Changing the blame game: Associations between relationship mindfulness,loneliness,negative partner attributions,and subsequent conflict

Abstract

Given the important associations between couple conflict and various physical and mental health outcomes, it is essential to explore factors that may catalyze or exacerbate the frequency and impact of conflict in romantic relationships. One such factor may be relationship mindfulness, or the tendency to have a nonjudgmental awareness of one’s experiences in romantic relationships. Previous research has demonstrated a link between relationship mindfulness and various relational outcomes, but its association with relationship conflict has not yet been explored. Additionally, the current study sought to explore the mechanisms that link relationship mindfulness and relational outcomes. Based on previous research connecting conflict to negative partner attributions, the study examined how relationship mindfulness may predict conflict through negative partner attributions. Furthermore, the study aimed to incorporate loneliness as a potential mediator between relationship mindfulness and negative partner attributions. A sample of 116 different-sex middle-aged married couples were recruited to complete an online assessment. Using an actor–partner interdependence mediation model, the results indicated several significant associations among relationship mindfulness, negative partner attributions, loneliness, and relationship conflict. For example, a significant indirect effect was found; that is, female relationship mindfulness was associated with decreased relationship conflict via its prior association with both male loneliness and additionally through male loneliness and subsequent male negative partner attributions. The results indicate that by employing interventions that increase relationship mindfulness, it may be possible to both reduce loneliness and encourage more charitable partner attributions which, in turn, may reduce couple conflict.

Keywords

Relationship mindfulness loneliness attributions conflict;changing the blame game: how relationship mindfulness predicts loneliness negative partner attributions and subsequent conflict

Couple conflict is associated with a number of mental and physical health outcomes, such as elevated blood pressure, anxiety, depression, and longevity of life (e.g., Laursen & Hafen, 2010). Given these associations, it is important to explore factors that can be targeted by clinicians that may play a role in the frequency and impact of conflict in relationships. Although there are various therapeutic strategies designed to help partners utilize more helpful conflict behaviors, there is still much to be learned about why some couples experience more conflict in the first place. It is possible that varying levels of conflict in different couples are due to individuals having lesser degrees of relationship mindfulness. That is, spouses that experience frequent and severe conflict may be less mindful during interactions with their romantic partners. Understanding how relationship mindfulness is linked to couple conflict may help guide clinicians who are working with couples who wish to reduce their level of conflict in their relationship. If there is an association between relationship mindfulness and conflict, then that link may be explained by loneliness and subsequent partner attributions. The objective of this study was to explore how relationship mindfulness is associated with conflict, particularly as it pertains to loneliness and attributions.

Theoretical rationale

The role of mindfulness in romantic relationships can be understood using a theoretical model proposed by Johan C. Karremans and colleagues (Karremans et al., 2017). Although each element of the theoretical model will not be discussed in detail here, specific elements of the model are key in understanding how loneliness and attributions may explain the link between mindfulness and couple conflict. According to the model, mindfulness influences basic processes such as emotion regulation and self-other connectedness. These basic processes, in turn, shape relationship processes, including prorelationship motivations. Finally, relationship processes play a major role in relationship outcomes. Thus, Karremans et al.’s theoretical model suggests that basic mechanisms and relationship processes account for the link between mindfulness and relationship outcomes.

The present study involves examining loneliness as a basic process and one of the mechanisms that accounts for the link between mindfulness and couple conflict. Loneliness was not included in the theoretical model described above, but loneliness can be considered the absence of self-other connectedness.

Relationship cognitions are a type of relationship process that is included in the theoretical model of mindfulness in romantic relationships, as thoughts and beliefs about one’s romantic partner and about relationship as a whole may influence conflict and other relationship outcomes. Attributions are a specific type of cognition that involves cognitions regarding the causes and intentions regarding partner transgressions.

Based on the theoretical model proposed by Karremans et al., it is reasonable to expect that loneliness—a basic process—and attributions—a relationship process—to explain the link between mindfulness and couple conflict.

