models could not be evaluated). Separate analyses were conducted on the hap-

py and satisfaction items of the marital quality measure because standardized

scores are not suitable for growth modeling (Stoolmiller, 1995).

Summary. Unfortunately, this approach produced disappointing results.1 It was

difficult to get a good fitting univariate growth models in the first steps of our analyses

and even when we relaxed our standards we found very inconsistent results. When

personality traits significantly predicted parameters in the growth models, it was gen-

erally to the intercept parameters thereby duplicating the results displayed in Tables 3and 4. There were only two cases where personality predicted the change parameters

in growth models. Husband reports of extraversion predicted the slope and quadratic

term in a growth model for sexual satisfaction that included a quadratic term (bpre-

dicting slope term .16 andb predicting the quadratic term ).18,ps< :05; Overallfit: v2 10:73, df 2, p< :05; v2=df 5:37; CFI 0.99; RMSEA 0.10, p closefit .06). Wife reports of neuroticism predicted the slope in a growth model for the

questionnaire measures of negative interactions (b : 27, p< :05; Overall fit:v2 61:15, df 7, p< :05; v2=df 8:74; CFI 0.97; RMSEA 0.14, p close fit


18/24

changes in observed negative interactions. In addition, wife reports of agreeableness

predicted the couple average in marital quality in 1994 controlling for levels of mar-

ital quality in 1990 (b :09, p< :05). However, the results for agreeableness werenot robust across marital outcomes and were thus interpreted with sufficient caution.

4. Discussion

We conducted a very methodologically conservative test of the associations be-

tween personality and relationships by using multiple informant data. Four major

findings emerged from our data analyses. First, self-reports of neuroticism were pos-

itively correlated with negative interactions and negatively correlated with globalevaluations of the marriage. Second, self-reports of agreeableness were negatively

correlated with negative interactions and generally positively correlated with global

evaluations of the marriage. Third, self-reports of openness were negatively corre-

lated with observer reports of negative interactions. Fourth, self-reports of openness

by wives were positively correlated with global reports of sexual satisfaction for both

wives and husbands. In general, we found evidence linking self-reports of personality

to observed marital interactions suggesting that negative marital interactions are

partially rooted in the individual personalities of wives and husbands. Moreover, ex-

amining significant cross-informant correlations suggests that there is more to the

links between personality and relationships than shared method variance (see also

Watson et al., 2000).

A specific goal of our investigation was to test a hypothesis derived from theoret-

ical propositions (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1988; Huston & Houts, 1998; Karney

& Bradbury, 1995) that negative marital interactions mediate the relations between

individual differences in personality and global evaluations of the marriage. We used

a conservative strategy to conduct these analyses by using observer reports of marital

interactions to help control for shared method variance. Results indicated that neg-

ative interactions partially mediate the relations between wife and husband reports

of agreeableness and global evaluations of the relationship. Similarly, negative inter-

actions partially mediate the relations between wife and husband reports of neurot-

icism and global evaluations of the relationship. We now turn to a few comments

relative to each personality trait.

Extraversion. We found little evidence linking self-reports of extraversion to ob-

server and spousal reports of the relationship. We did, however, find a few significant

associations between self-reports of extraversion and self-reports of marital vari-ables. Unfortunately, these associations could be attributed to shared method vari-

ance. Moreover, the effect sizes we obtained were much smaller than the correlations

reported by Watson et al. (2000). This was somewhat surprising because both inves-

tigations employed the NEO-FFI. Indeed, our results were more similar to Botwin et

al. (1997) who reported rather negligible associations between extraversion and mar-

ital outcomes using a different measure. Tobin et al. (2000) noted that extraversion

captures individual differences relating to social impact and this dimension of per-

sonality may not be such an important trait in shaping the qualities of marriages



19/24

and other intimate relationships. At any rate, given empirical inconsistencies and

null results, future work is needed to generate a clearer picture of the role of extra-

version in close relationships.

