The role of goal interdependence in couples’ relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis

Abstract

In the context of an increasingly egalitarian society, in which all genders are encouraged to be vocal about their goals and take equal growth opportunities, goal interdependence in couples has been repeatedly associated with relationship satisfaction. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide evidence for the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction in couples. We performed a random-effects analysis for the 32 reports and 49 independent samples that investigated three types of goal interdependence (goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict) in association with relationship satisfaction. We found significant medium effect sizes between goal interdependence in general (r = .23) and relationship satisfaction, as well as between each type of goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. The strongest effect size emerged for the association between goal congruence and relationship satisfaction (r = .43), followed by the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction (r = .28) and by the negative association between goal conflict and relationship satisfaction (r = −.29). From a theoretical standpoint, these results provide support for a key claim from the Transactive Goal Dynamics Theory that goal coordination between partners impacts relationship functioning. From a practical standpoint, they emphasize the need to consider goal interdependence in couples’ therapy, particularly in the current sociocultural context.

Keywords

Goal interdependence goal congruence goal conflict goal support relationship satisfaction meta-analysis

Introduction

With 40% of marriages ending in divorce (National Center for Health Statistics, 2012) and relationship problems being the most common reason for seeking formal counselling (Swindle et al., 2000), identifying predictors of relationship satisfaction is paramount. Recently, goal dynamics or interdependence have become an intensely researched topic in the realm of romantic relationships. In the context of an increasingly egalitarian society, in which all genders are encouraged to be vocal about their goals and take equal growth opportunities, dynamics between these goals are bound to relate to couples’ relationships, including their satisfaction with the relationship and probability for divorce (Gere et al., 2016).

Research in the past decades consistently supports the importance of goal pursuit for people’s wellbeing (Bernecker & Becker, 2021). Recent studies emphasize that regulation in goal pursuit and its associated positive outcomes are not only individually determined, but also highly influenced by significant others, such as romantic partners, who can either facilitate or hinder personal goal processes (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2018). This interaction is called goal interdependence and is shown to be further associated not only with goal processes, but also with relationship-related outcomes (Cappuzzello & Gere, 2018; Koestner et al., 2012). Despite evidence suggesting that goal interdependence (particularly goal support) is related to positive outcomes both for the individual and the relationship (Gere et al., 2011; Koestner et al., 2012), previous research findings have been mixed. For example, some studies have found either non-significant or even negative associations between goal interdependence and positive relationship outcomes, such as the quality of marital interactions or relationship satisfaction (e.g., August et al., 2013; Carbonneau et al., 2019). These mixed findings underlie the need for a meta-analytic investigation to put together existing evidence and shed light on the intricate associations between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. One reason that has been advanced for these mixed results is the existence of different types of goal interdependence, with consequently differential associations with relational outcomes (Vowels & Carnelley, 2020). Therefore, our meta-analysis investigates three types of goal interdependence – goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict – and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Of these types of goal interdependence, goal support is currently the most widely investigated. However, interest in goal congruence and goal conflict also increases due to their apparent relevance for couples’ wellbeing (Gere & Impett, 2017).

Goal support refers to instrumental or emotional help or contributions that people receive from their partners to set, pursue, and achieve their goals. For example, when Partner 1 wants to advance in their career, Partner 2 supports them by doing more household tasks. Goal congruence refers to partners who share or have similar goals for themselves (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2018). For example, both Partner 1 and Partner 2 want to pursue successful careers. Goal congruence can also refer to situations in which both partners share a certain goal for one partner. Possessing a goal for one’s partner that is also shared by the partner means having congruent goals; however, pursuing this goal for your partner (i.e., making efforts to facilitate progress towards it) is a form of goal support (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2018). For example, both Partner 1 and Partner 2 want Partner 1 to gain more money, so they share a similar/congruent goal. As a result, Partner 2 performs daily searches on hiring platforms to find a better job for Partner 1, which is rather a form of instrumental support for the latter. Goal conflict refers to incompatibility or interference between couples’ goals (Gere & Schimmack, 2013). For example, Partner 1 wants to invest more time to improve his relationship with Partner 2, but Partner 2 wants to invest more time in their career.

Meta-analytical results regarding the association between these types of goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction could provide insights in conceptualizing goal interdependence and providing a more coherent picture on how goal interdependence relates to romantic relationships. Despite the growing number of studies in the field, to our knowledge, no meta-analysis so far has investigated the association between goal interdependence and relationship functioning. Therefore, the current study will meta-analytically investigate the relationship between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction in couples, as well as how particular types of goal interdependence differentially relate to relationship satisfaction. More specifically, we expect goal support and goal congruence to be positively associated with relationship satisfaction, and goal conflict to be negatively associated with relationship satisfaction. The rationale for these expectations will be detailed below.

Theoretical background

Transactive Goal Dynamics Theory (TGD; Fitzsmons & Finkel, 2018) provides a more coherent explanation for the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. TGD emerged in an attempt to explain goal interdependence in social systems (i.e., two or more interrelated people) and its effects on relationship functioning. According to the theory, people’s self-regulation processes aimed at setting, pursuing, and achieving goals do not work in isolation, but are influenced by other members of the social system. Thus, the social system becomes a single self-regulating unit, instead of two or more individual/isolated units, in which the way one member of the social system regulates their own behaviour, emotions etc., inherently impacts other members’ goal-related regulation processes. The closer the members of the social system are, the more interdependent their goal dynamics will be. This goal-related interdependence is named transactive density and is especially strong in social systems characterized by frequent interactions and strong motivation for goal-relevant interdependence (e.g., couples etc.; Finkel et al., 2016).

When the social system, in this case, the couple, properly coordinates its goals (through similar goals, low interference with partners’ goals, emotional or instrumental goal-support), partners experience transactive gain (i.e., better goal outcomes than they would have experienced on their own), which further strengthens their relationship (Finkel et al., 2016). In contrast, partners’ lack of support or goal conflict will lead to transactive loss (i.e., interference with progress in one’s own goal pursuit, giving up on personal goals for the sake of romantic partners’ goals; Finkel et al., 2016), which will increase frustration and negatively impact relationship persistence (Finkel et al., 2016).

In close relationships, goal-related interdependence, such as perceived partner goal-related support, joint engagement in physical activity goals, partner’s instrumental support for one’s goals or collaborative problem-solving have been related to greater commitment to the respective goal (Berli et al., 2018), higher goal progress (Briskin et al., 2019), as well as higher relationship satisfaction and overall wellbeing (Cappuzzello & Gere, 2018; Gere et al., 2011; Hoppmann & Gerstorf, 2013; Molden et al., 2009). However, in agreement with TGD, romantic partners’ influence on personal goals is not always beneficial for personal and relational wellbeing. For example, certain types of goal support (e.g., directive support) are either unrelated or negatively related to relationship satisfaction (Carbonneau et al., 2019; Koestner et al., 2012), potentially since being constantly monitored by one’s partner or offering permanent assistance for partners’ goals may feel demotivating and make partners question the similarity of their goals and values (Carbonneau et al., 2019). Kindt et al. (2020) also found that partners’ needs or goal conflict with personal goals (i.e., incompatible goals and goal pursuit strategies; Finkel et al., 2016) relate to lower life and relationship satisfaction. Similarly, the results of Gere and Schimmack (2013) show that constant interference between partners’ goals (especially for long-term goals) is associated with lower general and relationship wellbeing. These results suggest that goal interdependence in couples may differentially relate to relationship quality, depending on factors such as the type of interdependence or how partners’ goals interact with each other.

