Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality traits moderate the association between conflict resolution and T

subsequent relationship satisfaction in dating couples
Tenille C. Taggarta, , Sarah M. Bannona, Julia F. Hammettb
⁎

a
Stony Brook University, United States of America
b
University of California, Los Angeles, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Communication is an important component of relationship satisfaction. Its longitudinal relationship may not be
Personality traits as robust as previously thought, leaving open the possibility that individual-level factors may influence this
Relationship satisfaction association. Personality traits have been associated with relationship satisfaction and communication, sepa-
Conflict resolution rately, but no study has simultaneously examined these interrelated components. We used stepwise structural
Couple communication
equation modeling to examine the extent to which conflict resolution skills, personality traits, and their inter-
Structural equation modeling
actions predicted relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples (N = 116 individuals) at four-month
follow-up. Results showed that some personality traits moderated the association between conflict resolution
and later relationship satisfaction. Specifically, for individuals with lower than average levels of con-
scientiousness and neuroticism, the link was positive; for individuals with higher than average levels of con-
scientiousness and neuroticism, the link was negative. Notably, conflict resolution skills, personality traits, and
their interactions accounted for more than half of the variance in later relationship satisfaction. Results suggest
that personality traits may differentially influence the communication-relationship satisfaction link in couples
over time. Future studies investigating the communication-satisfaction link should examine these and other
individual differences to better inform interventions for distressed couples.

1. Introduction
Intimate relationships are a fundamental aspect of life (Roberts &
Robins, 2000) and satisfaction with these relationships robustly pre-
dicts a variety of important mental and physical health outcomes
(Cotten, 1999; Johnson, Backlund, Sorlie, & Loveless, 2000; Lillard &
Waite, 1995; Murphy, Glaser, & Grundy, 1997; Prigerson, Maciejewski,
& Rosenheck, 1999; Ruvolo, 1998; Simon, 2002). Given nearly half of
U.S. marriages are estimated to end in divorce (Schoen & Standish,
2001), public health efforts have focused on mitigating relationship
dissatisfaction and dissolution (Hsueh et al., 2012; Johnson, 2012). To
do this, it is essential to identify pathways underlying healthy re-
lationships. Such research is crucial to improving and informing pre-
vention and intervention efforts aimed at reducing couple discord and
dissolution.
Evidence has suggested that communication, and particularly con-
flict negotiation, is significantly associated with relationship satisfac-
tion and stability cross-sectionally and longitudinally (Brenda, Susan, &
Clyde, 1998; Carrère & Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989;
Markman, 1979, 1981; Rogge & Bradbury, 1999). Divorced (Hawkins,
Willoughby, & Doherty, 2012) and distressed (Doss, Simpson, &
Christensen, 2004; Miller, Yorgason, Sandberg, & White, 2003) couples
cite communication problems as one of the main reasons for relation-
ship discord and dissolution, and a majority of interventions for dis-
tressed couples target conflict communication as the mechanism of
change (Benson, McGinn, & Christensen, 2012; Lavner, Karney, &
Bradbury, 2016; Wood, Moore, Clarkwest, & Killewald, 2014). Such
evidence highlights the importance of communication skills on re-
lationship satisfaction.
Mixed findings have emerged in longitudinal examinations of the
communication-satisfaction association. For instance, evidence suggests
more negative communication can lead to decreases (Huston, Caughlin,
Houts, Smith, & George, 2001) or increases (Heavey, Layne, &
Christensen, 1993) in relationship satisfaction over time. Thus, the
longitudinal direction and strength of the communication-satisfaction
association may not be as robust as previously thought (Lavner et al.,
2016). Two factors may help to explain these discrepant findings. First,
previous research may have obscured findings due to differences in
methodology, thus preventing empirical consensus. Second, un-
accounted for individual-level differences (e.g., personality traits) may

