The narrative construction of intimacy and affect in relationship stories

Abstract

This study examined how the narrative construction of intimacy and affect in relationship stories predicted individuals’ relationship quality, stability, and mental health. A purposive national sample of 150 individuals in long-term relationships wrote stories about four key relationship events and completed measures of relationship quality and mental health. Stories were analyzed for narrative and linguistic indicators of intimacy-related and affective content. Intimacy-related content was positively associated with relationship quality and mental health. Linguistically-coded affect was not associated with any outcomes. The most robust predictor of relationship quality and mental health was the narratively constructed affective tone of relationship story endings. The narrative construction of positive story endings significantly increased the likelihood of participants remaining together with their partners over time.

Keywords

Relationship quality relationship stories narrative linguistic intimacy affect mental health social psychology

Stories and narratives are central to the ways people live their lives. Human thought and behavior are shaped by people’s memories of what happened in their past in relation to their perceived present circumstances and imagined futures; all of which are organized, told, and retold in the form of stories (e.g., Bruner, 1991). The past two decades have witnessed an increase in attention paid to the importance of narratives and life stories, particularly with regard to the narrative study of lives tradition in the fields of social, personality and developmental psychology (e.g., Adler, 2012; Hammack, 2008; McAdams, 1996; McAdams & Pals, 2006; McLean & Thorne, 2003; Thorne, 2000). This approach is characterized by a focus on how people psychologically construct stories that integrate their understandings of themselves in the context of their lives, thus revealing what “lie(s) at the heart of meaning making” for individuals and their own life experiences (Singer, 2004a, p. 442).

The stories people tell themselves and others about their interpersonal romantic relationships further serve to provide them with a sense of meaning regarding their relationships (Fiese & Grotevant, 2001; Fiese et al., 1999; Fiese & Spagnola, 2005; Frost, 2011; Koenig Kellas, 2005) and are often central in guiding individuals’ overarching life narratives (e.g., Josselson, 1996, 2007). Furthermore, relationship stories represent individuals’ attempts to narratively construct meanings of their experiences of intimacy with their relationship partners (e.g., Frost, 2011). Although the narrative study of lives approach has begun to theorize the importance of individual life stories within research on relationships (Josselson, Lieblich, & McAdams, 2007), the majority of research on the narrative construction of meaning within relationships has occurred within programs of research focused on communication and relational interactions. Some communication scholars have privileged relationship stories as the most appropriate approach to studying interpersonal relationships and processes (see Conville, 1997, 1998). This is because relationship stories contain both behavioral (i.e., what happened in the relationship story) and perceptual components (i.e., the narrative retelling reveals what is important and meaningful to relationship partners and their interpretations of their own and their partners’ behavior). Communication researchers interested in the narrative construction of meaning in relationships have most often focused on the stories that couples and/or families collectively construct, in the form of jointly told stories (e.g., Holmberg, Orbuch, & Veroff, 2004; Koenig Kellas, 2005).

Given relationship stories provide unique insights about the realties of relational culture (Conville, 1998; Frost, 2011; Koenig Kellas, Trees, Schrodt, LeClaire-Underberg, & Willer, 2010), the ways in which people make meaning of key events in their lives and relationships through storytelling may reveal a great deal about their health and well-being, both as individuals (e.g., mental health) and within their relationships (e.g., relationship quality). For example, the construction of stories of key events in relationships that are successful in integrating themes of intimacy within a positive emotional frame are likely to foster psychological and relational well-being. Conversely, relationship stories that lack themes of intimacy and dwell on negative emotions may be indicative of depression and relational turmoil. Thus, relationship scientists and clinicians – focused on understanding and improving psychological functioning within the context of romantic relationships – stand to benefit from a nuanced understanding of how the narrative construction of relationship stories impacts individuals’ relationship quality and mental health.

Narrative indicators of relationship quality and mental health

Elements of the ways in which life stories are narratively constructed represent indicators of psychological well-being and mental health (Adler, 2012; Bauer, McAdams, & Pals, 2008). Personality psychologists have isolated key aspects of life stories (e.g., emotional tone, coherence, integration, and other thematic imagery) and found that they are associated with mental health (e.g., Adler, 2012; Adler, Skalina, & McAdams, 2008; Baerger & McAdams, 1999; Bauer & McAdams, 2010; McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, & Bowman, 2001; McLean & Breen, 2009; McLean, Breen, & Fournier, 2010; McLean & Pals Lilgendahl, 2009; Pals, 2006). In particular, the affective tone of story endings (i.e., happy endings) has been shown to correlate strongly with indicators of well-being and health (King, 2001; King & Miner, 2000; King, Scollon, Ramsey, & Williams, 2000; McAdams et al., 2001). Individuals whose narrative constructions of significant events that end in positive emotional states and circumstances demonstrate higher levels of psychological well-being and mental health than individuals whose stories end negatively. Although these findings are not directly focused on mental health and relationship quality within interpersonal relationships, they suggest that aspects of individuals’ relationship stories, as specific types of life stories, may impact more general outcomes, like psychological well-being and depression. However, questions remain regarding whether aspects of individuals’ relationship stories are predictive of relationship quality (e.g., relationship satisfaction, closeness, conflict, etc.) in addition to mental health more generally.

Narrative constructions of one’s partner (i.e., partner portrayals in retrospective relationship accounts) suggest that written portrayals of partners’ strengths and weaknesses are predictive of relationship dissolution (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 1999). Additional research on individuals’ idealized narratives of the meaning of love has shown that a greater degree of thematic correspondence among partners’ love stories predicts greater relationship satisfaction (e.g., Sternberg, Hojjat, & Barnes, 2001). This line of research suggests that due to the nature of relationship stories as focused on the domain of intimate interpersonal relationships, the ways in which individuals narratively construct and portray themes of intimacy in their relationship narratives is likely to be predictive of relationship quality and longevity.

Although not operationalized at the individual level, couples’ and families’ jointly told stories of events in their relationships (e.g., relational histories, courtship stories, stories of stressful experiences) are predictive of relationship quality and mental health (Buhelman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992; Koenig Kellas, 2005; Koenig Kellas et al., 2010). For example, behavioral representations of intimacy and positive affect in couples’ relational histories – measured as marital bond – are associated with heightened relationship satisfaction and lower levels of depression (Doohan, Carrère, & Riggs, 2010).

