See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232428896

The Dynamic Goal Theory of Marital Satisfaction

Article in Review of General Psychology · September 2011

DOI: 10.1037/a0024694

CITATIONS READS
101 19,646

2 authors:

Tianyuan Li Helene H Fung

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shenzhen The Chinese University of Hong Kong
19 PUBLICATIONS 662 CITATIONS 201 PUBLICATIONS 8,666 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Meaning in Life View project

Risk Perceptions and Message Framing in Physical Activity Promotion: An Aging Perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Helene H Fung on 13 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review of General Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 15, No. 3, 246 –254 1089-2680/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024694

The Dynamic Goal Theory of Marital Satisfaction

Tianyuan Li and Helene H. Fung
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Marital satisfaction is gaining increasing concern in modern society. The current review proposes the
dynamic goal theory of marital satisfaction to integrate previous findings about marital satisfaction from
a life span developmental perspective. The theory argues that people have multiple goals to achieve in
their marriage. These marital goals can be classified into three categories: personal growth goals,
companionship goals, and instrumental goals. The priority of the three types of marital goals is under
dynamic changes across adulthood. Generally speaking, young couples emphasize the personal growth
goals, middle-aged couples prioritize the instrumental goals, and old couples focus on the companionship
goals. Whether the prioritized marital goals are achieved in marriage determines marital satisfaction.
Other factors influencing marital satisfaction can be linked with marital goals in two ways. Some factors,
such as life transitions and cultural values, can affect the priority of different marital goals; while other
factors, such as communication pattern, problem solving, and attribution, can facilitate the achievement
of the prioritized marital goals.

Keywords: marital goal, marital satisfaction, life span development

Nowadays, most people no longer consider marriage to be a
must-fulfilled obligation. Instead, marriage becomes more volun-
tary in nature and symbolizes the couple’s love and desire to be
together. In such a context, marital satisfaction becomes a key
factor that strongly influences both quality and stability of mar-
riages (Sternberg & Hojjat, 1997). Meanwhile, the process of
marriage maintenance accompanies the process of each partner’s
personal growth. It is important to investigate the mechanisms
underlying marital satisfaction from a life span development per-
spective. In the current review, we propose the dynamic goal
theory of marital satisfaction, which integrates the literature of
changing goals across adulthood and that of marital satisfaction. In
the following review, the definition of marital satisfaction is first
clarified. Then, the main points of the dynamic goal theory of
marital satisfaction and how the theory is linked with previous
empirical findings are introduced.
Definition of Marital Satisfaction
In the early years, many indices were used to evaluate mar-
riages, such as marital success, marital stability, marital happiness,
marital adjustment, marital quality, and marital satisfaction. These
indices represented different but overlapping concepts, resulting in
much confusion in relevant research (Bradbury, 1995; Fincham &
Bradbury, 1987). In the dynamic goal theory of marital satisfac-
tion, we define marital satisfaction as “people’s global subjective
evaluation about the quality of their marriage”. Two aspects of this
definition need to be further clarified:
This article was published Online First August 1, 2011.
Tianyuan Li and Helene H. Fung, Department of Psychology, Chinese
University of Hong Kong, China.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tianyuan
Li, Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Room 323, Sino Building, Chung Chi College, Shatin, New Territories,
Hong Kong. E-mail: tyli@psy.cuhk.edu.hk or tianyuanl@gmail.com
First, the current theory focuses on marital quality but not
marital stability. Low marital quality was once believed to be the
most important reason for divorce. Similarly, endurable marriages
were assumed to have high marital quality (for a review, see Hicks
& Platt, 1970). However, such beliefs were challenged when many
stable but unsatisfactory marriages were found (e.g., Bauserman &
Arias, 1992; Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart, 2005; Rhatigan & Axsom,
2006). In fact, marital quality is just one of the factors that affect
marital stability (Adams & Jones, 1999). In the investment model,
Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew (1998) suggested that satisfaction,
quality of alternatives, and investment size all contributed to
commitment level to the current relationship, which was the most
important determinant of marital stability (Le & Agnew, 2003).
Stanley and Markman (1992) also distinguished between dedica-
tion commitment and constraint commitment. The dedication com-
mitment, which was about the personal willingness to maintain the
ongoing relationship, correlated highly with marital satisfaction.
However, the constraint commitment, which was about the exter-
nal forces to keep or dissolve a relationship, did not strongly
correlate with marital satisfaction. In addition, Johnson, Caughlin,
and Huston (1999) introduced moral commitment, which was
about people’s moral beliefs about marriage and divorce. The
current theory aims to discuss the mechanism of marital quality in
ongoing marriages across adulthood, but not marital stability or
commitment to the relationship. However, it is important to note
that it is the existence of the choice to divorce that makes couples
value marital satisfaction and always evaluate whether they are
satisfied in the marriage. If divorce were never an option, people
would care more about how to make the marriage work but not
whether they were satisfied with the marriage.
Second, the current review focuses on people’s global evalua-
tion about marital quality instead of specific evaluations about
particular domains in marriage. People’s global feeling about the
marriage determines the emotional “climate” of the relationship
and influences their ratings about the specific aspects of marriage
(Hawkins, Carrere, & Gottman, 2002). This phenomenon is re-

246
 DYNAMIC MARITAL GOALS
ferred as sentiment override (Weiss, 1980). Such global feeling is
essential for successful functioning of marriage and couples’ sub-
jective well-being. Thus, the global evaluation of marital quality is
widely accepted and recommended as the indicator of marital
quality in the research field (e.g., Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach,
2000). Moreover, the term “marital satisfaction” is preferred to
“marital quality” because it highlights the subjective nature of the
construct. Although some previous instruments measure marital
quality as a multidimensional construct (e.g., Snyder, 1979;
Spanier, 1976), they are criticized for including some determinants
of marital quality as components of marital quality, such as agree-
ments/conflicts and communication (e.g., Bradbury, 1995; Fin-
cham & Bradbury, 1987; Glenn, 1990; Huston & Robins, 1982). In
contrast, global measures of marital quality, such as the Quality
Marriage Index (Norton, 1983) and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction
Scale (Schumm et al., 1986), have become more and more popular.
