What happens when the standard for openness goes unmet in romantic relationships? Analyses of stress,coping,and relational consequences

Abstract

The current investigation advances existing research by exploring the stress elicited when individuals perceive their standard for openness has been unmet, identifying the coping strategies individuals engage in when faced with this stress, and assessing the consequences of individuals’ coping efforts on relational quality. Data were gathered from 205 individuals in newly dating relationships. Analyses revealed that punishing, exiting, reframing, and using humor coping strategies partially mediated the negative association between the stress linked to unfulfilled openness standards and relationship satisfaction. Specifically, stress was related to individuals’ use of each of these strategies. In turn, using humor was positively associated with relationship satisfaction, whereas punishing, exiting, and reframing were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction. Theoretical contributions and implications are discussed.

Keywords

Coping openness relational satisfaction standards stress

Most people in Western societies expect a degree of openness in their romantic relationships. This is perhaps not surprising considering how widely cited it is that being open, disclosing, and sharing (private) information are integral to the development, maintenance, and even decline of relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Baxter, 1986; Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Canary & Stafford, 1992; Sprecher, 1987). Indeed individuals report that openness is one of the most desirable attributes a partner can have (Sprecher & Regan, 2002), and they note a lack of openness as a primary reason their romantic relationship dissolved (Baxter, 1986).

As a critical aspect of romantic relationships, the expectation for openness, known as the “standard for openness” (Afifi & Joseph, 2009; Afifi, Joseph, & Aldeis, 2012), is the focus of the current study. Openness is one of many standards people have for their partners and relationships, and it is reported to be one of the most important (Vangelisti & Daly, 1997). Standards, or characteristics individuals believe partners and relationships should have, provide criteria by which individuals evaluate the quality of their relationships (Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, & Sher, 1989; Fletcher & Simpson, 2000). Put another way, standards serve as “reference points” (Baucom et al., 1996a, p. 210) for assessing whether partners and relationships are living up to individuals’ expectations. People who endorse a standard for openness believe that partners should be willing to and comfortable with disclosing their needs, wants, feelings, emotions, and things that are bothering them.

The standard for openness is important to our understanding of romantic relationships for two reasons. First, research finds that the openness standard is prevalent in U.S. culture. When individuals are asked what standards they hold for their romantic relationships, they report openness or a standard that includes openness to be one of the most important across relationship types. For example, in a study of family communication standards, Caughlin (2003) found that the openness standard was rated as more important than standards for expressing affection and interacting regularly and second only to standards for emotional and instrumental support. In romantic relationships, openness is a central component of standards (e.g., Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Fletcher, 2001; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999). For instance, individuals in Vangelisti and Daly’s (1997) study reported that affective accessibility, a standard composed of openness, affection demonstration, and impact, was the most important standard they had for their romantic relationship. It is noteworthy that, even though people may vary in the degree to which they expect openness in their relationships, they are far less likely to endorse standards for closedness or avoidance than they are to endorse a standard for openness (Caughlin, 2003).

A second reason the openness standard is an important aspect of romantic relationships to study is that the degree to which standards are met is consistently linked to relationship quality. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that individuals in romantic relationships are more satisfied (Alexander, 2004; Vangelisti & Daly, 1997) and report greater marital adjustment (Baucom, Epstein, Rankin, & Burnett, 1996b) and relational quality (Campbell et al., 2001; Fletcher et al., 1999) when their standards, including their standard for openness, are met. A related and burgeoning literature concerning topic avoidance further shows that when people feel they cannot speak to partners about their thoughts and feelings, or that partners are hiding information from them, they report less satisfaction with their relationship (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004; Caughlin & Golish, 2002; Dailey & Palomares, 2004) and decreased intimacy (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004). In short, studies indicate not only that the openness standard is relatively common but that having their openness standard met is particularly relevant to the way individuals evaluate their relationships.

Despite the apparent centrality of openness to romantic relationships and its influence on relationship quality, individuals often perceive their partner is not being as open as they expect (Afifi et al., 2012; Vangelisti & Daly, 1997). Yet little empirical evidence describes what individuals do to deal with any dissatisfaction, anger, and disappointment they feel toward their partner and relationship when they believe their standards, such as that for openness, are unfulfilled. Some research shows that individuals ruminate about their partner’s perceived lack of openness, leading to greater dissatisfaction (Afifi et al., 2012). Other research suggests individuals engage in various coping strategies (Alexander, 2008; Vangelisti & Alexander, 2002). Although studies indicate that people are likely to respond in some way when their standard for openness is unmet, the ways in which they respond and the links between their responses and their relational satisfaction are unclear. A stress and coping perspective provides a theoretical explanation for these links. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to advance existing research by (a) exploring the stress elicited when individuals perceive their standard for openness has been unmet, (b) identifying the coping strategies individuals engage in when faced with this stress, and (c) assessing the consequences of individuals’ coping efforts on relational quality. In doing so, we can understand how some people may be able to cope in ways that protect them from the negative relational outcomes associated with violations of openness. Identifying the ways in which individuals cope with such violations will shed light on how some individuals maintain satisfying romantic relationships, despite having this important standard go unmet.

Stress and coping with an unfulfilled standard for openness

The coping strategies that people employ when they perceive their standard for openness is unmet likely vary with the degree of stress engendered by the unmet standard. The theoretical work of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) provides an explanation for why individuals vary in their reactions to violations of openness. Some individuals may not engage in coping if they do not interpret a lack of openness as stressful and others may do a great deal of coping in response to the stress they attribute to the situation (i.e., coping is associated with the degree of stress experienced such that even relatively minor stressors prompt some degree of coping). The degree to which individuals cope and the strategies they use to do so depend on the degree to which they perceive the current situation as interfering with their goals or violating their expectations (Lazarus, 1999). Thus, when individuals perceive a discrepancy between the openness they expect from their partner and the openness their partner seems to be exhibiting, some may experience greater stress and engage in more coping, whereas others may not appraise the situation as stressful and may be less likely to cope as a result.