In addition to these narrative aspects of relationship stories (i.e., how stories are structured by theme and plot), linguistic elements of relationship stories (i.e., what words are used to tell stories) may also provide insight into relationship quality and mental health. The use of collective first-person pronouns (e.g., we, us) may be indicative of a more intimate focus of language compared to more individual (e.g., I, my) or other-focused (you, hers) word usage. For example, use of first-person plural pronouns and a greater sense of “we-ness” are commonly associated with increased relationship satisfaction, commitment, and perceptions of closeness (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004; Seider, Hirchberger, Nelson, & Levenson, 2009). Researchers have utilized sophisticated computer software to analyze conversations between relationship partners, revealing that the actual words used in these conversations matter for individuals’ relationship quality (e.g., Seider et al., 2009; Simmons et al., 2005; Slatcher, Vazire, & Pennebaker, 2008). There is, however, mixed evidence in conversation studies regarding pronoun usage and relationship quality: first-person inclusive pronoun use is positively associated with relational outcomes in some (e.g., Seider et al., 2009), but not all studies (e.g., Slatcher et al., 2008). Research on jointly told stories in families and couples has found that we-ness expressed discursively in the co-construction of relationship stories was associated with increased relationship satisfaction in some instances (e.g., Buhelman et al., 1992) but not in others (e.g., Koenig Kellas, 2005). This line of research also highlights the importance of linguistically-derived affective tone: positive and negative emotion word usage in partners’ conversations can be predictive of relationship satisfaction and stability (e.g., Slatcher et al., 2008). These results are in line with general findings that increased usage of positive affect words in various forms of writing are indicative of better health (see Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003, for a review). Additionally, there is some evidence (particularly for men) that jointly told marital histories involving negative affect are indicative of poorer relationship quality (Buhelman et al., 1992), while stories that contain a focus on couple level relational affect are indicative of marital happiness (Veroff, Sutherland, Chadiha, & Ortega, 1993).

Aims and hypotheses

Separate bodies of research have demonstrated the relevance of the narrative construction of lived experience to both mental health and relationship quality. Research from the psychological study of lives approach has primarily focused on the degree to which narrative qualities of life stories predict individual mental health and well-being (e.g., Adler, 2012; King et al., 2000; McAdams et al., 2001). Research on couples’ communication and conversation has alternatively focused on the construction of meaning in relationships via the jointly told stories of couples and families, demonstrating that qualities of co-constructed stories are associated with relationship quality (e.g., Buhelman et al., 1992; Doohan et al., 2010; Veroff et al., 1993). It is presently unknown whether individuals’ narrative constructions of intimacy and affect via relationship stories are indicative of both individual-level mental health and relationship quality. The present study seeks to answer this question by applying the narrative study of lives approach within an analysis of individuals’ relationship stories to identify whether aspects of the narrative construction of intimacy and affect identified by communication research are indicative of mental health and relationship quality on an individual level.

Relationship stories that involved a high degree of intimacy-related content and positive affect were hypothesized to be indicative of relationship quality in the form of heightened relationship satisfaction and closeness, and low levels of conflict and break-up thoughts, as well as mental health, in the form of low levels of depression and high levels of psychological well-being. Furthermore, although research has established the predictive abilities of narrative and linguistic aspects of stories (e.g., Seider et al., 2009; Slatcher et al., 2008), no studies have examined whether both are equally robust in predicting relationship quality and mental health. In other words, research has yet to determine which qualities of relationship stories matter most in explaining elements of relationship quality and mental health. What matters most: what is said in relationship stories (i.e., linguistic word count) or how the stories are told (i.e., narrative themes and structure)? To address this question, this study examined the extent to which linguistic and narrative aspects of relationship stories uniquely predicted relationship quality and mental health among individuals in long-term romantic relationships.

Finally, the current study investigated the question of “do aspects of the stories people tell about their relationships matter for whether they stay together or break up with their partners?” Previous research has established that components of jointly told relationship stories matter for long-term relationship stability (e.g., Buelhman et al., 1992). The long-term implications of individuals’ relationship story content for relationship stability were examined for the first time within the present research, controlling for factors known to influence dissolution, such as relationship length and frequency of break-up thoughts.

Method

Participants and procedure

Study announcements were posted in 55 distinct Internet venues from March through June 2008 advertising the “Relationship Stories Project.” The study was described as focused on “how aspects of people’s lives and relationships are related to their well-being.” Individuals were told that “the study would involve completing a short eligibility questionnaire, and if eligible, completing a questionnaire that would involve writing stories about your romantic relationships.” Eligibility criteria were not disclosed. The parent project was interested in sexual orientation differences in relationship stories and intimacy (see Frost, 2011), thus the study was described as “interested in including a diverse group of people in the study regarding age, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation.” The study was always advertised generally and never portrayed as focused on issues of sexual orientation in order to avoid bias.

The study employed three recruitment strategies: active strategies (e.g., emails and listserv postings that reached participants directly through their personal email accounts); passive strategies (e.g., posting an announcement on discussion forums or classified websites); and snowball strategies. The study was not advertised on listservs or discussion forums specifically focused on dating, relationships, sex, or relationship problems in order to avoid biasing the sample toward these issues. The use of varied recruitment strategies was designed to increase variability in the sample compared to the typical Internet survey (Meyer & Wilson, 2009).

The eligibility questionnaire collected information on nationality, zip code, age, gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, relationship status, length of relationship and other demographic characteristics of participants’ partners. In order to ensure that participants’ relationships were long enough for them to reflect on the development of their relationships over time and distinct events that have occurred within their relationships, individuals had to have been in a relationship for at least two years to be eligible. Individuals must also have been at least 21 years old, and in a same-sex relationship if lesbian, gay, or bisexually (LGB) identified, or in an other-sex relationship if heterosexually identified (determined by partner gender). In addition to these demographic questions, they completed the four-item Couples Satisfaction Inventory (CSI) (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Recruitment quotas targeted a sample of 150 individuals consisting of two-thirds members of same-sex couples and one-third in heterosexual couples, equal numbers of men and women, as well as equal numbers of individuals above and below the median response to the CSI. This was designed to produce variability in relationship quality and the types of relationship stories that may emerge from the participants.