Agreeableness. Agreeableness negatively predicts observable negative behavior to

spouses during a marital observation task and these associations replicated across

questionnaire assessments of negative behavior. It appears that agreeableness is an

important intrapersonal influence on martial functioning and these findings contrib-

ute to the growing literature on the role of agreeableness in interpersonal relation-

ships (e.g., Graziano et al., 1996; Tobin et al., 2000) and marriages (Botwin et al.,

1997; Bouchard et al., 1999; Watson et al., 2000). Based on our results and others,

we believe that agreeableness deserves increased attention as a significant predictor

of close relationships. Indeed, agreeableness may be as important as neuroticismfor understanding successful or distressed romantic relationships. Although more re-

search is needed to explicate the processes linking agreeableness to marriages, it ap-

pears that agreeable people are less likely to engage in specific interactional

behaviors that are deleterious for close relationships. We also found that agreeable-

ness predicted relative declines in observed negative interactions from 1990 to 1994.

Conscientiousness. We found that self-reports of conscientiousness were related to

spousal reports of negative interactions and to global assessments of the relationship.

In general, it appeared that husband reports of conscientiousness were a more con-

sistent predictor of spousal global evaluations of the relationship, a finding consis-

tent with evolutionary predictions (e.g., Botwin et al., 1997; Robins et al., 2000).

However, future work is needed to explicitly test the mechanism that links conscien-

tiousness to relationships. It is possible that conscientious individuals create fewer

areas of disagreement because they are generally responsible, dependable, and hard-

working. The link between conscientiousness and marital outcomes may also be

mediated by processes such as a more equitable household division of labor or a re-

duction in problem behavior involvement such as drug/alcohol abuse. Future studies

are needed to test these speculations.

Neuroticism. Our results linking neuroticism and marital evaluations were consis-

tent with previous research, both classic (e.g., Terman, 1938) and more recent (e.g.,

Bouchard et al., 1999; Botwin et al., 1997; Caughlin et al., 2000; Eysenck & Wake-

field, 1981; Karney & Bradbury, 1995, 1997; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Robins et al.,

2000, 2002; Watson et al., 2000). Neurotic wives and husbands are involved in less

positively evaluated relationships and this effect holds for cross-informant correla-

tions (e.g., wife reports of neuroticism and husband reports of martial outcomes).

Importantly, we also found that neuroticism is linked with observer reports of neg-ative interactions in the relationship.

These findings linking neuroticism to observed marital interactions may help ex-

plain how neuroticism is linked to marital evaluations. Our findings also generally

replicate the results of Caughlin et al. (2000) who linked neuroticism to communica-

tion negativity. It appears that one pathway whereby this broad personality dimen-

sion affects relationships is by its connection with day-to-day negative interactions

involving both words and deeds. We believe that our results are also consistent with

the theoretical orientation advanced by Caughlin et al. (2000) that neuroticism influ-



20/24

ences the enduring dynamics of the marriage. In addition, our results also parallel

the findings of Bolger and Schilling (1991) linking neuroticism to interpersonal con-

flicts and general distress in daily lives. All told, the strategy of linking neuroticism to

interpersonal processes appears to be a promising direction for future research.

Openness to experience. Openness was negatively correlated with observed nega-

tive interactions. Moreover, the association between wife-reported openness and

negative interactions and sexual satisfaction was one of the most interesting and per-

haps unexpected results of our investigation. We should note, however, that Botwin

et al. (1997) reported significant associations between openness and several marital

outcomes. Unfortunately, these relations are a bit tricky to interpret because open-

ness to experience is purported to be the most difficult of the five factors to under-

stand (McCrae & Costa, 1997). We offer two speculations for our findings. First,greater openness may entail a more intellectual and flexible approach to problem

solving which may facilitate a proactive and intellectual approach to the conflicts

and disagreements that arise in relationships. This may explain the negative associ-

ation between openness and negative interactions.

Second, openness may be related to sexual satisfaction by a somewhat different

process. One aspect of openness involves the motivation to acquire new experiences

and the positive correlation between openness and scales measuring experience seek-

ing supports this interpretation (McCrae & Costa, 1997). This motivation may ex-

tend to the exploration of sexuality by wives. Sexual exploration on the part of

wives could translate to greater sexual satisfaction in the marriage. Although these

interpretations are highly speculative and the basic finding requires replication, we

believe that the intriguing relations between openness and close relationships war-

rants further examination. Our speculations also echo the call for more research con-

cerning the influence of openness on family life by McCrae and Costa (1997).