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11733, United States of America.
E-mail address: Tenille.taggart@stonybrook.edu (T.C. Taggart).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.036
Received 2 July 2018; Received in revised form 26 November 2018; Accepted 27 November 2018
Available online 04 December 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.C. Taggart et al.
influence the communication-satisfaction association over time. To
examine these possibilities, we first briefly review previous literature
and then discuss how the current study addressed the identified lim-
itations and gaps.
1.1. Brief review of communication–satisfaction literature
For years, researchers have examined different types of commu-
nication (e.g., affective; problem-solving) in relation to relationship
satisfaction. Recently, there has been a shift in the zeitgeist from fo-
cusing on the content of couples' communication to focusing on the
context. A growing body of research suggests that long-term relation-
ship satisfaction is most robustly related to how couples communicate
about problems (Kiecolt-Glaser, Bane, Glaser, & Malarkey, 2003;
Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010; McNulty &
Russell, 2010). Much of this evidence has relied on behavioral models
(i.e., clinician-rated observations of individuals' emotions and/or be-
haviors during dyadic conflict communication) to infer couples' conflict
communication skills (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2003; Lavner et al., 2016).
However, consistent with theoretical models (Bradbury & Fincham,
1990; Murphy, 2013), partners' contextual interpretations of their in-
teractions are influenced by their own perceptions and attributions of
their partners' intentions, the content of their speech, and the conveyed
meaning of the interaction, which in turn influence their relationship
satisfaction and stability over time (Brock, Dindo, Simms, & Clark,
2016; McNulty & Russell, 2010). Reliance on clinician-rated observa-
tions has limited our understanding of the communication-satisfaction
association and has left unclear the extent to which couples' perceptions
of their conflict communication skills may relate to subsequent re-
lationship satisfaction.
1.2. Personality traits as moderators in the communication–satisfaction
association
Personality traits are stable constructs that characteristically influ-
ence individuals' thoughts, feelings, and responses to interpersonal si-
tuations (Caspi, 1998; Funder, 1991). Personality traits govern in-
dividuals' communication styles (Weaver, 1998), including speaking
and listening behaviors (Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004; Heaven,
Smith, Prabhakar, Abraham, & Mete, 2006; Villaume & Bodie, 2007),
which are critical components of effective communication and conflict
resolution (Bodie, Worthington, Imhof, & Cooper, 2008; Canary &
Spitzberg, 1989). Prominent relational theories (e.g., the vulnerability-
stress adaptation model [VSA]; Karney & Bradbury, 1995) corroborate
these notions, suggesting that individual-level differences (e.g., per-
sonality traits) represent enduring liabilities that influence how couples
experience and cope with conflict, which in turn impact their re-
lationship satisfaction and stability. Indeed, partners' personality traits
(i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and
openness) have been linked to various aspects of intimate relationships,
including satisfaction, duration, and stability (Weidmann, Ledermann,
& Grob, 2016), and partners' conflict resolution skills influence couples'
relationship satisfaction and stability (Christensen, 1988; Fitzpatrick &
Noller, 1990; Fletcher, 2002; Gordon, Baucom, Epstein, Burnett, &
Rankin, 1999; Ridley, Wilhelm, & Surra, 2001; Schaap, Buunk, &
Kerkstra, 1988). Most consistently, agreeableness and conscientious-
ness have been positively associated with intimate relationship out-
comes (Decuyper, De Bolle, & De Fruyt, 2012; Dyrenforth, Kashy,
Donnellan, & Lucas, 2010; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, &
Rooke, 2010; Schaffhuser, Allemand, & Martin, 2014) whereas neuro-
ticism has been negatively associated (Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin,
1999; Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, & Conger, 2005; Karney & Bradbury,
1995; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000, 2002).
Perhaps personality traits relate more strongly to communication
styles, particularly related to conflict resolution, as opposed to re-
lationship satisfaction. Subsequently, conflict negotiations can exert
282
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289
greater influence on couples' relationship satisfaction and stability
(Solomon & Jackson, 2014). For instance, partners with higher levels of
neuroticism not only exhibited more negative communication patterns,
but also significantly lower levels of relationship satisfaction and sta-
bility over time (Donnellan et al., 2004). Additionally, higher levels of
partner neuroticism were associated with poorer communication styles
characterized by avoidance, withholding, demand-withdraw patterns,
and deficits in constructiveness during conflict resolution (Heaven
et al., 2006), which are all associated with poorer relationship quality
(Fletcher, 2002). Furthermore, findings reveal that (a) partners' per-
sonalities significantly affect not only their own relationship satisfac-
tion, but also their partners' (Dyrenforth et al., 2010); (b) personality
traits reliably predict intimate relationship outcomes cross-sectionally
and longitudinally (Donnellan et al., 2004; Donnellan et al., 2005); and
(c) findings persist regardless of self- versus partner-rated personality
assessments (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000).
Overall, personality traits influence communication styles as well as
long-term relationship satisfaction and stability, suggesting partners'
personality traits may moderate the association between couples'
communication and subsequent relationship satisfaction (Christensen &
Shenk, 1991; Fletcher, 2002). However, to date, few studies have ex-
amined these three interrelated components in a single model. None-
theless, for those studies that have, a number of limitations exist. First,
most research has exclusively relied on clinician-rated observations to
infer couples' conflict resolution skills and failed to account for couples'
subjective interpretations. Second, researchers often examined a lim-
ited number of personality traits (e.g., only neuroticism) and/or failed
to use well-established, widely accepted scales, such as the Big Five
model of personality (Matthews, Saklofske, Costa, Deary, & Zeidner,
1998), to assess personality (e.g., Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). Finally, no
study has addressed the aforementioned limitations using a long-
itudinal framework to examine these associations. Only piecemeal
contributions have been made to the literature, leaving unclear the
extent to which partners' personality traits may differentially relate to
the conflict resolution-relationship satisfaction link over time. There-
fore, in support of public health efforts (Hsueh et al., 2012; Johnson,
2012), it is essential that research elucidate the direct and indirect
pathways underlying healthy intimate relationships.
1.3. The present study
We used structural equation modeling to analyze two waves of data
(baseline and four-month follow-up) collected in 2015–2016 from 58
heterosexual dating couples to answer the following questions. First, to
what extent are partners' conflict resolution skills and personality di-
rectly related to relationship satisfaction over time? Second, to what
extent are partners' conflict resolution skills and personality traits, in
tandem, related to relationship satisfaction over time? Third, to what
extent do partners' personality traits moderate the conflict resolution-
relationship satisfaction link over time? We hypothesized that partners'
conflict resolution skills would be positively associated with subsequent
relationship satisfaction, and that some personality traits would sig-
nificantly moderate the communication-relationship satisfaction asso-
ciation. Specifically, we predicted that the association between conflict
