Dissertation
The Dyadic Effects of Relationship Uncertainty on Relationship Maintenance and Damaging Behaviors
Abstract
Guided by uncertainty reduction theory and the enduring dynamics model, we examined the dyadic effects of relationship uncertainty using data collected from 83 couples (n=166) before the completion of the PRE-marital Preparation and Relationship Enhancement (PREPARE) Program and six months later. Results from actor-partner interdependence models (APIM) indicated that females who reported higher levels of relationship uncertainty before participating in PREPARE were more likely to report the presence of more frequent relationship damaging behaviors were found personally engaging less frequently in relationship maintenance six-months post-program (actor effect). As well, females with higher relationship uncertainty were more likely to have partners who reported engaging more frequently in relationship damaging six-month post programming (partner effect). Implications for relationship education and future directions are discussed.
Keywords: Relationship Uncertainty, Relationship Maintenance Behaviors, Relationship Damaging Behaviors, Pre-Marital Relationship Education, Couple Relationships, Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling, Dyadic Data Analysis.
Introduction
Many modern romantic relationships develop through ambiguous processes characterized by individual uncertainty regarding the prospects of a relationship continual or termination. Relationship uncertainty is associated with lower levels of commitment and less positivity regarding the relationship (Weigel, Brown, & O’Riordan, 2011; Knobloch & Theiss, 2010). Further, premarital uncertainties or doubts are reported by at least one partner in two-thirds of marriages (Lavner, Bradbury, & Karney, 2012). Premarital uncertainty also contributes to a greater likelihood that partners will experience avoidance (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004) and increases the likelihood of divorce (Lavner, Karney, & Bradbury, 2012).
Negative outcomes resulting from relational uncertainty may be partially due to the display of fewer positive relationship maintenance behaviors and more instances of behaviors that damage relationships. In general, relationship maintenance encompasses a broad array of activities that allow partners to preserve romantic relationships (Ogolsky, Monk, Rice, Theisen, & Maniotes, 2017). Relationship damaging behaviors can include negative conflict tactics, topic avoidance, and the demand/withdrawal pattern of conflict (Knobloch, Sharabi, Delaney, & Suranne, 2016; Schrodt, Witt, & Shimkowski, 2014; Dainton, 2003; Clifford, Vennum, Busk, & Fincham, 2017).
Relationship and marriage education (RME) interventions have been found to be effective in assisting couples in developing positive relationship maintenance behaviors as well as decreasing the use of relationship damaging behaviors (Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008). Recently, the dyadic effects of relationship uncertainty on negative relational maintenance behaviors have been considered (Dainton, Goodboy, Borzea, & Goldman, 2017). This study expands on this nascent body of literature by exploring actor and partner effects of relationship uncertainty before participating in pre-marital RME on reports of relationship maintenance and relationship damaging behaviors six-months after RME.
Literature Review
Relationship Uncertainty
According to Berger & Calabrese (1974) Uncertainty reduction theory postulates that individuals in relationships experience uncertainty which they strive to reduce. Specifically, uncertainties include issues related to the self, the partner, and the relationship (Berger & Calabrese, 1974; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). According to Knobloch and Solomon (1999), self-uncertainty may occur when individuals are unsure about their own opinions and goals concerning their relationship. Partner uncertainty involves the uncertainty that one feels when speculating on their partner’s goals, views, and commitment to the relationship. Compared to concerns about self and partner, uncertainty regarding the state of the relationship may be more difficult for couples to overcome (Berger, 1988). Couples are likely to experience relational uncertainty (also referred to broadly as relationship uncertainty) when they have not clarified or are not comfortable with the status, purpose, or the future of their relationship. In this paper, we use the term relationship uncertainty to discuss this third component of uncertainty between couples. For seriously-dating and engaged couples, the status and purpose of the relationship are usually clearer as leading towards a long-term partnership or marriage. Even then, relationship uncertainties may remain persistent, leading to negative relational consequences for these dyads.
While some uncertainty appears to be common during courtship and engagement due to lower levels of intimacy and heightened contemplation about the relationship (Solomon & Knobloch, 2001), however, uncertainty is not always harmless. Research has addressed relationship uncertainty and ties to many negative aspects of intimate partner relationships (Dainton, 2003; Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004; Knobloc, Solomon & Cruz, 2001; Huston, 1994; Lavner et al , 2012; Weigel, Brown, & O’Riordan, 2011; Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988). These findings suggest that relationship uncertainty may serve as a potential warning signal and a unique indicator of increasing susceptibility to poor marital interactions (Lavner et al, 2012).