Past meta-analyses in the domain of goal interdependence in couples have generally focused on one form of goal interdependence (i.e., goal-related support; Vowels & Carnelley, 2020) and its association with goal outcomes, such as goal pursuit, motivation, and progress (Park et al., 2004; Pilkington et al., 2015). However, research shows that goal interdependence is not only related to goal outcomes per se, but also to relationship outcomes, such as relationship commitment or relationship wellbeing (Gere, 2012) and that its associations with relationship outcomes are tightly linked to the specific type of goal interdependence (Gere & Schimmack, 2013). As such, the current meta-analysis separately investigates the association of three types of goal interdependence (i.e., goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict) with relationship satisfaction.

Measures for goal interdependence

Measurements are specific to the type of goal interdependence targeted by each study. Measures for goal support vary widely depending on whether the study addresses one particular goal for all the participants (e.g., quitting smoking) or different goals that participants report. In the first situation, instruments specific to a certain goal are used in general, such as the Partner Interaction Questionnaire (Cohen & Lichtenstein, 1990), which assesses partner support for the goal of quitting smoking. In the second case, participants are asked to name or think about certain goals and then assess perceived partner support on the goals they reported – e.g., “My partner gave me advice about my goals” (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016), “Does your partner make it easier to pursue this goal?” (Cappuzzello & Gere, 2018). The current meta-analysis only includes studies which measure partner support that is explicitly related to a certain goal that their partner is pursuing. Specifically, studies should explicitly ask participants to refer to certain goals when assessing perceived support from their partner, as opposed to assessing partner support with no explicit reference to one or more goals, such as support for coping with stress (Falconier et al., 2015). Measures for goal congruence follow a similar trend to the ones for goal support, with specific measures for specific goals – e.g., Shared Goals and Values Scale (Archuleta et al., 2010) for assessing financial goals similarity in couples (Archuleta et al., 2013) and general assessment for general goals – e.g., by matching participants’ reported goals with similar or identical goals they perceive their partners have (Gere, 2012) or with the goals reported by their partners themselves (Riediger & Rauers, 2010). Measures for goal conflict tend to be more homogenous, with most studies asking participants to name some important goals that they pursue and assess whether and how frequently their pursuit of their own goals interferes with their partners’ (e.g., Gere & Impett, 2017).

Moderators

In order to account for particularities in the associations between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction, we also tested for potential moderators. Firstly, we tested moderators that are traditionally investigated in meta-analyses (such as study design, sample size, female percentage in the sample, mean age). We considered two categories for study design: cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Effect sizes coming from longitudinal studies are generally significantly smaller than cross-sectional ones due to the inherent nature of longitudinal analyses, which hold past effects on the outcome under control, thus reducing the effect size (Adachi & Willoughby, 2015).

Secondly, we tested two additional moderators that are generally investigated in couple studies or in the context of goal interdependence, i.e., goal type and relationship length. Goal type was divided into two categories: general and specific. With general goals, studies would usually ask participants to assess the perceived level of goal interdependence with respect to their personal goals in general (without naming the goal), whereas in studies focusing on specific goals, participants assessed goal interdependence in relation to a concrete goal (e.g., giving up smoking, losing weight etc.). Although it is possible for general goals to yield higher effect sizes since studies focusing on general goals are more similar in how they conceptualize and measure goal interdependence compared to studies focusing on specific goals, one meta-analysis focusing on the relationship between goal support and goal outcomes in couples found no significant differences for the two categories of goal type (Vowels & Carnelley, 2020).

Given the inconsistent findings for relationship length, we investigated it exploratorily. For example, although past meta-analyses on couples’ studies emphasize its relevance as a moderator, particularly when relationship satisfaction is considered (e.g., Hadden et al., 2014), Jakubiak and Feeney (2016) found that goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction are similarly related in samples of newlyweds and married couples in late adulthood. Moreover, Vowels and Carnelley did not find a significant moderator effect of relationship length on the association between goal support and goal outcomes.

The current study

Despite the growing number of studies investigating goal interdependence, to our knowledge no meta-analysis up to now investigated the extent of the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. From a theoretical standpoint, the present meta-analysis will quantify the extent to which results in the TGD domain support one of the main assumptions of the theory – i.e., that the proper mutual coordination of ones’ goals benefits the relationship, while goal conflict negatively affects the relationship (Finkel et al., 2016). From a practical standpoint, results could point to the importance of considering goal-related interdependence when targeting relationship quality in couple psychotherapy and identify the specific types of goal interdependence that should be addressed by the therapist.

Hypotheses

The aim of the current meta-analysis is thus twofold: a) to determine the strength of the relationship between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction in couples and b) to determine how different types of goal interdependence relate to relationship satisfaction. Specifically, we hypothesize that goal congruence and goal support will be positively related to relationship satisfaction, while goal conflict will be negatively related to relationship satisfaction.

Regarding the moderators, we expect studies with longitudinal designs to report smaller effect sizes than studies with cross-sectional designs. The remaining moderators (i.e., sample size, mean age, female percentage, goal type, and relationship length) were investigated exploratorily, with no prior expectation regarding their impact on the overall effect size.

Methods

Literature search

In order to identify relevant studies for the current meta-analysis, we conducted a systematic search up to March 2021 in the following databases: PsychInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed/Medline, ProQuest Central and Google Scholar, with the following search string: (“goal conflict” OR “goal interference” OR “interference” OR “goal support” OR “support” OR “encourage*” OR “relational catalyst” “goal congruence”) AND (“relationship satisfaction” OR “relationship quality” OR “relationship wellbeing”) AND (“romantic” OR “partner” OR “dyad*” OR “intima*” OR “couple*“). We also searched for relevant references in previous theoretical papers on transactive goal dynamics (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2018; Fitzsimons, Finkel, & Vandellen, 2015), as well as in the reference list of meta-analyses on this topic (e.g., Vowels & Carnelley, 2020). In order to identify unpublished papers, we performed searches on ProQuest, a database that includes unpublished data from doctoral and dissertation theses. We also emailed authors of published papers on goal interdependence and published calls on listservs (e.g., International Association for Relationship Research; Social Psychology Network) to ask for unpublished data. In an attempt to reach as many researchers as possible, we also contacted authors through private messages on the International Association for Relationship Research (IARR). Furthermore, we contacted authors of studies where the data that we needed for the meta-analysis, although measured, have not been reported. However, replies to our requests were not provided.