A total of 6,360 individuals completed the eligibility questionnaire and 3,391 individuals were eligible for the study. Only 247 of the eligible individuals¹ were contacted. Of those contacted, 160 completed the study. The study took approximately 45 minutes to complete and participants received a $15 Amazon.com^® voucher. Ten participants were excluded from the final sample because they either failed to provide adequate data or had broken up with their partners prior to participation. This resulted in a response rate of 61% (AAPOR, 2008).

The final sample of 150 individuals included 99 individuals in same-sex relationships and 51 individuals in heterosexual relationships. Sexual orientation was controlled for in all analyses. On average, participants were 34.38 years old (SD = 9.53) and their relationships had lasted 7.73 years (SD = 6.12). Table 1 presents additional details on the sample. A total of 79 participants responded to a call to participate in a follow-up survey about their relationships one year later. There were no significant differences between participants who responded and those who did not in terms of their gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, cohabitation and marital status, employment status, age, or relationship length.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (n = 150).

Variables	n	%
Gender
Male	71	47
Female	79	53
Race/ethnicity^†
White	108	72
Black	21	14
Latino	9	6
Asian	14	9
Native American	5	3
Education
>= Some college	135	90
<= HS Diploma	15	10
Employment^†
Full-time	85	57
Part-time	9	6
Self-employed	18	12
Unemployed	16	11
Student	30	20
Relationship status^†
Live together	125	83
Married/Domestic Partner	57	38

† May add up to more than 100% because participants were allowed to select more than one option.

Relationship story elicitation method

The final Internet-based questionnaire contained a modified version of McAdams’ guided autobiography (McAdams & De St.Aubin, 1992). This instrument was adapted from one designed to elicit events in one’s life generally, to one that could elicit stories of key events in individuals’ current relationships. High point experiences (peak experiences) in relationships were described to participants as “events in your relationship in which you feel a sense of great uplifting, joy, excitement, contentment, or some other highly positive emotional experience.” Low-point experiences (nadir experiences) were described as “events in your relationship in which you felt extremely negative emotions, such as despair, disillusionment, terror, profound guilt, and shame.” Decision-making experiences were described as “important decisions that may affect the course of your relationship, as in deciding when to introduce your partner to your family, whether or not to move in together, if you should get married or have a commitment ceremony, whether or not you want to have children, when to take a vacation together, etc.” Finally, in writing stories about experiences related to an important goal, participants were asked to “Please consider your current relationship goals – goals towards which you and your partner are currently striving in one way or another. Choose the single goal that is most important to your current relationship right now. Describe an event when you did something that was aimed at this goal.” These four particular prompts were included to obtain stories that reflected a wide array of the kinds of events couples experience over the course of their relationships: a highly positive event, and highly negative event, and events involving participants’ choices regarding their relationships in both past-oriented (decision story) and future-oriented (goal story) narrative frames. This variety of stories was designed to collectively assess individuals’ overarching storied construction of intimacy, unbound within any given type of event.

In writing stories about these key events, participants were asked to write one to two paragraphs for each event that addressed five key issues/aspects of their experience: (a) What happened?; (b) Who was involved and how were they involved?; (c) What were you and/or your partner thinking, feeling, and wanting?; (d) Why do you think that this is an important event in your relationship?; and (e) How do you think the society, time, and/or place this event happened in mattered for how things turned out? Participants received each story prompt separately, and were told to address the five questions in whatever order they wished.

Relationship story indicators

Each story (150 participants x 4 stories each = 600 total stories) was analyzed by two independent raters for narrative indicators of intimacy and the affective tone of the end of the story. The same stories were then analyzed with Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) (Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) for linguistic indicators of intimacy and affect. Once each story was coded or scored in terms of the following indicators, scores for each indicator were averaged across each participant’s four stories, resulting in one score on each indictor for each participant.

Linguistic indicators of affect: Positive and negative emotion words

LIWC (Pennebaker et al., 2007) was used to score each story on linguistic indicators of affect. LIWC is a computer program that analyzes written text for a variety of types of words. The program utilizes dictionaries, or groups of words (e.g., pronouns, conjunctions, emotions, cognitive processes), to search text for words contained in those dictionaries and calculate the percentage of the text searched that contains entries in a given dictionary. The LIWC dictionaries for positive emotion words (e.g., nice, sweet) and negative emotion words (e.g., hurt, ugly) were used to code the overall affective content of relationship stories. The positive and negative emotion dictionaries contain 406 and 499 words, respectively. They both have demonstrated reliability at alpha = .97 (Pennebaker et al., 2007). For each participant, the percentages of positive and negative emotion word use were calculated (out of the total number words used) for each of the four stories separately, and then averaged across the four stories.

Narrative indicators of affect: Emotional tone of relationship story endings

Each story was scored by two independent raters for the emotional tone of the ways in which the story ended following the guidelines provided by McAdams and colleagues (2001). Raters were trained to determine the end of a story by first reading the entire narrative, and then determining the chronological end of the story, which may not necessarily have been the last sentence in the written text. Raters each scored the emotional tone of each of the story endings on a scale ranging from 1 = extremely negative ending to 3 = neutral to 5 extremely positive ending. The intraclass correlation between the independent ratings was r = .81. A measure of unitizing reliability was not calculated. The emotional tone of relationship story endings was averaged first across raters and then across stories for each participant, resulting in each participant receiving a single score reflecting the average ending tone of his/her relationship stories.

Linguistic indicators of intimacy: First-person plural pronoun use

The LIWC dictionary for first-person plural pronouns (e.g., we, us, our) was used as a linguistic indicator of intimacy. This dictionary contains 12 words, and has been demonstrated to be reliable at alpha = .66 (Pennebaker et al., 2007). For each participant, the percentage of first-person plural pronoun use was calculated (out of the total number of words used) for each of the four stories separately, and then averaged across the four stories.

Narrative indicators of intimacy: Intimacy-related themes

Indicators of intimacy-related thematic content were derived from existing theories of intimacy in the context of romantic relationships (Prager, 1995). Intimacy-related thematic content included experiences or discussions of (a) physical intimacy, (b) communicative intimacy, (c) emotional intimacy, (d) commitment, and (e) trust. Each story was coded for these themes as underlying indicators of an overarching construct of intimacy by two independent raters. Raters assigned a value of “1” to the story if intimacy-related thematic content was present and “0” if intimacy-related content was not present. The resulting interrater reliability coefficient (i.e., Cohen’s Kappa) for intimacy-related content was .81. Discrepancies were discussed in meetings between raters and resolved by revisiting the definitional thematic codebook and reapplying the codes as necessary. Resolved ratings for each story were then added up for each participant reflecting a total number of stories involving intimacy-related thematic content, which rangeed from 0 to 4.

