Individuals can differ in the degree of closeness they desire in their romantic relationships: Some people may perceive their current level of closeness as just right, whereas others may feel not close enough or too close to their partners (referred to as negative and positive closeness discrepancy, respectively). This study (N = 1,177 individuals from 748 couples) examined the implications of closeness discrepancies for subjective relationship quality (SRQ) using dyadic response surface analysis. The analyses found evidence for linear, but not broad, closeness discrepancy effects: SRQ was lower for individuals reporting more negative closeness discrepancies and, independent of this actor effect, for individuals with partners who reported more negative closeness discrepancies. These results suggest that low levels of closeness paired with a strong desire for closeness can impair both partners’ relational well-being.
AgnewC. R.LangeP. A. M. V.RusbultC. E.LangstonC. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939
2.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
3.
AronA.LewandowskiG. W. J.MashekD.AronE. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). Oxford University Press.
4.
AronA.MelinatE.AronE. N.ValloneR. D.BatorR. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003
5.
ArslanR. C.WaltherM. P.TataC. S. (2019). Formr: A study framework allowing for automated feedback generation and complex longitudinal experience-sampling studies using R. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01236-y
6.
BarrantiM.CarlsonE. N.CôtéS. (2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698204
7.
BerscheidE.SnyderM.OmotoA. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792
8.
BischofN. (1975). A systems approach toward the functional connections of attachment and fear. Child Development, 46(4), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128384
9.
EdwardsJ. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In DrasgowF.SchmittN. W. (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). Jossey-Bass.
EdwardsJ. R.ParryM. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.2307/256822
12.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00070
13.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
14.
FrostD. M.ForresterC. (2013). Closeness discrepancies in romantic relationships: Implications for relational well-being, stability, and mental health. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(4), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213476896
15.
FrostD. M.McClellandS. I.DettmannM. (2017). Sexual closeness discrepancies: What they are and why they matter for sexual well-being in romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(8), 2353–2364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0960-2
16.
GalovanA. M.HolmesE. K.ProulxC. M. (2017). Theoretical and methodological issues in relationship research: Considering the common fate model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515621179
17.
GamarelK. E.GolubS. A. (2018). Closeness discrepancies and intimacy interference: Motivations for HIV prevention behavior in primary romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218783196
18.
HagemeyerB.NeberichW.AsendorpfJ. B.NeyerF. J. (2013). (In)Congruence of implicit and explicit communal motives predicts the quality and stability of couple relationships. Journal of Personality, 81(4), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12016
19.
HagemeyerB.NeyerF. J. (2012). Assessing implicit motivational orientations in couple relationships: The Partner-Related Agency and Communion Test (PACT). Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024822
20.
HagemeyerB.NeyerF. J.NeberichW.AsendorpfJ. B. (2013) The ABC of social desires: Affiliation, being alone, and closeness to partner. European Journal of Personality, 27. 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1857
21.
HagemeyerB.SchönbrodtF. D.NeyerF. J.NeberichW.AsendorpfJ. B. (2015). When “together” means “too close”: Agency motives and relationship functioning in coresident and living-apart-together couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 813–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000031
22.
HazanC.ShaverP. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1
23.
HuininkJ. J.BrüderlJ.NauckB.WalperS.CastiglioniL.FeldhausM. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework, and design. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23, 77–101.
24.
HumbergS.DufnerM.SchönbrodtF. D.GeukesK.HuttemanR.van ZalkM. H. W.DenissenJ. J. A.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2018). Enhanced versus simply positive: A new condition-based regression analysis to disentangle effects of self-enhancement from effects of positivity of self-view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000134
25.
HumbergS.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2018). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600
26.
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (2020). Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12635
27.
KeeleL. (2008). Semiparametric regression for the social sciences. John Wiley.
28.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guildford Press.
29.
LeB.DoveN. L.AgnewC. R.KornM. S.MutsoA. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x
30.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.GraysonD. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-OlivaresA.McArdleJ. J. (Eds.), Multivariate applications book series. contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
MashekD. J.LeB.IsraelK.AronA. (2011). Wanting less closeness in romantic relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614164
32.
MashekD. J.ShermanM. D. (2004). Desiring less closeness with intimate others. In MashekD. J.AronA. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 343–356). Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
MundM.FinnC.HagemeyerB.NeyerF. J. (2016). Understanding dynamic transactions between personality traits and partner relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416659458
34.
MundM.JohnsonM. D. (2020). Lonely me, lonely you: Loneliness and the longitudinal course of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(2), 575–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00241-9
35.
NestlerS.HumbergS.SchönbrodtF. D. (2019). Response surface analysis with multilevel data: Illustration for the case of congruence hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 24(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000199
36.
PuschS.SchönbrodtF. D.Zygar-HoffmannC.HagemeyerB. (2021). Perception of communal motives in couples: Accuracy, bias, and their associations with relationship length. Journal of Research in Personality, 91, Article 104060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104060
37.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
38.
ReisH. T.ShaverP. R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In DuckS. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). John Wiley.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
41.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
SchönbrodtF. D.HumbergS.NestlerS. (2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169
44.
WeidmannR.LedermannT.GrobA. (2016). The interdependence of personality and satisfaction in couples. European Psychologist, 21(4), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000261
ZygarC.HagemeyerB.PuschS.SchönbrodtF. D. (2018). From motive dispositions to states to outcomes: An intensive experience sampling study on communal motivational dynamics in couples. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2145
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
