Consequences of interpersonal spin on couple-relevant goal progress and relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2015, Vol. 109, No. 4, 722–737

© 2015 American Psychological Association 0022-3514/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000043

Consequences of Interpersonal Spin on Couple-Relevant Goal Progress and Relationship Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships Gentiana Sadikaj, Lance M. Rappaport, D. S. Moskowitz, David C. Zuroff, and Richard Koestner

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

McGill University

Theodore Powers University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Large fluctuations in a person’s interpersonal behavior across situations and over time are thought to be associated with poor personal and interpersonal outcomes. This study examined 2 outcomes, relationship satisfaction and goal progress, that could be associated with individual differences in dispersion of interpersonal behavior (interpersonal spin) in romantic relationships. Need satisfaction and perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit from the partner were examined as mediator variables. Spin was measured using an event-contingent recording (ECR) methodology with a sample of 93 cohabiting couples who reported their interpersonal behavior in interactions with each other during a 20-day period. Relationship satisfaction and goal completion were measured at the end of the ECR procedure (T2) and approximately 7 months after the ECR (T3). Need satisfaction and perceived autonomy support were measured at T2. In both genders, higher spin was associated with lower T2 relationship satisfaction. There was also a decline in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 among men with high spin partners. In both genders, higher spin was associated with lower need satisfaction, and lower need satisfaction was associated with a decline in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3. In both genders, higher spin was associated with lower perceived autonomy support, and lower support was associated with decreased progress in goal completion from T2 to T3. The effects of spin were independent of the effects of mean levels of behavior. These findings extend the understanding of the detrimental consequences of dispersion in interpersonal behavior to the disruption of the person’s romantic relationships. Keywords: interpersonal spin, within-person variability, close relationships

variability in interpersonal behavior. A recent study suggests that such variability in interpersonal behavior is related to poor social outcomes in the work context (Côté, Moskowitz, & Zuroff, 2012). The present study sought to investigate consequences of variability in a person’s interpersonal behavior, or spin (Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004), on romantic relationships using an event-contingent recording (ECR) methodology and a longitudinal panel design. Specifically, we explored the effects of spin on satisfaction with the relationship and progress on goals relevant to the couple (i.e., couple goals). We further examined whether the satisfaction of basic needs within the relationship and perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit by the partner were key variables through which spin exerted its effect on relationship satisfaction and progress on couple goals.

Interpersonal behavior is characterized both by cross-situational consistency and cross-situational variability. Although the consequences of stable interpersonal traits, such as Agreeableness, on social functioning are well established (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007), little is known about the consequences of intrapersonal cross-situational

This article was published Online First May 4, 2015. Gentiana Sadikaj, Lance M. Rappaport, D. S. Moskowitz, David C. Zuroff, and Richard Koestner, Department of Psychology, McGill University; Theodore Powers, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Some of the results reported in this article were previously presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Interpersonal Theory and Research in New Haven, Connecticut (June 2014). This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship 753-2013-0499-A14 and Grant 410-2010-1168. We thank Kevin Jamey, Kayleigh-Ann Clegg, and Sara Del Bello for their assistance with data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gentiana Sadikaj, Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1 Canada. E-mail: gentiana.sadikaj@ mail.mcgill.ca

Spin in Interpersonal Behavior Interpersonal behavior has been found to manifest sizable and patterned intrapersonal cross-situational variability (Fournier, Moskowitz, & Zuroff, 2008). One form of intrapersonal variability, referred to as spin, characterizes the range and extremity of a person’s interpersonal behavior around the person’s typical (i.e., mean) interpersonal behavior that unfolds across situations and over time (Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004). Past research on spin has 722


INTERPERSONAL SPIN AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

sampled behaviors from the domain of behaviors defined by the interpersonal circumplex model, which organizes interpersonal behavior around a circle demarcated by the two orthogonal dimensions of agency and communion (Wiggins, 1991). Communal behaviors ranging from warm–agreeable to cold– quarrelsome behaviors represent acts that foster social ties. Agentic behaviors ranging from assertive– dominant to unassertive–submissive behaviors reflect acts that strive to achieve mastery and power relative to others. Thus, spin characterizes the extent to which a person’s interpersonal behavioral style fluctuates around the interpersonal circle across situations and over time. Like other measures of intrapersonal variability (Baird, Le, & Lucas, 2006; Fleeson, 2001; Larsen, 1989), spin represents a stable, individual difference characteristic (Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004). Spin can be conceived of as an index of the consistency with which interpersonal behaviors are enacted by the person across situations and over time. Theoreticians have suggested that high intrapersonal variability in personality is associated with psychological and social maladjustment (Block, 1961; Maslow, 1968; but see, e.g., Paulhus & Martin, 1988, for a different view), and several studies have supported this view. For example, Gruber, Kogan, Quoidbach, and Mauss (2013) found that relative to less variable individuals, individuals with higher intrapersonal variability in positive affect report lower psychological well-being as reflected in lower life satisfaction and higher negative affect (for a meta-analytic review, see Houben, Van den Noortgate, & Kuppens, in press). Interpersonal spin has been found to be elevated among individuals with impaired interpersonal functioning, such as individuals low on five-factor Agreeableness, high on Neuroticism, (Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2005), high on irritability Moskowitz, Zuroff, aan het Rot, & Young, 2011), or high on self-criticism (Kopala-Sibley, Rappaport, Sutton, Moskowitz, & Zuroff, 2013) and elevated among individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (Russell, Moskowitz, Zuroff, Sookman, & Paris, 2007). Côté et al. (2012) documented some of the consequences of spin in work relationships. Individuals with high spin were found to feel less close to their coworkers. Coworkers reported low levels of dyadic satisfaction and a tendency to avoid high spinners, especially those with whom they were well acquainted. Moreover, interactions with high spin individuals were characterized by more negative affect, which partially accounted for the coworkers’ tendency to maintain distance from the high spinners. These findings raise the question of whether the effects of spin generalize across relationship contexts. Therefore the goal of the present study was to explore whether spin affects romantic relationship outcomes.

Intrapersonal Variability and Adjustment in Romantic Relationship A few studies have examined the influence of intrapersonal variability on adjustment in romantic relationships (Arriaga, 2001; Arriaga, Reed, Goodfriend, & Agnew, 2006; Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Rubin, 2010). The focus of these studies has been on intrapersonal variability in relationship-related cognitions, such as perceptions of the partner’s commitment or evaluation of relationship quality, over periods lasting from 20 days to a few months. Consistent with the view that intrapersonal variability predicts psychological and interpersonal maladjustment, findings from

723

these studies reveal both within-partner and cross-partner effects of variability on relationship adjustment. Thus, within-partner associations have been found between high variability in relationship-related cognitions and (a) destructive behavior and emotional distress in conflict situations (Campbell et al., 2010), (b) lower relationship commitment (Arriaga, 2001), and (c) increased likelihood of relationship breakup (Arriaga, 2001; Arriaga et al., 2006). In addition, a person’s high variability in relationship quality evaluations has been found to account for the partner’s destructive behavior in conflict situations (Campbell et al., 2010). Although these studies have focused exclusively on consequences of variability in relationship-related cognitions, they are consistent with the proposition that spin, or intrapersonal variability in interpersonal behavior, may be associated with poor outcomes in romantic relationship.

Spin and Relationship Satisfaction Greater range and dispersion in interpersonal behavior represented by spin may indicate inconsistency (i.e., greater shifts) in a person’s interpersonal behavior. These greater shifts in interpersonal behavior across situations and over time may communicate a sense of unpredictability in the person’s behavior to the partner. Increased unpredictability may be associated with increases in a partner’s sensitivity to negative relationship events (Campbell et al., 2010; Surra & Hughes, 1997) and lead to heightened relationship distress and diminished relationship satisfaction (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Jacobson, Follette, & McDonald, 1982). Inconsistent responding by the high spin person may also indicate rejection and disregard of the partner or indicate an attempt to control or challenge the partner, thereby thwarting satisfaction of the partner’s basic psychological needs, particularly the needs for relatedness (i.e., desire to feel connected to, loved, and understood by others), competence (i.e., need to feel effective in one’s efforts and to attain desired outcomes), and autonomy (i.e., need to feel volitional in one’s behavior and to experience this behavior as originating from and being concordant with one’s sense of self). As defined in the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the satisfaction of the basic needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy within the relationship support the operation of salutary relationship processes, such as intimacy and emotional reliance, and inhibit the workings of destructive relationship processes, such as relational conflicts and transgressions (Blais, Sabourin, Boucher, & Vallerand, 1990; Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006; Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Nanayakkara, & Neighbors, 2002; La Guardia & Patrick, 2008; Patrick, Knee, Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007). To the extent that a person’s high spin undermines the partner’s basic need satisfaction and to the extent that such satisfaction is central to relationship adjustment (Hazan & Shaver, 1994; La Guardia & Patrick, 2008), high spin by the person may weaken the partner’s relationship satisfaction by frustrating the satisfaction of the partner’s needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. High spin persons may also experience their relationships as unsatisfying. Their interpersonal style may push their partner away, as reflected in the perception of distance from others among high spin persons (Côté et al., 2012). Perception of distance may diminish the experience and development of intimacy, considered

SADIKAJ ET AL.