Relationship quality outcomes

Relationship satisfaction

The four-item version of the CSI (Funk & Rogge, 2007) assessed individuals’ satisfaction with their current primary romantic relationships. The CSI was developed using item response theory and is the result of a factor analysis of items pooled from eight previously validated measures of relationship satisfaction. Example items include: “How rewarding is your relationship with your partner?” and “In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?” Participants responded to items on a scale of 0 “not at all” to 5 “completely.” The CSI not only demonstrates strong validity correlations with existing measures of the construct, but it also demonstrates less noise and more power in detecting individual differences in satisfaction than existing measures (Funk & Rogge, 2007). The measure is scored on a scale of 0 to 21, with scores of 13.5 or below indicating relationship distress. In its originating study (Funk & Rogge, 2007), CSI (four-item) scale scores were internally consistent at .94 and were highly correlated with previously validated measures of relationship satisfaction (rs ranged from .84 to .94). In the current study, participants’ scores on the CSI were internally consistent at .93.

Closeness

Aron, Aron, and Smollan’s (1992) Inclusion of Other in Self (IOS) scale was included to measure the degree of interpersonal closeness participants felt in their relationships with their partners. The IOS consists of one item that presents a series of self-partner relationships operationalized as two circles with varying degrees of overlap. The IOS correlates with several other multi-item measures of closeness within relationships (Aron et al., 1992).

Relationship conflict

The conflict subscale of Bowman’s (1990) Marital Coping Inventory was included to assess participants’ experiences of conflict in their relationships. Participants were presented with the prompt “When I am dealing with problems in my relationship, I…” They then rated the frequency with which they engaged in 15 behaviors, such as “yell or shout at my partner,” “hit or bash things,” and “put down my partner in front of others,” on a scale of 1 “never” to 5 “usually.” Scores on this scale have been shown to be correlated with other measures of relationship satisfaction (rs ranging from .43 to .54) as well as internally consistent at .91 (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Scores on the conflict scale in the current study were internally consistent at .92.

Break-up thoughts

A single item was included in the survey to measure how often participants thought about ending their relationships with their current primary partners. The item read, “How often in the past month have you considered ending your relationship with your current partner?” Participants responded on a scale of 0 “never” to 4 “a lot.”

Mental health outcomes

Depression

The Center for Epidemiological Studies depression scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977) is a 20-item measure of depressive symptoms experienced over a one-week period. Items were phrased in such a way that participants were asked how often during the past week they “could not get going,” “felt depressed,” “felt hopeful about the future,” and “felt people dislike you.” Participants responded on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 “rarely or none of the time (<1 day)” to 4 “most or all of the time (5-7 days).” Numerous studies have demonstrated the convergent validity of the CESD among both clinical and non-clinical samples in the form of large correlations with clinical reports of depression, DSM depression diagnoses, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Symptom Checklist-90 (for a review of validity evidence see McDowell & Newell, 1996; Roberts & Vernon, 1983). Previous studies have demonstrated that scores on this scale have internal consistency reliability of .85 in the general population (Radloff, 1977). Internal consistency for scores on the CESD in the current study was .90.

Psychological well-being

The Psychological Well-Being scales (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) consist of 18 items that measure six dimensions of well-being. The six psychological well-being scales were developed to integrate theories of life course development and positive mental health conceptions of psychological well-being using a construct-oriented approach to personality assessment. Questions surrounding the psychometric soundness of the six Psychological Well-Being subscales have arisen recently, suggesting that (based on factor analysis) the subscales may not represent six distinct dimensions of well-being (Ryff & Singer, 2006; Springer & Hauser, 2006), indicating a more appropriate use of the measure would be to analyze the scores on the six dimensions in aggregate. The six subscales, analyzed in aggregate, have been demonstrated to be valid (i.e., correlating highly and negatively with depressive symptoms) and reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .75) (Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, & Stirratt, 2009). Scores on this measure in the current study demonstrated internal consistency at the level of .84.

Longitudinal follow-up

Relationship dissolution

Participants were contacted approximately one year after they completed the previously described components of the study. Participants were asked if they were still with the same relationship partner that they were with on the date of their prior participation in the study. Their responses to this question were used to determine relationship dissolution rates over a one-year period following initial participation.

Analysis strategy

All analyses were controlled for gender, sexual orientation, and relationship length.

Cross-sectional analyses

Multiple linear regression models examined the extent to which elements of relationship stories significantly predicted outcomes of relationship quality (i.e., relationship satisfaction, closeness, relationship conflict, and break-up thoughts) and mental health outcomes (i.e., depression and psychological well-being). Each outcome was regressed on each relationship story indicator individually. These models are hereafter referred to as individual predictor models. Next, additional multiple linear regression models were computed that regressed each outcome on all of the relationship story indicators at once. The control variables were entered into the first block of the models and a stepwise approach was used in subsequent blocks in order to determine which relationship story indicators explained a significant amount of unique variance in each outcome above and beyond the control variables. The procedure focused on maximizing explained variance in a given outcome by adding predictor variables to the model one by one – beginning with the variable that explained the most variance – until there were no more variables that could be added that could explain additional unique variance in the outcome. Variables not included in the end result of these stepwise procedures did not explain any additional variance in the outcome above and beyond those that were included in the final model. These models are hereafter referred to as final models.

Longitudinal analyses

Binary logistic regression analyses examined the extent to which elements of participants’ relationship stories predicted relationship dissolution over a one-year period. These longitudinal analyses controlled for break-up thoughts reported during initial participation in addition to the standard set of covariates. A binary outcome of staying together with the same partner over one year was computed, such that those who were in the same relationship that they were in during the first assessment (n = 66) could be compared to those who reported being single or in a new relationship at the follow-up survey (n = 13).