(consider adding something about how the Karremans et al. model addresses the dyadic effects, may help justify the partner paths in the model)

Literature review

Relationship mindfulness and conflict

Relationship mindfulness can be understood as one’s propensity to be mindful in the context of their romantic relationship (Kimmes et al., 2018). It is important to note that current research suggests that relationship mindfulness uniquely predicts relational outcomes even when accounting for trait mindfulness (Kimmes et al., 2018). Therefore, accounting for one’s propensity to be mindful in the context of their romantic relationship is necessary to better understand the role of mindfulness in relationship outcomes.

Previous research has demonstrated a positive association between relationship mindfulness and positive relationship quality as well as a negative association between relationship mindfulness and negative relationship quality (Kimmes et al., 2020). That is, those who demonstrated greater relationship mindfulness also reported feeling less negatively about their relationship. This finding remained true for both actor and partner paths (i.e., an individual’s level of relationship mindfulness predicted both their own relationship quality as well as their partner’s) (Kimmes et al., 2020). Given this connection between relationship mindfulness and relationship outcomes, particularly negative relationship quality, it is reasonable to expect a negative association between relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict as negative relationship quality is also associated with relationship conflict (Rogge et al., 2017).

Relationship mindfulness and loneliness

In addition to interpersonal associations, relationship mindfulness has also been found to have intrapersonal associations. Current research suggests that relationship mindfulness is associated with less perceived stress (Kimmes et al., 2020). This finding remained true even after accounting for trait mindfulness. These findings suggest that relationship mindfulness plays a role in predicting intrapersonal qualities as well as relational outcomes. As such, it is important to explore which intrapersonal qualities can be predicted by relationship mindfulness. While there are many intrapersonal qualities that could possibly be associated with relationship mindfulness, loneliness is of particular interest due to its potential associations with variables related to conflict.

Loneliness is often understood to be a feeling of disconnection with those around oneself. In contrast to social isolation, loneliness is more about how disconnected one perceives oneself to be. That is, one can feel lonely even if they are in a room full of people with whom they could possibly connect. Given the subjective nature of loneliness, it is important to examine which factors may predict this feeling of disconnection. Current research already suggests a link between trait mindfulness and loneliness (e.g., Lindsay et al., 2019). Some have explained this connection by describing a concept known as equanimity which essentially refers to the acceptance and nonjudgment components of mindfulness in a classical Buddhist understanding of mindfulness (Desbordes et al., 2015). This aspect of mindfulness has been shown to promote compassion for others as well as the self and has been associated with social connectivity (Lindsay et al., 2019).

Provided this link between trait mindfulness and loneliness, it seems reasonable to examine how relationship mindfulness may be associated with loneliness, particularly given what is already known about outcomes uniquely associated with relationship mindfulness. Loneliness seems even more likely to be associated with relationship mindfulness than trait mindfulness given the emotionally charged environment that is so often present in romantic relationships. If a person is unable to be present or mindful in the context of their romantic relationship, this could reasonably have implications for both their own and their partner’s experience of disconnection in the relationship. As such, loneliness may be a natural byproduct of a lack of relationship mindfulness.

Loneliness and Attributions

Additionally, if an individual feels less connected to their partner, this may lead to negative assumptions made about their partner, particularly as it pertains to their transgressions. Current literature regarding relationships discusses the idea of “negative sentiment override” where a partner consistently makes negative assumptions about the other partner’s behaviors and motives (Gottman & Gottman, 2017). The idea is that when a couple gets into a cycle of thinking negatively about one another, it is easier to remain thinking negatively than it is to change the cycle and begin thinking positively. This negative sentiment override is often a result of a relationship where the partners have neglected to foster fondness and connection between them (Gottman & Gottman, 2017). The implication is that loneliness may hinder a person’s ability to think positively about their partner, particularly as it pertains to their partner’s transgressions, which can lead to increased conflict.

