Depressive Symptoms and Marital Satisfaction: Within-Subject Associations and the Moderating Effects of Gender and Neuroticism.

Abstract

Given the emphasis on within-subject associations between depression and marital quality in recent theory and practice, this study was undertaken with three goals: to examine within-subject associations between depressive symptoms and marital quality over time, to address gender differences in the magnitude and direction of these associations, and to determine whether neuroticism moderates the strength of these associations. A total of 164 newly wed couples provided 8 waves of data over 4 years of marriage. Hierarchical linear modeling confirmed the existence of bidirectional within-subject associations between marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms. Gender differences were rarely significant. Although neuroticism strengthened the effect of marital distress on symptoms as predicted, it weakened the effect of symptoms on marital distress among husbands. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Individual distress and dyadic adjustment over a three‐year follow‐up period in couple therapy: a bi‐directional relationship?

“…The relational stress generation model proposes that the depressed partner tends to seek negative feedback and excessive reassurance, as well as avoiding conflict through withdrawal. This may increase interpersonal stress experienced by the partner, and hence promote impaired interaction that may subsequently trigger and maintain depression in a relational negative feedback loop (Davila et al, 2003;Falicov, 2003;Joiner, 2000;Segrin and Dillard, 1992). Couple therapy is in such cases recommended as the treatment of choice, as it can identify and break up this vicious cycle, allowing the depressed partner to recover .…”

“…According to the 'relational stress generation model' (Davila et al, 1997), depressed individuals tend to seek negative feedback and excessive reassurance, in addition to avoiding conflicts through withdrawal. As a consequence, the depressed person and the partner increase their interpersonal stress, entering a negative interaction feedback loop that may trigger and maintain depression (Davila et al, 2003;Falicov, 2003;Joiner, 2000;Segrin and Dillard, 1992).…”

Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.

“…In a novel approach to measuring satisfaction, Karney and Bradbury (1997) developed the 15-item Semantic Differential (SMD), assessing satisfaction by asking respondents to rate their relationships on 6-point scales between adjective pairs (e.g., good-bad, enjoyablemiserable). Although this measure has appeared in only four published studies, it has produced longitudinal results that are nearly identical to the MAT and the QMI with an array of constructs from the nomological net surrounding relationship satisfaction (Davila, Karney, Hall, & Bradbury, 2003;Johnson & Bradbury, 1999;Karney & Bradbury, 1997).…”

Emotion regulation in emerging adult couples: Temperament, attachment, and HPA response to conflict

“…More attention has been focused on psychobiological regulation processes in infant-caregiver dyads (e.g., Schore, 1996), yet intimate partnerships throughout life provide a context for the regulation of emotional and physical well-being (Cacioppo, 1994;Hofer, 1984), making biobehavioral coregulation in adult romantic dyads a key target for further study. The way in which a person or couple responds to stressful situations has important implications for mental and physical health; an inability to cope with the stresses that inevitably arise within relationships sets the stage for distressed relationships, which in turn increase the risk for internalizing disorders (Coyne et al, 2002;Davila et al, 2003) and morbidity/mortality (e.g., Helgeson, 1991;Hibbard & Pope, 1993). Physiological stress response, as measured by the output of the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, offers a promising route by which relationship stress might lead to such disorders, given that dysregulation of this system consistently characterizes depressive and/or anxiety disorders (e.g., Butler & Nemeroff, 1990;Young et al, 2004), as well as impaired cardiovascular and immune function (Glaser & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1994;Kuhn, 1989).…”