Examining short-term and long-term effects of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction using a dyadic response surface analysis

Abstract

The present study investigates the relationship between self-esteem, its interactive patterns within couples, and relationship satisfaction. We employed dyadic response surface analysis (DRSA), an advanced method for examining the links between dyadic interaction patterns and outcome variables. Analyzing data from 731 Dutch heterosexual couples from the Longitudinal internet Studies for the Social Sciences data set across short-term (two-month) and long-term (two-year) timeframes, our findings align with previous research. Both actor and partner self-esteem had significant positive effects on relationship satisfaction, indicating that one’s self-esteem is positively associated with outcomes for both oneself and one’s partner. Additionally, we observed an additive effect where the combined self-esteem of a couple was positively associated with satisfaction. However, an actor superiority effect was noted, where individuals were most satisfied when self-reporting higher self-esteem than their partners, suggesting that one’s own self-esteem plays a more crucial role in their relationship perceptions than their partner’s and that self-esteem may not act as a shared resource. We did not find a significant self-esteem similarity effect on relationship satisfaction. These results were consistent in both timeframe analyses, with and without covariate controls. This study contributes to bridging the gap between existing theoretical models by providing novel insights into how self-esteem patterns within couples relates to relationship wellbeing.

Keywords

Dyadic response surface analysis intimate relationship relationship quality self-esteem similarity effect

Introduction

Self-esteem is a vital personality component representing one’s perceived self-worth. High self-esteem has been associated with greater security (Murray et al., 2000) and more effective coping strategies (Belanger et al., 2014). These benefits facilitate social competence and harmony, explaining the positive correlation between self-esteem and the quality of social relationships (Harris & Orth, 2020). Given the significance of self-esteem for social wellbeing, its positive effects on both oneself (actor effect) and one’s partner (partner effect) in romantic relationships are unsurprising (El Ghaziri et al., 2021; Erol & Orth, 2014, 2016; Robinson & Cameron, 2012); However, most studies have focused solely on the main effects of the actor or partner. Relationship wellbeing is a global appraisal of the couple (Emery et al., 2021), influenced not just by individual features but also by interpersonal interactions, which have been omitted from previous research. Studies considering couples’ interactive self-esteem patterns have used traditional methods, which may miss or misjudge certain patterns. Therefore, we adopted an advanced approach—dyadic response surface analysis (DRSA, Schönbrodt et al., 2018)—to capture comprehensive pictures in dyadic data using three-dimensional response surface patterns. We first briefly summarize research on self-esteem and relationship quality, then present findings on self-esteem interaction patterns and relationship satisfaction using traditional methods. We then introduce the advantages of DRSA in detail. To our knowledge, this is the first study applying DRSA to investigate the links between couples’ self-esteem and relationship satisfaction.

Self-esteem as a positive predictor of relationship satisfaction

Numerous theories support the positive correlation between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction (Harris & Orth, 2020), including the risk regulation model (Murray et al., 2006), self-verification theory (Swann & Read, 1981), self-broadcasting perspective (Srivastava & Beer, 2005), and the relationship behaviors perspective (Harris & Orth, 2020). Each theory offers explanations for this correlation, focusing on how varying levels of self-esteem influence behaviors within relationships, which in turn affect relationship quality. For instance, the risk regulation model (Murray et al., 2006) associates low self-esteem with perceptions of reduced self-worth, leading to self-doubt and a propensity for negative emotions. In intimate relationships, individuals with low self-esteem often prioritize self-protection, engaging in behaviors such as withdrawal, distancing, and partner derogation, which can harm relationship wellbeing. Conversely, individuals with high self-esteem generally have more positive self-perceptions and feel more secure in their relationships. They are more likely to engage in behaviors that promote relationships, foster positive perceptions of their partners, and experience more satisfying relationships. Numerous studies have provided empirical evidence supporting these theoretical connections between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction.

Previous findings in self-esteem and relationship satisfaction

Regarding the relationship between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction, most studies have found significant positive actor and partner effects from self-esteem on relationship quality, both concurrently and longitudinally (Arikewuyo et al., 2022; Erol & Orth, 2014, 2016; Robinson & Cameron, 2012). However, some studies have reported an insignificant partner effect in longitudinal studies (Schaffhuser et al., 2014; Tackett et al., 2013). The inconsistency in partner effects may be due to the small to medium effect size (Erol & Orth, 2016), which requires a large sample size to detect the effect. Erol and Orth (2016) aggregated their previous findings from five studies with variability in age and relationship status for a meta-analysis and found a small to medium effect size for the partner effect. Overall, the findings suggest that self-esteem is a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction, and high self-esteem may have a positive association with the partner’s happiness within the relationship. However, focusing solely on actor and partner effects neglects the role of the interaction between the couple’s self-esteem, such as similarity effects, which are important factors in many relationship theories (e.g., Gonzaga et al., 2007). Therefore, some studies have employed traditional methods, such as the difference-score method, to examine how the interactive patterns of a couple’s self-esteem relates to relationship satisfaction.

Traditional method to investigate self-esteem interaction pattern within couples

To investigate interactive patterns within couples, the similarity of traits such as personality is often examined. Gaunt (2006) suggested that matching in personality was strongly correlated with relationship measures. Since similarity facilitates partners’ shared responses to their environment, conflict resolution, and overall relationship functioning (Gonzaga et al., 2007), it is logically assumed to positively relate to relationship satisfaction. Many studies have utilized difference scores or profile similarity to assess the links between personality similarity and relationship outcomes, with mixed results. Some have found significant effects of similarity (e.g., Gonzaga et al., 2007), while others have not (e.g., Gattis et al., 2004).

Parallel to this, researchers have investigated whether similarity in self-esteem between partners is associated with relationship quality (Erol & Orth, 2014; Robinson & Cameron, 2012), using the absolute differences in partners’ scores. However, these studies have not found significant effects, likely because self-esteem is related to how partners interact and cope with challenges. For example, individuals with lower self-esteem often seek support indirectly, which can inadvertently lead to negative outcomes (Don et al., 2019). Furthermore, they are more inclined to perceive their partners negatively as a means of self-protection (Murray et al., 2006). Consequently, this may lead to distancing rather than fostering mutual understanding when both partners have lower self-esteem, as a similar level of self-esteem may provoke comparable responses to various situations. Therefore, a straightforward global matching effect of self-esteem in relationships may not be easily discernible.