The explanations one gives for their partner’s transgressions are known as attributions. The idea is that assumptions made about a partner’s motivation can be either positive (i.e., benign) or negative (i.e., hostile). Benign attributions refer to instances when one gives their partner the benefit of the doubt and assumes the best about his or her intentions. Hostile attributions, on the other hand, are when one assumes the worst about their partner’s intentions and makes conclusions that may lead to future conflict. The connection between attributions and conflict has been clearly demonstrated in the literature (e.g., Fincham & Bradbury, 1987; Fincham & Bradbury, 1993), but less is known about which factors predict attributional tendencies. Based on the current literature regarding relationship mindfulness, it seems apt to explore how one’s level of relationship mindfulness may predict their experience of loneliness as well as subsequent attributional tendencies.

Current study

In the current study, we sought to explore the possible links between relationship mindfulness and conflict, as well as potential mechanisms that explain those links. To this end, we proposed a model where an individual’s relationship mindfulness was associated with their experience of loneliness, their attributions of their partner’s behavior, and then subsequent frequency and impact of relationship conflict. Additionally, using an APIM, the model explored the relationship between an individual’s own level of relationship mindfulness and how it was associated with their partner’s experience of loneliness, their negative attributions, and subsequent relationship conflict. The present study tested the following hypotheses: (1) higher levels of relationship mindfulness will be associated with lower actor and partner loneliness, (2) lower levels of loneliness will be associated with more benign attributions, (3) more benign attributions will be associated with less frequent and less impactful conflict and (4) there will be an indirect effect between relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict via actor or partner loneliness and subsequent attributions.

Method

Participants

One hundred and sixteen different-sex middle-aged married couples (232 individuals) completed an online assessment. The average age of participants was 53.13 years (SD = .58). About 76.7% of participants reported being married for at least 15 years, 13.8% had been married for 10–15 years, and 9.4% had been married for 5–10 years. The racial breakdown of the sample was 85.3% White, 7.8% Latino or Hispanic, 4.3% African American, and 6.7% identified their race as something different than the above-listed categories. In terms of religion, 41.4% of participants identified as Christian, 26.7% as Catholic, 9.5% reported no religious affiliation, and 24.1% identified as something different than the above-listed categories (e.g., Protestant, Jewish, Agnostic, etc.).

Procedures and measures

After obtaining institutional review board approval, married couples residing in the U.S. were recruited by Qualtrics to complete a survey for this study resulting in a sample of 115 couples. The inclusion criteria for participation in this study were: (1) both spouses were fluent in English, (2) at least one spouse was between 45 and 64 years old, (3) the age difference between spouses was not greater than 5-years, and (4) the couple had been married for at least 5 years. Spouses were asked to complete the survey independently following the completion of the informed consent.

Relationship mindfulness

Participants were given the Relationship Mindfulness Measure (RMM; Kimmes et al., 2018), which consists of five items designed to assess how mindful each partner tends to be in the context of their relationship. Participants were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1–6 where 1 = Almost always and 6 = Almost never. Example items include “When I’m with my partner, I find myself saying or doing things without paying attention” and “When my partner and I are together, it seems I am running on automatic, without much awareness of what I’m doing”. Items were reverse coded so that higher scores indicated higher levels of relationship mindfulness. Coefficient alpha was .89 for men and .90 for women.

Attributions

Relational attributions were measured using an abbreviated version of the Relational Attribution Measure (RAM; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). Participants completed 12 items designed to assess how each participant perceived their partner’s actions. Participants were given 2 scenarios depicting negative partner behaviors (“Imagine that your partner criticizes something you say” and “Imagine that your partner does not pay attention to what you are saying”) and were asked to rate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with various statements (1 = Strongly disagree and 6 = Strongly agree). Sample statements include “My partner deserves to be blamed for not paying attention to me” and “My partner criticized me on purpose rather than unintentionally.” Higher scores indicated less benign attributions. Coefficient alpha was .93 for men and .96 for women.

