Joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism among newlywed couples: Associations with marital quality

Abstract

The present longitudinal study investigates the development of both positive and negative personal traits (i.e., self-esteem and neuroticism, respectively) among newlywed couples. The aim is to identify distinct joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism and then compare marital quality across different trajectory classes. A sample of 268 Chinese newlyweds completed self-esteem, neuroticism, and marital quality questionnaires at three time points. Dyadic Latent Class Growth Analyses were used to examine the joint trajectory of self-esteem and neuroticism. The study identified three trajectory groups: the adaptive couples group (c1), the stable couples and husbands more adaptive than wives group (c2), and the stable husbands and wives more adaptive than husbands group (c3). The adaptive couples group had the highest level of initial marital quality. The two other groups, characterized by initial differences between partners in self-esteem and neuroticism, had relatively lower baseline marital quality. In comparison, wives in the c3 group initially displayed higher levels of marital quality than those in the c2 group. This research improves our understanding of personal development in couples and sheds light on the complex associations between personal and relational development in the context of marriage.

Keywords

Newlyweds personal development self-esteem neuroticism marital quality dyadic latent class growth analyses

Introduction

Theoretical perspectives in the field of marriage suggest that individuals bring enduring characteristics and personality traits into their marriages, including both positive and negative aspects, which can either protect or threaten their relationships (Karney & Bradbury, 1995, 1997). Two pivotal traits are particularly emphasized in this context. Self-esteem is considered a personal resource that contributes to relationship maintenance and protection (Orth & Robins, 2022; Reitz, 2022), while neuroticism reflects the habitual experience of negative affect and is known to be detrimental to marital well-being (Liu et al., 2023; Schunk & Trommsdorff, 2023). They are empirically and theoretically related to each other (Goldberg et al., 2014; Judge et al., 2002; Schaffhuser et al., 2014) but they function differently within marriages.

While personal traits have traditionally been perceived as stable, recent research suggests that they can change, particularly in response to major life events (Bühler et al., 2023; Roberts et al., 2005). Marriage is one such event that has been shown to contribute to personal maturation (Bühler et al., 2023; Caspi & Roberts, 2001; Wright & Jackson, 2024). Lavner et al. (2018) supported that newlyweds’ neuroticism tends to decrease as they invest in new roles. However, it is unclear whether self-esteem also changes during the newlywed years and whether co-maturation occurs in both neuroticism and self-esteem, potentially enhancing individuals’ capacity to thrive in their relationships. Additionally, given the interdependent nature of marriage, it is important to consider whether the partners' development coincides. This study focuses on the joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism among newlyweds, aiming to examine the personal development during the early years of marriage. The research also aims to investigate how this developmental trajectory correlates with relational outcomes.

Furthermore, while life transitions may lead to personal maturation (Haehner et al., 2022), it is important to note that not all couples will develop in the same way, as individuals may react differently to similar events, resulting in individual differences in these event-related trajectories (Wright & Jackson, 2023). Previous studies have primarily used a variable-centered approach (Lavner et al., 2018; Orth et al., 2018), focusing on average characteristics and trends in personality development. However, this approach limits our understanding of the potential heterogeneity in developmental trajectories within married couples. A person-centered approach could complement previous research by revealing heterogeneous, joint developmental patterns of personal traits among couples (Leonhardt et al., 2021). It is also worth noting that the majority of prior studies have been conducted in Western countries. The interpretation of personal traits may vary based on cultural contexts. For instance, the cultural norm-fulfillment perspective posits that self-esteem is a result of conformity to cultural norms (Gebauer et al., 2015). Therefore, conducting research in China, with its roots in Confucian cultures and the growing influence of Western values, would provide valuable insights into the cultural nuances that shape the understanding of personal traits.

In this study, the main aim is to examine the diverse trajectories of personal development among Chinese newlyweds by adopting a person-centered approach. This includes both positive (e.g., self-esteem) and negative (e.g., neuroticism) aspects. Another aim is to explore how the combination of these traits is associated with partners’ relationship satisfaction. Specifically, the study plans to (a) identify different patterns of the joint trajectory of self-esteem and neuroticism over the early years of marriage, and (b) examine the differential relational outcomes of these patterns.