Specifically, relational uncertainty is a predictor of relationship damaging patterns such as more frequent jealousy expression and the use of indirect (passive) rather than overt communication (Afifi & Reichert, 1996). Furthermore, it also includes behavioral patterns like negative or less frequent conversations about the relationship (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011), greater relationship instability (Vennum, Lindstrom, Monk, & Adams, 2014), less positive views of the relationship (Weigel et al., 2011), being less open to having discussions with one’s partner (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004), and decreased maintenance behaviors among cross-sex friends (Weger & Emmett, 2009). Most contributing damaging behavior to relationship uncertainty is that some couples may neglect to clarify the state and purpose of the relationship thus increasing instability (Clifford, Vennum, Busk, & Fincham, 2017). Relationship uncertainty is also linked to the use of greater relationship damaging behaviors in dyads including avoidance, destructive conflict, control, and spying (Dainton, 2003; Daintonet al., 2017). It is evident that studies have not considered the actor and partner effects of relational uncertainty on reports of relationship maintenance and relationship damaging behaviors before and after premarital relationship education.
Relationship Maintenance and Damaging Behaviors
Research shows there are specific direct and indirect strategies that can help maintain the quality of a relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1992). Furthermore, it can also aid in the maintenance of behaviors that can erode, harm, or damage a relationship (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). We examined both relationship maintenance, and damaging relationship behaviors as both may simultaneously be present in a relationship (Rogge, Fincham, Crasta, & Maniaci, 2017).
Relationship maintenance is broadly defined as an array of activities in which partners get engaged to preserve their romantic relationship or to keep the relationship moving in a satisfactory direction (Dindia & Canary, 1993; Ogolsky, Monk, Rice, Theisen, & Maniotes, 2017). Reassurances that a partner is committed to the relationship, positivity or cheerfulness, sharing tasks, openness concerning private feelings as well as giving (e.g., sharing opinions or offering solutions), and conflict management (e.g., cooperation and apologizing) are examples of relationship maintenance (Stafford & Canary, 1991; Stafford, 2011). From an interdependence perspective, greater investment and commitment influences more frequent relationship maintenance as couples seek to maintain a valued or satisfying relationship (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001). Therefore, those who experience relationship uncertainty may neglect to put in efforts to maintain their relationship as they experience less interdependence.
Relationship uncertainty may heighten the use of relationship damaging behaviors, which are behaviors that typically threaten the stability of a relational partnership (Owen, et al., 2014). Due to some contextual as well as relational characteristics, some couples may utilize or perceive higher levels of relationship damaging behaviors in their relationship. Relationship damaging behaviors may include poor conflict management (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990) or negative conflict strategies, including criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and withdrawal (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Such damaging behaviors are associated with negative relational outcomes, including a decline in marital satisfaction, increased stress (Schrodt, Witt, & Shimkowski, 2014), and divorce (Gottman & Levenson, 2000).
National efforts aimed at preventing marital distress and divorce through relationship and marriage education (RME) interventions have become more prominent (Ponzetti, 2016). It is estimated that nearly 44% of couples participate in some form of RME before marriage (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006). These interventions have been found to be effective in assisting couples to develop positive relationship maintenance behaviors (Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008) and have produced small improvements in relationship satisfaction and communication (Williamson, Altman, Hsueh, & Bradbury, 2016). However, it is unclear how relationship uncertainty before participation may affect reports of relationship maintenance and damaging behaviors post-programming.
Premarital Relationship and Relationship Marriage Education (RME)
The enduring dynamics model, also referred to as the maintenance hypothesis (Lavner et al., 2012) or the perpetual problems model (Huston, 1994), posits that the early patterns of marital interaction predict later relationship outcomes (Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010; Kurdek, 2002; Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001; Clements, Stanley, & Markman, 2004). Patterns of relationship behaviors are likely developed during the courtship process stemming from the interplay of behaviors that reflect stable psychological infrastructures for both partners (Surra, 1990; Markman, et al., 2010; Huston, et al, 2001). Before marriage, many relationship dynamics are predictors of later relationship outcomes. For example, couples who have self-reported and observed negative communication during the courtship process have lower marital quality five years later (Markman, et al., 2010). Further, couples who break up and renew their relationship before marriage are more likely to exhibit worse adjustment and are expected more likely to experience separation over the first five years of marriage (Vennum & Johnson, 2014).
