Good days,bad days

Abstract

We utilized interdependence theory and conservation of resources to understand how relational sacrifices and hassles impact positive relationship quality constructs (i.e., satisfaction, closeness, and commitment) in romantic relationships (N = 164 couples; 328 individuals). Using daily diary data to examine actor and partner effects, we found that individuals’ sacrifices were positively linked with their own commitment but not with satisfaction or closeness. We also found that hassles were negatively linked with one’s own and one’s partner’s satisfaction and closeness but not with commitment. When examined together, sacrifices remained beneficial for one’s own commitment but only when increased sacrifices occurred on days with low hassles. We discuss the unique pathways of sacrifices and hassles, both on their own and considered together.

Keywords

Daily diary hassles sacrifices satisfaction closeness commitment romantic relationships APIM

In relationships, conflicts of interest are an inevitable part of daily life (Canary, 2003). Though high or frequent conflict between partners may be problematic for the relationship (Braiker & Kelley, 1979), conflicts of interest can provide opportunities for individuals to display love and caring by deferring to their partner and choosing to transform their motivations of self-interest (e.g., Kelley, 1979; Yovetich & Rusbult, 1994). These relational sacrifices, provided they are reciprocated, demonstrate trust in and commitment to the relationship and should be beneficial (see Impett & Gordon, 2008).

Relational sacrifices are not made in a vacuum, however. Daily lives are punctuated with minor hassles that are considered stressful to individuals because of their repetitive drain on resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Events from one domain of life spill over into other domains (Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002; Matjasko & Feldman, 2006; Serido, Almeida, & Wethington, 2004). Thus, daily hassles that occur outside of the relationship and do not involve one’s partner may still erode relationship quality (Harper, Schaalje, & Sandberg, 2000; Totenhagen, Butler, & Ridley, 2012; Totenhagen & Curran, 2011). A lingering question is whether sacrifices continue to be benefical for relationship quality once the stress of daily hassles is considered. That is, if an individual has a hassling day, is engaging in sacrifices still beneficial for the relationship, or will it add to stress and be negative for the relationship?

Theory and research on sacrifices has often been specific to links with commitment (Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007; Kelley, 1979; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Much of the research on stress and relationships, however, has examined relationship quality/satisfaction in a more general sense (Harper et al., 2000; Totenhagen, Butler, et al., 2012; Totenhagen & Curran, 2011), although daily stress is thought to decrease closeness in couples given decreased shared experiences (Bodenmann, 2005). Thus, a question remains about whether sacrifices and hassles explain different types of daily relationship quality. By examining discrete types of relationship quality, researchers can provide increased specificity in the ways that different relational feelings and outcomes are impacted by one’s daily actions and experiences. We examined whether and how sacrifices and hassles impact satisfaction, closeness, and commitment.

Examining how couples feel about their relationship in the context of daily lives can foster an understanding of how relationship quality unfolds over time. Because daily diary studies of relationships permit investigators to understand relational changes as they occur, they provide information about individuals and relationships on a more micro-level than cross-sectional or longer term longitudinal studies (Laurenceau & Bolger, 2005). This daily approach permits researchers to examine when changes occur and potentially identify situations or contexts associated with these changes. For example, although researchers have examined how aspects of relationship quality change over longer periods of time (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991; Rusbult, 1983), daily investigations of experiences and interactions may shed light on the mechanisms by which changes occur. In the current study, we used daily-based analysis to examine how sacrifices and hassles may strengthen or erode specific types of positive relationship quality.

Interdependence theory, positive relationship quality, and relational sacrifices

Interdependence theory

Although individuals are goal oriented and wish to secure positive outcomes for themselves, choices made by the individual in interactions are also shaped by broader considerations, such as partner well-being (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997). That is, at times individuals can choose to put their partners’ interests ahead of their own interests, which should be relationally adaptive in the long run, even if it incurs costs to the individual in the short term. For this reason, we rely upon interdependence theory, which expands upon the ideas of social exchange by considering the partner’s outcomes (Kelley, 1979).

Interdependence between partners means that what one person does impacts the partner, particularly when the individuals are highly and mutually dependent on each other (Kelley, 1979). Every interaction can have multiple outcomes depending on how each partner thinks and behaves (Kelley, 1979). For these reasons, we include both actor effects, or how one’s behaviors impact one’s own outcomes, and partner effects, or how one’s partner’s behaviors impact one’s outcomes.

Positive relationship quality

Although close relationships (e.g., marriage) are associated with well-being, it is not being in a relationship per se that affords individuals benefits, but rather the quality of the relationship that is important (Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006). Interdependence theory suggests that relationship quality is multidimensional (Kelley, 1979). Ideally, a relationship is experienced as fulfilling (e.g., satisfying and connected) and stable (Sabatelli & Shehan, 1993). Thus, we examined three distinct types of relationship quality: satisfaction, closeness, and commitment.

The importance of examining relationship satisfaction is well documented in the literature as it plays a central role in individual and family well-being (see Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). Although happiness or satisfaction is sometimes conceptualized as synonymous with relationship quality (Harper et al., 2000; Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006), we acknowledge other aspects of relationship quality as well. Closeness, or a sense of “we-ness,” is an important part of the process by which stress may impact a relationship in that daily stress can decrease shared experiences and closeness for couples (Bodenmann, 2005). Closeness is also associated with thinking about significant others as part of one’s description or sense of self (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991) and benefits relationships through greater intimacy and positive feelings about the other, greater relationship maintenance, and love (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Aron & Fraley, 1999; Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989; Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000). Commitment is linked with cognitive interdependence, a mental state in which partners think of themselves less as individuals and more as a collective couple (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998), and also serves as an indicator of a relationship’s stability (Rusbult, Coolsen, Kirchner, & Clarke, 2006). Thus, commitment is associated with later relationship status (i.e., whether the couple stays together or breaks up).

