Do couple- and individual-level ambivalence predict later marital outcomes? The mediating role of marital conflict

Abstract

Ambivalence is common in close relationships, but the implications of marital ambivalence for later relationship outcomes have been less well known. Using five waves of data from 370 long-term married couples over 8 years, we investigated the influence of couple-level and individual-level ambivalence on marital satisfaction, marital instability, and divorce 7 years later. We also examined the couple-level process—whether marital conflict mediated the association between couple-level ambivalence and couples’ relationship outcomes. We found that couple-level ambivalence (i.e., couples’ shared perceptions of ambivalence toward one another) was associated with higher marital conflict, which in turn predicted divorce. Among continuously married couples, individuals who were initially more ambivalent toward their spouses tended to be less satisfied with their marriages and were more likely to consider divorce than those who initially had lower degrees of ambivalence. Altogether, the findings provide insights into the role of ambivalence in marriage at different levels and highlight the need for specific strategies to help couples resolve their ambivalence and strengthen their marriages.

Keywords

Ambivalence couples marriage marital conflict divorce marital satisfaction marital instability

Close relationships can be sources of ambivalence—defined as the simultaneous existence of positive and negative evaluations of others or attitude objects (Conner & Sparks, 2002; de Liver et al., 2007). Over the past decades, researchers have found that individuals tend to view their close social ties with greater ambivalence than their more distal ties (Fingerman et al., 2004). Notably, across the different relationships in people’s social networks, ambivalent sentiment tends to be the most frequent or intense in marital relationships, followed by relationships with one’s children, relatives, and friends (Lee & Szinovacz, 2016), emphasizing the need to study ambivalence in marriage. Within marriage in particular, the mix of positive and negative affect that characterizes the relationship and sets it apart from other marriages is known as the emotional climate of marriage (Caughlin et al., 2018)—a concept involving spouses’ affective experiences in the couples’ day-to-day life together and reflects the dynamics within a marriage that can shape relationship processes.

Ambivalence influences information processing and generates processes that are qualitatively different from univalent attitudes (Conner & Sparks, 2002; de Liver et al., 2007; Faure et al., 2021). Unlike univalent attitudes, which consist of only one aspect—that is, either positive (e.g., good feelings about the relationship) or negative (e.g., negative feelings), ambivalent attitudes are characterized by strong positive and strong negative associations (de Liver et al., 2007). These inconsistent thoughts and emotions are cognitively unpleasant to the individual (e.g., feeling torn), which often motivate the individual to seek ways to resolve the underlying internal conflict (Nordgren et al., 2006; Thompson & Holmes, 1996; van Harreveld et al., 2015). Thus, ambivalence can bring about a motivational state that serves as a catalyst for change that moves the relationship in one direction or another (Kachadourian et al., 2005; Thompson & Holmes, 1996). Indeed, a study of newlyweds who were recruited within the first 4 months of their wedding found that implicit ambivalence was associated with greater motivation among couples to change their behaviors, preferences, or goals to solve marital problems. Such motivation in turn predicted reduced severity of marital problems and increased spouses’ marital satisfaction 4 months later (Faure et al., 2021). Other studies among young couples who were married between 1 to 7 years have documented less favorable patterns: ambivalent behaviors in marriage were associated with perceived lower partner responsiveness and less partner disclosure (Birmingham et al., 2019), and may lead to lower relationship quality (Surjadi et al., 2013). These findings appear to align with literature that shows the deleterious influences of ambivalence on health and psychological well-being (Fingerman et al., 2008; Hsieh & Hawkley, 2018; Uchino et al., 2012).

Still, in longer-term dyadic relationships such as the enduring marriages of middle and older-aged couples, couple-level qualities may emerge from the relational context and subsequently drive couple-level processes (Wickrama, O’Neal, et al., 2020). That is, although spouses in a couple system are interdependent, their responses to the partner’s ambivalent attitudes and behavior often result in the development of predictable ambivalent behavioral and communication patterns within the couple. In enduring marriages in particular, these patterns are often well-established due to the extensive close interactions and history of shared experiences over a long period. Thus, we posit that these behavioral patterns may in turn foster couple-level shared relational properties such as couple ambivalence. We argue that empirically, the significantly correlated individual reports of ambivalence among husbands and wives (shared variance) in long-term marriages may largely reflect couples’ shared context of ambivalence (couple ambivalence, a dyadic construct) much more than individual ambivalence (Wickrama et al., 2020). The residual variances of individual ambivalence may reflect unique individual components (individual-level ambivalence). Statistically, this is consistent with the reflective common fate notion (Ledderman & Kenny, 2012).

Hence, in addition to the within-individual processes of ambivalence in spouses, shared (i.e., couple-level) ambivalence may operate to shape relationship outcomes in enduring marriages. However, research on marital ambivalence to date has focused on the individual level and has not yet addressed shared ambivalence as a couple-level phenomenon. Specifically, whether long-term married spouses’ individual ambivalence toward each other, as well as couple’s shared ambivalence, may uniquely influence later relationship outcomes has been less known. Focusing on the experience of long-term married couples, the present study aims to expand on this body of work by examining the longitudinal ramifications of couple-level and individual-level ambivalence for marital outcomes.

This study contributes to the growing literature on marital ambivalence by asking whether couple-level and individual-level ambivalence simultaneously predict later marital outcomes, as measured by divorce, marital satisfaction, and instability. As the marital relationship grows increasingly important with age (Carstensen et al., 2003; Wickrama, Lee, & O’Neal, 2020), a better understanding of the implications of couple-level and individual-level ambivalence for marriage can be useful for practitioners and family professionals to better assist couples. Building on previous literature, we use five waves of prospective data collected across 8 years from long-term married couples and their children to examine the hypothesized pathways in Figure 1. We describe the hypothesized relationships in the following sections.

Figure 1.

Theoretical Model: (a) actor effects; (p) partner effects; (c) couple-level effects. Note. *Entered as observed variable.

