The Relationship Between Conflict Topics and Romantic Relationship Dynamics

Abstract

Romantic coupling in the United States is changing (e.g., communication patterns). Research investigating couple conflict topics has not updated with current trends. A large, representative sample (n = 1,013) selected frequent couples conflict topics and reported relationship satisfaction and conflict behaviors. Results suggested communications was the most frequently reported conflict topic for all couples and parenting was the most frequently reported conflict topic for parents. Other commonly reported topics included personal/partner habits, household chores, finances, decision-making, quality time, sex, screen time, role expectations, and time management. Finances, parenting, and sex were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, whereas household chores and time management were positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Communication, finances, parenting, and sex were associated with an increase in dysfunctional conflict behaviors, whereas time management was associated with a decrease in dysfunctional conflict behaviors. Understanding how conflict sources affect relationships may help couples navigate conflict to preserve the relationship.

Keywords

relationship satisfaction couples couple conflict technology communication parenting

Romantic coupling in the United States is changing (e.g., marriage rates declining [Duffin, 2020]; couples having fewer children [U.S. Census, 2014]). As couples navigate changes, conflict often arises. Yet what we know about frequent topics of couple conflict has not evolved with current trends in romantic coupling (Betcher & Macauley, 1990; Center for Marriage and Family [CMF], 2000; E. Mowrer & Mowrer, 1928). There are concerns about the generalizability of more recent studies. For example, a study examining couple conflict topics from the Institute for Family Studies (IFS, 2016) used data gathered in the late 1990s, and other studies only examined one or few topics (Dew et al., 2012; Papp et al., 2009; Wheeler & Kerpelman, 2016). Conflict can be distressing for couples and a predictor of divorce (Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Levenson, 2002). Whisman et al. (2008) estimated about one-third of romantic couples are in a distressed relationship. Until we can further dissect what sources may contribute to distress, targeted interventions to approach this public health concern may not be as effective.

Couples Conflict Topics

Nearly a century of data has noted the importance of uncovering couple conflict topics. E. Mowrer and Mowrer (1928) reported personal habits (e.g., alcohol use, extravagance, frugality, mental issues, nagging, anger issues) as well as topics focused on navigating a partnership (e.g., family interference, children, outside companions), or abuse led to couple conflict. Surprisingly over 50 years later, many of these same topics were still frequently cited as top concerns (e.g., finances, relatives, children, household chores, communication; Madden & Janoff-Bulma, 1981). Betcher and Macauley (1990) replicated these findings and contributed sex, finances, power, gender, loyalty, and children were the most frequent conflict topics. Their research extended and refined topics from E. Mowrer and Mowrer as similar constructs; jealousy became loyalty, and abuse showed power differentials.

After these seminal works, a series of studies continued to support previously identified topics and refined research to include how lifespan and family development progression affect sources of conflict. A report from CMF (2000) identified that finances, sex, and time were the most common conflict areas in early marriage. Research focused on couples with young children included the same topics and added household chores and in-laws to the common conflict areas list (IFS, 2016). Another study using older couples without children living in the home noted chores, communication, and habits were the most frequently cited topics (Papp, 2018). In one sample comparing age groups, leisure, and emotional closeness was a top concern for younger couples (Rauer et al., 2019). In contrast, older couples designated health as a common conflict topic, while emotional closeness was no longer one of the top five concerns (Rauer et al., 2019). The addition of leisure to the conflict topics, perhaps, demonstrates that couples’ problem areas are beginning to evolve as society is changing (Rauer et al., 2019).

As disagreement topics seemed solidified, the literature has mostly shifted to address how topics determine romantic relationship quality. No shortage of research has addressed how topics such as finances, communication, children, and sex affect romantic relationships. For example, the sexual relationship (Vowels & Mark, 2020), communication (Markman et al., 2010), children (Meyer et al., 2016), and household chores (Ruppanner et al., 2018) predict relationship satisfaction. Certain topics may be more insidious than others. Conflict over communication and personal habits may produce more anger, whereas conflict over children may elicit more depressive emotions (Papp, 2018). Other research revealed arguments about finances might be more problematic (Papp et al., 2009) and predict additional conflict over other topics (e.g., sex, time; Wheeler & Kerpelman, 2016); perhaps, explaining why fighting over money is the greatest predictor of divorce (Dew et al., 2012). Despite knowing that couples’ relationship satisfaction does not discriminate between topics selected as an area of disagreement (Williamson et al., 2013), overall, the research lacks comparative examinations assessing the unique contributions of each topic. Also missing is an in-depth variety of topics under investigation to understand how couples fight or if certain topics are more strongly related to relationship satisfaction or behavioral patterns.