Personal development during newlywed years

Existing research has provided empirical support regarding the influence of life events on personality changes within romantic relationships (e.g., Asselmann & Specht, 2020; Bühler et al., 2023). Consistent with the social investment principle (Roberts et al., 2005), significant relational events are expected to trigger changes in social roles, associated role demands, and expectations for more mature behavior. For newlywed couples, they are undergoing the process of developing family rules and coping with daily challenges. According to the social investment principle, we expected that newlyweds would experience an increase in self-esteem and a decrease in neuroticism over time as they adapt to their new roles.

Regarding neuroticism, some studies have found a declining trend in it for both newlywed partners, with significant changes observed particularly in wives (Lavner et al., 2018). However, other studies report no significant alterations (Asselmann & Specht, 2020). Conversely, research on self-esteem during the newlywed years remains relatively limited. To the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of evidence supporting changes in self-esteem during this period (Luciano & Orth, 2017; Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001). However, in the context of collectivism, where the emphasis is on relationship harmony and family (Kwan et al., 1997; Xu et al., 2007), we propose that marriage in Chinese culture may require greater investment compared to individualistic cultures. This may lead to a tendency towards maturation in both neuroticism and self-esteem; more specifically, Chinese newlyweds may experience increased self-esteem and decreased neuroticism over time.

Joint development: Intra- and inter-individual similarities in self-esteem and neuroticism

Due to the significant association between self-esteem and neuroticism (Robins et al., 2001), it is expected that these two traits will co-develop within marital contexts. When examining self-esteem and neuroticism simultaneously, it is important to consider the intra-individual similarity in these two traits as a significant characteristic for consideration. Schwaba et al. (2022) proposed the concept of comaturation of personality, suggesting that adaptive changes in one trait (e.g., increased self-esteem) tend to be accompanied by adaptive changes in other traits (e.g., decreased neuroticism). Supporting this idea, Schwaba et al. (2022) found adaptive changes across most personality traits from ages 30 to 70. However, they also discovered variations in the rates of maturity among different traits. Research on the Big Five personalities has suggested a decoupling of development between healthy and unhealthy traits, with strong correlated changes observed among all traits except neuroticism (Allemand et al., 2008; Olaru & Allemand, 2022). These findings indicate potential different patterns of correlated change in self-esteem and neuroticism. Self-esteem and neuroticism may follow coupled development, such as comaturation, where an increase in self-esteem is accompanied by a decrease in neuroticism. Alternatively, self-esteem (as a healthy trait) and neuroticism (as an unhealthy trait) may change independently (i.e., decoupled development).

In the context of marriage, it is necessary to consider inter-individual similarities, also known as synchrony, to determine whether married partners undergo parallel developments in their traits (Lewis & Yoneda, 2021). Theoretical perspectives, such as shared environment and mutual influence, have helped understand partner synchrony (Orth et al., 2018). However, empirical studies have been limited and have provided mixed results. Lewis and Yoneda (2021) examined the development of personality traits within middle-aged and older couples over time. They found only correlated changes in openness between partners. Erol and Orth (2014) explored the development of self-esteem in two samples of couples and found correlated changes only in one sample. These findings indicate that synchrony patterns may apply to specific traits and certain groups of people. Additionally, significant variability in the slope parameters of personality trajectories for both males and females suggests potential heterogeneity in the development of couples’ personalities (Lewis & Yoneda, 2021). Therefore, it is possible that only certain couples develop their personalities synchronously, while others may follow different trajectories, such as convergence (i.e., becoming more similar) or divergence (i.e., showing more differences) (Gonzaga et al., 2007; Tambs & Moum, 1992).

While these findings have contributed to our understanding of intra- and inter-individual similarities in personal traits, it is important to note that existing studies have primarily focused on either the intra- or inter-individual perspective. Furthermore, the variable-centered studies have yielded inconsistent results, indicating potential heterogeneity in the developmental trajectories of couples. Consequently, it becomes important to identify subgroups of couples who display specific developmental patterns of self-esteem and neuroticism. Notably, to our knowledge, no research has conducted such examinations within marital dyads, despite some longitudinal studies indicating that couples may indeed develop their personalities differently over time. For example, Wright and Jackson (2023) found that some people exhibited greater consistency, indicating higher levels of stability. Laceulle et al. (2023), using latent transition analysis, also supported stability in maladaptive personality profiles over time, with small transition groups often shifting towards a more adaptive profile. Based on this, most couples might be characterized by personality stability, while some present adaptive changes. One study directly examined the variation in trajectories of self-esteem development over time (Mund & Neyer, 2016). The results were basically in line with the former assumptions; specifically, the two largest groups had constant self-esteem, and a small group showed increases in self-esteem, with the exception of a decreasing group. This study constructed trajectory patterns by considering the similarity of concurrent trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism, as well as accounting for the dependency between the trajectories of husbands and wives. Diverse patterns are expected, reflecting the intricate interplay between the developmental trajectories of these traits in married couples.