Although satisfaction and commitment are often positively associated with one another (Hendrick, 1988; Sabatelli & Shehan, 1993), they are distinct constructs. For example, individuals can be dissatisfied but still committed (e.g., dependent because of a lack of viable alternatives; Rusbult, 1983). Similarly, a committed person may not feel close to the partner, choosing to stay in a distant relationship because of barriers to leaving. Finally, for someone who is not comfortable being too close to another person, higher levels of closeness are linked with less satisfaction (Mashek, Le, Israel, & Aron, 2011; Mashek & Sherman, 2004).

Relational sacrifices

When a person chooses to move beyond his or her own preferences and behave in ways that take into account the partner’s outcomes, this is called a max other transformation of motivation (Kelley, 1979; Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997). For example, Susan and Joe may both wish to get some extra sleep, but their children need to get ready for school in the morning. Given this conflict of interest, Susan can choose to transform her motivations and let Joe sleep in, sacrificing her self-interests in this interaction. In doing so, she shows Joe that she cares about his wants and needs. Because sacrifices demonstrate trust and caring, they should be positively associated with relationship quality constructs, provided that sacrifices are reciprocal (Impett & Gordon, 2008; Kelley, 1979).

In the current study, we focused on frequency of sacrifice for several reasons. First, sacrificing one’s own outcomes should enhance relationship quality constructs in both partners (typically commitment; Kelley, 1979). Further, although other important characteristics of sacrifices exist (e.g., personal or situational factors that may make more frequent sacrifices less beneficial; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), other researchers have studied frequency of sacrifice (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005; Van Lange et al., 1997; Whitton, Stanley, & Markman, 2007), and this offers us a point in which to continue and add to the study of linkages between sacrifices and relationship quality constructs.

Though interdependence theory suggests that increased frequency of sacrifice should be associated with increased relationship quality, empirical evidence is mixed. While some studies find positive associations (Van Lange et al., 1997), others find negative associations (Totenhagen & Curran, 2011; Whitton et al., 2007) or no significant associations (Impett et al., 2005). One possible explanation for these differences may be the type of relationship quality assessed. When relationship quality is summed across three different types (i.e., satisfaction, closeness, and fun), researchers found no significant associations with frequency of sacrifice (Impett et al., 2005). In contrast, when relationship quality is specified, findings are mixed for frequency of sacrifice, but they are significant. For example, specific to commitment, Van Lange and colleagues (1997) found positive correlations, whereas Whitton and colleagues (2007) found negative correlations.

Another consideration is partner effects. When partners sacrifice for the relationship, how do these efforts translate in terms of specific types of relationship quality? Studies in which partner effects are examined are more limited than studies of actor effects and are specific to relationship satisfaction. In two of these studies, partner effects were not significantly associated with satisfaction (Ruppel & Curran, 2012; Totenhagen & Curran, 2011), whereas in the third study, partner frequency of sexual sacrifice was positively linked with satisfaction (Burke & Young, 2012).

Taken together, although empirical evidence is mixed, we used the foundations of interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979) and predicted that:

Hypothesis 1: On days when actor and partner sacrifices increase, all three types of positive relationship quality (satisfaction, closeness, and commitment) will increase.

Conservation of resources and hassles

Conservation of resources

Conservation of resources (CoR) stress theory focuses on the role of resources in the stress process (Hobfoll, 1989). Resources are objects (e.g., a home), personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem), conditions (e.g., marriage), or energies (e.g., time) that aid in building resources valued by the individual (Hobfoll, 1989). The basic tenet of CoR is that “people strive to retain, protect, and build resources and that what is threatening to them is the potential loss of these valued resources” (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516). In addition, resource loss has the potential to incite cycles of further loss (Hobfoll & Spielberger, 1992) in that fewer resources are now available to deal with any additional threats.

When confronted with stress, individuals should strive to minimize resource loss. In the absence of stress, individuals will strive to build up a resource surplus to guard against future stressors that deplete resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Building resource surpluses may also be seen as a proactive coping strategy that helps individuals achieve future goals, such as being in a stable, high-quality relationship. Also, individuals will seek to build resources by investing other resources. An example is providing support to a loved one, such that this investment helps ensure positive outcomes (e.g., relationship well-being) and that in the future, this loved one can serve as a resource for the individual as well. Psychological distress is expected to result in the face of resource loss, whereas positive well-being is expected to result when one has resource surpluses (Hobfoll, 1989).

Daily hassles and relationship quality

Hassles are stressful to individuals because of their repetitive nature—they “pick away at individuals’ resources” (Hobfoll, 1990, p. 1275). From CoR (Hobfoll, 1989), individuals feel distress in the face of an actual or threatened loss of resources (i.e., stress). Thus, as daily hassles threaten to pick away at individuals’ resources (e.g., energy, time), individuals will feel distress, and the negative effects from this distress are likely to spillover to the partner and relationship as well (Grzywacz et al., 2002; Matjasko & Feldman, 2006; Serido et al., 2004). Further, from interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979), daily hassles should increase an individual’s costs and make it more likely that the individual’s comparison level is no longer being met, resulting in relational dissatisfaction. In support of these theoretical perspectives, empirical studies show that both stress in general (e.g., Frederickson, 1977; Harper et al., 2000; McLaughlin, Cormier, & Cormier, 1988) and daily hassles (e.g., Harper et al., 2000) are linked with poorer relationship quality overall. Thus, in line with both theories, we predicted that:

Hypothesis 2: On days when actor and partner hassles increase, all three types of positive relationship quality (satisfaction, closeness, and commitment) will decrease.