Therefore, we focus on the global evaluation of marital quality,
referred to as “marital satisfaction”, in the current review.
Introduction to the Dynamic Goal Theory of
Marital Satisfaction
Marital goal—the goals people want to attain in their mar-
riage—is one of the core elements in the dynamic goal theory of
marital satisfaction. The theory argues that whether marital goals,
especially the prioritized ones, are achieved in the marriage is the
most essential determinant of marital satisfaction. To be more
specific, the four key elements of the dynamic goal theory of
marital satisfaction are listed here. First, people have multiple
goals that they want to achieve in their marriage. Second, the
priority of different marital goals changes dynamically across
adulthood. Third, whether the prioritized marital goals in a certain
developmental stage are met in the marriage determines marital
satisfaction. Fourth, other factors can also affect marital satisfac-
tion by either changing the priority of different marital goals or by
facilitating the achievement of the prioritized marital goals. In the
following sections, we elaborate on each of these elements.
Marital Goals
This section first introduces the importance of goals in affecting
behaviors and well-being. Then, the classification of human goals
is reviewed, among which goals regarding social relationships are
identified as a major category. Lastly, the classification of marital
goals is elucidated.
Importance of Goals
In a review about goal constructs in psychology, Austin and
Vancouver (1996) define goals “as internal representations of
desired states, where states are broadly construed as outcomes,
events, or processes” (p. 338). The content of goals is extremely
diverse, which can vary from a good quiz score to a peaceful
world. Most researchers agree that a hierarchy of goals can be
established to organize various kinds of goals. High-order goals
are abstract, broad, and long-term, such as to strive for self-
actualization (Maslow, 1943), or to approach one’s ideal self
(Markus & Wurf, 1987). In contrast, lower-order goals are specific
247
and short-term, such as to master a second language or to get a
good job. A higher-order goal can be specified into several lower
order goals, and a single behavior can activate goals of different
orders simultaneously (Austin & Vancouver, 1996).
Once certain goals have been activated, various cognitive re-
sources are directed to the motivated events. Attention and infor-
mation processing can be biased to the intended target; perception,
memory, and task performance can be enhanced when dealing with
the motivated events (Ford, 1987). For example, the research of
regulatory focus suggests that when the approach motivation is
activated, people have a stronger strive for success and are en-
couraged more by positive models; whereas when the avoidance
motivation is activated, people try harder to prevent losses and are
threatened more by the negative models (Elliot, 2006; Higgins,
1997; Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). The importance of goals
is further highlighted by self-determination theory’s suggestion
that intrinsic motivation has a greater effect in regulating behaviors
than does external motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002). For
example, Grant (2008) reported that only intrinsic prosocial mo-
tivation contributed to firefighters’ persistence and fundraising
callers’ performance and productivity.
Moreover, when goals are not reached, psychological well-
being can be hampered. In particular, Higgins (1987) suggested
that when people’s ideal-self goals were not satisfied, they would
develop dejection-related negative emotions, such as disappoint-
ment and frustration; whereas when people’s ought-self goals were
not satisfied, they would feel agitation-related negative emotions,
such as guilty and fear. Similarly, Cheng (2004) studied goal
discrepancies—to what extent people thought that their life goals
were not achieved—in three domains of life. He found that goal
discrepancies explained age differences in life satisfaction, posi-
tive affects, and negative affects. To conclude, activated goals can
direct and regulate behaviors, and whether the activated goals are
achieved can have a strong influence on well-being.
Classification of Human Goals
In order to obtain a clearer and more comprehensive view of
human goals, researchers have tried to classify the content of
human goals. For example, Austin and Vancouver (1996) di-
vided human goals into two large categories, within-person
goals and person-environment goals. On the one hand, the
within-person goals are directed toward internal feelings, which
are further sorted into three subcategories. The first subcategory
is affective goals, which are the goals to achieve or maintain a
certain affective or physical state (e.g., excited, peaceful, or
healthy). The second subcategory is cognitive goals, which are
the goals aiming for desired cognitive process (e.g., exploration
or creativity). The last subcategory is subjective organization
goals, which are the goals to achieve self-integration and con-
sistency. On the other hand, the person-environment goals are
about the interaction between oneself and other people or the
environment, which also include three subcategories. The first
subcategory is self-assertive social relationship goals. These
goals are about what people would like to fulfill for themselves
in social relationships, such as sense of control or individuality.
In contrast, the second subcategory is integrative social rela-
tionship goals. They are the goals people want to achieve
interpersonally within social relationships, such as sense of
248 LI AND FUNG
belongingness, commitment, and equity. The final subcategory
is task goals, which are the goals that people need to accomplish
in order to finish different tasks, such as mastering new skills,
gaining material property, and managing time and other re-
sources.
Other than the above taxonomy, Nuttin and Lens (1985) clas-
sified human goals in a different way in their manual of motiva-
tional content analysis. Eight main categories of human goals,
namely self, self-realization, realization, contact, exploration, tran-
scendental, possessions, and leisure, were proposed. They also
found that contact goals— goals regarding social relationships—
constituted 39.5%, 39.7%, 31.9%, and 33.5% of the total reported
goals in four independent studies with different samples and dif-
ferent goal reporting methods. This finding suggests that goals
regarding interpersonal relationships constitute an essential part of
the human goal system. Nuttin and Lens (1985) further distin-
guished the goals regarding social interactions (i.e., contact goals)
into three categories. The first contact goal category includes goals
toward others. To achieve these goals, people need to conduct
some actions themselves. For example, the goals can be to main-
tain intimate contact with others, to help others, or to cooperate
with others to obtain certain rewards. The second category is goals
from other. These goals are about the expected support from
others, such as positive evaluation, affection, and instrumental
support. The last category of contact goals is goals for others,
which are the goals that people set for the sake of others. For
instance, a mother can wish her son to study in a prestigious
university. This goal is not directly related to the mother herself.
