When examining the associations between personality traits and partner relationships, the majority of studies have focused on the one-way effects of personality traits on the quality and stability of relationships. Recent work, however, has shown that relationships likewise retroact on personality traits and their development. Apart from these mutual influences, recent studies have also emphasized the necessity of considering both members of a couple in order to understand how their personalities and perceptions of the relationship interact. We review the status quo of research on personality-relationship transactions and outline suggestions for future research that move the focus from predicting the interplay between the two domains to explaining how personality traits and partner relationships dynamically interact. Specifically, we propose the need for (a) a functional perspective on personality traits, (b) a differentiated view of behavior, and (c) acknowledgment of the dynamic nature of traits and relationships in appropriate analysis models.
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (1995). (See References). A seminal review of intrapersonal effects of personality on relationship quality and stability.
2.
MagnussonD.TörestadB. (1993). A holistic view of personality: A model revisited. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 427–452. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002235.An accessible article detailing the paradigm of dynamic transactionism.
3.
NeyerF. J.MundM.ZimmermannJ.WrzusC. (2014). (See References). A recent take on the paradigm of dynamic transactionism and its association with life events and health.
4.
ReisH. T.CollinsW. A.BerscheidE. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.6.844.An insightful review on the importance of social relationships for personality development.
5.
BackM. D.BaumertA.DenissenJ. J. A.HartungF.-M.PenkeL.SchmukleS. C.. . . WrzusC. (2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25, 90–107. doi:10.1002/per.811
6.
BlochL.HaaseC. M.LevensonR. W. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: More than a wives’ tale. Emotion, 14, 130–144. doi:10.1037/a0034272
7.
CaughlinJ. P.HustonT. L.HoutsR. M. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326–336. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.326
8.
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, 690–702. doi:10.1037/a0020385
9.
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
10.
FinnC.MitteK.NeyerF. J. (2015). Recent decreases in specific interpretation biases predict decreases in neuroticism: Evidence from a longitudinal study with young adult couples. Journal of Personality, 83, 274–286. doi:10.1111/jopy.12102
11.
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, 340–354. doi:10.1177/0146167200265007
12.
GonzagaG. C.CamposB.BradburyT. N. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 34–48.
13.
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, 390–402. doi:10.1111/jopy.12016
14.
HagemeyerB.SchönbrodtF. D.NeyerF. J.NeberichW.AsendorpfJ. B. (2015). When “together” means “too close”: Agency motives and relationship functioning in co-resident and living-apart-together couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 813–835.
15.
ImpettE. A.GordonA. M.KoganA.OveisC.GableS. L.KeltnerD. (2010). Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long-term consequences of approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 948–963.
16.
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
17.
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075
18.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
LehnartJ.NeyerF. J.EcclesJ. (2010). Long-term effects of social investment: The case of partnering in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 78, 639–670. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00629.x
20.
MalouffJ. M.ThorsteinssonE. B.SchutteN. S.BhullarN.RookeS. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124–127. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004
21.
McAdamsD. P.PalsJ. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.
22.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of personality. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
MundM.FinnC.HagemeyerB.ZimmermannJ.NeyerF. J. (2015). The dynamics of self-esteem in partner relationships. European Journal of Personality, 29, 235–249. doi:10.1002/per.1984
24.
MundM.NeyerF. J. (2014). Treating personality-relationship transactions with respect: Narrow facets, advanced models, and extended time frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 352–368. doi:10.1037/a0036719
25.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.CollinsN. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641
NeyerF. J.WrzusC.WagnerJ.LangF. R. (2011). Principles of relationship differentiation. European Psychologist, 16, 267–277. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000055
28.
OrthU. (2013). How large are actor and partner effects of personality on relationship satisfaction? The importance of controlling for shared method variance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1359–1372.
29.
RobertsB. W.MroczekD. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 31–35. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x
30.
SolomonB. C.JacksonJ. J. (2014). Why do personality traits predict divorce? Multiple pathways through satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 978–996. doi:10.1037/a0036190
31.
UmbersonD.WilliamsK.PowersD. A.ChenM. D.CampbellA. M. (2005). As good as it gets? A life course perspective on marital quality. Social Forces, 84, 493–511. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0131
32.
VaterA.Schröder-AbéM. (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
33.
WagnerJ.BeckerM.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU. (2015). The first partnership experience and personality development: A propensity score matching study in young adulthood. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 6, 455–463. doi:10.1177/1948550614566092