Contrary to the similarity effect supported by some theorists, other researchers have suggested that self-esteem may exert a complementary effect rather than a similarity effect on relationship satisfaction, as indicated by the difference-score term. For instance, Zeigler-Hill (2010) found a positive correlation between self-esteem and dominance, with many studies showing evidence that pairs with dominance complementarity had more positive relationships than those with dominance similarity. In addition, personality similarity can sometimes damage relationship well-being. Anderson et al. (2003) stated emotional similarity, such as analogous anger responses, may detrimentally impact relationships in certain contexts. Along these lines, in situations involving conflict, partners with low self-esteem may react with heightened avoidance or withdrawn behaviors. Conflict resolution requires partners to respond actively and supportively, rather than reciprocating avoidance. Hence, couples that are complementary in self-esteem may experience greater relationship satisfaction than those that are congruent.

However, studies using difference scores did not find this pattern (Erol & Orth, 2014; Robinson & Cameron, 2012). Zeigler-Hill and Myers (2011) discovered that high self-esteem is generally desirable in romantic partners, even for those with high self-esteem, though to a lesser extent among those exceptionally high in self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill & Besser, 2014). While partner preferences differ from relationship assessments, individuals with low self-esteem were rated lower positive expectations (Bühler et al., 2020) and less responsiveness (Cortes & Wood, 2018) from their partners, potentially contributing to overall relationship dissatisfaction. Additionally, behavioral differences between partners with high and low self-esteem, as outlined in the risk regulation model (Murray et al., 2006), could breed disharmony. For example, individuals with low self-esteem decrease dependence when facing obstacles, whereas high self-esteem partners increase their need for connectedness. Such diverging reactions may undermine relationship harmony and satisfaction.

Based on the current literature and theoretical models, there may not be an overall discrepancy or similarity effect for self-esteem in relation to relationship outcomes. However, whether it is the actor or partner who has higher self-esteem in a relationship may impact relationship well-being, as individuals with high self-esteem hold more favorable views of their partners than their low self-esteem counterparts (Erol & Orth, 2016; Murray et al., 2006). This perception discrepancy, by influencing the overall appraisal of the relationship, cannot be captured by basic difference scores, especially given that the directionality and magnitude of discrepancies may differentially relate to outcomes depending on the self-esteem levels of the partners.

In addition to similarity, some studies incorporate the aggregate self-esteem of couples into their models, testing whether it acts as a shared resource relating to satisfaction (Robinson & Cameron, 2012). However, this approach fails to account for potential weighting differences by assuming equal actor and partner contributions. Given that partners with high self-esteem tend to view relationships more positively (Murray et al., 2000, 2002), actor effects are likely to outweigh partner effects, with broader evidence supporting larger actor influences generally in this domain (e.g., Erol & Orth, 2016; Robinson & Cameron, 2012). Appropriately testing the notion of self-esteem as a shared resource requires accounting for such distinctions in weighting.

In summary, combining distinct partner variables through difference scores or sums presents limitations. This approach overlooks the possibility of unequal partner contributions, presumes that high-low and low-high configurations have equivalent effects on outcomes, and limits the investigation to a narrow range of patterns based on presumed hypotheses. Dyadic Response Surface Analysis (DRSA) addresses these issues by considering the direction and magnitude of discrepancies, offering a more reliable test of the association between self-esteem patterns and relationship satisfaction. The advantages of DRSA are discussed in the following section.

Dyadic response surface analysis

Previous studies have used the difference-score method to examine the similarity effect of couples’ self-esteem on relationship quality (Erol & Orth, 2014; Robinson & Cameron, 2012). However, many researchers have pointed out the problems associated with using difference scores, such as low reliability and conservatism (Edwards, 2001), and the tendency to ignore the interactive patterns and distinct contributions between two variables (Zuckerman et al., 2002). They have suggested using polynomial response surface analysis (PRSA) instead. PRSA can test not only the global interaction, such as the similarity effect, but also the relative contributions of each predictor to the outcome (Shanock et al., 2010). To explore the dyadic nature of couples’ self-esteem, we employed a further developed method, namely, Dyadic response surface analysis (DRSA, Schönbrodt et al., 2018).

DRSA is a statistical approach that combines PRSA and the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to examine the effect of (dis)similarity in dyadic scenarios. The (dis)similarity effect posits that the (in)congruence between two predictors, such as the self-esteem of both partners, is associated with dyadic outcome variables, like relationship satisfaction for both partners. PRSA is grounded in a second-order polynomial regression model that regresses the outcome variable on the linear and quadratic terms of two predictors and their interaction term. The regression coefficients of these terms are used to calculate the parameters of the slopes and curvatures of the response surface, which depicts the complex relationship between predictors and outcomes on three axes: two horizontal axes for the predictor variables and one vertical axis for the outcome variable. PRSA addresses the conceptual and statistical limitations of traditional difference-score methods (Shanock et al., 2010). Conversely, APIM assesses how actor effects and partner effects simultaneously relate to the outcome variables for both individuals, accounting for the intra- and interpersonal effects in dyadic data (Kenny et al., 2020). Both multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling can be used to analyze APIM. In summary, DRSA integrates PRSA and APIM, facilitating the examination of both actor and partner effects in a nonlinear and interactive manner, and it provides a three-dimensional graphical representation of the interactive patterns on the response surface, reflecting the dyadic nature of the data.

To the best of our knowledge, no study has applied DRSA to self-esteem and relationship satisfaction. However, other measurements of individual differences have used the DRSA to investigate the similarity effect in couples’ relationships, both cross-sectionally (e.g., Kim et al., 2021) and longitudinally (e.g., Mund & Johnson, 2021). The structural equation model nature of DRSA facilitates controlling for or depicting the trajectories of the outcome variables with a latent growth model (e.g., Mund & Johnson, 2021). Some studies have found significant matching effects between personality traits using DRSA, such as the dark triad personality (Kardum et al., 2023) and conscientiousness in a female sample (Ye et al., 2023). In contrast, other studies have yielded insignificant matching effects on couples, including the big five personality traits (Weidmann et al., 2017, 2023), sexual desires (Kim et al., 2021), and loneliness (Mund & Johnson, 2021). In addition to the similarity effect, these studies have identified interactive patterns that previous research could not investigate with traditional methods.