In addition, Lang (2004) specifically summarized human goals
regarding social relationships based on a review of previous the-
ories. He concluded that there were two general classes of social
goals, the belonging goals and the social agency goals. The former
category was about the emotional benefits people obtained from
social relationships, including sense of intimacy, security, and
belongingness; whereas the latter category was about the instru-
mental benefits from social relationships, such as receiving support
or advice when in trouble.
To conclude, goals regarding social relationships compose a
large portion of human goals. As marital relationship is one of the
most important and endurable social relationships, people should
have various goals which they want to achieve in their marriage. In
the next section, we attempt to classify these marital goals.
Classification of Marital Goals
Based on the literature on human goals reviewed above, we
propose that marital goals can be classified into three categories:
companionship goals, personal growth goals, and instrumental
goals.
Companionship goals are about people’s needs for belonging-
ness and relatedness in the marriage. Self-determination theory
suggests that the need for relatedness is one of the three basic
psychological needs of human being (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002).
Similarly, the integrative social relationship goals (Austin & Van-
couver, 1996) and the belonging goals (Lang, 2004) both refer to
people’s need to be related to others and are both regarded as
important social relationship goals. Specifically in the marital
context, intimacy and commitment are two of the three compo-
nents of love in the triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986),
which are both closely related to the companionship goals.
Personal growth goals are about people’s desire to improve or
actualize oneself in the marriage. Social relationships are valuable
resources for achieving personal goals. Fitzsimons and Shah
(2008) found that activating a target goal enhanced the accessibil-
ity and evaluation of social partners who could help with the target
goal. Participants also reported higher closeness with social part-
ners who were functional for their ongoing personal goals (Fitz-
simons & Fishbach, 2010). Austin and Vancouver (1996) and
Lang (2004) both suggest that such self-serving goals constitute a
significant part of social relationship goals. Specifically in the
marital context, expansion of the self—the process of acquiring
new identity, experience, knowledge, and social networks— has
been identified as an essential element for initiating and maintain-
ing marriage (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron & Aron, 1996; Aron,
Norman, Aron, & Lewandowski, 2002). Moreover, a good mar-
riage facilitates people’s striving for personal goals. The spouse
can help the individual to achieve his or her ideal self through
affirmation of that ideal self, which is termed the “Michelangelo
phenomenon” (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999;
Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro, 2009). Such phenomenon is par-
ticularly evident when the two partners’ ideal selves are similar to
each other (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka, & Finkel, 2009). In
addition, it is found that many people have positive illusions about
their spouse (Miller, Niehuis, & Huston, 2006; Murray, Holmes, &
Griffin, 1996a). Interestingly, such positive illusions can be real-
ized by the spouse longitudinally (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996b). To conclude, the personal growth goals make up an
important part of marital goals. Marriage is not only about the
couple and the relationship, but also is there to provide a support-
ive environment for personal growth.
Instrumental goals are about the practical nature of marriage.
Spouses need to share household labor and responsibilities with
each other, such as housework, managing family finance, and
raising children. On the one hand, instrumental support from the
spouse contributes to marital quality (Cutrona, 1996; Mickelson,
Claffey, & Williams, 2006). On the other hand, unfair division of
household labor is a major source of marital conflict, especially in
modern dual-earner families (Frisco & Williams, 2003; Lavee &
Katz, 2002; Wilkie, Ferree, & Ratcliff, 1998). Thus, meeting
instrumental goals is also a necessary part of a successful marriage.
To conclude, companionship goals, personal growth goals, and
instrumental goals are the three components of marital goals.
Although they are all important, the priority of the three types of
marital goals changes across adulthood.
Changing Priority of Marital Goals Across Adulthood
In this section, we first introduce the literature on the changing
priority of human goals across the life span. Then, the changing
priority of different marital goals across adulthood is discussed.
In Heckhausen and Schulz’s (1995) life span theory of control,
they distinguished between primary control and secondary control.
Primary control aims at changing the external world to fit oneself,
whereas secondary control is about changing oneself to adjust to
the external world. The goals about primary control diminish in
later adulthood because of increased physical constraints. How-
ever, the goals about secondary control increase in older age so
 DYNAMIC MARITAL GOALS
that the total sense of control does not drop in later adulthood. In
other words, in early adulthood, people strive to change the outside
world; whereas in older adulthood, people aim more to regulate
their internal feelings. Similarly, Brandtstädter and colleagues
suggest that while young adults focus more on assimilative goals,
which is to change the reality to fit one’s own goals, older adults
focus more on accommodative goals, which is to adapt one’s own
expectations according to the reality (Brandtstädter & Renner,
1992; Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002). The socioemotional
selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2006; Carstensen, Isaacowitz, &
Charles, 1999) also argues that when people perceive the future as
open-ended (usually when they are young), they emphasize more
on knowledge-related goals, which is to acquire knowledge and
resource from social relationships. Such goals can prepare people
for the coming future. In contrast, when people perceive the future
as limited (usually when they are old), their priority shifts to
emotional meaningful goals, which is to seek positive emotions
from social relationships. Such goals can help people to derive
emotion meaning from life and to maintain a positive mood at the
present.