Associations between joint trajectories and marital quality

Research has consistently found a significant relationship between the development of self-esteem and neuroticism and romantic relationships. High self-esteem is associated with satisfying relationships (de Moor et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2018), and positive changes in self-esteem are associated with increases in relationship satisfaction for both partners (Erol & Orth, 2014). Conversely, neuroticism is negatively related to marital adjustment (Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2021) and serves as a risk factor for divorce (Liu et al., 2023). A study of married adults in the US showed that those who experienced an increase in neuroticism over time tended to experience a decline in marital satisfaction (O’Meara & South, 2019). These findings support that the maturation of personality, characterized by an increase in self-esteem and a decrease in neuroticism, may lead to positive relationship outcomes.

However, it is noteworthy that these studies did not take into account intra- or inter-individual similarities, even though related research has offered valuable insights into the significance of these aspects. Studies conducted in couples have indicated the significance of inter-individual similarity. For instance, Lewis and Yoneda (2021) found that similarity in neuroticism intercepts predicted higher baseline perceived support in both partners, highlighting the positive effects of between-person similarity. In contrast, Wang et al. (2020) revealed that only couples in the similarly positive profile had the best marital quality, while couples in the similarly negative profile reported the worst marital quality. This suggests that when both partners exhibit adaptive characteristics in their traits (e.g., high self-esteem and low neuroticism), marital quality tends to be the highest. Lavner et al. (2018) found that when wives experienced greater increases in neuroticism over time, both spouses experienced steeper declines in marital satisfaction. This underscores the importance of considering marital partners as a dyadic unit when examining personality development. Furthermore, studies have shown that different traits within individuals develop and function together (O’Meara & South, 2019; Pfund & Allemand, 2022). Therefore, it is meaningful to examine the joint effects of different traits, such as self-esteem and neuroticism.

Current study

Previous studies have primarily focused on examining individual personality traits and their impact on relational outcomes, neglecting the interconnections between traits and the heterogeneity of personal development. To address this gap, the current study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the joint development of personal traits by combining intra- and inter-individual perspectives and employing dyadic latent class growth analysis. The study uses four trajectories as indicators of dyadic trajectory patterns: husbands’ self-esteem and neuroticism trajectories, as well as wives' self-esteem and neuroticism trajectories. Additionally, the study aims to compare marital quality across subgroups of newlywed couples.

The first objective of the study is to identify distinct classes of joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism among 268 newlywed couples. At least two unique trajectory groups are expected to emerge, including a similar couple group and a dissimilar couple group. Given the exploratory nature of this analysis, no specific hypotheses have been formulated regarding the patterns of personality development (e.g., stability, becoming more/less adaptive) or the nature of intra-individual similarity (e.g., coupled or decoupled), and inter-individual similarity (e.g., synchronous, convergent, or divergent).

The second objective is to examine the association between the identified joint trajectory classes and the trajectories of marital quality. It is expected that couples who exhibit similarly adaptive traits (e.g., high self-esteem and low neuroticism in both partners) and engage in adaptive, synchronous, and coupled development (e.g., both partners experiencing an increase in self-esteem and a decrease in neuroticism) may demonstrate the highest marital quality over time, based on the well-established empirical association between personal traits and relationships.

Method

The present study utilized data from the Chinese Newlyweds Longitudinal Study (CNLS), which is part of a larger project. Ethical approval was obtained from Beijing Normal University’s Ethics Review Committee. The analyses were not pre-registered, but the anonymized data and Mplus scripts for the current analyses can be accessed at the following link: https://osf.io/s4w26/?view_only=f38237de9da24ae5a0e29610d7bc5d20.