Although research has not explicitly linked stress and emotions to the experience of an unmet openness standard, several bodies of literature do tie Lazarus’ conceptions of emotions to unfulfilled expectations in romantic relationships. For example, research on unmet relational standards generally suggests that when individuals think their “should” or “ought to” standards are not being met, they feel more agitated and dejected (Boldero et al., 2009). Also having one’s romantic partner engage in avoidance during a conflict-inducing conversation is associated with rumination about the conversation the following week (Afifi et al., 2012). Compared to non-distressed husbands, distressed husbands report feeling more upset when their standards are unmet (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Moreover, according to research on unrealistic standards (i.e., those that are so high that a partner could not reach them), individuals who expect a lot of openness from their partner may be more likely to feel stressed, disillusioned, or disappointed if their openness standard is unfulfilled (Larson, 1992).

Not only are unmet standards frequently distressing but they also can have negative consequences for relational quality. The link between standards and relationship satisfaction is well established; for example, individuals are more satisfied (Vangelisti & Daly, 1997) and report greater marital adjustment (Baucom et al., 1996b) and relational quality (Campbell et al., 2001; Fletcher et al., 1999) when their standards are met. Furthermore, topic avoidance is linked to relationship dissatisfaction (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004; Caughlin & Golish, 2002) and decreased intimacy (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004). Insomuch as unmet standards are stressful experiences and are related to decreased relational quality, we anticipate that stress associated with a perceived unmet openness standard will be negatively associated with relationship satisfaction.

H1: Stress associated with unmet openness standards is negatively associated with relationship satisfaction.

According to the theory of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), coping is the mechanism by which stress affects relationship satisfaction. Coping refers to “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Research on unmet standards has found that individuals engage in various coping strategies (Alexander, 2008; Vangelisti & Alexander, 2002) to deal with any dissatisfaction they feel toward their partner and relationship when their standards go unfulfilled.

Alexander and Vangelisti identified 10 different coping strategies that individuals use to deal with unfulfilled standards in their romantic relationships (Alexander, 2008; Vangelisti & Alexander, 2002). These strategies include punishing (reprimanding a partner for not fulfilling standards), clarifying (discussing and resolving issues with a partner), reframing (attempting to change how one interprets a partner’s behavior), self-disparaging (blaming self for a partner’s behavior), modeling (exhibiting the behavior one expects from a partner), exiting (breaking up the relationship), seeking social support (pursuing support from friends, family, and others), escaping (attempts to avoid the relationship issues through diversions), distancing (disengaging from a partner in hopes partner recognizes there is an issue), and using humor (using jokes and sarcasm to hint at relational issues).

Although studies have identified the various strategies individuals use to cope with unfulfilled standards, it is unclear which strategies individuals employ to deal with violations of the openness standard specifically. This is because studies often create a composite measure of the degree to which a variety of relational standards are fulfilled and correlate this discrepancy with the self-reported use of certain coping strategies (e.g., Alexander, 2008). Using this technique, researchers have found that individuals tend to employ seeking support, humor, and clarifying coping strategies most often; however, these coping efforts are in response to unmet standards generally and not an unmet openness standard specifically. As a notable exception, Afifi, Joseph, and Aldeis (2012) did find that some individuals ruminate when a partner violates the standard for openness. Although ruminating suggests individuals are doing a great deal of cognitive work, it does not identify the content or focus (e.g., self vs. other) of individuals’ thoughts (Vangelisti & Alexander, 2002). Put another way, ruminating potentially encompasses many coping strategies.

It is also plausible that people do not ruminate at all but instead attempt to model the openness they want from their partner, hoping for reciprocation (e.g., Derlega, Harris, & Chaikin, 1973). Individuals may also engage in a variety of self-focused coping strategies, such as postponement or ignoring, particularly if they feel their partner may respond aggressively (Cloven & Roloff, 1993), or if a discussion of openness is associated with larger relational issues, such as the status of the relationship (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985). Analogous to the fever model of disclosure (Stiles, 1987), some people may be driven by stress to confront their partner about his or her lack of openness. In doing so, they may engage in a variety of strategies, such as agreement, argument, or guilt induction, in order to relieve their stress and restore the relationship.

Of course, some coping strategies may be more effective than others at responding to the stress associated with a perceived unmet openness standard. For example, rumination over a partner’s avoidance (i.e., a violation of openness) is associated with less relationship satisfaction 1 week later (Afifi et al., 2012). By contrast, approaching a partner about his or her lack of openness may be an effective means of coping to the extent it fosters a “we” approach to the issue (Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998). Indeed perceptions of dyadic coping partially mediate the relationship between standards and marital satisfaction (Wunderer & Schneewind, 2008). Research also suggests that the use of strategies such as agreement and discussion may be positively associated with relational quality, particularly if they contribute to a climate that promotes more tenderness, more togetherness, and less quarreling (Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006).

In sum, how individuals cope with the stress associated with a perceived unmet openness standard likely influences their relationship satisfaction. However, existing research provides little insight into which coping strategies explain the relationship between stress and relationship satisfaction. This research was conducted to not only identify the coping strategies individuals use but also assess their effectiveness at managing stress. Thus, we predict that stress is associated with the use of coping and, in turn, coping influences relationship satisfaction:

H2: Coping mediates the association between stress and relationship satisfaction.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that individuals may engage in more than one coping strategy at any given time. For instance, when their standard for openness is unmet, people may simultaneously confront their partner to discuss his or her lack of openness, rationalize their partner’s behaviors, and seek out the support of close friends. Reported frequencies of coping strategy use found in previous literature support the proposition that individuals employ multiple coping strategies in their efforts to deal with unmet standards (e.g., Alexander, 2008). Assessing the mediating role of multiple coping strategies may provide a more valid representation of how coping occurs in this context. Thus:

RQ1: Which coping strategies, when considered simultaneously, mediate the association between the stress associated with unmet openness standards and relationship satisfaction?

Method

Sample

The sample for the current study consisted of 205 undergraduate students (37 males and 168 females) recruited from communication courses at a large Southwestern university in the U.S. On average, participants were 20.16 years of age (SD = 2.60). They were largely White/Caucasian (65%), followed by Hispanic/Latino(a) (15%), African American/Black (7%), Asian/Pacific Islander (16%), and other (5%). Ethnicity percentages sum to greater than 100% because participants could choose more than one ethnicity category. We offered students extra credit for their participation as well as entries into a drawing for one of four US$25 Visa gift cards and one of five US$10 Starbucks gift cards.