Role of Technology and Changes in Couple Dynamics

Couples are interacting qualitatively different than they did when conflict research started. Almost all adults in the United States use cell phones (96%) and tablets or computers to communicate (75%, Pew Research Center, 2018). Technology has moved to the forefront in couple communication for good and for ill (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). As research demonstrates that communication conflict is enduring, changes noted in communication patterns may be a unique source of conflict different from in-person miscommunication. Communicating with a romantic partner only via technology is associated with reduced relationship satisfaction and emotional closeness (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013). Yet gender differences may exist as for men texting frequency may show relationship dissatisfaction, whereas for women, an increase in texting may show the opposite (Schade et al., 2013). Technology may be creating a new set of relational expectations that increase the likelihood of problems. For example, individuals may expect their romantic partners to give them more attention than to their smartphone (Chambliss et al., 2015).

The instant access to information and subsequent multitasking has led to increased technological interruptions in relationships (e.g., technoference or interpersonal interruptions due to technology [McDaniel & Coyne, 2016]; phubbing or ignoring individuals due to smartphone attention [Roberts & David, 2016]). On days with greater technoference, partners felt worse about their relationship and perceived more conflict over technology (McDaniel & Drouin, 2019). Partner phubbing, also, indirectly increased depression through adverse impacts on relationship and life satisfaction (Roberts & David, 2016). Beyond the impact of technoference and phubbing, technology has further changed the boundaries in personal definitions of fidelity. Younger adults have less rigid marital and relationship boundaries when describing their online relationships as 18% of those born between 1980 and 2000 believe that electronic behaviors that blur romantic and sexual lines with others are inappropriate, compared to 26% of those born between 1943 and 1963 (Wilcox et al., 2019). Those who describe more flexible boundaries for online infidelity are the least happy and most likely to end their current relationships (Wilcox et al., 2019). Norton et al. (2017) linked online boundary crossings to lower relationship satisfaction and partner responsiveness.

Theoretical Framework

Gottman et al.’s research provided a foundation to develop a theory of couple’s therapy that integrates physiology, perception, and interactions to inform interventions that promote intimacy and interpersonal growth (Gottman, 1999). The resulting Gottman Method Couple Therapy (Gottman & Gottman, 2008) provides the theoretical framework guiding this study in understanding conflict in relationships. Through a series of studies that included increasingly sophisticated methods of interaction sequence observations, Gottman (1979) identified couple interaction behaviors that impact intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Research demonstrated common themes and patterns during relationship conflict as couples manage perpetual and (un)solvable problems in their interactions (Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Levenson, 2002).

Gottman (1979, 1994) identified the six most common areas of conflict: work stress, in-laws, money, sex, housework, and the transition to parenthood. Yet this research found it was a mismatch between partners concerning beliefs regarding emotional expression (e.g., how and when expressed), rather than the conflict topic, that predicted relationship distress. When couples engage in relationship-damaging or destructive behaviors (e.g., criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling), relationship distress increases, and when couples engage in relationship-enhancing or constructive behaviors (e.g., repair attempts), satisfaction increases, regardless of topic (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Gottman et al., 1998; Gottman, 1999).

Current Study

A review of the literature uncovered the need for the study. First, a tradition of understanding couples functioning supports that it is not the topic but how conflict is navigated that leads to relationship distress (Gottman 1999); yet recent research has begun to contradict this understanding (Papp, 2018; Papp et al., 2009; Wheeler & Kerpelman, 2016). Furthermore, a historical review of couples conflict topics seems to suggest consistency in findings; yet the role of technology has been largely ignored in group comparisons assessing topics and how conflict affects relationships. Caughlin et al. (2016) acknowledged the limited research investigating how technology may be contributing to couple conflict and noted the need for a more thorough investigation into the role of technology in couples conflict. Research demonstrates technology and screen use may negatively impact romantic partnering; yet we do not know, comparatively, if technology is as significant as traditional topics voiced by couples. Lastly, the literature needs clarification examining if a variety of conflict topics predict relationship satisfaction or destructive patterns during conflict.