Other work has been done on older people’s increased selectiv-
ity of personal goals. According to the selective optimization with
compensation (SOC) theory (Baltes, 1997), there are gains and
losses in each developmental stage. The gain versus loss balance
becomes negative in later adulthood as a result of decreased
biological plasticity. Thus, older adults pay more effort in regu-
lating the losses in life, in order to maintain optimal functioning.
One typical strategy is to select the most important goals for
themselves (i.e., selection) and to optimize their achievement of
these selected goals (i.e., optimization) with compromises in other
aspects of life (i.e., compensation). In addition, following the
self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002), Sheldon and
colleagues (2004) suggested that pursuing self-concordant goals,
which were driven by one’s own interests and values, were ben-
eficial to well-being. There is evidence showing that as people
grow older, they have more self-concordant goals (Sheldon, 2009;
Sheldon & Kasser, 2001).
To summarize, in later adulthood, people shift their focus from
the external world to their internal feelings. Rather than trying to
modify the external environment, they are more likely to set goals
according to their own interests and pay more effort in regulating
their internal feelings (Gross et al., 1997). Regarding social rela-
tionship goals in particular, Lang (2004) proposed the goal-
resource-congruence model, which argued that people would in-
crease their seeking for belonging goals and decrease their seeking
for social agency goals in later adulthood. The reason is that
developmental resources become more limited in older age with
restrained future time perspective. Faced with various irreversible
losses in older adulthood, people are highly motivated to seek
comfort and company from social relationships.
Similarly, we propose that marital goals, as a special type of
social relationship goals, are also susceptible to developmental
changes. To begin with, the priority of personal growth goals is
high in young adulthood and gradually declines as people grow
older. As mentioned before, personal growth goals are about the
improvement and expansion of oneself with the spouse’s help. The
accomplishment of these goals can help people become more
competent for challenges in the future. Consistent with the socio-
emotional selectivity theory (Carstensen et al., 1999; Carstensen,
249
2006), these marital goals should be especially emphasized by
young adults, who have a long future waiting for them. As people
grow older and future time becomes more limited, the importance
of personal growth goals goes down. In fact, prior studies on the
importance of self-expansion in marriage or the Michelangelo
phenomenon were conducted with young couples (Drigotas et al.,
1999; Fraley & Aron, 2004; Rusbult, Kumashiro et al., 2009). We
hypothesize that such effects would decrease when future studies
include older couples.
On the contrary, the priority of companionship goals is low in
early adulthood and steadily increases as people get older. This
argument is consistent with prior theories and empirical findings
that people increasingly focus on secondary control (Schulz &
Heckhausen, 1996) and emotional meaningful goals (Carstensen,
2006) as they grow older. Similarly, Lang (2004) suggests that the
importance of belonging goals gradually increases across adult-
hood. It is also reported that older adults especially value their time
with close partners because of their limited future time perspective
(Fredrickson & Carstensen, 1990; Fung, Carstensen, & Lutz,
1999). Thus, we hypothesize that the need to be bonded with the
spouse is particularly salient in older adulthood, but less so in the
younger age.
Lastly, we hypothesize that the priority of instrumental goals is
the highest during middle adulthood and is relatively lower in both
early and late adulthood. Middle-aged couples are faced with
heavy responsibilities from family and/or work, including raising
children, taking care of older parents and/or fulfilling job require-
ments. The various tasks compete for their limited physical and
mental resources, resulting in lowered life satisfaction (Allen,
Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Thus, the
need for spouse’s help with instrumental tasks should be the
highest during middle adulthood, whereas such need is compara-
tively lower in early and late adulthood.
The above dynamic changes of the priorities of the three kinds
of marital goals across adulthood are summarized in Figure 1. The
figure shows that personal growth goals are predominantly impor-
tant during early adulthood, whereas companionship goals are the
most salient in later adulthood. In middle adulthood, although
instrumental goals have the highest priority, the other two types of
goals are also activated to some extent.
Figure 1. Changing priority of the three types of marital goals across
adulthood.
250 LI AND FUNG
Dynamic Marital Goals and Marital Satisfaction
The next question is how the dynamic marital goals are related
to marital satisfaction. The short answer is that marital satisfaction
is determined by whether the marital goals, especially the priori-
tized ones during a certain developmental stage, are satisfied in the
marriage.
Previous studies have found that whether marital expectations or
needs are met influences marital satisfaction (e.g., Campbell,
Simpson, Kashy, & Fletcher, 2001; Dainton, 2000; Fletcher, Simp-
son, & Thomas, 2000; Kelley & Burgoon, 1991; Michalos, 1986).
For example, Kelley and Burgoon (1991) reported that whether the
spouse’s behaviors met with one’s marital expectations was a
stronger predictor of marital satisfaction than the agreement be-
tween spouses. Moreover, different relationship expectations were
found to affect relationship quality with varying strength. Camp-
bell and colleagues (2001) investigated the interplay between (a)
the discrepancy between ideals for the romantic partner and the
perception of the actual partner, (b) the flexibility of such ideals,
and (c) relationship satisfaction. They found that whether the
partner could fulfill the ideal expectations was more influential to
relationship satisfaction for the ideals that were inflexible. Simi-
larly, we suggest that each type of marital goals does not influence
marital satisfaction with the same magnitude. It is the prioritized
marital goals during a certain period that has the greatest impact on
marital satisfaction.
Previous studies have also identified that explicit and implicit
goals have different effects on well-being (e.g., Brunstein, Schul-
theiss, & Grassmann, 1998). Implicit goals or motives are rooted
in human nature, thus pursuing these goals can directly lead to
gratification (Brunstein et al., 1998). However, explicit goals are
not always consistent with implicit goals. In fact, striving for the
explicit goals that are incongruent with the implicit goals can
impair subjective well-being (Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2005;
Hofer, Chasiotis, & Campos, 2006; Langens, 2007). We suggest
that the three types of marital goals and their changing priority
across adulthood are rooted in human nature. Human being is
evolved to enjoy the novel experience and strong emotions brought
by the romantic partner during early adulthood, to focus on raising
a family together with the spouse during middle adulthood, and to
enjoy each other’s company during late adulthood. No matter
whether people are aware of the prioritized marital goals, pursuing
and achieving these goals would be the major source of marital
satisfaction. In addition, as the changing priority of such marital
goals is closely associated with developmental stages, the key
factor here is age, not the duration of marriage. For instance,
couples that get married in their late adulthood might emphasize
companionship goals right from the beginning of their marriages.