Interdependence theory (Thibaut, 2017) also contributes to our understanding of complex relationships and calls for the dyadic analysis of the couple’s relationships. Specifically, interdependence theory suggests that romantic partners are dependent on their relationship to meet their needs and this dependence increases satisfaction and commitment (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Thibaut, 2017). Thibaut and Kelley (1959) further theorized that relational satisfaction is a result of calculating the rewards and costs of a relationship relative to expectations. Thus, we theorize that those who experience relationship uncertainty may be less likely to engage in relationship maintenance behaviors and more likely to report more relationship damaging behaviors due to decreased satisfaction and commitments.
Both the enduring dynamics model and interdependence theory suggest that the premarital relationship is a critical period in relationship development. Therefore, relationship and marriage education (RME) programs that reinforce positive relationship dynamics and support couples in developing skills to address negative maintenance behaviors may reduce the risk of perpetual problems which couples experience later in their relationship (Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008).
Finally, RME has been found to increase relationship satisfaction (Halford & Bodenmann, 2013; Halford, et al., 2015) and improve dyadic interaction patterns, including communication skills and relationship quality (Fawcett, Hawkins, Blanchard, & Carroll, 2010). Some research has also shown moderate positive effects of RME for couples who may be considered high risk (Afifi & Reichert, 1996), low income (Hawkins & Ooms, 2012) or highly distressed (DeMaria, 2005). The current study further contributes to this literature by exploring the influence of relationship uncertainty on the dyadic interactions of engaged couples six-months following the pre-marital RME.
The Current Study
Guided by uncertainty reduction theory’s conceptualization of relationship uncertainty, the enduring dynamics model, and the interdependence theory, it was hypothesized that relationship uncertainty would predict more frequent self-reported (actor effect; H1) and partner-reported (partner effect; H2) relationship damaging behaviors as well as fewer positive self-reported (actor effect; H3) and partner-reported (partner effect; H4) relationship maintenance behaviors for both partners. Because of the limited research, exploratory post hoc analyses were also conducted to examine possible gender differences in these associations.
Methods
Design and Procedure
Data were collected as part of a larger non-experimental design study evaluating the influence of premarital education on a convenience sample of 83 engaged couples (Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Berger, 1988). Couples completed the pre-marital Preparation and Relationship Enhancement program (Olson & Olson, 1999) which completes the couple’s assessment, completed individually prior to the program, to help couples gain awareness of their relationship strengths and growth areas and then provides semi-structured feedback that teaches the couple needed skills (e.g., communication, conflict resolution) to improve their relationship. The program was offered over a three-year period through a marriage and family therapy (MFT) program at a large public Southeastern University. Couples self-selected to participate in the 8-hour program in one of two delivery formats: (1) a group workshop (45.7%) in which couples participated in a one-day program with other couples, or (2) conjoint sessions (54.3%) consisting of six conjoint sessions. Both group and conjoint sessions were facilitated by MFT doctoral students who were trained and certified in PREPARE. Following completion of the program, couples received a notarized certificate of completion that could be applied to a marriage license fee discount.
As part of the larger study evaluating changes in a couple’s relationship attitudes and behaviors, couples were also invited to complete surveys before the program (T1), two weeks after the program (T2), and six months after the program (T3). A monetary reimbursement of $15 was offered for participants who completed each assessment. As both delivery formats have been found to yield equivalent short-term changes in various relationship measures (Berger, 1988), data from both groups were combined. For this study, only data collected before starting the program (T1) and again approximately six-months later (from here on referred to as T2) are utilized given our interest in examining behavior patterns beyond two weeks of the program.
Sample
Of the 83 couples enrolled, 100% completed the survey at T1, and 83% (n = 69) of the couples had one (n = 9 couples; 6 females, 3 males) or both (n = 60) partners who completed the survey at T2. Of the 166 participants at T1, the majority were Caucasian (76.5%) and never-married (86.6%), and they ranged in age from 19 to 66 years (M = 27.88, SD = 7.23). The majority of the participants had attended college (70.5%) or graduated from college (22.9%) and had worked either full time (63.8%) or part-time (21.2%). The majority of participants (75.2%) reported individual incomes less than $40,000, with 19.9% reporting incomes within the range of $40,000 to $75,000 and 8.1% earning more than $75,000. Also, all couples were in opposite-sex relationships, and most couples (69.5%) had known each other between 1 – 4 years. At the time of enrollment in the study, 68.9% of couples reported currently living together and 33% were to be married in less than two months, 31% within 3 – 6 months, and 36% had not determined a date for their wedding. Only 4.8% of couples reported having a child together, and 19.5% of women and 18.3% of men reported having children from a prior relationship.