This exploratory, descriptive study sought to investigate if knowing and identifying conflict topics inform how couples interact during conflict and their relationship satisfaction. We wanted to test the theory that how couples fight is the salient determinant rather than the topic. With a large, representative sample, we sought to record current trends in couple conflict. We inquired about emerging topics not frequently addressed in previous research (e.g., screen time, entertainment choices, i.e., Netflix) and lasting topics often cited in the research (e.g., finances, communication). We also examined the relationship between topics and demographics, relationship satisfaction, and conflict behaviors to investigate how topics may be contributing to couple distress.

Methods

Participants

We used a convenience sample (n = 1,013) with nationally representative demographics (U.S. Census, 2019). Healy et al. (2009) noted the accuracy of samples of 1,000 in large population survey data. We followed sample size recommendations; sample size met a minimum of the 95% confidence interval with less than a 3.5% margin of error (Cochran, 1977). Consistent with census data, we had slightly more women (n = 521, 52%) than men (n = 456, 46%), and 10 individuals identified outside of the gender binary. Our sample represented couples across the lifespan. The average age of our sample was 37.6 (SD = 10.94, range = 18–80 years). Most of the sample identified as White (n = 631), followed by Asian American (n = 106), another race or ethnicity (n = 71), African American (n = 64), with remaining races and ethnicities less represented (n < 55 in each identified race or ethnicity, Multiracial n = 54, Latino n = 37, American Indian n = 17, Pacific Islander n = 7). The majority of the sample was middle class (income = $75,000+, n = 581) and held a bachelor’s degree or higher (n = 742).

Most participants identified as heterosexual (n = 854), bisexual or pansexual (n = 83), gay or lesbian (n = 27), or another sexual orientation (n = 21). Most participants had children (n = 652) and were married/civil union (n = 723), followed by committed/living together (n = 145), committed/not living together (n = 101), or noncommitted relationships or another status (n = 34). The majority were in a monogamous relationship (n = 900), consensual nonmonogamy (n = 80), nonconsensual emotional/sexual affair (n = 23), or another (n = 8). Most participants had been with their partner (primary partner[s] for nonmonogamous individuals) for 10–20 years (n = 279), followed by 5–10 years (n = 239), over 20 years (n = 158), 3–5 years (n = 144), 1–3 years (n = 129), or less than 1 year (n = 42).

Procedures and Instrumentation

The university internal review board approved the study. Participants learned about the research study through national social media announcements and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk where participants were paid a nominal amount. The total length of time to complete the full survey was approximately 10 minutes.

Couples’ conflict disagreement topics

Disagreement topics were established via research team meetings held with approximately six researchers, including four identified couple therapists. The research team reviewed literature and discussed couples’ counseling experiences before coming to a consensus to determine the final topic list. Topics included those supported in previous research (e.g., sex, finances) and contemporary topics (screen time, entertainment choices) emerging from couples counseling experiences or literature. Interestingly, after multiple meetings, topics closely matched Lopes et al. (2020). A notable difference between what this team of researchers and what Lopes et al. created is related topics were collapsed into one variable in our study (e.g., Lopes et al. included two topics housekeeping and chores, whereas our study had one topic household chores). See Table 1 for the final list of topics. Participants selected and ranked their top five areas of disagreements from the list of 20 topics as not all topics would be relevant to all participants, and rating all topics could be arbitrary and potentially cumbersome for participants.

Table 1.

Most Frequent Topics.

Topic	Percent (rounded to nearest whole number)	Frequency
1. Communications	50	502
2. Personal or partner habits	43	431
3. Household chores	42	424
4. Finances	40	405
5. Parenting	34 of total sample, 52 of all parents	341
6. Decision-making	34	340
7. Quality time together	33	338
8. Sex	32	320
9. Screen time	31	315
10. Role expectations	27	270
11. Time management	26	263
12. In-laws	26 of total sample, 36 of married/civil union participants	260
13. Employment/work expectations	19	197
14. Food/meal choice	19	196
15. Pet care	12	120
16. Entertainment choices (date night, Netflix)	11	108
17. Gender roles	10	101
18. Former partners	8	84
19. Religion	8	81
20. Politics	6	60

As the study was comparing topics to relationship satisfaction and conflict patterns, it was important to understand if frequent topics elicited an emotional response from participants; thus, could be expected to be related to relationship factors. Participants rated how distressing their most frequent area of conflict was. The mean score was 2.77 on a scale of 1 (little to no distress) to 5 (very distressing). Thus, on average, participants reported their most frequent topic to cause relationship distress.