Results

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all study variables.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations between relationship story indicators, outcomes, and control variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Positive emotion (LIWC)	1
2. Negative emotion (LIWC)	.13	1
3. Ending tone (narrative)	.04	−.26***	1
4. Linguistic Intimacy (LIWC)	.02	−.23**	.34***	1
5. Intimacy themes (narrative)	.09	−.09	.48***	.21**	1
6. Relationship satisfaction	−.07	−.13	.53***	.28***	.35***	1
7. Closeness	−.15*	−.13	.51***	.21**	.27***	.72***	1
8. Relationship conflict	.15*	.12	−.21**	−.13	−.13	−.47***	−.31***	1
9. Break-up thoughts	.13	.15*	−.50***	−.20**	−.33***	−.72***	−.58***	.3***	1
10. Depression	.05	.16*	−.34***	−.26***	−.21**	−.50***	−.37***	.35***	.38***	1
11. Psychological well-being	.05	−.12	.34***	.25***	.33***	.48***	.30***	−.37***	−.31***	−.68***	1
12. Relationship length	−.09	−.02	.13	.04	.18*	.12	.20**	−.22**	−.22**	.01	.04	1
13. Female	−.04	.11	.06	.03	.26***	.08	.10	.05	.01	−.08	.16*	.02	1
14. Same-sex couple	.15*	.05	.12	−.04	.02	−.07	−.10	.00	.08	−.07	.04	−.20**	−.03	1
Mean	3.60	1.86	3.19	4.64	3.47	13.42	4.62	2.22	1.89	9.24	5.23	7.73	NA	NA
SD	1.08	.84	.48	1.98	0.77	4.76	1.44	0.67	1.09	6.35	0.94	6.12	NA	NA

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

LIWC: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.

Relationship quality outcomes

Individual predictor models

Table 3 presents the results of the individual predictor models examining associations between relationship story indicators and relationship quality. With regard to affect-related elements of relationship stories, linguistic indicators of both positive and negative affect showed no substantial or statistically significant relationships with any of the relationship quality outcomes. However, the affective tone of the end of the story, as coded by two independent raters, was significantly associated with all indicators of relationship quality. Specifically, the more positive the tone of the end of participants’ relationship stories, the more satisfied they were in their relationships, the closer they felt to their partners, the less conflict they experienced in their relationships, and the less frequently they reported thinking about ending their relationships. With regard to intimacy-related elements of relationship stories, both linguistic (i.e., first-person plural pronoun use) and narrative indicators of intimacy were significantly associated with relationship satisfaction, closeness, and frequency of break-up thoughts. Specifically, the more intimacy-related themes participants narrated in their stories, the more satisfied they were in their relationships, the closer they felt to their partners, and the less frequently they thought about ending their relationships. Intimacy-related story content was not associated with relationship conflict.

Table 3.

Associations between relationship story indicators and relationship quality outcomes analyzed individually.

	Relationship quality outcomes
	Relationship satisfaction					Closeness					Relationship conflict					Break-up thoughts
Variables	B	SE	β	sr	ΔR²	B	SE	β	sr	ΔR²	B	SE	β	sr	ΔR²	B	SE	β	sr	ΔR²
Covariates
Female	0.76	.78	.08	.08		0.28	.23	.10	.10		0.08	.11	.06	.06		0.04	.18	.02	.02
Same-sex couple	−0.48	.84	−.05	−.05		−0.18	.25	−.06	−.06		−0.06	.12	−.04	−.04		0.09	.19	.04	.04
Relationship length	0.09	.07	.11	.11		0.05*	.02	.19	.19		−0.03**	.01	−.23	−.22		−0.04*	.02	−.21	−.20
Predictors
Affect
Positive emotion (LIWC)	−0.22	−.05	−.05	−.05	.00	−0.16	.11	−.12	−.12	.01	0.09	.05	.14	.14	.02	0.11	.08	.11	.10	.01
Negative emotion (LIWC)	−0.80	.47	−.14	−.14	.02	−0.228	.14	−.13	−.13	.02	0.09	.07	.11	.11	.01	0.19	.11	.14	.14	.02
Ending tone (narrative)	5.42***	.72	.54	.53	.28***	1.50***	.22	.50	.49	.24***	−0.25*	.11	−.18	−.17	.03*	−1.15***	.17	−.50	−.49	.24***
Intimacy
Linguistic intimacy (LIWC)	0.66**	.19	.27	.27	.07***	0.14*	.06	.20	.20	.04*	−0.04	.03	−.12	−.12	.02	−0.11*	.04	−.19	−.19	.04*
Intimacy themes (narrative)	2.15***	.50	.35	.33	.11***	0.43**	.16	.23	.22	.05**	−0.10	.07	−.11	−.11	.01	−0.47***	.11	−.34	−.32	.10***

Note. Models reflect results from multiple linear regression analyses regressing each outcome individually on each story indicator controlling for gender, sexual orientation, and length of relationship. Covariates were entered first in the same block. Predictors were individually added to the previous block of covariates. When all relationship story indicators were entered into stepwise regression, both Ending tone (narrative) and Intimacy themes (narrative) accounted for unique variance in Break-up thoughts; and only Ending tone (narrative) accounted for unique variance in Relationship satisfaction, Closeness, and Relationship conflict.

Narrative: Narrative qualities of relationship stories based on independent ratings; LIWC: Linguistic qualities of relationship stories computed using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count.

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Final models

Both the affective tone of the end of participants’ relationship stories (B = −.97, SE = .19, p < .001, β = −.42, sr = −.37) and the degree to which intimacy themes were narrated in relationship stories (B = −.26, SE = .12, p < .05, β = −.18, sr = −.15) were present in the final stepwise model predicting break-up thoughts (ΔR² = .26). However, in the final models predicting relationship satisfaction, closeness, and conflict, the stepwise procedure only produced models containing the affective tone of the end of participants’ stories. No other predictors explained an additional unique amount of the variance. Thus, for these outcomes, the final models were identical to the individual predictor models containing the affective tone of the end of participants’ stories (see variable row 6 in Table 3).

Mental health outcomes

Individual predictor models

Table 4 presents the results of the individual predictor models examining associations between relationship story indicators and mental health. The presence of positive emotion words was not associated with depression or psychological well-being. The presence of negative emotion words was associated with depression, but not psychological well-being. The more negative emotion words participants used in their relationship stories the more depressive symptoms they reported. The affective tone of the end of participants’ stories was significantly associated with both depression and psychological well-being. Narrating stories with more positive endings was indicative of fewer depressive symptoms and greater psychological well-being. Both linguistic and narrative indicators of intimacy in relationship stories were significantly associated with depression and psychological well-being. Specifically, the more participants’ stories involved first-person plural pronouns the fewer depressive symptoms they reported and the higher they scored on psychological well-being. Also, increased intimacy-related thematic content across participants’ stories was indicative of less depression and greater psychological well-being.