Loneliness

Loneliness was measured using 3 items from the UCLA loneliness scale (ULS-8; Hays & DiMatteo, 1987). The three items included (a) I lack companionship, (b) I feel isolated from others, and (c) I feel left out. Participants were asked to indicate how often they feel each of the described ways (1 = Never and 4 = Often). Higher scores indicated greater levels of loneliness. Coefficient alpha was .93 for men and .87 for women.

Relationship conflict

Conflict in the marital relationship was assessed using 2 items designed to assess the frequency and negative impact of conflict. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each statement is true for their relationship (1 = Not at all true and 6 = Completely true). The 2 items included were “There is a lot of conflict in my relationship” and “The disagreements between my partner and I have had a significant negative impact on our relationship”. Coefficient alpha was .90 for men and .96 for women.

Statistical analyses

To test the hypothesis that higher levels of relationship mindfulness will predict lower levels of both partner and actor loneliness, an APIM was conducted following the appropriate guidelines (Kenny et al., 2006). In order to evaluate model fit, the model chi-square statistic was evaluated in conjunction with Bentler comparative fit index (CFI), the Steiger–Lind root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). The model was tested using 5000 bootstrap resamples in order to assess the hypothesized indirect effects, which can be considered statistically significant if the 95% CI does not include 0 (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

Results

Prior to running the APIM, descriptive statistics were evaluated. The means and standard deviations for all of the model variables, as well as the correlation coefficients among all model variables, are presented in Table 1. All of the significant correlations were in the hypothesized direction.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Female Relationship Mindfulness	—
2. Male Relationship Mindfulness	.67**	—
3. Female Loneliness	−.36**	−.43**	—
4. Male Loneliness	−.38**	−.40**	.67**	—
5. Female Attributions	−.30**	−.50**	.60**	.58**	—
6. Male Attributions	−.29**	−.32**	.53**	.65**	.73**	—
7. Conflict	−.30**	−.49**	.57**	.66**	.62**	.65**	—
8. Female Age	.06	.14	−.21*	−.24*	−.28*	−.14	.26**	—
9. Male Age	.14	.19*	−.22*	−.27**	−.26**	−.16	−.24**	.86**	—
M	3.87	3.95	2.01	1.9	3.4	3.23	2	52.5	53
SD	1.26	1.23	.92	0.9	1.22	1.11	1.39	6.53	6.1

Note. *p < .05, **p < .001.

Overall, the goodness-of-model fit indices suggested that the model fit between the observed data and the proposed model was acceptable: χ 2(8) = 13.47, p = .10, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .08, 90% CI [.00, .15], SRMR = .07. Although the RMSEA value did not indicate a good fit between the observed data and the hypothesized model, as exceeded the cutoff of .06 proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999), all of the other indicators of model fit suggest adequate model fit, and it is important to note that no single indicator of model fit should be used to evaluate model fit (Kline, 2011).

The model direct effects can be viewed in Figure 1. The results of the multilevel analysis indicated that female relationship mindfulness had significant negative associations with both female loneliness (β = −.50, p < .001), and male loneliness (β = −.46, p < .001). On the other hand, male relationship mindfulness was not significantly associated with male loneliness (β = .02, p = .87) or female loneliness (β = .02, p = .86). The direct association between relationship mindfulness and marital conflict was not significant for males (β = −.08, p = .38) or females (β = .13, p = .17). The direct association between female loneliness and female attributions was significant (β = .86, p < .001). Likewise, male loneliness predicted male attributions (β = .84, p < .001). Male loneliness was significantly associated with marital conflict (β = .28, p < .001), but this was not the case for the link between female loneliness and marital conflict (β = .16, p = .07). Finally, male attributions and female attributions predicted relationship conflict (β = .24, p < .05 and β = .20, p < .05, respectively).

Figure 1.

Actor-partner interdependence mediation model linking male and female relationship mindfulness to relationship conflict via loneliness and attributions. Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The indirect effects between male and female relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict were tested, and the results are reported in Table 2. Two significant indirect effects between female relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict were found. First, female relationship mindfulness was indirectly associated with relationship conflict via its prior association with male loneliness (β = −.13, p < .05). None of indirect effects between male relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict were statistically significant. Interestingly, the indirect between female relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict via male loneliness and male attributions was significant (β = −.09, p < .05), but the indirect effect was not significant via female loneliness and female attributions.