Initial analysis involving the comparison of respondents who completed the group workshop versus the conjoint sessions revealed no significant differences with the exception of the number of children together (i.e., four couples enrolled in the group workshop had children and no couples enrolled in the conjoint sessions had children together). The analysis compared the respondents who completed the T2 survey to those who did not reveal any statistically significant differences in study variables, relational, or demographic information collected at T1.
Measures
Relationship Uncertainty. Guided by the uncertainty reduction theory and the conceptualization of relational uncertainty (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999), 9-items from various measures on the T1 survey were used to assess relationship uncertainty. For example, participants were asked how frequently they regretted being with their partners and how ready they felt for their marriage. Responses were recorded and standardized, and a mean score was created such that higher scores indicated greater relationship uncertainty for men (α = .86) and women (α = .88). A list of the 9-items, along with descriptive data, is provided in Table 1.
Relationship Damaging Behaviors. At T2, relationship-damaging behaviors were measured using the Communication Patterns Questionnaire short form (Christensen & Sullaway, 1984). Eight of the 11-items were used in the current study that reflected negative patterns of communication during discussions of issues or problems in relationships. Participants reported how likely (1 =very unlikely; 9 = very likely) they engaged in each pattern (e.g., “Man criticizes while woman defends herself;” “You both avoid discussing the problem”). A mean score was computed, with higher scores reflecting greater use of relationship damaging behaviors for men (α = .79) and women (α = .81).
Relationship Maintenance Behaviors. At T2, positive relationship maintenance behaviors were measured using the Socio-emotional Behavior in Marriage Scale (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991). The 15-item measure asked couples to reflect on their daily interactions and report how frequently in a typical day their partner demonstrated behaviors reflecting affectionate expression, sexual interest, and negativity. Responses were recorded as 1 = (never) to 4 (often throughout the day). For this study, 7-items reflecting affectionate expression (e.g., “make your partner laugh,” “share emotions, feelings, or problems with your partner”) were used to capture positive relationship maintenance behaviors. A mean score was computed, with higher scores reflecting the more frequent use of positive relationship maintenance behaviors for men (α = .87) and women (α = .85).
Covariates. Due to prior findings suggesting gender differences in reports of relationship uncertainty (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002; Knobloch et al,, 2016; Dainton et al., 2017) as well as a decline in uncertainty with relationship length (Weger & Emmett, 2009; Priem & Solomon, 2011) we explored gender and the number of years partners knew each other (1 = less than one year, 2 = 1-2 years, 3 = 3-4 years, 5 or more =4) as possible covariates. Additionally, we explored couple characteristics associated with relationship uncertainty (Knobloch et al., 2016) including whether either partner was married before (0 = no, 1 = yes), had children from a prior relationship (0 = no, 1 = yes), and the couple’s cohabitation status at the beginning of programming (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Analyses
First, mean scores and standard deviations for measure items and model variables were calculated. Next, independent sample t-tests and bivariate correlations were used to examine couple and demographic characteristics as well as model variables. Finally, we controlled for covariates and the outcome variables relationship maintenance behaviors and damaging relationship behaviors at T1 in the APIM model. Despite covariates and T1 controls, significant and non-significant paths remained consistent. Therefore, the results from the most parsimonious models are presented below.
We examined dyadic effects of relationship uncertainty before PREPARE and relationship maintenance and damaging behaviors six-months following PREPARE using Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (Kashy & Kenny, 2000). APIM is a statistical technique to understand both directional and bidirectional effects in interpersonal relationships (Cook & Kenny, 2005). In APIM, the actor effect also called direct effect refers to the outcome that is affected by the actor’s own predictor variable. The partner effect refers to the outcome affected by his or her partner’s predictor variable. This technique is recommended as both are means of evaluating therapeutic outcomes (Cook & Snyder, 2005) and for the study of close relationships (Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Rholes, 2001).