Another noteworthy point is that the achievement of marital
goals is a two-way process. For example, when personal growth
goals are prioritized, what matters to marital satisfaction is not
only whether people’s own personal growth goals can be fulfilled
in the marriage, but also whether they have the ability to help their
spouse to fulfill his or her personal growth goals. This is consistent
with Nuttin and Lens’ (1985) idea that people have both goals from
others and goals toward others. Moreover, Mills and Clark (1994)
suggest that people’s primary concern in marriage, a typical com-
munal relationship, is to meet each other’s needs. Thus, when
people sense that a certain goal is desirable, they may not only seek
the goal for themselves but also provide opportunities for the
spouse to fulfill that goal. Whether they can succeed in helping the
spouse to fulfill that goal also influences their marital satisfaction.
This argument is consistent with empirical evidence suggesting
that providing support to others is as important as, if not more
important than, receiving support from others for maintaining
subjective well-being (Brown, Nesse, Vinokur, & Smith, 2003; De
Jong Gierveld & Dykstra, 2008; Thomas, 2010).
Lastly, previous studies have examined the change of marital
satisfaction longitudinally. Many studies found that marital satis-
faction is high at the beginning of the marriage, starts to drop after
the honeymoon, and drops intensively after the birth of first child
(e.g., Belsky & Rovine, 1990; Johnson & Bradbury, 1999; Kurdek,
1999, 2005). Some studies also found that marital satisfaction
rebounded in later adulthood (e.g., Gorchoff, John, & Helson,
2008; Henry, Berg, Smith, & Florsheim, 2007; Levenson,
Carstensen, & Gottman, 1994; Smith et al., 2009). The current
theory provides a possible explanation for such life span variation
of marital satisfaction. According to the changing priority of
different marital goals across adulthood (see Figure 1), the three
types of marital goals are all activated to some extent during
middle adulthood. Middle-aged couples need to fulfill all types of
marital goals to obtain marital satisfaction, whereas young and
older couples only need to meet one type of marital goals that is
predominant. Moreover, the most prioritized instrumental goals for
middle-aged couples are comparatively more difficult to achieve
than the other two types of marital goals. Personal growth goals
and companionship goals are relatively subjective and easier to
achieve by secondary control strategies, such as selective attention,
reappraisal, and downward comparison (Heckhausen & Schulz,
1995; Schulz & Heckhausen, 1996). On the contrary, instrumental
goals have relatively more objective standards and it is hard to
reappraise the situation if such needs are not satisfied. For exam-
ple, if a couple disagree about whether they should have children,
they cannot resolve this problem only with positive reappraisal. In
a word, multiple marital goals may cause middle adulthood to be
the most demanding period for married couples. This may be one
reason why middle-aged couples report a relatively lower level of
marital satisfaction compared to younger and older couples.
Marital Goals and Other Influencing Factors of
Marital Satisfaction
Although marital goals are critical in determining marital satis-
faction, they are not independent from other influencing factors of
marital satisfaction. In previous studies, many factors have been
reported to influence marital satisfaction (for a review, see Brad-
bury et al., 2000), including intrapersonal factors (e.g., personal-
ity), interpersonal factors (e.g., communication between the cou-
ple, attribution of the other’s behavior, and personality similarities
between the couple), microenvironmental factors (e.g., parents’
marital satisfaction, presence of the children, and social network of
the couple), and macroenvironmental factors (e.g., economic cli-
mate of the neighborhood and government policies). Karney and
Bradbury (1995) also proposed the vulnerability-stress-adaptation
model of marriage to integrate these different factors. The model
argues that the couple’s enduring vulnerability, the stressful events
in environment, and the adaptive processes to environmental
changes interact with one another and jointly influence marital
 DYNAMIC MARITAL GOALS
quality and stability. The final part of the dynamic goal theory of
marital satisfaction is about the relationship between marital goals
and other influencing factors of marital satisfaction. We suggest
that these influencing factors can be divided into two categories
according to how they are related to marital goals.
First, in addition to age, there are other factors that can alter the
priority of different marital goals. At the micro level, for example,
how the birth of children may impact marital satisfaction has been
studied for a long time (Bradbury et al., 2000; Glenn, 1990). The
general consensus is that the presence of children reduces marital
satisfaction (Belsky & Rovine, 1990) but enhances marital stability
(Waite & Lillard, 1991). The birth of children adds a dramatic
amount of instrumental work to the couple (i.e., taking care of the
baby) and draws much of the their attention. Thus, the priority of
instrumental goals might increase after the birth of children. Sim-
ilarly, other stressors or transitions in life can also shift the priority
of marital goals. After the transition to retirement, for instance,
people may suddenly have more time with the spouse and are
faced with less instrumental demand (Brubaker, 1990). This may
lower the priority of instrumental goals and enhance the priority of
companionship goals. Moreover, financial pressure can cause in-
strumental goals to be more highly prioritized, as basic needs
become more salient in such situations (Conger et al., 1990;
Cutrona et al., 2003; Vinokur, Price, & Caplan, 1996).