In order to participate, individuals needed to currently be in a dating relationship of no more than 6 months at the time of the initial questionnaire. Recruitment materials specified this requirement. College-aged students in newly dating relationships were a particularly appropriate sample for three reasons. First, research has found that those under 21 years of age are more likely to hold unrealistic beliefs about relationships and partners, such as myths of The One and Only, Perfection, and Love is Enough (Priest, Burnett, Thompson, Vogel, & Schvaneveldt, 2009, p. 53). Second, and relatedly, individuals are more likely to hold unrealistic beliefs (e.g., extreme) concerning relationships and partners when they are relatively inexperienced with relationships (e.g., Priest et al., 2009). Given that college students are likely to have less dating experience than older adults, and to hold relatively higher standards for openness, we reasoned that they would report greater variation in the degree to which they endorsed openness and experienced stress as a consequence. Third, individuals in newly dating relationships may experience more uncertainty about their partner and the relationship because they are still forming norms for self-disclosure. Individuals’ inexperience with romantic relationships, in addition to their uncertainty about their current romantic partner, likely creates a context in which openness becomes a salient and consequential feature of their romantic relationships.

Participants’ relationships ranged from less than 1 month to 6 months in length (M = 3.61, SD = 1.78) and were most frequently described as seriously dating (35%) or dating (35%) followed by casually dating (29%). Most participants reported being geographically close (73%) to their partner, though 27% reported being in a long-distance relationship. Fourteen (7%) individuals reported cohabiting with their partner and 93% said they did not live with their partner.

Procedures

Individuals who consented to participate proceeded to the questionnaire in which we first asked for background information about the participants and their relationships. Then, we asked participants to complete a series of measures concerning the stress they experienced and the coping strategies they used when partners were not as open as expected as well as their relationship satisfaction.

Measures

Stress

We measured stress using the negative emotion subscale of Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) classification of emotions and associated core relational themes. This measure was employed because, rather than connecting discrete appraisals to specific emotions, it synthesizes individuals’ appraisals into a more general meaning. According to Lazarus (1999), the general meaning associated with these appraisals is experienced as emotion. For each of 9 items, we asked participants, “In the past week, when your partner was not as open as you expected him or her to be, how did it make you feel? Please rate the extent to which the following emotions reflect how you felt.” Participants rated their emotions on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Does not describe my reaction at all; 7 = Describes my reaction completely). The nine emotions they rated included anger, anxiety, fright, guilt, shame, sadness, envy, jealousy, and disgust (α = .84, M = 2.87, SD = 1.13).

Coping strategies

To assess coping strategies, we used a modified version of Alexander’s (2008) list of strategies for coping with unfulfilled standards. The original list consisted of 56 items representing 10 strategies (punishing, clarifying, reframing, self-disparaging, modeling, exiting, seeking social support, escaping, distancing, and using humor). In order to minimize participant fatigue, we removed redundant items, which resulted in a measure of 38 items for the 10 strategies. Items were considered redundant when phrasing was repetitive. For each item, we asked participants to indicate on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Does not describe my reaction at all; 7 = Describes my reaction completely), the degree to which the item described their reaction when their partner failed to meet their openness standard over the course of the previous week. If partners met participants’ openness standard, participants selected the lowest point, 1 = Does not describe my reaction at all, for the coping items.

We subjected all 38 items to a principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. The criteria used to retain factors included eigenvalues greater than one and the scree plot. Eight of the items were dropped due to low factor loadings. Although the rotated scores for the remaining 30 items yielded a slightly different factor structure than the one Alexander (2004) reported, the majority of the factors were similar. The first factor was punishing. Items loading on this factor focused on reprimanding or penalizing the partner in some way. The second factor, clarifying, involved engaging in interaction with the partner in an effort to explain or negotiate the issue. Reframing was the third factor. The items that made up this factor revolved around participants’ efforts to view their own expectations or their partner’s behavior in a different way. The fourth factor was seeking social support. This factor focused on seeking help or advice from people outside the relationship. The fifth factor, exiting, involved dissolving or terminating the relationship. The sixth factor, using humor, was made up of items describing efforts to employ humor or sarcasm to communicate dissatisfaction to the partner. Self-disparaging was the seventh factor. The items comprising this factor described a tendency to be critical or derogatory of oneself. The eighth and final factor was distancing. It involved efforts to disassociate from or avoid the partner.

Table 1 includes the results of the analysis, including item means, standard deviations, and factor loadings. Individuals’ scores for each coping strategy were computed using regression techniques and saved as variables for subsequent analyses. Because we used regression techniques to compute factor scores, all factors have a mean of zero. Factor variances can be found in Table 2.

Table 1.

