Improving on previous measures, we developed a multidimensional measure of relationship evaluation processes (REPs). In Study 1 (N = 523), we used exploratory factor analysis to identify the following eight dimensions: personal standards, social comparison, upward social comparison, past comparison, upward past comparison, feedback, negative behavior, and feared future. In Study 2 (N = 469), we used a more diverse sample to confirm the factor structure. In both studies, bivariate correlations suggested that people who more frequently engage in REPs tend to have lower relationship satisfaction. Negative behavior and feared future were strong predictors of relationship dissatisfaction in both studies; Study 2 showed that these factors mediate the relationship between neuroticism and satisfaction. The present research moves the literature beyond its focus on personal standards and social comparison to consider the important roles of other REPs.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
2.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
3.
BuunkB. P.YbemaJ. F. (2003). Feeling bad, but satisfied: The effects of upward and downward comparison with other couples upon mood and marital satisfaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 613–628. DOI:10.1348/014466603322595301
4.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
5.
DaintonM. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 827–842.
6.
FinnC.MitteK.NeyerF. J. (2013). The relationship-specific interpretation bias mediates the link between neuroticism and satisfaction in couples. European Journal of Personality, 27, 200–212. DOI:10.1002/per.1862
7.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105. DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.00070
8.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.00070
9.
FryeN. E.KarneyB. R. (2002). Being better or getting better? Social and temporal comparisons as coping mechanisms in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1287–1299. DOI:10.1177/01461672022812013
10.
FurrM. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
12.
HirschfeldG.von BrachelR. (2014). Multiple-Group confirmatory factor analysis in R—A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 19, 1–12. Retrieved fromhttp://pareonline.net/pdf/v19n7.pdf.
13.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory (versions 4a and 54). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
14.
JohnO. P.NaumannL. P.SotoC. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
JussimL.SoffinS.BrownR.LeyJ.KohlheppK. (1992). Understanding reactions to feedback by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 402–421. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.402
16.
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
17.
KarneyB. R.CoombsR. H. (2000). Memory bias in long-term close relationships: Consistency or improvement?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 959–970. DOI:10.1177/01461672002610006
18.
KellyE. L.ConleyJ. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 27–40. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.27
19.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
20.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
21.
LeB.DoveN. L.AgnewC. R.KornM. S.MutsoA. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x
22.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. DOI:10.1037//1082-989X.1.2.130
23.
MardiaK. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530. DOI:10.2307/2334770
24.
MarkusH. R.NuriusP. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. DOI:10.1037/0003-066x.41.9.954
25.
McDonaldR. P.HoM. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. DOI:10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64
26.
MorryM. M.SucharynaT. A. (2016). Relationship social comparison interpretations and dating relationship quality, behaviors, and mood. Personal Relationships, 23, 554–576. DOI:10.1111/pere.12143
27.
NortonR. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141–151. DOI:10.2307/351302
28.
O’ConnorB. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 396–402. DOI:10.3758/bf03200807
29.
OverallN. C.FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 662–685. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.662
30.
PerkinsA. M.ArnoneD.SmallwoodJ.MobbsD. (2015). Thinking too much: Self-generated thought as the engine of neuroticism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 492–498. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.003.
31.
RodriguezL. M.OverupC. S.WickhamR. E.KneeC. R.AmspokerA. B. (2016). Communication with former romantic partners and current relationship outcomes among college students. Personal Relationships, 23, 409–424. DOI:10.1111/pere.12133
32.
RoseellY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. DOI:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
33.
RusbultC. E.DrigotasS. M.VeretteJ. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In CanaryD. J.StaffordL. (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115–139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34.
SchreiberJ. B.NoraA.StageF. K.BarlowE. A.KingJ. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338. DOI:10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
35.
Smith LeBeauL.BuckinghamJ. T. (2008). Relationship social comparison tendencies, insecurity, and perceived relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 71–86. DOI:10.1177/0265407507086806
36.
StaffordL.CanaryD. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217–242. DOI:10.1177/0265407591082004
37.
SternbergR. J.BarnesM. L. (1985). Real and ideal others in romantic relationships: Is four a crowd?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1586–1608. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1586
38.
TaylorS. E.NeterE.WaymentH. A. (1995). Self-evaluation processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1278–1287. DOI:10.1177/01461672952112005
39.
ThibautJ. W.KelleyH. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.
40.
TzelgovJ.HenikA. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524–536. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.524
41.
VaterA.Schroder-AbeM. (2015). Explaining the link between personality and relationship satisfaction: Emotion regulation and interpersonal behavior in conflict discussions. European Journal of Personality, 29, 201–215. DOI:10.1002/per.1993
42.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.ChmielewskiM. (2008). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure. Journal of Personality, 76, 1545–1586. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00531.x.
43.
WaymentH. A.CampbellS. (2000). How are we doing? The impact of motives and information use on the evaluation of romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 31–52. DOI:10.1177/0265407500171002
44.
WeidmannR.LedermannT.GrobA. (2016). Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 102–109. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.001
45.
WhiteG. A. (2010). Implications of relationship social comparison tendencies among dating and married individuals. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Order No. 3439248).
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.
