Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 2014, Vol. 5, No. 2, 195–203

© 2013 American Psychological Association 1949-2715/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/per0000039

BRIEF REPORT

Personality Pathology and Daily Aspects of Marital Functioning Susan C. South

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.

Purdue University Personality disorders (PDs) are associated with a host of interpersonal problems, including unstable and dysfunctional romantic relationships. In previous research, PD symptoms have been linked to one’s own and spouse’s self-reported level of marital satisfaction and marital conflict. The current study extends on this work by examining whether Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) PD criteria would predict aspects of daily marital functioning. A total of 99 newlywed couples (N ⫽ 198) recruited from the community were assessed for PD symptoms using a self-report measure and subsequently completed a 6-day diary protocol. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the association of PD symptoms with three major aspects of daily functioning: overall relationship sentiment, serious conflicts with one’s spouse, and quality of interactions. Results indicated that PD symptoms significantly predicted aspects of all three measures of daily functioning. The individual PDs generally showed the greatest associations with aspects of conflict. Paranoid, schizoid, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive PD scores were significantly negatively related to overall relationship sentiment whereas Cluster A and Cluster C PD scores negatively predicted various daily interaction behaviors. Findings provide insight into the mechanisms that might explain the associations between PD symptoms and overall measures of relationship functioning. Keywords: personality disorder, marital relationship, daily diary

of relationship satisfaction and increased conflict in dating samples (Chen et al., 2004; Daley, Burge, & Hammen, 2000). Researchers have examined how the presence of PD traits is related to marital functioning in the target and his or her spouse. Identifying actor effects (effect of own personality on own reports of marital satisfaction) and partner effects (effect of partner’s personality on own report of marital satisfaction) may be particularly salient for PDs; the egosyntonic nature of PDs means that the true effect of these disorders is usually a negative effect on those around the personality-disordered target (e.g., Krueger et al., 2007). Using a sample of mostly married couples who varied in relationship duration, one study found several significant actor and partner effects of PD on marital satisfaction; when all significant effects were included in one model, only the actor effect for paranoid PD and partner effect for schizoid PD were significant (Stroud, Durbin, Saigal, & Knobloch-Fedders, 2010). Another study of all married couples found that self- and partner-reported PD criteria were related to lower levels of marital satisfaction, greater reported verbal aggression, and the likelihood of committing physical violence against one’s spouse (South, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2008). Self-reports of total PD symptoms were negatively related to one’s own satisfaction; of the individual PDs, actor report of schizoid and partner report of narcissistic PD had unique negative associations with marital satisfaction after controlling for other PD symptoms. Although the evidence that PDs have a negative effect on romantic relationship functioning is strong and growing, it is limited by a reliance on self-report inventories that measure global perceptions of relationship quality or conflict. These measures are often collected at the same time as the PD symptoms. We know little about the day-to-day behaviors that play into these disrupted

Personality disorders (PDs), by definition, are associated with deficits in relating to other people. The inability to pursue important life goals, including successful relationships, is at the heart of these disorders (Krueger, Skodol, Livesley, Shrout, & Huang, 2007). The alternative PD classification included in Section III of the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) requires deficits in either self- or interpersonal functioning, suggesting that disrupted cognitions and mental representations of others is one of the key hallmarks of personality pathology (Bender, Morey, & Skodol, in press). One of the most distressing aspects of PD pathology is the negative effect of these disorders on romantic relationships. PDs appear to hinder the likelihood of establishing and maintaining a successful romantic relationship. In a large, epidemiological survey, the presence of a PD was associated with decreased probability of marriage (for histrionic, avoidant, and dependent) and increased likelihood of separation or divorce (for paranoid, schizoid, antisocial, histrionic, avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive [OC]; Whisman, Tolejko, & Chatav, 2007). That study did not include borderline personality disorder (BPD), but later work found that BPD symptoms were positively associated with marital distress, separation, and intimate partner violence (Whisman & Schonbrun, 2009). Associations have also been found between PD symptoms and low levels

This article was published Online First December 23, 2013. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan C. South, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: [email protected]. 195

SOUTH

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.

196

interpersonal relationships and which ones are most likely forming the basis for assessments made on global inventories. Research examining normal personality has found that the associations between personality traits of an individual spouse and his or her global evaluation of the marriage are partially mediated by negative marital interactions (Donnellan, Assad, Robins, & Conger, 2007; Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004). The significant association between PD symptoms and a measure such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) most likely is a function of the interactions that occur between spouses. To date, there has been no research examining these types of more microlevel interactions as a function of PD pathology. This problem is not limited to the study of PDs and intimate relationships; there is a relative dearth of behavioral research when examining PDs (see Bornstein, 2003). There has recently been an increased use of experience sampling methodology (ESM, or daily diaries) to examine how elevated levels of PD pathology can affect momentary or daily functioning in the real world (e.g., Trull et al., 2008). Although laboratory challenge tasks or observational studies in the laboratory have many benefits, including standardization and manipulation of the situation, diary studies are able to capture thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as they occur within the context of our daily lives (Piasecki, Hufford, Solhan, & Trull, 2007). For instance, one diary study of BPD found that BPD patients experienced more negative affect; were less dominant, more quarrelsome, and more submissive; and showed greater variability in agreeable, dominant, and quarrelsome behavior compared with controls (Russell, Moskowitz, Zuroff, Sookman, & Paris, 2007)—a picture consistent with clinical conceptualizations of BPD as vacillating from extremes of love to hate. In the present study, daily diary information collected from a sample of married couples was used to examine the association between personality pathology and daily measures of overall relationship sentiment, severity of spousal conflicts, and quality of spousal interactions. Following from prior research, it was posited that Cluster B PDs (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic) would be associated with more severe and negative daily conflicts. Studies have shown that high levels of neuroticism and low levels of agreeableness are related to less warmth/more negativity in couple interactions (Donnellan et al., 2004; Holland & Roisman, 2008); therefore, it was expected that PDs saturated with these personality traits (i.e., paranoid, borderline; see Samuel & Widiger, 2008) would be predictive of less positive daily interactions. Finally, given research showing that extraversion/positive emotionality is positively related to marital satisfaction (Donnellan et al., 2007), it was hypothesized that PDs low in extroversion (schizoid, schizotypal) would be related to negative aspects of daily interactions.