At the macro level, the priority of marital goals is also influ-
enced by historical and cultural factors. Beliefs about marriage
vary across cultures and historical periods. The idea that marriages
should be based on romantic love did not prevail until the 20th
century (Shumway, 2003; Sternberg & Hojjat, 1997). Before that,
marriage was mostly believed to be an institution where a man and
a woman cooperated to raise a new family, and the ultimate goal
was to make the family thrive. It was less about the emotional
attachment between the couple, and more about the alliance of the
couple’s original families. Hence, the priority of instrumental
goals should be higher in older times than in modern societies.
Moreover, there are cultural differences in beliefs about marriage
even during the same historical period. For example, arranged
marriages are still prevalent in some cultures nowadays (Simon &
Altstein, 2003; Stockard, 2002). People get married not because of
romantic attraction but because of mutual agreement between
senior relatives (usually parents) of the couple. Such an arrange-
ment is usually based on objective standards, such as social status
and wealth. Thus, for marriages in these cultures, instrumental
goals are again more prioritized. To conclude, the final priority of
different marital goals is the result of the integrative impacts of
both micro and macro factors and is always under dynamic
changes.
Then, once the priority of marital goals is set, other factors may
be adjusted to match with the prioritized marital goals, and to
facilitate the achievement of these goals. In the following part, we
elaborate on three of these factors. To begin with, couples’ com-
munication pattern is susceptible to the influence of prioritized
marital goals. For example, Carstensen, Gottman, and Levenson
(1995) asked couples to discuss a long-term disagreement in their
marriage. Older couples displayed more affection than did middle-
aged couples, whereas middle-aged couples showed more interest,
humor, disgust, and belligerence during the discussion. Based on
the same sample, Levenson and colleagues (1994) further found
that older couples were less physiologically aroused during the
251
conflict resolution process than did middle-aged couples. Older
couples also reported less potential conflicts and more sources of
pleasure in their marriage, compared with middle-aged couples
(Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1993). Taking marital goals
into consideration, the reason why older couples are more affec-
tionate with their spouses and are less physiologically aroused
during communication about marital disagreement may be that
they prioritize companionship goals. According to the theory,
older couples may be more likely to cherish the affection with their
spouse and to be warm and nice to each other. Supporting the
above argument, older adults used pronouns referring to the couple
(i.e., we-ness) more often than did middle aged couples while
discussing marital problems. The use of we-ness pronouns was
also related to lower physiological arousal and more positive affect
(Seider, Hirschberger, Nelson, & Levenson, 2009). In contrast,
with their prioritized instrumental goals, middle-aged couples may
be more practical and focus more on how to settle the disagree-
ments. Thus, middle-aged couples were found to display more
interest and negative affect during the marital problem discussion,
so that they could be more focused on the disagreement and find
ways to solve the problem (Carstensen et al., 1995). Moreover,
probably because the prioritized instrumental goals urged them to
solve the problems, middle-aged couples were more physiologi-
cally involved in the disagreement discussion (Levenson et al.,
1994).
Similarly, prioritized marital goals can influence problem solv-
ing strategies in marriage. In one study (Blanchard-Fields, Stein,
& Watson, 2004), participants were asked to generate some family
problems with either high or low emotional salience. Then they
were asked how they dealt with those problems. The result was
that older adults used more passive emotion regulation strategies
whereas middle-aged adults used more proactive emotion regula-
tion strategies to solve family problems with high emotion sa-
lience. Such age differences in problem solving can also poten-
tially be explained by age differences in marital goals. As older
adults’ primary marital goals are companionship goals, they may
not want to initiate conflicts with their spouse. Thus they may use
passive emotion regulation strategies to avoid the negative emo-
tions without changing the spouse’s attitude or behavior. However,
for middle-aged adults with prioritized instrumental goals, they
may focus more on the practical aspects of social relationships and
are more motivated to change the spouse to fit their own needs.
This may be why they prefer the proactive emotion regulation
strategies.
Lastly, people’s attribution about marital events can be used to
facilitate the achievement of prioritized marital goals. For exam-
ple, Karney and Bradbury (2000) investigated the growth curve of
attribution in newlywed couples longitudinally for about four
years. Their results demonstrated that negative attributions tended
to increase during the first four years of marriage. These negative
attributions may occur as a result of the correspondence bias
(Gilbert & Malone, 1995). People tend to attribute others’ negative
behaviors to dispositional and generalized reasons even when the
situational reasons are quite salient; however, such a bias does not
exist when people make attributions about themselves. For young
couples, their focus on personal growth goals may lead them to
include the spouse in their own self construal as a way of self-
expansion (Aron et al., 2002; Aron & Aron, 1996). Thus, they may
be less susceptible to the correspondence bias (because the spouse
252 LI AND FUNG
is now part of themselves) and make fewer negative attributions
about their spouse’s behaviors. However, as time passes by, the
couples may shift their focus gradually to instrumental goals. The
spouse’s practical use may become more salient. Thus people may
treat their spouse more like an “outsider” and be more susceptible
to the correspondence bias, leading to more negative attributions of
the spouse’s behaviors.
To summarize, marital goals interact with many other factors to
affect marital satisfaction. By introducing the marital goal concept
into the marital satisfaction research, the dynamic goal theory of
marital satisfaction provides a new way to integrate various influ-
encing factors of marital satisfaction.
Conclusion
The dynamic goal theory of marital satisfaction suggests that
there are three types of marital goals: personal growth goals,
instrumental goals, and companionship goals. The relative impor-
tance of different marital goals is under dynamic changes across
adulthood. In general, young couples emphasize personal growth
goals, middle-aged couples prioritize instrumental goals, and old
couples focus on companionship goals. The relative importance of
marital goals is also under the impact of other factors, such as life
transitions and cultural values. Prioritized marital goals can further
affect marital interaction patterns to facilitate the achievement of
marital satisfaction. As far as we know, the current theory is the
first one to integrate the life span developmental view into the
marital satisfaction research. It provides a parsimonious way to
integrate previous research about marital satisfaction from the
developmental perspective, and contributes to both the literature
on marriage and that on life span development. Various influenc-
ing factors of marital satisfaction are now organized around the
central concept of marital goal. The general life span developmen-
tal theories are applied to the specific context of marriage. More-
over, the classification of marital goals, the changing priority of
marital goals across adulthood, and the relationship between mar-
ital goals and other influencing factors of marital satisfaction
provide promising directions for empirical investigations in the
future.