Present study

The purpose of this study is to examine the comprehensive relationship between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction. We employed DRSA to provide a more holistic view of how the interactive patterns of both partners’ self-esteem relates to relationship satisfaction and to expand the existing research that has used traditional similarity measures (Erol & Orth, 2014; Robinson & Cameron, 2012). We first tested whether there are different patterns within each gender. Then, we explored the similarity effect in couples over different time frames (two-month and two-year intervals). Different time frames were used to implement time separation in order to reduce the measurement context effect (Jordan & Troth, 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2003) and to assess the robustness of the results. We also tested the model against different proposed models (e.g., a couple-oriented model, Schönbrodt et al., 2018) to determine if the association fits a certain pattern. In the supplemental analysis, we constructed the models with covariates to see if the patterns persisted after controlling for variables related to self-esteem. Additionally, we tested the self-esteem effect on the trajectories of relationship satisfaction using the latent growth model in the supplemental analysis.

To the best of our knowledge, the present study represents the first attempt to apply the DRSA to explore the correlation between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction in couples using a large data sample. In contrast to traditional methods, DRSA examines interactive patterns while considering the distinct contributions from each partner, recognizing differences in distinctiveness across various pairs. This approach is acknowledged as a more reliable method for investigating interactive patterns within dyads (Schönbrodt et al., 2018; Shanock et al., 2010). With this more suitable method, we hope to examine the comprehensive patterns between couples’ self-esteem and relationship satisfaction.

Methods

Sample data

We used data from the Longitudinal internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel, which recruited approximately 5,000 households with individuals aged 16 or older, drawn from the registers of Statistics Netherlands for the past 15 years. We selected data from Wave 13 (2020) to Wave 15 (2022). Focusing our analyses on these post-pandemic waves helps account for substantial participant attrition in earlier waves. Additionally, concentrating on later waves promotes diversity in relationship lengths while avoiding potential confounding effects from major societal events like the COVID-19 pandemic, which could broadly influence variables such as self-esteem and relationship functioning if earlier waves were included. Although utilizing the full 15-year span has merits for longitudinal designs, the recent waves better reflect contemporary phenomena among enduring couples. The selected timeframe balances the retention of an adequately large sample size with methodological considerations regarding contemporary relevance and the mitigation of external confounding variables.

We analyzed the data from 731 male-female couples in which both partners completed the self-esteem and relationship satisfaction scales in 2020 for short-term longitudinal analyses, as there was a two-month interval between the assessment of self-esteem (May and June 2020, T1) and relationship satisfaction (September and October 2020, T2). For the long-term longitudinal analyses, we excluded 18 couples due to missing relationship satisfaction data in 2022 (September and October, T3, N_{couple-long-term} = 713).

Key characteristics of the individuals are presented in Table 1. The median age of partners in the sample was 61 years, ranging from 23 to 103 years in 2020. Most couples were married (87.4%) in 2020, with relationships lasting a median of 17 years (range 1–51 years). Household income served as an indicator of socioeconomic status (median = EUR 4,767; range EUR 0–EUR 26,000; McGorray et al., 2023). Most couples self-identified as heterosexual (95.6% of women and 95.1% of men) in 2022.¹

Table 1.

The descriptive information about the self-esteem and relationship satisfaction in the present study.

	Men/couple			Women			Correlation
	M	SD	NA	M	SD	NA	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Self-esteem at T1	47.65	8.65	—	45.80	9.64	—	.32***	.34***	.31***	.03	.01	.18**	.24***	.22***	.09*	.14
2. Relationship satisfaction at T2	8.37	1.40	—	8.25	1.36	—	.35***	.53***	.71***	−.08*	−.08*	.14***	.06†	.09*	.12***	.01
3. Relationship satisfaction at T3	8.32	1.41	10	8.20	1.39	14	.34***	.71***	.60***	−.09*	−.07†	.16**	.06†	.14***	.11**	−.15
4. Employment^a	0.54	0.50	20	0.47	0.50	16	.01	−.06	−.09*	.53***	.87***	−.56**	.27***	.14***	−.11**	−.19
5. Employment in 2022^a	0.51	0.50	23	0.45	0.50	30	−.02	−.07†	−.12**	.87***	.57***	.60***	.27***	.24***	−.17***	−.22†
6. Age	59.70	13.98	0	57.23	13.97	0	.08*	.13***	.18***	−.70***	−.74***	.95***	−.22***	−.19***	.32***	.65***
7. Subjective health	3.13	0.73	5	3.06	0.73	8	.26***	.19***	.15***	.21***	.21***	−.23***	.25***	−.63***	−.03	.06
8. Subjective health in 2022	3.03	0.73	20	3.00	0.7	28	.25***	.15***	.16***	.23***	.24***	−.23***	.67***	.23***	−.02	−.14
- Couple-level
9. Marital status (1 = married)^a	0.87	0.33	0				.01	.07*	.11**	−.16***	−.20***	.30***	−.06†	−.06	—	.60***
10. Relationship duration	18.93	14.79	663				.07	.17	.04	−.26*	−.45***	.62***	−.08	−.11	.60***	—

Note. T1 refers to data collected in May and June of 2020. T2 refers to data collected in September and October of that same year, with a sample size of 731 couples. T3 refers to data gathered in 2022, where the number of couples surveyed was 713. The covariates without specifically label were assessed in 2020. For the correlation table, all the correlations were calculated based on complete cases. Coefficients below the diagonal represent associations within men, while coefficients above the diagonal represent associations within women. The bold coefficients on diagonal line represent the correlation between the partners.

†p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

^aEmployment status and marital status are binary variables. Their correlations with continuous variables are point-biserial correlations, and their correlation with each other is a phi coefficient.

Measures

Relationship satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was assessed using a single item: “How satisfied are you with your current relationship?” Participants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from zero (entirely dissatisfied) to 10 (entirely satisfied). Single-item measures of relationship satisfaction have been shown to be reliable and comparable to multi-item scales (Fülöp et al., 2022) and are widely used in research (e.g., Blom et al., 2020; Mund & Johnson, 2021). The pooled mean of relationship satisfaction was 8.31 (SD = 1.38) at T2 and 8.26 (SD = 1.40) at T3.

Self-esteem

Self-esteem was measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) at T1. Responses were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The pooled mean of self-esteem was 46.73 (SD = 9.21), and the Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.85.

Covariates

Following Erol and Orth (2014), we included time-varying covariates such as age, subjective health (assessed by the single item: “How would you describe your health, generally speaking?”), employment (paid work = 1), and relationship duration (years), as these variables are associated with self-esteem (Erol & Orth, 2014). We also added marital status (married = 1) as a covariate. Since 93% of the data had at least one missing value (mostly on relationship duration), we used multiple imputation by the MICE package (Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011) with the “cart” method. All the covariates were pool-standardized for the analysis (except for the binary data of employment and marital status).