Couple-Level Ambivalence and Later Marital Outcomes: The Role of Couples’ Marital Conflict

Existing studies have underscored the value of studying couples as a unit in steady dyadic relationships (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012; Ridley et al., 2001; Wickrama, Lee, & O’Neal, 2020). Consistent with the family systems theory, couples—each as a subsystem within the family—have unique characteristics that influence and are influenced by individual members over time (Cox & Paley, 1997). Marital partners as a couple exert considerable influence on individuals over the life course due to their interdependence and reciprocal influence on one another (Cox & Paley, 1997; Macmillan & Copher, 2005). Especially compared to newly married couples, long-term married couples have shared a relationship history and established patterns of relating to each other that may lead to the development of not only couple-level characteristics but also couple-level processes over time through the proliferation of various couple-level outcomes (Mitchell, 2016; Wickrama, Lee, & O’Neal, 2020).

Observation from clinical settings appears to support the existence of ambivalence as a dyadic construct. Ambivalence at the couple level is often reflected in the “push-pull” dynamic of the dyad as the pattern that emerges when spouses have growing ambivalence about the relationship—ambivalent couples tend to display uncertainty about the relationship, where one or both partners might be unsure about whether they wish to stay or end the relationship (Hinson et al., 2017). Currently, however, the implications of long-term married couples’ shared ambivalence as a couple-level characteristic on later relationship outcomes are not well understood. On the one hand, familiarity with one’s marital partner in a long-term marriage may motivate spouses to engage in relationship maintenance strategies or conciliatory behaviors, albeit temporarily—for instance, criticism or nagging from one’s spouse can be perceived as nothing more than a minor inconvenience and might be offset by other positive experiences (Liu & Upenieks, 2021). On the other hand, ambivalence is stressful (Herr et al., 2019) and cognitively taxing to the individual; studies have demonstrated that people who hold ambivalent attitudes use more effort and deliberation in processing information about the attitude object than those with univalent attitudes (Hass et al., 1991; Nordgren et al., 2006). Over time, ambivalence may thus have negative consequences for one’s self and relationships. Indeed, ambivalence has been shown to be associated with poorer physiological and mental health outcomes (Birmingham et al., 2015, 2019; Lee & Szinovacz, 2016). Likewise, marital ambivalence has been associated with couple loneliness, even when spouses have good relationships with friends and relatives (Hsieh & Hawkley, 2018).

Researchers (Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2019; Uchino et al., 2012) have pointed to several reasons why ambivalent relationships may be more harmful than those that are characterized by highly negative or aversive ones. First, compared to an aversive relationship, negative behaviors may be more hurtful coming from an ambivalent relationship because the positivity in an ambivalent relationship mirrors the value that individuals place on such a tie. Additionally, whereas individuals may anticipate negativity and become habituated to using specific coping strategies in an aversive relationship, ambivalent ties are less predictable and may lead to greater interpersonal stress (Uchino et al., 2012). Interactions in an ambivalent relationship may also be more ambiguous than in an aversive one, leading to more ruminative thinking as individuals attempt to make sense of the exchanges (Holt-Lunstad & Uchino, 2019; Ingram, 2015; Kachadourian et al., 2005), which can place increased strain on individuals and the relationship (Elphinston et al., 2013).

According to socioemotional selectivity theory, individuals tend to experience motivational shifts with age to focus on emotionally meaningful relationships and disengage from less rewarding ones (Carstensen et al., 2003). Shared ambivalence may motivate couples to resolve conflicting feelings, either by reconciling the emotions or by leaving the relationship (Thompson & Holmes, 1996). Indeed, a previous study has documented that ambivalence is common for those thinking about ending a romantic relationship (Joel et al., 2018). Nonetheless, ambivalence is associated with delayed decision-making, particularly if the decision at hand is personally relevant (Conner & Sparks, 2002; van Harreveld et al., 2015) and, therefore, the couple-level implications of ambivalence on marital outcomes may take time to develop.

Research in recent decades has shown that ambivalence influences couples’ communications and behaviors. In particular, spouses’ ambivalence is often reflected in the couple’s conflict pattern in which the behavior of one partner reinforces the behavior of the other partner and vice versa (Hinson et al., 2017). Ambivalence in marriage has been associated with less positive and more negative couples’ interactions, including greater aggressive behaviors such as shouting, swearing, or yelling toward a romantic partner (Birmingham et al., 2019; Surjadi et al., 2013), which may contribute to couples’ marital discord and dissatisfaction (Thompson & Holmes, 1996). While ambivalence has been used to describe the psychological experience of both individuals and dyads, we propose that ambivalence will be reflected in overt marital conflict over time as behavioral expressions of the couple’s ambivalence and as individuals attempt to manage and negotiate ambivalence in marriage. Marital conflict behaviors, in turn, predict divorce and couples’ assessment of the marriage (Fincham & Beach, 1999; Ridley et al., 2001). Accordingly, in this study, we examine whether couples’ shared perceptions of ambivalence over time indirectly influence later marital outcomes—namely divorce, shared perceptions of marital satisfaction, and instability—through its association with couples’ marital conflict (couple-level effects).

Individual-Level Ambivalence and Later Marital Outcomes

We expect that within-individual processes involving individual-level ambivalence may operate over and above the previously discussed couple-level processes involving couple-level ambivalence. Ambivalence from a social-psychological perspective is inherently personal. Marital ambivalence as an individual phenomenon represents an internal evaluative process in which people view their marital partner simultaneously as a source of positivity and negativity (Birmingham et al., 2019; Uchino et al., 2012). As marriage is a highly interdependent relationship, each partner’s perceptions, behaviors, and emotions in marriage influence not only one’s own marital experience, but also the marital experience of the spouse (Hsieh & Hawkley, 2018). Accordingly, through these processes, we propose that one’s marital ambivalence may influence the marital experience of the spouse as well, leading to both actor and partner effects (Kenny et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2020) in which an individual’s ambivalence not only influences one’s own assessments of the marriage (actor effects), but also may influence the spouse’s evaluations of the marriage (partner effects).