Factor analysis.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Punishing
1. Purposefully trying to hurt my partner for the issue.	1.76	1.17	.73	−.03	.09	.01	.14	−.05	−.01	.04
2. Attempting to make my partner feel guilty.	2.47	1.70	.66	.03	.14	−.07	.13	.24	.05	.17
3. Threatening detrimental consequences if the problem were to reoccur.	1.91	1.48	.65	.03	.12	−.11	.31	.07	.17	.03
4. Punishing my partner for the issue.	2.12	1.49	.63	−.04	−.07	.21	.02	.13	.18	.06
5. Arguing with my partner about the issue.	2.84	1.80	.60	.24	.05	.01	−.03	.12	.19	.15
6. Reprimanding my partner for the issue.	2.46	1.63	.55	.19	.08	.11	.02	.07	.14	.38
7. Attempting to get even with my partner.	1.99	1.46	.51	−.09	.25	.01	.25	.05	−.06	.13
Clarifying
8. Discussing the issue with my partner.	4.71	1.92	.06	.81	−.15	.12	−.05	.05	−.04	.06
9. Directly confronting my partner about the issue.	4.35	1.97	.07	.78	.02	.13	.01	−.02	−.04	.02
10. Expressing my feelings and desires to my partner.	4.76	1.86	−.03	.74	.10	.02	−.05	.07	−.03	−.05
11. Working with my partner to make a plan to fix the problem.	4.31	1.86	−.09	.68	.01	.08	−.12	−.04	.07	−.03
12. Negotiating with my partner to make changes in our relationship.	3.63	1.98	.28	.57	.19	.13	.01	.05	.03	−.03
Reframing
13. Deciding I am wrong to hold the standard in the first place (self-disparaging).	2.89	1.73	.13	.00	.71	−.07	.15	.03	.22	.03
14. Accepting that my partner will always be different from me.	3.44	1.82	.16	.00	.70	−.05	−.02	.02	.05	−.01
15. Increasing my efforts to please and attract my partner (modeling).	3.90	1.74	.03	.12	.67	.08	−.04	.11	.19	.02
16. Keeping myself busy with various activities (distracting).	3.94	1.98	.03	−.03	.51	.26	.04	.05	.07	.10
17. Deciding that it is something I am “used to”(self-disparaging)	2.85	1.83	.10	.03	.46	−.04	.12	.14	.21	.20
18. Setting an example of the behavior I expect from my partner (modeling).	3.76	1.83	.06	.26	.30	.18	−.02	−.08	.11	.18
19. Believing my partner is putting forth effort in the relationship.	3.99	1.78	−.09	.23	.26	−.07	−.19	.01	.00	−.15
Seeking social support
20. Seeking opinions and information from friends, family, a counselor/therapist, or other sources.	4.01	2.23	.05	.21	.01	.87	.11	.07	.05	−.02
21. Seeking aid from friends or family.	3.91	2.15	.01	.26	.12	.75	.06	.03	.11	.05
Exiting
22. Breaking up the relationship.	1.78	1.39	.29	−.13	.09	.05	.91	.03	.15	−.03
23. Terminating the relationship.	1.52	1.22	.25	−.09	.05	.16	.65	−.15	.15	.11
Using humor
24. Using sarcasm to show my disapproval of my partner’s behavior.	3.58	2.00	.25	.06	.04	−.02	−.09	.83	.00	.10
25. Using humorous remarks to show my discontent with my partner.	3.67	1.88	.11	.01	.19	.12	.00	.76	.10	.11
Self-disparaging
26. Telling myself that I brought the problem upon myself—my partner is not to blame.	2.66	1.76	.21	.00	.34	.05	.09	.11	.60	.09
27. Convincing myself that I’m asking for too much in the relationship, anyway.	2.95	1.80	.10	−.03	.44	.07	.13	.08	.60	.05
28. Blaming myself for the situation.	2.67	1.91	.17	.01	.30	.14	.16	−.04	.57	.16
Distancing
29. Giving my partner a “cold shoulder.”	2.91	1.86	.45	.00	.15	.05	.09	.07	−.03	.79
30. Remaining quiet or distant until my partner discovers the issue on his/her own.	3.37	1.87	.14	−.06	.08	−.01	.02	.16	.22	.50
Eigenvalues (percentage of variance)			6.47 (21.57%)	3.69 (12.30%)	2.71 (9.02%)	1.98 (6.60%)	1.61 (5.38%)	1.23 (4.11%)	1.14 (3.78%)	1.02 (3.41%)

Note. Strategies in parentheses denote the factor onto which the item originally loaded prior to this study. To account for low and multiple loadings, individuals’ scores for each coping strategy were computed as factor scores (rather than means of the items) using regression techniques. Items 18 and 19 for the reframing strategy were retained, despite low factor loadings, in order to preserve a coherent factor structure for all eight factors.

Table 2.

Correlations among the variables.

Variable	Score variance (R ²)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Stress	–	–
2. Punishing	.81	.39***	–
3. Clarifying	.87	−.03	.02	–
4. Reframing	.79	.32***	.02	.01	–
5. Seeking social support	.85	.02	−.01	.06	−.01	–
6. Exiting	.94	.17*	.07	−.03	.00	.02	–
7. Using humor	.82	.17*	.06	.00	.02	.01	−.02	–
8. Self-disparaging	.66	.29***	.04	−.01	.16*	.04	.05	.01	–
9. Distancing	.82	.23**	.12	−.01	.03	.01	−.05	.00	−.02	–
10. Relationship satisfaction	–	−.29***	−.24**	.30***	−.22**	−.24**	−.23**	.10	−.16*	−.10	–

Note. When regression-based methods are used to compute factor scores, the variance of each factor is also the squared multiple correlation, or R ², between the factor and the observed variables. The score variance (R ²) can be considered a measure of the factor’s internal consistency rather than Cronbach’s α.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Relationship satisfaction

We used an adapted version of Huston, McHale, and Crouter’s (1986) Marital Opinion Questionnaire to assess relationship satisfaction. Because the measure was originally designed to assess spouses’ marital satisfaction, we replaced the phrase “marital life” with “relational life.” The measure includes ten 7-point semantic differential items (e.g., “worthwhile–useless” and “lonely–friendly”) and one global satisfaction item (“completely satisfied–completely dissatisfied”). In order to compute individuals’ relationship satisfaction scores, we followed previously employed procedures (e.g., Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001) and added the score of the global item to the average of 8 of the first 10 items (2 items are dropped) and then divided this sum by 2 (α = .94, M = 5.37, SD = 1.18).

Results

Coping strategy descriptives

To explore which coping strategies participants reported using most often, we examined the means for each of the coping strategy items (we did not calculate means for the factors; as previously mentioned, the factor means were zero). As evidenced in Table 1, participants reported using strategies associated with the clarifying factor most often, particularly the items “expressing my feelings and desires to my partner” and “discussing the issue with my partner.” The next most frequently reported strategies fell within the seeking social support factor, followed by items associated with the using humor factor. Participants noted using strategies within the self-disparaging and punishing factors relatively less often than the aforementioned strategies. Means for the items within these two coping factors were similar overall (e.g., “convincing myself that I’m asking for too much in the relationship, anyway” and “arguing with my partner about the issue”). Strategies for exiting the relationship were used the least frequently, with “terminating the relationship” having the lowest mean of all of the items.

Main analyses

Before addressing the hypotheses and research question, we conducted independent samples t-tests between males and females for the variables under investigation in order to determine whether sex should be entered as a control variable in subsequent analyses. The findings showed that males and females did not significantly differ in their reports of stress, coping strategies, or relationship satisfaction. Thus, sex was not entered as a control variable.

To address H1, we examined bivariate correlations among the variables in this study (i.e., stress, coping strategies, and relationship satisfaction), which revealed that stress as a result of unmet openness standards was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction (see Table 2). Thus, H1 was confirmed. Moreover, stress was significantly associated with the use of punishing, reframing, exiting, humor, self-disparaging, and distancing coping strategies. Punishing, exiting, reframing, seeking social support, and self-disparaging coping strategies were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, whereas clarifying was positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Correlations among the variables are provided in Table 2.