724

to be a key ingredient of satisfied relationships (Sternberg, 1986). As lack of intimacy in a romantic relationship is associated with lower need satisfaction (Prager & Buhrmester, 1998), high spin persons may experience their relationship as unsatisfying because of lower need satisfaction.


Spin and Couple-Relevant Goal Progress High spin persons may make less progress toward completion of the couple’s goals. Their interpersonal style may distract them from goal-oriented behavior, including goals established for the relationship. Inconsistent responding of the high spin person may also hinder the partner’s progress toward realizing goals by undermining the partner’s efforts to coordinate and engage in joint goal-oriented behavior. Furthermore, inconsistent responding may lead the partner to perceive the high spin person as unable to provide necessary autonomy support as reflected in an absence of acknowledgment of the partner’s individualism, excessive control and pressure, and a lack of encouragement of choices and options (Koestner, Powers, Carbonneau, Milyavskaya, & Chua, 2012). Given that a partner’s autonomy support enhances internalization of and autonomous motivation for goals (Koestner et al., 2012; Koestner, Powers, Milyavskaya, Carbonneau, & Hope, 2014), a high spin person may hinder the partner’s progress toward goal completion by not providing autonomy support, thereby undermining the partner’s autonomous motivation for goal pursuit.

relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3. Finally, we expected that the person’s need satisfaction would partially account for the within-partner and cross-partner effects of spin on change in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3. Analogous effects were expected between spin and goal progress, with autonomy support serving as the mediator. It was expected that, relative to low spin participants, high spin participants would make lower goal progress at T2 which would continue to T3. Moreover, we expected a cross-partner effect of spin on goal progress such that partners of high spin participants, compared with partners of low spin participants, would report less goal progress at T2 which would continue to T3. We expected a within-partner effect of spin on perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit by the partner such that participants with high spin would report lower perceived support than participants with low spin. We also expected a cross-partner effect of spin on perceived autonomy support such that, relative to partners of low spin participants, partners of high spin participants would report lower perceived support by high spin participants. We anticipated a mediation effect such that perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit would partially account for the within-partner and crosspartner effects of spin on goal progress from T2 to T3. Finally, we expected that the effects of spin on the mediators (e.g., need satisfaction) and dependent variables (e.g., relationship satisfaction) were independent of the effects of both partners’ mean communal behavior and agentic behavior on these mediators and dependent variables.

Overview of the Present Study We examined the proposition that high intrapersonal variability in interpersonal behavior as represented by high spin has a negative influence on relationship satisfaction and couple-relevant goal completion. We combined an ECR method, which permitted us to estimate spin, with a longitudinal panel design that allowed us to measure change in relationship satisfaction and goal completion over time. We expected both within-partner (i.e., the effect of participant’s independent variable on the participant’s dependent variable) and cross-partner (i.e., the effect of participant’s independent variable on the partner’s dependent variable) effects of spin on both relationship satisfaction and couple-relevant goal progress. It was expected that, relative to low spin participants, high spin participants would have poor quality relationships that would be reflected in high spin participants’ lower satisfaction at Time 2 (T2) and a decline in satisfaction from T2 to Time 3 (T3). Moreover, we expected a cross-partner effect of spin on satisfaction such that partners of high spin participants, compared with partners of low spin participants, would report lower satisfaction at T2 and a decline in partner satisfaction from T2 to T3. We were interested in exploring whether the satisfaction of basic needs might account, in part, for (mediate) the within-partner and cross-partner effects of spin on relationship satisfaction. We expected a within-partner effect of spin on need satisfaction such that participants with high spin would report lower need satisfaction than participants with low spin. We also expected a crosspartner effect of spin on need satisfaction such that, relative to partners of low spin participants, partners of high spin participants would report lower need satisfaction. We expected that a person’s lower need satisfaction would account for the person’s decrease in

Method Participants Participants were cohabiting heterosexual couples from the community who were recruited through advertisements in local newspapers, a wedding planning event organized by vendors, and free online classifieds (e.g., craigslist.ca). Both members of a couple were invited to participate in a study about social interactions between romantic partners if they had been cohabiting for at least 6 months, had no children living in their household, and held at least a part-time job. Of 135 couples who agreed to participate in the study, 93 (69%) couples completed the ECR procedure and mailed their forms daily, thereby providing usable data. Dropouts did not differ from individuals who completed the ECR procedure with regard to age or length of cohabitation. There was some attrition over the course of the longitudinal procedure. Of the 93 couples who completed the ECR procedure and the first measurement of the longitudinal procedure (T2), both partners of 55 (59%) couples and one partner from 26 (28%) couples participated in the second measurement (T3), for a total of 136 participants (73%). Participants who did not participate at T2 did not differ from those who did participate at T3 with regard to their age, spin, relationship satisfaction, length of cohabitation, extent of goal completion at T2, and perceived autonomy support from the partner. Relative to participants who completed T3 measurement, dropouts reported lower need satisfaction at T2 (b ⫽ ⫺.75, z ⫽ ⫺2.13, p ⬍ .05). Eight of the 81 couples for whom information about their relationship status was available at T2 had separated over the course of the study. Separated couples reported neither higher spin



(b ⫽ .17, z ⫽ 1.27, ns) nor less goal completion at T2 than did intact couples (b ⫽ ⫺.26, z ⫽ ⫺.67, ns). Separated couples did report less relationship satisfaction than intact couples at T2 (b ⫽ ⫺1.01, z ⫽ ⫺4.59, p ⬍ .001), less perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit by the partner (b ⫽ ⫺.42, z ⫽ ⫺3.69, p ⬍ .001), and less need satisfaction (b ⫽ ⫺2.01, z ⫽ ⫺2.92, p ⬍ .01). Separated and intact couples were not different with respect to age and length of cohabitation. The sample was heterogeneous with regard to age, education, ethnicity, first language, relationship length, and cohabitation length (see Table 1). This same sample was used by Côté et al. (2012; Study 3), who examined the effect of spin on work relationships. There is no overlap between the results reported in this article and the previous one.

725

avoid discussing the study with their partner. To ensure compliance with the ECR procedure, we asked participants to mail the forms on the day following their completion. We examined the forms upon their arrival to ensure that they were completed correctly and mailed in a timely fashion. At the end of the ECR procedure, participants came for the first occasion (T2) of the longitudinal procedure, during which they completed a measure of relationship satisfaction, goal completion, and autonomy support for goal pursuit. Six to eight months later, participants were invited to complete an online survey (T3), which inquired about their relationship satisfaction, relationship stability, and goal completion. Participants received $160 for the completion of the ECR and T2 measures and $15 for participating at T3.

Measures Procedure A first meeting (Time 1; T1) was arranged during which participants learned about the study, including the ECR procedure, and gave their consent to participate. They also identified a set of personal goals and goals relevant to the couple and completed demographic and personality questionnaires. Participants were asked to complete ECR forms following social interactions of at least 5-min duration on each day for the next 20 days. They were given 10 forms to complete per day. Participants were instructed to complete the ECR forms for interactions involving different kinds of interaction partners (e.g., friend, coworker) and to try to report at least 2–3 daily interactions that involved their romantic partner. Participants were advised to complete the forms in private and to

Relationship satisfaction (Spanier, 1976). The satisfaction subscale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale was administered at T2 and T3. The subscale consists of 10 items that measure perceived stability of and satisfaction with the romantic relationship. Participants were instructed to rate their agreement with each of the statements using a mixture of response scales. Sample items are “How often do you discuss or have considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship?”; “In general, how often do you think things between you and your partner are going well?”; and “How often do you and your mate quarrel?” The mean of item scores was used as the subscale score, with higher scores indicating higher levels of satisfaction. Omega (McDonald, 1978) was used to calculate reliability as reflected in shared variance of the

Table 1 Sample Characteristics Variable

M

SD

Age Men Women Relationship lengtha Cohabitation lengtha Weekly working hours Men Women Educationb Less than high school High school or trade school 1 year of college/university or more University graduate Postgraduate degree Doctoral degree Ethnicityc White East Asian Southeast Asian West Indian Black Hispanic Other First language English French Other

29.09 30.28 27.89 50.69 36.27 37.66 39.09 36.23

7.47 7.94 6.80 59.17 56.50 8.89 9.35 8.22

a The unit for relationship length and cohabitation length is month. participant. c Information was missing for five participants.

Proportion (%)

Range 18.00–54.00 18.00–54.00 18.00–53.00 8.00–384.00 7.00–379.00 0.00–80.00 0.00–65.00 4.00–80.00

0.5 12 36 34 17 1 70 3 4 2 4 9 8 47 25 28 b

Information was missing for one

SADIKAJ ET AL.