Feelings of ambivalence often manifest in affective responses, cognition, and behaviors, including through unintended body movements (Schneider et al., 2013; van Harreveld et al., 2015). Previous studies have demonstrated that ambivalence induces negative affect, and the experience of ambivalence is aversive (Hass et al., 1992; Nordgren et al., 2006). In terms of interpersonal relationships, among young married couples, both spouse and personal ambivalence was associated with lower intimacy (Birmingham et al., 2019), and those who reported their spouse’s behaviors as ambivalent were more likely to rate their partner as less responsive and tended to engage in less self-disclosure than those who perceived their spouse as supportive (Birmingham et al., 2015). Gender differences have also been noted in a previous study, suggesting potential unique individual-level effects in heterosexual marriages. For example, Hsieh and Hawkley (2018) reported that men were more likely than women to perceive their marriage as ambivalent, whereas women were more likely to report a solely supportive marital relationship. Taken together, we expect that individual-level ambivalence will influence both self and spouse’s assessments of marital satisfaction and instability over time.

The Present Study

Specifically, in this study, we examine whether the influence of ambivalence on later marital outcomes can be traced through the following couple- and individual-level paths (Figure 1). First, heightened couple-level (shared) ambivalence is expected to be associated with greater couples’ marital conflict (path c1 in Figure 1), which in turn predicts later divorce or predicts lower marital satisfaction and heightened couples’ marital instability among couples who remain together (paths c1 and c2 in Figure 1; couple-level mediation hypothesis). Second, according to the individual-level paths (paths a1 and a2 in Figure 1), husbands’ and wives’ self-ratings of ambivalence are hypothesized to influence their own later assessments of marital satisfaction and instability (actor effects hypothesis). Next, husbands’ and wives’ ambivalence are also expected to influence their spouses’ assessments of marital satisfaction and instability (partner effects hypothesis; paths p1 and p2 in Figure 1). Finally, the influences of husbands’ age, wives’ age, and couples’ marital duration in relation to the main study constructs will also be examined.

Method

To evaluate the hypotheses, we conducted secondary analyses of data from couples who were part of the Iowa Midlife Transition Project (MTP). These couples originally participated in the Iowa Youth and Family Project (IYFP) and had young adult children who continue to participate in the Family Transitions Project (FTP). The IYFP included 451 married couples with a seventh-grade target child and a sibling from eight counties in North Central Iowa. Consistent with the ethnic composition in the area studied, all families were of European descent. Several years later, the FTP followed the couples’ target children—which were then young adults (average age was 19)—as they transitioned from the family in which they were raised to the emerging families and relationships they were creating. The MTP revisited the couples to learn more about changes that occurred in the couples’ lives. All procedures for the projects were approved by the university’s institutional review board. Following the study’s purpose and the availability of measures required for the present analyses, this study utilized data collected in 1994, when the target adolescent of the couples was in 12^th grade (subsequently will be referred to as year 0), 1995 (year 1), 1997 (year 3), 1999 (year 5), and 2001 (year 7). Except for the baseline data (year 0), information from family members was collected every other year. Data on the couples were obtained from the couples’ young adult child at year 1, year 3, and year 5 as no direct measures from the couples were gathered during these years. The average ages for husbands and wives at the first time point considered in this study were 45 years for husbands and 43 years for wives. On average, the couples had been married for 23 years and had three children. The median years of formal education for husbands and wives were 13 years.

Out of the 451 families from the original study, 424 families participated at year 0. Among them, 388 couples remained married. The present analyses are based on data from these married couples at year 0 who, along with their family, continue to participate across the study period (N = 370 couples; 82% of the original sample). Exclusion criteria included couples who were divorced before the first time point of the current analyses, families with a deceased spouse, and families who were not consistently available across the study period. Compared to those who were not included in the analyses, husbands and wives who remained in the study had slightly higher levels of education (Ms = 13.65 and 13.54 for husbands and wives who remained in the study vs. Ms = 12.70 and 12.75 for husbands and wives who were not included in the analyses, respectively). Wives who remained in the study also tend to be slightly older (M = 37.95 years) than those who were not in the analyses (M = 36.54).

Measures

Marital Ambivalence

Past studies have assessed ambivalence in relationships using direct and indirect measures (Connidis, 2015). Direct measures of ambivalence typically ask participants to rate their subjective “mixed” or “torn” feelings toward another person and imply that individuals are aware of their ambivalence. Indirect measures of ambivalence, on the other hand, ask participants to provide separate assessments of positive and negative components of the relationship and compute a numerical value to detect the balance and intensity of the contradictory evaluations or ambivalence. Although the direct and indirect measures of ambivalence have been shown to be correlated with each other (Lendon et al., 2014), indirect measures of ambivalence conceptually have higher construct validity as they emphasize contradiction in the form of simultaneously holding opposing feelings or evaluations (Connidis, 2015). We used the indirect method to measure ambivalence in this study as it allows us to infer ambivalence in the relationship, a particularly valuable approach as individuals are not always aware of their ambivalence (Lendon et al., 2014; Zoppolat et al., 2022).

Marital ambivalence was measured at the beginning of the study time point (year 0) using four items that had been used in existing studies to assess ambivalence in the family, including in parent-child and romantic relationships (Birditt et al., 2010; Fingerman et al., 2006, 2008; Surjadi et al., 2013). Husbands and wives separately rated two items that measured positive component, “how often does your (spouse) understand the way you feel about things” and “how often does your (spouse) make you feel he/she really cares about you,” as well as two items that measured negative component, “how often does your (spouse) make too many demands on you” and “how often does your (spouse) criticize you or your ideas.” Each item was rated on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always), and items for each component were averaged. Ambivalence scores were next calculated using Griffin’s Similarity and Intensity of Components formula (see Thompson et al., 1995 for description and validity work; Birditt et al., 2010; Fingerman et al., 2006; Fingerman et al., 2008; Surjadi et al., 2013), where: Ambivalence = (positive + negative)/2 - |positive-negative|. A constant of 1.5 is added to all scores to eliminate nonpositive values, resulting in possible range scores from 0.5 (indicating a low level of ambivalence—that is, when the positive and negative components are maximally different, representing those who scored either the positive or negative component at its maximum and the other component at its minimum) to 6.5 (indicating a high level of ambivalence—that is, when the positive and negative components are equally high in magnitude, representing those who simultaneously reported both strong positive and strong negative feelings).