Table 4.

Associations between relationship story indicators and mental health outcomes analyzed individually.

	Mental health outcomes
	Depression					Psychological well-being
Variables	B	SE	β	sr	ΔR²	B	SE	β	sr	ΔR²
Covariates
Female	−1.07	1.04	−.08	−.08		0.31*	.15	.16	.16
Same-sex couple	−0.94	1.12	−.07	−.07		0.10	.16	.05	.05
Relationship length	−0.01	0.09	−.01	−.01		0.01	.01	.05	.05
Predictors
Affect
Positive emotion (LIWC)	0.37	.49	.06	.06	.00	0.05	.07	.05	.05	.00
Negative emotion (LIWC)	1.32*	.62	.17	.17	.03*	−0.159	.09	−.14	−.14	.02
Ending tone (narrative)	−4.39***	1.06	−.34	−.33	.11***	0.63***	.16	.33	.32	.10***
Intimacy
Linguistic intimacy (LIWC)	−0.83***	.26	−.26	−.26	.07***	0.12***	.04	.24	.24	.06**
Intimacy themes (narrative)	−1.69*	.70	−.21	−.20	.04*	0.38***	.10	.31	.30	.09***

Note. Models reflect results from multiple linear regression analyses regressing each outcome individually on each story indicator controlling for gender, sexual orientation, and length of relationship. Covariates were entered first in the same block. Predictors were individually added to the previous block of covariates. When all relationship story indicators were entered into stepwise regression, only Ending tone (narrative) accounted for unique variance in Depression and Psychological well-being.

Narrative: Narrative qualities of relationship stories based on independent ratings; LIWC: Linguistic qualities of relationship stories computed using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count.

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Final models

The final models predicting depression and psychological well-being contained only the affective tone of the ends of participants’ stories. No other variables explained an additional amount of unique variance in mental health outcomes. The final models for depression and psychological well-being were identical to the individual predictor models containing the affective tone of the ends of participants’ stories (see variable row 6 in Table 4).

Relationship dissolution

Neither intimacy-related aspects of relationship stories nor the presence of positive or negative emotion words in participants’ stories were associated with relationship dissolution. However, the affective tone of the ends of participants’ relationship stories was a robust and statistically significant predictor of relationship dissolution over one year. The more positive the ends of participants’ relationship stories were, the more likely they were to stay together after one year, B = 2.59, p < .05, Odds ratio = 13.29, 95% CI = 1.68 – 105.50. This analysis controlled for additional factors known to contribute to relationship stability (i.e., the length of participants’ relationships and their frequency of break-up thoughts reported at baseline).

Discussion

The ways people narratively construct stories about significant events in their relationships provide important insights into the quality of their relationships, as well as their mental health. This is especially true for relationship stories with happy endings. The affective tone of the ending of participants’ stories was the most consistent and robust predictor of relationship quality and mental health in the present study. The more positively relationship stories end, the better the teller’s relationship quality and mental health tend to be.

This finding should not be taken to indicate that only the affective tone of the end of stories matters for relationship quality and mental health. A positive affective tone may be indicative of the positive resolution of intimacy in relational events. Given the experience of intimacy is typically positive, a narrative arc that produces a story with a happy ending in a relationship is likely to be inclusive of intimacy themes. However, more goes into producing happy endings in relationship stories than simply experiencing intimacy (e.g., familial outcomes, resource/material gain/loss, etc.). Thus, experiences of intimacy are not the sole determinants of positive endings. Intimacy-related thematic content did, however, persist in explaining break-up thoughts above and beyond affective tone. This finding may reflect the inclusion of commitment within the broader category of intimacy-related content. Intimacy-related themes – sometimes operationalized as commitment – may be psychologically protective against thoughts of dissolution despite a negative story ending. The insulating role of intimacy themes may not be as relevant for other outcomes, such as depression and satisfaction, which may be contingent on the immediate impact of making sense of one’s relational events as turning out badly.

These findings are consistent with previous research on life stories and their association with mental health and psychological well-being (e.g., Adler et al., 2008; Baerger & McAdams, 1999; Bauer & McAdams, 2010; McAdams et al., 2001; McLean & Breen, 2009; McLean & Pals Lilgendahl, 2009; McLean et al., 2010; Pals, 2006). Happy endings in relationship stories, like happy endings in general life stories (King, 2001; King & Miner, 2000; King et al., 2000), reflect positive narrative resolutions of important events in one’s relationship which are indicative of heightened relationship quality, stability, and mental health. The narrative construction of events that end positively seems to be a powerful meaning-making mechanism linking individual experience to heightened well-being (McAdams et al., 2001).

Linguistically-coded emotion word usage was not associated with any of the relationship quality outcomes measured in the study, and only negative emotion word usage was correlated with depression (although the size of this correlation was small). This finding runs contrary to prior work on emotion word usage and mental health and relationship quality (Pennebaker et al., 2003; Slatcher et al., 2008). As previous work on the linguistic content of couples’ conversations has indicated, the use of software programs, such as LIWC, may not be enough to capture the nuance of emotion word usage with regard to relational well-being (Slatcher et al., 2008). For example, the simple presence or absence of negative and positive emotion words is often complicated by negations (e.g., she is not nice), or by other rhetorical strategies, such as sarcasm. In this regard, this study’s use of LIWC was very simplistic and may under-represent the importance of emotion word usage in regard to relationship quality and mental health. The findings are also not in line with findings from studies of jointly constructed relationship stories that show discursively constructed affect to be indicative of relationship quality (e.g., Veroff et al., 1993). Perhaps the predictive ability of emotion word usage is limited to conversational and discursive aspects of co-constructed stories and does not extend to individual-level narratives.