726

the mean of the item scores for the domain-specific goals; higher scores indicated higher levels of goal completion. Based on the heterogeneity of goals reported, goal progress was not expected to occur equally on all three reported goals. Therefore, reliability of goal progress over couple-relevant goals was inappropriate. Rather, goal progress was aggregated over goals to form a measure of overall progress. Need satisfaction. Participants completed the Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationship Scale (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000) at T2. Consisting of 9 items rated from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true), the scale assesses the extent to which participants perceive that their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met in their relationship with the partner. Subscale scores for autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs are calculated by averaging the three respective items, with higher scores reflecting greater need satisfaction. Sample items are “When I am with my partner, I feel free to be who I am” (autonomy); “When I am with my partner, I feel very capable and effective” (competence); and “When I am with my partner, I feel loved and cared about” (relatedness). Subscale omegas were in the fair to high range (Autonomy: men ⫽ .74; women ⫽ .73; Competence: men ⫽ 82, women ⫽ .78; Relatedness: men ⫽ .68, women ⫽ .76). Omega for the full scale was high (men ⫽ .88, women ⫽ .87). In the following analysis, the overall need satisfaction was represented by a latent variable indicated by the three need satisfaction subscales. Using Mplus (Version 7.2; Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2012), the CFA model fit was excellent in both men and women: comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ 1.00; root-meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .00; standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) ⫽ .00. Furthermore, the need satisfaction scale demonstrated measurement invariance across

items with the underlying construct (Geldhof, Preacher, & Zyphur, 2014). Omega was high for both men and women on each occasion of measurement; T2: Men ⫽ .87; Women ⫽ .92 and T3: Men ⫽ .89; Women ⫽ .94. Satisfaction scores were correlated both within-partner and across-partners at both occasions (see Table 2). Goal identification. At the introductory meeting, participants were asked to identify up to three personal goals and three goals they were pursuing jointly with their romantic partner (i.e., couple goals). The present study focuses on the couple goals but uses the personal goals as controls in supplemental analyses. Instructions asked participants to think of “goals and projects that they think about, hope for, and try to accomplish . . . in your life at the moment . . . [which] . . . may be related to any life domain, such as education, work, family, or self-related issues.” Examples of personal goals include “Learn a new program at work”; “Find another job”; “Learn to play guitar”; “Eat healthier”; and “Lose 10 pounds.” Examples of couple goals are “Going ice skating”; “Planning our honeymoon”; “Stabilize our financial situation”; “Reenergize passion in our couple life”; and “Buy a house.” The mean number of personal goals identified by participants was 2.81 (SD ⫽ 0.48, range ⫽ 1–3). Participants identified a mean of 2.70 couple goals (SD ⫽ 0.60, range ⫽ 1–3). One participant did not identify any personal goals, and two participants did not list any couple goals. Goal completion. At T2 and T3, we gave each participant the set of goals the participant had identified at the introductory meeting and asked the participant how much progress had been made on each of the goals since the previous contact, that is, 3 weeks previous to T2 or approximately seven months previous to T3. A 7-point scale rating scale was used; the endpoints were labeled 1 (not very much progress) and 7 (great progress). Goal progress in each domain (personal vs. couple) was calculated using Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Study Variables Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. M SD

1

M: Spin — W: Spin .46ⴱⴱⴱ M: T2RS ⫺.32ⴱⴱⴱ W: T2RS ⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ M: T3RS ⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ W: T3RS ⫺.17† M: T2GC ⫺.08 W: T2GC ⫺.06 M: T3GC ⫺.19ⴱⴱ W: T3GC ⫺.11 M: T2AS ⫺.36ⴱⴱⴱ W: T2AS ⫺.44ⴱⴱⴱ M: NSa ⫺.34ⴱⴱⴱ W: NSa ⫺.41ⴱⴱⴱ M: MCO ⫺.83ⴱⴱⴱ W: MCO ⫺.34ⴱⴱⴱ M: MAG ⫺.40ⴱⴱⴱ W: MAG ⫺.12† 1.02 0.30

2 — ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.52ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.08 ⫺.11 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.34ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.34ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.83ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.12† ⫺.40ⴱⴱⴱ 1.07 0.29

3

— .74ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .66ⴱⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱⴱ .21† .57ⴱⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱⴱ .83ⴱⴱⴱ .70ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱ .12 .03 .10 3.99 0.55

4

5

6

7

— .59ⴱⴱⴱ — .71ⴱⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱⴱ — .21ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱ .06 — .22ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ † ⴱ ⴱ .18 .22 .25 .00 .25ⴱⴱ .25ⴱ .22ⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .62ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .88ⴱⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .11 .17ⴱ .07 .05 .16ⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱ .04 .09 .11 ⫺.08 .15ⴱ .03 .28ⴱⴱⴱ .11 .11† 3.97 3.90 3.89 4.44 0.63 0.72 0.67 1.30

8

— .27ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .04 .05 .11† .15ⴱ 3.95 1.38

9

— .28ⴱ .34ⴱⴱⴱ .20† .31ⴱⴱ .26ⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .09 .15ⴱ .06 4.65 1.57

10

— .20† .34ⴱⴱⴱ .26ⴱ .45ⴱⴱⴱ .09 .21ⴱⴱ .06 .15ⴱ 4.79 1.57

11

— .46ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .55ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .13† .17ⴱⴱ 5.36 0.98

12

13

— .55ⴱⴱ — .78ⴱⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .21ⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .16ⴱ .13† .04 5.48 0.00 1.10 1.00

14

15

16

— .19ⴱ .21ⴱ .21ⴱ .16ⴱ 0.00 1.00

— .26ⴱⴱ .17ⴱ .13ⴱ 0.33 0.14

— .13ⴱ .17ⴱ 0.27 0.13

17

18

— .03 — 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.10

Note. M ⫽ men’s variables; W ⫽ women’s variables; T2RS ⫽ relationship satisfaction at Time 2 (T2); T3RS ⫽ relationship satisfaction at Time 3 (T3); T2GC ⫽ goal completion at T2; T3GC ⫽ goal completion at T3; T2AS ⫽ need satisfaction at T2; NS ⫽ need satisfaction; MCO ⫽ mean communal behavior; MAG ⫽ mean agentic behavior. a Need satisfaction was modeled as a latent variable with a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. † p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.



men and women. The correlation coefficient between partners’ latent factor scores was .70 (p ⬍ .001). Autonomy support for goal pursuit. A 5-item measure used to assess perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit from the partner (Koestner et al., 2012) was administered at T2. Based on self-determination theory, autonomy support is defined as support consisting of empathic, perspective taking of a person’s needs and feelings, and the provision of choices and alternatives as opposed to the exertion of control and pressure (Koestner et al., 2012; Powers, Koestner, & Gorin, 2008). The items were written to apply to the perceived support from the current partner with regard to various kinds of goals. A sample item is, “I feel that my partner understands how I see things with respect to my goals.” Participants rated support using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). The mean item score was calculated as an index of autonomous support from the partner, with higher scores indicating higher levels of support. Prior research using variants of this measure has provided evidence for its construct validity by demonstrating that scores are linked in theoretically predicted ways to specific outcomes, such as weight loss, goal pursuit, and goal perseverance (Gorin, Powers, Koestner, Wing, & Raynor, 2014; Koestner et al., 2012, 2014; Powers et al., 2008). In the present sample, omega was acceptable for both men (.72) and women (.77). Partners’ support scores were correlated (r ⫽ .49, p ⬍ .001). Event-contingent recording. The ECR form requested information about the time and place of the interaction, and the participant’s interpersonal behavior, affect, and perception of others. Participant’s interpersonal behavior in interactions involving the romantic partner was used in the present study. The number of reported interactions (M ⫽ 55.79, SD ⫽ 18.51, range ⫽ 10 –127) was unrelated to couples’ relationship satisfaction, length of relationship, and length of cohabitation. Interpersonal behavior. The Social Behavior Inventory (SBI; Moskowitz, 1994) was used to measure interpersonal behavior based on the interpersonal circumplex model (Wiggins, 1991). The SBI consists of 12 items measuring each of the four poles of the interpersonal circle. Quarrelsome behaviors were represented by items such as “I made a sarcastic comment.” An example of an item representing agreeableness is “I smiled and laughed with others.” Dominance was measured by items such as “I asked the other to do something,” whereas submissiveness was measured by items such as “I gave in.” Participants were asked to indicate the behaviors they had engaged in during each interaction. To guard against the possibility of participants adopting a response set, four forms were used in a daily rotation; each dimension of behavior was represented by three items on each of the four forms. Calculation of behavioral scores at the event level. Four behavioral scores representing each pole of the interpersonal circle were constructed for each event. First, frequencies (0 to 3) of item endorsement for each behavioral scale were calculated. Second, a score for each scale was calculated by computing the mean frequency of the behaviors corresponding to the scale. Third, ipsatized scores were constructed by subtracting the mean frequency for all behaviors from each scale score. Thus, an ipsatized behavior score reflects the frequency with which behaviors corresponding to the trait are checked after adjusting for a participant’s general rate of responding. Event-level communal behavior scores were calculated by subtracting quarrelsome behavior from agreeable behav-

727

ior. Event-level scores for agentic behavior were calculated by subtracting submissive behavior from dominant behavior. Calculation of behavioral scores at the person level. Person mean communal and mean agentic scores were constructed by aggregating the communal and agentic event-level scores, respectively, across all interactions for each person. Calculation of spin scores. The communal and agentic scores for each interaction were treated as Cartesian coordinates (x, y). They were transformed to polar coordinates (r, ␪), where ␪ was expressed in radians. Spin, which conceptually is equivalent to the standard deviation of ␪, was calculated using Mardia’s (1972) formula for the circular standard deviation (see Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004, p. 885). Spin scores have been demonstrated to be temporally stable when calculated on at least 7 days (Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004). In the present sample, the correlation of spin scores based on the events from the first half and second half of the ECR procedure was very high: .99 and .98, in men and women, respectively. Partners’ spin scores were moderately correlated (r ⫽ .48, p ⬍ .001).