Relationship satisfaction

We used the four-item Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007) to measure relationship satisfaction. The CSI is available in a 32-, 16-, and 4-item format to measure satisfaction in a relationship. Items inquire about the degree of happiness (0 = extremely unhappy to 6 = perfect), warmth and comfort (0 = not at all true to 5 = completely true), reward, and satisfaction (0 = not at all to 5 = completely). Higher scores indicate greater relationship quality. The CSI has strong psychometric properties, including convergent validity with other measures of satisfaction and strong construct validity with anchor scales (Funk & Rogge, 2007). The internal consistency alpha in this sample equaled .88.

Dysfunctional conflict

The Ineffective Arguing Inventory (IAI; Kurdek, 1994) is an eight-item self-report measure used to assess the dysfunction style of couple conflict resolution through asking the extent partners agree (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) each statement (e.g., “By the end of an argument‚ each of us has been given a fair hearing”) is representative of their relationship. Higher scores indicate greater dysfunction style of couple conflict resolution. The IAI has demonstrated a one-year test-retest stability (Kurdek, 1994). The IAI was reliable and had evidence for face validity, concurrent criterion-related validity, and predictive criterion-related validity for diverse couples (Kurdek, 1994). The internal consistency alpha in this sample was 0.78.

Results

See Table 1 for a list of the most frequently reported conflict topics. Briefly, topics most frequently reported by approximately 25% of the sample included time management (n = 263, 25.96%), role expectations (n = 270, 26.65%), in-laws (n = 260, 25.67%); approximately 30% of the sample included parenting (n = 341, 33.66%), screen time (n = 315, 31.10%), sex (n = 320, 31.59%), quality time together (n = 338, 33.37%), decision-making (n = 340, 33.56%); approximately 40% of the sample included household chores (n = 424, 41.86%), finances (n = 405, 40.00%), personal or partner habits (n = 431, 42.55%) with almost half of the sample reporting communications (n = 502, 49.56%). Yet not all topics were applicable to all members of the sample. Of those participants who are parents, 52.30% (n = 341) reported parenting in their top five most frequent areas of conflict. Of those participants who were married or in a civil union, 35.96% (n = 260) reported in-laws were one of their top five areas of disagreement.

Very few and only small point biserial correlations were found between common topics (minimum of 25% of sample) and relationship satisfaction and ineffective arguing. Topics with significant correlations are reported (see Table 2). Relationship satisfaction was inversely related to or decreased for those individuals who argued more frequently about parenting (r = –.09, p = .006), sex (r = –.08, p = .014), and finances (r = –.07, p = .039), whereas relationship satisfaction was positively related to or increased for those individuals who argued about time management (r = 0.123, p < .000) or household chores (r = .09, p = .003). Ineffective arguing patterns was positively associated with or increased when couples were more likely to fight about communications (r = .12, p < .001), finances (r = .10, p = .001), parenting (r = .12, p < .001), and sex (r = .16, p < .001), whereas ineffective arguing patterns decreased when participants were more likely to argue about time management (r = –.13, p < .001).

Table 2.

Topics and Relationship Satisfaction or Ineffective Arguing Correlations.

Topic	Relationship Satisfaction	Ineffective Arguing
Communication	.01	.12**
Finances	−.07*	.10**
Household chores	.09**	−.05
Parenting	−.09**	.12**
Sex	−.08*	.16**
Time management	.12**	−.13**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01

Point biserial correlations were conducted with demographics continuously ranked and common topics (see Table 3). As length of the romantic relationship increased, couples were more likely to argue about household chores (r = .11, p < .001) and finances (r = .15, p < .001), whereas as length of the relationship decreased, couples were more likely to argue about quality time (r = –.09, p = .003) and screen time (r = –.11, p < .001). As level of commitment to the relationship increased, couples were more likely to argue about household chores (r = –.17, p < .001) and finances (r = .17, p < .001), whereas as level of commitment to relationship decreased, couples were more likely to argue about quality time (r = –.11, p = .001), communications (r = –.08, p = .017), and decision-making (r = –.07, p = .05). As age increased, couples were more likely to argue about finances (r = .10, p = .001) and younger individuals were more likely to argue about role expectation (r = –.06, p = .047), quality time (r = –.11, p = .001), sex (r = –.07, p = .04), and screen time (r = –.11, p < .001). Individuals with higher incomes were more likely to argue about household chores (r = .07, p = .04), whereas those with lower incomes were more likely to argue about decision-making (r = –.08, p = .012) and quality time (r = –.09, p = .007).