Method

99 couples (99 men, 99 women). Participants were recruited through the use of flyers, ads, and recruitment letters mailed to individuals identified through publicly available marriage license information. Eligibility for this study included that both spouses were willing to participate, 18 –55 years of age, comfortable reading English, currently residing together, and married 12 months or less. The average age of the husbands was 27.80 years (SD ⫽ 6.15), and the average age of the wives was 26.94 years (SD ⫽ 6.02). Husbands were primarily Caucasian (85%), with Asian (7%) being the most reported race/ethnicity. Likewise, 78% of wives identified themselves as Caucasian, with Asian (11%) being the next most commonly reported. Husbands reported an average annual salary of $24,565 (SD ⫽ $19,120), and wives reported an average annual salary of $21,334 (SD ⫽ $16,193). Most of the husbands (70%) and wives (80%) reported obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher. Ten percent of husbands had been married previously (all ended in divorce), and 13% of wives had been married previously (with one ending in death and the rest in divorce). The mean length of marriage was 4.93 months (SD ⫽ 3.3), and participants had been dating before marriage for an average of 37.5 months. All participants gave informed consent to participate and were compensated for their participation in the study. Participants who completed at least 75% of the daily diaries were entered into a drawing for a gift card.

Procedure At a baseline laboratory assessment, each participant was separated from his or her spouse to complete several questionnaires. Analyses for the current study focused only on the inventories described below, although participants did complete other study measures. During this baseline session, participants were given six daily diary measures for the upcoming week as well as detailed instructions for completing the protocol. A research assistant reviewed the procedures for completing the diary measures, including the importance of completing it every day and completing it separately from one’s spouse at the end of the day before bed. Participants were assured that the experimenters would never share any of their responses with their partner. Participants were told to begin the diaries the following day. To ensure daily compliance, participants were e-mailed daily by a member of the research team with a reminder to complete the diary that night; in addition, participants were provided stamped envelopes and told to mail in each night’s diary the next morning. Participants returned at the end of the 6-day period for a 1-week follow-up assessment.1 In total, there were 1,188 possible diary responses, and participants completed at least part of the daily diary for 1,174 of them, a response rate of 98.8%.

Measures

Participants

Marital Satisfaction. Marital satisfaction at the baseline session was assessed with the DAS (Spanier, 1976), one of the most

The current sample was recruited from a small midwestern city for a study on personality and well-being within romantic relationships. A total of 204 participants were enrolled in the study. One couple withdrew from the study, and technical problems led to a loss of PD data for two participants (and their partners, because of the need for partner data, see below), leaving 198 individuals from

1 All participants in the current study also completed a second week of daily diary measures; for half of the sample, the protocol was exactly the same as the first week, but the other half of the sample was assigned to an experimental condition to examine a separate research question related to intimacy and satisfaction. Thus, the second week of diary reports is not discussed here because it differs for half of the sample.

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.

PERSONALITY AND DAILY MARITAL FUNCTIONING

widely used measures of relationship adjustment. The DAS is a 32-item self-report inventory that assesses various areas (e.g., time spent together, overall level of happiness).2 Previous research has found that the DAS is internally reliable and that the factor structure is invariant across gender (South, Krueger, & Iacono, 2009). For the current study, a total sum score of all items was used (␣ ⫽ .85). DAS data were missing for one participant, so their partner’s score was used in substitution. PD Symptoms. PD symptoms were assessed with the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality-Second Edition (SNAP-2; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press). The SNAP-2 is a 375-item, true-false, self-report questionnaire designed to measure major trait dimensions of normal and abnormal personality. The SNAP-2 has scales for the 10 DSM–IV PDs: schizoid, schizotypal, paranoid, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, and OC. The SNAP-2 includes 249 items that assess the 79 PD symptoms, as well as 11 of the 15 conduct disorder symptoms required for an antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) diagnosis, for a total of 90 possible symptoms; most of the DSM PD criteria are assessed by more than one SNAP-2 item. Analyses for this study used the symptom count scores for the PDs. In the current sample, ␣ values for the PD scales (calculated using all possible SNAP-2 items) ranged from 0.68 (narcissistic, OC) to 0.84 (paranoid). Daily Diary. The full daily diary measure had several sections about different aspects of interactions with one’s spouse. For the purposes of the current study, analyses focused on three areas: most serious conflict of the day with partner, daily interactions with significant other, and overall relationship sentiment. Overall relationship sentiment. Participants were asked to make three global ratings regarding their relationship based on that day. On 7-point scales (1 ⫽ not at all, 7 ⫽ extremely), participants were asked to rate: (a) How satisfied are you with your marriage today? (satisfied); (b) How close do you feel to your partner today? (close); and (c) How committed do you feel toward your partner today? (committed). The final response rate on these items was 99%. Because these three items were highly intercorrelated (r ⫽ .75 for satisfaction and closeness, r ⫽ .65 for satisfaction and commitment, and r ⫽ .58 for closeness and commitment), they were averaged to create an overall relationship sentiment score. Most serious conflict. Participants were asked to think of the most serious conflict with their partner in the last 24 h. On a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ not at all, 7 ⫽ extremely), they rated the following aspects of that conflict: (a) how hurt/upset/distressed they were by the conflict (hurt), (b) how serious the conflict was (serious), and (c) how successful they were in resolving the conflict (resolved). Not all participants reported a serious conflict every day; thus, the response rate for completing these items on the daily diaries was 59%. Daily interactions. Participants rated on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ very little, 7 ⫽ very much) the extent to which (a) their spouse criticized or disappointed them and (b) they criticized or disappointed their spouse. They also rated on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ very unsatisfied, 7 ⫽ very satisfied) the following aspects of their relationship that day: (a) sex life, (b) partner’s affection, (c) conversations with partner, (d) quality of time spent together, (e) way disagreements were resolved, and (f) partner’s physical appearance. The final response rate for these items ranged from 97% to 99%.