Table 2.

Standardized indirect effects (IEs) for the model with relationship mindfulness as predictor, loneliness and attributions as the mediators, and conflict as the outcome.

Effect	Estimate	SE	95% BC CI
Female RM → Female Loneliness → Conflict	−.01	.02	[−.06, .01]
Female RM → Male Loneliness → Conflict	−.06	.05	[−.16, −.01]
Female RM → Female Loneliness → Female Attributions → Conflict	−.01	.02	[−.05, .01]
Female RM → Male Loneliness → Male Attributions → Conflict	−.05	.04	[−.16, −.01]
Male RM → Female Loneliness → Conflict	−.05	.05	[−.15, .01]
Male RM → Male Loneliness → Conflict	−.06	.05	[−.17, .004]
Male RM → Female Loneliness → Female Attributions → Conflict	−.04	.05	[−.13, .03]
Male RM → Male Loneliness → Male Attributions → Conflict	−.05	.04	[−.15, −.01]

Note. SE: standard error; BC CI: bias-corrected confidence interval; RM: relationship mindfulness; Bolded text: significant 95% BC CI.

Discussion

Current literature suggests that couple conflict is associated with various negative physical and mental health outcomes (e.g., Laursen & Hafen, 2010). As such, it is important to consider the possible factors that could be targeted in clinical settings to reduce the frequency and impact of couple conflict. The present study focused on the predictive association between relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict, particularly as experienced through loneliness and attributions. The results indicated that relationship mindfulness may indeed play a role in helping to reduce both the frequency and impact of relationship conflict.

As predicted, our findings indicated an indirect relationship between female relationship mindfulness and conflict through male loneliness and male attributions. Additionally, an indirect effect was found between female relationship mindfulness and conflict through only loneliness (and not attributions) as well. These results indicate that female relationship mindfulness is associated with her partner feeling less lonely, which is associated with less relationship conflict. Our results suggest that attributions may play a role in this association, but the association remains even when accounting for attributional tendencies. There were no indirect effects found between male relationship mindfulness and conflict.

Additionally, higher levels of relationship mindfulness were linked with lower levels of both actor and partner loneliness, at least for women. That is, women who demonstrated greater levels of mindfulness reported being less lonely, as did their male partners. This may be explained by the idea that relationship mindfulness may help partners remain conscientious of their connection with each other and therefore help them to feel more connected and less alone. Individuals with greater levels of relationship mindfulness are more in tune to their internal and external experiences within the relationship so they may ascribe greater meaning to moments of connection with their partner. That is, the moments of connection may be more impactful if an individual is particularly mindful during that experience.

The results of the present study provide support for relationships with less loneliness being associated with more benign partner attributions. As mentioned previously, this finding is consistent with the idea of “negative sentiment override” as described in the current romantic relationship literature. If a person is feeling more alone and less connected to their partner, they likely will find it more difficult to think positively about their partner and their partner’s intentions. The negative implications of partner transgressions may be exacerbated by assumptions about what those transgressions mean (i.e., “my partner did that because they do not care about me”). Increasing connection and subsequently decreasing loneliness may help partners to establish more benign attributions about their partners’ transgressions.

As hypothesized, benign attributions were associated with conflict that was less frequent and less impactful. This was true for both male and female partners. This is consistent with previous findings that demonstrated a link between benign attributions and decreased conflict (Durtschi et al., 2011; Fincham & Bradbury, 1987, 1993). Understandably, if a person is able to assume the best about their partner by attributing their behavior more positively, many conflicts can be avoided, especially those that originate from innocent misunderstandings. For example, consider a scenario where someone sees their partner’s dirty socks lying in the middle of the living room. They may assume that their partner is lazy and that is why the socks are lying there. Alternatively, they may assume that their partner had a stressful day and is planning to return to pick up the socks after a quick shower. The more hostile attribution may reasonably lead to an argument about cleanliness whereas the more benign attribution likely would not.