resolution and relationship satisfaction would be particularly strong for
partners lower in neuroticism and higher in conscientiousness and
agreeableness.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
As part of a larger study, a unique paradigm (i.e., card-matching
task) assessed couples' communication and, based on a previous study
using the same paradigm (Schober & Carstensen, 2010), we established
a target sample size of 60 couples. Participants were recruited from
T.C. Taggart et al.
undergraduate psychology courses at a large northeastern public uni-
versity. Eligibility criteria required that both partners were: aged 18 or
older, together for at least three months, monogamous, spoke English,
and denied being fearful of their partner or any history of intimate
partner violence from their current partner (O'Leary, Foran, & Cohen,
2013).
We received 359 responses to the online screener; 179 of these in-
dividuals met eligibility criteria. Eligible individuals were called by a
research team member to verify eligibility and complete informed
consent. Of the individuals contacted, 146 responded to the phone
screener (81.6% response rate). Seventy-two individuals were excluded
for the following reasons: underage (n = 4), inproficient English
(n = 15), relationship length < three months (n = 27), history of
being injured by/fearful of their partner (n = 2), and partner was un-
able to participate (n = 24). Seventy-four individuals met eligibility
criteria (50.7%) and represented 60 eligible couples (N = 120 in-
dividuals; 14 couples consisted of partners who dually completed the
phone screener).
At baseline, eligible couples attended a joint laboratory visit. One
couple was dismissed at baseline due to inproficient English skills.
Partners completed computer-administered questionnaires in separate
rooms, and then completed the card-matching task. At the end of the
session, participants were compensated either with a small monetary
reward ($20) or 2 course credits. Four months later, participants' re-
lationship satisfaction was reassessed via an at-home online survey.
Participants were compensated with a $5 electronic Amazon gift card.
All study materials and protocols were approved by the university's
Institutional Review Board. All study materials can be obtained by
contacting the first author.
One couple was missing data for the variables of interest, resulting
in a final analytic sample of 58 couples (N = 116 individuals).
Participants were between 18 and 29 years old (women: M = 20.1,
SD = 1.8; men: M = 21.0, SD = 2.5; t[114] = 2.2, p = .03) and re-
lationship length ranged from 3 to 72 months (women: M = 20.0,
SD = 16.9; men: M = 19.8, SD = 16.3; t[114] = −0.05, p = .96).
Participants self-identified as White/Caucasian (n = 60; 51.7%),
Hispanic/Latino (n = 27; 23.3%), Asian/Asian-American/Pacific
Islander (n = 22; 19.0%), Black/African-American (n = 9; 7.8%),
Native American (n = 1; 0.9%), or other (n = 10; 8.6%); ten partici-
pants (8.6%) selected more than one racial/ethnic category. No parti-
cipants were married or lived together. Sixty-one percent (n = 71) of
the total sample provided follow-up data at wave 2, representing 48 of
the original 58 couples. Of those who re-participated, most (n = 65,
91.5%) remained coupled, and eight participants (n = 4 couples; 6.9%)
reported relationship dissolution. Participants lost to attrition tended to
be male (χ2[1] = 5.9, p = .02), identified as Black (χ2[1] = 8.0,
p = .005), reported a longer relationship duration at baseline (t
[83.7] = 2.3, p = .02), and were more likely to have a partner report
relationship dissolution at wave 2 (χ2[1] = 47.5, p < .001). Non-re-
sponders also reported lower levels of conscientiousness (t
[111] = 2.38, p = .02) and openness (t[112] = 2.13, p = .04) com-
pared with participants who responded at wave 2.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Relationship satisfaction
The 7-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7;
Hunsley, Best, Lefebvre, & Vito, 2001) is a multidimensional assessment
of intimate relationship satisfaction. Using a 6-point Likert scale ran-
ging from “always disagree” or “never” (coded 0) to “always agree” or
“more often [than once a day]” (5), six items measured partners'
agreement on values (e.g., “philosophy of life” and “amount of time
spent together”) and how frequently partners spent time together (e.g.,
“work together on a project” and “calmly discuss something together”).
One item assessed participants' global relationship satisfaction using a
7-point Likert scale ranging from “extremely unhappy” (0) to “perfect”
283
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289
(6). Relationship satisfaction scores were calculated by summing the
seven items, producing scores that range from 0 to 36 with higher
scores indicating higher levels of relationship satisfaction. The DAS has
been shown to be reliable and valid (Hunsley et al., 2001). Internal
reliability levels were acceptable in the current sample (total sample:
α = 0.77; men: α = 0.76; women: α = 0.80).
2.2.2. Conflict resolution
Participants' conflict resolution skills were assessed with the 8-item
Ineffective Arguing Inventory (IAI; Kurdek, 1994). Using a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from “disagree strongly” (1) to “agree strongly” (5),
participants rated the degree to which each item's statement (e.g., “we
go for days without settling our differences”) was characteristic of their
own relationship. Items were summed to reflect participants' conflict
resolution skills. Initially, higher scores indicated poorer conflict re-
solution skills; however, for ease of interpretation, items were reverse-
coded so that higher scores indicated better conflict resolution skills.
The IAI has been shown to be reliable and valid as well as strongly
associated with relationship satisfaction (Kurdek, 1994). Internal re-
liability levels were good in the current sample (total sample: α = 0.84;
men: α = 0.84; women: α = 0.85).
2.2.3. Personality traits
The abbreviated version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10;
Rammstedt & John, 2007) is a 10-item self-assessment of personality
traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism,
and openness). Participants rated how well each item described their
personality on a 5-point scale ranging from “disagree strongly” (1) to
“agree strongly” (5). Examples include, “I see myself as someone who is
reserved.”, and “I see myself as someone who is outgoing, sociable.”.
Corresponding item-pairs (two items per trait) were summed to calcu-
late dimensional scores of personality separately for each trait. In our
sample, correlations among dimensions ranged in absolute value from
0.00 to 0.30, with an average correlation of 0.18, indicating strong
discriminant validity between personality dimensions. Furthermore, the
BFI-10 relates strongly to the full BFI-44, has high test-retest reliability,
and demonstrates good convergent and discriminant validity
(Rammstedt & John, 2007).
2.2.4. Control variables
We included age (in years), sex, and baseline relationship satisfac-
tion as control variables in all adjusted models.
2.3. Analytic strategy
Statistical tests for descriptive analyses were conducted in SPSS
Version 24 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). All other analyses were conducted
using Mplus Version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Guided by
theory and previous evidence regarding the unidimensional nature of
the IAI (Kurdek, 1994), we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
parametrize a one-factor latent conflict resolution measurement model
with a mean of zero and variance of one. We used a robust weighted
least-squares estimator (WLSMV [appropriate for categorical vari-
ables]) and accounted for clustering by couple. Model fit was evaluated
with the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root
mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) using the following
benchmarks: CFI and TLI ≥ 0.95 and RMSEA ≤ 0.06 (Hu & Bentler,
1999).
After identifying a latent conflict resolution measurement model,
we used stepwise regression models to examine associations between
relationship satisfaction at four-month follow-up and conflict resolution