197

Data Analysis The main goal of the analyses was to examine the associations between PD symptoms measured at baseline and daily measures of relationship sentiment, conflict, and marital interactions during the subsequent 6-day study period. To handle the nonindependence inherent in a daily study completed by related individuals, data were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) techniques in the HLM program (Version 6.06; Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004). The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Campbell & Kashy, 2002) was used within the HLM regression model. An actor effect is the typical effect estimated by traditional regression analyses (i.e., the effect of a partner’s independent variable on their own outcome variables). In contrast, a partner effect estimates the effect of a person’s spouse’s independent variable on the person’s own outcome variable. When selfreports are provided by both members of a dyad (e.g., married couples), it is also possible to examine similarity (i.e., the correlation between husband self-report and wife self-report of personality). The current analyses concentrated only on actor and partner effects because research with normal (Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, & Lucas, 2010) and pathological (South et al., 2008) personality traits tends to find little effect of similarity on relationship outcomes. A three-level HLM model was used, with daily diary measures (Level 1) nested within individuals (Level 2) nested within couples (Level 3). For all analyses, actor and partner effects of PD symptoms were entered simultaneously. Fully unconditional models (one-way analyses of variance [ANOVAs] with random effects) were run to examine the sources of variability in each of the daily relationship measures using the following formula to compute the intraclass correlation coefficients (e.g., for proportion of variance within days): ␴2/(␴2 ⫹ ␶␲ ⫹ ␶␤). These fully unconditional models also provided grand means for the day-level relationship variables. A series of means-as-outcome regressions were run to examine the within-person associations between PD variables and daily aspects of relationship functioning. Level 3 slopes were treated as fixed, and actor and partner PD scores were grand mean centered. For example, to test the effect of actor and partner overall PD symptoms on daily relationship sentiment, the following model was used: SENTIMENTijk ⫽ ␲0jk ⫹ eijk ␲0jk⫽ ␤00k⫹ ␤01k共Total PD Actor兲 ⫹ ␤02k共Total PD Partner兲 ⫹ r0jk ␤00k⫽ ␥000⫹ u00k␤01k⫽ ␥010 ␤02k⫽ ␥020

Results Descriptives The average DAS score of the current sample was 124.09 (SD ⫽ 9.53); typically, a score of 97 or below is associated with marital distress (Jacobson, Schmaling, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1987). 2 For programming purposes, minor changes were made to the DAS. For example, “My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going.” was changed to “There is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going.” Full details are available from the author.

SOUTH

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.

198

Husbands and wives were significantly correlated on marital satisfaction at baseline (r ⫽ .32, p ⫽ .001). Descriptive statistics for the within-day relationship variables and between-person PD variables are shown in Table 1, A and B. Summed across the 10 PDs, the average number of PD symptoms endorsed was 8.67 (SD ⫽ 5.26). As expected given the community sample, 9% of the sample would meet criteria for a PD diagnosis according to endorsement of the SNAP-2 items, comparable to epidemiological findings that place the prevalence of PDs at approximately 9 –16% in the general population (e.g., Lenzenweger, Lane, Loranger, & Kessler, 2007). There was little evidence of assortative mating (i.e., similarity of self-report) for the PD scales; there was a significant negative correlation for histrionic PD and a significant positive correlation for narcissistic PD. Nine of the 11 PD scales (all but histrionic and OC PD) had positive skew over 1.0; therefore, a square root transformation was applied to these scales for the HLM analyses. The average level of overall relationship sentiment across the daily diaries was 6.49 on a scale of 1–7. For serious conflict, the average ratings of seriousness and hurt were 2.40 and 2.91, respectively, and ratings for success at resolving the conflict averaged 5.29 on a scale of 1–7. Mean ratings of criticizing or being criticized by one’s spouse were 1.88 and 1.83, respectively, whereas mean ratings of other aspects of daily interaction ranged from 5.29 (sex life) to 6.27 (partner’s appearance). Examination of the intraclass correlations revealed that the amount of variance attributed to day, person, and couple varied depending on the specific outcome variable. For overall relationship sentiment, 33% of the variance could be attributed to the person level, with most of the rest of the variance originating at the day level. For measures related to serious conflict, most of the variance could be attributed to the day level, with almost none (0 – 4%) originating at the person level. Finally, for aspects of daily interactions with one’s spouse, the percentage of variance originating at the person level was greatest for physical appearance (49%), sex life (19%), and affection (16%).

Table 1B Descriptive Statistics for Level 2 Study Variables Variable

Mean

SD

Similarity Correlation

Paranoid Schizoid Schizotypal Antisocial Borderline Histrionic Narcissistic Avoidant Dependent OC Total PD criteria

0.29 0.31 0.37 1.17 0.37 1.42 0.80 0.61 1.48 1.83 8.67

0.73 0.72 0.74 1.88 0.80 1.30 1.11 0.98 0.99 1.31 5.26

⫺.05 ⫺.09 .06 .10 .01 ⫺.27ⴱⴱ .26ⴱ .06 .06 ⫺.05 .15

Note. N ⫽ 198 (99 couples). ⴱ p ⫽ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⫽ ⬍.01.

