Affective states and how people see their partner’s responsiveness are important for understanding relationship quality, but these processes are not well studied in non-Western settings. Drawing on the affect-as-information framework and theories of perceived partner responsiveness, this study tested whether responsiveness helps explain the link between daily affect and marital satisfaction. Data came from 203 heterosexual married couples in Sikkim, India. Using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model with mediation, we examined positive and negative affect as simultaneous predictors of perceived partner responsiveness and marital satisfaction. Positive affect was linked to greater marital satisfaction through one’s own perception of partner responsiveness. Negative affect also showed an asymmetrical pattern, with only one partner’s negative affect predicting lower marital satisfaction for both spouses, partly through reduced responsiveness. Partner-mediated indirect effects were minimal. These findings highlight the role of everyday affect and perceived responsiveness in shaping marital satisfaction in cultural contexts that are less often studied.
AllendorfK. (2013). Schemas of marital change: From arranged marriages to eloping for love. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12003
3.
Alonso-FerresM.ImamiL.SlatcherR. B. (2020). Untangling the effects of partner responsiveness on health and well-being: The role of perceived control. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(4), 1150–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519884726
4.
Bar-KalifaE.Hen-WeissbergA.RafaeliE. (2015). Perceived partner responsiveness mediates the association between social anxiety and relationship satisfaction in committed couples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(7), 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2015.34.7.587
5.
BhangaokarR.KapadiaS. (2019). Gendered boundaries, cultured lives: The underexplored dimensions of duty (Kartavya) in the Indian family context. Psychology & Developing Societies, 31(2), 252–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971333619863235
6.
BlochL.HaaseC. M.LevensonR. W. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: More than a wives’ tale. Emotion, 14(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034272
7.
BusbyD. M.ChristensenC.CraneD. R.LarsonJ. H. (1995). A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x
8.
CacioppoJ. T.BerntsonG. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
9.
ChoiH.OishiS. (2022). Cultural variations in perceived partner responsiveness: The role of self-consistency. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54(2), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221132786
10.
ColeP. M.TamangB. L.ShresthaS. (2006). Cultural variations in the socialization of young children’s anger and shame. Child Development, 77(5), 1237–1251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00931.x
11.
CouttsJ. J.HayesA. F.JiangT. (2019). Easy statistical mediation analysis with distinguishable dyadic data. Journal of Communication, 69(6), 612–649. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz034
12.
DienerE.WirtzD.TovW.Kim-PrietoC.ChoiD.OishiS.Biswas-DienerR. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
13.
DyrenforthP. S.KashyD. A.DonnellanM. B.LucasR. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020385
14.
FredricksonB. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
15.
GottmanJ. M.LevensonR. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x
16.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
17.
IndumathyJ.KanthB. (2022). Communication pattern, dyadic adjustment, and parenting practices among married couples in India: Mediating role of dyadic coping.Journal of Family Issues, 43(4), 894–922. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X21995873
18.
JakubiakB. K.FeeneyB. C. (2016). A sense of security: Touch promotes state attachment security. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616646427
19.
JiaY.DaiQ.DengX.LiuX. (2022). Parents’ self-concept clarity, marital satisfaction and parent-child relationship quality: Actor-partner interdependence analyses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(12), 3558–3578. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221102095
20.
KimH. S.ShermanD. K.TaylorS. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American Psychologist, 63(6), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X
21.
Kirchner-HäuslerA.BoigerM.UchidaY.HiguchiY.UchidaA.MesquitaB. (2021). Relatively happy: The role of the positive-to-negative affect ratio in Japanese and Belgian couples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211051016
22.
LaurenceauJ.-P.BarrettL. F.PietromonacoP. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
23.
LedermannT.MachoS.KennyD. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099
24.
LemayE. P.Jr.ClarkM. S. (2008). Walking on eggshells: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.420
25.
LiY.GeF.PietromonacoP. R.ParkJ. (2025). Will you boost my joy or dampen it? Cultural differences in Hedonic interpersonal emotion regulation in romantic relationships. Emotion, 25(2), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001427
26.
LuS.HeY.LiQ.ChenZ.FangX. (2024). Dyadic effects of attachment styles on marital satisfaction among Chinese couples: The mediating role of perceived partner responsiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(12), 3770–3790. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241277227
27.
RefouaE.RafaeliE. (2023). Responsive support: A matter of psychological need fulfillment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 54, 101691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101691
28.
ReisH. T. (2017). The interpersonal process model of intimacy: Maintaining intimacy through self-disclosure and responsiveness. In: FitzgeraldJ. (Ed.), Foundations for couples’ therapy: Research for the real world (pp. 216–225). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
29.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In: MashekD. J.AronA. P. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
30.
ReisH. T.CrastaD.RoggeR. D.ManiaciM. R.CarmichaelC. L. (2017). Perceived partner responsiveness scale (PPRS). In: The sourcebook of listening research (pp. 516–521). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
31.
ReisH. T.ShaverP. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In: DuckS.HayD. F.HobfollS. E.IckesW.MontgomeryB. M. (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley & Sons.
32.
RighettiF.SakalukJ. K.FaureR.ImpettE. A. (2020). The link between sacrifice and relational and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(10), 900–921. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000297
33.
RoblesT. F.SlatcherR. B.TrombelloJ. M.McGinnM. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859
34.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513
35.
StantonS. C. E.ChanA. P. S.GazderT. (2021). Mindfulness, perceived partner responsiveness, and relationship quality: A dyadic longitudinal mediation model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(11), 3310–3332. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211030327
36.
StantonS. C. E.SelcukE.FarrellA. K.SlatcherR. B.OngA. D. (2019). Perceived partner responsiveness, daily negative affect reactivity, and all-cause mortality: A 20-Year longitudinal study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 81(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000618
37.
TasfilizD.SelcukE.GunaydinG.SlatcherR. B.CorrieroE. F.OngA. D. (2018). Patterns of perceived partner responsiveness and well-being in Japan and the United States. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(3), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000378
38.
ThargayT.GiriV. N. (2024a). Marital and life satisfaction in the eastern himalayan foothills: The role of partner responsiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(11), 3456–3479. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241268996
39.
ThargayT.GiriV. N. (2024b). Examining the mediating role of attachment styles between perceived partner responsiveness and marital satisfaction: Evidence from Sikkimese couples. Marriage & Family Review, 60(8), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2024.2411516
40.
ThompsonL.WalkerA. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51(4), 845–871. https://doi.org/10.2307/353201
41.
VerhofstadtL.LemmensG.LemmensG.VanheeG. (2020). Relationship distress: Empirical evidence for a relational need perspective (pp. 281–298): Springer.
42.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
43.
WuD. C.KimH. S.CollinsN. L. (2021). Perceived responsiveness across cultures: The role of cultural fit in social support use. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(9), Article e12634. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12634
44.
YuanW.DuY.JiangT. (2024). How and when awe improves meaning in life: The role of authentic-self pursuit and trait authenticity. Emotion, 24(2), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001278
45.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.Jr.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering baron and kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
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.