Results Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics are presented at the bottom of Table 2. Consistent with prior research (Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999), relationship satisfaction decreased between the two time points (T2 ⫺ T3 difference ⫽ ⫺.12, z ⫽ ⫺2.40, p ⬍ .05). Few gender differences were found. There were no gender differences in spin, relationship satisfaction at T2 and T3, extent of goal completion at T3, perception of autonomy support, and fulfillment of the needs for relatedness and competence. Men reported greater couple goal completion at T2 (difference ⫽ .62, z ⫽ 4.67, p ⬍ .001), and greater fulfillment of their need for autonomy than women (difference ⫽ .38, z ⫽ 3.63, p ⬍ .001). Within-partner and cross-partner correlations were estimated using Mplus (Version 7.2) and are presented in Table 2. Gender differences in the strength of these correlations were explored by using the rescaled ⫺2 log likelihood difference test between the model in which gender-specific parameters were freely estimated and the model in which these parameters were constrained to equality. Inspection of these results indicates that men and women generally had similar patterns of correlations among the variables studied.

Analytical Strategy To model the nonindependence in the dyadic data, the actor– partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) in a latent modeling framework was adopted. As both partners’ scores are modeled concurrently, the nonindependence is estimated by permitting the residuals of both partners’ dependent variables to correlate and by examining the causal effects of one partner’s independent variables on the other partner’s dependent variables. Relationship satisfaction and goal completion at T2 and T3 were the dependent variables. Spin was the independent variable. Autonomy support for goal pursuit and need satisfaction at T2 were the mediator variables.

SADIKAJ ET AL.


728

Figure 1 presents the basic APIM model in which spin predicts relationship outcomes (i.e., satisfaction and goal completion) directly and indirectly via the mediators. Two such models were constructed examining the direct and indirect effects of spin on each outcome separately: (a) spin on relationship satisfaction via need satisfaction, and (b) spin on extent of completion of couple goals via autonomy support for goal pursuit. Given that model building proceeded in the same way in both models, we describe the procedure only for the model in which the outcome was relationship satisfaction and the mediator was need satisfaction. A regression path was first constructed within each partner from his or her relationship satisfaction at T2 to his or her satisfaction at T3. Then, we added cross-partner paths from the partner’s T2 satisfaction to the person’s T3 satisfaction. The residual in T3 relationship satisfaction represents change in satisfaction between T2 and T3 unaccounted for by both partners’ satisfaction at T2. We sought to examine whether spin accounted for this change directly or indirectly via need satisfaction by adding the following direct and indirect paths. First, we added the direct within-partner path from the person’s spin to the person’s T3 relationship satisfaction, and then the direct cross-partner path from the partner’s spin to the person’s T3 relationship satisfaction. Second, the indirect withinpartner and cross-partner paths via need satisfaction were added. Specifically, we included the following paths: (a) from the person’s and partner’s spin to the person’s need satisfaction and (b) from the person’s and partner’s need satisfaction to the person’s T3 satisfaction. A person’s T2 relationship satisfaction was also regressed on the person’s and partner’s spin. The correlation between men’s and women’s spin was estimated. The correlation between the residuals in both partners’ T2 relationship satisfaction represents the

extent of shared variance in partners’ T2 satisfaction scores unaccounted for by both partners’ spin; the correlation between the residuals in both partners’ T3 satisfaction represents the degree of codependent change in both partners’ satisfaction from T2 to T3 that is unaccounted for by both partners’ spin and need satisfaction. Lastly, need satisfaction and T2 relationship satisfaction’s residuals were correlated both within-partner and cross-partner. When examining the direct and indirect effects of spin on relationship satisfaction and goal completion, we controlled for the within-partner and cross-partner effects of mean levels of communal behavior and agentic behavior on the predictor, mediator, and outcome variables (see Baird et al., 2006). The models were estimated using Mplus (Version 7.2) and the full information maximum likelihood estimator with standard errors and chi-square test statistics that are robust to nonnormality. To examine gender differences in parameter estimates, we compared the fit of a model in which a specific parameter for men was constrained to be equal to the corresponding parameter for women with the fit of a model in which estimates were not constrained to be equal in both genders. Model comparison was conducted using the rescaled ⫺2 log likelihood difference test, which is distributed as chi-squared with degrees of freedom equal to the rescaled difference in the number of parameters between models (Satorra & Bentler, 2010). A nonsignificant chi-square test value at ␣ ⫽ .05 indicated no gender difference in the parameter estimate examined. Fit of the final model was examined using the RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). RMSEA and SRMR values of .08 or less (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and CFI and TLI values over .90 (Hoyle & Panter, 1995) indicate good model fit.

MMediator @T2 WMediator @T2

M-Spin

MOutcome @T3

W-

W-Spin MOutcome @T2

Outcome @T3

WOutcome @T2

Figure 1. Within-partner and cross-partner direct and indirect effects of spin on relationship outcomes via the mediator. Within-partner paths are represented by solid black lines. Cross-partner paths are represented by gray lines. The within-person and cross-partner paths of mean levels of behaviors on the predictor, mediator, and outcome variables as well as covariances between the predictor, mediating, and outcome variables are not shown in the figure to preserve visual clarity. M ⫽ men; W ⫽ women; T2 ⫽ Time 2; T3 ⫽ Time 3.


Lastly, the within-partner and cross-partner indirect effects of spin on T3 relationship satisfaction via need satisfaction were examined by using the online utility based on Monte Carlo method, which was developed by Selig and Preacher (2008). The confidence interval (CI) for each indirect effect was computed. An indirect effect is considered significant at ␣ ⫽ .05 if its 95% CI does not include zero.


Direct and Indirect Effects of Spin on Relationship Satisfaction via Need Satisfaction When both partners’ mean levels of communal and agentic behavior were entered as the sole predictors of T2 relationship satisfaction (i.e., total effects), they accounted for 11% and 6% of the variance (i.e., R2) of men’s and women’s T2 relationship satisfaction, respectively. The inclusion of both partners’ spin explained an additional 12% and 11% of the variance in men’s and women’s T2 relationship satisfaction, respectively. In addition, 19% of the variance in men’s T3 relationship satisfaction and 4% of the variance in women’s T3 relationship satisfaction were accounted for by both partners’ mean levels of communal and

729

agentic behavior. When added in the model, both partners’ spin explained an additional 21% and 18% of the variance in men’s and women’s T3 relationship satisfaction. In both men and women, 11% of the variance in need satisfaction was accounted for by both partners’ mean levels of communal and agentic behavior. The addition of both partners’ spin explained an additional 13% of the variance in both men’s and women’s need satisfaction. Thus, when a relationship satisfaction variable was the outcome, spin accounted for 11% to 21% of the variance beyond that accounted for by the mean behavior variables. Table 3 presents the results (unstandardized) of the fitted model in which relationship satisfaction was the outcome. Attention should be focused to the second column of the table, in which the pooled effects across men and women are presented (i.e., when there were no statistically significant gender differences). Figure 2 presents the standardized values from the model. This model resulted in good indices of overall fit (see note to Table 3). Within-partner direct effects. T2 relationship satisfaction was positively related to T3 relationship satisfaction in both genders such that, compared with persons with lower T2 rela-

Table 3 Within-Partner and Cross-Partner Direct and Indirect Effects of Spin on Relationship Satisfaction via Need Satisfaction Pooled across genders Regression path Within-partner: Spin Spin ¡ T3RS Spin ¡ T2RS Spin ¡ T2NS T2NS ¡ T3RS T2RS ¡ T3RS Cross-partner: Spin Spin ¡ T3RS Spin ¡ T2RS Spin ¡ T2NS T2NS ¡ T3RS T2RS ¡ T3RS Within-partner: Mean behavior MCO ¡ T3RS MAG ¡ T3RS MCO ¡ T2RS MAG ¡ T2RS MCO ¡ T2NS MAG ¡ T2NS MCO ¡ Spin MAG ¡ Spin Cross-partner: Mean behavior MCO ¡ T3RS MAG ¡ T3RS MCO ¡ T2RS MAG ¡ T2RS MCO ¡ T2NS MAG ¡ T2NS MCO ¡ Spin MAG ¡ Spin

