Growing evidence implicates stress as a reliable correlate of relationship satisfaction; yet, existing models fail to address why some relationships are more vulnerable than others to this effect. We draw from the literature on individual differences in self-regulation to predict that individuals who are more action oriented when confronted with aversive demands will buffer themselves and their partners against the detrimental effect of external stress. Using actor–partner interdependence modeling on self-report data from 368 couples, we show that the relationship satisfaction of highly stressed but action-oriented individuals and their partners is compromised less by external stress than that of state-oriented individuals and their partners. These results held after controlling for symptoms of depression and were not moderated by gender or by age, despite sampling couples varying widely in relationship duration. Results support the view that individual differences in self-regulation, and action orientation in particular, might benefit relationships confronted by stress, thus clarifying how dyads might be affected by demands outside their relationship.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BaumannN.KaschelR.KuhlJ. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: Stress-dependent discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 781–799.
3.
BaumannN.KuhlJ. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: Unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1213–1223. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1213
4.
BeckmannJ. (1990). Wann wirken sich ungünstige Bedingungen leistungsfördernd aus? Überprufung eines Zwei-Ebenen-Modells der Handlungskontrolle [When do unfavorable conditions enhance performance? A test of a 2-level model of action control.]Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 37, 16–30.
5.
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). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
BodenmannG.CharvozL.BradburyT. N.BertoniA.IafrateR.GiulianiG.BehlingJ. (2010). The role of stress in divorce: A three-nation retrospective study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 707–728.
7.
BodenmannG.LedermannT.BradburyT. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551–569. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x
8.
BodenmannG.MeuwlyN.BradburyT. N.GmelchS.LedermannT. (2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 408–424. doi:10.1177/0265407510361616
9.
BodenmannG.MeuwlyN.GermannJ.NussbeckF. W.HeinrichsM.BradburyT. N. (2015). Effects of stress on the social supported provided by men and women in intimate relationships. Psychological Science, 26, 1584–1594. doi:10.1177/0956797615594616
10.
BodenmannG.SchärM.GmelchS. (2008). Multi-dimensionaler Stressfragebogen für Paare (MDS-P) [Multi-Dimensional Stress Questionnaire for Couples.]. Unpublished Questionnaire. University of Zurich.
11.
BodenmannG.ShantinathS. D. (2004). The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET): A new approach to prevention of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 53, 477–484. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x
12.
BolgerN.DeLongisA.KesslerR. C.WethingtonE. (1989). The contagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 175–183. doi:10.2307/352378
13.
DiefendorffJ. M.HallR. J.LordR. G.StreanM. L. (2000). Action-state orientation: Construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 250–263.
14.
FalconierM. K.NussbeckF.BodenmannG. (2013). Immigration stress and relationship satisfaction in Latino couples: The role of dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 813–843. doi:10.1521/jscp.2013.32.8.813
15.
FreundA. M.NikitinJ.RitterJ. O. (2009). Psychological consequences of longevity: The increasing importance of self-regulation in old age. Human Development, 52, 1–37. doi:10.1159/000189213
16.
GendollaG. H. E.RichterM. (2010). Effort mobilization when the self is involved: Some lessons from the cardiovascular system. Review of General Psychology, 14, 212–226. doi:10.1037/a0019742
17.
GröpelP.KuhlJ.KazénM. (2004, 7). Toward an integrated self: Age differences and the role of action orientation. Paper presented at the Third international SELF research conference “Self-concept, motivation, and identity: Where to from here?”, SELF Research Centre, Sydney, Australia.
18.
HendrickS. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98. doi:10.2307/352430
19.
HenneckeM.FreundA. M. (2016). Age, action orientation, and self-regulation during the pursuit of a dieting goal. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 8, 19–43.
20.
Holt-LunstadJ.SmithT. B. (2012). Social relationships and mortality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 41–53. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00406.x
21.
JacksonG. L.TrailT. E.KennedyD. P.WilliamsonH. C.BradburyT. N.KarneyB. R. (2016). The salience and severity of relationship problems among low-income couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 2–11. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000158
22.