(Model 1), personality traits (Model 2), conflict resolution and per-
sonality traits (Model 3), and, finally, conflict resolution, personality
traits, and their interactions (Model 4). Testing latent interactions (in
Model 4) requires model-inclusion of product terms, which are non-
linear and non-normally distributed (i.e., high kurtosis and skewness).
T.C. Taggart et al.
Unless accounted for, serious methodological errors and model mis-
specification can occur (Moosbrugger, Schermelleh-Engel, & Klein,
1997). Latent Moderated Structural Equation modeling (LMS) uniquely
accounts for the non-linear and non-normal distributions of the product
terms for interaction effects (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000). As such, in
our final model, we investigated the extent to which latent conflict
resolution, personality traits, and latent conflict resolution-by-person-
ality trait interactions (e.g., latent conflict resolution-by-agreeableness
interaction) significantly predicted subsequent relationship satisfaction
via LMS (Model 4). Optimal for LMS models (Gerhard et al., 2015) and
according to LMS method (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000; Maslowsky,
Jager, & Hemken, 2015), we used an uncorrected log-likelihood ratio
test to compare relative model fit between the more parsimonious
model (without interactions) and the more complex model (with in-
teractions). Finally, we determined the amount of variance explained
by the latent interactions and the total variance explained. A commu-
nication-by-sex interaction was included in Model 4 to test for potential
sex differences in communication skills; the interaction was non-sig-
nificant. Sensitivity analyses revealed negligible changes to results
when the communication-by-gender interaction was included or ex-
cluded, and thus was allowed to remain in the model. All structural
equation models used a maximum likelihood estimator robust to non-
normality (MLR), full information-maximum likelihood (FIML) to ac-
count for data missingness and were clustered by couple. Latent inter-
actions were created using the XWITH command.
3. Results
Intercorrelations for all study variables are presented in Table 1.
3.1. Sample characteristics
Relative to men, women were younger and reported higher levels of
neuroticism. No other sex differences emerged. Analytic sample char-
acteristics are presented in Table 2.
3.2. Factor analysis
Guided by theory and previous evidence that has shown the IAI to
be unidimensional (Kurdek, 1994), we used CFA to parameterize a one-
factor measurement model of latent conflict resolution. Indicators
ranged from 0.48 to 0.92 (ps < 0.001) and the model provided okay fit
to the data (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.15). Given that
RMSEA values can be artificially inflated in models with small degrees
of freedom (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2014), we relied on the CFI
and TLI goodness of fit indices, which were excellent.1
3.3. Structural equation modeling
Results for all structural equation models are presented in Table 3.
3.3.1. Unadjusted models
Latent conflict resolution was significantly associated with re-
lationship satisfaction at four-month follow-up (Model 1; β = 0.26,
p = .03; 95% CI [0.03, 0.50]). Conversely, neither personality traits
(Model 2) nor personality traits and conflict resolution (Model 3) were
significantly associated with later relationship satisfaction. When
adding latent conflict resolution-by-personality trait interactions to the
model (Model 4), interactions between conflict resolution and con-
scientiousness (β = −0.35, p = .005; 95% CI [−0.60, −0.11]), extra-
version (β = 0.25, p = .022; 95% CI [0.04, 0.46]), and neuroticism
1
Due to unequal categorical responses across groups, measurement in-
variance could not be established without substantial loss of interpretive va-
lidity.
284
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289
(β = −0.30, p < .001; 95% CI [−0.43, −0.17]) emerged significant
in predicting later relationship satisfaction.
3.3.2. Adjusted models
Models were adjusted for age, sex, and baseline relationship sa-
tisfaction. Neither latent conflict resolution (Model 1), personality traits
(Model 2), nor personality traits and conflict resolution (Model 3) were
significantly associated with later relationship satisfaction. When in-
cluding latent conflict-by-personality trait interactions (Model 4), latent
conflict resolution-by-conscientiousness (β = −0.31, p = .029; 95% CI
[−0.59, −0.03]) and conflict resolution-by-neuroticism (β = −0.25,
p = .034; 95% CI [0.02, 1.00]) interactions were significantly asso-
ciated with later relationship satisfaction. Visual representations of
significant interactions are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. The conflict re-
solution-by-extraversion interaction was no longer significant
(β = 0.16, p = .339; 95% CI [−0.17, 0.49]), suggesting that covariates
better explained the variance in later relationship satisfaction than did
extraversion. Adjusted models explained 20.3%, 29.0%, 32.8%, and
51.7% of the variance in later relationship, respectively.
The relative fit of the interactional model (Model 4) compared to
the linear model (Model 3) was tested using a log-likelihood ratio test,
yielding a difference value of D = 14.2. Using a chi-square distribution,
the log-likelihood ratio test was significant (df = 6, p < .05), in-
dicating that the interactional model had superior fit relative to the
linear model. Finally, the change in R2 from the linear to interactional
model represents the variance accounted for by the interaction terms.
As such, the interaction terms in Model 4 accounted for an additional
18.9% (= 0.517–0.328) of the variance in relationship satisfaction. To
determine the variance contributed by only the significant interactions,
we tested an additional model that excluded these interactions to obtain
an R2 value. That model accounted for 36.8% of the variance, meaning
that the communication-by-conscientiousness and communication-by-
neuroticism interactions accounted for 14.9% (=0.517–0.368) of the
variance in later relationship satisfaction. Notably, these interactions
accounted for nearly 30% (=0.149/0.517) of the total variance ex-
plained by all of the variables included in adjusted Model 4.
4. Discussion
The present study examined Big Five personality traits as mod-
erators in the association between conflict resolution and intimate re-
lationship satisfaction over time in heterosexual dating couples.
Supporting our hypotheses, as well as previous research (Lavner et al.,
2016), we found a relatively weak association between conflict re-
solution skills and subsequent relationship satisfaction after adjusting
for relevant covariates. When we included personality traits and con-
flict resolution-by-personality trait interactions in the model, the asso-
ciation between conflict resolution skills and subsequent relationship
satisfaction varied as a function of individuals' personality traits. Spe-
cifically, for individuals with lower levels of conscientiousness and
neuroticism, the association was more strongly positively related. In
contrast, for those with higher levels of conscientiousness and neuro-
ticism, the association was more strongly negatively related. Overall,
findings suggest that individual differences in personality traits may
influence the association between couples' conflict resolution skills and
their relationship satisfaction over time. These findings are consistent
with theoretical models of intimate relationship trajectories across the
lifespan (Bradbury & Karney, 2004), indicating that individuals' per-
sonality traits can influence interpersonal functioning as well as cou-
ples' relationship satisfaction over time.
Results supported several of our hypotheses, including our first
hypothesis—that the association between conflict resolution skills and
relationship satisfaction would be more strongly positively related for
individuals lower in neuroticism. As noted by Weidmann et al. (2016),
higher levels of neuroticism relate to increased emotional arousal
during conflict discussions and may predispose partners to approach
T.C. Taggart et al. Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289

