The calm after the storm

Abstract

We examined whether seven relational constructs (satisfaction, commitment, closeness, conflict, ambivalence, maintenance, and love) showed significant within-person residual variance over time (variability), whether couple members were similar in their variability (covariation), and whether variability and covariation differed by relationship length. We used dyadic daily diary data from 157 couples together from 2 months to 44 years. Each relational construct significantly varied within person from day to day, and couple members significantly covaried. Longer term couples generally experienced less variability than newer couples. We also found that for satisfaction, closeness, ambivalence, and love, couple covariation decreased in longer relationships. We discuss how these findings can be used to help individuals work to maintain greater stability in their feelings about the relationship.

Stress and Relationship Functioning in Same‐Sex Couples: The Vulnerabilities of Internalized Homophobia and Outness

“…Longitudinal research has also demonstrated links between commitment and later stability (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2010). Further, daily diary studies have found that commitment demonstrates statistically significant within-person variability across 7 days and is therefore appropriate for examination on a day-to-day basis (Totenhagen, Butler, Curran, & Serido, 2016). Because our data include reports over a 14-day period, which is consistent with our daily diary design, we assessed commitment as a form of relational stability.…”

“…First, given the range of relationship length for couples in the present study (i.e., less than 1 year to 35 years) and the possibility that individual variability and couple covariability may differ in relational constructs in newer versus longer-term relationships (Totenhagen et al, 2016), we computed relationship length in months and centered it around the grand mean to use it as a control variable. First, given the range of relationship length for couples in the present study (i.e., less than 1 year to 35 years) and the possibility that individual variability and couple covariability may differ in relational constructs in newer versus longer-term relationships (Totenhagen et al, 2016), we computed relationship length in months and centered it around the grand mean to use it as a control variable.…”

“…As control variables, relationship length, location, and gender were included in our data analyses. First, given the range of relationship length for couples in the present study (i.e., less than 1 year to 35 years) and the possibility that individual variability and couple covariability may differ in relational constructs in newer versus longer-term relationships (Totenhagen et al, 2016), we computed relationship length in months and centered it around the grand mean to use it as a control variable. Further, we collected data from couples in two locations: Arizona and Alabama.…”

“…With respect to relationship stability, a prospective longitudinal study demonstrated that couples who reported higher stress levels, including external stress (e.g., work-related stress), were more likely to be divorced or separated in 5 years than were those who had reported lower stress levels (Bodenmann & Cina, 2006). Further, daily diary studies have found that commitment demonstrates statistically significant within-person variability across 7 days and is therefore appropriate for examination on a day-to-day basis (Totenhagen, Butler, Curran, & Serido, 2016). Further, daily diary studies have found that commitment demonstrates statistically significant within-person variability across 7 days and is therefore appropriate for examination on a day-to-day basis (Totenhagen, Butler, Curran, & Serido, 2016).…”

Volatility in daily relationship quality

“…To the extent that constructs of interest are significantly associated with this remaining within-person residual variance, these constructs are thus predicting volatility in perceived relationship quality. In SAS PROC MIXED, the repeated statement is what is used to permit the inclusion of between-person predictors of within-person residual variance (see Hoffman, 2007;Totenhagen et al, 2016).…”