Data analysis

All the DRSA models were examined in the following steps.² First, we estimated all the parameters freely in an unconstrained model. Next, this unconstrained model was compared to a constrained model that forced all the actor and partner effects to be equal across genders (Schönbrodt et al., 2018). Furthermore, because the LISS data included same-gender couples, we also tested whether the parameters (e.g., means, residual variances) were equal across genders (Olsen & Kenny, 2006; Sadler et al., 2011) to extend the analysis to include them. The results of the model comparison indicated that the gender-indistinguishable models for male-female couples provided the best fit in all analyses (see Supplemental Analysis).

Key coefficients examined are as follows (see Figure 1 for DRSA model): self-esteem regression slopes for the actor (b₁) and partner (b₂), representing actor and partner effects, respectively; and PRSA coefficients a₁–a₅ (introduced in the next section) capturing the response surface along the lines of congruence and incongruence (Schönbrodt et al., 2018; Shanock et al., 2010). Analyses were conducted with and without covariates (see the supplemental analysis for the analysis with covariates controlled). For the short-term analysis, we examined the links between self-esteem patterns at T1 and relationship satisfaction at T2, over a two-month interval; while for the long-term analysis, we examined the links between self-esteem at T1 and relationship satisfaction at T3, over a two-year interval. The model was tested against various constrained models (actor-oriented, couple-oriented, as elaborated in Schönbrodt et al., 2018) to ascertain the most parsimonious pattern governing the relationship between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction.

We chose not to incorporate the initial level of self-esteem into the long-term model because doing so might have directed our attention solely toward the correlation between self-esteem and changes in relationship satisfaction (Castro-Schilo & Grimm, 2018). However, in our supplementary analysis, we examined the relationship between self-esteem at T1 and changes in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 (i.e., slope of the latent growth model), using a combined approach of DRSA and latent growth modeling (Mund & Johnson, 2021).

Overview of PRSA coefficients

The polynomial regression surface analysis relies on visualizing the 3D data and interpreting the regression surface along the “line of congruence” (LOC), where partners’ self-esteem is perfectly aligned, and the “line of incongruence” (LOIC), where partners’ self-esteem differs. The LOC has coefficients a₁ (=b₁ + b₂) for the linear slope and a₂ (=b₃ + b₄ + b₅) for the curvature. A positive a₁ indicates a rising LOC, suggesting that relationship satisfaction increases as both partners’ self-esteem increases. A negative a₁ signifies a decreasing LOC, implying lower satisfaction when both partners have lower self-esteem (Shanock et al., 2010). A positive a₂ indicates a U-shaped LOC curve, meaning partners are least satisfied when they have moderate self-esteem and most satisfied at very high or low self-esteem.

Similarly, the LOIC has coefficients a₃ (=b₁ - b₂) for slope and a₄ (=b₃ - b₄ + b₅) for curvature. A positive a₃ indicates a rising LOIC, signifying higher satisfaction when the actor’s self-esteem exceeds that of the partner. A positive a₄ indicates a U-shaped LOIC, with higher satisfaction at greater discrepancies between partners’ self-esteem levels. Conversely, a negative a₄ signifies an inverted U-shaped LOIC, which is considered an important criterion for similarity effects (Humberg et al., 2019).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Paired t-tests indicated that men reported significantly higher self-esteem than women within couples (t (730) = 4.68, p < .001). Following Shanock et al. (2010), couples were classified as having a self-esteem discrepancy if partners’ standardized self-esteem scores differed by more than half a standard deviation. Based on this criterion, 35% of couples had the male partner with higher self-esteem, while 25% had the female partner with higher self-esteem.

Likelihood ratio tests were conducted between gender-constrained models (constraining actor and partner effects to equality across genders) and freely estimated models without constraints. These tests assessed potential gender differences in all DRSA models. None exhibited significantly better model fit without imposing gender constraints (see Supplemental Analysis). Therefore, the statistics reported here come from gender-indistinguishable models assuming equivalence of effects across men and women.

Short-term longitudinal analysis

The short-term longitudinal DRSA analysis revealed significant positive actor and partner effects of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction, as shown in Table 2 (b₁ = 0.29, p < .001; b₂ = 0.16, p < .001). When using standardized predictors, the unstandardized regression coefficients are directly comparable, and the actor effect was nearly twice as large as the partner effect. No higher-order interaction terms were significant. These results indicate that an individual’s self-esteem has a stronger association with their own relationship satisfaction compared to their partner’s self-esteem over a two-month period.

Table 2.

Polynomial regression coefficients and response surface parameters of partners’ self-esteem on relationship satisfaction in both short-term and long-term longitudinal analysis.

	Short-term (two-month interval) N_couple = 731				Long-term (two-year interval) N_couple = 713
	b	LB	UB	p	b	LB	UB	p
b₁ actor’s SE	0.29	0.23	0.34	<.001	0.27	0.22	0.33	<.001
b₂ partner’s SE	0.16	0.10	0.22	<.001	0.15	0.10	0.21	<.001
b₃ actor’s SE²	0.00	−0.05	0.06	.94	0.02	−0.04	0.07	.55
b₄ actor’s SE × partner’s SE	−0.05	−0.12	0.02	.16	−0.07	−0.15	0.00	.06
b₅ partner’s SE²	0.01	−0.02	0.05	.52	−0.02	−0.05	0.02	.35
a₁ = b₁+b₂	0.44	0.35	0.54	<.001	0.43	0.34	0.52	<.001
a₂ = b₃ + b₄ + b₅	−0.04	−0.14	0.07	.48	−0.08	−0.19	0.04	.19
a₃ = b₁ – b₂	0.13	0.06	0.19	<.001	0.12	0.05	0.18	<.001
a₄ = b₃ – b₄+b₅	0.07	−0.04	0.17	.21	0.07	−0.03	0.17	.15
a₅ = b₃ – b₅	−0.01	−0.06	0.04	.71	0.03	−0.02	0.09	.25
p10	−1.21	−2.45	0.04	.06	−0.64	−1.18	−0.11	<.05
p11	13.00	−23.40	49.41	.48	4.01	−0.92	8.94	.11
p20	0.83	−0.03	1.69	.06	1.55	0.27	2.84	<.05
p21	1.17	−2.65	4.99	.55	3.35	−2.62	9.32	.27

Notes: Polynomial regression coefficients b1 – b5 are unstandardized b-weights. However, because all the variables were pool-standardized across couples, these coefficients can be interpreted as standardized β-weights; SE: self-esteem; LB and UB refer to the lower and upper bound, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval.

Figure 1.