References
Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1999). Interpersonal commitment in
historical perspective. In J. M. Adams, & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook
of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 3–34). New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press Publishers.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Conse-
quences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda
for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
278 –308.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Under-
standing attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., & Lewandowski, G. W. (2002).
Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive effects on
experienced marital quality. In P. Noller, & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Under-
standing marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp.
177–194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state
of the model. Personal Relationships, 3, 45–58. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
6811.1996.tb00103.x
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology:
Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338 –375.
Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny:
Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of develop-
mental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366 –380.
Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals:
Stress-dependent discrepancies between explicit and implicit achieve-
ment motives reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic
symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 781–799.
Bauserman, S., & Arias, I. (1992). Relationships among marital invest-
ment, marital satisfaction, and marital commitment in domestically
victimized and nonvictimized wives. Violence and Victims, 7, 287.
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across the
transition to parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 52, 5–19.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Stein, R., & Watson, T. L. (2004). Age differences in
emotion-regulation strategies in handling everyday problems. Journals
of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sci-
ences, 59, P261–269.
Bradbury, T. N. (1995). Assessing the four fundamental domains of mar-
riage. Family Relations, 44, 459 – 468.
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on
the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964 –980.
Brandtstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1992). Coping with discrepancies between
aspirations and achievements in adult development: A dual-process
model. In L. Montada, S.-H. Filipp, & M. Lerner (Eds.), Life crises and
experiences of loss in adulthood (pp. 301–319). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course dynamics of
goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Develop-
mental Review, 22, 117–150. doi:10.1006/drev.2001.0539
Brown, S. L., Nesse, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003).
Providing social support may be more beneficial than receiving it.
Psychological Science, 14, 320 –327. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14461
Brubaker, T. H. (1990). Families in later life: A burgeoning research area.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, (Family Research in the 1980s:
The Decade in Review), 959 –981.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grassmann, R. (1998). Personal
goals and emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispo-
sitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 494 –508.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2001).
Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447– 462. doi:10.1177/
0146167201274006
Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human
development. Science, 312, 1913–1915.
Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional
behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10, 140 –149.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time
seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psycholo-
gist, 54, 165–181.
Cheng, S. T. (2004). Age and subjective well-being revisited: A discrep-
ancy perspective. Psychology and Aging, 19, 409 – 415.
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H. J., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L.,
Whitbeck, L. B., & Melby, J. N. (1990). Linking economic hardship to
marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52,
643– 656.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support as a determinant of marital quality:
The interplay of negative and supportive behaviors. In G. R. Pierce,
B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and
the family (pp. 173–194). New York: Plenum Press.
Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Abraham, W. T., Gardner, K. A., Melby,
J. N., Bryant, C., & Conger, R. D. (2003). Neighborhood context and
financial strain as predictors of marital interaction and marital quality in
 DYNAMIC MARITAL GOALS
African American couples. Personal Relationships, 10, 389 – 409. doi:
10.1111/1475-6811.00056
Dainton, M. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance,
and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance
strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 827– 842.
doi:10.1177/0265407500176007
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination
research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
De Jong Gierveld, J., & Dykstra, P. A. (2008). Virtue is its own reward?
Support-giving in the family and loneliness in middle and old age.
Ageing & Society, 28, 271. doi:10.1017/S0144686X07006629
Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999).
Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the
Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 77, 293–323.
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance moti-
vation. Motivation & Emotion, 30, 111–116. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-
9028-7
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital
quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49, 797– 809.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fishbach, A. (2010). Shifting closeness: Interper-
sonal effects of personal goal progress. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98, 535–549.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes
relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 95, 319 –337.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, percep-
tions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940.
Ford, D. H. (1987). The directive function: Intentions and personal goals.
In D. H. Ford (Ed.), Humans as self-constructing living systems: A
developmental perspective on behavior and personality (pp. 385– 414).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience
on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61–78.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00071.x
Fredrickson, B. L., & Carstensen, L. L. (1990). Choosing social partners:
How old age and anticipated endings make people more selective.
Psychology and Aging, 5, 335–347.
Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital
happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family
Issues, 24, 51–73. doi:10.1177/0192513X02238520
Fung, H. H., Carstensen, L. L., & Lutz, A. M. (1999). Influence of time on
social preferences: Implications for life-span development. Psychology
and Aging, 14, 595– 604.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 21–38.
Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 1980s:
A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818 – 831.
Gorchoff, S., John, O., & Helson, R. (2008). Contextualizing change in
marital satisfaction during middle age: An 18-year longitudinal study.
Psychological Science, 19, 1194 –1200. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280
.2008.02222.x
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire?
Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and pro-
ductivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48 –58. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.93.1.48
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Hsu, A. Y. C., Tsai, J., &
Skorpen, C. G. (1997). Emotion and aging: Experience, expression, and
control. Psychology and Aging, 12, 590 –599.
253
Hawkins, M. W., Carrere, S., & Gottman, J. M. (2002). Marital sentiment
override: Does it influence couples’ perceptions? Journal of Marriage
and Family, 64, 193–201.
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psy-
chological Review, 102, 284 –304.
Henry, N. J. M., Berg, C. A., Smith, T. W., & Florsheim, P. (2007).
Positive and negative characteristics of marital interaction and their
association with marital satisfaction in middle-aged and older couples.
Psychology and Aging, 22, 428 – 441.
Hicks, M. W., & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability: A review
of the research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and Family, 32,
553–574.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.