This measurement strategy has several advantages. First, the four items are balanced across the positive and negative components, and they refer to specific behaviors rather than global impressions of the relationship (Fingerman et al., 2008). Second, the formula considers both the presence and intensity of coexisting positive and negative evaluations and is one of the few ambivalence indexes that have been empirically shown to meet all of Breckler’s (1994) criteria for measuring ambivalence. Cronbach’s αs for the ambivalence measure were .76 for husbands and .78 for wives.

Marital Conflict

Marital conflict was measured using the couple’s young adult child report of parents’ frequency and duration of conflict. At year 1, 3, and 5, the couple’s young adult child reported two items, “How often would you say your parents argue or disagree with each other?” and “When your parents argue or disagree about something, how often do they stay mad at each other for a long time?” Responses ranged from 1 (always) to 5 (missing). For each measurement occasion, the responses were reverse coded and averaged so that higher scores would reflect higher marital conflict (αs = .73, .70, and .78 for time 1, time 3, and time 5 measures, respectively).

Divorce

Divorce was measured using one item that indicates whether the couple remained married (scored 0) or was divorced (scored 1) by year 7.

Marital Satisfaction

Marital satisfaction was measured in year 7 using two items that asked spouses to rate how happy (responses ranged from 0 = extremely unhappy to 5 = extremely happy) and satisfied (responses ranged from 1 = completely satisfied to 5 = not at all satisfied) they were with their marriages. Both items were recoded into five categories that ranged from 1 (very unhappy or not at all satisfied) to 5 (extremely happy or completely satisfied) and were averaged. Cronbach’s αs were .76 for husbands’ and .80 for wives’ reports, respectively.

Marital Instability

Marital instability was assessed using the five-item short form of the Marital Instability Index ((Booth et al., 1983). In year 7, husband and wife were each asked how recently (1= not in the last year to 4 = yes, within the last 3 months) they may have suggested the idea of ending their relationship, discussed separation from spouse with a close friend, thought their relationship might be in trouble, talked about consulting an attorney about a possible separation, and thought about divorce. Responses were averaged separately for husbands (α = .84) and wives (α = .70).

Covariates

Husbands’ and wives’ ages and the couple’s duration of marriage at year 0 were included as control variables.

Results

Table 1 displays the zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics of the main study variables. All husbands’ and wives’ reports of the same construct are significantly correlated, with correlation coefficients ranging from .26 (p < .01) to .40 (p < .01), providing evidence for nonindependence between husbands and wives (i.e., couple-level or shared variation) for ambivalence, marital satisfaction, and marital instability. These correlations show that husband’s and wife’s reports are reliable indicators of respective couple-level latent constructs (Ledderman & Kenny, 2012). Correlations across waves for marital conflict are also significant, ranging from .51 (p < .01) to .64 (p < .01). None of the covariates (i.e., husbands’ age, wives’ age, and the duration of marriage) were significantly related to husbands’ and wives’ ambivalence or divorce outcome. Older husbands at the beginning of the study were more likely to report lower marital instability later. However, they also were more likely to have a wife who reported lower marital satisfaction at year 7.

Table 1.

Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of the Main Study Variables (n = 370 Couples).

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. H ambivalence toward W (year 0)	—
2. W ambivalence toward H (year 0)	.37**	—
3. Marital conflict (year 1)	.16**	.15**	—
4. Marital conflict (year 3)	.20**	.20**	.54**	—
5. Marital conflict (year 5)	.26**	.23**	.51**	.64**	—
6. Divorce (year 7)	.15**	.13*	.32**	.34**	.27**	—
7. H marital satisfaction (year 7)^a	−.34**	−.18**	−.15**	−.14*	−.22**	—	—
8. W marital satisfaction (year 7)^a	−.23**	−.31**	−.30**	−.29**	−.37**	—	.40**	—
9. H marital instability (year 7)^a	.12*	−.02	−.06	−.03	.07	—	−.47**	−.21**	—
10. W marital instability (year 7)^a	.12*	.19**	.06	.10	.11	—	−.17**	−.39**	.26**	—
11. H age (year 0)	−.05	.01	.08	.09	.05	−.01	.05	−.12*	−.12*	−.05	—
12. W age (year 0)	−.05	.01	.05	−.03	.02	−.04	.08	−.05	−.10	−.09	.80**	—
13. Duration of marriage (year 0)	−.03	−.01	.01	−.09	−.02	−.05	.08	−.01	−.06	−.09	.57**	.78**	—
Mean	2.89	2.76	2.30	2.27	2.27	.16	4.05	3.93	1.10	1.10	45.06	42.96	23.46
SD	.93	.97	.76	.75	.75	.37	.79	.79	.31	.24	4.92	4.03	3.17

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

^aFor continuously married couples throughout the study period (year 0 to year 7; n = 309 couples).

Most husbands and wives have a moderate degree of ambivalence toward each other, with the average ambivalence for husbands 2.89 (range = 0.50–5.00, SD = .93) and the average ambivalence for wives 2.76 (range = 0.50–5.00, SD = .97). Out of the 370 couples who participated at the initial time point, 61 couples (16.5%) were divorced by year 7. Compared to couples who remained married, couples who got divorced by year 7 were more likely to have higher initial husbands’ (t = 2.86, p < .01) and wives’ ambivalence (t = 2.49, p < .01). Among continuously married couples, husbands were more ambivalent than wives (M_husbands = 2.84 and M_wives = 2.70, p < .05), but there were no significant differences between husbands and wives ambivalence among those who were divorced by year 7 (M_husbands = 3.27 and M_wives = 3.29, p > .05). Divorced couples were also more likely to have significantly higher marital conflict at year 1 (t = 6.41, p < .01), year 3 (t = 6.84, p < .01) and year 5 (t = 5.02, p < .01) than continuously married couples.