Table 3.

Topics and Demographic Correlations.

Topic	Relationship Length	Relationship Status	Age	Income
Decision-making	−.00	−.07*	.05	−.08*
Communications	−.02	−.08*	−.00	−.01
Role expectation	−.02	−.05	−.06*	−.01
Household chores	.11**	.17**	−.03	.07*
Finances	.15**	.17**	.10**	−.02
Quality time	−.09**	−.11**	−.11**	−.09**
Sex	−.00	.04	−.07*	−.00
Screen time	−.11**	.01	−.11**	.02

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01

Chi square analysis examined demographics and common topics. Gender correlated with decision-making (χ² = 14.96, n = 987, p < .001, phi = –.13). Men (count = 185, expected = 156) were more likely and women (count = 149, expected = 178) were less likely to argue about decisions. Men (count = 165, expected = 193) were less likely (χ² = 12.95, n = 987, p = .001, phi = .12) and women (count = 249, expected = 221) were more likely to argue about household chores. Men (count = 195, expected = 230) were less likely (χ² = 21.57, n = 977, p <. 001, phi = .15) and women (count = 298, expected = 263) were more likely to argue about communications. Unfortunately, sample sizes were too small to include individuals who did not identify in the gender binary analysis. However, the frequencies for gender nonbinary participants included four individuals reported household chores, two individuals reported communication, and one person reported decision-making in their top five areas of disagreement.

Communications were more frequently argued about (χ² = 17.98, n = 973, p < .001, phi = .14) by nonparents (count = 190, expected = 161) than parents (count = 299, expected = 328). Parents were less likely (count = 266, expected = 282) and nonparents more likely (count = 155, expected = 139) to argue about personal or partner habits (χ² = 4.53, n = 972, p = .03, phi = .07). Parents were less likely (count = 195, expected = 220) and nonparents more likely (count = 133, expected = 108) to argue about quality time (χ² = 12.82, n = 973, p < .001, phi = .12). Parents were more likely (count = 295, expected = 279) and nonparents less likely (count = 122, expected = 138) to argue about household chores (χ² = 4.31, n = 973, p = .03, phi = .07). Parents were more likely (count = 289, expected = 265) and nonparents were less likely (count = 107, expected = 131) to argue about finances (χ² = 10.32, n = 973, p = .001, phi = .11). Sexual orientation was unrelated to topics.

Discussion

Results revealed the most common (reported by at least 25% of the sample) conflict topics in descending order included communications, personal or partner habits, household chores, finances, decision-making, quality time together, parenting, sex, screen time, role expectations, time management, and in-laws. Communication was the number one conflict area. This is not surprising and not new to the conflict conversation (Madden & Janoff-Bulma, 1981). Much of the couple research (Bischoff, 2008) and focus of couples therapy (Gottman, 1999) is related to communication and improving skills. It is not known how much of the communication concerns are related to in-person or electronic communication. It is worth noting that most couples seamlessly communicate through both methods (Pew Research Center, 2018), creating opportunities for miscommunication (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014).

When considering parents only, parenting was reported more frequently as the top area of conflict. When couples have children, it is common for the relationship to deteriorate (Doss et al., 2009). Yet relationship satisfaction changes across family development with improvements noted by child independence (elementary school-aged children) and romantic relationship distress increasing when parent/child conflict increases (teenage years; Meyer et al., 2016). Many topics (e.g., parenting, in-laws) transcend time as common conflict topics for nearly a century (E. Mowrer & Mowrer, 1928). Other findings were surprising, such as screen time and decision-making were generally as common as timeless concerns sex and quality time (CMF, 2000). Research suggests that screen time is beginning to be an issue between romantic partners as it distracts from quality time (Morgan et al., 2017) and presumably could lead to other arguments (e.g., time management, decision-making, boundary-crossing). Screen time may also be related to communication as many individuals pair time on a smartphone as a screen time concern. Thus, it could be that partners are wanting more face-to- face interaction and direct in-person communication.