Hassles as a context for daily sacrifices in understanding relationship quality: Integrating interdependence and CoR

Whereas empirical findings support theoretical linkages between daily hassles and relationship quality constructs, the empirical findings specific to sacrifices were less well-matched to theoretical expectations. Interdependence scholars (e.g., Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003) explained mixed findings of sacrifices and relationship quality as dependent upon broader considerations. For example, associations between daily sacrifice and daily satisfaction were significant and positive in the study by Ruppel and Curran (2012), but associations were stronger when daily number of sacrifices was considered with avoidance and anxious attachment orientations in explaining daily relationship satisfaction.

An important moderator of sacrifices and relationship quality constructs may be daily hassles. From CoR (Hobfoll, 1989), when one experiences few daily hassles, this individual will attempt to build resource surpluses, such as investing resources in the relationship through relational sacrifices. Thus, on days with few hassles, individuals should invest resources in the relationship (i.e., sacrifice for the partner), with resource gains reflected in more positive relationship quality constructs. Conversely, on days with more hassling experiences, individuals are faced with resource loss and they will strive to minimize this loss and protect the resources they have. Here, sacrifices should no longer be beneficial for relationship quality constructs because these sacrifices may further erode resources. Thus, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 3: On days when individuals experience more daily hassles, sacrifices should no longer benefit relationship quality constructs; in contrast, on days when low hassles are experienced, the benefit of sacrifices on relationship quality constructs should hold.

For partner effects, on the other hand, a different pattern should emerge. Given interdependence theorists’ focus on maximizing rewards and minimizing costs in association with one’s relationship quality (Kelley, 1979) when one’s partner makes sacrifices, it should have a positive effect on the actor’s relationship quality constructs regardless of the partner’s hassles that day. That is, if Joe engages in sacrifices for Susan, these behaviors should be positive for Susan’s relationship quality because she is experiencing increased rewards and few (if any) costs, whether or not Joe had a stressful day when engaging in those sacrifices. Essentially, when Joe does sacrifices for Susan, she benefits from these sacrifices regardless of whether Joe’s day was stressful. Thus, for the interaction of partner sacrifices by partner hassles, we expected for the relationship quality constructs that:

Hypothesis 4: The partner’s daily hassles will not moderate partner’s daily sacrifices.

In sum, in the present study we examined the extent to which engaging in sacrifices for one’s partner is beneficial for the relationship, depending on the context in which those sacrifices are conducted (e.g., high stress days or low stress days). We used daily diaries to examine these processes as they occur, allowing for more immediate recall of feelings and discrete events (Laurenceau & Bolger, 2005). Further, given interdependence between partners whereby the actions and experiences of one partner inherently impact both partners (Kelley, 1979), we used an Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005) approach to examine both actor (how one’s behaviors impact one’s own outcomes) and partner (how one’s partner’s behaviors impact one’s outcomes) effects. Finally, we examined how these daily sacrifices and hassles impact three distinct types of relationship quality, providing information on whether these types of relationship quality are impacted in the same ways. These methods provide information on how the actions and experiences of relational partners in their daily lives might bolster or erode aspects of relationship quality for both partners.

Method

Procedure and participants

Participants were 164 heterosexual couples (N = 328 individuals) in which both partners agreed to participate in a 7-day diary study and who had at least three matching days of data with their partners. Participants were recruited through Family Studies and Human Development and Communication classes at a large Southwestern university in the United States. Students in these classes could earn extra credit by participating in the study themselves along with their romantic partners, or by passing a flyer on to other couples (e.g., friends, parents, roommates). To qualify, both individuals in a couple had to be at least 18 years old, in a romantic relationship with their current partner for at least 6 weeks, and have their own e-mail address. Participants were primarily Caucasian (67.4%) and Hispanic (13.4%), educated (84.8% reported at least some college or more), and 62.7% of the sample was currently enrolled in college. Ages ranged from 18 to 66 years (M = 25.73, SD = 10.37, Mdn = 21.00), relationship length ranged from 2 months to 44 years (M = 5.73 years, SD = 8.92, Mdn = 2.00), and 23.8% of the couples were married.

All data were collected via a secure Internet-based system. Participants were directed to a website and instructed to create a unique couple ID that linked the two partners and indicated the individual’s gender. Individuals were instructed to complete surveys separate from their partners. The first time they logged onto the system, participants completed informed consent, demographic information, and an initial survey. Individuals were then asked to log onto the website at approximately the same time each day for 7 consecutive days to complete daily surveys, at which time they were instructed to think about every item as they had experienced it within the past 24 hours. Seven days was chosen given the desire to increase the chances that participants would remain in the study rather than becoming fatigued (e.g., Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003) and dropping out, and because it is relatively common to collect data over the course of 1 week in daily diary studies (e.g., Almeida, Wethington, & Kessler, 2002; Butler, Young, & Randall, 2010).

One advantage of using online methods is that every submission is time and date stamped (Ogolsky, Niehuis, & Ridley, 2009). We used this information to remove any entries that were deemed invalid due to duplicate entries (i.e., submitting data more than once in a single day). The time and date stamps also permitted us to identify daily entries in which partners did not match (i.e., both did not submit an entry on a particular day). Only those couples who completed and matched on at least 3 days were retained in the final sample (Totenhagen, Serido, Curran, & Butler, 2012). Individuals completed an average of 5.9 days of data.

Measures

Daily sacrifices

We asked participants about 12 possible types of sacrifices, or changes, they made for their partner in the past 24 hours. These items were selected based on measures of sacrifice by Whitton et al. (2007) and Impett et al. (2005). We wanted to measure sacrifices carried out daily that were routine (e.g., schedule, household tasks), short term (e.g., time with friends), and more long term (e.g., finances). The wording of sacrifices as “changes” was chosen to mitigate negative connotations associated with the word “sacrifice” in the measure. Some have suggested that women may underreport sacrifices because they do not see them as sacrifices but rather tasks expected of them (see Impett & Gordon, 2008). The wording in the scale about changes should help with such possible underreports and has been published with this sample (Ruppel & Curran, 2012) and other samples (Burke & Young, 2012; Corkery, Curran, & Parkman, 2011; Totenhagen & Curran, 2011).