Table 1
Intercorrelations between study variables.
Age p DAS1 p DAS2 p Agree. p Consc. p Extra. p Neur. p Open.

Age 1.00
DAS1 −0.08 .39 1.00
DAS2 −0.21 .10 0.42⁎⁎ .00 1.00
Agree. 0.05 .57 0.28⁎⁎ .00 0.23 .07 1.00
Consc. 0.24⁎⁎ .01 0.08 .41 −0.06 .67 0.12 .22 1.00
Extra. 0.10 .31 0.10 .29 −0.07 .59 0.30⁎⁎ .00 0.24⁎ .01 1.00
Neur. −0.10 .31 −0.13 .18 −0.02 .88 −0.22⁎ .02 −0.22⁎ .02 −0.25⁎⁎ .01 1.00
Open. 0.20⁎ .04 0.21⁎ .02 0.16 .21 0.20⁎ .03 0.09 .34 0.22⁎ .02 0.00 1.00 1.00

Note. DAS1 = baseline relationship satisfaction. DAS2 = wave 2 relationship satisfaction. Agree. = agreeableness. Consc. = conscientiousness.
Extra. = extraversion. Neur. = neuroticism. Open. = openness. Intercorrelations could not be computed for latent conflict communication and latent interaction
variables (e.g., latent conflict communication-by-agreeableness) because these variables were exclusively computed and available in Mplus.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎
p < .05.

Table 2 “positive” trait, at least in Western societies (Watson & Humrichouse,

Analytic sample characteristics (M [SD]) by sex and by couple. 2006), may not be as beneficial to romantic relationship functioning
Predictor variables Sample Statistics among young, dating couples as previously thought. Perhaps these
couples value partners who are more assertive or intellectually chal-
Couple Men Women t p lenging than approving and accommodating partners. Supporting this
(N = 58) (n = 58) (n = 58) notion, researchers have suggested that relationship satisfaction is
Age 2.5 (2.0) 21.0 (2.5) 2.1 (1.8) 2.2a 0.03 linked to couples' ability to maintain intimacy, as well as their own
Conflict resolution 16.6 (5.2) 17.1 (6.3) 16.0 (5.4) 1.1 0.28 unique identities; thus, high levels of agreeableness may undermine
(summed) such differentiation (Skowron, 2000).
Agreeableness 7.4 (1.2) 7.2 (1.7) 7.6 (1.5) −1.5 0.14
Conscientiousness 7.1 (1.2) 7.3 (1.6) 6.8 (1.4) 1.5 0.13
Extraversion 6.3 (1.4) 6.4 (1.9) 6.2 (2.0) 0.4 0.72
Neuroticism 5.8 (1.4) 4.9 (2.2) 6.9 (2.9) −5.1 0.001 4.1. Implications and future directions
Openness 7.4 (1.1) 7.4 (1.5) 7.4 (1.6) 0.1 0.91
Relationship satisfaction – 26.4 (3.8) 26.3 (4.7) 26.5 (4.5) −0.3 0.79 Previous studies have examined the extent to which communication
baseline
interventions among couples longitudinally relate to subsequent re-
Relationship satisfaction – 26.3 (4.2) 26.2 (4.7) 26.7 (4.2) −0.4 0.68
4-month follow-up
lationship satisfaction with varying results. For instance, previous evi-
Relationship dissolution (n 4 (6.9) 4 (6.9) 4 (6.9) 0.0 1.00 dence suggests that couples who received a problem-solving and com-
[%]) munication skills training intervention reported higher satisfaction than
controls at four-year follow-up (Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Storaasli,
Note. Bolded items indicate statistically significant differences between men 1988). Other studies found that only high-, as opposed to low-risk
and women.
a couples' relationships benefitted from communication interventions
Chi-square difference test was used to examine statistical significance.
(Halford, Sanders, & Behrens, 2001). Perhaps examinations of com-
munication interventions have produced mixed results because pre-
relational problems with negative appraisals regarding areas of dis-
vious research did not account for individual differences, which our
agreement. Furthermore, higher levels of neuroticism are associated
study suggests may influence the long-term association between cou-
with poorer conflict resolution skills (both self-reported and observed)
ples' communication and relationship satisfaction. By taking individual
as well as lower relationship satisfaction (Donnellan et al., 2004;
differences into consideration, the present results may serve to inform
Heaven et al., 2006; Schneewind & Gerhard, 2002; Solomon & Jackson,
the provision and structure of targeted interventions aimed at im-
2014).
proving couples' communication and relationship quality. Based on the
With regards to our second hypothesis, although we found a sig-
present findings, partners exhibiting low levels of conscientiousness and
nificant interaction between conscientiousness and conflict resolution
neuroticism may be categorized as “high-risk” and may therefore be
skills in predicting relationship satisfaction, supporting extant research
targeted in interventions.
(Malouff et al., 2010; Schaffhuser et al., 2014), the direction of this
Longitudinal studies examining relationship functioning and per-
effect was in the opposite direction of what we had predicted. Speci-
sonality in tandem are needed to understand the complex associations
fically, the association between conflict resolution skills and relation-
between individual personality characteristics, global ratings of re-
ship satisfaction was more strongly positively related for individuals
lationship quality, and dyadic communication. Recent work has de-
with lower, not higher, levels of conscientiousness. Consistent with
monstrated that couple communication is particularly linked to ratings
these results, previous research found that higher levels of male con-
of relationship quality during relationship transitions and stressful cir-
scientiousness were associated with poorer communication patterns
cumstances. Going forward, future research should examine why and
(Heaven et al., 2006), which suggested that highly conscientious in-
how individual differences may differentially relate to interpersonal
dividuals may set unrealistic relationship goals that grate on a re-
functioning and the pathways by which they exert this influence.
lationship, reducing satisfaction over time.
Understanding the mechanisms and pathways by which individual
Lastly, our third hypothesis—that the association between conflict
differences confer risk or resilience not only supports public health and
resolution skills and relationship satisfaction would be more strongly
policy efforts (Hsueh et al., 2012; Johnson, 2012), but it is also a ne-
positively related for individuals higher in agreeableness—was not
cessary next step in developing better targeted interventions for dis-
supported. Specifically, in our sample, neither the direct effect of
tressed couples. Future qualitative research could be conducted to ob-
agreeableness on satisfaction nor the interaction of agreeableness and
serve neurotic and conscientious partners when they are involved in
conflict resolution skills on satisfaction were statistically significant.
conflict resolution and teach them other means of resolving or avoiding
These findings may indicate that agreeableness, often thought of as a
conflicts.