Associations Between Daily Relationship Variables and PD Criteria Daily relationship sentiment. The total PD partner score (B ⫽ ⫺.12, SE ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .01), but not the actor score, was significantly associated with overall relationship sentiment (see Table 2). The actor score for paranoid PD was significantly related to relationship sentiment (B ⫽ ⫺.27, SE ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .01), but there was no significant effect for the partner score; however, the partner score for schizoid (B ⫽ ⫺.20, SE ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .05) was significant, but there was no effect for actor score. A model was run including all actor and partner scores for the Cluster A PDs (paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal); only the actor score for paranoid PD was significant (B ⫽ ⫺.26, SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .01). In other individual analyses, the actor score for avoidant PD (B ⫽ ⫺.12, SE ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .05) and partner score for OC PD (B ⫽ ⫺.08, SE ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .05) negatively predicted overall sentiment. A model including all Cluster C PD (avoidant, dependent, OC PD) actor and partner

Table 1A Descriptive Statistics for Level 1 Study Variables Variable

Mean

SE

Within-Person Variance

Between-Person Variance

Between-Couple Variance

Overall sentiment Serious conflict Serious Hurt Resolve Partner interactions Spouse disappointed or criticized you You criticized or disappointed spouse Sex life Affection Conversations Quality of time Disagreements Physical appearance

6.49

.04

0.60

0.33

0.07

2.40 2.91 5.29

0.09 0.09 0.10

0.84 0.88 0.83

0.00 0.02 0.04

0.16 0.10 0.12

1.83

0.07

0.76

0.13

0.11

1.88 5.29 5.93 5.96 5.89 5.90 6.27

0.07 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06

0.78 0.57 0.68 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.42

0.12 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.13 0.49

0.10 0.24 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.09

Note.

N ⫽ 198 (99 couples).

PERSONALITY AND DAILY MARITAL FUNCTIONING

199

Table 2 Effects of PD Symptoms on Daily Measures of Relationship Sentiment and Conflict

PD Scale

Overall Sentiment

Conflict Serious

Hurt

Resolve

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.

Coefficient (SE) Total PD Actor Partner Paranoid Actor Partner Schizoid Actor Partner Schizotypal Actor Partner Antisocial Actor Partner Borderline Actor Partner Histrionic Actor Partner Narcissistic Actor Partner Avoidant Actor Partner Dependent Actor Partner OC Actor Partner

⫺0.06 (.05) ⫺0.12 (.05)ⴱⴱ

0.21 (.08)ⴱ 0.09 (.09)

0.05 (.09) 0.12 (.09)

⫺0.14 (.10) ⫺0.03 (.10)

⫺0.27 (.08)ⴱⴱ ⫺0.11 (.08)

0.52 (.14)ⴱⴱⴱ 0.36 (.14)ⴱ

0.14 (.15) 0.19 (.16)

⫺0.28 (.16) ⫺0.12 (.17)

⫺0.14 (.08) ⫺0.20 (.08)ⴱ

0.32 (.15)ⴱ 0.23 (.15)

⫺0.003 (.15) 0.31 (.16)

⫺0.30 (.17) ⫺0.09 (.17)

⫺0.10 (.07) ⫺0.11 (.07)

0.38 (.13)ⴱⴱ 0.15 (.14)

0.16 (.14) 0.17 (.15)

⫺0.13 (.16) 0.13 (.16)

⫺0.00 (.05) ⫺0.04 (.05)

0.22 (.09)ⴱ 0.16 (.09)

0.01 (.09) 0.24 (.09)ⴱ

0.12 (.10) 0.03 (.10)

0.00 (.07) ⫺0.05 (.07)

0.40 (.13)ⴱⴱ 0.21 (.13)

0.16 (.14) 0.29 (.14)ⴱ

⫺0.16 (.15) ⫺0.12 (.16)

0.02 (0.03) ⫺0.03 (.03)

0.01 (.06) 0.06 (.06)

0.04 (.07) 0.04 (.07)

⫺0.03 (.07) ⫺0.11 (.07)

0.01 (.11) ⫺0.08 (.11)

⫺0.06 (.12) ⫺0.11 (.12)

⫺0.03 (.13) ⫺0.12 (.13)

⫺0.06 (.06) ⫺0.06 (.06) ⫺0.12 (.06)ⴱ ⫺0.09 (.06)

0.24 (.12)ⴱ 0.11 (.12)

0.12 (.13) 0.17 (.13)

⫺0.50 (.13)ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺0.14 (.13)

⫺0.07 (.11) 0.02 (.11)

0.03 (.21) ⫺0.32 (.21)

0.38 (.23) ⫺0.16 (.22)

⫺0.42 (.25) 0.04 (.24)

⫺0.04 (.03) ⫺0.08 (.03)ⴱ

⫺0.06 (.06) ⫺0.05 (.06)

⫺0.05 (.06) ⫺0.07 (.06)

⫺0.02 (.07) 0.05 (.07)

Note. N ⫽ 198 (99 couples). p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