Gender ⌬␹

b (SE)

p

95% CI

14.88ⴱⴱⴱ 0.11 2.08 0.36 1.13

⫺1.10 (0.31) ⫺1.46 (0.49) 0.23 (0.09) 0.39 (0.16)

.000 .003 .007 .015

[ⴚ1.71, ⴚ0.50] [ⴚ2.43, ⴚ0.49] [0.06, 0.39] [0.08, 0.70]

5.84ⴱ 2.10 3.45 0.26 1.54

ⴚ0.66 (0.24) ⴚ1.77 (0.54) 0.16 (0.09) ⫺0.21 (0.18)

.006 .001 .082 .225

[ⴚ1.13, ⴚ0.19] [ⴚ2.8, ⴚ0.71] [⫺0.02, 0.35] [⫺0.55, 0.13]

2

2.77 0.01 0.03 3.93ⴱ 0.46 1.37 0.31 0.01

0.31 (0.45) .498 [⫺0.58, 1.19] 0.29 (0.47) .536 [⫺0.63, 1.22] ⴚ1.34 (0.61) .029 [ⴚ2.54, ⴚ0.14]

0.14 9.14ⴱⴱ 0.84 3.99ⴱ 0.00 0.08 1.87 0.24

⫺0.50 (0.51) .325 [⫺1.51, 0.50]

⫺1.22 (1.11) 0.31 (0.86) ⴚ1.69 (0.11) ⴚ0.75 (0.11)

.271 .718 .000 .000

.016 .567 .003 .961

b (SE)

p

Men 95% CI

0.07 (0.29) .819 [⫺0.64, 0.51]

b (SE)

p

95% CI

0.51 (0.28) .070 [⫺0.04, 1.05]

ⴚ1.09 (0.46) .017 [ⴚ1.99, ⴚ0.20] ⫺0.06 (0.30) .847 [⫺0.65, 0.53]

⫺0.27 (0.48) .577 [⫺1.22, 0.68]

ⴚ1.20 (0.50) .016 [ⴚ2.17, ⫺0.22]

0.12 (0.38) .325 [⫺0.62, 0.87]

ⴚ1.51 (0.77) .049 [ⴚ3.01, ⫺0.01]

0.46 (0.44) .302 [⫺0.41, 1.32]

⫺0.63 (0.50) .209 [⫺1.60, 0.35]

[⫺3.39, 0.95] [⫺1.38, 2.00] [ⴚ1.91, ⫺1.47] [ⴚ0.97, ⫺0.53]

ⴚ1.06 (0.54) .049 [ⴚ2.11, ⫺0.00] ⴚ2.56 (1.07) ⫺0.46 (0.80) ⴚ0.23 (0.08) 0.00 (0.12)

Women

[ⴚ4.65, ⫺0.48] [⫺2.03, 1.11] [ⴚ0.39, ⫺0.08] [⫺0.22, 0.24]

Note. N ⫽ 93 couples (186 participants). Significant effects are in bold. The second column presents the pooled effects across men and women when there were no statistically significant gender differences. Fit indices: ␹2(82) ⫽ 105.62, p ⫽ .04; root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .06; standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .10; comparative fit index ⫽ .97; Tucker–Lewis Index ⫽ .96. T3RS ⫽ relationship satisfaction at T3; T2RS ⫽ relationship satisfaction at T2; T2NS ⫽ need satisfaction at T2; MCO ⫽ mean communal behavior; MAG ⫽ mean agentic behavior; b ⫽ unstandardized estimate. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

SADIKAJ ET AL.

730

M-Need Satisfaction @T2

W-Need Satisfaction @T2

M-Spin


W-Spin MRelationship Satisfaction @T2

MRelationship Satisfaction @T3

WRelationship Satisfaction @T3

WRelationship Satisfaction @T2

Figure 2. Within-partner and cross-partner direct and indirect effects of spin on relationship satisfaction via need satisfaction. Only significant effects are included. Standardized values are shown. Within-partner paths are represented by solid black lines. Cross-partner paths are represented by gray lines. The within-person and cross-partner paths of mean levels of behaviors on the predictor, mediator, and outcome variables as well as covariances between the predictor, mediating, and outcome variables are not shown in the figure to preserve visual clarity. M ⫽ men; W ⫽ women; T2 ⫽ Time 2; T3 ⫽ Time 3. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

tionship satisfaction, those with higher T2 relationship satisfaction reported higher T3 relationship satisfaction. No gender difference was found in this relation. Spin was negatively related to T2 relationship satisfaction. As predicted, compared with low spin persons, persons with high spin reported lower relationship satisfaction at T2. No gender difference was found in this association. Spin was not related to T3 relationship satisfaction in either men or women. Within-partner indirect effects. As hypothesized, spin was negatively related to need satisfaction such that high spin persons reported lower need satisfaction than low spin persons. As expected, need satisfaction was positively related to T3 relationship satisfaction. Compared with participants who reported lower need satisfaction at T2, those who reported higher need satisfaction also reported more satisfaction with their relationship at T3. These associations were not different in men and women. Consistent with our hypothesis, the indirect effect of the person’s spin on the person’s change in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 via the person’s need satisfaction at T2 was significant (⫺.33, 95% CI [⫺.73, ⫺.05]). Compared with individuals with low spin, high spin individuals reported lower need satisfaction, which in turn was associated with lower T3 relationship satisfaction (controlling for T2 relationship satisfaction). No gender difference was found in this indirect effect. Cross-partner direct effects. Partner’s T2 relationship satisfaction was unrelated to person’s T3 relationship satisfaction in either gender. As expected, partner’s spin was related to person’s T2 relationship satisfaction, such that relationship satisfaction was lower among persons with a high spin partner. No gender difference in this effect emerged. Partner’s spin was associated with change in the person’s relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3

among men. Relative to men with a low spin partner, men with a high spin partner reported a greater decline in satisfaction from T2 to T3. Cross-partner indirect effects. As hypothesized, partner’s spin was associated with the person’s need satisfaction such that participants with a high spin partner reported lower need satisfaction than participants with a low spin partner. This effect was not different between men and women. Partner’s need satisfaction at T2 was not related to the person’s T3 satisfaction in either men or women. As predicted, the indirect effect of partner’s spin on person’s change in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 via the person’s need satisfaction at T2 was significant (⫺.40, 95% CI [⫺.85, ⫺.08]). Relative to participants with low spin partners, participants with high spin partners reported lower need satisfaction, which, in turn, was associated with these participants’ decline in satisfaction from T2 to T3. This indirect effect was not different between men and women.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Spin on Couple-Relevant Goal Completion via Autonomy Support for Goal Pursuit The results from this model are presented in Table 4 (unstandardized results) and Figure 3 (standardized results). Overall fit indices for this model were excellent (see note to Table 4). Although both partners’ spin did not account for additional variance in men’s and women’s T2 and T3 goal completion beyond the variance accounted for by both partners’ mean levels of communal and agentic behavior (1%– 6%), both partners’ spin did account for an additional 14% and 11% of the variance in men’s and women’s


731

Table 4 Within-Partner and Cross-Partner Direct and Indirect Effects of Spin on Couple Goal Completion via Autonomy Support Pooled across genders


Regression path Within-partner: Spin Spin ¡ T3GC Spin ¡ T2GC Spin ¡ T2AS T2AS ¡ T3GC T2GC ¡ T3GC Cross-partner: Spin Spin ¡ T3GC Spin ¡ T2GC Spin ¡ T2AS T2AS ¡ T3GC T2GC ¡ T3GC Within-partner: Mean behavior MCO ¡ T3GC MAG ¡ T3GC MCO ¡ T2GC MAG ¡ T2GC MCO ¡ T2AS MAG ¡ T2AS MCO ¡ Spin MAG ¡ Spin Cross-partner: Mean behavior MCO ¡ T3GC MAG ¡ T3GC MCO ¡ T2GC MAG ¡ T2GC MCO ¡ T2AS MAG ¡ T2AS MCO ¡ Spin MAG ¡ Spin

Gender ⌬␹2 0.42 11.24ⴱⴱⴱ 0.34 0.01 4.12ⴱ

b (SE) 1.00 (0.77) ⴚ1.53 (0.38) 0.42 (0.15)

p

Women

95% CI

.186 [⫺0.49, 2.51] .000 [ⴚ2.28, ⴚ0.77] .006 [0.12, 0.71]

1.95 1.83 0.06 0.01 4.45ⴱ

0.79 (0.88) 0.33 (0.67) ⴚ1.54 (0.45) 0.15 (0.17)

.366 .623 .001 .372

[⫺0.93, [⫺0.99, [ⴚ2.42, [⫺0.18,

0.33 6.44ⴱ 2.57 0.54 0.92 0.21 0.31 0.01

3.02 (1.51) 0.53 (1.31) 1.63 (1.09) ⴚ1.67 (0.85) ⫺0.10 (0.82) ⴚ1.69 (0.11) ⴚ0.75 (0.11)

.677 .136 .048 .899 .000 .000

[⫺2.56, [⫺0.51, [ⴚ3.33, [⫺1.71, [ⴚ1.91, [ⴚ0.97,

3.31] 3.77] ⴚ0.01] 1.50] ⴚ1.47] ⴚ0.53]