Psychological Review, 94, 319 –340.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psycholo-
gist, 52, 1280 –1300.
Hofer, J., Chasiotis, A., & Campos, D. (2006). Congruence between social
values and implicit motives: Effects on life satisfaction across three
cultures. European Journal of Personality, 20, 305–324. doi:10.1002/
per.590
Huston, T. L., & Robins, E. (1982). Conceptual and methodological issues
in studying close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44,
901–925.
Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Marital satisfaction and
topographical assessment of marital interaction: A longitudinal analysis
of newlywed couples. Personal Relationships, 6, 19 – 40. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-6811.1999.tb00209.x
Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite
nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to
stay married. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 160 –177.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of
marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research.
Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2000). Attributions in marriage: State or
trait? A growth curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 78, 295–309.
Kelley, D. L., & Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Understanding marital satisfaction
and couple type as functions of relational expectations. Human Com-
munication Research, 18, 40 – 69.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the
job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organiza-
tional behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 83, 139 –149.
Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change
in marital quality for husbands and wives over the first 10 years of
marriage. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1283–1296.
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). Gender and marital satisfaction early in marriage: A
growth curve approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 68 – 84.
doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00006.x
Lang, F. R. (2004). Social motivation across the life span. In K. L.
Fingerman, & F. R. Lang (Eds.), Growing together: Personal relation-
ships across the life span (pp. 341–367). Cambridge, UK/New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Langens, T. A. (2007). Congruence between implicit and explicit motives
and emotional well-being: The moderating role of activity inhibition.
Motivation & Emotion, 31, 49 –59. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9038-5
Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2002). Divison of labor, perceived fairness, and
marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 64, 27–39. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00027.x
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determi-
nants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relation-
ships, 10, 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035
254 LI AND FUNG
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term
marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 8, 301–
313.
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). Influence of
age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of
long-term marriages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
56 – 68.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social
psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50, 370 –396.
Michalos, A. C. (1986). Job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and the
quality of life: A review and a preview. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.),
Research on the quality of life (pp. 57– 83). Ann Arbor: Survey Research
Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Mickelson, K. D., Claffey, S. T., & Williams, S. L. (2006). The moderating
role of gender and gender role attitudes on the link between spousal
support and marital quality. Sex Roles, 55, 73– 82.
Miller, P. J. E., Niehuis, S., & Huston, T. L. (2006). Positive illusions
in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579 –1594. doi:10.1177/
0146167206292691
Mills, J., & Clark, M. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships:
Controversies and research. In R. Erber, & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoret-
ical framework for personal relationships (pp. 29 – 42). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996a). The benefits of
positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
79 –98.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996b). The self-fulfilling
nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,
but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–
1180. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the depen-
dent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.
Nuttin, J., & Lens, W. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation:
Theory and research method. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University
Press; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rhatigan, D. L., & Axsom, D. (2006). Using the investment model to
understand battered women’s commitment to abusive relationships.
Journal of Family Violence, 21, 153–162. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-
9013-z
Rhatigan, D. L., Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). An investment
model analysis of relationship stability among women court-mandated to
violence interventions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 313–322.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00225.x
Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo
phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–
309. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01657.x
Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Kubacka, K. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2009).
“The part of me that you bring out”: Ideal similarity and the Michelan-
gelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
61– 82. doi:10.1037/a0014016
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment
model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of
alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
Schulz, R., & Heckhausen, J. (1996). A life span model of successful
aging. American Psychologist, 51, 702–714. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.51.7.702
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Cope-
land, J. M., Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and
View publication stats
discriminant validity of the Kansas marital satisfaction scale. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 381–387.
Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2009).
We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology,
and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24, 604 – 613.
Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives
and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293.
Sheldon, K. M. (2009). Changes in goal-striving across the life span: Do
people learn to select more self-concordant goals as they age? In N.
DeFrates-Densch, & M. C. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult
learning and development (pp. 553–569). New York: Routledge.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C.,
& Sun, Z. (2004). Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 209 –223. doi:
10.1177/0022022103262245
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Per-
sonal strivings and psychological maturity across the life span. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 37, 491–501.
Shumway, D. R. (2003). Modern love: Romance, intimacy, and the mar-
riage crisis. New York: New York University Press.
Simon, R. J., & Altstein, H. (2003). Global perspectives on social issues:
Marriage and divorce. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Smith, T. W., Berg, C. A., Florsheim, P., Uchino, B. N., Pearce, G.,
Hawkins, M., & Olsen-Cerny, C. (2009). Conflict and collaboration in
middle-aged and older couples: I. Age differences in agency and com-
munion during marital interaction. Psychology and Aging, 24, 259 –273.
doi:10.1037/a0015609
Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 813– 823.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for
assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 38, 15–28.
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in
personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595–
608.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Re-
view, 93, 119 –135.
Sternberg, R. J., & Hojjat, M. (1997). Satisfaction in close relationships.
New York: Guilford Press.
Stockard, J. E. (2002). Marriage in culture: Practice and meaning across
diverse societies. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Thomas, P. A. (2010). Is it better to give or to receive? Social support and
the well-being of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B, 351–357. doi:
10.1093/geronb/gbp113
Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Caplan, R. D. (1996). Hard times and
hurtful partners: How financial strain affects depression and relationship
satisfaction of unemployed persons and their spouses. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 71, 166 –179.
Waite, L. J., & Lillard, L. A. (1991). Children and marital disruption. The
American Journal of Sociology, 96, 930 –953.
Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model
for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in
family intervention, assessment, and theory (pp. 229 –271). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Wilkie, J. R., Ferree, M. M., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1998). Gender and fairness:
Marital satisfaction in two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60, 577–594.
Received February 7, 2011
Revision received June 13, 2011
Accepted June 14, 2011 䡲