Domains of sacrifices were schedule (work, sleep errands), household tasks, child care, leisure interests/activities, amount of time spent with friends, amount of time spent with family, communication with partner (conversations about relationship and goals), intimate behaviors (sex, affection, cuddling, holding hands), my physical appearance, diet and exercise, financial standing, and living arrangements. We asked respondents to indicate whether they had participated in any of these 12 domains of sacrifices. If they indicated that they had done any sacrifice in a domain, they were assigned a “1” for that item. We then summed¹ across the 12 possible sacrifice domains to create this scale of daily sacrifices (M = 3.90, SD = 3.51, α = .88).

Daily hassles

We adapted the 53-item Hassles and Uplifts Scale (DeLongis, 1985) by shortening it to 15 items. We retained items representing each of the eight factors in the original scale: household, finances, work, environmental and social issues, home maintenance, health, personal life, and family and friends. We examined each item on face validity and focused on collapsing like-items into more general domains (e.g., home repairs, yardwork, car maintenance, and housework were collapsed to “home maintenance”). The shortened measure included the following items: your child(ren), your relative(s), your partner, family-related obligations, your friend(s), your job, your finances, exercise, your health, your neighborhood (e.g., neighbors, setting), pets, home maintenance (e.g., housework, yardwork), amount of free time, recreation and entertainment outside the home (e.g., movies, sports, eating out, walking), and social commitments.

We used only the hassles portion of the scale here. For each item, participants indicated how much of a hassle it was on a 0 (none) to 3 (a great deal) scale. Items were summed to compute an overall severity score, indicating how hassling a person’s day was for a possible range of 0 to 45 (M = 4.90, SD = 4.46, α = .90).

Relationship quality

Satisfaction, closeness, and commitment were each assessed via one-item measures in which response options rested on a 1 (not very much or just a little) to 7 (very much or a lot) point scale. Participants were asked today how satisfied they were with their relationship with their partner, how close they felt to their partner, and how committed they felt to their relationship with their partner. To reduce participant fatigue, and following the example of others (e.g., Lippert & Prager, 2001; Van Doorn, Branje, Hox, & Meeus, 2009), we chose to use one-item measures to assess these constructs. Descriptive statistics were satisfaction (M = 5.76, SD = 1.48), closeness (M = 5.69, SD = 1.48), and commitment (M = 6.21, SD = 1.29).

Control variables

Control variables included overall satisfaction (M = 5.96, SD = 1.21) and overall ambivalence (M = 2.48, SD = 1.68), both answered on a 7-point scale. These constructs were chosen as controls to account for the fact that overall perceptions of the relationship may color individuals’ daily feelings about their partners and may explain differing perceptions of relational sacrifices. For example, more satisfied couples who do not feel ambivalent about their relationship may view sacrifices more positively than unhappy couples highly ambivalent about the relationship. Further, other studies of sacrifice have also controlled for the effects of relationship satisfaction (Whitton et al., 2007), and both were significantly associated with all three daily positive relational qualities in the present study. We also chose to control for relationship length, given the wide range of relationship lengths in the present study, and because variability in a number of the outcomes under investigation differed depending on relationship length in previous work using this sample (Totenhagen, 2011). Finally, we also included relationship type (married vs. dating) as a control variable (further discussed under Plan of Analysis).

Plan of analysis

Table 1 contains estimates of within- and between-person correlations for the study constructs. We separated men and women to remove shared variance due to couples. We computed within-person correlations using person-centered scores, and between-person correlations using individuals’ mean scores. Because of the time-nested data structure, we do not report significance tests. On the whole, between-person correlations of the study variables were larger than within-person correlation estimates. For the three positive relationship quality constructs, the between-person correlations were fairly high (largely in the .7–.9 range), whereas the within-person correlations were substantially lower (largely in the .4–.6 range). Given the relatively lower within-person correlations for these three dependent variables (DVs) and our focus on individuals (e.g., effects of daily sacrifices and hassles that are above or below individuals’ own averages, described later), we retained the three DVs as distinct.²

Table 1.

Within- and between-person correlations of study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5
Within-person correlations
Sacrifices	–	.16	.08	.12	.06
Hassles	.14	–	−.10	−.04	.01
Satisfaction	.01	−.17	–	.67	.46
Closeness	.06	−.13	.72	−	.40
Commitment	.10	−.01	.48	.49	–
Between-person correlations
Sacrifices	–	.57	−.12	−.07	−.18
Hassles	.32	–	−.18	−.13	−.18
Satisfaction	−.11	−.12	–	.89	.84
Closeness	−.04	−.12	.92	–	.80
Commitment	−.23	−.20	.77	.73	–

Note. Correlations for men are reported above the diagonals and correlations for women are reported below the diagonals. Because of the time-nested data, significance tests are not reported.

Interdependent partners may be related in average levels of constructs (i.e., intercepts) and daily fluctuations (i.e., correlated in day to day variability). Further, repeated days within a person are likely to be autocorrelated. To account for nonindependence, we used SAS PROC MIXED to run analyses and set up the error structure to deal with the nonindependent data. The random statement accounted for interdependence between individuals within a couple in their average scores (intercepts), and the repeated statement accounted for interdependence between individuals within a couple in their daily fluctuations, and for the autocorrelation of days within individuals. The fixed effects (i.e., regression estimates for the independent variables, or IVs), included actor and partner daily sacrifices, actor and partner daily hassles, the interaction of actor sacrifices by actor hassles, and the interaction of partner sacrifices by partner hassles (in addition to the controls specified previously). Aside from initial cleaning of the data in which couples were excluded if they did not have matching data on at least 3 days, missing data were left as is, given that SAS PROC MIXED uses all available data in analyses.