0.00 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.52 1.37 1.86 0.24

0.94 (1.78) ⫺0.08 (1.16) 0.53 (1.42) 1.34 (0.99) ⫺1.55 (0.95) ⫺0.27 (0.82) ⴚ0.24 (0.08) 0.00 (0.11)

.597 .948 .710 .177 .103 .746 .002 .974

[⫺2.36, [⫺2.36, [⫺2.26, [⫺0.61, [⫺3.40, [⫺1.88, [ⴚ0.39, [⫺0.22,

4.44] 2.21] 3.31] 3.29] 0.31] 1.35] ⴚ0.09] ⫺0.23]

b (SE)

⫺0.23 (0.71)

p

Men 95% CI

.752 [⫺1.62, 1.71]

b (SE)

p

95% CI

0.36 (0.63)

.561 [⫺0.86, 1.59]

0.28 (0.13)

.025 [0.04, 0.53]

⫺0.20 (0.14)

.142 [⫺0.47, 0.07]

0.35 (0.12)

.003 [0.12, 0.59]

0.03 (0.13)

.806 [⫺0.21, 0.28]

.817 [⫺3.27, 2.58]

4.01 (1.51)

.008

2.52] 1.65] ⴚ0.67] 0.47]

.046 [0.05, 5.98]

⫺0.35 (1.49)

[1.04, 6.97]

Note. N ⫽ 93 couples (186 participants). Significant effects are in bold. The second column presents the pooled effects across men and women when there were no statistically significant gender differences. Fit indices: ␹2(26) ⫽ 19.14, p ⫽ .83; root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .00; standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .03; comparative fit index ⫽ 1.00; Tucker–Lewis Index ⫽ 1.00.T3GC ⫽ goal completion at T3; T2GC ⫽ goal completion at T2; T2AS ⫽ autonomy support at T2; MCO ⫽ mean communal behavior; MAG ⫽ mean agentic behavior; b ⫽ unstandardized. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

perceived autonomy support beyond the proportion of variance accounted for in these variables by both partners’ mean levels of communal and agentic behavior (men: 13%; women: 11%). Within-partner direct effects. T2 goal completion was positively related to T3 goal completion among women. Compared with women who reported lower goal progress at T2, women who reported greater goal progress at T2 also reported greater goal progress at T3. This effect was not found among men. Contrary to our expectations, no direct effects of spin on T2 and T3 goal completion were found. Within-partner indirect effects. As predicted, spin was negatively related to perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit such that, compared with low spin persons, high spin persons reported lower autonomy support from their partner. There was no difference in this effect between men and women. As hypothesized, perceived autonomy support was positively related to change in goal completion from T2 to T3; participants who reported higher autonomy support at T2 reported higher rate of goal completion from T2 to T3 than participants who reported lower autonomy support. This association was not different in men and women.

Consistent with our hypothesis, the indirect effect of the person’s spin on the person’s change in goal completion from T2 to T3 via the person’s perceived autonomy support at T2 was significant (⫺.67, 95% CI [⫺1.30, ⫺0.17]). Compared with individuals with low spin, individuals with high spin reported low autonomy support from their partner, which in turn was associated with lower rate of goal completion from T2 to T3. No gender difference was found in this indirect effect. Cross-partner direct effects. Women’s T2 goal completion was related to men’s T3 goal completion. Women who reported higher goal completion at T2 had partners who reported greater rate of goal completion from T2 to T3. Contrary to our expectations, partner’s spin was not directly related to the person’s T2 and T3 goal completion in either gender. Cross-partner indirect effects. As expected, partner’s spin was negatively related to the person’s perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit such that a person with a higher spin partner reported perceiving lower autonomy support from the partner than a person with a lower spin partner. There was no gender difference in this effect. Partner’s perceived autonomy support was unrelated to the person’s change in goal completion from T2 to T3.

SADIKAJ ET AL.

732

MAutonomy Support@T2

WAutonomy Support@T2

M-Couple Goal Completion @T3

M-Spin .32**


W-Spin M-Couple Goal Completion @T2

W-Couple Goal Completion @T3

W-Couple Goal Completion @T2

Figure 3. Within-partner and cross-partner direct and indirect effects of spin on couple goal completion via autonomy support. Only significant effects are included. Standardized values are shown. Within-partner paths are represented by solid black lines. Cross-partner paths are represented by gray lines. The within-person and cross-partner paths of mean levels of behaviors on the predictor, mediator, and outcome variables as well as covariances between the predictor, mediating, and outcome variables are not shown in the figure to preserve visual clarity. M ⫽ men; W ⫽ women; T2 ⫽ Time 2; T3 ⫽ Time 3. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

As hypothesized, the indirect effect of partner’s spin on person’s rate of goal completion from T2 to T3 via the person’s perceived autonomy support at T2 was significant (⫺.61, 95% CI [⫺1.27, ⫺0.12]). Relative to low spin partners, high spin partners were perceived by the person as providing less autonomy support, which in turn, predicted the person’s lower progress toward goal completion at T3. This indirect effect was not different in men and women.

Supplementary Analyses Controlling for Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. Building on the basic model, we constructed two new models in which we entered both partners’ personality traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness measured with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) before the ECR procedure, as predictors of T2 and T3 relationship satisfaction and goal completion, and need satisfaction and autonomy support. In addition, spin was regressed on both partners’ Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. Controlling for these personality traits did not affect our main results pertaining to the within-partner (both direct and indirect) and cross-partner effects (both direct and indirect) of spin on (a) relationship satisfaction at T2 and T3, and (b) goal completion at T2 and T3. Direct and indirect effects of spin on personal goal completion via autonomy support. To examine the specificity of the direct and indirect effects of spin on couple goal completion, we built a new model in which, in addition to couple goals, we added personal goals as a dependent variable predicted by both partners’ spin and perceived autonomy support. There were no withinpartner or cross-partner, direct or indirect, effects of spin on

personal goal completion via autonomy support. Our main results pertaining to the within-partner and cross-partner indirect effects of spin on rate of couple goal completion from T2 and T3 via autonomy support were still present. Controlling for relationship satisfaction when examining the direct and indirect effects of spin on couple goal completion via autonomy support. Given the potential contribution of relationship satisfaction on partners’ evaluation of goal progress from T2 to T3, we extended the basic model by adding relationship satisfaction at T2 and T3. When examining the withinpartner and cross-partner direct and indirect effects of spin on goal completion via autonomy support, we controlled for the effects of both partners’ T2 relationship satisfaction on the person’s T3 goal completion. In addition, we allowed relationship satisfaction and goal completion to covary within each measurement occasion, both within-partner and cross-partner. Controlling for relationship satisfaction did not change the previously reported main results from the basic model. Thus, although no direct effects of spin on T2 goal completion and change in goal completion between T2 and T3 were found, both partners’ spin indirectly influenced the person’s change in goal completion from T2 to T3 via autonomy support (within-partner indirect effect: ⫺.56, 95% CI [⫺1.24, ⫺0.05]; cross-partner indirect effect: ⫺.61, 95% CI [⫺1.37, ⫺0.05]). Removing the effect of need for relatedness in the indirect effect of spin on T3 relationship satisfaction. Prior research on the role of basic need satisfaction on relationship quality has attempted to isolate the contribution of competence and autonomy needs on relationship quality above and beyond the contribution of the need for relatedness (La Guardia et al., 2000; Patrick et al.,



2007). To examine this issue, we replaced the latent variable of total need satisfaction with a new latent variable that was indicated by three item parcels, each of which contained one competence item and one autonomy item. As in the basic model, the withinpartner indirect effect and cross-partner indirect effect of spin on T3 relationship satisfaction via need satisfaction were significant (within-partner, ⫺.17, 95% CI [⫺.42, ⫺.01]; cross-partner, ⫺.16, 95% CI [⫺.40, ⫺.003]). These findings, combined with the previous result in which all three needs were used as indicators of need satisfaction, suggest that spin undermines global need satisfaction as reflected in all three basic needs derived from selfdetermination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which subsequently weakens relationship satisfaction. Examining the influence of separated couples. Given that missing data in relationship satisfaction and goal completion at T3 due to break-up was not random, we compared the results previously presented, which are based on all available couple data, with the results of the analyses based on the data from which the separated couples were excluded. The results from the latter analyses were generally consistent with the results based on all available data. There was only one exception: the cross-partner direct effect of women’s spin on men’s T3 satisfaction became nonsignificant (b ⫽ ⫺.36, z ⫽ ⫺1.19, ns).