The gender-distinguishable dyadic response surface model. In the gender-indistinguishable model, regression parameters are constrained to equality across genders (e.g., b_1m = b_1f, b_2m = b_2f, …, b_5m = b_5f). Subscripts m and f denote coefficients for male and female partners, respectively; SE: self-esteem; RS: relationship satisfaction.

The DRSA revealed two significant effects, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. The positive a₁ coefficient (a₁ = 0.44, p < .001) indicated an increasing LOC, with couples reporting higher relationship satisfaction at congruently higher self-esteem levels. The positive a₃ coefficient (a₃ = 0.13, p < .001) suggested that individuals were more satisfied when they had higher self-esteem than their partner, especially when partners were incongruent in self-esteem, indicative of a rising line of LOIC. However, the results did not support a congruence effect in either the broad or strict sense, as evidenced by the nonsignificant a₄ and the significant a₁ and a₃ (Humberg et al., 2019). This pattern indicates that there is no self-esteem similarity effect on relationship satisfaction over a two-month period.

Figure 2.

The response surface plot of short-term (two-month interval) longitudinal analysis without controlling for covariates.

Although the significant a₁ aligns with shared resource models (Robinson & Cameron, 2012), we tested this further by comparing the unconstrained DRSA against a couple-oriented model both with and without covariates. The couple-oriented model constrains actor and partner effects to be equal and higher-order terms to zero, indicating that the self-esteem of both partners equally boosts relationship satisfaction from both partners (Schönbrodt et al., 2018). Model comparison revealed that the DRSA model with fewer constraints had a superior fit, both without covariates controlled (Δ𝜒2 = 16.00, Δdf = 4, p <. 01) and with covariates (Δ𝜒2 = 13.98, Δdf = 4, p < .001).

We also tested an actor-oriented model, which constrains partners’ effects to be zero, reflecting an association between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction independent of the partner’s self-esteem. This actor-oriented model was compared to the less constrained dyadic response surface model. Model comparisons revealed that the less constrained model provided a superior fit, as indicated by a significant chi-square difference test (without covariates: Δ𝜒2 = 33.70, Δdf = 3, p < .001; with covariates: Δ𝜒2 = 28.03, Δdf = 3, p < .001). This demonstrates that the association between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction is not fully actor-oriented, and partners’ self-esteem is relevant to one’s relationship perception.

Long-term longitudinal analysis

The long-term analysis examined how self-esteem patterns assessed in 2020 (T1) related to relationship satisfaction measured two years later in 2022 (T3). As shown in Table 2, the actor (b = 0.27, p < .001) and partner (b = 0.15, p < .001) effects were nearly equal to those in the short-term model.

The response surface plot for the long-term analysis (Figure 3) was highly analogous to the short-term results (Figure 2). The PRSA coefficients also supported these comparable patterns, as shown in Table 2. Controlling for covariates in 2022 (see Table S.1), a₁ (a₁ = 0.37, p < .001), and a₃ (b = 0.12, p < .001) remained significant, while a₄ became significantly positive (a₄ = 0.12, p = .01), indicating a U-shaped curve on LOIC. The positive a₄ indicates a U-shaped line of incongruence. However, the significant a₃ contradicted the expectations of an incongruence effect (Humberg et al., 2019). This suggests a more intricate relationship between self-esteem discrepancy and satisfaction over two years, while controlling the covariates.

Figure 3.

The response surface plot of long-term (two-year interval) longitudinal analysis without controlling for covariates.

The long-term model was also compared with a couple-oriented model (without covariates: Δ𝜒2 = 11.17, Δdf = 4, p < .05; with covariates: Δ𝜒2 = 12.13, Δdf = 4, p < .05) and actor-oriented model (without covariates: Δ𝜒2 = 53.37, Δdf = 3, p < .001; with covariates: Δ𝜒2 = 33.51, Δdf = 3, p < .001), yielding similar results to the short-term analysis, with better model fit in models with fewer constraints.

In examining the developmental changes in relationship satisfaction, we identified distinct patterns compared to those observed in self-esteem. Specifically, only the coefficient b₁ (without covariates: b = 0.08, p < .001; with covariates: b = 0.07, p < .001) emerged as statistically significant in the polynomial regression. Furthermore, when analyzing the models within an actor-oriented framework, our findings revealed that an individual’s self-esteem demonstrated a significant association with changes in relationship satisfaction over the three-year period, whereas the partner’s self-esteem did not exhibit a significant relationship (see the Supplemental Analysis).

Discussion

The present study used DRSA to examine the relationship between couples’ self-esteem patterns and relationship satisfaction in a large sample across short-term and long-term timeframes. Compared with more limited analytic approaches, such as regression with difference scores or summed couple self-esteem (e.g., Robinson & Cameron, 2012), the DRSA provided a more comprehensive depiction of how self-esteem is linked to relationship outcomes. First, significant positive actor and partner effects emerged in both the short-term and long-term models, mirroring previous research (Erol & Orth, 2013, 2014, 2016; Robinson & Cameron, 2012). This indicates that both partners’ self-esteem independently contributes to relationship satisfaction. Second, an additive effect for combined couple self-esteem aligned with conceptualizations of self-esteem as a shared resource (Robinson & Cameron, 2012). However, the actor superiority effect highlighted that an individual’s self-esteem is not fully compensated for by their partner’s, as an individual’s self-esteem carries greater weight than their partner’s self-esteem when assessing their relationship satisfaction. This suggests that one’s own self-esteem plays a pivotal role in perceptions of the relationship.

Consistent with previous research (Erol & Orth, 2013, 2014, 2016; Robinson & Cameron, 2012), our study found positive actor and partner effects of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction, indicating that one’s self-esteem positively associates with both oneself and one’s partner. The effect sizes were 0.29 for the actor and 0.16 for the partner in the short-term analysis, with similar long-term results. These align with Erol and Orth (2016), while the partner effect exceeds that reported by Robinson and Cameron (2012). This discrepancy may stem from demographic differences. Our study and that of Erol and Orth (2016) used panel data with cohabiting, longer-term relationships among older adults. In contrast, Robinson and Cameron (2012) focused on younger couples in shorter relationships who were not cohabiting. Previous research shows that perceptions of relationship satisfaction (Bühler et al., 2021) and self-esteem (Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005), evolve with age, suggesting different mechanisms between self-esteem and relationships. Additionally, the fewer interaction opportunities for non-cohabiting couples early in relationships may explain the smaller partner effect. Future research could investigate self-esteem-relationship satisfaction patterns across couple types to determine if similar patterns exist between different romantic relationships.