285
T.C. Taggart et al. Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289

Table 3
Unstandardized and Standardized Regression Coefficients, Model Fit, R2, and ΔR2 for All Unadjusted and Adjusted Structural Equation Models
Unadjusted Adjusted

Model Fit Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

2
R 6.9% 10.2% 13.3% 52.0% 20.3% 29.0% 32.8% 51.7%
ΔR2 3.3% 3.1% 38.7% 8.1% 3.8% 18.9%
AIC 2774.193 355.766 2638.790 2635.832 2769.256 347.462 2632.887 2635.643
BIC 2848.540 370.542 2725.495 2736.085 2851.863 368.571 2727.721 2746.734

Predictors B β B β B β B β B β B β B β B β

Age – – – – – – – – -.39 -.20 -.54 -.26 -.55 -.29 -.42 -.20

Sex – – – – – – – – -.28 -.03 -.09 -.01 -.13 -.02 -.40 -.04
DAS1 – – – – – – – – .35** .38** .31** .33** .28* .30* .24* .24*
CR 1.13* .26* – – .89 .21 .45 .09 .44 .10 – – .29 .07 .09 .02
Agree. – – .71 .27 .58 .22 .35 .11 – – .65 .24 .62 .23 .43 .15
Consc. – – -.28 -.10 -.36 -.13 .38 .12 – – -.29 -.10 -.31 -.11 .24 .08
Extra. – – -.38 -.19 -.33 -.16 -.87*** -.35*** – – -.34 -.17 -.33 -.15 -.71** -.31**
Neur. – – -.04 -.02 -.06 -.03 .26 .12 – – -.06 -.03 -.06 -.03 .25 .12
Open. – – .36 .15 .33 .13 .41 .13 – – .44 .18 .45 .16 .48 .16
CR X Agree. – – – – – – .80 .26 – – – – – – .84 .29
CR X Consc. – – – – – – -1.12** -.35** – – – – – – -.92* -.31*
CR X Extra. – – – – – – .61* .25* – – – – – – .37 .16
CR X Neur. – – – – – – -.65*** -.30*** – – – – – – -.51* -.25*
CR X Open. – – – – – – .38 .12 – – – – – – .23 .08
CR X Sex – – – – – – – – – – – – – – .21 .02

Note. DAS1 = baseline relationship satisfaction. CR = latent conflict resolution skills. Agree. = agreeableness. Consc. = conscientiousness. Extra. = extraversion.
Neur. = neuroticism. Open. = openness. X = latent interaction. Relationship satisfaction at 4-month follow-up served as the dependent variable in all models.
*** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05.

4.2. Strengths and limitations present study is the first to investigate individual personality traits as
mechanisms in the association between couples' conflict resolution and
This study possessed several design and analytic strengths, in- relationship satisfaction. Our findings have the potential to inform fu-
cluding dyadic recruitment, multiple assessments, and the utilization of ture studies of couples' relationship functioning, though more work is
validated measures and latent constructs to reduce error variance. Our needed to examine how individual personality traits, specifically, are
analytic strategy also accounted for several theoretical and statistically associated with long-term relationship outcomes.
relevant covariates (e.g., age, sex, and baseline relationship satisfac- Despite the methodological strengths and novelty of our work,
tion) related to later relationship satisfaction. Most importantly, the findings should be considered in light of a number of limitations. First,

6
+1 SD Mean Conscientiousness
5 Mean Conscientiousness
Relationship Satisfaction at Four-month Follow-up

-1 SD Mean Conscientiousness
4

-1

-2

-3

-4
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Latent Conflict Resolution

Fig. 1. Interaction plot for conscientiousness.

Interaction plot showing the effect of latent conflict resolution on relationship satisfaction at the zero mean of conscientiousness (blue), −1 SD below (red), and +1
SD above (green) its mean, plotted over the conflict resolution range of −3 to +3 SD. Model controlled for age, sex, and baseline relationship satisfaction.