We estimated a series of structural equation models (SEMs) to examine the theoretical model in Figure 1. Husbands’ and wives’ reports of the same variable served as indicators of latent couple-level (i.e., dyadic) constructs, with factor loadings of all indicators fixed to 1 (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012). A latent variable (couple-level construct) of marital conflict was specified using year 1, year 3, and year 5 measures as indicators. Analyses were conducted using full information maximum likelihood with robust estimates for standard errors in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2020). To test for mediation, we used bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (CI) estimates based on 5000 bootstrap samples (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012). Evaluation of model fit was based on a range of fit indices, including the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and the sample-size adjusted BIC for models predicting divorce, and the chi-square statistic along with the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) for models predicting marital satisfaction and marital instability. In general, smaller values of AIC and BIC indicate better model fit, whereas RMSEA values of .05 or less indicate “close fit,” and CFI and TLI values of greater than .95 indicate reasonable good model fit to the data (West et al., 2012)

To predict the influence of couple-level ambivalence on later divorce, we employed the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method for binary outcomes (binary ML; (Newsom, 2015). This approach possesses some interpretation advantages as it allowed us to obtain logistic regression path coefficients. First, we began with the model that included a direct path from couple ambivalence to divorce by year 7. Higher couple ambivalence at year 0 predicted divorce 7 years later (OR = 3.48, 95% CI [1.20, 10.05], AIC = 4247.63, BIC = 4310.24, sample-size adjusted BIC = 4259.48), however this path was not significant when the mediating paths (paths c1 and c2 in Figure 1) are added in the following model (direct effect β from couple ambivalence to divorce = .07, 95% CI [−.29, .33], AIC = 4209.65, BIC = 4280.09, sample-size adjusted BIC = 4222.98). In Figure 2, we evaluated the complete mediation model (i.e., the model without direct effect) predicting divorce in year 7. Compared to the earlier models, the model in Figure 2 had the best fit with the data (AIC = 4186.47, BIC = 4253.00, sample-size adjusted BIC = 4199.07). As displayed in Figure 2, higher shared couple-level perceptions of ambivalence significantly predicted marital conflict across year 1 to year 5. Higher marital conflict, in turn, predicted divorce at year 7 (OR = 7.79, 95% CI [3.65, 19.28]). The 95% CI estimate for the indirect effect from couple ambivalence to divorce at year 7 through marital conflict did not contain zero [.12, .34], providing support for the couple mediation hypothesis predicting divorce at year 7 (β = .22). Due to the lack of significance, for parsimony, the models presented in Figure 2 and Table 2 were run without covariates.

Figure 2.

Individual-level ambivalence and couple-level ambivalence predicting divorce at year 7 (n = 370 couples).

Table 2.

Individual- and Couple-Level Ambivalence Predicting Later Marital Satisfaction and Instability.^a

Hypothesized path	Year 7 outcomes
Hypothesized path	Marital satisfaction	Marital instability
	β [95% CI]	β [95% CI]
Path a1
H ambivalence → H marital satisfaction	−.26** [-.37, −.15]	—
H ambivalence → H marital instability	—	.14** [.04, .25]
Path a2
W ambivalence → W marital satisfaction	−.21** [-.34, −.07]	—
W ambivalence → W marital instability	—	.17** [.05, .29]
Path p1
H ambivalence → W marital satisfaction	−.09 [-.20, .02]	—
H ambivalence → W marital instability	—	.04 [−.07, .16]
Path p2
W ambivalence → H marital satisfaction	−.01 [-.11, .10]	—
W ambivalence → H marital instability	—	−.08 [-.25, .07]
Path c1
Couple ambivalence → couple marital conflict	.43** [.27, .59]	.43** [.27, .59]
Path c2
Couple marital conflict → couple marital satisfaction	−.56** [-.74, −.35]	—
Couple marital conflict → couple marital instability	—	.11 [−.14, .34]
χ² (df)	13.63 (10)	9.14 (10)
RMSEA	.03	.00
CFI	.99	1.00
TLI	.99	1.00

Note. **p < .01.

^aFor continuously married couples throughout the study period (year 0 to year 7; n = 309 couples).

Among continuously married couples, in addition to the couple-level paths (paths c1 and c2 in Figure 1), individual-level paths (i.e., actor and partner effects) were estimated by specifying direct paths among the residual variances of husbands’ and wives’ reports (Wickrama, O’Neal, & Klopack, 2020)—that is, from spouses’ report of ambivalence at year 0 to their own report of marital satisfaction or marital instability at year 7 (paths a1 and a2 in Figure 1) and from spouses’ report of ambivalence at year 0 to their partner’s report of marital satisfaction or marital instability at year 7 (paths p1 and p2 in Figure 1). As in the model that predicted divorce, for both the model that predicted marital satisfaction and the model that predicted marital instability (Table 2), higher shared perceptions of (couple-level) ambivalence significantly predicted couples’ marital conflict. The higher the couple’s marital conflict, in turn, predicted poorer shared perceptions of marital satisfaction at year 7. The 95% CI estimate for the indirect effect from couple-level ambivalence to the couple marital satisfaction through marital conflict was significant [-.38, −.13], providing support for the couple mediation hypothesis predicting couple-level marital satisfaction at year 7. However, the indirect effect from couple-level ambivalence to the couple’s marital instability through marital conflict was not significant (95% CI [-.06, .16]).

