Personal relationships help people stay social because they need relatedness. Close relationships affect married couples’ mental health. Relationship quality is an important actor in marriage evaluation. The study found that dyadic meaning-based coping influences married couples’ relationship quality and need for relatedness. We studied how actor–partner relatedness impacts the need for relatedness and relationship quality. APIMeM was utilized to analyze 361 married couples’ (N = 722) dyadic data. On average, women were 33.02 years old (SD = 7.83) and men 35.39 (SD = 8.29). The need for relatedness predicts relationship quality in both actor and partner impact dimensions for men and women. The concept of partner effects states that partner quality influences relationship quality based on the need for relatedness. Bridges link partners’ psychological demands and coping methods. If one partner needs relatedness and the other learns coping skills, the relationship is more likely to last.
ApostolouM.ChristoforouC.LajunenT. J. (2023). What are romantic relationships good for? An explorative analysis of the perceived benefits of being in a relationship. Evolutionary Psychology, 21(4), 14747049231210245. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049231210245
2.
ArslanG.YıldırımM. (2021). Meaning-based coping and spirituality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Mediating effects on subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 646572. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646572
3.
BaumeisterR. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. Oxford University Press.
4.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
5.
BilledoC. J.KerkhofP.FinkenauerC. (2015). The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0469
6.
BodenmannG. (2005). Dyadic Coping and Its Significance for Marital Functioning. In RevensonT. A.KayserK.BodenmannG. (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002
7.
BodenmannG.MeuwlyN.KayserK. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being. European Psychologist, 16(4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068
8.
BorawskiD. (2022). When you are lonely, look inside yourself: The moderating role of reflection in the relationship between loneliness and meaning in life. Personality and Individual Differences, 194, 111662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111662
CohrdesC.PryssR.BaumeisterH.EicherS.KnollN.HöllingH. (2023). Support-and meaning-focused coping as key factors for maintaining adult quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1196404. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1196404
12.
CollinsW. A.LaursenB. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431603260882
13.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
14.
Demirbaş-ÇelikN.Keklikİ. (2019). Personality factors and meaning in life: The mediating role of competence, relatedness and autonomy. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4), 995–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9984-0
15.
DrabeN.KlaghoferR.WeidtS.ZwahlenD.BüchiS.JeneweinJ. (2015). Mutual associations between patients’ and partners’ depression and quality of life with respect to relationship quality, physical complaints, and sense of coherence in couples coping with cancer. Psycho‐Oncology, 24(4), 442–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3662
16.
DushC. M. K.AmatoP. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056438
17.
EisenbeckN.CarrenoD. F.Pérez-EscobarJ. A. (2021). Meaning-centered coping in the era of COVID-19: Direct and moderating effects on depression, anxiety, and stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 648383. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648383
18.
EisenbeckN.CarrenoD. F.WongP. T.HicksJ. A.MaríaR. R. G.PugaJ. L.TestoniI.BiancalaniG.LópezA. C. C.VillarealS.EneaV.Schulz-QuachC.JansenJ.Sanchez-RuizM. J.YıldırımM.ArslanG.CruzJ. F. A.SofiaR. M.García-MontesJ. M.García-MontesJ. M. (2022). An international study on psychological coping during COVID-19: Towards a meaning-centered coping style. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 22(1), 100256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100256
19.
EkşiH.KısrıkS. (2023). Adaption of the loneliness in intimate relationships scale (LIRS) to Turkish. Research on Education and Psychology, 7(3), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1395957
20.
EnestromM. C.Rossignac-MilonM.ForestA. L.LydonJ. E. (2024). Meaning-making with romantic partners: Shared reality promotes meaning in life by reducing uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(6), 1315–1335. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000472
21.
FalconierM. K.KuhnR. (2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571
22.
FarooqiS. R. (2014). The construct of relationship quality. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, Article e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2014.2
23.
FinchamF. D.RoggeR. (2010). Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x
24.
FletcherG. J.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
25.
FolkmanS.MoskowitzJ. T. (2007). Positive affect and meaning-focused coping during significant psychological stress. The Scope of Social Psychology: Theory and Applications, 10, 193–208.
26.
FraleyR. C.DavisK. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x
27.
GoldA. I.RyjovaY.AvivE. C.CornerG. W.RasmussenH. F.KimY.MargolinG. (2024). Social contributions to meaning in life: The role of romantic relationship quality, parenting, and gender. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1349642. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1349642
28.