Discussion We used an ECR method and a longitudinal panel design to examine consequences of the dispersion of interpersonal behavior, or interpersonal spin, on romantic relationship satisfaction and goal progress and potential mechanisms through which interpersonal spin leads to these consequences. Building on theoretical and prior empirical work examining intrapersonal variability (Block, 1961; Campbell et al., 2010; Côté et al., 2012; Gruber et al., 2013; Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004), we postulated that higher spin would be associated with lower relationship satisfaction and less progress on couple-relevant goals and that such associations would in part be accounted for by the negative effect of spin on basic need satisfaction and autonomy support for goal pursuit. We expected that a person’s high spin would exert its negative influences on both the person’s and the partner’s outcomes and that these effects would be independent of mean levels of communal behavior and agentic behavior. Findings indicated that spin either directly or indirectly influenced both relationship satisfaction and progress on couple-relevant goals. The effects of spin were beyond that which could be accounted for by mean interpersonal behaviors, specifically mean communal and mean agentic behavior. The results extend prior work on intrapersonal variability by demonstrating that the negative consequences of spin on relationship outcomes can occur for intimate relationships in addition to work relationships. Within a partner, high spin was associated with lower T2 relationship satisfaction. Moreover, spin was indirectly related to changes in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 via T2 need satisfaction. Specifically, findings suggested that high spin persons reported lower satisfaction of basic needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence at T2, and that lower need satisfaction at T2 was associated with decreased relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3.

733

High spin also affected relationship satisfaction across partners. High spin by one member of the couple was associated with lower T2 relationship satisfaction by the other member of the couple. In addition, high spin in women was associated with a decline in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 among men. A person’s spin was indirectly associated with changes in the partner’s relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 via the partner’s need satisfaction at T2. Thus, high spin in the person was associated with the partner’s report of lower satisfaction of basic needs at T2, and lower need satisfaction at T2 was associated with the partner’s decreased relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3. The findings linked high spin with lower satisfaction for all three basic psychological needs, relatedness, autonomy, and competence, suggesting that spin has pervasive detrimental effects on relationship processes that support a person’s general well-being. Within a partner, spin was not directly related to progress on couple-relevant goals at T2 or change in goal progress from T2 to T3. However, spin was indirectly related to decreased progress on couple goals from T2 to T3 via autonomy support for goal pursuit at T2. More specifically, high spin persons indicated receiving lower autonomy support for goal pursuit by the partner at T2, which in turn was associated with less progress on couple-relevant goals from T2 to T3. There was also a cross-partner indirect effect on goal progress from T2 to T3. A person’s spin was associated with the partner’s perceptions of lower autonomy support for goal pursuit at T2, and that lower autonomy support was associated with the partner’s reduced progress in completing couple goals from T2 to T3. These indirect effects were robust with respect to gender. With the one exception previously noted, the direct and indirect effects of spin were found in both men and women. The results were specific to couple-relevant goals. Spin did not directly or indirectly influence progress in the completion of personal goals, thereby highlighting the interpersonal nature of the consequences of spin. Moreover, the indirect effect of spin on couple goal pursuit was independent of the extent of satisfaction with the relationship at both measurement occasions, indicating that couple goal pursuit and relationship satisfaction are two relationship outcomes that are independently affected by spin. Why would spin have these negative consequences on the functioning of romantic relationships? High spin may reflect inconsistency in a person’s interpersonal style (i.e., greater shifts around a person’s typical behavior), such as domineering behavior in one interaction and highly submissive behavior in a subsequent interaction. Such inconsistency may convey a sense of unpredictability in the high spin person’s behavior thereby making it difficult for the partner to coordinate and engage in joint behavior, important for the pursuit of relationship goals. Inconsistent responding by the high spin person may also lead to unpleasant interactions between romantic partners. A pattern of unpleasant interactions with a high spin person might enhance the partner’s relationship doubts by reminding the partner about the relationship’s negative aspects and by leading to questions about the motivations underlying the high spin person’s behavior. Doubts about the relationship may fuel the partner’s uncertainty about the relationship’s future and may lead to the partner’s decreased relationship satisfaction (Campbell et al., 2005). The influence of spin on relationship outcomes was mediated by need satisfaction and perceptions of autonomy support for goal


734

SADIKAJ ET AL.

pursuit. Inconsistent responding by the high spin person may be perceived by the partner as indicating the high spin person’s rejection or attempt to control the partner. Such a relationship context often thwarts the partner’s satisfaction of the needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy (La Guardia & Patrick, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and these unfulfilled needs undermine the functioning of salutary relationship processes and enhance the likelihood of destructive relationship processes, such as relational conflicts and transgressions (Blais et al., 1990; Knee et al., 2002; La Guardia & Patrick, 2008; Patrick et al., 2007). In addition, suboptimal autonomy support for goal pursuit from the high spin person interferes with internalization of the goals and reduces the partner’s autonomous motivation for goal pursuit (Koestner et al., 2012, 2014). Thus, poor relationship outcomes, such as dissatisfaction with the relationship and incomplete couple goals, are likely to be observed to the extent that a high spin person’s inconsistent responding affects the partner’s need satisfaction and perceived autonomy support for pursuit of goals involving the couple. Findings suggested that spin influenced, both directly and indirectly, relationship outcomes independently of the influence of mean communion and mean agency and the five-factor traits of Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism, thereby supporting the perspective that the analysis of intrapersonal variability provides individual difference characteristics with consequential outcomes independent of more traditional personality traits (Fleeson, 2001; Fournier et al., 2008; Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004). Large fluctuations around a person’s typical interpersonal behavior predicted as much or more variance in interpersonal outcomes as mean levels of interpersonal behaviors, such as quarrelsomeness and agreeableness. The present findings combined with past research suggest that spin and personality traits, including mean levels of interpersonal behavior, represent complementary ways of understanding the person’s contribution to personal and work relationships. The present findings may have implications for models of romantic relationships (see Gottman, 1998). Research within this domain has established that certain behavioral patterns (e.g., high mean levels of negative behavior and strong reciprocity in negative behavior between partners) are associated with poor relationship outcomes (for a review, see Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Findings from the present research suggest that high intrapersonal variability in behavior, which may represent an index of the consistency with which behaviors are enacted by the person across situations and over time (Fleeson, 2001), predicts poor relationship outcomes. These findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that high intrapersonal variability in the evaluation of relationship quality has detrimental effects on romantic relationship processes and outcomes (Arriaga, 2001; Arriaga et al., 2006; Campbell et al., 2010). The findings extend this research by showing that high intrapersonal variability in behavior has similar detrimental effects on romantic relationship as intrapersonal variability in relationship evaluation, suggesting that similar personality characteristics may underlie high variability across domains of functioning. Finally, the current research also contributes to the exploration of self-determination theory in the context of romantic relationships. In particular, the current findings for spin, autonomy support, and goal progress break new ground. Autonomy

support represents the most important contextual factor in selfdetermination theory because it promotes internalization, learning, and adaptation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, autonomy support has almost exclusively been examined in the context of hierarchical relationships, such as between parent and child, teacher and student, or manager and employee. Although recent studies have begun to examine autonomy support for personal goals in the context of egalitarian relationships, such as between friends and romantic partners (Koestner et al., 2012, 2014), no study has examined the pursuit of collaborative or couple goals. Nor has any study examined whether certain stable personality factors might elicit or forestall a peer’s tendency to respond to goal pursuit efforts in an autonomy supportive manner. Our results suggest that the display of highly inconsistent interpersonal behavior will curtail the inclination of a romantic partner to provide goal-specific autonomy support and that the lack of such support can undermine progress on important collaborative goals, such as “stabilizing our financial situation” or “reigniting the passion in our marriage.” Lastly, findings provide support for interpersonal models of goal pursuit by demonstrating the importance of partner characteristics on self- and co-regulation (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003; Fitzsimons & van Dellen, 2015).

Limitations and Future Research This study has several strengths, such as the use of a community sample, the ECR methodology to measure spin, and a longitudinal panel design to examine the effect of spin on relationship outcomes. Statistical analyses examined concurrently the withinpartner and cross-partner effects, thereby addressing the interdependence inherent in dyadic relationships. Notwithstanding these strengths, attrition in T3 satisfaction scores due to breakup may have biased the results. Although a comparison of the results of the models with and without the data of the couples who broke up between T2 and T3 revealed no major differences in the main findings, it would be desirable if research methods could be devised to reduce attrition in the follow-up data. The heterogeneity of the sample with respect to marital status raises question about the generalizability of the findings to other population of couples representing various stages of relationship trajectories (i.e., dating vs. common-law vs. married). Future studies should examine whether marital status moderates interpersonal consequences of intrapersonal variability in behavior. In addition, research using larger samples and longer follow-up intervals should examine whether high intrapersonal variability in behavior leads to more severe relationship outcomes such as breakup. The present results indicated only one gender difference involving spin. Among men, partners’ high spin was associated with a decline in men’s relationship satisfaction over time. Given that women often take a more active role in relationship-maintaining processes (Acitelli, 2001), it is possible that partner’s high spin might have a greater impact on men’s relationship satisfaction than women’s relationship satisfaction. However, future research should attempt to replicate this finding before definitive conclusions are drawn. The present investigation adopts the view that high intrapersonal variability in personality characteristics, including interpersonal behavior, leads to poor intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes.