To test the hypotheses, we ran the same models for each of the three DVs (i.e., daily satisfaction, closeness, and commitment). Given the distinguishable dyads, we began each analysis by assessing whether examination of sex differences was necessary. We used the full maximum likelihood estimation method in SAS, which permitted us to compare the full model including sex as a main effect and moderator of all associations against a nested model that did not include sex (Singer & Willet, 2003). These nested model comparisons for all three outcomes revealed that the inclusion of sex did not result in significantly better fitting models. Thus, we removed sex from the models.

Further, given that many participants were dating rather than married, and because patterns of sacrifices and hassles may differ for these different types of relationships, we examined the effects of relationship type (married vs. dating) in all three models. Relationship type did not significantly moderate either of our hypothesized interactions, nor did the inclusion of relationship type as a moderator provide significantly better fitting models. Thus, we chose the more parsimonious model without relationship type as a moderator but did retain relationship type as a control (in addition to relationship length, overall satisfaction, and overall ambivalence). Below, we report results for each of our three hypotheses (full results are in Table 2). Because all fixed effects were entered into the models at once, interpretation of each effect is controlling for all other effects. Significant interactions were probed at 1 SD above and below for high and low values (Aiken & West, 1991).

Table 2.

Results for the multilevel models on daily satisfaction, closeness, and commitment.

	Daily satisfaction			Daily closeness			Daily commitment
Fixed effects	F(df)	F Statistic	b (B)^a	F(df)	F Statistic	b (B)^a	F(df)	F Statistic	b (B)^a
Controls
Relationship type^b	(1, 157)	0.07	.05 (.01)	(1, 155)	1.18	.23 (.07)	(1, 161)	0.00	.01 (.00)
Relationship length	(1, 156)	0.47	−.01 (−.04)	(1, 154)	0.98	.00 (.00)	(1, 163)	0.08	−.00 (−.02)
Overall satisfaction	(1, 292)	72.88***	.43 (.35)	(1, 276)	65.32***	.40 (.33)	(1, 304)	43.08***	.30 (.29)
Overall ambivalence	(1, 310)	14.54***	−.14 (−.15)	(1, 295)	8.10**	−.10 (−.11)	(1, 317)	17.53***	−.14 (−.18)
Actor effects
Sacrifices	(1, 1318)	2.48	.03 (.03)	(1, 1358)	3.54	.03 (.04)	(1, 1322)	6.35*	.03 (.05)
Hassles	(1, 1355)	22.74***	−.05 (−.08)	(1, 1361)	12.10***	−.04 (−.06)	(1, 1333)	0.22	−.00 (−.01)
Sacrifices × hassles	(1, 1439)	0.23	−.00	(1, 1456)	0.20	−.00	(1, 1511)	7.81**	−.02
Partner effects
Sacrifices	(1, 1350)	0.24	.01 (.01)	(1, 1368)	3.30	.03 (.04)	(1, 1326)	0.00	−.00 (−.00)
Hassles	(1, 1345)	11.54***	−.04 (−.06)	(1, 1366)	12.70***	−.04 (−.07)	(1, 1340)	0.86	−.01 (−.02)
Sacrifices × hassles	(1, 1518)	0.59	−.01	(1, 1478)	1.26	.01	(1, 1500)	2.42	−.01
Covariance parameter estimates	Est.	SE		Est.	SE		Est.	SE
var(U ₀)men	0.56***	.09		0.55***	.09		0.53***	.08
var(U ₀)women	0.60***	.10		0.69***	.11		0.49***	.08
covar(U ₀)	0.29***	.07		0.38***	.08		0.25***	.06
var(E_ij )men	1.17***	.06		1.16***	.06		0.69***	.04
var(E_ij )women	0.95***	.05		1.15***	.06		0.74***	.04
covar(E_ij )	0.26***	.04		0.35***	.05		0.06*	.03
ar(1)	0.06	.04		0.06	.04		0.09*	.04

Note. Actor effects indicate men’s and women’s effects on their own outcomes, and partner effects indicate men’s and women’s effects on their partners’ outcomes. Var(U ₀) indicates variability in individuals’ intercepts, or average levels of the DV, covar(U ₀) indicates covariance of partners’ intercepts, var(E_ij ) indicates variance in within-person daily residuals of the DV, covar(E_ij ) indicates covariance of partners’ daily residuals, and ar(1) indicates the autoregressive component.

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

^a Standardized coefficients (Bs) were calculated in the standard way as b*[SD − X/SD − Y] (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). We provided them in the table for the controls and main effects only and reported Bs for the individual slopes of significant interactions in the text.

^b Given the categorical nature of relationship type, the estimates for b and B provide the contrast of unmarried minus married.

Daily predictors were person-centered such that each person’s daily score on each IV was centered on that person’s mean score for that variable across all the days of the study (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Interpretation of daily predictors is for sacrifices or hassles that are above or below a person’s own average.

Results

In the paragraphs that follow, we highlight the findings for each hypothesis. To indicate direction and provide some sense of relative magnitude, we report both unstandardized (b) and standardized (B) regression coefficients for the significant main effects and simple slopes in significant interactions. We chose this method over estimating effect sizes given that in multilevel models negative values for r ² are possible, making interpretation difficult (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Full results, including covariance parameter estimates, are given in Table 2.

Actor and partner sacrifices (Hypothesis 1)

For satisfaction and closeness, the main effects of actor and partner sacrifices were not significant. For commitment, we found that actor, but not partner, sacrifices were positively associated with increased commitment (b = .03, p < .05, B = .05).³ Thus, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported for commitment specific to actor effects but not supported for satisfaction or closeness or for partner effects.