We used structural equation modeling to assess H2 and RQ1. To address H2, we created separate models for each of the eight coping strategies. We constructed a covariance matrix for each strategy and used it as input to AMOS 19.0 in order to estimate parameters using maximum likelihood procedures. Because the simple mediation models were saturated (i.e., no degrees of freedom (df) or “perfect fit”), we used fit indices only to assess the multiple mediation model. We chose guidelines for fit indices a priori. Specifically, the model’s χ ² should not be significant, the model’s comparative fit index (CFI) should exceed .95, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should not exceed .08. In order to estimate indirect effects, as well as their significance in both the simple and multiple mediation models, we used 95% bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) with 5,000 samples (see Hayes, 2009). Because there were few men in the sample, we conducted pairwise comparisons between the parameters for the total sample and for the women in the sample (leaving the men out). None of the parameters were significantly different between the two groups for any of the simple or multiple mediation models. Given that there were no differences between the entire sample and the female-only sample, we retained the men in our study.

According to the results from the simple structural models, four of the eight coping strategies partially mediated the relationship between stress and relationship satisfaction, as indicated by estimates of each model’s indirect effects: punishing, β = −.06, p < .05, 95% CIs [−.14, −.00]; reframing, β = −.05, p < .05, 95% CIs [−.11, −.01]; exiting, β = −.03, p < .05, 95% CIs [−.09, −.01]; and using humor, β = .03, p < .05, 95% CIs [.00, .08]. For each of the models, the path between stress and relationship satisfaction without the mediators was −.28, p < .001. More specifically, stress was positively related to punishing, reframing, and exiting; in turn, each of these coping strategies was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction (Figures 1 to 3). Stress was also positively related to the using humor coping strategy; in turn, using humor was positively associated with relationship satisfaction (Figure 4). The other four coping strategies (distancing, seeking social support, clarifying, and self-disparaging) did not significantly mediate the association between stress and relationship satisfaction. Thus, H2 was partially confirmed.

Figure 1.

Model for punishing as coping strategy with standardized direct effects. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 2.

Model for reframing as coping strategy with standardized direct effects. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 3.

Model for exiting as coping strategy with standardized direct effects. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 4.

Model for humor as coping strategy with standardized direct effects. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

To address RQ1, we created a multiple mediation model including all eight coping strategies to explore how the mediators operated together within one model. The initial model with all eight coping strategies showed good fit of the data, χ² = 12.91, df = 28, p = .99, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .03. However, there were several insignificant paths, which we trimmed using empirically based procedures outlined by Kline (2011) beginning with the least significant path. The final model (Figure 5) also showed good fit of the data, χ² = 4.63, df = 6, p = .59, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .03, and a χ² difference test between the initial model and the final model suggests that deleting the insignificant paths did not worsen the fit of the model, χ² = 8.28, df = 22, p = .99.

Figure 5.

Final multiple mediation model for coping strategies with standardized direct effects. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

The final model confirmed the significance of punishing, reframing, exiting, and using humor as partial mediators. Although standardized path coefficients of the final multiple mediation model were similar to those of the simple mediation models, of note is the significant reduction in magnitude of the relationship between stress and relationship satisfaction through the inclusion of the four coping strategies. For the multiple mediation model, the standardized total effect of stress on relationship satisfaction was −.28, p < .01, 95% CIs [−.42, −.15], and the total indirect effect of stress on relationship satisfaction was −.13, p < .01, CIs [−.22, −.05]. The model accounted for 19% of the variance in relationship satisfaction.

Discussion

Research has consistently demonstrated that individuals are more dissatisfied with their romantic relationships when partners do not meet their relational standards (Baucom et al., 1996b), including their standard for openness (Afifi et al., 2012). Based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory of stress and coping, this study was designed to examine the consequences of stress and coping with unmet openness standards for individuals’ evaluations of their relationships. Results showed that four of the eight coping strategies included in this study mediated the association between the stress linked to unfulfilled openness standards and relationship satisfaction. The findings indicated that certain coping strategies help to explain the association between stress and coping and also suggested that there are more and less productive ways to cope with unfulfilled openness standards in relationships.

Specifically, the coping strategies punishing, exiting, and reframing partially mediated the link between stress and relationship satisfaction. Stress was positively linked to these three strategies, and in turn, these strategies were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction. It may be the case that individuals who coped by reprimanding or punishing their partner were met with defensiveness and verbal aggression (Bodenmann, Meuwly, Bradbury, Gmelch, & Ledermann, 2010). Negativity may escalate during these interactions (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998) and “sustain the confrontation,” thereby exacerbating stress and depleting individuals’ coping resources (Lyons et al., 1998, p. 594). As a result, people may leave these episodes feeling less satisfied with their relationships. Or the reverse association may also be true: individuals who are less satisfied with their relationships may be more likely to engage in aggressive and punitive behaviors that accompany, induce, and exacerbate individuals’ stress.

In a similar vein, the process of terminating a romantic relationship (exiting) may have caused greater stress for individuals in this study and made them feel more negatively about their relationship. Indeed, people feel most distressed immediately following a breakup, though their distress lingers well beyond the initial breakup period (Sprecher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, & Vanni, 1998). Given the cross-sectional nature of these data, it also is possible that individuals in the study did not actually terminate the relationship as a way of coping but instead threatened to break up the relationship or had thoughts about doing so. In this way, those who wanted to end their relationship, but had not yet done so, may have felt more negatively about the relationship as a result (e.g., Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998). Conversely, individuals who were unhappy with their relationship may have been more likely to think about ending it. This pattern is consistent with decades of research on individual and relationship factors leading up to romantic relationship dissolution, including dissatisfaction with the relationship (see Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010).