286
T.C. Taggart et al.
Relationship Satisfaction at Four-month Follow-up
Fig. 2. Interaction plot for neuroticism.
Interaction plot showing the effect of latent conflict resolution on relationship satisfaction at the zero mean of neuroticism (blue), −1 SD below (red), and +1 SD
above (green) its mean, plotted over the conflict resolution range of −3 to +3 SD. Model controlled for age, sex, and baseline relationship satisfaction. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
the current sample size was comparatively small, and participants were
largely homogenous. As such, findings may not be representative of the
larger population of dating couples. For instance, same sex-couples face
unique challenges related to discrimination and reduced social support
(Scott, Whitton, & Buzzella, 2018); accordingly, individuals in same-sex
relationships exhibiting high levels of conscientiousness and neuroti-
cism may be disproportionally at risk for relationship distress and dis-
solution based on environmental stressors. Furthermore, participants
were exclusively young, dating couples, thus findings may not gen-
eralize for married or cohabitating couples. Therefore, future studies
should use larger, more diverse samples with different types of couples,
relationship phases (e.g., initial dating relationship, committed dating
relationship, newlywed, long-term married), and transitions (e.g., first
child; moving) is needed to fully appreciate the interplay between
personality, communication skills, and relationship satisfaction.
Second, evidence indicates that some personality traits, notably
agreeableness and conscientiousness, demonstrate age-related varia-
bility across the lifespan, particularly during young adulthood
(Donnellan & Lucas, 2008; Pusch, Mund, Hagemeyer, & Finn, 2018;
Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). As such, it would be beneficial
to examine whether findings differ by age and/or cohort. Third, al-
though the BFI-10 retains validity for research purposes, its effect sizes
are not as robust as those using the full BFI-44 (Rammstedt & John,
2007). Each subscale of the BFI-10 includes only two items; therefore, it
is unknown whether the measure is truly reliable. Thus, it is re-
commended that future research examine whether results replicate
using the full BFI-44. Fourth, our study only assessed for self- (vs.
partner-) reported personality traits; however, self- and partner-rated
personality traits have been shown to produce differential outcomes in
intimate relationship satisfaction (Brock et al., 2016). Going forward, it
is imperative that both self- and partner-rated personality traits should
be considered when examining intimate relationships. Finally, the
present study examined changes in relationship satisfaction across a
relatively short period of time (four months). Although this was an
acceptable assessment period for undergraduate dating couples, it is
unclear whether results would generalize over longer periods of time
(Sened, Lazarus, Gleason, Rafaeli, & Fleeson, 2018).
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289
3
+1 SD Mean Neuroticism
Mean Neuroticism
2 -1 SD Mean Neuroticism
-1
-2
-3
-4
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Latent Conflict Resolution
5. General conclusions
Individual differences may be meaningfully associated with couples'
relationship satisfaction over time. Our findings suggest that individual
differences in personality traits can influence the association between
couples' communication and their long-term relationship satisfaction.
Future research should characterize clearly the extent to which in-
dividual differences may confer risk or resilience within the context of
intimate relationships. Identifying and understanding these pathways
represents a critical next step to better inform prevention and inter-
vention efforts for discordant couples.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Graduate Research Fellowship Program under grants 2016226314 and
1315232. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and
does not necessarily represent the official views of the NSF.
References
Benson, L. A., McGinn, M. M., & Christensen, A. (2012). Common principles of couple
therapy. Behavior Therapy, 43(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.12.
009.
Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D., Imhof, M., & Cooper, L. O. (2008). What would a unified
field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors.
International Journal of Listening, 22(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10904010802174867.
Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment:
Utility of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3),
651–660. https://doi.org/10.2307/353567.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique.
Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3.
Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Understanding and altering the longitudinal
course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 862–879. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00059.x.
Brenda, S. M., Susan, S. H., & Clyde, H. (1998). Communication, love and relationship
satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 755–773. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407598156003.
Brock, R. L., Dindo, L., Simms, L. J., & Clark, L. A. (2016). Personality and dyadic ad-
justment: Who you think your partner is really matters. Journal of Family Psychology,
287
T.C. Taggart et al.
30(5), 602–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000210.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). A model of the perceived competence of conflict
strategies. Human Communication Research, 15(4), 630–649. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00202.x.
Carrère, S., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first
three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38(3), 293–301.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00293.x.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon, & N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development. Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (pp. 311–388). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller, & M. A.
Fitzpatrick (Eds.). Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31–52). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991). Communication, conflict, and psychological dis-
tance in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59(3), 458–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.3.458.
Cotten, S. R. (1999). Marital status and mental health revisited: Examining the im-
portance of risk factors and resources. Family Relations, 48(3), 225–233. https://doi.
org/10.2307/585631.
Decuyper, M., De Bolle, M., & De Fruyt, F. (2012). Personality similarity, perceptual
accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal
Relationships, 19(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01344.x.
Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The big five and enduring
marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 481–504. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jrp.2004.01.001.
Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history, and
competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88(3), 562–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.562.
Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the big five across the life span:
Evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 558–566. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0012897.
Doss, B. D., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Why do couples seek marital
therapy? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(6), 608–614. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.6.608.
Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting re-
lationship 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(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0020385.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Marital communication in the eighties. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 832–843. https://doi.org/10.2307/353305.
Fletcher, G. J. O. (2002). Communication and relationship success. In G. J. O. Fletcher
(Ed.). The new science of intimate relationships. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-allportian approach to personality. Psychological
Science, 2(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00093.x.
Gerhard, C., Klein, A. G., Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., Gäde, J., & Brandt, H.
(2015). On the performance of likelihood-based difference tests in nonlinear struc-
tural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(2),
276–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935752.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Burnett, C. K., & Rankin, L. A. (1999). The
interaction between marital standards and communication patterns: How does it
contribute to marital adjustment? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(2),
211–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1999.tb01123.x.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A long-
itudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47–52. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47.
Halford, W. K., Sanders, M. R., & Behrens, B. C. (2001). Can skills training prevent re-
lationship problems in at-risk couples? Four-year effects of a behavioral relationship
education program. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 750–768. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0893-3200.15.4.750.
Hawkins, A. J., Willoughby, B. J., & Doherty, W. J. (2012). Reasons for divorce and
openness to marital reconciliation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(6), 453–463.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.682898.
Heaven, P. C. L., Smith, L., Prabhakar, S. M., Abraham, J., & Mete, M. E. (2006).
Personality and conflict communication patterns in cohabiting couples. Journal of
Research in Personality, 40(5), 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.012.
Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in
marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.16.
Hsueh, J., Alderson, D. P., Lundquist, E., Michalopoulos, C., Gubits, D., Fein, D., & Knox,
V. (2012). The supporting healthy marriage evaluation: Early impacts on low-income fa-
milies. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration
for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Hunsley, J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M., & Vito, D. (2001). The seven-item short form of the
dyadic adjustment scale: Further evidence for construct validity. The American
Journal of Family Therapy, 29(4), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01926180126501.
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. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237.