5. Personality and changes in relationships

We found little evidence linking personality to changes in marital outcomes over

time using growth curve methodology. Few other studies using this technique have

found that the personality traits captured by the Big Five predict changes in marital

variables. For example, Karney and Bradbury (1997) used growth curve modeling to

study the impact of neuroticism on marital satisfaction in a sample of newlywed cou-

ples followed over 4 years. They found that neuroticism predicted lower initial levels

of marital satisfaction but did not predict changes in marital satisfaction. Appar-ently, neuroticism exerts a relatively constant effect on relationship satisfaction over

several waves of assessments. Caughlin et al. (2000) reached similar conclusions us-

ing structural equation modeling.

We have tentatively interpreted these findings as consistent with the enduring dy-

namics model of marriages (e.g., Huston & Houts, 1998). Personality traits shape the

psychological infrastructure of the marriage from very early on in the relationship

and this dynamic then persists as a relatively enduring aspect of the relationship. In-

deed, our marital relationship measures demonstrated a high degree of both rank-



21/24

order and absolute stability which is consistent with this model. In fact, most mea-

sures of relationship satisfaction demonstrate relatively high levels of rank-order sta-

bility in continuing relationships (e.g., Johnson et al., 1992; Johnson & Booth, 1988).

Based on these observations, Johnson et al. (1992) suggested that the stability of

marital quality, as assessed by retest correlations, rivals that of personality traits.

The implication is that a sample of enduring marriages may not be ideal for identi-

fying personality correlates of changes in relationships. Perhaps investigations study-

ing the courtship phase of relationships when the initial dynamics are being

established will have better chances for finding robust evidence that personality pre-

dicts changes in relationships.

6. Limitations and conclusions

A few caveats should be noted when considering the findings reported here. First,

our measurement of personality was based on self-reports on one measure taken at

one point in time. The gold standard design in this area would be to obtain per-

sonality data from multiple informants, with multiple instruments, and at multiple

points in time. Because of this limitation, our analyses cannot address the interesting

issue regarding the impact of relationship experiences on personality development

(e.g., Robins et al., 2002). Future research on personality and marriage should strive

for this gold standard. In our favor, we used a well-established and validated instru-

ment to measure personality and we used multiple informants for the other variables

in our analyses. In addition, current evidence indicates that personality is relatively

stable in adulthood (e.g., Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000) so it is unlikely that we would

observe major upheavals in personality from 1990 to 1994.

A second limitation was that our sample was composed of rural European Amer-

icans in predominately first-time, long-term marriages. Unquestionably, our results

should be replicated on diverse samples. However, Karney and Bradbury (1995)

noted the need for studies that specifically focus on more homogenous samples in

marital research to help focus and sharpen the conclusions that can be drawn from

the literature. Consequently, our results demonstrate that personality is related to

observable marital interactions and global evaluations in enduring marriages.

Finally, concerns over the practical importance of the observed effect sizes in this

investigation could be raised. The effect sizes we observed were generally small to

medium in magnitude. This concern over small effect sizes should be tempered in

light of several issues. First, our conservative approach may underestimate the im-pact of personality on marriages. Second, small effect sizes are to be expected in re-

search on marital variables because marital outcomes and marital interactions are

multiply influenced (Ahadi & Diener, 1989). Third, small effect sizes can have a ma-

jor impact on outcomes over time (Abelson, 1985; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1979). Fi-

nally, we concur with Robins et al. (2000) who argue that the explanation of even

a small amount of variance in a major life goal such as having a happy relationship

is an important outcome of psychological inquiry. In that regard, we believe that our

findings may have practical significance. Indeed, Meyer et al. (2001) recommended



22/24

rethinking the general interpretations of so-called small effect sizes in light of these

kinds of concerns.

In closing, we believe that the search for how personality influences marital rela-

tionships is both practically important and theoretically interesting. We found evi-

dence that a broad range of intrapersonal factors are related to relationship

interactions and global evaluations of enduring marriages. In particular, agreeable-

ness and openness have significant links with relationship variables and have re-

ceived much less attention in the literature relative to neuroticism. Moreover,

these relations are real to the extent that shared method variance is not a viable

alternative explanation for these associations. Accordingly, more work should focus

on agreeableness and openness as important personality influences on close relation-

ships. Future work is also needed to completely understand how a wide range of per-sonality factors influence marriages. Although it is premature to draw strong

conclusions, we believe that the study of the impact of personality on the day-to-

day lives of couples is a good place to look for answers to questions concerning

how personality impacts close relationships.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97,

129133.

Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. (1989). Multiple determinants and effect size. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 56, 398406.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator distinction in the social-psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51, 11731182.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological

Bulletin, 117, 187215.

Block, J. (2001). Millenial contrarianism: The five factor approach to personality description 5 years later.

Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 98107.

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of

neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors.Journal of Personality, 59, 355386.

Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment: Utility of the five-

factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 651660.

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors

in mate selection and marital satisfaction.Journal of Personality, 65, 107136.

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A

contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 713721.Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. N. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage. An

examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 78, 326336.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Collins, L. M., Graham, J. W., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295312.

Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 5471.



23/24

Cooper, M. L., & Sheldon, M. S. (2002). Seventy years of research on personality and close relationships:

Substantive and methodological trends over time.Journal of Personality, 70, 783812.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO PI/FFI: Manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Strycker, L. A., Li, F., & Alpert, A. (1999).An introduction to latent variable

growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eysenck, H. J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1981). Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfaction.

Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 3, 151192.

Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality.Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197221.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital

outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of the marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology,

49, 169197.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J.

Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),Handbook of Personality Psychology(pp. 795824). San Diego: Academic

Press.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and

reacting to it: The case for agreeableness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820835.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of

mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599610.

Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (1998). The psychological infrastructure of courtship and marriage: The

role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The

developmental course of marital dysfunction(pp. 114151). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jocklin, V., McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1996). Personality and divorce: A genetic analysis.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 288299.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical

perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd

ed., pp. 102138). New York: Guilford Press.Johnson, D. R., Amoloza, T., & Booth, A. (1992). Stability and developmental change in marital quality.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 582594.

Johnson, D. R., & Booth, A. (1988). Marital quality: A product of the dyadic environment or individual

factors? Social Forces, 76, 883904.

Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of

theory, methods, and research.Psychological Bulletin, 118, 334.

Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital

satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 10751092.

Kashy, D. A., & Snyder, D. K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research.

Psychological Assessment, 7, 338348.

Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital

stability and marital satisfaction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 2740.

Kenny, D. A. (1998). Couples, gender, and time: Comments on method. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.),The

developmental course of marital dysfunction(pp. 410422). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Developmental changes in marital satisfaction: A 6-year prospective longitudinalstudy of newlywed couples. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.),The developmental course of marital dysfunction

(pp. 180204). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lorenz, F., Wickrama, K. A. S., & Conger, R. D. (2004). Modeling continuity and change in family

relations with panel data. In R. D. Conger, F. O. Lorenz, & K. A. S. Wickrama (Eds.), Continuity and

change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings(pp. 1562). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Working with imperfect models.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 113140.

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, 83104.



24/24

McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children.

Child Development, 71, 173180.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan,

J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825847). San Diego:

Academic Press.

Melby, J. N., & Conger, R. D. (2001). The Iowa family interaction rating scales: Instrument summary. In

P. K. Kerig & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic

research (pp. 3357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eismane, E. J.,

Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review

of the evidence and issues.American Psychologist, 56, 128165.

Muthen, B. M., & Curran, P. J. (1997). General longitudinal modeling of individual differences in

experimental designs: A latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. Psychological

Methods, 2, 371402.

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners

personality traits shape the quality of their relationship.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

79, 251259.

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). Its not just who youre with, its who you are:

Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships.Journal of Personality, 70, 925

964.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from

childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.Psychological Bulletin, 126, 325.

Rogosa, D., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change.

Psychological Bulletin, 92, 726748.

Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1979). A note on percent variance explained as a measure of the

importance of effects.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 395396.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New

procedures and recommendations.Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and eventoccurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stoolmiller, M. (1995). Using latent growth curve models to study developmental processes. In J. M.

Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 103138). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavior observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Terman, L. M. (1938). Psychological factors in marital happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional

experience, and efforts to control emotions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 656669.

Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of

satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings.Journal of Personality,

68, 413449.

Willet, J. B., & Sayer, A. G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors

of individual change over time.Psychological Bulletin, 116, 363381.

Willett, J. B., Singer, J. D., & Martin, N. C. (1998). The design and analysis of longitudinal studies of

development and psychopathology in context: Statistical models and methodological recommenda-

tions. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 395426.


Documents

The Big Five and Enduring Marriages