For both the model that predicted marital satisfaction and the model that predicted marital instability among intact couples (Table 2), we found little evidence of partner effect. Instead, husbands’ and wives’ ambivalence toward spouse significantly predicted their own perceptions of marital satisfaction and marital instability at year 7, suggesting that, consistent with the actor effect hypothesis, for both husbands and wives, individuals who were more ambivalent toward their spouse tended to rate their marriage less favorably than those who had lower ambivalence toward their spouse. Overall, the models in Table 2 had reasonable good fit with the data (RMSEA = .03, CFI = .99, TLI = .99 for the model that predicted marital satisfaction and RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00 for the model that predicted marital instability). Separate models that included husbands’ age, wives’ age, and couples’ marital duration suggested none of these variables were associated with the dependent variables.

Lastly, as a supplementary analysis, we examined whether ambivalence influenced relationships above and beyond the level of negativity or whether ambivalence was more representative of individuals’ high levels of negativity and low levels of positivity. We performed additional analyses that controlled for the influence of excess negativity (negative component net of positive component) in the relationship (see Supplemental Table 1 and 2). For both husbands and wives, we found mostly reduced but still significant coefficients from individual ambivalence to marital conflict over time. Specifically, the standardized regression coefficients (βs) from husbands’ ambivalence to year 1, year 3, and year 5 marital conflict were reduced from .18 (p < .01), .23 (p < .01), and .28 (p < .01) for year 1, year 3, and year 5 marital conflict subsequently, without controlling the level of negativity, to .16 (p < .01), .20 (p < .01), and .23 (p < .01) for year 1, year 3, and year 5 marital conflict subsequently, after controlling for husbands’ level of excess negativity. Similarly, we found generally reduced but still significant coefficients from individuals’ ambivalence to individuals’ assessments of marital satisfaction and marital instability. For instance, the standardized regression coefficient from husbands’ ambivalence to husbands’ report of year 7 marital satisfaction was reduced from −.33 (p < .01) without controlling the level of negativity to −.29 (p < .01) after controlling for husbands’ level of excess negativity. The standardized regression coefficient from wives’ ambivalence to wives’ report of year 7 marital instability was relatively unchanged from .19 (p < .01) without controlling the level of negativity to .19 (p < .01) after controlling for wives’ level of excess negativity. In sum, the results of these additional analyses suggest that ambivalence was a relatively unique predictor of relationship processes independent of excess negativity.

Discussion

Ambivalence can occur in marriages, but what happens to a marriage in which one partner or both hold an ambivalent attitude toward each other? This study is one of the first to examine the longitudinal link between marital ambivalence, divorce, marital satisfaction, and marital instability among long-term married couples. The theoretical and methodological approaches used in this study address literature gaps on marital ambivalence in the following ways. First, pointing to the need for empirical studies to consider not only interdependence in marriage, but also couple-level processes that can influence marital processes, we examined whether couple- and individual-level ambivalence simultaneously predict later marital outcomes. Previous research on marital ambivalence has not differentiated between couple- and individual-level processes, and to our knowledge, no study to date has focused on the influence of marital ambivalence on long-term married couples’ relationship outcomes. The current study’s emphasis on both shared (couple-level) and unique (individual-level) components of ambivalence offer additional insight into marital relationships during a sensitive time in the life course, particularly given the increasing salience of marital relationships with advancing age (Carstensen et al., 2003; Wickrama, Lee, & O’Neal, 2020). Second, while much previous work on marital ambivalence has been based on cross-sectional or longitudinal data of short duration, the current study utilized prospective, five waves of data over 8 years to trace the longitudinal implications of ambivalence on marriage. This approach is essential, given the literature indicating that delayed decision-making and processes are associated with ambivalence (). Furthermore, in this study, we relied on one of the couples’ young adult children to report marital conflict across time. On the one hand, this method highlights the focus of marital conflict as manifested by couples’ overt interactional behaviors. On the other hand, it implies that the reported couples’ marital conflict in this study may be a subset of those that occurred in the relationship, since the reports do not include assessments of conflict beyond the young adult child’s knowledge. Thus, the results reported here conceivably reflect a conservative estimate of couples’ marital conflict.

Although previous work suggests that ambivalence can lead to positive relationship outcomes (Faure et al., 2021; Thompson & Holmes, 1996), the findings from this study add to the body of literature that has called attention to potential detrimental links between ambivalence and couples’ relationships (Birmingham et al., 2019; Surjadi et al., 2013). Focusing on long-term married couples, we found that shared ambivalence indirectly predicted divorce 7 years later through its association with couples’ marital conflict. The results showed that spouses who eventually divorced were more ambivalent toward each other and had greater marital conflict across time than those who remained married. However, the deleterious pattern was also observed even among those who stayed together: For spouses who remained married throughout the study period, shared ambivalence as a couple-level characteristic was associated with greater marital conflict and lower couple-level marital satisfaction. At the individual level, it appears husbands’ and wives’ poorer assessments of marriage were more influenced by their own ambivalence than their spouse’s—those who were more ambivalent toward their spouse tended to report lower happiness and satisfaction in their marriage. They were also more likely to consider ending the relationship than those with lower ambivalence. This is an important topic to address, particularly given the centrality of marriage and data indicating that low marital quality can reduce the otherwise positive effects of marriage on health and well-being (Birmingham et al., 2015).

A previous study found that men were more likely than women to perceive their marriage as ambivalent (Hsieh & Hawkley, 2018). We found partial support for this in the current study. Among couples that remained continuously married, husbands tend to be more ambivalent than wives, lending support to ambivalence as an individual experience in marriage, but we found no significant gender differences among those who later got divorced. Instead, both husbands and wives of later divorced couples initially scored equally high in ambivalence toward each other. Although future study is needed to uncover the processes that can explain these gender differences or lack thereof in ambivalence, these findings identified subgroups of married couples that could be targeted for intervention.