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by A. T. and potential difficulties in the selection of certain studies were discussed with two other reviewers (I. R. P. and P. P. R.). Our search strategy resulted in a total of 17 372 articles. After the removal of duplicates, 16 600 reports were screened by title and abstract. Eventually, 150 full-text records were analyzed, with 118 reports being excluded and the remaining 32 meeting all the inclusion criteria. In the final meta-analysis, 32 reports, with 49 independent samples/studies were included. The whole search and selection process is detailed in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the study selection process.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In order to be included in the current meta-analysis, studies had to meet the following criteria: studies had to include participants in romantic relationships, studies should report interdependence in the context of romantic relationships, goals (no other types of stressors) should be the target of partners’ support, studies should specifically mention one goal (e.g., quit smoking) or general goals that participants pursue, studies should report data for the association between goal interdependence (i.e., goal support, goal conflict/interference, goal congruence) and relationship satisfaction, and either a cross-sectional or longitudinal design should be used. When both cross-sectional and longitudinal effect sizes were reported, we prioritized longitudinal effect sizes because they are considered more accurate (Adachi & Willoughby, 2015).

Exclusion criteria were: studies with experimental manipulations that might impact goal interdependence, goal interdependence in relation to persons other than romantic partners, partner support unrelated to participants’ goal(s) (e.g., emotional support during stressful times).

Data extraction and coding

Table 1 contains identification data and methodological information for each manuscript. We also extracted data on methodological characteristics (study design, sample size), participant characteristics (age, percentage of females in the sample, nationality/ethnicity education level), and relationship characteristics (relationship duration), as well as goal type (general vs. specific).

Table 1.

Study characteristics.

Study identification	N	Sample mean age	Female mean age	Male mean age	Gender (% of females)	Rel. Length (months)	Married (%)	Study design	Goal type	Type of goal interdep	Publication status	Location	Nationality/Ethnicity	Educational lev	Students (%)
Archuleta et al. (2013)	109	53.3	NS	NS	50%	321.12	70%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal congruence	Published	USA	82.2% european american	42% bachelor or higher	No
													8.1% native american
Aug et al. (2013)	129	66.07	NS	NS	49.60%	NS	100%	Longitudinal	Specific	Goal support	Published	NS	76.6% non-hispanic caucasian	NS	No
													21.9% african american
													1.6% other
Avivi et al. (2009) – 1	245	NS	19.2	29.59	72%	18.67	1.63%	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal congruence	Published	Miami, USA	50.2% european american	NS	100
													20% hispanic
													8.2% african american
													6.9 asian/Pacific islander
													14.7% other
Avivi et al. (2009) – 1	156	NS	19.28	20.29	50%	8.49	0.39%	Longitudinal	Specific	Goal congruence	Published	Miami, USA	41% european american	NS	100
													33.3% hispanic
													3.8% african american
													6.4% asian/Pacific islander
													0.6% native american
													14.7% other
Britton et al. (2019)	62	35.69	NS	NS	50%	73.44	NS	Longitudinal	Specific	Goal support	Published	NS	74% caucasian	NS	No
Brunstein et al. (1996) – 1	60	23	NS	NS	50%	32.88	0%	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	ErlangenGermany	100% German	NS	100
Brunstein et al. (1996) – 2	72		40.5	43.4	50%	200.4	100%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support Goal conflict	Published	Bavaria, Germany	100% German	NS	No
Buhler et al. (2018)	505	47.2	NS	NS	58%	242.4	52%	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal support	Published	Switzerland	89.7 swiss	14.6% highschool	No
													8.9% Swiss+Italian/German	21.7% vocational training
														25% college
Cappuzzello & Gere (2018)	118	21.2	NS	NS	NS	2.95	0%	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	Toronto, Canada	51.3% european	NS	66.5%
													48.1% asian
Carbonneau & Milyavskaya (2017)	262	NS	44.13	44.69	50%	130.8	63%	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal support	Published	Quebec, Canada	95.2% caucasian	NS	No
													4.8% other
Carbonneau et al. (2019)	494	NS	37.74	39.97	50%	161.04	55%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support	Published	Hungary	100% Hungarian	NS	No
Chua (2015)	166	21.78			NS	NS	NS	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support	Published	NS	NS	NS	No
Dailey (2018)	389	34.6	NS	NS	55%	103.56	51.90%	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal support	Published	USA	75.6% caucasian	NS	No
										Goal conflict			4.6% hispanic
													7.2% asian
													5.9% african american
DeMontingny et al. (2016)	506	47		47	0%	NS	100%	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal support	Published	Canada	95.3% canadian	Average ed. = 12yrs	No
													4.7% other
Emery et al. (2017) – 1	118	19.59	NS	NS	50%	18.12	0%	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	NS	NS	NS	No
Emery et al. (2017) – 2	180	22.27	NS	NS	52%	28.2	4.2%	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	NS	NS	NS	No
Feeney et al. (2017)	326	38.26	NS	NS	50%	144	100%	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	NS	75.5% caucasian	34.3% associate degree	No
													15.3 african american	44.8% bachelor’s degree or higher
Gere (2012) – 1	130	21.1	NS	NS	50%	16.7	0%	Longitudinal	General	Goal conflict	Unpublished	Toronto, Canada	25% western european	NS	68%
										Goal congruence			23% east asian
													19% south asian
													11% southeast asian
													10% eastern european
													22% other
Gere (2012) – 2	156	21.2	NS	NS	50%	2.95	0%	Longitudinal	General	Goal congruence	Unpublished	Toronto, Canada	39.4% western european	NS	66.5%
													24.5% east asian
													12.9% south asian
													12.3% eastern european
													11% southeast asian
													6.4% south american
													5.8% other
Gere and Impett (2017)	118	21.2	NS	NS	50%	2.95	0%	Longitudinal	General	Goal conflict	Published	NS	51.3% european	NS	66.5
													24.4% east asian
													23.7% South/South-East asian
													12.7% other
Gere and Schimmack (2013)	210	19.2	NS	NS	NS	17.9	0%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal conflict	Published	Toronto, Canada	37.6% asian	NS	50%
													33.8% european
													6.7% caribbean
													6.7% south american
													14.8% other
Gray & Cons (2017)	250	19.46	NS	NS	50%	18.72	NS	Cross-sectional	General	Goal conflict	Published	California, USA	44% asian american	NS	NS
													33.5% latina
													13.5% european american
													9.5% other
Henry et al. (2013)	258	66	NS	NS	50%	456	100%	Longitudinal	Specific	Goal support	Published	NS	72.6% caucasian	12.4% less then highschool	No
										Goal conflict			22.2% african american	27.9% highschool
													1.6% other	59.7% beyond highschool
Hofmann et al. (2015)	227	NS	23.37	24.68	50%	31.32	NS	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	Chicaco, USA	53.9% caucasian	5.3% highschool
													16.1% african american	76.4% college
													16.1% hispanic	18.3% postgraduate
													12.2% asian
													0.9% american indian
													0.9% other
Jakubiak & Feeney (2016) – 1	395	27.4	25.2	26.3	50%	4.6 (since married)	100%	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	NS	82.1% caucasian	Average level of education: bachelor’s degree
													17.9% other
Jakubiak & Feeney (2016) – 2	476	70	68.4	71.6	50%	480 (since married)	100%	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	NS	NS	NS
Kaplan & Maddux (2002)	234	37.8	NS	NS	NS	127.2 (since married)	100%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support	Published	NS	86.3% caucasian	52.5% college
Koestner et al. (2012)	124	21.52	NS	NS	50%	NS	NS	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	Montreal, Canada	NS	NS
Leung & Law (2019) – 1	96	31.39	NS	NS	76%	90.34	33%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support	Published	UK	77% caucasian	NS	No
													10.41% asian
													3.12% african ameriacn
													3.12% hispanic
													3% other
													3% did not respond
Leung & Law (2019) – 2	208	23.05	NS	NS	50%	35.46	NS	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support	Published	Rochester, USA	82.7% caucasian	NS	50
												Hamburg, Germany	11.1% asian
													1% african american
													1% hispanic
													3.8% others
Martos et al. (2019) – 1	298	NS	39.47	41.85	50%	178.32	54%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support	Published	Hungary	100% Hungarian	26.65% basic	No
														47% intermediate
														26.35 high
Martos et al. (2019) – 2	540	NS	37.8	40.1	50%	161.04	100%	Cross-sectional	General	Goal support	Published	Hungary	NS	28.3% primary ed	No
														58% secondary ed
														13.7% tertiary ed
Matzek et al. (2010)	109	NS	42	42	44%	NS	100%	Longitudinal	Specific	Goal support	Published	NS	NS	9.5% highschool	No
														17.5% graduate
														28% undergraduate
														45.5% some college ed
Overall et al. (2010) – 1	150	22.09	NS	NS	56%	23.1	NS	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal support	Published	NS	NS	NS	No
Overall et al. (2010) – 2	94	24.09	NS	NS	50%	36.12	NS	Longitudinal	Specific	Goal support	Published	NS	NS	NS	No
Riediger & Rauers (2010)	138	28.45	NS	NS	50%	57	NS	Longitudinal	General	Goal congruence	Published	Berlin, Germany	NS	NS	NS
Righetti et al. (2016)	253	23.33	NS	NS	NS	34.13	2%	Longitudinal	General	Goal conflict	Published	Netherlands	NS	NS	63.6%
Sadikaj et al. (2015)	186	29.09	27.89	30.28	50%	50.69	NS	Longitudinal	General	Goal support	Published	NS	70% caucasian	0.5% less than highschool
													3% east asian	12% highschool
													4% southeast asian	36% 1 year of college
													2% west indian	34% university
													4% african american	17% postgraduate
													9% hispanic	1% doctoral
													8% other
Soto et al. (2019)	338	65.4	NS	NS	65.10%	NS	100%	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal support	Published	North Carolina, USA	87.2% non-hispanic caucasian	56.8% more than 4-year degree	NS
													12.8% other
Tanaka et al. (2017)	268	56.8	NS	NS	38%	306	86%	Cross-sectional	Specific	Goal support	Published	San francisco, USA	69.6% caucasian	70.5% college	No