Participants and procedure

Couples for the study were recruited through online advertisements, acquaintance introductions, and community posters. To be eligible, participants had to meet the following criteria: (a) being married for less than three years, (b) being in their first marriage, (c) not having children, and (d) living and working together in Beijing, China.

The final sample consisted of 268 different-sex couples at Time 1 (T1) in 2011. The retention rates for the study were 83.58% (n = 224) at Time 2 (T2) in 2012 and 75.75% (n = 203) at Time 3 (T3) in 2013. Each couple completed the questionnaires independently at each measurement after providing informed consent. The couples were compensated with a payment of 100 RMB (approximately $14) at the end of each measurement for their participation.

To examine potential attrition effects, independent-sample t tests were conducted to compare key variables (marital quality, self-esteem, and neuroticism) at T1 between couples who participated in the study at T3 and those who did not. The analysis revealed that the only significant difference was that husbands who participated at T3 reported higher levels of marital quality at T1, t (258) = −2.654, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .402. Therefore, attrition was not a significant concern in the present study.

At baseline (T1), the average age of the wives was 28.08 years (SD = 2.51) and the average age of the husbands was 29.59 years (SD = 3.25). The mean duration of marriages was 13.59 months (SD = 9.69). The median monthly income for husbands was 7000 RMB (approximately $972), and for wives, it was 5000 RMB (approximately $694). The majority of the couples (81.8% husbands and 82.6% wives) reported having a bachelor’s degree or above.

Measures

Self-esteem

Self-esteem was assessed using the adapted Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale comprised 10 items, such as “I feel that I have a number of good qualities,” with 5 items being reverse-coded. Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The mean score was calculated for each participant, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-esteem. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale across the three time points. The alpha coefficients for husbands were .84, .85, and .85, respectively, while for wives, they were .86, .89, and 94.

Neuroticism

The neuroticism subscale of the NEO-FFI(S) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used to assess neuroticism in the study. This subscale consisted of 12 items, such as “I often feel tense and jittery.” Participants rated their agreement with each item on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The mean score of the subscale was calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of neuroticism. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the neuroticism subscale over three time points. The alpha coefficients for husbands were .83, .86, and .89, respectively, while for wives, they were .87, .88, and .90.

Marital quality

The Quality Marriage Index (QMI, Norton, 1983) was employed to assess marital quality in this study. The scale consisted of six items, such as “We have a good marriage.” Participants rated the first five items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very strong disagreement) to 7 (very strong agreement). The last item was rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unhappy) to 10 (very happy). Sum scores were calculated, with higher scores indicating better marital quality. The reliability of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded values of .93, .95, and .96 for husbands and .95, .96, and .97 for wives across the three time points, respectively.

Data analyses

Analyses were conducted using Mplus version 8. To account for missing data, the Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation method (FIML) was employed.

Dyadic Latent Class Growth Analysis (DLCGA) was utilized to examine the parallel processes of self-esteem and neuroticism and to explore the joint developmental trajectories of these traits (Leonhardt et al., 2021). DLCGA is a technique for growth mixture modeling that identifies distinct trajectories by modeling latent classes. In DLCGA, the variances of the intercepts and linear slopes are assumed to be invariant (constrained to zero) within each class and allowed to vary across classes (Grimm et al., 2016). The intercept represents the initial level of self-esteem and neuroticism, while the slope represents the rate of change in these traits over time. Given the interdependent nature of couples, one’s self-reporting of personal traits was correlated with their partner’s report.

To determine the best-fitting models, several indicators were utilized, including Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), sample-size-adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (aBIC), entropy value, Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMR-LRT) and Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) (Nguena Nguefack et al., 2020). Smaller values of AIC, BIC, and aBIC indicate better model fit. The entropy value, ranging from 0 to 1, reflects the accuracy of classification. A higher value indicates a more precise classification. Additionally, significant p-values for LMR-LRT and BLRT suggest that the k-group classification is preferred over the k-1 group classification. After determining the appropriate number of classes, a series of Wald chi-square tests were performed to examine whether the estimates for intercept and slope across trajectory classes differed significantly. Additional Wald chi-square tests were conducted to compare the intercepts and slopes between husbands and wives (i.e., inter-individual), as well as the slopes of self-esteem and neuroticism within classes (i.e., intra-individual). Furthermore, when incorporating latent class predictors, it is recommended to use the three-step approach (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). This approach can be used to examine the relationships between covariates and latent nominal variables, while taking into account the classification errors introduced by unconditional LPA. Specifically, we used the R3STEP command in Mplus (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014) to model antecedents, such as marital duration. This command performs multinomial logistic regression to assess whether an increase in marital duration increases the probability of belonging to one class compared to another. The R3STEP procedure employs listwise deletion. Thus, 267 couples were included, as one couple had missing data on marital duration.