Several limitations of this study point toward future research directions. Consistent with the majority of the demographic population in the region and with the purposes of the larger studies from which the current sample was derived, all participants in this study were heterosexual couples who self-identified as White, had been married for a long time (an average of over 20 years at the first time point in the current research), and had biological children together. These characteristics may influence the generalizability of the current findings. Additionally, as people from different cultures may experience and attach different meanings to ambivalence, replications with couples of other cultural backgrounds and ethnicities are needed. For example, East Asians tend to exhibit high ambivalence, but are less bothered by their ambivalence (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2010; van Harreveld et al., 2015). Therefore, future studies can extend this research by examining processes that are involved in a more diverse population in terms of culture, race/ethnicity, geographic regions, sexual orientation, and number of children. Finally, Fincham and Linfield (Fincham & Linfield, 1997) demonstrated that the overall assessment of global marital quality could also be examined as a two-dimensional construct consisting of global positive and global negative evaluations. Future studies can expand upon this research by examining how specific positive and negative evaluations of marital partners may combine and relate to couples’ assessment of global marital quality.

In all, these findings seem to be consistent with the theoretical notion that people may be more motivated with age to disengage from less rewarding relationships (Carstensen et al., 2003). Relationships that are characterized both by high positive and high negative aspects such as those in ambivalent ties not only cause high interpersonal stress (Herr et al., 2019); the current study found that it appears such relationships are associated with greater conflict and over the long run may motivate individuals to leave or reassess their marriage. This is a novel contribution to the literature that highlights: 1) the need to consider the combination of existence and intensity of both positivity and negativity in couples’ relationship (vs. focusing on either positivity or negativity in the relationship alone), and 2) the importance of considering the delayed process of ambivalence in couples’ decisions to stay or end the marriage. The current study’s findings add to the growing empirical support that suggests that despite the positivity in ambivalent marriages, such relationships may not confer the same relational advantages as supportive marriages (Birmingham et al., 2019; Hsieh & Hawkley, 2018). In line with the family systems theory (Cox & Paley, 1997), we found that interdependence among husbands and wives is reflected in their shared ambivalence toward each other as well, as evidenced by the significant correlation between husbands’ and wives’ reports. This result seems to be in congruence with the clinical observation that has documented the ways ambivalent partners may reinforce each other’s perceptions (e.g., through relationship schemas, distorted cognitions, emotion, and behavior; Hinson et al., 2017). Moreover, the present study reveals that unresolved ambivalent feelings toward one’s spouse can jeopardize a marriage over time, even for couples that have been married for decades. By considering a systems approach and focusing on the marital couple as a subsystem within the family, the results also imply that any changes in a spouse’s ambivalence may have a reverberating influence on the other partner’s ambivalence and on the couple’s relationship with each other over time. These results underscore the importance of screening couples for ambivalence and the need for integrated, multilevel intervention strategies (Hinson et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2020). For instance, following previous work that has highlighted the value of incorporating both individual and conjoint treatment formats in therapy (Heitler, 2001; Shah et al., 2016), different sessions may be used to address interrelated individual and couple/dyadic issues. At the individual level, interventions can be geared to address ‘self-in-marriage’ concerns (Shah et al., 2016), such as providing a chance to discuss individual concerns privately and teaching husbands and wives how to recognize and manage their own ambivalent feelings. At the couple level, practitioners and family professionals can develop strategies to address dyadic/systemic issues such as addressing couples’ shared ambivalence and helping couples gain clarity and confidence in their decision-making. Furthermore, as the ability of couples to resolve marital conflict through cooperative, positive, and interactive behaviors is one of the most important determinants of marital satisfaction (Mitchell, 2016), efforts to promote better conflict resolution skills among couples might be worthwhile.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Do couple- and individual-level ambivalence predict later marital outcomes? The mediating role of marital conflict in india

Supplemental Material for Do couple- and individual-level ambivalence predict later marital outcomes? The mediating role of marital conflict in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is currently supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (AG043599, Kandauda A. S. Wickrama, PI). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. Support for earlier years of the study also came from multiple sources, including the National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989, MH48165, MH051361), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD027724, HD051746, HD047573, HD064687), the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCJ-109572), and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk Settings.

Non-Blinded Open Research Statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research are available upon request by emailing: fsurjadi@niu.edu.

ORCID iD

Florensia F. Surjadi

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Birditt

K. S.

Fingerman

K. L.

Zarit

S. H.

(2010). Adult children’s problems and successes: Implications for intergenerational ambivalence. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbp125

Birmingham

W. C.

Uchino

B. N.

Smith

T. W.

Light

K. C.

Butner

(2015). It’s complicated: Marital ambivalence on ambulatory blood pressure and daily interpersonal functioning. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(5), 743–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9709-0

Birmingham

W. C.

Wadsworth

L. L.

Hung

Herr

R. M.

(2019). Ambivalence in the early years of marriage: Impact on ambulatory blood pressure and relationship processes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(12), 1069–1080. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaz017

Booth

Johnson

Edwards

J. N.

(1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(2), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/351516

Breckler

S. J.

(1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002009

Carstensen

L. L.

Fung

H. H.

Charles

S. T.

(2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569803230

Caughlin

J. P.

Huston

T. L.

Wehrman

E. C.

(2018). The affective structure of marriage over time. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 90–105). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.009

Conner

Sparks

(2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 37–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000012

Connidis

I. A.

(2015). Exploring ambivalence in family ties: Progress and prospects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12150

10.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243

11.

de Liver

van der Pligt

Wigboldus

(2007). Positive and negative associations underlying ambivalent attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.012

12.

Elphinston

R. A.

Feeney

J. A.

Noller

Connor

J. P.

Fitzgerald

(2013). Romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: The costs of rumination. Western Journal of Communication, 77(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.770161

13.

Faure

McNulty

J. K.

Meltzer

A. L.

Righetti

(2021). Implicit ambivalence: A driving force to improve relationship problems. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211034277

14.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(1999). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.47

15.

Fincham

F. D.

Linfield

K. J.

(1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.489-502

16.

Fingerman

K. L.

Chen

P. C.

Hay

Cichy

K. E.

Lefkowitz

E. S.

(2006). Ambivalent reactions in the parent and offspring relationship. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(3), P152–P160. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.3.P152

17.