Two APIM models were run independently, with both female and male reports of relationship uncertainty as for the predictor variables in both models. Model one examined female and male reports of using relationship maintenance behaviors as the outcome. The second model tested female’s and male’s reports of relationship damaging behaviors as the outcome. All scales were standardized before analysis. Also, we used the guidelines for conventional model fit indices (Hayes, 2009; Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008) including an insignificant χ2, CFI over.95, RMSEA lower than.05, and an SRMR less than. 08. Last, at T1, less than 1% of the data was missing from the 166 individual respondents. At T2, because data was only available from 128 of the T1 respondents (77.1%), maximum likelihood estimates were used for the missing data.
Results
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and bivariate associations between the study variables. In general, the sample had positive views of their relationship and felt confident in the prospect of making their relationship last. On average, respondents indicated moderate to low levels of relationship uncertainty. Independent sample t-tests confirmed there was no significant difference in the level of relationship uncertainty between men (M=1.82, SD = 0.76) and women (M=1.94, SD =.68); t (150), p>.33. However, roughly a third of the sample (32%) agreed to one or more items measuring the relationship uncertainty, including regretting being with, living with, or being engaged to their partner. Also, men and women reported engaging in frequent relationship maintenance behaviors and moderate levels of relationship damaging behaviors. There were no statistically significant differences between men’s (M = 3.22, SD = 0.53) and women’s (M = 3.22, SD = 0.50) reports of relationship maintenance behaviors (t (164) = 0.04, p>.99) or relationship damaging behaviors (Men: M = 3.66, SD = 1.45; Women: M = 3.66, SD = 1.45; t (157) = 0.00, p>.97). Last, correlations (see Table 2) confirmed the expected associations between the model variables and demographic and relationship characteristics.
Relationship Maintenance Behaviors
The first APIM model, displayed in Figure 1, shows female and male relationship uncertainty at T1 and reports by using relationship maintenance behaviors at T2 six months following PREPARE. The total model accounted for a moderate proportion of variance in the outcome variables relationship maintenance behavior at T2 for males (R2=.17) and females (R2 = .14). The first model showed good fit of the data, χ2 = .32, df = 6, p = .95, CFI = .995, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .004.
A significant actor effect was found for females (afemale= -.45, χ2 (1) = 10.763, p<.001). Female’s relationship uncertainty at T1 was negatively related to female’s reports of using relationship maintenance behaviors at T2. Although approaching significance, no significant partner effects were found for females (pfemale = -.26 χ2(1) = 3.399, p =.065). Finally, no significant actor or partner effects were found for males (amale= -.19, χ2 (1) = 2.196, p = .138) and (pmale = 0.12, χ2(1) = .977, p=.322).
We also tested for the equivalence of actor and partner effects across male and female paths using model comparison. There were significant differences between female’s actor and male’s partner effect (afemalepmale = -.15, χ2 (1) = 6.800, p = .001) indicating female’s relationship uncertainty was more influential than male’s uncertainty on later relationship maintenance behaviors. We also found a significant difference between male’s actor and partner effect (apmale = -.02, χ2 (1) = 7.50, p = .006) indicating male’s actor effects were more influential on the male’s use of relationship maintenance behavior compared to their partner’s reports of relationship maintenance behavior. We found no significant differences between female’s actor and partner effect (apfemale = -.37, χ2 (1) = 2.44, p = .117), female’s actor effect and male’s actor effect (afemaleamale = -.32, χ2 (1) = 1.55, p = .212), female’s partner effect and male’s partner effect (pfemalepmale = -.05, χ2 (1) = 3.31, p = .06), or between female partner effect and male actor effect (pfemaleamale = -.22, χ2 (1) = .085, p = .769).
Relationship Damaging Behaviors
The second APIM model, displayed in Figure 2, shows female and male relationship uncertainty at T1 and relationship damaging behaviors at T2 six-months after PREPARE. The total model accounted for a moderate proportion of variance in the outcome variables of male and female relationship damaging behaviors at T2 for females (R2=.16) and males (R2=.12). The second model also showed good fit of the data, χ2 = 0.159, df = 6, p = .95, CFI = .996, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .002.
A significant actor effect was found for females (afemale = .46, χ2 (1) = 11.13, p<.001). Female’s relationship uncertainty at T1 was positively related to female’s reports of more frequent relationship damaging behaviors at T2. A significant partner effect was found for females (pfemale = 0.33, χ2 (1) = 5.42, p < .01). Female’s relationship uncertainty at T1 was positively related to male’s reports of more frequent relationship damaging behaviors at T2. No significant actor or partner effects were found for males (amale = 0.11, χ2 (1) = .732, p = .392) and (pmale = -0.03,χ2 (1) = .052, p = .819).