Personal or partner habits appear to be resurfacing (Papp, 2018) and in line with common areas of disagreement from E. Mowrer and Mowrer (1928); although, they identified specific habits in lieu of compiling topics into one variable. We grouped habits as the underlying theme due to this categorization implying partner or personal characterological concerns. While it seems intuitive that couples would argue over personal habits, more recent research ignored the role of personal qualities and focused on behaviors associated with partnership navigation (e.g., household chores, sex, finances; CMF, 2000; IFS, 2016; Papp et al., 2009). This could reflect that previous studies utilized samples who were already married and no longer assessing mate quality for selection purposes or that some research used a systemic framework where the couple was the focus of the study not the union of two individuals (Papp et al., 2009; Papp, 2018). Yet it cannot be ignored that partner qualities may irritate a romantic partner over time (Kappen et al., 2018).

Couples who fight over parenting, sex, and finances reported lower relationship satisfaction. Our findings reflect the literature that shows sex (Vowels & Mark, 2020) and parenting (Meyer et al., 2016) negatively affect relationship satisfaction and evoke strong emotions (Papp, 2018). Our results also support the literature that demonstrates partners may engage in more negative conflict behaviors during financial discussions (Papp et al., 2009), increasing divorce potential (Dew et al., 2012). Couples who argue over chores and time management are generally happier. Our finding related to fighting over chores and improved relationship satisfaction is inconsistent with previous research (Ruppanner et al., 2018). These findings may suggest that household chores could be depersonalized; thus, may not elicit a strong emotional response. Our findings related to time management could reflect that couples could be fighting because they enjoy their partner(s) and want more time together.

Certain topics (communication, finances, parenting, and sex) were linked to an increase in dysfunctional conflict patterns, whereas when couples fight about time management, they are less likely to engage in dysfunctional conflict behaviors. It is interesting that these topics, with the exception of communications, match our relationship satisfaction findings. Maybe the conflict behaviors are what is related to relationship satisfaction not the actual topic. Our findings are in line with other research supporting why these topics could be associated with more dysfunctional conflict behaviors. For example, arguments over finances are more sensitive (Dew et al., 2012) or sex is often considered a barometer for the relationship because of the physical manifestation of emotional intimacy (Yoo et al., 2014). Participants reported their most frequent conflict topic as distressing and because parenting and communications were the most frequently cited conflict topics, there may be more opportunities for dysfunctional conflict behaviors. Parenting creates time constraints as couples lose time to connect and role expectations change (Twenge et al., 2003). Couples may also argue about inter-parent decision-making, conflict, and support or lack thereof (Pedro et al., 2012). Arguments about communications may evoke strong emotional responses (Papp, 2018) and mismatched communications (Gottman, 1999), may in and of itself be a dysfunctional conflict behavior. It is unclear if our findings related to both relationship satisfaction and dysfunctional conflict behaviors support the work by Gottman noting how couples argue not the topic influences relationship satisfaction. Contrary to Gottman, we identified topics related to both relationship satisfaction and dysfunctional conflict; yet these correlations were small suggesting the topics do not provide a large contribution to changes in relationship factors.

Demographics were related to conflict topics. Many topic correlations (e.g., quality time, screen time, finances, chores) generalized across numerous demographics (e.g., age, length of relationship, relationship status) suggesting these topics ubiquitously challenge many relationships. Income was associated with quality time, chores, and decision-making, but not financial conflict. Lower-income couples are more likely to divorce (U.S. Census, 2015) and this is often explained by conflict over money (Dew et al., 2012). Our findings suggest that fights about finances do not discriminate by demographics and may not explain the disparities present in divorce rates. Our findings showed sexual orientation was not related to conflict topics supporting previous research that different gender and same-gender relationships function similarly (Holley et al., 2010). Topics negatively correlated with being a parent (communications, quality time, personal or partner habits) suggest parents may be more focused on their children than partner interactions (Flood & Genadek, 2016). Women were more likely to argue about communications and chores, whereas men were more likely to select decision-making. This may reflect the propensity for women to engage in lengthy discussions in intimate settings (Onnela et al., 2015) and an uneven distribution of chores (Hess et al., 2020). Conflict on decision-making may reflect power differentials (Beaulieu et al., 2011). Findings related to gender should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of participants who identified outside of the gender binary.