ⴱ

scores resulted in only one significant effect—that for partner OC PD (B ⫽ ⫺.07, SE ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .05). Daily conflict. Results for aspects of daily conflict are presented in Table 2. The total actor PD score and six of the individual PD actor scores (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, avoidant) were significantly positively related to seriousness of the conflict such that individuals with more PD symptoms reported the conflict as more serious. Only partner scores for paranoid PD were also related to seriousness of the conflict (B ⫽ .36, SE ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .05). When all Cluster A PD scores were included in one model, actor (B ⫽ .40, SE ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05) and partner (B ⫽ .32, SE ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05) scores for paranoid PD significantly predicted seriousness of the conflict. From a model including all Cluster B PD (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic) scores, only the actor score for BPD (B ⫽ .31, SE ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .05) was significant. When all Cluster C PDs were included in a model together, actor scores for avoidant PD were related to greater seriousness (B ⫽ .37, SE ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .01) whereas partner scores for dependent PD scores predicted rating the conflict as less serious (B ⫽ ⫺.51, SE ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .05). None of the actor scores for the PDs were related to being hurt by the conflict, but partner scores for ASPD (B ⫽ .24, SE ⫽ .09,

p ⬍ .05) and BPD (B ⫽ .29, SE ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .05) were significantly positively associated with reporting greater hurt. When all Cluster B PD scores were included in a model predicting hurt, only the partner score for ASPD was significant (B ⫽ .21, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05). Only one PD score was significantly related to conflict resolution: actor score for avoidant PD was related to less successful conflict resolution (B ⫽ ⫺.50, SE ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .001). When all Cluster C PD scores were entered into a model together, again only the actor score for avoidant PD negatively predicted conflict resolution (B ⫽ ⫺.52, SE ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01). Aspects of daily partner interactions. Analyses were run to examine PD scores and aspects of daily interaction behaviors with one’s spouse (see Table 3). Total PD actor score was significantly positively related to being disappointed/criticized by one’s spouse (B ⫽ .19, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .01) and disappointing/criticizing one’s spouse (B ⫽ .16, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .05) and negatively related to satisfaction with resolving disagreements (B ⫽ ⫺.25, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .01). Total PD partner score was negatively associated with satisfaction with affection (B ⫽ ⫺.16, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .05) and quality of time together (B ⫽ ⫺.19, SE ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .01). Actor (B ⫽ ⫺.14, SE ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .05) and partner (B ⫽ ⫺.14, SE ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .05) total PD scores predicted less satisfaction with conver-

SOUTH

200

Table 3 Effects of PD Symptoms on Daily Measures of Relationship Interaction Spouse Disappointed or Disappointed or Criticized PD Scale Criticized You Spouse

Sex Life

Affection

Conversations

Quality of Time

Disagreements

Physical Appearance

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.

Coefficient (SE) Total PD Actor 0.19 (.07)ⴱⴱ Partner 0.11 (.07) Paranoid Actor 0.39 (.12)ⴱⴱ Partner 0.17 (.12) Schizoid Actor 0.22 (.12) Partner 0.29 (.12)ⴱ Schizotypal Actor 0.26 (.12)ⴱ Partner 0.13 (.11) Antisocial Actor 0.09 (.07) Partner 0.04 (.07) Borderline Actor 0.22 (.11) Partner ⫺0.00 (.11) Histrionic Actor 0.03 (.05) Partner 0.04 (.05) Narcissistic Actor 0.14 (.09) Partner 0.06 (.09) Avoidant Actor 0.20 (.10)ⴱ Partner 0.11 (.10) Dependent Actor 0.33 (.17) Partner 0.04 (.17) OC Actor 0.00 (.05) Partner 0.06 (.05)

0.16 (.07)ⴱ 0.07 (.07)

⫺0.08 (.10) ⫺0.12 (.10)

⫺0.08 (.07) ⫺0.16 (.07)ⴱ

⫺0.14 (.06)ⴱ ⫺0.14 (.06)ⴱ

⫺0.10 (.06) ⫺0.19 (.06)ⴱⴱ

⫺0.25 (.07)ⴱⴱ ⫺0.09 (.07)

⫺0.13 (.07)ⴱ ⫺0.18 (.07)ⴱⴱ

0.25 (.12)ⴱ 0.08 (.12)

⫺0.16 (.17) ⫺0.50 (.17)ⴱⴱ

⫺0.23 (.12) ⫺0.21 (.12)

⫺0.22 (.10)ⴱ ⫺0.22 (.10)ⴱ

⫺0.25 (.11)ⴱ ⫺0.26 (.11)ⴱ

⫺0.30 (.12)ⴱ ⫺0.39 (.12)ⴱⴱ

⫺0.28 (.11)ⴱ ⫺0.27 (.11)ⴱ

0.22 (.12) 0.20 (.12)

⫺0.38 (.17)ⴱ ⫺0.43 (.17)ⴱ

⫺0.38 (.12)ⴱⴱ ⫺0.07 (.12)

⫺0.19 (.10) ⫺0.08 (.10)

⫺0.16 (.11) ⫺0.10 (.11)

⫺0.19 (.13) ⫺0.34 (.13)ⴱⴱ

⫺0.24 (.11)ⴱ ⫺0.28 (.11)ⴱ

0.22 (.11) ⫺0.00 (.11)

⫺0.37 (.16)ⴱ ⫺0.27 (.16)

⫺0.18 (.11) ⫺0.27 (.11)ⴱ

⫺0.11 (.09) ⫺0.16 (.09)

⫺0.14 (.10) ⫺0.22 (.10)ⴱ

⫺0.21 (.12) ⫺0.11 (.12)

⫺0.15 (.11) ⫺0.13 (.11)

0.06 (.07) 0.01 (.07)

0.04 (.10) 0.04 (.10)

⫺0.02 (.07) ⫺0.04 (.07)

⫺0.08 (.06) ⫺0.04 (.06)

0.01 (.06) ⫺0.04 (.06)

⫺0.04 (.07) 0.00 (.07)

0.06 (.07) 0.01 (.07)

0.14 (.11) ⫺0.00 (.11)

⫺0.11 (.16) ⫺0.09 (.16)

0.02 (.11) ⫺0.12 (.11)

⫺0.10 (.09) 0.02 (.09)

⫺0.00 (.10) 0.01 (.10)

⫺0.28 (.11)ⴱ ⫺0.09 (.11)