Fingerman

K. L.

Hay

E. L.

Birditt

K. S.

(2004). The best of ties, the worst of ties: Close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 792–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00053.x

18.

Fingerman

K. L.

Pitzer

Lefkowitz

E. S.

Birditt

K. S.

Mroczek

(2008). Ambivalent relationship qualities between adults and their parents: Implications for the well-being of both parties. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(6), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/63.6.P362

19.

Hass

R. G.

Katz

Rizzo

Bailey

Eisenstadt

(1991). Cross-racial appraisal as related to attitude ambivalence and cognitive complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291171013

20.

Hass

R. G.

Katz

Rizzo

Bailey

Moore

(1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(6), 786–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292186015

21.

Heitler

(2001). Combined individual/marital therapy: A conflict resolution framework and ethical considerations. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 11(3), 349–383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016606317558

22.

Herr

R. M.

Van Harreveld

Uchino

B. N.

Birmingham

W. C.

Loerbroks

Fischer

J. E.

Bosch

J. A.

(2019). Associations of ambivalent leadership with distress and cortisol secretion. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-018-9982-z

23.

Hinson

W. R.

Hargrave

S. J.

Northrup

Robertson

J. M.

(2017). The marital attitudes scale: Assessing and treating ambivalent clients. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 58(6), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2017.1343543

24.

Holt-Lunstad

Uchino

B. N.

(2019). Social ambivalence and disease (SAD): A theoretical model aimed at understanding the health implications of ambivalent relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619861392

25.

Hsieh

Hawkley

(2018). Loneliness in the older adult marriage: Associations with dyadic aversion, indifference, and ambivalence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(10), 1319–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712480

26.

Ingram

K. E.

(2015). Always on my mind: The impact of relational ambivalence on rumination upon supervisor mistreatment. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 13595–13595. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.13595abstract

27.

Joel

MacDonald

Page-Gould

(2018). Wanting to stay and wanting to go: Unpacking the content and structure of relationship stay/leave decision processes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722834

28.

Kachadourian

L. K.

Fincham

Davila

(2005). Attitudinal ambivalence, rumination, and forgiveness of partner transgressions in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271595

29.

Kenny

Kashy

Cook

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

30.

Ledermann

Kenny

D. A.

(2012). The common fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026624

31.

Lee

H. J.

Szinovacz

M. E.

(2016). Positive, negative, and ambivalent interactions with family and friends: Associations with well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12302

32.

Lee

T. K.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

O’Neal

C. W.

(2020). Health continuity over mid-later years in enduring marriages: Economic pressure as couple- and individual-level mediator. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519865971

33.

Lendon

J. P.

Silverstein

Giarrusso

(2014). Ambivalence in older parent–adult child relationships: Mixed feelings, mixed measures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12101

34.

Liu

Upenieks

(2021). Marital quality and well-being among older adults: A typology of supportive, aversive, indifferent, and ambivalent marriages. Research on Aging, 43(9–10), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027520969149

35.

Macmillan

Copher

(2005). Families in the life course: Interdependency of roles, role configurations, and pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 858–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00180.x

36.

Mitchell

B. A.

(2016). Happily ever after? Marital satisfaction during the middle adulthood years. In Bookwala

(Ed.), Couple relationships in the middle and later years: Their nature, complexity, and role in health and illness (pp. 17–36). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14897-002

37.

Newsom

J. T.

(2015). Longitudinal structural equation modeling: A comprehensive introduction. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

38.

Nordgren

L. F.

van Harreveld

van der Pligt

(2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.004

39.

Ridley

C. A.

Wilhelm

M. S.

Surra

C. A.

(2001). Married couples’ conflict responses and marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501184005

40.

Schneider

I. K.

Eerland

van Harreveld

Rotteveel

van der Pligt

van der Stoep

Zwaan

R. A.

(2013). One way and the other: The bidirectional relationship between ambivalence and body movement. Psychological Science, 24(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457393

41.

Shah

Nagpal

Manjula

Rynjah

I. L.

(2016). Combined couples’ therapy: A qualitative study of individual and conjoint sessions. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 27(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2016.1169019

42.

Spencer-Rodgers

Williams

M. J.

Peng.

Kaiping

. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310362982

43.

Surjadi

F. F.

Lorenz

F. O.

Conger

R. D.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

(2013). Harsh, inconsistent parental discipline and romantic relationships: Mediating processes of behavioral problems and ambivalence. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 762–772. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034114

44.

Thompson

M. M.

Holmes

J. G.

(1996). Ambivalence in close relationships: Conflicted cognitions as a catalyst for change. In Sorrentino

R. M.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 497–530). The Guilford Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-98385-015

45.

Thompson

M. M.

Zanna

M. P.

Griffin

D. W.

(1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In Petty

R. E.

Krosnick

J. A.

(Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

46.

Uchino

B. N.

Cawthon

R. M.

Smith

T. W.

Light

K. C.

McKenzie

Carlisle

Gunn

Birmingham

Bowen

(2012). Social relationships and health: Is feeling positive, negative, or both (ambivalent) about your social ties related to telomeres? Health Psychology, 31(6), 789–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026836

47.

van Harreveld

Nohlen

H. U.

Schneider

I. K.

(2015). The ABC of ambivalence: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 285-324). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.002

48.

West

S. G.

Taylor

A. B.

(2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209-231). The Guilford Press.

49.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

Lee

T. K.

O’Neal

C. W.

(2020a). Marital strain trajectories over a quarter century and spouses’ loneliness: Couple-level and individual pathways. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519879512

50.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

O’Neal

C. W.

Klopack

E. T.

(2020b). Couple-level stress proliferation and husbands’ and wives’ distress during the life course. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12644

51.

Zoppolat

Faure

Alonso-Ferres

Righetti

(2022). Mixed and conflicted: The role of ambivalence in romantic relationships in light of attractive alternatives. Emotion, 22(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001055

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

0.18 MB