Lisa A. Neff

How Does Context Affect Intimate Relationships? Linking External Stress and Cognitive Processes within Marriage

Stressors external to the marriage frequently affect the way spouses evaluate their marital quality. To date, however,understanding of the interplay between external stress and internalrelationship processes has been limited in two ways. First,research has generally examined only the short-termconsequences of stress. Second, the mechanisms through whichexternal stressors influence relationship outcomes are unclear. Thisstudy addressed both limitations by examining relationshipcognitions that may mediate the effects of external stressthroughout 4 years of marriage. Analyses confirmed that stressfulexperiences were associated with the trajectory of marital quality overtime. Furthermore, both the content and the organization ofspouses’ specific relationship cognitions mediated this effect.That is, stress negatively influenced the nature of spouses’marital perceptions as well as the way spouses interpreted andprocessed those perceptions. These findings draw attention to waysthat the context of relationships shapes and constrainsrelationship processes.

Stress Resilience in Early Marriage: Can Practice Make Perfect?

As all couples experience stressful life events, addressing how couples adapt to stress is imperative for understanding marital development. Drawing from theories of stress inoculation, which suggest that the successful adaptation to moderately stressful events may help individuals develop a resilience to future stress, the current studies examined whether experiences with manageable stressors early in the marriage may serve to make the relationship more resilient to future stress. In Study 1, 61 newlywed couples provided data regarding their stressful life events, relationship resources (i.e., observed problem-solving behaviors), and marital satisfaction at multiple points over 2½ years. Results revealed that among spouses displaying more effective problem-solving behaviors, those who experienced moderate stress during the early months of marriage exhibited fewer future stress spillover effects and reported greater increases in felt efficacy than did spouses who had less experience with early stress. Study 2 examined stress resilience following the transition to parenthood in a new sample of 50 newlywed couples. Again, spouses who experienced moderate stress during the early months of marriage and had good initial relationship resources (i.e., observed support behaviors) reported greater marital adjustment following the transition to parenthood than did spouses who had good initial resources but less prior experience coping with stress. Together, results indicate that entering marriage with better relationship resources may not be sufficient to shield marital satisfaction from the detrimental effects of stress; rather, couples may also need practice in using those resources to navigate manageable stressful events.

Do Ideal Partner Preferences Predict Divorce? A Tale of Two Metrics

Though people report idiosyncratic desires for particular traits in an ideal romantic partner, few studies have examined whether these ideals predict important long-term relationship outcomes. The present 3.5-year longitudinal study of newlywed couples used survival analysis to investigate whether the match between participants’ ideal preferences and the traits they perceive in their partner predict the likelihood of divorce. Results depended entirely on whether the match was conceptualized as a match in level (e.g., high ideal preference for a trait with the presence of the trait in the partner) or in pattern (e.g., the within-person correlation of ideals with a partner’s traits across all traits). The match between the pattern of ideals and traits negatively predicted divorce with an effect size larger than most established divorce risk factors. However, the match in level was unrelated to divorce, suggesting that perspectives emphasizing ideals for the level of traits may encounter predictive validity problems.

Optimistic expectations in early marriage: A resource or vulnerability for adaptive relationship functioning?

Do optimistic expectations facilitate or hinder adaptive responses to relationship challenges? Traditionally, optimism has been characterized as a resource that encourages positive coping efforts within relationships. Yet, some work suggests optimism can be a liability, as expecting the best may prevent individuals from taking proactive steps when confronted with difficulties. To reconcile these perspectives, the current article argues that greater attention must be given to the way in which optimistic expectancies are conceptualized. Whereas generalized dispositional optimism may predict constructive responses to relationship difficulties, more focused relationship-specific forms of optimism may predict poor coping responses. A multi-method, longitudinal study of newly married couples confirmed that spouses higher in dispositional optimism (a) reported engaging in more positive problem-solving behaviors on days in which they experienced greater relationship conflict, (b) were observed to display more constructive problem-solving behaviors when discussing important marital issues with their partner in the lab, and (c) experienced fewer declines in marital well-being over the 1st year of marriage. Conversely, spouses higher in relationship-specific optimism (a) reported engaging in fewer constructive problem-solving behaviors on high conflict days, (b) were observed to exhibit worse problem-solving behaviors in the lab-particularly when discussing marital issues of greater importance-and (c) experienced steeper declines in marital well-being over time. All findings held controlling for self-esteem and neuroticism. Together, results suggest that whereas global forms of optimism may represent a relationship asset, specific forms of optimism can place couples at risk for marital deterioration.