Limitations and Future Research

This study took an important step at comparing multiple conflict topics to relationship factors as much of the previous research did not include multiple topics in their investigations. Our study had notable limitations. First, we did not include a random sample; therefore, we cannot be confident that our findings reflect all couples. Furthermore, participating in a study about couples suggests participants may be more satisfied with their relationship (Barton et al., 2020) as they voluntarily agreed to focus on their relationship for research. Relatedly, volunteer bias is a concern with this study. Research demonstrates individuals who participate in research may be more agreeable and conscientious (Lonnqvist et al., 2007). Participants selected conflict topics from an existing list. Thus, some topics that may have been more relevant to the participant may not have been listed and thus, we could be missing some important topics represented in couples’ arguments.

Future research should attempt to replicate our findings. In addition to the limitations noted, other concerns such as small correlations and effect sizes decrease the likelihood our findings can be reproduced. The research related to conflict behaviors and specific topics should examine how couples argue about contemporary topics. Previous research demonstrating how specific topics affect emotions differently should be expanded to reflect trending topics (screen time, in-person or electronic communications). A longitudinal study could track frequency of screen time and type of communication to examine how these topics affect conflict. Finally, future research should use a similarly comprehensive list of conflict topics and examine distress and emotional reactions to each topic. This could help decode how topics are personalized and evoke problematic fighting.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dixie Meyer

References

Barton

Lavner

Stanley

Johnson

Rhoades

(2020). “Will you complete this survey too?” Differences between individual versus dyadic samples in relationship research. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000583

Beaulieu

Kools

Kennedy

Humphreys

(2011). Young adult couples decision making regarding emergency contraceptive pills. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 43(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2010.01381.x

Betcher

Macauley

(1990). The seven basic quarrels of marriage: Recognize, defuse, negotiate, and resolve your conflicts. Villard Books.

Bischoff

(2008). Recent research on couple communication. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 7(1), 71–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/15332690802129721

Caughlin

Basinger

Sharabi

(2016). The connections between communication technologies and relational conflict. In Samp

J. A.

(Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges, and opportunities. Routledge.

Caughlin

Sharabi

(2013). A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 873–893. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12046

Center for Marriage and Family. (2000). Time, sex, and money: The first five years of marriage. Creighton University.

Chambliss

Short

Hopkins-DeSantis

Putnam

Martin

Millington

Frymoyer

Rodriguez

Evangelista

Newman

Hartl

Lee

(2015). Young adults’ experience of mobile device disruption of proximate relationships. International Journal of Virtual Worlds and Human Computer Interaction, 3, 10–17. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f09f/7d9be808c524e3b62b65bf4608faee052788.pdf

Cochran

(1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Dew

Britt

Huston

(2012). Examining the relationship between financial issues and divorce. Family Relations, 61(4), 615. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00715.x

11.

Doss

Rhoades

Stanley

Markman

(2009). The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013969

12.

Duffin

(2020). Marriage rate in the United States from 1990 to 2018. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/195951/marriage-rate-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

13.

Flood

Genadek

(2016). Time for each other: Work and family constraints among couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(1), 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12255

14.

Funk

Rogge

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

15.

Gottman

(1979). Marital interaction. Academic Press.

16.

Gottman

(1994). What predicts divorce? Erlbaum.

17.

Gottman

(1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. Norton.

18.

Gottman

(2008). Gottman method couple therapy. In Gurman

A. S.

(Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (p. 138–164). The Guilford Press.

19.

Gottman

Krokoff

(1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.57.1.47

20.

Gottman

Levenson

(2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Processes, 41(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.40102000083.x

21.

Gottman

Coan

Carrere

Swanson

(1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/353438

22.

Healy

Valsasina

Filippi

Bakshi

(2009). Sample size requirements for treatment effects using gray matter, white matter and whole brain volume in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 80(11), 1218–1223. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2008.154732

23.

Hertlein

Ancheta

(2014). Advantages and disadvantages of technology in relationships: Findings from an open-ended survey. The Qualitative Report, 19(11), 1–11. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss11/2

24.

Hess

Ahmed

Phil

Hayes

(2020). Providing unpaid household and care work in the United States: Uncovering inequality (Briefing Paper No. IWPR#C487). Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IWPR-Providing-Unpaid-Household-and-Care-Work-in-the-United-States-Uncovering-Inequality.pdf

25.

Holley

Sturm

Levenson

(2010). Exploring the basis for gender differences in the demand-withdraw pattern. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(5), 666–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/0091836100371215

26.