Linguistically-coded intimacy-related content, in the form of first-person plural pronoun usage (e.g., we, us, our) was however substantially associated with relationship quality and mental health in individual predictor models. This pattern of findings replicates previous research that has demonstrated that higher proportions of first-person pronoun usage in written accounts along with discursive constructs of we-ness are indicative of higher levels of relationship quality (Agnew et al., 1998; Buhelman et al., 1992; Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004). However, this study indicates that narrative representations of intimacy (operationalized via a theory-derived coding scheme applied by independent raters) were, in general, stronger indicators of relationship quality and mental health than linguistically-coded indicators. This suggests that the phenomenological nature of the experience of intimacy as represented in the narrative components of relationship stories (i.e., what happened between partners, why it was important to the teller) may be more central than a collective narrative referent (i.e., a linguistic focus on shared experiences).

The sole emergence of the emotional tone of the ending of relationship stories in the final models predicting relationship quality and mental health demonstrated that the narrative structures of relationship stories mattered above and beyond all other aspects of relationship stories assessed in the study. The lone exception was the fact that intimacy-related thematic content emerged as a second unique predictor of break-up thoughts in addition to the tone of story endings. Thus, a general pattern emerged when comparing the predictive strengths of linguistic and narrative elements of relationship stories. How people’s relationship stories were structured and told (narrative elements) mattered more for peoples’ relationship quality and mental health than the types of words they used (linguistic word usage).

Although several linguistic and narrative aspects of relationship stories were robust predictors of relationship satisfaction, closeness, and break-up thoughts, they were not equally robust in their associations with relationship conflict. Specifically, only the emotional tone of the ending of people’s relationship stories was associated with conflict. It is possible that the ways in which intimacy and affective content were operationalized in this study did not well capture the aspects of relational culture that may be best indicative of conflict and other aspects of the “dark side” of relationships (Perlman, 2007).

Taken together, the findings of the current study add to and extend the individual level existing discursive communication research on the utility of relationship story data within efforts aimed at understanding key aspects of relationship quality and mental health (Buhelman et al., 1992; Doohan et al., 2010; Koenig Kellas, 2005; Koenig Kellas et al., 2010). Although collecting and analyzing relationship stories is more time and labor intensive than administering survey measures of intimacy and affective constructs, relationship stories provide unique insights into the nuances of the lived experience of intimate relationships that survey measures cannot. For example, relationship stories provide idiographic insights into how people experience intimacy in key events in their relational histories. This information can be useful in researchers’ attempts to better understand the phenomenological experience of intimacy, as well as in clinical and counseling attempts to address individuals’ and couples’ relational problems (e.g., narrative therapy; Singer, 2004b). These idiographic story elements can then be coded quantitatively to provide a nomothetic perspective on how the meaning and experience of intimacy affects relational and psychological well-being. Relationship stories further represent constructivist units of analysis (Little, 2000) in that the story data arise directly from participants as opposed to scale measures that begin with limited sets of a priori researcher-defined expectations and response patterns. Some limitations were imposed on participants’ stories by asking them to write about certain types of events, such as high point events. However, these categories were purposefully abstract in order for participants to narratively construct whatever actual event in their own relationships represented a high point for them (e.g., moment of first meeting, marriage, a first kiss in public). In this regard, a relationship story approach yields data that are more “experience near” than approaches that rely solely on scale measures.

Additionally, this study provides evidence for the utility of an approach to relationship stories that combines strengths of both the psychological narrative study of lives approach with insights from communication and conversation research on the importance of the role of narrative within understandings of relationship quality and mental health. These findings provide robust explanatory insights above and beyond traditional indicators of relationship quality and stability (e.g., relationship length and break-up thoughts). They center on the importance of individual-level narrative constructions of intimacy and affect for mental health, relationship quality, and stability.

Limitations and future research directions

Additional research is needed to more fully understand the ways in which narrative constructions of intimacy and affect among individuals in relationships are associated with relationship quality and mental health. In further bridging the psychological narrative study of lives and communication research approaches to relationships, future studies should incorporate a dyadic approach, examining the relationship stories of both partners in a couple – told separately – to determine the extent to which similarities and differences in the narrative construction of intimacy within couples matter for relational and psychological well-being. Noting that two individuals make up a couple, similarities and differences in the individually-constructed meanings of intimacy and affect between romantic partners might provide additional insight into couples’ health and relationship quality. Furthermore, although this study included a longitudinal follow-up to assess relationship dissolution, more work is needed to examine changes in the narrative construction of relationship stories over time and the ways in which changes in relationship stories may predict changes in relationship outcomes. Causation cannot be inferred from the present results. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether aspects of relationship stories produced variability in relationship quality and mental health outcomes or vice-versa. Given the role of depression in the context of relationships, changes in depression may impact changes in story content. Future work must address this important question. Findings regarding relationship dissolution should also be interpreted with caution because the sample size for this follow-up component was small, and relatively few participants broke up with their partners (n = 13). Additional work is also needed to create more nuanced ways of analyzing the content of relationship stories. The methods utilized in the current study may have been overly simplistic with regard to the linguistic aspects of relationship stories. Also, the ways in which the emotional tone of the end of the story was coded may not take into account the multitude of narrative constructions and story plotlines that lead up to story endings (McAdams, 2006; McAdams et al., 2001). Future work should attempt to examine whether these additional aspects of relationship stories also demonstrate associations with relationship quality and mental health.

Conclusions

Collectively, the results of the present study provide strong evidence for the importance of relationship stories for individuals’ relationship quality and mental health. The stories people tell others and themselves about their lives and relationships provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose regarding their experiences of intimacy and romantic relationships. The ways in which people individually construct meanings of intimacy via their telling and retelling of relationship stories also provide key insights into the quality of their relationships and overall mental health. Evidence from the present research demonstrates that these processes matter on the individual psychological level in addition to the previously established couple-level. Relationship stories thus represent key units of analysis for researchers interested in furthering the growing fields of social, personality, developmental, and communication science, as well as for clinicians and counselors working with clients experiencing relationship troubles in settings for which narrative therapeutic techniques might be useful.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Kelly Gola for her assistance in analyzing the data for the current study.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Note

References

Adler

J. M.

(2012). Living into the story: Agency and coherence in a longitudinal study of narrative identity development and mental health over the course of psychotherapy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 367–389.

Adler

J. M.

Skalina

L. M.

McAdams

D. P.

(2008). The narrative reconstruction of psychotherapy and psychological health. Psychotherapy Research, 18(6), 719–734.

Agnew

Van Lange

Rusbult

Langston

(1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.