As perceptions of stress are contingent upon individuals’ cognitive appraisals of situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), reframing their partner’s behavior in more negative terms may have encouraged individuals to feel more stress and less relationship satisfaction. When interpreting these results, we are careful to take into account that the reframing factor exhibited low loadings and multiple loadings (i.e., some items from other strategies loaded onto the reframing factor). This has several implications, not the least of which are threats to the reliability of the measure and questions about the validity of the measure’s items. Although more work needs to be done to identify and refine the theoretically relevant dimensions of reframing, the items that make up this factor offer some potentially important directions for future work. For example, whereas research on stress and coping across various fields (e.g., counseling; Matheny, Aycock, Pugh, Curlette, & Silva Cannella, 1986) and in numerous contexts (e.g., health, occupations, and relationships) illustrates the benefits of cognitive reappraisals for individuals’ psychological well-being (Troy, Wilhelm, Shallcross, & Mauss, 2010), this study’s results suggest that individuals sometimes reframe their partner’s lack of openness in divisive and immutable ways. Individuals’ reframing included thoughts and actions that were self-focused and implied that they did not expect their partner to change, let alone work with them on the issue (e.g., “accepting that my partner will always be different from me” and “keeping myself busy with various activities”). At the same time, some reframing efforts (e.g., “setting an example of the behavior I expect from my partner”) suggest that people are motivated, to some extent, to manage their partner’s lack of openness in order to maintain global satisfaction with their relationship (McNulty & Karney, 2001). The difference between helpful and harmful reframing may ultimately lie in the ways that individuals view their partner as someone who can and will change versus someone who cannot change or be changed. Again, further work is needed to validate a measure that reliably captures what it means to reframe because some aspects of reframing may actually be linked to more positive relational outcomes as opposed to the decreased relational satisfaction found in the current study.

Finally, our results showed that using humor was positively linked to relationship satisfaction, yet the overall effect of stress on satisfaction remained negative. Joking or using sarcasm to address a partner’s lack of openness could have served a cathartic function for individuals in this study by helping them release the negative feelings they had when their partner was not as open as expected. Or humor may have been a way to change negative thoughts and feelings into more positive ones (Abel, 2002). In turn, people may have felt less negatively about their partner and relationship. Indeed, frequent use of positive humor in dating relationships is associated with decreased relationship stress and increased relationship satisfaction (Vela, Booth-Butterfield, Wanzer, & Vallade, 2013). Another explanation may be that using humor was a more effective way for individuals to manage stress interactively with their partner. Research supports this reasoning, as individuals whose partners use more affiliative and less aggressive humor during conflict report better problem resolution (Campbell, Martin, & Ward, 2008). Of course, the reverse association may be true: individuals who are more satisfied with their romantic relationships may use more humor. Future research should carefully consider the effect of different types of humor (e.g., negative and positive), as studies suggest that relationship satisfaction is linked to positive humor only (Butzer & Kuiper, 2008).

In examining the use of humor as a coping strategy, it is important to note that the path between stress and relationship satisfaction was slightly higher in the simple mediation model than in the unmediated model. This may be explained by an inconsistent mediation (i.e., the model’s direct effect has a different sign than its mediated effect; see MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000) in which humor acted as a suppressor variable. That is, the introduction of the positive-mediated effect of humor may have suppressed or slightly magnified the negative association between stress and relationship satisfaction. This may be because the association between stress and relationship satisfaction is actually higher than it was observed or it may be the case that humor is related to both stress and relationship satisfaction outside the model proposed in this study. Both situations suggest a need for more research to better understand how humor is used in romantic relationships both as a response to perceived violations of openness and as an influence on relational quality.

Although the impact of these four coping strategies on relational satisfaction varied in direction and strength, it is interesting to note that three of the four strategies could be considered indirect or passive. That is, when individuals cope by using humor, exiting, or reframing, they do not need to directly confront their partner about their unfulfilled openness standard. Even exiting and using humor, which involve interacting with a partner, do not necessarily involve discussing the partner’s openness; people may terminate relationships without cause and humor can mask individuals’ honest feelings. Considering that individuals in this study were in newly dating relationships, it is likely they did not feel comfortable bringing up an issue like openness with their partner. Conversations about openness may be viewed as “relationship talk” (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985) that can threaten the relationship and signal that the relationship is not progressing in a positive way.

Theoretical contributions and implications

The findings of this study contribute to existing literature in two important ways. The first involves the utility of including stress as a variable in studies of coping. One of the primary goals of this study was to integrate stress into a model of coping with unfulfilled openness standards in order to provide a theoretical explanation for why individuals cope and, more specifically, why they choose certain strategies when doing so. Results indicated that the stress associated with unfulfilled openness standards predicted most of the coping strategies examined. As argued by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), if and how individuals cope depends on the degree to which they perceive the current situation as interfering with their goals or violating their expectations (Lazarus, 1999). It was clear in this study, evidenced by the significant correlations and path coefficients, that some individuals did a great deal of coping in response to the stress they associated with unfulfilled openness standards. Conversely, individuals who reported less stress were less likely to engage in coping. Additionally, stress had a significant, negative effect on relational satisfaction, even after accounting for coping in the models. Because stress was a strong predictor of both coping and relationship satisfaction, our findings highlight the importance of including stress as a variable in research on coping with violations of openness.

The second contribution this study makes to existing literature concerns the strategies individuals use to cope with unfulfilled openness standards. One of the goals of this study was to identify and assess the relative influence of coping strategies on relationship satisfaction. Despite a growing body of literature that consistently finds that individuals expect openness in their romantic relationships (e.g., Alexander, 2004; Baucom et al., 1996b; Caughlin, 2003; Vangelisti & Daly, 1997), and that topic avoidance is negatively associated with relationship satisfaction (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004; Caughlin & Golish, 2002; Dailey & Palomares, 2004), little empirical evidence explicates how individuals deal with the stress and negative emotions they feel toward their partner and relationship when their standards, including their standard for openness, go unmet. Results from this study show that individuals respond to violations of openness using a variety of coping strategies and that individuals use multiple coping strategies simultaneously. Moreover, the importance of identifying and assessing the influence of particular coping strategies (alone and in combination) is supported by our finding that, consistent with other literature on stress and coping, there seem to be more and less productive ways of coping with violations of openness in relationships.

Limitations and future directions

The contributions of this study should be interpreted within its limitations. For instance, the data were collected from individuals rather than dyads. Future research should include the partner’s data in order to assess the influence of perceptions of, and responses to, individuals’ stress and coping. This not only would allow for comparisons between what individuals say they do to cope and partners’ reports of individuals’ coping strategies, but also would provide explanations for the relationships between stress, coping, and relational outcomes in this study. To illustrate, Rusbult, Johnson, and Morrow (1986) found that distress in couples was predicted by perceptions of a partner’s tendency to use exit and neglect as problem-solving strategies. It may be that partners responded negatively to individuals’ use of certain coping strategies in the current study, thus exacerbating individuals’ negative evaluations of the relationship. In other words, partners’ responses to individuals’ coping may mediate the relationship between coping and relational outcomes. Another reason to study dyads involves the importance of assessing similarity in couples’ coping for their relationships. The effectiveness of couples’ coping strategies may be less influenced by the type or valence of strategies used and more influenced by the similarity of partners’ coping strategies, particularly their perceptions of such coping. In a study of dating and married couples, Ptacek and Dodge (1995) found that regardless of whether the coping strategy was constructive, when partners believed they coped in similar ways, they both reported more satisfaction with their relationship.

