Taking stock of the longitudinal study of romantic couple relationships: The last 20 years

Abstract

Longitudinal dyadic research provides significant benefits for our understanding of romantic couple relationships. In this systematic review, we begin by providing a broad overview of topical trends and approaches in longitudinal couple relationships research from 2002 through 2021. Then, we narrow our review to dyadic relationship quality articles, highlighting key themes as well as noting important gaps in the research. Using an intersectional perspective that acknowledges multiple ways that disadvantage, power, and oppression may be seen in both research and in couples' lived experience, we note prominent paradigms used in examining couple relationships, what types of questions have been most valued, and what groups and approaches are underrepresented in the literature. Most longitudinal couple relationships research is quantitative, relies on self‐report approaches from American couples in the early‐to‐middle years of their relationships, concentrates more on negative aspects of relationships than positives, and takes a communication‐satisfaction paradigm in studying couples. We see a clear need to increase the use of methodologies beyond self‐report measures, conduct more studies with within‐group minority, older adult, culturally‐diverse, and context‐specific samples to explore the diversity of relationships, and fully consider both strengths and positive processes in relationships as well as the challenges couples experience.

Racial discrimination and romantic relationship dynamics among Black Americans: A systematic review

“…Consequently, there was little examination of these processes in the empirical literature, with most research focused on the effects of discrimination on romantic relationships at a single point in time during early-to-middle adulthood (see Sutton et al, 2020 for exception). This is consistent with findings from another recent review examining longitudinal and dyadic research on romantic relationships, which found that studies assessing the links between discrimination and relationship functioning overtime were scant (Galovan et al, 2022). Accordingly, we view the lack of research on middle and older aged Black American couples as a critical and urgent gap in the literature given the recent findings showing that individuals in middle and older adulthood whose partners experience racial discrimination may be at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (Barr et al, 2022) and accelerated aging (Simons et al, 2021).…”

More–than–relationship quality: A feminist new materialist analysis of relationship quality and the potential of digital couple interventions

“…The empirical attention given to the study of couple relationships is thus arguably “inversely proportional to conceptual analysis of the central construct studied” (Fincham & Rogge, 2010, p. 227). What constitutes relationship quality, how to assess it, and the underpinning dyadic structure remain largely unchallenged (Galovan et al, 2022) and the factors that characterize high quality relationships are often underspecified (Galovan et al, 2023).…”

“…The underlying premises of relationship quality continue to rely upon reified cultural norms and predominantly White, highly educated, high income married couples living in the USA or UK (Galovan et al, 2023). This presupposes that all couples share the capacity to attain, identify, and manifest relationship quality, a heteronormative assumption that we have called into question earlier on in relation to the display of LGBTQ+ parent family practices (Gabb, 2011b).…”

“…The prevailing definition of a healthy romantic relationship is one that adds to each partner's personal well-being and where both partners work together to meet their individual and combined needs (Finkel & Simpson, 2015). Relationships are typically categorized as healthy through measures of relationship satisfaction (Schramm et al, 2017) which implicate a more individualistic "communication-satisfaction" paradigm of couple relationships (Galovan et al, 2023), as opposed to a strongly relational view (Galovan & Schramm, 2018). Pulling from both paradigms, characteristics of a healthy relationship include good communication, mutual trust and respect, and an ability to successfully manage disagreement and conflict.…”

Dyadic longitudinal models: A critical review

“…However, if they hypothesize dyadic or relationship processes, then the CFGM approach is more appropriate to address the questions of interest. The conceptual distinction of individual vs. dyadic processes has been discussed by relationship researchers for decades (see Fowers & Richardson, 1996; Galovan et al, 2022). To facilitate this decision, Table 5 displays a few key properties of the three dyadic longitudinal models covered in this article, along with citations that provide programming code for different specifications of those models.…”