GustavsonK.RøysambE.BorrenI.TorvikF. A.KarevoldE. (2016). Life satisfaction in close relationships: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(3), 1293–1311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9643-7
29.
HaddenB. W.KneeC. R. (2018). Finding meaning in us: The role of meaning in life in romantic relationships. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1257057
30.
HaddenB. W.SmithC. V.KneeC. R. (2014). The way I make you feel: How relatedness and compassionate goals promote partner’s relationship satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.858272
31.
HartupW. W.StevensN. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological bulletin, 121(3), 355–370.
32.
HicksJ. A.KingL. A. (2009). Positive mood and social relatedness as information about meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271108
33.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
34.
KennyD. A.LedermannT. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651
35.
LambertN. M.StillmanT. F.HicksJ. A.KambleS.BaumeisterR. F.FinchamF. D. (2013). To belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1418–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499186
36.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1
37.
MaasJ.SchochS.ScholzU.RackowP.SchülerJ.WegnerM.KellerR. (2022). Satisfying the need for relatedness among teachers: Benefits of searching for social support. In Frontiers in Education (7, p. 851819). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.851819
38.
Martín-AlboJ.LombasA. S.JiménezT. I.Valdivia-SalasS.NúñezJ. L.LeónJ. (2015). The mediating role of relatedness between repair and loneliness: A preliminary model in high school students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9550-3
39.
MorryM. M.ReichT.KitoM. (2010). How do I see you relative to myself? Relationship quality as a predictor of self-and partner-enhancement within cross-sex friendships, dating relationships, and marriages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365471
40.
MundM.JohnsonM. D. (2021). 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
41.
Nasser-Abu AlhijaF.WisenbakerJ. (2006). A monte carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3
42.
OverallN. C.FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1496–1513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210383045
43.
PerlmanD.PeplauL. A. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. Personal Relationships, 3, 31–56.
44.
PfundG. N.BrazeauH.AllemandM.HillP. L. (2020). Associations between sense of purpose and romantic relationship quality in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(5), 1563–1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520903807
45.
ProulxC. M.HelmsH. M.BuehlerC. (2007). Marital quality and personal well‐being: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x
46.
RicherS.VallerandR. (1998). Construction and validation of the ESAS (the relatedness feelings scale). European Review of Applied Psychology, 48, 138.
47.
SağkalA. S.ÖzdemirY. (2018). Algılanan romantik İlişki kalitesi Ölçeği’nin (ARİKÖ) türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Turkish adaptation of perceived romantic relationship quality scale (PRRQS)]: Validity and reliability study. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 42, 22–40. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.329888
48.
SantaliaR. F.GunadiW.SetiadiA. (2022). The effect of emotional support and informational support on the need for relatedness and user’s satisfaction with the use of social media. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey, March 7–10, 2022.
49.
SantiniZ. I.KoyanagiA.TyrovolasS.HaroJ. M. (2015). The association of relationship quality and social networks with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among older married adults: Findings from a cross-sectional analysis of the Irish longitudinal study on ageing (TILDA). Journal of Affective Disorders, 179, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.03.015
50.
SchochS.KellerR.BuffA.MaasJ.RackowP.ScholzU.SchülerJ.WegnerM. (2021). Dual-focused transformational leadership, teachers’ satisfaction of the need for relatedness, and the mediating role of social support. Frontiers in Education, 6, 643196. Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.643196
51.
SchulenbergS. E.SchnetzerL. W.WintersM. R.HutzellR. R. (2010). Meaning-centered couples therapy: Logotherapy and intimate relationships. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-009-9134-4
52.
SegrinC.PowellH. L.GivertzM.BrackinA. (2003). Symptoms of depression, relational quality, and loneliness in dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00034
53.
StillmanT. F.BaumeisterR. F.LambertN. M.CrescioniA. W.DeWallC. N.FinchamF. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007
54.
Ünal-karagüvenM. H. (2024). Yetişkinlerde sosyal i̇lişki gereksinimi ve sosyal medya kullanımı i̇lişkisi. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Derg, 60(60), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.1417981
55.
Ünal-karagüvenM. H.Karaman-EkşioğluM.GülÇ. (2020). Özerklik teorisi ve sosyal ilişki gereksinimi ölçeğinin türkçeye adaptasyonu. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(6), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.656251