We also tested for the equivalence of actor and partner effects across male and female paths using model comparison. There was a significant difference between female’s actor and male’s partner effect (afemalepmale = 0.20, χ2 (1) = 4.99, p = .025). The Female’s actor effect was stronger than the male’s partner effect. We found no significant differences between female’s actor and partner effect (apfemale = 0.40, χ2 (1) = .655, p = .418). We found no significant differences between the female’s actor effect and male’s actor effect (afemaleamale = 0.28, χ2 (1) = 3.102, p = .078). We found no significant differences between female’s partner effect and male’s partner effect (pfemalepmale = 0.13, χ2 (1) = 3.261, p = .070), between female’s partner effect and male’s actor effect (pfemaleamale = 0.21, χ2 (1) = 0.91, p = .337), and between male’s actor and partner effect (apmale = 0.04, χ2 (1) = .857, p = .354).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to consider how relationship uncertainty before participation in premarital relationship and marriage education (RME) may influence relationship maintenance and damaging behaviors following RME. Overall, findings from the current study contribute to our understanding of the dyadic effects of relationship uncertainty on relationship maintenance behaviors and damaging relationship behaviors following the couple’s participation in the PREPARE program. The current sample of engaged couples who enrolled in this RME program had positive views of their relationship and high expectations of the prospects of making their relationship last. Initially, we theorized that relationship uncertainty would influence relationship maintenance and damaging behaviors for both males and females; this was confirmed but only for females. Female relationship uncertainty was a predictor of both female’s and male’s reports by using fewer relationship maintenance behaviors and female’s engagement in relationship damaging behaviors six-months after completing the RME program.
Concerning females, these findings are consistent with the conceptualization of relationship uncertainty based on uncertainty reduction theory and prior research indicating that relationship uncertainty is linked to poor relationship outcomes, including a decline in relationship maintenance behaviors and increment in relationship damaging behaviors (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999; Dainton, 2003; Dainton et al., 2017). Further, despite the positive influence of PREPARE on improving these behaviors (Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Berger, 1988) patterns were detected even following a RME program that relationship uncertainty is difficult for couples to overcome (Berger, 1988). As well, our use of APIM offers insights into how partners who experience relationship uncertainty may influence each other’s (partner effects) perceptions of relationship damaging behaviors and their own use of positive relationship maintenance behaviors (actor effects).
Our results indicate that when females are less certain of the stability and future of the relationship, both they and their partner may engage in fewer maintenance behaviors. Consistent with interdependence theory (Thibaut, 2017), females who perceive the relationship as less stable may consider the threat of relationship uncertainty too great a cost and consequently may be less willing to expend additional psychological and relational resources in the form of positive relationship maintenance behaviors. It may create a cycle in which neglecting to engage in frequent relationship maintenance behaviors may perpetuate negative views of the relationship and result in increased engagement in relationship damaging behaviors and continued uncertainty regarding the future of the relationship.
Results also partially support the enduring dynamics model (Lavner et al., 2012) as they confirm that for females, early relational uncertainty before marriage is a warning sign for later perceptions of more negative relational outcomes and a decline in reports of positive outcomes. Thus, although the premarital relationship and marriage education (RME) programs reinforce positive relationship dynamics and support couples in developing skills to address negative maintenance behaviors (Hawkins et al., 2008), the enduring dynamic of relationship uncertainty can lead to poor relationship practices later in a couple’s relationship.
Implications
We offer several potential points of focus on relationship education providers. While RME programs have been shown to promote healthy relationship maintenance behaviors (more warmth, dyadic coping, conflict management, and improved communication), and reduce negative couple experiences (infidelity, psychological distress for women, and less physical assault for men) that lead to marital distress and dissolution (Carroll & Doherty, 2003; Rhoades, 2015), relationship uncertainty for one or both partners may influence RME outcomes. Therefore, relationship educators who screen couples before participating in RME programming should consider screening for relationship uncertainty, so that RME programming can better address concerns for couples who experience premarital doubts and uncertainties. It will help to prevent the development of relationship damaging behaviors and increase the use of positive relationship maintenance behaviors. Furthermore, for the couples who are found to have positive results of screening for relationship uncertainty prior to relationship education; therapeutic interventions such as individual counseling should be considered to address uncertainties directly.