Based on our results, the female partner’s relationship mindfulness seemed to play an outsized role in predicting relationship conflict. Female relationship mindfulness was associated with less loneliness for both herself as well as her partner and an indirect relationship was found between female relationship mindfulness and overall relationship conflict. The idea that gender differences exist in factors that predict relationship outcomes is not a novel concept. Many researchers have found that in different-sex couples, the female partner’s qualities tend to predict relational outcomes more often than the male partner’s do (e.g., MacGregor & Cavallo, 2011). For example, one study found that a female partner’s anxiety and avoidance may predict their male partner’s symptom distress whereas only the male partner’s avoidance predicted their female partner’s symptom distress (Parker et al., 2012). Another study found that negative asynchronous marital change patterns influenced the distress of female partners but not male partners (Kanter & Proulx, 2021). Many scholars have argued that female partners’ behaviors and attributes play a more significant role in relational outcomes as a result of gender socialization in women.

Typically, women are socialized to monitor relationships more closely and are therefore more in tune with the quality of the relationship (e.g., Acitelli, 1992). Regarding the current study, it could be that since women are socialized to be more conscientious of the status of their relationship (i.e., higher in relationship mindfulness), there is an expectation based on their gender that they will be mindful. If they are not, this has more deleterious effects on the relationship than if their male partner (who was not necessarily expected to be mindful based on his gender) is less mindful. Given these very gendered expectations, a lack of mindfulness in a male partner may be attributed to his gender rather than to a lack of love or lack of connection between him and his partner (similar to an idea presented by Whiffen, 2005). Therefore, if a female partner credits gender as the reason for her partner being less mindful, it is unlikely that she will feel particularly lonely as a result. After all, she did not necessarily expect him to be mindful. However, if a male partner expects his wife to have a higher level of relationship mindfulness because of her gender, and she fails to meet those expectations it may result in him questioning aspects of their relationship since he cannot blame gender. This questioning of the relationship may include their connection and could reasonably lead to a feeling of isolation or loneliness.

Ultimately, our results indicated that relationship mindfulness may play a role in helping to reduce both the frequency and impact of relationship conflict. Increasing one’s level of relationship mindfulness may be as simple as engaging in various relationship mindfulness exercises. Such exercises can include mindful communication exercises, eye-gazing, loving-kindness meditations, and insight dialogue, to name a few. Other interventions designed to reduce couple conflict often focus purely on behavioral changes such as using “I” statements or avoiding blaming, but focusing on relationship mindfulness may help to prevent the conflict altogether. However, it is important to note that although it is likely that the interventions mentioned will promote relationship mindfulness, there have not yet been any studies to demonstrate the results of such interventions.

Limitations

Although this study provides some valuable insight into how relationship mindfulness is connected to relationship conflict, it is not without its limitations. For example, the sample of this study was entirely different-sex middle-aged couples so the findings cannot necessarily be generalized to all couples. Especially given some of the gender differences in the results, future research should look to explore whether testing same-sex couples would produce similar findings. Additionally, the prevalence of loneliness in middle-aged couples is more pronounced than in other age groups due to various life changes that result in changes in social groups (Nersesian et al., 2018). As such, future studies should look to explore how age may play a role in the association between relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict. Furthermore, the sample used in this study was predominantly Caucasian so the results cannot be generalized for more diverse populations. Finally, given the cross-sectional design of the study, no causal inferences can be made about the link between relationship mindfulness and relationship conflict. Future studies could look to explore how implementing various interventions designed to increase relationship mindfulness may influence factors such as loneliness, attributions, and relationship conflict. Of course, no current studies have been performed to test whether or not these interventions actually increase relationship mindfulness, so testing the effectiveness of such interventions is a necessary first step.