When Receiving Help Hurts: Gender Differences in Diurnal Cortisol Responses to Spousal Support

Wives are considered more effective support providers than are husbands. As support promotes healthy physiological functioning, husbands should derive greater health benefits from spousal support than do wives. Yet, a growing literature indicates that men are relatively insulated from the physiological consequences of marital interactions, suggesting that men may not reap the benefits that support can provide. To examine gender differences in physiological responses to spousal support, couples completed a 6-day diary task that assessed daily support exchanges and diurnal cortisol slopes. On days of greater spousal support, wives exhibited steeper cortisol slopes, whereas husbands exhibited flattened cortisol slopes. Furthermore, for husbands, the association between daily support and cortisol was moderated by problem-solving efficacy; the less efficacious husbands perceived their problem-solving abilities, the flatter their cortisol slopes on high support days. All results held controlling for daily stress and marital satisfaction. Thus, support may incur costs for husbands’ health.

Is a meta-analysis a foundation, or just another brick? Comment on Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, and Karney (2014).

In a longitudinal data set of married couples, Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, and Karney (2014) reported that partner physical attractiveness is more strongly associated with relationship satisfaction for men than for women. Although a recent meta-analysis (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, in press) provided no support for this sex difference across 97 samples and ∼30,000 participants, Meltzer et al. (2014) responded by outlining 7 criteria required for an appropriate test of the sex difference; these criteria eliminate all but 1 study from the meta-analysis. In this commentary, we raise 3 concerns about Meltzer et al.s contribution. First, there is weak theoretical and empirical support for the criteria they used to dismiss the relevance of the meta-analysis studies. Second, if one adds Meltzer et al.s data to the meta-analysis, all the sex differences remain extremely small and nonsignificant, even if one focuses only on studies that best conform to Meltzer et al.s criteria (i.e., married samples, objective attractiveness measures). Third, a new data set meeting all 7 criteria fails to replicate the Meltzer et al. sex difference; in contrast, data revealed that physical attractiveness is, if anything, more strongly associated with the trajectory of relationship satisfaction for women than for men. As noted by Eastwick, Luchies, et al. (in press), in paradigms where participants evaluate partners they have (at a minimum) met face-to-face, the sex difference in the association of physical attractiveness with romantic evaluations is (a) extremely small on average and (b) unlinked to all cross-study characteristics identified to date.

The Role of Emotional Capital During the Early Years of Marriage: Why Everyday Moments Matter.

Throughout a marriage couples will share countless ordinary moments together that may seem trivial, but which actually have potential to affirm and strengthen relational bonds. According to theories of emotional capital, the accumulation of shared positive moments in a relationship should serve as an essential resource for protecting the relationship against threats. To date, however, few empirical studies have explored the role emotional capital may play in shaping responses to negative relationship experiences. In the current study, newly married couples completed 3 14-day daily diary tasks assessing emotional capital, negative partner behaviors, and marital satisfaction over a 3-year period, for a total of 42 potential days of diary data. Contrary to predictions, emotional capital on a given day was not associated with reactivity to relationship threats on the following day. However, conceptually replicating prior work, individuals who accumulated more emotional capital on average across the diary tasks did exhibit lower reactivity to daily relationship threats; that is, on days of greater relationship threat (i.e., negative partner behaviors), those spouses who generally accrued more shared positive moments with their partner maintained greater feelings of marital satisfaction compared with spouses who accrued fewer positive moments. These findings contribute to a growing literature illustrating how positive shared activities between partners help sustain relationship quality over time.