Finally, we investigated the association between joint trajectory patterns of two personal traits and the development of marital quality. In the first step, a Dyadic Latent Growth Analysis (DLGA) was conducted to simultaneously examine the trajectories of marital quality for both husbands and wives. The model was estimated assuming that the intercorrelations between husbands’ and wives’ data remained invariant over time. After fitting the baseline model satisfactorily, the trajectory group was added to examine its association with the trajectory parameters of marital quality. Marriage duration, treated as a covariate, was also regressed on the intercept and slope of marital quality. Model fit was evaluated using the Chi-square statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The model fit was deemed satisfactory based on CFI and TLI values above .90, RMSEA below .06, and SRMR below .08 (Cangur & Ercan, 2015). The final valid sample for this model included 267 couples.

Results

Heterogeneous Joint Trajectories of Self-esteem and Neuroticism

Dyadic Latent Class Growth Analysis (DLCGA) was employed to identify distinct joint trajectories. Fit indices for the 1 to 5 class models are presented in Table 1. The 1-Class model was excluded due to high AIC, BIC, and adjusted BIC values. The 2, 4 and 5-Class models were not selected based on non-significant p-values on the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMR-LRT). The 3-Class model exhibited relatively low AIC, BIC, and aBIC values, as well as a relatively high entropy value. The model showed significant LMR-LRT and BLRT values, indicating an improvement over the two-group solution. The three-group solution was thus chosen as the final model in the study. Table 2 and Figure 1 display the three-class trajectories. The Wald chi-square tests between groups (see Table S1 in the Online Supplement) revealed significant differences in intercepts among the three trajectory classes, except for the differences between c1 husbands and c2 husbands, and between c1 wives’ self-esteem and c3 wives’ self-esteem, suggesting distinct classes. Further descriptions of each trajectory class are provided in Table S2 and Table S3 in the Online Supplement for within-group comparisons. The classes were labeled based on the developmental tendencies (i.e., slopes) of personal traits.

Table 1.

Model fit indices for couple personality latent class trajectories (N = 268 couples).

Classes	AIC	BIC	Adjusted BIC	Entropy	LMR LRT	BLRT
1	4699.71	4793.08	4710.64
2	4254.34	4380.02	4269.05	0.82	0.132	<0.001
3	3988.94	4146.95	4007.44	0.82	0.026	<0.001
4	3897.38	4087.71	3919.66	0.82	0.300	<0.001
5	3801.97	4024.61	3828.03	0.83	0.431	<0.001

Note. T boldface type indicates the selected model. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; LMR LRT = Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; BLRT = Parametric Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test.

Table 2.

Parameters of the conjoint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism (N = 268 couples).

		Self-esteem				Neuroticism
		Intercept	p	Slope	p	Intercept	p	Slope	p
c1 (n = 132)	Wives	3.645	<0.001	−0.001	0.97	2.335	<0.001	−0.096	0.006
	Husbands	3.619	<0.001	0.003	0.899	2.291	<0.001	−0.115	0.001
c2 (n = 65)	Wives	3.002	<0.001	−0.039	0.359	3.489	<0.001	−0.052	0.232
	Husbands	3.499	<0.001	−0.014	0.628	2.299	<0.001	−0.009	0.856
c3 (n = 71)	Wives	3.505	<0.001	−0.104	0.032	2.627	<0.001	−0.064	0.218
	Husbands	3.029	<0.001	−0.023	0.531	3.039	<0.001	0.044	0.267

Figure 1.

Conjoint trajectory classes of self-esteem and neuroticism in newlywed couples.