Additionally, future research should examine a sample with more diverse characteristics to include other types of relationships. Individuals in newly dating relationships are likely to use different strategies than individuals in more long-term romantic relationships. People in newly dating relationships may be more hesitant to be direct with their partner about issues that bother them. By contrast, married individuals may be less likely to refrain from confronting partners about problems or grievances. Similar to the findings of this study, previous research has found that younger couples are more likely to employ less useful coping strategies (e.g., venting emotions, behavioral disengagement, mental disengagement, and alcohol–drug disengagement; Ptacek & Dodge, 1995) in their relationships than older couples. Also, individuals in newly dating relationships may experience less stress or mask their stress because they have inflated levels of satisfaction. This account is supported by the presence of both ceiling and floor effects in the data gathered for the current study; mean relationship satisfaction was relatively high and stress was relatively low. Still, that we found significant associations between the variables of interest in this study suggests that stress as a result of unmet openness standards does affect relationship satisfaction and that coping at least partly explains this relationship.

The findings of this study also raise interesting questions about other variables that may explain the nonsignificant relationships between stress and coping. For example, researchers could explore other variables that predict coping strategies. In this study, clarifying was the most commonly reported coping strategy and was strongly associated with relationship satisfaction but was not linked to stress. What prompts individuals to cope, if not stress? It may be the case that even when faced with stress, individuals draw upon other relationship resources, such as commitment, to cope in ways that maintain relational quality (Alexander, 2008). Alternatively, decisions to cope may be influenced by individual preferences and personality, such as the “big five” personality traits. A recent meta-analysis revealed that primary (i.e., changing the situation or one’s emotions) and secondary (i.e., adapting to the stressor) control coping strategies are positively associated with all of the big five traits except neuroticism (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Those who score highly on neuroticism are more likely to disengage by denying or avoiding the issue. Similarly, those higher in neuroticism are less resilient, even when problem- and emotion-focused coping are taken into account (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006). Future investigations could extend the current study’s findings by exploring both the individual and relationship resources individuals draw upon when faced with violations of openness in their relationships (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Finally, this study is grounded in a cultural assumption that people desire openness in their relationships and that openness has positive effects for individuals and their relationships. A growing body of literature disputes this ideology of openness (see Bochner, 1982; Parks, 1982). For example, research on topic avoidance challenges the blanket assumption that openness is unconditionally desired and beneficial to relationships. Numerous studies have reported topic avoidance that may not only be preferable but also functional, depending on the perceived motivations for avoiding (e.g., Caughlin & Afifi, 2004; Caughlin & Golish, 2002). Moreover, some couples may operate with an understanding that their relationship exhibits openness, while at the same time having rules for when and where certain topics are “off-limits” (Roloff & Ifert, 1998). Recently, Roggensack and Sillars (2014) suggested a paradox of honesty and deception in relationships such that individuals endorse honesty as necessary to their relationships (e.g., in this study, “My partner should be willing and comfortable disclosing their needs, wants, feelings, emotions, and things that are bothering them”), though they also desire discretion and flexibility in what it means to be honest (e.g., “Avoiding deeply hurtful topics is okay”). The increasingly complex nature of scholarship on openness calls for a more nuanced understanding of how openness standards operate in relationships, with a particular focus on what it means to be for partners to be open.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the associate editor, Susan Boon, and the reviewers for their thoughtful feedback of this manuscript.

Authors’ note

Earlier versions of this manuscript were presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia, in July 2014, and the 100th Annual National Communication Association Convention, Chicago, Illinois, USA, in November 2014.

Funding

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

References

Abel

M. H.

(2002). Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor, 15, 365–381. doi:10.1515/humr.15.4.365

Afifi

T. D.

Joseph

(2009). The standards for openness hypothesis: A gendered explanation for why avoidance is so dissatisfying. In Afifi

T. D.

Afifi

W. A.

(Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 254–276). New York, NY: Routledge.

Afifi

T. D.

Joseph

Aldeis

(2012). The “standard for openness hypothesis”: Why women find (conflict) avoidance more dissatisfying than men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 102–125. doi:10.1177/0265407511420193

Alexander

A. L.

(2004). Coping with unfulfilled standards in dating relationships: Drawing upon personal and relationship resources. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3143354).

Alexander

A. L.

(2008). Relationship resources for coping with unfulfilled standards in dating relationships: Commitment, satisfaction, and closeness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 725–747. doi:10.1177/0265407508093783

Altman

Taylor

D. A.

(1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Baucom

D. H.

Epstein

Daiuto

A. D.

Carels

R. A.

Rankin

L. A.

Burnett

C. K.

(1996a). Cognitions in marriage: The relationship between standards and attributions. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 209–222. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.2.209

Baucom

D. H.

Epstein

Rankin

L. A.

Burnett

C. K.

(1996b). Assessing relationship standards: The inventory of specific relationship standards. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 72–88. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.1.72

Baucom

D. H.

Epstein

Sayers

Sher

T. G.

(1989). The role of cognitions in marital relationships: Definitional, methodological, and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 31–38. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.31

10.

Baxter

L. A.

(1986). Gender differences in the hetero-sexual relationship rules embedded in break-up accounts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 289–306. doi:10.1177/0265407586033003

11.

Baxter

L. A.

Wilmot

W. W.

(1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253–269. doi:10.1177/0265407585023002

12.

Berger

C. R.

Calabrese

R. J.

(1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

13.

Bochner

A. P.

(1982). On the efficacy of openness in close relationships. In Burgoon

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 109–124). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

14.

Bodenmann

Meuwly

Bradbury

T. N.

Gmelch

Ledermann

(2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 408–424. doi:10.1177/0265407510361616

15.

Bodenmann

Pihet

Kayser

(2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485–493. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485

16.