It is possible that high intrapersonal variability in interpersonal behavior is itself a manifestation of dysfunction in other personality processes. Future studies combining methods that permit the measurement of intrapersonal variability and experimental manipulation of personality processes should examine causes of high intrapersonal variability in behavior. Potential causes may include impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, distress intolerance, and biases in interpersonal perception. Such examination may help identify areas along the intrapersonal variability continuum that demarcate normal levels of variability (i.e., functional flexibility) from abnormal levels of variability, such as those represented by high spin that contribute to poor personal and interpersonal dysfunction. We proposed that high spin entails highly inconsistent interpersonal behavior (i.e., larger shifts or dispersion around a person’s typical behavior) across situations and over time. Whereas a certain amount of variability in behavior across situations is necessary for normal functioning, inconsistent responding to the same situation cue may lead to dysfunctional levels of variability (i.e., high spin). The inconsistency in behavior may be augmented when individuals engage in large shifts in their behavior in successively close interpersonal situations; these situations may or may not be similar. In addition to inconsistent responding, strong behavioral responding to situational cues may also lead to high intrapersonal variability in behavior. Patterns of interpersonal style that may lead to high spin could be studied within the interpersonal theory framework (Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1983). For example, prior research suggests that spin is negatively related to behavioral complementarity (Erickson, Newman, & Pincus, 2009). From the framework of interpersonal theory, low complementarity entails deviations from normative patterns of behavioral responding to specific behaviors by the other, such as responding with low agreeable behavior to others’ high agreeable behavior or exhibiting high levels of submission when others engage in low dominance. Given that complementarity in behavior is important for satisfying interpersonal interactions (Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003), the low complementarity that may be associated with high spin may impair relationship processes and outcomes. Given that the behavioral measure was based on self-reports, it is not possible to ascertain whether spin is a measure of intrapersonal variability in behavior, variability in self-representation of behavior, or a combination of the two. Future research using observational methods to measure spin might be needed to replicate the present findings. In the present study, we defined goals broadly and advised participants to identify a set of personal and couple goals that were important for them at the time when they entered the study. In addition, we measured goal achievement by assessing participants’ subjective evaluation of the progress they had made toward achieving their goals. Providing specific criteria (e.g., time frame for the goal) for identifying goals and for assessing goal progress/ completion might improve the reliability of goal completion measures and increase power for finding whether spin has a direct effect on goal completion. Future studies might include measures that incorporate specific criteria for goal identification and progress.

735

Conclusions By relying on the rich theoretical traditions of interpersonal theory and self-determination theory and using measurement procedures that capture intrapersonal variability in behavior and change over time in satisfaction and goal completion, the present study extends understanding of the processes by which intrapersonal dispersion in interpersonal behavior influences romantic relationship outcomes as indicated by relationship satisfaction and completion of couple-relevant goals. As greater dispersion of social behavior may be manifested in inconsistent responding to a romantic partner, spin may affect processes that support the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence.

References Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Maintaining and enhancing a relationship by attending to it. Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement, 153–168. Arriaga, X. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 754 –765. Arriaga, X. B., Reed, J. T., Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Relationship perceptions and persistence: Do fluctuations in perceived partner commitment undermine dating relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1045–1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.91.6.1045 Baird, B. M., Le, K., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 512–527. Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .59.5.1021 Block, J. (1961). Ego identity, role variability, and adjustment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 392–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ h0042979 Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510 –531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510 Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 14 –31. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0019714 Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEOFFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Côté, S., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2012). Social relationships and intraindividual variability in interpersonal behavior: Correlates of interpersonal spin. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 646 – 659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025313 Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783– 802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .76.5.783 Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167205282148


736

SADIKAJ ET AL.

Erickson, T. M., Newman, M. G., & Pincus, A. L. (2009). Predicting unpredictability: Do measures of interpersonal rigidity/flexibility and distress predict intraindividual variability in social perceptions and behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 893–912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016515 Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 148 –164. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.148 Fitzsimons, G. M., & van Dellen, M. R. (2015). Goal pursuit in relationships. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 273–296). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.80.6.1011 Fournier, M. A., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2008). Integrating dispositions, signatures, and the interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 531–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.94.3.531 Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032138 Gorin, A. A., Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., Wing, R. R., & Raynor, H. A. (2014). Autonomy support, self-regulation, and weight loss. Health Psychology, 33, 332–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032586 Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169 –197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.49.1.169 Gruber, J., Kogan, A., Quoidbach, J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). Happiness is best kept stable: Positive emotion variability is associated with poorer psychological health. Emotion, 13, 1– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0030262 Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1 Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158 –176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Houben, M., Van den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (in press). The relation between short term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10705519909540118 Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., & McDonald, D. W. (1982). Reactivity to positive and negative behavior in distressed and nondistressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 706 –714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.5.706 Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909 .118.1.3 Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185– 214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185 Knee, C., Patrick, H., Vietor, N. A., Nanayakkara, A., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination as growth motivation in romantic relation-

ships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 609 – 619. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167202288005 Koestner, R., Powers, T. A., Carbonneau, N., Milyavskaya, M., & Chua, S. N. (2012). Distinguishing autonomous and directive forms of goal support: Their effects on goal progress, relationship quality, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1609 – 1620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457075 Koestner, R., Powers, T. A., Milyavskaya, M., Carbonneau, N., & Hope, N. (2014). Goal internalization and persistence as a function of autonomous and directive forms of goal support. Journal of Personality, n/a. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12093 Kopala-Sibley, D. C., Rappaport, L. M., Sutton, R., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2013). Self-criticism, neediness, and connectedness as predictors of interpersonal behavioral variability. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 770 –790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013 .32.7.770 La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships. Canadian Psychology/ Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 201–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0012760 La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367 Larsen, R. J. (1989). A process approach to personality psychology: Utilizing time as a facet of data. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 177–193). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4684-0634-4_13 Maddux, W. W., Mullen, E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 461– 468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.003 Mardia, K. V. (1972). Statistics of directional data (Vol. 5). London, England: Academic Press. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand. McDonald, R. P. (1978). Generalizability in factorable domains: “Domain validity and generalizability.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 75–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316447803800111 Moskowitz, D. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 921–933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.921 Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Flux, pulse, and spin: Dynamic additions to the personality lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 880 – 893. Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2005). Robust predictors of flux, pulse, and spin. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 130 –147. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.004 Moskowitz, D. S., Zuroff, D. C., aan het Rot, M., & Young, S. N. (2011). Tryptophan and interpersonal spin. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 692– 696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.08.002 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401– 421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127 Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434 – 457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3 .434


INTERPERSONAL SPIN AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88 –101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.88 Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Gorin, A. A. (2008). Autonomy support from family and friends and weight loss in college women. Families, Systems, & Health, 26, 404 – 416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527 .26.4.404 Prager, K. J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Intimacy and need fulfillment in couple relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 435– 469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407598154001 Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x Russell, J. J., Moskowitz, D. S., Zuroff, D. C., Sookman, D., & Paris, J. (2007). Stability and variability of affective experience and interpersonal behavior in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 578 –588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.578 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.55.1.68 Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y

737

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy .org/ Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 15–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/350547 Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119 –135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119 Surra, C. A., & Hughes, D. K. (1997). Commitment processes in accounts of the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 5–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353658 Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558 –568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.84.3.558 Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. C. W. M. Grove (Ed.), Thinking clearly about psychology. Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89 –113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Received July 14, 2014 Revision received February 3, 2015 Accepted March 10, 2015 䡲

Machiavellianism, Relationship Satisfaction, and Romantic Relationship Quality.

Regulatory Focus and the Interpersonal Dynamics of Romantic Partners' Personal Goal Discussions.

Genetic and neural correlates of romantic relationship satisfaction.

Effects of empathy and conflict resolution strategies on psychophysiological arousal and satisfaction in romantic relationships.

PTSD and Romantic Relationship Satisfaction: Cluster- and Symptom-Level Analyses.

Romantic Relationship Satisfaction Moderates the Etiology of Adult Personality.

Sexuality and romantic relationships in young adult cancer survivors: satisfaction and supportive care needs.

Attachment in romantic relationships and somatization.

Self-efficacy in romantic relationships: prediction of relationship attitudes and outcomes.

Interpersonal attraction and relationships.

Sharing concerns: Interpersonal worry regulation in romantic couples.

Romantic relationships between physicians and patients.

The Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With ADHD.

Masculinity in adolescent males' early romantic and sexual heterosexual relationships.

Relational consequences of personal goal pursuits.

The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships.

Racially and ethnically diverse schools and adolescent romantic relationships.

Shared Relationship Efficacy of Dyad Can Increase Life Satisfaction in Close Relationships: Multilevel Study.

Romantic relationship formation, maintenance and changes in personal networks.

Machiavellianism and Adult Attachment in General Interpersonal Relationships and Close Relationships.

Urban adolescent girls' perspectives on romantic relationships: initiation, involvement, negotiation, and conflict.

To Accept or Reject? The Impact of Adolescent Rejection Sensitivity on Early Adult Romantic Relationships.

Family Influences on Mexican American Adolescents' Romantic Relationships: Moderation by Gender and Culture.

The Impact of Personal Metaphors and Memorable Interpersonal Communication on Body Satisfaction.