The largest group, c1 (49.25%, n = 132), was labeled as adaptive couples. In this group, both partners scored relatively high in self-esteem, which remained stable, while scoring low in neuroticism, which decreased over time. The observed pattern indicates high adaptivity in both traits, maintaining or even increasing these levels. The intra-individual correlated change in self-esteem and neuroticism followed a decoupled pattern, as the decrease in neuroticism was not accompanied by an increase in self-esteem. No significant differences were found between partners in terms of intercepts or slopes, suggesting similarity and synchrony between partners.

C2 (24.25%, n = 65) was labeled as stable couples and husbands more adaptive than wives. Couples in this group exhibited stability in both self-esteem and neuroticism. Inter-individual comparisons in intercepts indicated that husbands in this class had higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of neuroticism compared to their wives. This suggests that husbands possessed more adaptive personal traits than their wives and maintained these traits over time. Non-significant differences in slopes inter- and intra-person indicated a coupled and synchronous pattern.

Based on the main characteristics of c3 (26.49%, n = 71), it was labeled as stable husbands and wives more adaptive than husbands. In c3, traits remained stable except for decreasing self-esteem in wives. Significant intercept differences between partners suggested that wives initially had higher self-esteem scores than their husbands, while husbands had higher levels of neuroticism than their wives. Although wives initially showed better adaptivity, their self-esteem decreased over time. The change in self-esteem and neuroticism for wives followed a decoupled pattern, with self-esteem decreasing while neuroticism remained stable. In contrast, for husbands, the change was coupled, with both traits remaining stable. Additionally, inter-partner change in self-esteem showed a convergent tendency as wives’ self-esteem became closer to husbands’ self-esteem, while that in neuroticism was synchronous.

In addition, we used the R3STEP command to investigate the impact of marital duration on class memberships, while taking into account the classification accuracy error. C1 was designated as the reference group. The coefficients of marital duration were significant when comparing to c2 and c3 (ps < 0.05), indicating that couples with longer marital duration were more likely to belong to c2 or c3 than to c1.

Associations with marital quality trajectory

The baseline DLGM fitted well (𝜒² = 7.369, df = 6, CFI = .996, TLI = .991, RMSEA = .029, SRMR = .027). The slopes of both partner’s marital quality were significantly negative, indicating a decrease in marital quality over time. Furthermore, trajectory group and marital duration were added into this model as covariates, which also had an acceptable fit to the data (𝜒² = 17.458, df = 12, CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.965, RMSEA = 0.041, SRMR = 0.030). The trajectory group was dummy coded with c1 as the reference group (see Table 3). Results showed that couples in the c2 and c3 groups displayed lower levels of marital quality at T1 compared to those in the c1 trajectory group. Further analysis, with trajectory group c2 as the reference group, showed that wives in trajectory group c3 exhibited a higher intercept of marital quality than those in group c2 (p = .027). Moreover, there were no significant differences in slopes between the classes.

Table 3.

Predictors of marital quality development (N = 267 couples).

	Intercept (H)		Slope (H)		Intercept (W)		Slope (W)
	β	p	β	p	β	p	β	p
c2 (c1 as reference group)	−0.278	0.008	−0.165	0.317	−0.337	<0.001	−0.180	0.068
c3 (c1 as reference group)	−0.221	0.029	−0.353	0.148	−0.157	0.032	−0.072	0.464
Marital duration	−0.121	0.199	−0.399	0.120	−0.048	0.482	−0.219	0.020

Discussion

Based on three annual waves of data collected from 268 Chinese heterosexual newlywed couples, this study employed dyadic latent class growth modeling to examine the joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism within marital dyads, aiming to explore the heterogeneous patterns of personal development among couples during the early years of marriage. Three distinct trajectory patterns emerged for the joint development of self-esteem and neuroticism, reflecting diverse pathways of change. Furthermore, the identified patterns of personal development were significantly associated with marital quality trajectories, underscoring a strong connection between personal and relational development in marriages.