Note. NS = Not specified.

Statistical methods

Statistical analyses were performed with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 3 (Borenstein et al., 2013). Given that study and participants characteristics, as well as measures for the included variables differ across studies, a random-effects model was used be used for the effect size analyses (Borenstein et al., 2009). We extracted the r correlation or regression coefficients from each study and converted them to Fisher’s z scale. All analyses were performed using the transformed values, which were then converted back to correlation for presentation and interpretive purposes. In studies where two or more relevant effect sizes were reported for the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction, we computed an average of these correlations. The interpretation of the effect sizes follows Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, i.e., r values of 0.10 or smaller indicate a small effect size, values in between 0.30 and 0.50 indicate medium effect sizes, and values of 0.50 and higher indicate large effect sizes.

We also performed heterogeneity tests, i.e., the Q statistic to determine if variations in effect sizes are due to other sources than random error (Borenstein et al., 2009) and the I² statistic to determine the percentage of variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance (Higgins et al., 2003). A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was also performed to weigh in on the impact of each study on the overall effect size (Borenstein et al., 2009). For the identification of publication bias, we will use both funnel plots and the Egger’s test of the intercept (Egger et al., 1997). If the asymmetry of funnel plots was significant, the Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill procedure was also used. This procedure provides corrected effect sizes estimates that would be needed to have complete symmetry (Duval & Tweedie, 2000).

Subgroup analyses were performed for the extracted categorical moderators (study design and goal type) and meta-regression analyses for continuous moderators (sample size, age, percentage of females in the sample, and relationship duration).

Results

The current meta-analysis included 32 studies, with 40 independent samples and a total of 9153 participants. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the studies included in this meta-analysis. The average age was 34.41 years (SD = 16.77, range 19.2–70) and the average relationship length was 108.73 months (SD = 127.43, range 2.95–480). An average of 50.40% of the participants were female and approximately half of the couples were married (52%). Except for three studies, all samples included mixed-gender couples exclusively. We also extracted data on nationality/ethnicity, level of education, and percentage of students in the sample. However, given the fact that a high number of studies did not report such data and that reporting was inconsistent across studies, computations to determine potential sociodemographic trends were not performed. With respect to the methodological characteristics of the studies, 21 of them (52,5%) were longitudinal and the remaining 19 were cross-sectional. The most common type of goal interdependence was goal support (70%), followed equally by goal conflict (15%) and goal congruence (15%).

Total effect size for the associations between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction

In order to compute the effect size for the current meta-analysis, we converted the r correlation coefficient into Fisher’s z scale and then converted the effect size back to Pearson’s r for presentation and interpretive purposes. First, we computed the pooled effect size of the association between all types of goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. The random-effects model analysis revealed a positive correlation between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction, r = .23, 95% CI [.14, .32], p < .001, which, according to Cohen’s guidelines (Cohen, 1988), indicates a small effect size. Effect sizes for each study are presented in Figure 2. The funnel plot (see Supplemental Material, Figure 6) and the Egger’s test of the intercept revealed no publication bias, with Egger’s intercept = 3.73 p = .13. Since no publication bias has been found, the trim-and-fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) was not computed.

Figure 2.

Forest plot for the total effect size for the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction.

Leave-one-out analysis revealed no major deviation from the overall effect size. The smallest effect size was r = .22 after the studies of Archuleta et al. (2013) and Leung and Law (2019) were removed. The highest effect size was r = .25, after removing the study of Gere and Schimmack (2011).