Bauer

J. J.

McAdams

D. P.

(2010). Eudaimonic growth: Narrative growth goals predict increases in ego development and subjective well-being 3 years later. Developmental Psychology, 46(4), 761–772.

Bauer

J. J.

McAdams

D. P.

Pals

J. L.

(2008). Narrative identity and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 81–104.

Bowman

M. L.

(1990). Coping efforts and marital satisfaction: Measuring marital coping and its correlates. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 52, 463–474.

Buehlman

K. T.

Gottman

J. M.

Katz

L. F.

(1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318.

Conville

R. L.

(1997). Between spearheads: Bricolage and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 373–386.

10.

Conville, R. L. (1998). Narrative, dialectic, and relationships. In Conville

Rodgers

(Eds.), The meaning of 'relationship' in interpersonal communication (pp. 133–148). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

11.

Doohan

E. M.

Carrère

Riggs

M. L.

(2010). Using relational stories to predict the trajectory toward marital dissolution: The oral history interview and spousal feelings of flooding, loneliness, and depression. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 57–77.

12.

Fiese

B. H. & G

. (2001). Introduction to special issue on “Narratives in and About Relationships”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 579–581.

13.

Fiese

B. H.

Sameroff

A. J.

Grotevant

H. D.

Wamboldt

F. S.

Dickstein

Fravel

D. L.

Marjinsky

K. A. T.

(1999). The stories that families tell: Narrative coherence, narrative interaction, and relationship beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(2), 1–162.

14.

Fiese

B. H.

Spagnola

(2005). Narratives in and about families: An examination of coding schemes and a guide for family researchers. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 51–61.

15.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Kay

A. C.

(2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 547–557.

16.

Foley Center for the Study of Lives (1997). Guided Autobiography. Northwestern University.

17.

Frost

D. M.

(2011). Stigma and intimacy in same-sex relationships: A narrative approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 1–10.

18.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(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, 572–583.

19.

Hammack

P. L.

(2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 222–247.

20.

Holmberg

Orbuch

T. L.

Veroff

(2004). Thrice told tales: Married couples tell their stories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Josselson

(1996). Revising herself: The story of women's identity from college to midlife. Revising herself: The story of women's identity from college to midlife.

22.

Josselson

(2007). Playing Pygmalion: How people create one another. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.

23.

Josselson

Lieblich

McAdams

D. P.

(2007). The meaning of others: Narrative studies of relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

24.

Kertzner

R. M.

Meyer

I. H.

Frost

D. M.

Stirratt

M. J.

(2009). Social and psychological well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(4), 500–510.

25.

King

L. A.

(2001). The hard road to the good life: The happy, mature person. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 51–72.

26.

King

L. A.

Miner

K. N.

(2000). Writing about the perceived benefits of traumatic life events: Implications for physical health. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 220–230.

27.

King

L. A.

Scollon

C. K.

Ramsey

Williams

(2000). Stories of life transition: Subjective well-being and ego development in parents of children with Down Syndrome. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 509–536.

28.

Koenig Kellas

(2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family stories. Communication Monographs, 72, 365–389.

29.

Koenig Kellas

Trees

A. R.

Schrodt

LeClaire-Underberg

Willer

E. K.

(2010). Exploring links between well-being and interactional sense-making in married couples’ jointly told stories of stress. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 174–193.

30.

Little

B. R.

(2000). Persons, contexts, and personal projects: Assumptive themes of a methodological transactionalism. In Wapner

Demick

Yamamoto

(Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodologies (pp. 79–88). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

31.

McAdams

D. P.

(1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 295–321.

32.

McAdams

D. P.

(2006). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

33.

McAdams

D. P.

Pals

J. L.

(2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.

34.

McAdams

D. P.

Reynolds

Lewis

Patten

A. H.

Bowman

P. J.

(2001). When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 474–485.

35.

McLean

K. C.

Breen

A. V.

(2009). Processes and content of narrative identity development in adolescence: Gender and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 702–710.

36.

McLean

K. C.

Breen

A. V.

Fournier

M. A.

(2010). Constructing the self in early, middle, and late adolescent boys: Narrative identity, individuation, and well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(1), 166–187.

37.

Meyer

I. H.

Wilson

P. A.

(2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 23–31.

38.

Murray

Holmes

(1999). The (mental) ties that bind: Cognitive structures that predict relationship resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1228–1244.

39.

Pals

J. L.

(2006). Authoring a second chance in life: Emotion and transformational processing within narrative identity. Research in Human Development, 3(2-3), 101–120.

40.

Pennebaker

J.W.

Booth

R.J.

Francis

M.E.

(2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.

41.

Pennebaker

Mehl

Niederhoffer

(2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 547–577.

42.

Perlman

(2007). The best of times, the worst of times: The place of close relationships in psychology and our daily lives. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 48(1), 7–18.

43.

Prager

K. J.

(1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

44.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

45.

Ryff

Singer

B. H.

(2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research, 35, 1103–1119.

46.

Ryff

C. D.

(1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.

47.

Ryff

C. D.

(1995). Psychological Well-Being in Adult Life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 99–104.

48.

Seider

B.H.

Hirschberger

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.

49.

Simmons

R. A.

Gordon

P. C.

Chambless

D. L.

(2005). Pronouns in marital interaction: What do ‘you’ and ‘I’ say about marital health? Psychological Science, 16(12), 932–936.

50.

Singer

J. A.

(2004a). Narrative identity and meaning making across the adult lifespan: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 72, 437–459.

51.

Singer

J. A.

(2004b). A love story: Self-defining memories in couples therapy. In Lieblich

McAdams

D. P.

Josselson

Lieblich

McAdams

D. P.

Josselson

(Eds.), Healing plots: The narrative basis of psychotherapy (pp. 189–208). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

52.

Slatcher

R. B.

Vazire

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2008). Am “I” more important than “we”? Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 407–424.

53.

Springer

Hauser

R. M.

(2006). An assessment of the construct validity of Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-Being: Method, mode, and measurement effects. Social Science Research, 35, 1080–1102.

54.

Sternberg

Hojjat

Barnes

(2001). Empirical tests of aspects of a theory of love as a story. European Journal of Personality, 15(3), 199–218.

55.

Thorne

(2000) . Personal memory telling and personality development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 45–56.

56.

Veroff

Sutherland

Chadiha

Ortega

(1993). Predicting marital quality from narrative assessments. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 317–329.