Heterogeneity in joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism

This study identified three distinct patterns of joint development of self-esteem and neuroticism. The largest group was adaptive couples (c1), followed by stable couples and husbands more adaptive than wives (c2) and stable husbands and wives more adaptive than husbands (c3). As hypothesized, the similar couple group (c1) consisted of couples where both partners exhibited relatively high self-esteem and low neuroticism. This finding supports the similarity-attraction hypothesis, which suggests that individuals tend to seek partners who possess similar personal traits (Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). Additionally, for couples in this group, the only significant change observed was a decrease in neuroticism. This decline reflects personal maturation resulting from the investment in the marital relationship, aligning with the social investment principle (Roberts et al., 2005) and previous research (Lavner et al., 2018; O’Meara & South, 2019). During the early years of marriage, individuals undergo significant personal and relational changes. Becoming more emotionally stable can aid in adapting to the roles of husband or wife. However, the study found that self-esteem did not co-mature with neuroticism; instead, it remained stable. This suggests that while traits may tend to mature together, they may not do so at the same rate (Schwaba et al., 2022). A potential explanation is that the self-esteem scores of this group were already close to the ceiling, making further improvement difficult. This observation also aligns with a previous study that underscored the demanding nature for individuals with higher self-esteem to maintain or enhance their self-esteem (Schafer & Keith, 1999). It is also plausible that maturation in self-esteem may require more investment in new roles, such as the transition to parenthood (Bleidorn, et al., 2016a). Regarding the inter-individual perspective, couples exhibited synchrony in the development of both self-esteem and neuroticism, indicating a stable similarity. This suggests that couples in this group invested jointly in their relationship (Roberts et al., 2005), leading to simultaneous personal development. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that individuals may select partners with similar personal traits and maintain a consistent level of similarity over time rather than becoming more like their partners (Caspi et al., 1992; Gonzaga et al., 2010).

The study identified two groups characterized by initial differences between partners in traits (c2 and c3). In c2, both partners exhibited stable traits, while in c3, wives experienced a decline in self-esteem. The differential development patterns observed in these two groups may be attributed to gender differences. In c2, husbands initially had higher self-esteem and lower neuroticism than their wives. This combination aligns with general gender difference patterns, as supported by prior research indicating that women typically score lower in self-esteem and higher in neuroticism when compared to men, influenced by a confluence of biological, economic, and socio-cultural factors (Bleidorn et al., 2016b; Lippa, 2008; Lynn & Martin, 1997). Consequently, the c2 match, which adheres to these established norms, is more likely to exhibit stability over time. The match in neuroticism in C2 could also be considered adaptive, based on research indicating that women not only desire a similar partner, but also prefer a less neurotic partner (Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). Conversely, conflicts may arise when wives have higher self-esteem than their husbands and husbands exhibit higher levels of neuroticism than their wives (c3). In such cases, wives may prioritize their husbands’ emotional well-being and suppress their own feelings and needs, resulting in a decline in their self-esteem. Furthermore, the convergence of self-esteem within c3 can also be explained by mutual influence. Previous research has shown that a male partner’s self-esteem predicts his female partner’s self-esteem one year later, but not vice versa (Wagner et al., 2017). Therefore, the self-esteem of wives becomes more similar to that of their husbands, while the self-esteem of husbands remains stable.

Joint trajectories and marital quality

Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Buhler et al., 2021), couples in this study displayed a general decreasing trend in marital quality over time. When examining the association between joint personal development trajectory patterns and marital quality trajectories, it was observed that couples with distinct patterns exhibited variations in the intercept of their marital quality trajectories. Couples in c1 showed higher initial marital quality. This finding may be attributed to the effects of self-esteem and neuroticism. Prior research has shown that couples with high self-esteem are more likely to seek direct support, which could facilitate positive feedback within romantic relationships (Don et al., 2019). Additionally, lower levels of neuroticism promote positive interpersonal processes (Cao et al., 2019; Kreuzer & Gollwitzer, 2021). This finding also supports the benefits of similarity, as it may foster self-validation, thought coordination, and mutual understanding (Anderson et al., 2003; Hammond & Sibley, 2021). However, no significant differences were identified, concerning the slopes of marital quality trajectories. This implies that initial differences between partners may contribute to conflicts and issues, yet these partners were able to adapt to each other over time, mitigating the escalation of conflicts.

When comparing marital quality between the two groups that present initial between-partner differences, the only difference observed was that wives in group c3 exhibited a higher initial level of marital quality, while husbands showed no significant difference in marital quality. This finding may suggest that when wives manifest less adaptive traits, it negatively impacts their relationships. This aligns with previous research indicating that wives’ perception of marital quality is notably influenced by their own personality levels (Wang et al., 2020).