Robinson and Cameron (2012) posited the concept that self-esteem operates as a shared resource within couples, where the cumulative self-esteem leads to heightened relationship satisfaction. Although we identified an additive effect of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction, our results did not align with this theory. The actor superiority effect in our study suggests that an individual’s own self-esteem holds more significance than that of their partner, indicating an unequal compensation of self-esteem between the actor and partner. Robinson and Cameron’s (2012) failure to obtain this result may stem from their use of the sum and difference scores of both partners’ self-esteem in the regression model, which revealed a significant sum of both partners. In contrast, DRSA provides a more nuanced understanding of interactive patterns between couples’ self-esteem. Utilizing the sum of couples to interpret patterns may inadvertently treat dissimilar couples—those with low and high self-esteem—equally, as well as those with middle self-esteem, potentially masking distinct underlying mechanisms of self-esteem and relationship perception. Moreover, this method could hypothetically imply equal contributions of actors and partners to resources, a notion contradicted by our findings in the current study.

While the present study does not conclusively establish self-esteem as a fully shared resource, the findings suggest some shared characteristics between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction. The significant model comparison with actor-oriented models underscores the importance of the partner effect. Thus, even when an individual’s self-esteem is low, their partner’s high self-esteem can somewhat mitigate their negative feelings towards the relationship. The risk regulation model suggests that when facing relationship risks, individuals with high self-esteem may exhibit more relationship-promoting behaviors (Murray et al., 2006), potentially compensating for the partner’s perceived relationship quality. Beyond the context of relationship risks, self-esteem has been associated with beneficial daily relationship components (Bühler et al., 2020) and perceived responsiveness to negativity disclosure (Cortes & Wood, 2018). This implies that the effect of self-esteem may transfer to their partner through daily interactions. Additionally, research on broader social relationship dynamics shows that individuals with higher self-esteem typically display more positive interpersonal behaviors, greater social acceptance, and enhanced relationship quality (Cameron & Granger, 2019). This association likely contributes to higher satisfaction in intimate relationships for both partners. In summary, high self-esteem may facilitate positive outcomes for individuals and their partners. When overall self-esteem in a relationship is high, indicating that at least one partner has high self-esteem, the positive behaviors and mindsets associated with high self-esteem can positively shape the perception of the relationship for both partners.

However, despite the benefits of high self-esteem transferring within couples, our analysis reveals that in cases of self-esteem incongruence between couples, the coefficient of an individual’s own self-esteem on relationship satisfaction is higher than the coefficient of their partner’s self-esteem. This result suggests that one’s own self-esteem has a more significant effect on relationship satisfaction than that of their partner’s. Self-esteem may influence how individuals perceive their relationship because relationship satisfaction is a subjective rather than an objective evaluation. Individuals with low self-esteem may excessively focus on problems and derogate their partners, while those with high self-esteem tend to affirm their relationship despite risks (Murray et al., 2002). Self-esteem also intertwines with one’s perception of how their partner views them, further influencing relationship satisfaction (Murray et al., 2000). These differences in mindset and behavior may amplify the impact of one’s own self-esteem on the perception of the relationship.

The actor-superiority effect observed in the current study shares similarities with a rater bias effect (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and the tendency for individuals with higher self-esteem to provide more positive self-ratings (Cameron & Granger, 2019), which may seem unimportant for implications in couple research. However, Cameron and Granger (2019) demonstrated small-to-medium self-esteem effects on objective measures of relationships through meta-analysis, indicating that the actor-superiority effect may still exist even with objective measurements. Furthermore, our supplemental analysis revealed that high self-esteem is associated with improved long-term relationship satisfaction, unlike a partner’s self-esteem. This suggests an underlying mechanism whereby one’s self-esteem enhances their own evaluations. Additionally, relationship perceptions play a major role in couples’ interactions (Murray et al., 2006), so actor-superior subjective relationship evaluations may have further implications. Future research should investigate the associations between self-esteem patterns and objective relationship quality to determine if the actor-superiority effect objectively exists and how it might impact objective relationship quality.

Lastly, no similarity effect was found in the current study, which aligns with previous studies (Erol & Orth, 2014; Robinson & Cameron, 2012) on self-esteem. Similarity may enhance relationships by facilitating emotional resonance, mutual understanding, and social cohesion, thereby promoting empathy and relationship quality. However, when couples share low self-esteem, they may exhibit more avoidance and fewer problem-solving strategies (Belanger et al., 2014), which are detrimental to the relationship. These behaviors are counterproductive to building intimacy, trust, and mutual support within the partnership. On the contrary, studies have demonstrated that individuals with high self-esteem feel more deserving of positive outcomes and are more motivated to repair a sad mood (Wood et al., 2009), and experience high security in intimate relationships (Murray et al., 2000)—a trait found to be lacking in individuals with low self-esteem. These behaviors foster intimacy, trust, and mutual support in the relationship, leading to higher satisfaction and wellbeing.

Therefore, it is conceivable that greater relationship satisfaction may be achieved among couples with high self-esteem congruence who employ healthy communication and interaction strategies to enhance the quality of their relationship. This hypothesis can be further explored through cubic response surface analysis (Humberg et al., 2022), which allows for the examination of level-dependent congruence effects. Future studies may consider employing this method to investigate the relationship between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction in greater detail.

While models with and without covariates exhibit similar results, notable disparities emerge, particularly in the long-term analysis where a significant a₄ suggests an incongruence effect, albeit not meeting the criteria set by Humberg et al. (2019). The intricate nature of a₄, a combined regression coefficient, lacks an adequate explanation within existing research. In linear regression, covariate-induced significance or amplification, as observed in mutual suppression, remains poorly understood (Martinez Gutierrez & Cribbie, 2021). Researchers have endeavored to interpret such suppression effects (e.g., Paulhus et al., 2004; Stoeber et al., 2014), but challenges persist in terms of result replicability and understanding the dynamics of variables. Deciphering DRSA coefficients proves challenging due to a lack of methodological research, making it unclear whether suppression results from specific covariates or the entire set. Consequently, we refrain from drawing definitive conclusions, urging future research to delve into this intricate issue.

While our investigation explored the associations of self-esteem on romantic relationship satisfaction, it is possible that this relationship is bidirectional. Sociometer theory, proposed by Leary (2005), suggests that self-esteem acts as an indicator of how individuals perceive their value and acceptance by others. As a result, relationship satisfaction becomes a significant factor affecting self-esteem. Harris and Orth (2020) conducted a meta-analysis that provided evidence for a reciprocal relationship between self-esteem and social relationship quality, even after controlling for various confounding factors. However, our longitudinal analyses suggest that the dynamics of self-esteem within couples have a lasting association with their relationship satisfaction. Further research is needed to investigate this issue more thoroughly and to rigorously test the causal mechanisms involved.