Boldero

J. M.

Robins

G. L.

Williams

B. J.

Francis

J. J.

Hampton

Fourie

A. J.

(2009). Relational discrepancies and emotion: The moderating role of relational mode and relational discrepancy valence. Asian Journal of Psychology, 12, 259–273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01290.x

17.

Butzer

B. A.

Kuiper

N. A.

(2008). Humor use in romantic relationships: The effects of relationship satisfaction and pleasant versus conflict situations. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 245–260. doi:10.3200/JRLP.142.3.245-260

18.

Campbell

Martin

R. A.

Ward

J. R.

(2008). An observational study of humor use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 41–55. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00183.x

19.

Campbell

Simpson

J. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

(2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447–462. doi:10.1177/0146167201274006

20.

Campbell-Sills

Cohan

S. L.

Stein

M. B.

(2006). Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 585–599. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001

21.

Canary

D. J.

Stafford

(1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 244–267. doi:10.1080/03637759209376268

22.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family communication and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction? Human Communication Research, 29, 5–40. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00830.x

23.

Caughlin

J. P.

Afifi

T. D.

(2004). When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 479–513. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00742.x

24.

Caughlin

J. P.

Golish

T. D.

(2002). An analysis of the association between topic avoidance and dissatisfaction: Comparing perception and interpersonal explanations. Communication Monographs, 69, 275–295. doi:10.1080/03637750216546

25.

Cloven

D. H.

Roloff

M. E.

(1993). The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships. Communication Monographs, 60, 199–219. doi:10.1080/03637759309376309

26.

Connor-Smith

J. K.

Flachsbart

(2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080

27.

Dailey

R. M.

Palomares

N. A.

(2004). Strategic topic avoidance: An investigation of topic avoidance frequency, strategies used, and relational correlates. Communication Monographs, 71, 471–496. doi:10.1080/0363452042000307443

28.

Derlega

V. J.

Harris

M. S.

Chaikin

A. L.

(1973). Self-disclosure reciprocity, liking and the deviant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 277–284. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(73)90065-6

29.

Downey

Freitas

A. L.

Michaelis

Khouri

(1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.545

30.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

(2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00070

31.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

Giles

(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72

32.

Gottman

J. M.

Coan

Carrere

Swanson

(1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22.

33.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360

34.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Stuart

G. L.

(1994). The relationship standards and assumptions of violent versus nonviolent husbands. Cognitive Theory and Research, 18, 87–103. doi:10.1007/BF02357218

35.

Huston

T. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

Houts

R. M.

Smith

S. E.

George

L. J.

(2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of martial delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 237–252. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237

36.

Huston

T. L.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(1986). When the honeymoon’s over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In Gilmour

Duck

S. W.

(Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

37.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

38.

Knobloch

L. K.

Carpenter-Theune

K. E.

(2004). Topic avoidance in developing romantic relationships: Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research, 31, 173–205. doi:10.1177/0093650203261516

39.

Larson

J. H.

(1992). “You’re my one and only”: Premarital counseling for unrealistic beliefs about mate selection. American Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 242–253. doi:10.1080/01926189208250893

40.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer.

41.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

42.

Dove

N. L.

Agnew

C. R.

Korn

M. S.

Mutso

A. A.

(2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390. doi:10.1177/0265407598155001

43.

Lyons

R. F.

Mickelson

K. D.

Sullivan

M. J. L.

Coyne

J. C.

(1998). Coping as communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579–605. doi:10.1177/0265407598155001

44.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Krull

J. L.

Lockwood

C. M.

(2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181. doi:10.1023/A:1026595011371

45.

Matheny

K. B.

Aycock

D. W.

Pugh

J. L.

Curlette

W. L.

Silva Cannella

K. A.

(1986). Stress coping: A qualitative and quantitative synthesis with implications for treatment. The Counseling Psychologist, 14, 499–549. doi:10.1177/0011000086144001

46.

McNulty

J. K.

Karney

B. R.

(2001). Attributions in marriage: Integrating specific and global evaluations of a relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 943–955. doi:10.1177/0146167201278003

47.

Parks

M. R.

(1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the world. In Burgoon

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 6, pp. 79–107). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

48.

Priest

Burnett

Thompson

Vogel

Schvaneveldt

P. L.

(2009). Relationship dissolution and romance and selection myths. Family Science Review, 14, 51–57.

49.

Ptacek

J. T.

Dodge

K. L.

(1995). Coping strategies and relationship satisfaction in couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 76–84. doi:10.1177/0146167295211008

50.

Roggensack

K. E.

Sillars

(2014). Agreement and understanding about honesty and deception rules in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 178–199. doi:10.1177/0265407513489914

51.

Roloff

Ifert

(1998). Antecedents and consequences of explicit agreements to declare a topic taboo in dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 191–205. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00167.x

52.

Rusbult

C. E.

Johnson

D. J.

Morrow

G. D.

(1986). Impact of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 744–753. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.744

53.

Sprecher

(1987). The effects of self-disclosure given and received on affection for an intimate partner and stability of the relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 115–127. doi:10.1177/0265407587042001

54.

Sprecher

Felmlee

Metts

Fehr

Vanni

(1998). Factors associated with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 791–809. doi:10.1177/0265407598156005

55.

Sprecher

Regan

P. C.

(2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 436–481. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004048

56.

Stiles

W. B.

(1987). “I have to talk to somebody”: A fever model of disclosure. In Derlega

V J.

Berg

J. H.

(Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy (pp. 257–282). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

57.

Troy

A. S.

Wilhelm

F. H.

Shallcross

A. J.

Mauss

I. B.

(2010). Seeing the silver lining: Cognitive reappraisal ability moderates the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms. Emotion, 10, 783–795. doi:10.1037/a0020262

58.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Alexander

A. L.

(2002). Coping with disappointment in marriage: When partners’ standards are unmet. In Noller

Feeney

J. A.

(Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 201–227). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

59.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Daly

J. A.

(1997). Gender differences in standards for romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 203–219. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00140.x

60.

Vela

L. E.

Booth-Butterfield

Wanzer

M. B.

Vallade

J. I.

(2013). Relationships among humor, coping, relationship stress, and satisfaction in dating relationships: Replication and extension. Communication Research Reports, 30, 68–75. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.746224

61.

Wunderer

Schneewind

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between marital standards, dyadic coping, and marital satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 462–476. doi:10.1002/ejsp.405.