JostmannN. B.KarremansJ.FinkenauerC. (2011). When love is not blind: Rumination impairs implicit affect regulation in response to romantic relationship threat. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 506–518. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2010.541139
23.
JostmannN. B.KooleS. L. (2010). Dealing with high demands: The role of action versus state orientation. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 332–352). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
24.
Kamp DushM. C.AmatoP. R. (2005) Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627. doi:10.1177/0265407505056438
25.
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
26.
KarneyB. R.StoryL. B.BradburyT. N. (2005). Marriages in context: Interactions between chronic and acute stress among newlyweds. In RevensonT. A.KayserK.BodenmannG. (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 13–32). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
KooleS. L.FockenbergD. A. (2011). Implicit emotion regulation under demanding conditions: The moderating role of action versus state orientation. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 440–452. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.544891
29.
KooleS. L.JostmannN. B.BaumannN. (2012). Do demanding conditions help or hurt self-regulation?Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 328–346. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00425.x
30.
KooleS. L.KuhlJ.JostmannN. B.FinkenauerC. (2006). Self-regulation in interpersonal relationships: The case of action versus state orientation. In VohsK. D.FinkelE. J. (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 360–383). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
KuhlJ. (1981). Motivational and functional helplessness: The moderating effect of state versus action orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 155–170.
32.
KuhlJ. (1994a). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In KuhlJ.BeckmannJ. (Eds.), Volition and personality (pp. 47–59). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe.
33.
KuhlJ. (1994b) Motivation and volition. In d’YdewalleG.EelenP.BertelsonP. (Series Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science, Vol. 2: The state of the art (pp. xiv, 402). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34.
KuhlJ. (1994c). A theory of action and state orientations. In KuhlJ.BeckmannJ. (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 9–46). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe.
35.
KuhlJ. (2000). The volitional basis of Personality Systems Interaction Theory: Applications in learning and treatment contexts. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 665–703.
36.
LedermannT.BodenmannG. (2006). Moderator- und Mediatoreffekte bei dyadischen Daten: Zwei Erweiterungen des Akteur-Partner-Interdependenz-Modells [Moderator and mediator effects in dyadic research: Two extensions of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 27–40. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.27
37.
LedermannT.BodenmannG.RudazM.BradburyT. N. (2010). Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 59, 195–206. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00595.x
38.
MuravenM.BaumeisterR. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle?Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
39.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus (Version 7). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
40.
NeffL. A.KarneyB. R. (2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134–148. doi:10.1177/0146167203255984
41.
NeffL. A.KarneyB. R. (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 594–607. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00394.x
42.
NeffL. A.KarneyB. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 435–450. doi:10.1037/a0015663
43.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 3, 437–448.
44.
RandallA. K.BodenmannG. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 105–115. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004
45.
RoggeR. D.CobbR. J.LawrenceE.JohnsonM. D.BradburyT. N. (2013). Is skills training necessary for the primary prevention of marital distress and dissolution? A 3-year experimental study of three interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 949–961. doi:10.1037/a0034209
46.
RomppelM.BraehlerE.RothM.GlaesmerH. (2013). What is the General Health Questionnaire-12 assessing? Dimensionality and psychometric properties of the General Health Questionnaire-12 in a large scale German population sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54, 406–413.
47.
SanderJ.BöckerS. (1993). Die Deutsche Form der Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): Eine kurze Skala zur Messung der Zufriedenheit in einer Partnerschaft [German version of the Relationship Assessment Scale: A brief scale for the assessment of partnership satisfaction]. Diagnostica, 39, 55–62.
48.
StoryL. B.BradburyT. N. (2004). Understanding marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1139–1162. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2003.10.002
49.
TangneyJ. P.BaumeisterR. F.BooneA. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–322. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
50.
WilliamsonH. C.KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (2013). Financial strain and stressful events predict newlyweds’ negative communication independent of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 65–75. doi:10.1037/a0031104
51.
WilsonK. L.CharkerJ.LizzioA.HalfordK.KimlinS. (2005). Assessing how much couples work at their relationship: The behavioral self-regulation for effective relationships scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 385–393. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.385
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.