Our results are consistent with previous studies (Erol & Orth, 2013, 2014), which found no gender differences in all the analysis. However, a recent study by El Ghaziri et al. (2019) suggests that mothers’ self-esteem may mitigate the decline in the quality of romantic relationships, indicating a potential gender difference in the relationship between self-esteem and relationship quality. Note that El Ghaziri et al.’s study focused specifically on families with children, whereas our study included a broader cohort of couples. Therefore, future research should explore this aspect further for a more comprehensive understanding.

This study is characterized by several limitations. Firstly, we lack information on the ethnic composition in the sample data utilized. Considering that more than 80% of the Netherlands’ ethnic composition is reported to be European (“Country Summary,” n.d), and the Netherlands is classified as a developed country, it is noteworthy that the sample in the current study is predominantly WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic), as per the definition by Henrich et al. (2010). In a recent study, Ye et al. (2023) identified a personality similarity effect using the DRSA in East Asia. Given the potential impact of culture and ethnicity on this effect, and considering the documented variations in sources of self-esteem (Kwan et al., 2009) and relationship patterns (Hiew et al., 2016) across different ethnicities, future research should aim to investigate other populations to enhance generalizability. Secondly, the LISS data did not incorporate information about the respondents’ disability status, despite the established associations between self-esteem and disability (Miyahara & Piek, 2006) and mental illness (Watson et al., 2007). These factors are known to influence intimate relationships (Spencer et al., 2019; Taleporos & McCabe, 2003). Therefore, the impact of disability on self-esteem and its potential ramifications for intimate relationships may constitute a complex scenario. Further studies are essential to comprehensively address this aspect. Thirdly, the study did not control for other personality variables that might interact with self-esteem and relationship satisfaction. For example, Cortes et al. (2019) demonstrated that individuals with low self-esteem who are high in agreeableness exhibited a greater motivation to uplift their mood for their partners compared to those low in agreeableness. This suggests that agreeableness may influence how self-esteem affects interpersonal behavior in close relationships, which warrants a detailed examination in future research.

In conclusion, our study is the first in applying DRSA to examine the association between couples’ self-esteem patterns and relationship satisfaction across different time frames. Notably, in the analysis of both time frames, couples in which both partners reported high self-esteem exhibited increased relationship satisfaction, with a greater emphasis on the actor’s own self-esteem. Our overall findings did not support the self-esteem similarity effect in romantic relationships. This study enhances the existing literature on self-esteem and relationship satisfaction by introducing a novel methodological approach and perspective.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Examining short-term and long-term effects of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction using a dyadic response surface analysis

Supplemental Material for Examining short-term and long-term effects of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction using a dyadic response surface analysis by Zehua Jiang, Liang Xu and Xiuying Qian in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Centerdata (Tilburg University, The Netherlands) for providing us with the data of the LISS (Longitudinal internet studies for the Social Sciences) panel that we used in this paper. This research did not receive any specific funding from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit agency. Additionally, we would like to convey our sincere thanks to the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, which was instrumental in refining and elucidating the manuscript.

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.

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 at: https://www.lissdata.nl. The materials used in the research are available. The scripts can be obtained on .

ORCID iDs

Zehua Jiang

Liang Xu

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Anderson

Keltner

John

O. P.

(2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1054

Arikewuyo

A. O.

Eluwole

K. K.

Dambo

T. H.

Abdulbaqi

S. S.

(2022). Do low self-esteem, relationship dissatisfaction and relationship insecurity exacerbate the intention to break up in romantic relationships? Current Psychology, 41(11), 7695–7706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01221-1

Belanger

Di Schiavi

M. F.

Sabourin

Dugal

El-Baalbaki

Lussier

(2014). Self-esteem, coping efforts and marital adjustment. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(4), 660–671. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i4.807

Blom

Verbakel

Kraaykamp

(2020). Couples’ job insecurity and relationship satisfaction in The Netherlands. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12649

Bühler

J. L.

Krauss

Orth

(2021). Development of relationship satisfaction across the life span: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 1012–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000342

Bühler

J. L.

Weidmann

Wünsche

Burriss

R. P.

Grob

(2020). Daily responsiveness, expectations, and self-disclosure: How the average levels and within-person variability of three relationship components mediate personality–relationship transactions in romantic couples. European Journal of Personality, 34(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2255

Buuren

S. v.

Groothuis-Oudshoorn

(2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03

Cameron

J. J.

Granger

(2019). Does self-esteem have an interpersonal imprint beyond self-reports? A meta-analysis of self-esteem and objective interpersonal indicators. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 23(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318756532

Castro-Schilo

Grimm

K. J.

(2018). Using residualized change versus difference scores for longitudinal research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517718387

10.

Cortes

Wood

J. V.

(2018). Is it really “all in their heads”? How self-esteem predicts partner responsiveness. Journal of Personality, 86(6), 990–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12370

11.

Cortes

Wood

J. V.

Prince

(2019). Repairing one’s mood for the benefit of others: Agreeableness helps motivate low self-esteem people to feel better. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11–12), 3835–3854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519840707

12.

Country Summary , n.d. In The world factbook. Central intelligence agency. Retrieved November 27, 2023, from. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/netherlands/summaries/

13.

Don

B. P.

Girme

Y. U.

Hammond

M. D.

(2019). Low self-esteem predicts indirect support seeking and its relationship consequences in intimate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1028–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218802837

14.

Edwards

J. R.

(2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005

15.

El Ghaziri

Darwiche

Antonietti

J.-P.

(2019). Is self-esteem a resource for the parental couple? A longitudinal study on the quality of the romantic and coparental relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11–12), 3773–3795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519838349

16.

El Ghaziri

Darwiche

Antonietti

J.-P.

Orth

(2021). Importance of self-esteem for the parental couple: Testing for actor and partner effects. Family Relations, 70(4), 1055–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12532

17.

Emery

L. F.

Gardner

W. L.

Carswell

K. L.

Finkel

E. J.

(2021). Who are “we”? Couple identity clarity and romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220921717

18.

Erol

R. Y.

Orth

(2013). Actor and partner effects of self-esteem on relationship satisfaction and the mediating role of secure attachment between the partners. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.11.003

19.

Erol

R. Y.

Orth

(2014). Development of self-esteem and relationship satisfaction in couples: Two longitudinal studies. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2291–2303. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037370

20.