Limitations and Future Research
Our use of APIM contributes valuable information to understanding how relationship uncertainty in dyads participating in premarital education influences the outcomes. However, we note some limitations present in the current investigation. First, consistent with prior research, (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005; Weger & Emmett, 2009), couples in this study generally reported lower levels of relationship uncertainty. Although this limited the variability in relationship uncertainty, our results still yielded statistically significant findings which suggest that even a small level of uncertainty about the relationship can influence relationship behaviors. Still, future research is still needed to explore the damaging effects of higher levels of relationship uncertainty on relationship outcomes. Moreover, even though the couples in our study completed a premarital RME program, we are unable to determine from the data if and how the skills they acquired from the program directly (or indirectly) influenced changes in uncertainty as well as the effects of uncertainty on their relationship behaviors. Future research examining the potential buffering effects of RME on these associations is needed. Last, given that our study was conducted primarily with white/Caucasian individuals all of whom were in opposite-sex relationships, considering research on relationship uncertainty in same-sex relationships, other ethnically diverse populations, and older or lower education couples is recommended for future studies.
Although it is outside the scope of this study, future research should focus on sources of relationship uncertainty and possible moderators that may buffer or exacerbate the influence of premarital uncertainty on post-marital functioning including socioeconomic characteristics, prior relationship experiences, RME program characteristics. Because our findings do not speak of causality of relationship uncertainty, we are left with questions about what influences men and women develop uncertainties. For example, relationship uncertainty may develop from some reasons, including a history of relationship cycling (Vennum & Johnson, 2014) or high levels of topic avoidance that prevent couples from clarifying the status of their relationship (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004). Further, stressful events or contexts can create more marital problems (Neff & Karney, 2017) and may contribute to relationship uncertainty.
Another potential area of focus for future research is the influence of the family of origin experiences (e.g., parental marital status; attachment styles) on how both partners perceive their relationship and the expectations they have regarding the prospect of making their relationship last. As well, each partner’s prior relationships, the presence of children from former relationships, and transgressions such as infidelity with current and former partners may contribute to relationship uncertainty.
Conclusion
The findings from this study advance research on couples who may be considered high risk in the context of premarital relationship education due to the previously understudied and under-screened relationship dynamic relationship uncertainty. Our study shows that relationship uncertainty, especially for women, may be a potential risk factor for later reports of more relationship damaging behaviors for both partners as well as reports of personally engaging in less relationship maintenance behavior despite participation in premarital education.
References
Afifi, W. A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the role of uncertainty in jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 9(2), 93-103.
Berger, C. R. (1988). Uncertainty and information exchange in developing relationships. In S. Duck, Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367—389). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1974). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human communication research, 1(2), 99-112.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3-33.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situation: An application of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(6), 821-843.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communications Monographs, 59(3), 243-26.
Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital prevention programs: A meta‐analytic review of outcome research. Family Relations, 52(2), 105-118.
Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication patterns questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles: University of California.
Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Before they said “I do”: Discriminating among marital outcomes over 13 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 613-626.
Clifford, C. E., Vennum, A., Busk, M., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). Testing the impact of sliding versus deciding in cyclical and noncyclical relationships. Personal Relationships, 67(2), 223-238.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101-109.
Cook, W. L., & Snyder, D. K. (2005). Analyzing non-independent outcomes in couple therapy using the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 133-41.
Dainton, M. (2003). Equity and uncertainty in relational maintenance. Western Journal of Communication, 67(2), 164-186.
Dainton, M., Goodboy, A. K., Borzea, D., & Goldman, Z. W. (2017). The dyadic effects of relationship uncertainty on negative relational maintenance. Communication Reports, 30(3), 170-181.
DeMaria, R. M. (2005). Distressed couples and marriage education. Family Relations, 54(2), 242-253.
Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(1), 163–173.
Fawcett, E. B., Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., & Carroll, J. S. (2010). Do Premarital Education Programs Really Work? A Meta‐analytic Study. Family Relations, 59(3), 232-239.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (57), 47–52.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 737-745.
Guerrero, L. K., & Chavez, A. M. (2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different types of romantic intent: An explorative study. Western Journal of Communication, 69(4), 339–358.
Halford, W. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Effects of relationship education on maintenance of couple relationship satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(4), 512-525.
Halford, W. K., Pepping, C. A., Bodenmann, G., Wilson, K. L., Busby, D., Larson, J., & Holman, T. (2015). Immediate effect of couple relationship education on low-satisfaction couples: A randomized clinical trial plus an uncontrolled trial replication. Behavior Therapy, 46(3), 409-421.