⫺0.07 (.10) ⫺0.08 (.10)

0.03 (.05) 0.03 (.05)

0.14 (.07) 0.11 (.07)

0.10 (.05)ⴱ ⫺0.03 (.05)

0.01 (.04) ⫺0.02 (.04)

⫺0.00 (.05) ⫺0.01 (.05)

⫺0.04 (.05) ⫺0.01 (.05)

0.04 (.05) ⫺0.05 (.05)

0.09 (.09) 0.07 (.09)

0.02 (.13) ⫺0.12 (.13)

⫺0.07 (.09) ⫺0.15 (.09)

⫺0.12 (.07) ⫺0.06 (.07)

⫺0.10 (.08) ⫺0.15 (.08)

⫺0.22 (.09)ⴱ ⫺0.07 (.09)

⫺0.15 (.08) ⫺0.12 (.08)

0.14 (.09) 0.05 (.09)

⫺0.34 (.13)ⴱ ⫺0.34 (.13)ⴱ

⫺0.28 (.09)ⴱⴱ ⫺0.10 (.09)

⫺0.18 (.08)ⴱ ⫺0.13 (.08)

⫺0.12 (.09) ⫺0.19 (.09)ⴱ

⫺0.27 (.10)ⴱⴱ ⫺0.16 (.10)

⫺0.30 (.09)ⴱⴱ ⫺0.20 (.09)ⴱ

0.25 (.16) 0.20 (.17)

0.12 (.24) 0.09 (.24)

0.06 (.17) ⫺0.19 (.17)

⫺0.28 (.14)ⴱ ⫺0.24 (.14)

⫺0.32 (.15)ⴱ ⫺0.32 (.15)ⴱ

⫺0.51 (.17)ⴱⴱ 0.06 (.17)

⫺0.19 (.16) ⫺0.24 (.16)

0.03 (.05) 0.04 (.05)

⫺0.09 (.07) ⫺0.01 (.07)

⫺0.04 (.05) ⫺0.07 (.05)

⫺0.05 (.04) ⫺0.10 (.04)ⴱ

⫺0.05 (.04) ⫺0.11 (.04)ⴱ

⫺0.08 (.05) ⫺0.02 (.05)

⫺0.12 (.04)ⴱⴱ ⫺0.08 (.04)

Note. N ⫽ 198 (99 couples). p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

ⴱ

sations, and actor (B ⫽ ⫺.13, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .05) and partner (B ⫽ ⫺.18, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .01) scores were negatively related to ratings of partner’s physical appearance. Actor score for paranoid PD was significantly related to disappointment/criticism received from (B ⫽ .39, SE ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .01) or directed at (B ⫽ .25, SE ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .05) one’s spouse whereas partner score of paranoid PD was related to less satisfaction with sex life (B ⫽ ⫺.50, SE ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01). Actor and partner paranoid PD scores were negatively related to satisfaction with conversations, quality of time, disagreements, and partner’s physical appearance. Actor score for schizoid PD was negatively related to affection (B ⫽ ⫺.38, SE ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .01) whereas partner score for schizoid PD was related to being disappointed/criticized by one’s spouse (B ⫽ .29, SE ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .05) and being less satisfied with handling disagreements (B ⫽ ⫺.34, SE ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .01). Actor and partner schizoid PD scores were negatively related to sex life and partner’s physical appearance. Actor report of schizotypal PD was related to being disappointed/criticized by one’s spouse (B ⫽ .26, SE ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .05) and being less satisfied with sex life (B ⫽ ⫺.37, SE ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05), but partner score of schizotypal PD was negatively related to affection (B ⫽ ⫺.27, SE ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .05) and

quality of time together (B ⫽ ⫺.22, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05). Models were run including all Cluster A PD actor and partner scores as predictors of daily interaction outcomes. Being disappointed/criticized by one’s spouse was predicted by actor score for paranoid PD (B ⫽ .32, SE ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .05). Only partner score for paranoid PD was related to sex life (B ⫽ ⫺.41, SE ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .05). Actor score for schizoid PD (B ⫽ ⫺.30, SE ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05) and partner score for schizotypal PD (B ⫽ ⫺.27, SE ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .05) predicted affection. Partner score for paranoid PD significantly predicted disagreements (B ⫽ ⫺.36, SE ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .01). Of the Cluster B PD scales, actor and partner antisocial scores were not significantly associated with any daily interaction behaviors. Only the actor (but not partner) score for BPD was negatively related to handling disagreements (B ⫽ ⫺.28, SE ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .05). Spouses with higher actor histrionic PD scores reported greater satisfaction with affection (B ⫽ .10, SE ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .05), but there were no significant results for partner histrionic score. Actor (but not partner) score for narcissistic PD was associated with less satisfaction with resolving disagreements (B ⫽ ⫺.22, SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05). When all Cluster B PD scores were modeled together, actor score for histrionic PD still predicted greater affection (B ⫽

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.