Actor and partner hassles (Hypothesis 2)

For satisfaction, we found that actor (b = −.05, p < .001, B = −.08) and partner (b = −.04, p < .001, B = −.06) hassles were negatively associated with satisfaction. Similarly, we found that both actor (b = −.04, p < .001, B = −.06) and partner (b = −.04, p < .001, B = −.07) hassles were negatively associated with closeness.⁴ For commitment, neither actor nor partner hassles were significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported for satisfaction and closeness but not for commitment.

Actor sacrifices by actor hassles (Hypothesis 3)

The interaction of actor sacrifices by actor hassles (Hypothesis 3) was not significant for satisfaction or closeness but was significant for commitment (b = −.02, p < .01). We probed this significant interaction at 1 SD above and below for high and low values using the methods of Aiken and West (1991). Consistent with Hypothesis 3, sacrifices were significantly beneficial for commitment, but only when those sacrifices occurred on days with low hassles (b = .07, p < .001, B = .10). On days with high hassles, the slope was not significant (b = −.004, p = .85, B = −.004; see Figure 1). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported for commitment but not satisfaction or closeness.

Figure 1.

Daily interaction of actor sacrifices by actor hassles on commitment. The interaction was probed using 1 SD above and below person-centered sacrifices and hassles for high and low values. The y-axis represents daily commitment scores in original scale units; the graph has been focused in to more clearly demonstrate the interaction. Significant slopes (p < .001) denoted with *.

Partner sacrifices by partner hassles (Hypothesis 4)

The interaction of partner sacrifices by partner hassles (Hypothesis 4) was not significant for any of the three positive relationship outcomes. Our expectation that partner hassles would not moderate partner sacrifices was predicated on partner sacrifices being beneficial for individuals regardless of the level of daily hassles. Given that the main effect of partner sacrifices was not significant for any of the three positive relational quality outcomes, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Discussion

Although conflicts of interest in close relationships are inevitable (Canary, 2003), they are not necessarily detrimental to the relationship. Conflicts may provide the opportunity for partners to demonstrate their love and caring for each other by making sacrifices for their partners (Kelley, 1979). Because certain conditions exist under which sacrifices may not be considered beneficial to the relationship (e.g., chronic self-sacrifice, nonreciprocal sacrifices), it is important to understand when sacrifices are beneficial and when they are not. In the present study, we used interdependence (Kelley, 1979) and CoR (Hobfoll, 1989) perspectives to examine whether the effect of sacrifices on daily positive relationship quality constructs would depend on whether that person had a hassling day. Further, we examined these effects for both actors (how one’s behaviors impact one’s own outcomes) and partners (how one’s partner’s behaviors impact one’s outcomes) using an APIM to consider how both partners in a relationship may have contributed to, and benefitted from, those sacrifices (Kelley, 1979). Such an approach permitted us to examine whether it is beneficial for both partners to perform sacrifices and under what conditions (e.g., low- vs. high-stress days).

We found different patterns of results for the three positive relationship quality constructs. For satisfaction and closeness, sacrifices did not play a role for these constructs as neither the main effects for sacrifices (Hypothesis 1) nor the interaction of sacrifices and hassles (Hypothesis 3, Hypothesis 4) were significant for actor or partner effects. Rather, for satisfaction and closeness, both actor and partner hassles (Hypothesis 2) explained decreased satisfaction and closeness. Thus, for satisfaction and closeness, when either partner reported having a hassling day, both partners’ feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness suffered. These findings fit within CoR (Hobfoll, 1989) in that daily hassles tax individuals’ resources, resulting in decreased well-being, here specific to relational satisfaction and closeness. Further, in line with interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979), the experiences of one partner had an impact on the other partner. When one experienced an increased level of hassles on a particular day, these hassling experiences were associated with decreased satisfaction and closeness for both oneself and one’s partner.

For commitment, on the other hand, sacrifices played a larger role. First, individuals’ sacrifices were significant for their own (but not their partners’) daily commitment. Engaging in increased sacrifices was associated with increased commitment for that individual on the same day. This main effect of actor sacrifices was qualified by an interaction with actor hassles. In accordance with Hypothesis 3, we found that daily relationship sacrifices were beneficial for individuals in terms of greater daily commitment for themselves (but not their partners), but only if the individual experienced low hassles that day. Engaging in increased sacrifices on a “high-hassle” day no longer significantly impacted individuals’ commitment.

For the partner, we expected that when one’s partner performed increased sacrifices, that individual would experience increased positive relational quality constructs (Hypothesis 1) regardless of whether that partner was stressed (Hypothesis 4). Instead, we found that partner sacrifices did not explain satisfaction, closeness, or commitment. These findings are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

When it is better to give than receive

Specific to sacrifices, we found two patterns: (1) they were significant only for commitment and (2) they were beneficial only for an individual’s own feelings of commitment. That is, individuals felt increased commitment when they reported engaging in increased sacrifices but not when their partners did. These beneficial effects, however, depended on the context of the day. When individuals reported engaging in more sacrifices, they only felt more committed if these sacrifices were conducted on low-stress days.

These findings are important in that they provide empirical evidence that commitment is appropriately studied on a daily basis, given that it does vary (Totenhagen, 2011), but that such variability needs to be contextualized (e.g., changes in sacrifices and hassles on a daily basis). Although engaging in sacrifices was not positively linked with satisfaction or closeness, the pattern of results for commitment should be reassuring to couples and researchers alike, given that sacrifices may build one’s own commitment to the relationship, provided these sacrifices are done in the context of low-stress days and not on days when one may already be feeling taxed (Hobfoll, 1989).

Do partner sacrifices go unnoticed?