Conclusion

Relationships can certainly be the cause of both joy and sorrow and so much relational sorrow can be attributed to relationship conflict. Conflict in relationships can lead to disastrous mental and physical health outcomes. As such, explorations into possible factors that may reduce conflict are of infinite value. The results from this study indicate that relationship mindfulness may be one of those factors. Relationship mindfulness is linked to a variety of intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes, all of which contribute to overall wellbeing for people on an individual and relational level. In sum, relationship mindfulness may just be a key factor in helping promote connection by decreasing loneliness and reducing overall relationship conflict.

Footnotes

Funding

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

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 used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: kmorris2@fsu.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: kmorris2@fsu.edu.

ORCID iDs

Katherine L Morris

Jonathan G Kimmes

References

Acitelli

L. K.

(1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 102–110. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1177/0146167292181015

Desbordes

Gard

Hoge

E. A.

Hölzel

B. K.

Kerr

Lazar

S. W.

Olendzki

Vago

D. R.

(2015). Moving beyond mindfulness: Defining equanimity as an outcome measure in meditation and contemplative research. Mindfulness, 6(2), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0269-8

Durtschi

J. A.

Fincham

F. D.

Cui

Lorenz

F. O.

Conger

R. D.

(2011). Dyadic processes in early marriage: Attributions, behavior, and marital quality. Family Relations, 60(4), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00655.x

Fincham

F. D.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49(4), 797–809. https://doi.org/10.2307/351973

Fincham

F. D.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.457

Fincham

F. D.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1993). Marital satisfaction, depression, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.442

Gottman

(2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12182

Hays

R. D.

DiMatteo

M. R.

(1987). A short-form measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

10.

Kanter

J. B.

Proulx

C. M.

(2021). The longitudinal association between marital and psychological functioning in socioeconomically disadvantaged relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(9), 2465–2473. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211011704

11.

Karremans

J. C.

Schellekens

M. P.

Kappen

(2017). Bridging the sciences of mindfulness and romantic relationships: A theoretical model and research agenda. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(1), 29-49.

12.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

Cook

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

13.

Kimmes

J. G.

Jaurequi

M. E.

May

R. W.

Srivastava

Fincham

F. D.

(2018). Mindfulness in the context of romantic relationships: Initial development and validation of the relationship mindfulness measure. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12296

14.

Kimmes

J. G.

Jaurequi

M. E.

Roberts

Harris

V. W.

Fincham

F. D.

(2020). An Examination of the association between relationship mindfulness and psychological and relational well-being in committed couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12388

15.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

16.

Laursen

Hafen

C. A.

(2010). Future directions in the study of close relationships: Conflict is bad (except when it’s not). Social Development (Oxford, England), 19(4), 858–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9507.2009.00546.X

17.

Lindsay

E. K.

Young

Brown

K. W.

Smyth

J. M.

Creswell

J. D.

(2019). Mindfulness training reduces loneliness and increases social contact in a randomized controlled trial. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(9), 3488–3493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813588116

18.

MacGregor

J. C.

Cavallo

J. V.

(2011). Breaking the rules: Personal control increases women’s direct relationship initiation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(6), 848–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510397986

19.

Nersesian

P. V.

Han

H. R.

Yenokyan

Blumenthal

R. S.

Nolan

M. T.

Hladek

M. D.

Szanton

S. L.

(2018). Loneliness in middle age and biomarkers of systemic inflammation: Findings from Midlife in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 209, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.007

20.

Parker

M.L.

Johnson

L. N.

Ketring

S. A.

(2012). Adult attachment and symptom distress: A dyadic analysis of couples in therapy. Journal Of Family Therapy, 34(3), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-6427.2012.00598.X

21.

Rogge

R. D.

Fincham

F. D.

Crasta

Maniaci

M. R.

(2017). Positive and negative evaluation of relationships: Development and validation of the positive-negative relationship quality (PN-RQ) scale. Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 1028–1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000392

22.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

23.

Whiffen

V. E.

(2005). The role of partner characteristics in attachment insecurity and depressive symptoms. Personal Relationships, 12(3), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00123.x