Erol

R. Y.

Orth

(2016). Self-esteem and the quality of romantic relationships. European Psychologist, 21(4), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000259

21.

Fülöp

Bőthe

Gál

É.

Cachia

J. Y. A.

Demetrovics

Orosz

(2022). A two-study validation of a single-item measure of relationship satisfaction: RAS-1. Current Psychology, 41(4), 2109–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00727-y

22.

Gattis

Berns

Simpson

L. E.

Christensen

(2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 18(4), 564–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.564

23.

Gaunt

(2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00414.x

24.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Campos

Bradbury

(2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.34

25.

Harris

M. A.

Orth

(2020). The link between self-esteem and social relationships: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1459–1477. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000265

26.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

27.

Hiew

D. N.

Halford

W. K.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Liu

(2016). Communication and relationship satisfaction in Chinese, Western, and intercultural Chinese–Western couples. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 30(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000144

28.

Humberg

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600

29.

Humberg

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Back

M. D.

Nestler

(2022). Cubic response surface analysis: Investigating asymmetric and level-dependent congruence effects with third-order polynomial models. Psychological Methods, 27(4), 622–649. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000352

30.

Jordan

P. J.

Troth

A. C.

(2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976

31.

Kardum

Hudek‐Knezevic

Mehić

Banov Trošelj

(2023). The dark triad traits and relationship satisfaction: Dyadic response surface analysis. Journal of Personality, 00, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12857

32.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2020). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Publications.

33.

Kim

J. J.

Muise

Barranti

Mark

K. P.

Rosen

N. O.

Harasymchuk

Impett

(2021). Are couples more satisfied when they match in sexual desire? New insights from response surface analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620926770

34.

Kwan

V. S. Y.

Kuang

L. L.

Hui

N. H. H.

(2009). Identifying the sources of self-esteem: The mixed medley of benevolence, merit, and bias. Self and Identity, 8(2–3), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802504874

35.

Leary

M. R.

(2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 75–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280540000007

36.

Martinez Gutierrez

Cribbie

(2021). Incidence and interpretation of statistical suppression in psychological research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 53(4), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000267

37.

McGorray

E. L.

Emery

L. F.

Garr-Schultz

Finkel

E. J.

(2023). “Mostly White, heterosexual couples”: Examining demographic diversity and reporting practices in relationship science research samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(2), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000417

38.

Miyahara

Piek

(2006). Self-esteem of children and adolescents with physical disabilities: Quantitative evidence from meta-analysis. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18(3), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-006-9014-8

39.

Mund

Johnson

M. D.

(2021). Lonely me, lonely you: Loneliness and the longitudinal course of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(2), 575–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00241-9

40.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641

41.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Griffin

D. W.

(2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 478–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.478

42.

Murray

S. L.

Rose

Bellavia

G. M.

Holmes

J. G.

Kusche

A. G.

(2002). When rejection stings: How self-esteem constrains relationship-enhancement processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 556–573. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.556

43.

Olsen

Kenny

(2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127

44.

Paulhus

D. L.

Robins

R. W.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Tracy

J. L.

(2004). Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_7

45.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

46.

Robins

R. W.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

(2005). Self-esteem development across the lifespan. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00353.x

47.

Robinson

K. J.

Cameron

J. J.

(2012). Self-esteem is a shared relationship resource: Additive effects of dating partners’ self-esteem levels predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 227–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.002

48.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

49.

Sadler

Ethier

Woody

(2011). Tracing the interpersonal web of psychopathology: Dyadic data analysis methods for clinical researchers. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2(2), 95–138. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.010310

50.

Schaffhuser

Wagner

Lüdtke

Allemand

(2014). Dyadic longitudinal interplay between personality and relationship satisfaction: A focus on neuroticism and self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.007

51.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Humberg

Nestler

(2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169

52.

Shanock

L. R.

Baran

B. E.

Gentry

W. A.

Pattison

S. C.

Heggestad

E. D.

(2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4

53.

Spencer

Mallory

A. B.

Cafferky

B. M.

Kimmes

J. G.

Beck

A. R.

Stith

S. M.

(2019). Mental health factors and intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Violence, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000156

54.

Srivastava

Beer

J. S.

(2005). How self-evaluations relate to being liked by others: Integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 966–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.966

55.

Stoeber

Kobori

Brown

(2014). Examining mutual suppression effects in the assessment of perfectionism cognitions: Evidence supporting multidimensional assessment. Assessment, 21(6), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114534884

56.

Swann

W. B.

Read

S. J.

(1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90043-3

57.

Tackett

S. L.

Nelson

L. J.

Busby

D. M.

(2013). Shyness and relationship satisfaction: Evaluating the associations between shyness, self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction in couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 41(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.641864

58.

Taleporos

McCabe

M. P.

(2003). Relationships, sexuality and adjustment among people with physical disability. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468199031000061245

59.

Watson

A. C.

Corrigan

Larson

J. E.

Sells

(2007). Self-stigma in people with mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33(6), 1312–1318. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbl076

60.

Weidmann

Purol

M. F.

Alabdullah

Ryan

S. M.

Wright

E. G.

Chopik

W. J.

(2023). Trait and facet personality similarity and relationship and life satisfaction in romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 104, 104378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104378

61.

Weidmann

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Ledermann

Grob

(2017). Concurrent and longitudinal dyadic polynomial regression analyses of Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: Does similarity matter? Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.04.003

62.

Wood

J. V.

Heimpel

S. A.

Manwell

L. A.

Whittington

E. J.

(2009). This mood is familiar and I don’t deserve to feel better anyway: Mechanisms underlying self-esteem differences in motivation to repair sad moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012881

63.

M. Z.

J. J. M.

T. K.

(2023). The effects of similarity in personality and values on relationship satisfaction among dating couples: A response surface analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 213, 112306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112306

64.

Zeigler-Hill

(2010). The interpersonal nature of self-esteem: Do different measures of self-esteem possess similar interpersonal content? Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.005

65.

Zeigler-Hill

Besser

(2014). Self-esteem and evaluations of targets with ostensibly different levels of self-worth. Self and Identity, 13(2), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2013.770194

66.

Zeigler-Hill

Myers

(2011). An implicit theory of self-esteem: The consequences of perceived self-esteem for romantic desirability. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 9(2), 147–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491100900202

67.

Zuckerman

Gagné

Nafshi

Knee

C. R.

Kieffer

S. C.

(2002). Testing discrepancy effects: A critique, a suggestion, and an illustration. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 34(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195457

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

0.60 MB