Institute for Family Studies (IFS). (2016). What couples with children argue about most. Author. https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/what-couples-with-children-argue-about-most-family-studiesfamily-studies.pdf

27.

Kappen

Karremans

Burk

Buyukcan-Tetik

(2018). On the association between mindfulness and romantic relationship satisfaction: The role of partner acceptance. Mindfulness, 9, 1543–1556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0902-7

28.

Kurdek

(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

29.

Lonnqvist

J. -E.

Paunonen

Verkasalo

Leikas

Annamari

T. -H.

Lonnqvist

(2007). Personality characteristics of research volunteers. European Journal of Personality, 21(8), 1017–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.655

30.

Lopes

Shackelford

Buss

Abed

(2020). Individual differences and disagreement in romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109735

31.

Madden

Janoff-Bulma

(1981). Blame, control, and marital satisfaction: Wives’ attributions for conflict in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43(3), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.2307/351767

32.

Markman

Rhoades

Stanley

Ragan

Whitton

(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

33.

McDaniel

Coyne

(2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational wellbeing. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065

34.

McDaniel

Drouin

(2019). Daily technology interruptions and emotional and relational well-being. Computer in Human Behavior, 99, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.027

35.

Meyer

Robinson

Cohn

Gildenblatt

Barkley

(2016). The possible trajectory of relationship satisfaction across the longevity of a romantic partnership: Is there a golden age of parenting? Family Journal, 24(4), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480716670141

36.

Morgan

Hubler

Payne

Pomeroy

Gregg

Homer

(2017). My partner’s media use: A qualitative study exploring perceptions of problems with a partner’s media use. Marriage & Family Review, 53(7), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1263589

37.

Mowrer

(1928). Domestic discord. University Press of Chicago.

38.

Norton

Baptist

Hogan

(2017). Computer-mediated communication in intimate relationships: Associations of boundary crossing, intrusion, relationship satisfaction, and partner responsiveness. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(1), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12246

39.

Onnela

Waber

Pentland

Schnorf

Lazer

(2015). Using sociometers to quantify social interaction patterns. Scientific Reports, 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05604

40.

Papp

(2018). Topics of marital conflict in the everyday lives of empty nest couples and their implications for conflict resolution. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 17(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2017.1302377

41.

Papp

Cummings

Goeke-Morey

(2009). For richer, for poorer: Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family Relations, 58(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x

42.

Pedro

Ribeiro

Shelton

(2012). Marital satisfaction and partners’ parenting practices: The mediating role of coparenting behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 509–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029121

43.

Pew Research Center. (2018). Mobile fact sheet. Author. https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

44.

Rauer

Sabey

Proulx

Volling

(2019). What are the marital problems of happy couples? A multimethod, two-sample investigation. Family Process, 59(3), 1275–1292. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12483.

45.

Roberts

David

(2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016.jchb.2015.07.058

46.

Ruppanner

Brandén

Turunen

(2018). Does unequal housework lead to divorce? Evidence from Sweden. Sociology, 52(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516674664

47.

Schade

L. C.

Sandberg

Bean

Busby

Coyne

(2013). Using technology to connect in romantic relationships: Effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12, 314–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.836051

48.

Twenge

Campbell

Foster

(2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x

49.

U.S. Census. (2015). American community survey. Author. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

50.

U.S. Census. (2019). Quick Facts. Author. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255217%20(3/31/19)

51.

Vowels

Mark

(2020). Relationship and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model approach. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1441991

52.

Wheeler

Kerpelman

(2016). Change in disagreements about money, time, and sex and marital outcomes. Journal of Relationships Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2016.8

53.

Whisman

Beach

Snyder

(2008). Is marital discord taxonic and can taxonic status be assessed reliably? Results from a national, representative sample of married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(5), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.745

54.

Wilcox

Dew

VanDenBerghe

(2019). State of our unions 2019: IFideleity: Interactive technology and relationship faithfulness. National Marriage Project and Institute for American Values.

55.

Williamson

Hanna

Lavner

Bradbury

Karney

(2013). Discussion topic and observed behavior in couples’ problem-solving conversations: Do problem severity and topic choice matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 27(2), 330–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031534

56.

Yoo

Bartle-Haring

Day

Gangamma

(2014) Couple communication, emotional and sexual intimacy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40(4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2012.751072