Study heterogeneity was significant, with Q₍₃₉₎ = 1022.04, p < .001 and I² = 96.18%. We therefore performed moderator analyses for the moderators described in the Introduction of the current paper.

Moderator analyses

Subgroup analyses have been performed for study design and goal type and meta-regression for relationship length, sample mean age, female percentage, and sample size. None of the categorical or continuous moderators were significant. Although not significant, the difference in effect size for study design was in the expected direction, longitudinal studies having, on average, a lower effect size compared to cross-sectional ones. Results of the subgroup analyses for both the categorical and the continuous moderators are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Subgroup and Meta-Regression Analyses for the Association Between Goal Interdependence and Relationship Satisfaction.

	Subgroup analyses							Meta-regression analyses
Moderator	Categories	k	r	95% CI	Q	p	Moderator	k	Slope	95% CI	Q	p
Study design	Cross-sectional	22	.26	[.11, .39]			Female percentage	35	.00	[-.00, .01]	1.12	.289
					0.27	.600	Sample mean age	33	.00	[-.00, .00]	0.22	.642
	Longitudinal	18	.22	[.10, .31]			Sample size	40	−.00	[-.00, .00]	0.14	.707
Goal type	Specific	14	.22	[.08, .35]			Relationship duration	31	.00	[-.00, .00]	0.35	.554
					0.08	.768
	General	26	.25	[.12, .36]

Note. K = number of studies included in the analyses; CI = confidence interval.

Associations Between Types of Goal Interdependence and Relationship Satisfaction

Across studies, three types of goal interdependence emerged: goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict. Given the fact that some studies included two or more of the three types of interdependence and, therefore, data did not meet the condition of independence, we could not perform subgroup analyses to test whether effect sizes differ as a function of the type of goal interdependence. However, we computed separate effect sizes for the association between each type of goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. Given the small number of samples for the association between goal conflict and relationship satisfaction and goal congruence and relationship satisfaction, moderator analyses have only been performed for the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction. A higher number of samples both for goal congruence and goal conflict would have been needed to have relevant meta-analytical results for goal congruence and goal conflict as well.

Exploratorily, we also investigated whether there are significant differences between studies including dyadic data and studies including individual data. However, although 21 of the total number of studies included data from both partners, only 9 of these studies reported actor and partner effects specifically for the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. Therefore, the analyses below do not include effect sizes based on actor and partner data, since most of the dyadic studies did not report dyadic data on the association under investigation in the current meta-analysis.

These analyses revealed no significant differences between dyadic versus individual studies, with an effect size of r = .18, 95% CI [.04, .32] for dyadic studies, and an effect size of r = .29, 95% CI [.17, .40] for individual studies, Q₍₁₎ = 1.22, p = .26.

Goal support and relationship satisfaction

For the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction, a number of 30 samples and a total of 7338 participants were included in the analyses. The overall effect size for the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction is r = .28, 95% CI [.19, .37], p < .001, which, according to Cohen’s guidelines (Cohen, 1988), indicates a small effect size. Effect sizes for each study are presented in Figure 3. The funnel plot (see Supplemental Material, Figure 7) and the Egger’s test of the intercept revealed no publication bias, with Egger’s intercept = 3.87, p = .09. Since no publication bias has been found, the trim-and-fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) was not computed.

Figure 3.

Forest plot for the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction.

Leave-one-out analysis revealed no major deviation from the overall effect size. The smallest effect size was r = .26 after the study of Leung and Law (2019) was removed. The highest effect size was r = .29, after removing the study of Martos et al. (2019).

Because study heterogeneity was significant, with Q₍₂₉₎ = 553.74, p < .001 and I² = 94.76%, we performed moderator analyses for the same moderators as above.

Subgroup analyses revealed that goal type was a significant moderator. More specifically, the effect size for studies referring to general goals was significantly higher compared to the effect size for studies referring to specific goals. Results of the subgroup analyses for all the categorical moderators are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Subgroup and Meta-Regression Analyses for the Association Between Goal Support and Relationship Satisfaction.

		Subgroup Analyses						Meta-Regression Analyses
Moderator	Categories	k	r	95% CI	Q	p	Moderator	k	Slope	95% CI	Q	p
Study design	Cross-sectional	17	.28	[.14, .40]			Female percentage	27	.00	[-.00, .01]	0.47	.494
					0.004	.944	Sample mean age	23	−.00	[-.00, .00]	0.54	.464
	Longitudinal	13	.28	[.18, .38]			Sample size	30	−.00	[-.00, .00]	0.62	.431
Goal type	Specific	12	.17	[.05, .29]			Relationship duration	22	−.00	[-.00, .00]	0.06	.800
					4.24	.039
	General	18	.42	[.22, .47]

Note. K = number of studies included in the analyses; CI = confidence interval.

Results for the meta-regression analyses for continuous moderators showed no significant continuous moderation for the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction. Results of the meta-regression analyses for all the continuous moderators are presented in Table 3.

Goal congruence and relationship satisfaction

For the association between goal congruence and relationship satisfaction, a number of 6 samples and a total of 934 participants were included in the analyses. The overall effect size for the association between goal congruence and relationship satisfaction is r = .43, 95% CI [.22, .60], p < .001, which, according to Cohen’s guidelines (Cohen, 1988), indicates a medium effect size. Effect sizes for each study are presented in Figure 4. The funnel plot (see Supplemental Material, Figure 8) and the Egger’s test of the intercept revealed no publication bias, with Egger’s intercept = −0.61, p = .94. Since no publication bias has been found, the trim-and-fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) was not computed.

Figure 4.

Forest plot for the association between goal congruence and relationship satisfaction.

Leave-one-out analysis revealed no major deviation from the overall effect size. The smallest effect size was r = .36 after the study of Archuleta et al. (2013) was removed. The highest effect size was r = .48, after removing the study of Riediger and Rauers (2010).

Although study heterogeneity was significant, with Q₍₅₎ = 85.71, p < .001 and I² = 94.16%, moderator analyses were not performed given the small number of samples.

Goal conflict and relationship satisfaction

For the association between goal conflict and relationship satisfaction, a number of 8 samples and a total of 1680 participants were included in the analyses. The overall effect size for the association between goal conflict and relationship satisfaction is r = −.29, 95% CI [-.44, −.14], p < .001, which, according to Cohen’s guidelines (Cohen, 1988), indicates a small to medium effect size. Effect sizes for each study, as well as for males and females if reported separately are presented in Figure 5. The funnel plot (see Supplemental Material, Figure 9) and the Egger’s test of the intercept revealed no publication bias, with Egger’s intercept = −1.26, p = .81. Since no publication bias has been found, the trim-and-fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) was not computed.

Figure 5.

Forest plot for the association between goal conflict and relationship satisfaction.

Leave-one-out analysis revealed no major deviation from the overall effect size. The smallest effect size was r = −.25 after the study of Brunstein et al. (1996) was removed. The highest effect size was r = −.33, after removing the study of Gray and Cons (2017).