From interdependence theory, we expected that when one’s partner makes sacrifices the individual should benefit, regardless of whether that partner did those sacrifices on a stressful day. Instead, partner sacrifices did not explain positive relationship quality constructs. Kelley (1979) argued that with respect to attributions, individuals often overestimate how much they do in the relationship, while underestimating how much their partners do. It could be that partner effects with respect to sacrifices were not significant (on their own or as influenced by hassles) because individuals lack awareness that their partners had been engaging in those sacrifices. Empirical evidence supports this idea. In diary studies of couples, individuals fail to notice approximately 25% of the positive behaviors their partners report doing (Gable, Reis, & Downey, 2003). Although this study by Gable et al. (2003) was not specific to sacrifices, it exemplifies how individuals may not be fully aware of all of the positive behaviors their partners report doing. If one is unaware of positive behaviors or sacrifices that the partner is enacting, this could explain why he or she would not report increased positive relationship quality.

Strengths and limitations

Some limitations should be noted. Although we used daily diary data, the study is still correlational. We examined whether sacrifices and hassles on a particular day were associated with positive relationship quality constructs on that same day. We tested lagged models using the prospective change model (Larson & Almeida, 1999), but the model for closeness could not properly converge, and no significant effects were found for satisfaction and commitment. As reported in previous work (Totenhagen, Serido, et al., 2012), some participants may have skipped or missed filling out a particular day(s) in the study. This pattern would have had minimal impact on same-day analyses but may have greatly reduced power to find significant patterns of results in the lagged analyses because any time a day was missing, that day’s data were not used to predict the following day. Thus, the present study does not establish temporal precedence that sacrifices occurred before changes in relationship quality constructs. It is possible that when individuals experienced changes in how they felt about the relationship, they were inclined to do more (or fewer) sacrifices for their partners.

Still, several advantages exist. First, daily studies of sacrifice are rare (for exceptions see Impett et al., 2005; Ruppel & Curran, 2012; Totenhagen & Curran, 2011). A more basic understanding of how sacrifices are associated with same-day relationship quality constructs is warranted before moving onto more nuanced investigations of how these associations may differ from one day to the next or how they may affect longevity of relationships. Also, more immediate recall of sacrifices made each day may be more accurate, as they may be less susceptible to influences by participants’ overall feelings of the relationship. For example, an individual in an unhappy relationship, when asked about in general how often they make sacrifices, may report doing high levels of sacrifices, given the negative sentiment about the relationship.

With respect to the measurement of sacrifices, the measure used represents sacrifices individuals were expected to most likely report having done for their partners on a daily basis. In daily diary investigation, it is important to use short measures that participants will be likely to come back and fill out each day of the study rather than becoming fatigued and dropping out of the study. By using a shorter (12-item) measure of sacrifices, however, it is possible that participants may have made other sacrifices for their partners that were not included in the list or did multiple sacrifices in a single domain.

Finally, we used single-item measures for the dependent variables. Although limitations to using single-item measures exist, such as attenuated observations and potential decreased reliability, we made this choice in balance with the need to foster retention and decrease participant fatigue, given the daily nature of the study. From interdependence theory, we see satisfaction, closeness, and commitment as distinct, and our findings support this distinction, particularly for commitment. Further, although between-person correlations of the study variables were fairly high, within-person correlations were substantially lower, suggesting that these concepts, although correlated overall, hold distinct meaning for individuals. Future research should continue to examine whether different aspects of relationship quality are impacted similarly or differently by daily actions and experiences.

Finally, we assessed the frequency of sacrifice by counting the number of domains of sacrifice in which individuals reported engagement. If individuals did two or more activities on a day for a certain domain, this would be a more nuanced representation of the number of sacrifices and an important consideration for future research. Also, we focused on examining the impact that sacrifices and hassles by either partner might have on individuals’ relationship quality constructs. Other aspects of sacrifice may be important, including awareness and patterns of reciprocity in sacrifice (Impett & Gordon, 2008; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003).

Conclusions

In sum, the present study consisted of a dyadic investigation of how to promote specific types of positive relationship quality. It is important for scientists and practitioners to understand not just what characterizes “bad” relationships but also how to promote “good” relationships. For example, practitioners working with couples can use the information to encourage couples to create positive relationships through their everyday actions rather than simply focusing on transitions or more major life events.

Although we recommend that studies continue to examine the intricate patterns of how daily sacrifices and hassles impact individuals in relationships before implementing changes in practice, the present study offers several potential implications. Those working with couples to promote healthy relationships may focus on helping individuals understand when making sacrifices for their partners might build commitment (i.e., days with low hassles) versus when sacrifices may not be beneficial (i.e., days with high hassles). Further, the hassles experienced by both oneself and one’s partner during the course of a day were detrimental for individuals’ feelings of daily satisfaction and closeness. Thus, helping both members of the couple to cope with the stressors of daily lives may serve to improve relationships. Finally, to help ensure that sacrifices are benefiting both partners, it may be important to help couples recognize the positive behaviors that their partners enact for them so that such positivity does not go unnoticed and unappreciated. Similarly, couples may be encouraged to communicate about what each values in their daily routines so that they are engaging in sacrifices that are understood and appreciated by the partner.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

This manuscript began as a portion of the first author’s doctoral dissertation and is from research supported in part by grants to the second author from the Frances McClelland Institute at The University of Arizona. The authors wish to thank Jared Durtschi, Erin Holmes, and Brian Willoughby for their thoughts and expertise regarding factor analysis with multilevel data as well as Carl Ridley for his feedback on previous drafts of this paper.

Funding

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

Notes

References

Agnew

C. R.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Langston

C. A.

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

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Almeida

D. M.

Wethington

Kessler

R. C.

(2002). The daily inventory of stressful events: An interview-based approach for measuring daily stressors. Assessment, 9, 41–55.

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.

Aron

E. N.

Tudor

Nelson

(1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.

Aron

Fraley

(1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self: Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140–160.

Berscheid

Snyder

Omoto

A. M.

(1989). The relationship closeness inventory: assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792–807.

Bodenmann

(2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bolger

Davis

Rafaeli

(2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.

10.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964–980.

11.