PERSONALITY AND DAILY MARITAL FUNCTIONING

.15, SE ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .01), and actor scores for BPD (B ⫽ ⫺.29, SE ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05) and narcissistic PD (B ⫽ ⫺.20, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05) were related to less satisfaction with handling disagreements. Actor score for avoidant PD was significantly related to several outcomes, including being disappointed/criticized by spouse (B ⫽ .20, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05) and less satisfaction with affection (B ⫽ ⫺.28, SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .01), conversations (B ⫽ ⫺.18, SE ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .05), and handling disagreements (B ⫽ ⫺.27, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .01); partner score of avoidant PD was not significant for any of those outcomes, but it did predict quality of time together (B ⫽ ⫺.19, SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05). Actor and partner scores for avoidant PD were significantly negatively associated with sex life and partner’s physical appearance. Actor score for dependent PD predicted less satisfaction with conversations (B ⫽ ⫺.28, SE ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .05) and how disagreements were resolved (B ⫽ ⫺.51, SE ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01), whereas actor (B ⫽ ⫺.32, SE ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .05) and partner (B ⫽ ⫺.32, SE ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .05) scores for dependent PD were negatively associated with quality of time together. OC PD scores were negatively related to satisfaction with conversations (B ⫽ ⫺.10, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .05) and quality of time together (B ⫽ ⫺.11, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .05; partner score only) and partner’s physical appearance (actor score; B ⫽ ⫺.12, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01). All three Cluster C PD actor and partner scores were included in one model to separately predict each daily interaction outcome; actor score for avoidant PD no longer predicted being disappointed/criticized by spouse (B ⫽ .17, SE ⫽ .11, p ⫽ ns). Actor (B ⫽ ⫺.43, SE ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01) and partner (B ⫽ ⫺.47, SE ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01) scores for avoidant PD still negatively predicted sex life. Actor score for avoidant PD still predicted less satisfaction with affection (B ⫽ ⫺.31, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .01). Only partner score of OC PD predicted less satisfaction with conversations (B ⫽ ⫺.09, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .05). Partner score for OC PD was also the only predictor of less satisfaction with quality of time (B ⫽ ⫺.09, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .05). Only actor score of dependent PD was related to disagreements (B ⫽ ⫺.38, SE ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .05). Actor scores for avoidant PD (B ⫽ ⫺.23, SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05) and OC PD (B ⫽ ⫺.09, SE ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .05) predicted ratings of partner’s physical appearance.

Discussion The goal of the current study was to examine how pathological personality is related to daily aspects of relationship functioning in a sample of married couples. Previous research using APIM modeling with PD traits has found significant actor and partner effects on overall relationship satisfaction scores (South et al., 2008; Stroud et al., 2010). The limitation of prior work is that it has relied on global measures of relationship satisfaction; to date, no study has examined more microlevel associations between PDs and daily aspects of relationship functioning that most likely feed into more global relationship inventories. Analyses for the current study revealed that one’s own and one’s partner’s level of PD symptoms were significantly related to daily relationship sentiment, daily conflict, and various daily spousal interactions. First, as expected, symptoms of PDs saturated with high neuroticism and low agreeableness were particularly predictive of negative daily relationship functioning. Paranoid PD scores were associated with the seriousness of daily conflict, overall relationship sentiment, and several features of interactions with one’s partner, including conversations, disagreements, and criticism; fur-

201

ther, paranoid PD features also affected partners’ perception of several aspects of the relationship. As a disorder that sits at the junction of the personality traits of high neuroticism and low agreeableness (e.g., Samuel & Widiger, 2008), it is not surprising that paranoid PD would have the most consistent effect on aspects of daily relationship quality; however, BPD, also saturated with high neuroticism and low agreeableness, was only related to seriousness of daily conflict and partner’s resulting feelings of hurt as well as satisfaction with handling disagreements. It was also predicted that PDs high in introversion/low in extraversion would evince strong relationships with the daily diary measures; this was supported for schizoid and schizotypal PD. The Cluster A PDs are often neglected in the research literature, particularly with regard to interpersonal functioning; indeed, two of these disorders (paranoid, schizoid) were recommended for removal from the DSM-5 (Skodol et al., 2011). Results from the current study suggest that they may be among the most detrimental PDs with regard to daily interactions with a close other (see also Stroud et al., 2010). Second, there was a distinction between PD symptoms that led one to express their own dissatisfaction with aspects of the relationship and PD symptoms that negatively affected a partner’s perception of the relationship. Those with elevated symptoms of two of the Cluster B PDs (ASPD and BPD) were more likely to rate the daily conflict as serious; this is not unexpected given that these PDs are consistently linked with poor relationship functioning, particularly intimate partner violence (e.g., South et al., 2008). However, it was the partners of people with high levels of antisocial and borderline traits who rated themselves as hurt by the conflict. Indeed, there was a lack of congruence between actor and partner PD scores for several of the daily outcomes. In some ways, this finding should not be surprising; although people with PDs have some limited knowledge as to how they are perceived by others (e.g., Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2009), they may simply disagree that this behavior is a problem. Individuals with elevated PD pathology may attribute the problems in their relationship to their partner’s inability to meet their needs, thus explaining the many significant associations between presence of self-reported PD traits for many of the PDs and ratings of seriousness of daily conflict. The pattern of findings here can also suggest possible mechanisms by which PD pathology leads to interpersonal behaviors that ultimately affect global perceptions. For example, individuals with elevated avoidant PD traits reported deep dissatisfaction with how conflicts were resolved as well as with sex life and affection; as a disorder that sits at the junction of high neuroticism and low externalizing, avoidant PD is an internalizing process that may have its most negative affect on one’s own internal feelings and perceptions. Contrast this with OC PD, which had a negative effect on partner’s report of overall relationship sentiment as well as satisfaction with conversations and quality of time together. OC PD is highly saturated with extreme (maladaptive) conscientiousness from the Five Factor Model, and the cognitive and behavioral rigidity of OC PD traits may have its most consistently negative effects on a partner’s perception of the relationship. Given that OC PD has the greatest prevalence in the general population (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and is particularly high in certain segments of the population (e.g., college students and the military; Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2006), it has the potential to negatively affect many intimate relationships.

SOUTH

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.