Although study heterogeneity was significant, with Q₍₇₎ = 96.794, p < .001 and I² = 92.76%, moderator analyses were not performed given the small number of samples.

Discussion

The current meta-analysis investigated the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction, as well as between three different types of goal interdependence, i.e., goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict on one side and relationship satisfaction on the other. Although some meta-analyses have examined the association between goal pursuit and general wellbeing (da Silva et al., 2016; van Genugten et al., 2017) or between partner goal support and goal progress (Vowels & Carnelley, 2020), no meta-analysis so far has analyzed how goal interdependence relates to relationship satisfaction. As partners’ role in times of thriving and growth (as opposed to their contribution merely in times of distress) becomes increasingly present in the scientific literature (e.g., Overall et al., 2010; Tomlinson et al., 2020; Vowels & Carnelley, 2020), the need to quantify the rapidly growing number of results also increased.

In our meta-analysis, we found significant small and medium effect sizes between goal interdependence in general and relationship satisfaction (r = .23), as well as between each type of goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction (r = .43 for goal congruence, r = .28 for goal support, and r = −.29 for goal conflict).

Goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction

The current meta-analysis shows that goal interdependence is generally positively related to relationship satisfaction. These results are consistent with the general assumption of the Transactive Goal Dynamics theory (TGD), which posits that interdependence of couples’ goals benefits the relationship when partners experience transactive gain (i.e., better goal outcomes than they would have experienced on their own) (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2018). Similarly, a meta-analysis investigating the association between goal support and goal outcomes found that when people support their partners’ goals, partners experience better goal outcomes (Vowels & Carnelley, 2020). According to TGD, these positive goal outcomes have positive effects on the relationship when they are attributed to the relationship. Although TGD states that goal interdependence increases relationship commitment or persistence rather than relationship satisfaction (Finkel et al., 2016), literature shows that commitment is strongly related to relationship satisfaction (Madey & Rodgers, 2009). It is therefore legitimate to expect that goal interdependence is also related to relationship satisfaction, as our results have shown. Moreover, another meta-analysis has shown that the ability to pursue and achieve one’s goals improves one’s general wellbeing (da Silva et al., 2016). When goal pursuit and progress are partially attributed to one’s partner (due to goal interdependence), relationship wellbeing is also expected to improve.

Individual associations of goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict with relationship satisfaction

Although goal interdependence was significantly positively related to relationship satisfaction, TGD states that not all types of goal interdependence are beneficial to the relationship (Finkel et al., 2016). Indeed, according to the theory, inconsistencies in partners’ goals or goal pursuit strategies may lead to transactive loss (i.e., interference with progress in one’s own goal pursuit; Finkel et al., 2016), which further affects the relationship. Therefore, we computed separate effect sizes for the three most researched types of goal interdependence, i.e., goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict. All effect sizes were significant and moderate. The strongest effect size emerged for the association between goal congruence and relationship satisfaction (r = .43), followed by the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction (r = .35) and by the negative association between goal conflict and relationship satisfaction (r = .29). This may be explained by the fact that not all types of goal support are considered effective. For example, some studies have shown that directive goal support is actually negatively related or unrelated to relationship satisfaction (Carbonneau et al., 2019; Koestner et al., 2012). Brock and Lawrence (2009) have found that support under- and overprovision have negative effects on marriage quality, while Fivecoat et al. (2015) experimentally showed that partner passive (unlike active) support for self-expansion decreases relationship satisfaction. A meta-analysis by Falconier et al. (2015) also showed that dyadic coping (a form of supportive interaction between partners that is conceptually similar to, although broader than, partner support) can take forms that are actually detrimental to relationship quality. However, the identified differences between effect sizes should be interpreted with caution since our meta-analysis included a much higher number of samples for goal support (k = 30) compared to both goal congruence (k = 6) and goal conflict (k = 8).

The positive effect size for the association between goal support and relationship satisfaction is, however, reflective of the fact that most studies in the meta-analysis include positive types of support and that most individual studies identified positive associations between goal support and relationship satisfaction. According to the meta-analysis by Vowels and Carnelley (2020), partner goal support is positively associated with goal progress and TGD states that higher goal progress as a result of goal interdependence with one’s partner will also positively influence the relationship. This may explain why goal support is also positively related to relationship satisfaction, as shown in the current meta-analysis.

TGD states that not only goal support, but any type of goal interdependence that is bound to advance personal goals will benefit the relationship. This is in line with the positive effect sizes we identified for the association between congruence and relationship satisfaction as well (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2018).

By contrast, we found that goal conflict is negatively related to relationship satisfaction. This supports TGD premises, which state that, if interdependence with one’s partner affects goal pursuit (as is the case with goal conflict), the relationship will also be affected (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2018). Indeed, Vowels and Carnelley (2020) found moderate negative effect sizes for the association between negative support (i.e., partner’s interference with one’s goals, intrusion, and coercion) and self-efficacy in goal pursuit, which might explain the negative association between goal conflict and relationship outcomes (Finkel et al., 2016).

Moderators

No significant moderators emerged for the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. However, the differences in the effect size for cross-sectional versus longitudinal studies were in the expected direction, with longitudinal studies showing a lower (although not significant) effect size compared to cross-sectional ones. Indeed, longitudinal studies are known to typically produce smaller effect sizes because they often employ autoregressive models. Autoregressive models control for stability effects by using past values of the outcome and the correlation between the predictor at T1 and the outcome at T1 to predict future values of the outcome. This process automatically diminishes the effect size (Adachi & Willoughby, 2015). Adachi and Willoughby thus suggest that guidelines for interpreting effect sizes should be different for longitudinal and cross-sectional studies and that effect sizes coming from longitudinal studies that are normally considered trivial based on traditional thresholds might actually be highly relevant and comparable with significant effect sizes obtained cross-sectionally.

The remaining moderators were investigated exploratorily. Results showed that goal type was not a significant moderator for the association between goal interdependence in general and relationship satisfaction. A similar meta-analysis, which investigated goal support in relation to goal outcomes (not relationship satisfaction), also found that the effect size was not significantly different for general and specific goals (Vowels & Carnelley, 2020). This may be due to the highly heterogenous conceptualizations of goals even inside each of the two categories of the moderator (e.g., the specific-goal category includes goals that were health-related, relationship-related, professional etc.). This is also supported by the fact that, when investigated separately, goal type was actually a significant moderator for the association of goal support with relationship satisfaction since the grouping of studies based on the specific type of goal interdependence might have diminished the heterogeneity between them. Higher effect sizes were found for general goals, potentially because the studies focusing on general goals are more similar in how they measure goal support compared to studies focusing on specific goals.