Hawkins, A. J., & Ooms, T. (2012). Can marriage and relationship education be an effective policy tool to help low-income couples form and sustain healthy marriages and relationships? A review of lessons learned. Marriage & Family Review, 48(6), 524-554.
Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 78(5), 723-734.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(1), 408–420.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Huston, T. L. (1994). Courtship antecedents of marital satisfaction and love. In E. Ralph, & G. Robin, Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 43-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(5), 721-733.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(2), 237-252.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd, Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Knobloch, L. K., & Carpenter-Theune, K. E. (2004). Topic avoidance in developing romantic relationships: Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research, 31(2), 173-205.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261-278.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Intimacy and the magnitude and experience of episodic relational uncertainty within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 9(4), 457-478.
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2010). An actor-partner interdependence model of relational turbulence: Cognitions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(5), 595-619.
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 3-26.
Knobloch, L. K., Sharabi, L. L., Delaney, A. L., & Suranne, S. M. (2016). The role of relational uncertainty in topic avoidance among couples with depression. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 25-48.
Knobloch, L. K., Solomon, D. H., & Cruz, M. G. (2001). The role of relationship development and attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8(2), 205-224.
Kurdek, L. A. (2002). Eredicting the Timing of Separation and Marital Satisfaction: An Eight‐Year Prospective Longitudinal Study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 163-179.
Lavner, J. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2012a). Incremental change or initial differences? Testing two models of marital deterioration. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 606-616.
Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012b). Do cold feet warn of trouble ahead? Premarital uncertainty and four-year marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 1012-1017.
Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). The premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 289-298.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2017). Acknowledging the elephant in the room: How stressful environmental contexts shape relationship dynamics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13(1), 107-110.
Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., Theisen, J. C., & Maniotes, C. R. (2017). Relationship Maintenance: A Review of Research on Romantic Relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 275-306.
Olson, D. H., & Olson, A. K. (1999). PREPARE/ENRICH Program: Version 2000. In R. Berger, & M. T. Hannah, Preventive Approaches in Couples Therapy (pp. 196-216). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Owen, J., Keller, B., Shuck, B., Luebcke, B., Knopp, K., & Rhoades, G. K. (2014). An initial examination of commitment uncertainty in couple therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(4), 232.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships: II. Replication and extension. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 516-547.
Ponzetti, J. J. (2016). Evidence-based approaches to relationship and marriage education. New York: Routledge.
Priem, J. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2011). Relational Uncertainty and Cortisol Responses to Hurtful and Supportive Messages from a Dating Partner. Personal Relationships, 18(2), 198-223.
Rhoades, G. K. (2015). The effectiveness of the within our reach relationship education program for couples: Findings from a federal randomized trial. Family process, 54(4), 672-685.
Rogge, R. D., Fincham, F. D., Crasta, D., & Maniaci, M. R. (2017). Positive and negative evaluation of relationships: Development and validation of the Positive–Negative Relationship Quality (PN-RQ) scale. Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 1028.
Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. H. Harvey, & A. Wenzel, Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and Enhancement (pp. 87-113). Psychology Press.
Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28-58.
Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 804–820.
Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(2), 278-303.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 99(1), 217-242.
Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 117-126.
Surra, C. A. (1990). Research and theory on mate selection and premarital relationships in the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 844-865.
Thibaut, J. W. (2017). The social psychology of groups. Routledge.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.
Vennum, A., & Johnson, M. D. (2014). The impact of premarital cycling on early marriage. Family Relations, 63(4), 439-452.
Vennum, A., Lindstrom, R., Monk, J. K., & Adams, R. (2014). “It’s complicated” The continuity and correlates of cycling in cohabiting and marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(3), 410-430.
Weger, H., & Emmett, M. C. (2009). Romantic intent, relationship uncertainty, and relationship maintenance in young adults’ cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(7), 964-988.
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). How couples maintain marriages: A closer look at self and spouse influences upon the use of main- tenance behaviors in marriage. Family Relations, 48(2), 263-269.
Weigel, D. J., Brown, C., & O’Riordan, C. K. (2011). Everyday expressions of commitment and relational uncertainty as predictors of relationship quality and stability over time. Communication Reports, 24(1), 38-50.
Williamson, H. C., Altman, N., Hsueh, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Effects of relationship education on couple communication and satisfaction: A randomized controlled trial with low-income couples. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 84(2), 156.