202

Third, there were a few instances in which elevated levels of personality pathology were associated with positive relationship functioning. Individuals with elevated levels of histrionic PD reported greater satisfaction with affection, and individuals with elevated dependent PD symptoms had partners that reported less serious conflicts. These somewhat counterintuitive findings may be rooted in the type of attachment bonds that characterize these disorders, which are strongly linked with insecure attachment (anxious/ambivalent; Westen, Nakash, Thomas, & Bradley, 2006). Partners of insecure people are more likely to hide negative feelings and exaggerate their displays of affection (Lemay Jr. & Dudley, 2011). Thus, partners of spouses with elevated levels of histrionic or dependent symptoms may work overtime to make those spouses feel valued. There were several limitations of this study that should be acknowledged. First, this was a relatively healthy community sample of participants; findings may not generalize to participants who are in marriages marked by clinical levels of distress or more elevated levels of personality pathology. Second, it is also possible that the reported findings are unique to this early stage of the relationship, and the patterns of behavior exhibited by individuals with elevated levels of PD symptoms may change over the developmental course of marriage. Third, although self-reports of both partners were used in APIM modeling, partner reports of PD symptoms were not collected using the SNAP-2. Future research should endeavor to examine informant-reported PD symptoms in relation to daily relationship behaviors. Finally, because the daily diaries were not time-stamped or supervised, there was no way to verify when they were completed or whether participants completed them in private. Despite these limitations, the current study adds to the literature by documenting, for the first time, how PD symptoms are related to aspects of daily relationship functioning in a sample of married couples. Future work should examine, over a longer period of time, the mechanisms by which personality pathology affects perceptions of daily interactions and ultimately global relationship sentiment.

References American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision): Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., & Skodol, A. E. (in press). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, Part I: A review of theory and methods. Journal of Personality Assessment. Bornstein, R. F. (2003). Behaviorally referenced experimentation and symptom validation: A paradigm for 21st-century personality disorder research. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 1–18. doi:10.1521/pedi .17.1.1.24056 Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342. doi:10.1111/ 1475-6811.00023 Chen, H., Cohen, P., Johnson, G., Kasen, S., Sneed, J., & Crawford, T. N. (2004). Adolescent personality disorders and conflict with romantic partners during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 507–525. doi:10.1521/pedi.18.6.507.54794

Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (in press). Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Daley, S., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. L. (2000). Borderline personality disorder symptoms as predictor of 4-year romantic relationship dysfunction in young women: Addressing issues of specificity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 451– 460. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.109.3 .451 Donnellan, M. B., Assad, K. K., Robins, R. W., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Do negative interactions mediate the effects of negative emotionality, communal positive emotionality, and constraint on relationship satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 557–573. doi: 10.1177/0265407507079249 Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481– 504. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.001 Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 690 –702. doi:10.1037/a0020385 Holland, A. S., & Roisman, G. I. R. (2008). Big five personality traits and relationship quality: Self-reported, observational, and physiological evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 811– 829. doi:10.1177/0265407508096697 Jacobson, N. S., Schmaling, K. B., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1987). Component analysis of behavioral marital therapy: A 2-year follow-up and prediction of relapse. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 187–195. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1987.tb00696.x Krueger, R. F., Skodol, A. E., Livesley, W. J., Shrout, P. E., & Huang, Y. (2007). Synthesizing dimensional and categorical approaches to personality disorders: Refining the research agenda for DSM-V Axis II. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 16, S65–S73. doi:10.1002/mpr.212 Lemay Jr., E. P., & Dudley, K. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 681–702. doi:10.1037/a0021655 Lenzenweger, M. F., Lane, M. C., Loranger, A. W., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). DSM–IV personality disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biological Psychiatry, 62, 553–564. doi:10.1016/j .biopsych.2006.09.019 Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2006). Perceptions of self and others regarding pathological personality traits. In R. F. Krueger & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 71–111). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person perception and personality pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 32–36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01601.x Piasecki, T. M., Hufford, M. R., Solhan, M., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Assessing clients in their natural environments with electronic diaries: Rationale, benefits, limitations, and barriers. Psychological Assessment, 19, 25– 43. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.25 Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear & nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. 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. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.578 Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM–IV–TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326 – 1342. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002

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.

PERSONALITY AND DAILY MARITAL FUNCTIONING Skodol, A. E., Clark, L. A., Bender, D. S., Krueger, R. F., Morey, L. C., Verheul, R., . . . Oldham, J. M. (2011). Proposed changes in personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis for DSM-5 Part I: Description and rationale. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2, 4 –22. doi:10.1037/a0021891 South, S. C., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2009). Factorial invariance of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale across gender. Psychological Assessment, 21, 622– 628. doi:10.1037/a0017572 South, S. C., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2008). Personality disorder symptoms and marital functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 769 –780. doi:10.1037/a0013346 Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. doi:10.2307/350547 Stroud, K., Durbin, C. E., Saigal, S. D., & Knobloch-Fedders, L. M. (2010). Normal and abnormal personality traits are associated with marital satisfaction for both men and women: An actor-partner interdependence model analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 466 – 477. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.011

203

Trull, T. J., Solhan, M. B., Tragesser, S. L., Jahng, S., Wood, P. K., Piasecki, T. M., & Watson, D. (2008). Affective instability: Measuring a core feature of borderline personality disorder with ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 647– 661. doi: 10.1037/a0012532 Westen, D., Nakash, O., Thomas, C., & Bradley, R. (2006). Clinical assessment of attachment patterns and personality disorder in adolescents and adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1065–1085. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1065 Whisman, M. A., & Schonbrun, Y. C. (2009). Social consequences of borderline personality disorder symptoms in a population-based survey: Marital distress, marital violence, and marital disruption. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 410 – 415. doi:10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4 .410 Whisman, M. A., Tolejko, N., & Chatav, Y. (2007). Social consequences of personality disorders: Probability and timing of marriage and probability of marital disruption. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 690 – 695. doi:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.6.690

Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process. If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected]. Please note the following important points: • To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review. • To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research. • To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well. • Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly. APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/reviewmanuscript-ce-video.aspx.