For the remaining moderators, i.e., sample size, mean age, female percentage, and relationship length, which were also investigated exploratorily, we found no significant results. This is in agreement with other meta-analyses in the domain (Falconier et al., 2015; Vowels & Carnelley, 2020), as well as individual studies (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016), that also found no significant effect for these moderators. This may be either due to the actual lack of a significant effect, the existence of other sources of heterogeneity that were not identified in the current meta-analysis, or due to the high heterogeneity between the studies included in the current meta-analysis.

Theoretical and practical implications

From a theoretical perspective, the results of the current meta-analysis provide support for the key assumption of the Transactive Goal Dynamics Theory, which posits that goal interdependence in couples is highly important for relationship functioning. However, since the theory only refers to goal interdependence as relevant to relationship persistence, the current meta-analysis extends this assumption by providing evidence that such interdependence is not only related to relationship strength, but also to relationship satisfaction. Our results also provide evidence for the evolutionary-informed goal systems theory (Orehek et al., 2018), which posits that people tend to feel closer and more committed to partners who are instrumental to their goals. Since feelings of closeness and commitment are deeply interrelated with satisfaction in relationships (Madey & Rodgers, 2009), satisfaction may also be influenced by partners’ instrumentality in people’s goal pursuit.

From a practical standpoint, our results support the importance of addressing goal interdependence in couples therapy and promoting congruence and appropriate support between partners. Based on our results, this seems to be equally relevant, irrespective of partners’ age, gender, and relationship duration. This is all the more important since studies show that incongruence between partners on goals related to children, work, division of household responsibilities, leisure time etc. Are highly common reasons for divorce (Hawkins et al., 2012) and negatively affect relationship satisfaction (Waddell et al., 2020). The matter of goal (in)congruence is likely to become even more conspicuous and a more common theme in couples therapy as the line between gender roles is slowly thinning and equal growth opportunities and responsibilities are promoted for both women and men.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the important contributions of our meta-analysis, it also has several limitations, which we detail below. Recommendations for future studies are also provided.

Firstly, we considered only three types of goal interdependence: goal support, goal congruence, and goal conflict. Importantly, as stated earlier, more nuanced conceptualizations are emerging, revealing more complex associations between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. For example, in recent studies, partner support has been divided into categories such as active versus passive (Fivecoat et al., 2015), emotional versus practical (Morelli et al., 2015), autonomy versus directive support (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016), with different subcategories being differentially related to relationship outcomes. However, such conceptualizations are rarely used in studies on goal interdependence, making them currently suboptimal for meta-analytical investigations. More studies should, therefore, consider the effects of different types of goal-related support on relationship satisfaction. As the number of studies with more nuanced conceptualizations of support increases, future meta-analytic investigations should explore their overall associations with couples’ wellbeing.

Secondly, given the small number of samples in the goal congruence and goal conflict categories, moderator analyses could only be performed for the association between goal interdependence in general and relationship satisfaction and between goal support and relationship satisfaction. More studies on goal congruence and goal conflict are therefore needed to draw reliable conclusions regarding their associations with relationship satisfaction.

Thirdly, although some interesting patterns emerged when moderator analyses were performed, it is important to note that there was substantial residual heterogeneity for significant moderators, which could be due to different outcome measurements or different latent moderators that we could not analyze or identify due to the small number of studies.

The heterogeneity remained high even after including in the analysis the selected moderators, suggesting there might be others that explain the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. Variables such as personality characteristics, socioeconomic status, employment, disability, could also influence the investigated associations, however, we did not have enough data on them. Therefore, more studies should report such data to allow meta-analyses to assess their impact on the effect size of the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction in couples.

Fourthly, although a relatively high number of studies included data from both partners, only a very small number reported actor and partner data on the association under investigation in the current meta-analysis. Future meta-analyses should therefore consider differences or similarities between actor and partner effects once more studies dyadic studies in the field of goal interdependence are published.

Lastly, despite our efforts two obtain more unpublished data to counteract publication bias, most of the data in the meta-analysis are published. As transparency in research increases and more unpublished data become accessible, future meta-analysis should include them in the analysis to provide a more reliable perspective on the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our meta-analysis provides robust evidence for the association between goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction in couples, as well as on the associations between different types of goal interdependence and relationship satisfaction. Goal support and goal congruence were positively related to relationship satisfaction, while goal conflict was negatively related to it. Our results provide evidence favoring the assumption that goal interdependence relates to romantic relationship functioning and support the importance of considering goal interdependence as an instrument for increasing relationship satisfaction in couples’ counseling.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The role of goal interdependence in couples’ relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis

Supplemental Material for The role of goal interdependence in couples’ relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis by Ana M Toma, Petruța P Rusu and Ioana R Podina 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ana M Toma

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained at: or by emailing: ana-maria.toma.20@drd.unibuc.ro. The materials used in the research are not available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: ana-maria.toma.20@drd.unibuc.ro

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adachi

Willoughby

(2015). Interpreting effect sizes when controlling for stability effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Implications for psychological science. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014.963549

Archuleta

K. L.

Grable

J. E.

Britt

S. L.

(2010). Shared goals and values: Towards an understanding of financial and marital satisfaction. Proceedings of the Eastern Family Economics and Resource Management Association.

Archuleta

K. L.

Grable

J. E.

Britt

S. L.

(2013). Financial and relationship satisfaction as a function of harsh start-up and shared goals and values. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 24(1), 3-14.

Avivi

Y. E.

Laurenceau

J.-P.

Carver

C. S.

(2009). Linking relationship quality to perceived mutuality of relationship goals and perceived goal progress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 137-164. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.2.137.

Berli

Bolger

Shrout

P. E.

Stadler

Scholz

(2018). Interpersonal processes of couples’ daily support for goal pursuit: The example of physical activity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217739264

Borenstein

Hedges

Higgins

Rothstein

(2013). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 3. Biostat

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley

Briskin

J. L.

Kopetz

C. E.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Slatcher

R. B.

(2019). For better or for worse? Outsourcing self-regulation and goal pursuit. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617736112

Britton

Haddad

Derrick

J. L.

(2019). Perceived partner responsiveness predicts smoking cessation in single-smoker couples. Addictive Behaviors, 88, 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.08.026.

10.

Brock

R. L.

Lawrence

(2009). Too much of a good thing: Underprovision versus overprovision of partner support. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015402.

11.

Brunstein

J. C.

Dangelmayer

Schultheiss

O. C.

(1996). Personal goals and social support in close relationships: Effects on relationship mood and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 1006-1019. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.1006.

12.

Bühler

J. L.

Weidmann

Kumashiro

Grob

(2018). Does Michelangelo care about age? An adult life-span perspective on the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1392-1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518766698.

13.

Cappuzzello

A. C.

Gere

(2018). Can you make my goals easier to achieve? Effects of partner instrumentality on goal pursuit and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 25(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12238

14.

Carbonneau

Martos

Sallay

Rochette

Koestner

(2019). Examining the associations of autonomy and directive support given and received with relationship satisfaction in the context of goals that romantic partners have for one another. Motivation and Emotion, 43(6), 874–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09792-8

15.