Braiker

H. B.

Kelley

H. H.

(1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In Burgess

Huston

(Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135–167). New York, NY: Academic.

12.

Burke

Young

(2012). Sexual transformations and intimate behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 454–463.

13.

Butler

E. A.

Young

V. J.

Randall

A. K.

(2010). Suppressing to please, eating to cope: The effect of overweight women's emotion suppression on romantic relationships and eating. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 599–623.

14.

Canary

D. J.

(2003). Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events related to strategic choices. In Greene

J. O.

Burleson

B. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 515–549). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.

16.

Corkery

Curran

M. A.

Parkman

(2011). Relational quality of expectant cohabitors: The roles of relational sacrifice and spirituality. Marriage and Family Review, 47, 345–362.

17.

DeLongis

(1985). [The relationship of everyday stress to health and well-being: Inter- and intra individual approaches]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

18.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138.

19.

Fincham

Stanley

Beach

(2007). Transformative processes in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 275–292.

20.

Frederickson

C. G.

(1977). Life stress and marital conflict: A pilot study. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 3, 41–47.

21.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

Downey

(2003). He said, she said: A quasi-signal detection analysis of daily interactions between close relationship partners. Psychological Science, 14, 100–105.

22.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Almeida

D. M.

McDonald

D. A.

(2002). Work-family spillover and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations, 51, 28–36.

23.

Harper

J. M.

Schaalje

B. G.

Sandberg

J. G.

(2000). Daily hassles, intimacy, and marital quality in later life marriages. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 1–18.

24.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.

25.

Hobfoll

(1990). Loss as the active ingredient in stress: Response to Arnold Lazarus. American Psychologist, 45, 1275–1276.

26.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

27.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Spielberger

C. D.

(1992). Family stress: Integrating theory and measurement. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 99–112.

28.

Huston

T. L.

Vangelisti

A. L.

(1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 721–733.

29.

Impett

E. A.

Gable

S. L.

Peplau

L. A.

(2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344.

30.

Impett

E. A.

Gordon

A. M.

(2008). For the good of others: Toward a positive psychology of sacrifice. In Lopez

S. J.

(Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (Vol. 2: Capitalizing on emotional experiences, pp. 79–100). Westport, CT: Prager Publishers.

31.

Kelley

(1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes. New York, NY: Wiley.

32.

Larson

R. W.

Almeida

D. M.

(1999). Emotional transmission in the daily lives of families: A new paradigm for studying family process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 5–20.

33.

Laurenceau

Bolger

(2005). Using diary methods to study marital and family processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86–97.

34.

Lippert

Prager

K. J.

(2001). Daily experiences of intimacy: A study of couples. Personal Relationships, 8, 283–298.

35.

Mashek

Israel

Aron

(2011). Wanting less closeness in romantic relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 333–345.

36.

Mashek

D. J.

Sherman

M. D.

(2004). Desiring less closeness with intimate others. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 343–356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

37.

Matjasko

J. L.

Feldman

A. F.

(2006). Bringing work home: The emotional experiences of mothers and fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 47–55.

38.

McLaughlin

Cormier

L. S.

Cormier

W. H.

(1988). Relation between coping strategies and distress, stress, and marital adjustment and multiple-role women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 187–193.

39.

Ogolsky

Niehuis

Ridley

(2009). Using online methods and designs to conductresearch on personal relationships. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 610–628.

40.

Otis

M. D.

Rostosky

S. S.

Riggle

E. D. B.

Hamrin

(2006). Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 81–99.

41.

Reis

H. T.

Collins

W. A.

Berscheid

(2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872.

42.

Ruppel

Curran

M. A.

(2012). Relational sacrifices in romantic relationships: Satisfaction and the moderating role of attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 508–529.

43.

Rusbult

(1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.

44.

Rusbult

C. E.

Arriaga

X. B.

(1997). Interdependence theory. In Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 221–250). London, UK: Wiley.

45.

Rusbult

C. E.

Coolsen

M. K.

Kirchner

J. L.

Clarke

J. A.

(2006). Commitment. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 615–636). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Rusbult

C. E.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375.

47.

Sabatelli

R. M.

Shehan

C. L.

(1993). Exchange and resource theories. In Boss

Doherty

W. J.

LaRossa

Schumm

W. R.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods (pp. 385–417). New York, NY: Plenum.

48.

Serido

Almeida

D. M.

Wethington

(2004). Chronic stressors and daily hassles: Unique and interactive relationships with psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 17–33.

49.

Singer

J. D.

Willet

J. B.

(2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

50.

Snijders

Bosker

(1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK: Sage Publications.

51.

Totenhagen

C. J.

(2011). Daily processes in romantic relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 72, 2589.

52.

Totenhagen

C. J.

Butler

E. A.

Ridley

C. A.

(2012). Daily stress, closeness, and satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples. Personal Relationships, 19, 219–233.

53.

Totenhagen

C. J.

Curran

M. A.

(2011). Daily hassles, sacrifices, and relationship quality for pregnant cohabitors. Family Science, 2, 68–72.

54.

Totenhagen

C. J.

Serido

Curran

M. A.

Butler

E. A.

(2012). Daily hassles and uplifts: A diary study on understanding relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 719–728.

55.

Umberson

Williams

Powers

D. A.

Liu

Needham

(2006). You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 1–16.

56.

Van Doorn

M. D.

Branje

S. J. T.

Hox

J. J.

Meeus

W. H. J.

(2009). Intraindividual variability in adolescents’ perceived relationship satisfaction: The role of daily conflict. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 790–803.

57.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Drigotas

S. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

Witcher

B. S.

Cox

C. L.

(1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395.

58.

Whitton

S. W.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2007). If I help my partner, will it hurt me? Perceptions of sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 64–92.

59.

Yovetich

N. A.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138–164.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

20.70 MB