The Rising Expectations of Marriage: What We Do and Do Not Know

For decades, sociologists have written extensively about the changing norms surrounding marriage in America. There is little doubt that the meaning and function attached to marriage has shifted radically over the centuries. Numerous scholars have argued that at no other time in history have Americans placed such tremendous expectations on marriage (e.g., Amato, Booth, Johnson, & Rogers, 2009; Cherlin, 2004; Coontz, 2005). Today, the marital relationship often is expected to serve as a primary source of one’s emotional and personal fulfillment, an expectation that rather paradoxically has resulted in marriage becoming both more satisfying and more fragile than ever before (Coontz, 2005). Thus, scientific debate regarding the rising expectations of marriage and their consequences for marital stability is certainly not new; in fact, in some ways the overarching ideas of the Finkel, Hui, Carswell, and Larson (this issue) target article echo longstanding themes found within the marital literature. Using this literature as a springboard, however, Finkel and colleagues add a psychological perspective to the conversation by addressing the possible ramifications of these changing societal expectations for the day-today, dyadic processes taking place within the marriage. We would like to begin our commentary by commending the authors for delving into this topic of inquiry. In an age where the federal government is devoting unprecedented resources toward family formation and maintenance efforts (Johnson, 2012), it is imperative for scholars in the field to develop a richer and more complete understanding of the function and dynamics of modern day marriage. Yet progress in developing this comprehensive picture is hindered by the fact that the field of relationship science is better characterized as multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary. Although research examining marital happiness and stability can be found across many distinct disciplines, these programs of research often proceed in parallel, without building on one another. Thus, despite our wealth of knowledge regarding the macrolevel contextual forces and the microlevel interpersonal processes that shape marital outcomes, research highlighting the intricate interconnections between these levels is sorely limited (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). In their attempts to synthesize the sociological and psychological literatures, Finkel and colleagues (this issue) take a step in an important and fruitful direction. That said, before the target article can inspire new lines of research, it is necessary to critically evaluate the many assumptions underlying the “suffocation of marriage” perspective. As we outline in our commentary, we fear that the Mount Maslow metaphor is built upon a series of premises for which there is a notable paucity of direct empirical support. Of particular concern is the fact that the authors knowingly sidestep meaningful discussion of the bifurcation of marital experiences by socioeconomic status. Since reaching their peak in the 1980s, divorce rates have steadily declined among middle-class, better educated individuals yet have continued to rise among lower income, less educated individuals (Cherlin, 2010; Martin, 2006); in fact, rates of divorce are nearly twice as high for women who live in low-income neighborhoods as compared to those who live in high-income neighborhoods (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; Raley & Bumpass, 2003). We argue that these trends have enormous implications for the tenets of Mount Maslow and that the state of modern-day marriage cannot be discussed reasonably using the broad strokes employed in the current piece. Thus, for the remainder of our commentary we aim to evaluate the support for Mount Maslow by exploring what we do and do not know about marital expectations and their consequences. We also discuss the appropriateness of using the Mount Maslow metaphor to understand and prevent marital dysfunction across all segments of the population. We have structured our comments around three fundamental questions: (a) Why do people marry? (b) Whose marriages are suffocating? (c) How can we help marriages that are struggling?

We’re better when we blend: The benefits of couple identity fusion

Abstract When forming a relationship, romantic partners must develop a conceptualization of their self in the relationship, or an understanding of their couple identity. Drawing from the theory of identity fusion, the current study explored the implications of different types of couple identities for overcoming relationship challenges. Results demonstrated that individuals who perceived greater fusion with their partner (i.e., perceived an equal blending of the personal and partner’s self in creating their unique couple identity) exhibited reduced vigilance for relationship threats and enacted more constructive coping responses to relationship conflict. Conversely, individuals who perceived an imbalanced couple identity (i.e., perceived either their own or their partner’s identity as dominant in the couple identity), exhibited fewer of these pro-relationship behaviors.

The Importance of a Few Good Friends: Perceived Network Support Moderates the Association Between Daily Marital Conflict and Diurnal Cortisol

This study examined whether the extent to which spouses feel they have available and satisfying support outside their marriage buffers spouses from the potential negative physiological effects of conflict inside their marriage. Newlywed couples (N = 214 spouses) reported occurrences of marital conflict in a daily diary and concurrently provided morning and evening saliva samples for the calculation of daily diurnal cortisol slopes. Extending prior work demonstrating links between marital conflict and acute cortisol responses in laboratory settings, results revealed that spouses exhibited flatter (i.e., less healthy) diurnal cortisol slopes on days of greater marital conflict. Although the quantity of spouses’ support network connections was not associated with physiological responses to conflict, the quality of perceived network support attenuated the association between daily marital conflict and diurnal cortisol slopes. Thus, maintaining a satisfying network of social connections outside a marriage may protect spouses’ well-being during periods of marital difficulty.