288
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289
Johnson, M. D. (2012). Healthy marriage initiatives: On the need for empiricism in policy
implementation. American Psychologist, 67(4), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0027743.
Johnson, N. J., Backlund, E., Sorlie, P. D., & Loveless, C. A. (2000). Marital status and
mortality: The national longitudinal mortality study. Annals of Epidemiology, 10(4),
224–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-2797(99)00052-6.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1),
3–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3.
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis
of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.27.
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). The performance of RMSEA in
models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3),
486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Bane, C., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (2003). Love, marriage, and
divorce: Newlyweds' stress hormones foreshadow relationship changes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.71.1.176.
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction
effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.
1007/bf02296338.
Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent,
and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(3), 705–722.
https://doi.org/10.2307/352880.
Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over the
newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1171–1187. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00757.x.
Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Does couples' communication
predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication?
Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.
12301.
Lillard, L. A., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Til death do us part: Marital disruption and mortality.
American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1131–1156. https://doi.org/10.1086/230634.
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The
five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004.
Markman, H. J. (1979). Application of a behavioral model of marriage in predicting re-
lationship satisfaction of couples planning marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 47(4), 743–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.4.743.
Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(5), 760–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.49.5.760.
Markman, H. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Storaasli, R. D. (1988). Prevention of
marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 56(2), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.2.210.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0019481.
Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent vari-
able interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations
method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87–96. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0165025414552301.
Matthews, G., Saklofske, D. H., Costa, P. T., Deary, I. J., & Zeidner, M. (1998).
Dimensional models of personality: A framework for systematic clinical assessment.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1015-5759.14.1.36.
McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When “negative” behaviors are positive: A
contextual analysis of the long-term effects of problem-solving behaviors on changes
in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4),
587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017479.
Miller, R. B., Yorgason, J. B., Sandberg, J. G., & White, M. B. (2003). Problems that
couples bring to therapy: A view across the family life cycle. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 31(5), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180390223950.
Moosbrugger, H., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Klein, A. (1997). Methodological problems of
estimating latent interaction effects. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2(2),
95–111. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-14070-005.
Murphy, C. M. (2013). Social information processing and the perpetration of intimate
partner violence: It is (and isn't) what you think. Psychology of Violence, 3(3),
212–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033344.
Murphy, M., Glaser, K., & Grundy, E. (1997). Marital status and long-term illness in Great
Britain. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(1), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/
353669.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide (Eight ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
O'Leary, K. D., Foran, H., & Cohen, S. (2013). Validation of fear of partner scale. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 39(4), 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.
2012.00327.x.
Prigerson, H. G., Maciejewski, P. K., & Rosenheck, R. A. (1999). The effects of marital
dissolution and marital quality on health and health service use among women.
Medical Care, 37(9), 858–873. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199909000-
00003.
Pusch, S., Mund, M., Hagemeyer, B., & Finn, C. (2018). Personality development in
emerging and young adulthood: A study of age differences. European Journal of
T.C. Taggart et al.
Personality. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/eqn7b.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-
item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.
Ridley, C. A., Wilhelm, M. S., & Surra, C. A. (2001). Married couples' conflict responses
and marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 517–534.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501184005.
Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The in-
tersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26(10), 1284–1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262009.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both
partners' personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.79.2.251.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). It's not just who you're with, it's who you
are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journal of
Personality, 70(6), 925–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05028.
Rogge, R. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Till violence does us part: The differing roles of
communication and aggression in predicting adverse marital outcomes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(3), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.67.3.340.
Ruvolo, A. P. (1998). Marital well-being and general happiness of newlywed couples:
Relationships across time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(4),
470–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598154002.
Schaap, C., Buunk, B., & Kerkstra, A. (1988). Marital conflict resolution. In P. Noller, & M.
A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.). Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 203–244). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Schaffhuser, K., Allemand, M., & Martin, M. (2014). Personality traits and relationship
satisfaction in intimate couples: Three perspectives on personality. European Journal
of Personality, 28(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1948.
Schneewind, K. A., & Gerhard, A.-K. (2002). Relationship personality, conflict resolution,
and marital satisfaction in the first 5 years of marriage. Family Relations, 51(1),
63–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00063.x.
Schober, M. F., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Does being together for years help compre-
hension? In E. Morsella (Ed.). Expressing oneself/expressing one's self: Communication,
cognition, language, and identity (pp. 107–124). Hove, England: Psychology Press/
Taylor & Francis (UK).
289
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 281–289
Schoen, R., & Standish, N. (2001). The retrenchment of marriage: Results from marital
status life tables for the United States, 1995. Population and Development Review,
27(3), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00553.x.
Scott, S. B., Whitton, S. W., & Buzzella, B. A. (2018). Providing relationship interventions
to same-sex couples: Clinical considerations, program adaptations, and continuing
education. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.
03.004.
Sened, H., Lazarus, G., Gleason, M. E. J., Rafaeli, E., & Fleeson, W. (2018). The use of
intensive longitudinal methods in explanatory personality research. European Journal
of Personality, 32(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2143.
Simon, R. W. (2002). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and
mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 1065–1096. https://doi.org/10.
1086/339225.
Skowron, E. A. (2000). The role of differentiation of self in marital adjustment. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.
229.
Solomon, B. C., & Jackson, J. J. (2014). Why do personality traits predict divorce?
Multiple pathways through satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
106(6), 978–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036190.
Villaume, W. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2007). Discovering the listener within us: The impact of
trait-like personality variables and communicator styles on preferences for listening
style. International Journal of Listening, 21(2), 102–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10904010701302006.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity
as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-
ratings. Journal of Personality, 68(3), 413–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.
00102.
Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality development in emerging adulthood:
Integrating evidence from self-ratings and spouse ratings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91(5), 959–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.959.
Weaver, J. (1998). Personality and self-perceptions about communication. In J. C.
McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.). Communication and per-
sonality: Trait perspectives (pp. 95–117). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Weidmann, R., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2016). The interdependence of personality and
satisfaction in couples: A review. European Psychologist, 21(4), 284–295. https://doi.
org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000261.
Wood, R. G., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Killewald, A. (2014). The long-term effects of
building strong families: A program for unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 76(2), 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12094.