Carbonneau

Milyavskaya

(2017). Your goals or mine? Women’s personal and vicarious eating regulation goals and their partners’ perceptions of support, well-being, and relationship quality. Motivation and Emotion, 41(4), 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9623-9.

16.

Chua

S. N.

(2015). Just tell me what to do: Goal instrumentality moderates the effect of support on relationship quality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(7), 773-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615585830.

17.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) L. Erlbaum Associates

18.

Da Silva

S. M.

Boivin

Gameiro

(2016). Self-regulation and wellbeing when facing a blocked parenthood goal: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos One, 11(6), e0157649. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157649

19.

Dailey

R. M.

(2018). Strategies in context: How perceptions of romantic partner support for weight loss vary by the relational context. Health Communication, 34(10), 1095-1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1461584.

20.

de Montigny

Meunier

Cloutier

Tremblay

Coulombe

Auger

Roy

Gaboury

Bernard

F.-O.

Lavoie

Dion

Houle

(2016). Spousal positive social control and men’s health behaviors and self-efficacy: The influence of age and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(5), 753-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516658362.

21.

Emery

L. F.

Gardner

W. L.

Finkel

E. J.

Carswell

K. L.

(2017). You’ve changed”: Low self-concept clarity predicts lack of support for partner change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 318-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217739263.

22.

Falconier

M. K.

Jackson

J. B.

Hilpert

Bodenmann

(2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002.

23.

Feeney

B. C.

Van Vleet

Jakubiak

B. K.

Tomlinson

J. M.

(2017). Predicting the pursuit and support of challenging life opportunities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1171-1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217708575.

24.

Finkel

E. J.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Vandellen

M. R.

(2016). Self-regulation as a transactive process. Reconceptualizing the unit of analysis for goal setting, pursuit, and outcomes. In Vohs

K. D.

Baumeister

R. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. Research, theory, and applications (3rd ed., pp. 264–282). The Guilford Press

25.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Finkel

E. J.

(2018). Transactive-goal-dynamics theory: A discipline-wide perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417754199

26.

Fivecoat

H. C.

Tomlinson

J. M.

Aron

Caprariello

P. A.

(2015). Partner support for individual self-expansion opportunities: Effects on relationship satisfaction in long-term couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(3), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514533767

27.

Gere

(2012). The role of goal congruence in relationship quality and subjective wellbeing. [Doctoral dissertation], University of Toronto

28.

Gere

Almeida

D. M.

Martire

L. M.

(2016). The effects of lack of joint goal planning on divorce over 10 years. Plos One, 11(9), e0163543. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163543

29.

Gere

Impett

E. A.

(2017). Shifting priorities: Effects of partners’ goal conflict on goal adjustment processes and relationship quality in developing romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(6), 793-810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517698851.

30.

Gere

Schimmack

(2013). When romantic partners’ goals conflict: Effects on relationship quality and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9314-2

31.

Gere

Schimmack

Pinkus

R. T.

Lockwood

(2011). The effects of romantic partners’ goal congruence on affective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.010

32.

Gray

J. S.

Cons

J. V.

(2017). Trait and goal similarity and discrepancy in romantic couples. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.024.

33.

Hadden

B. W.

Smith

C. V.

Webster

G. D.

(2014). Relationship duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the temporal adult romantic attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 42–58.

34.

Hawkins

A. J.

Willoughby

B. J.

Doherty

W. J.

(2012). Reasons for divorce and openness to marital reconciliation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(6), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.682898

35.

Henry

S. L.

Rook

K. S.

Stephens

M. A.

Franks

M. M.

(2013). Spousal undermining of older diabetic patients’ disease management. Journal of Health Psychology, 18(12), 1550-1561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105312465913.

36.

Higgins

J. P.

Thomson

S. G.

Deeks

J. J.

Altman

D. G.

(2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj: British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

37.

Hoppmann

C. A.

Gerstorf

(2013). Spousal goals, affect quality, and collaborative problem solving: Evidence from a time-sampling study with older couples. Research in Human Development, 10(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2013.760260

38.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2016). Daily goal progress is facilitated by spousal support and promotes psychological, physical, and relational well-being throughout adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000062

39.

Kindt

Goubert

De Ruddere

Cano

Vansteenkiste

(2020). What should I do first?” The effect of manipulated goal conflict on affect, motivation, and helping behavior in chronic pain couples. The journal of pain. 21(11–12), 1187–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2020.01.009

40.

Koestner

Powers

T. A.

Carbonneau

Milyavskaya

Chua

S. N.

(2012). Distinguishing autonomous and directive forms of goal support: Their effects on goal progress, relationship quality, and subjective well-being. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1609–1620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457075

41.

Madey

S. F.

Rodgers

(2009). The effect of attachment and sternberg’s triangular theory of love on relationship satisfaction. Individual Differences Research, 7(2), 76–84

42.

Molden

D. C.

Lucas

G. M.

Finkel

E. J.

Kumashiro

Rusbult

(2009). Perceived support for promotion-focused and prevention-focused goals: Associations with well-being in unmarried and married couples. Psychological Science, 20(7), 787–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02362.x

43.

Morelli

S. A.

Lee

I. A.

Arnn

M. E.

Zaki

(2015). Emotional and instrumental support provision interact to predict well-being. Emotion, 15(4), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000084

44.

National Center for Health Statistics (U.S) . (2012). First marriages in the United States; data from the 2006-2010 national survey of family growth. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12055

45.

Orehek

Forest

A. L.

Barbaro

(2018). A people-as-means approach to interpersonal relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617744522

46.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

(2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1496–1513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210383045

47.

Park

E. W.

Tudiver

Schultz

J. K.

Campbell

(2004). Does enhancing partner support and interaction improve smoking cessation? A meta-analysis. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(2), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.64

48.

Pilkington

P. D.

Milne

L. C.

Cairns

K. E.

Lewis

Whelan

T. A.

(2015). Modifiable partner factors associated with perinatal depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 178, 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.02.023.

49.

Swindle

Jr Heller

Pescosolido

Kikuzawa

(2000). Responses to nervous breakdowns in America over a 40-year period: Mental health policy implications. American Psychologist, 55(7), 740–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.740

50.

Tomlinson

J. M.

Feeney

B. C.

Peters

B. J.

(2020). Growing into retirement: Longitudinal evidence for the importance of partner support for self-expansion. Psychology and Aging, 35(7), 1041–1049. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000560

51.

Van Genugten

Dusseldorp

Massey

E. K.

van Empelen

(2017). Effective self-regulation change techniques to promote mental wellbeing among adolescents: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 11(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1252934

52.

Vowels

L. M.

Carnelley

K. B.

(2020). Partner support and goal pursuit: A meta-analysis. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rjwat

53.

Waddell

Overall

N. C.

Chang

V. T.

Hammond

M. D.

(2020). Gendered division of labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for relationship problems and satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(6), 1759–1781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996476

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

0.17 MB