Limitations, implications, and conclusion

Several limitations should be acknowledged in the present study. Firstly, it is necessary to note that the sample only comprised couples with relatively high levels of socioeconomic status in China, and did not consider factors such as gender identity and disability. This limitation may restrict the generalizability of the findings to broader and more diverse population groups. Secondly, it is important to note that personal traits and marital quality may exhibit more nuanced patterns as couples navigate longer married life, which was not explored in this study as it only followed newlywed couples for a two-year period. Additionally, the effects of personal trajectory on short-term marital outcomes may differ from those on long-term outcomes, particularly for adaptive traits like self-esteem. Future research should consider longer follow-up periods to examine the associations between the trajectory classes and marital outcomes over time. Lastly, this study only examined linear changes in personality. Future research with a greater number of time points would help examine the nonlinear change in personal development.

Despite these limitations, the present study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. Firstly, the study examined personal development within marriages, including both positive traits (i.e., self-esteem) and negative traits (i.e., neuroticism) among Chinese newlywed couples. Moreover, the research identifies diverse joint personal development patterns among couples. It suggests that certain couples undergo significant changes in personal traits during the early years of marriage, while others maintain relatively stable. Secondly, the findings demonstrate that the development trajectory patterns of personal traits are associated with marital quality, shedding light on the dynamic interplay between personal development and marital outcomes. These results suggest that individuals who experience positive changes in their traits during marriage are more likely to report higher satisfaction in their relationships. Conversely, those with declining self-evaluation may indicate less satisfactory marriages. Lastly, the practical implications of this study are noteworthy. Specifically, the configuration of traits within couples is of significance, particularly noting that wives exhibit decreasing self-esteem when their initial self-esteem surpasses that of their husbands. Therapeutic interventions and preventive measures could focus on providing support and guidance for these couples.

In conclusion, this study advances our understanding of personal development and its association with marital quality among Chinese newlywed couples. The study highlights the heterogeneity in couples’ personal trajectories and their impacts on marital outcomes by considering both intra-individual and inter-individual perspectives. While acknowledging the limitations, this research provides valuable insights into both theoretical and practical aspects of personal development studies and marital interventions.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism among newlywed couples: Associations with marital quality

Supplemental Material for Joint trajectories of self-esteem and neuroticism among newlywed couples: Associations with marital quality by Ziyuan Chen, Qingyin Li, Xinzhu Song, and Xiaoyi Fang in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971017) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31571157).

Ethical statement

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: . The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: fangxy@bnu.edu.cn.

ORCID iDs

Ziyuan Chen

Qingyin Li

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abbasi

Alghamdi

N. G.

(2021). Dispositionally vulnerable? Improving marital commitment to counter neuroticism and negative affect. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 51(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1981173

Allemand

Zimprich

Martin

(2008). Long-term correlated change in personality traits in old age. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013239

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

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181

Asselmann

Specht

(2020). Taking the ups and downs at the rollercoaster of love: Associations between major life events in the domain of romantic relationships and the Big Five personality traits. Developmental Psychology, 56(9), 1803–1816. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001047

Bleidorn

Arslan

R. C.

Denissen

J. J.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Gebauer

J. E.

Potter

Gosling

S. D.

(2016a). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—a cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078

Bleidorn

Buyukcan-Tetik

Schwaba

van Scheppingen

M. A.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Finkenauer

(2016b). Stability and change in self-esteem during the transition to parenthood. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 560–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616646428

Buhler

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.

Orth

Bleidorn

Weber

Kretzschmar

Scheling

Hopwood

C. J.

(2023). Life events and personality change: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 38(3), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231190219

10.

Cangur

Ercan

(2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1430453580

11.

Cao

Yuan

Fine

M. A.

Zhou

Fang

(2019). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction during the early years of Chinese marriage: The mediating roles of marital attribution and aggression. Family Process, 58(2), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12356

12.

Caspi

Herbener

E. S.

Ozer

D. J.

(1992). Shared experiences and the similarity of personalities: A longitudinal study of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.281

13.

Caspi

Roberts

B. W.

(2001). Personality development across the life course: The argument for change and continuity. Psychological Inquiry, 12(2), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1202_01

14.

Costa

McCrae

(1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PIR): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

15.

de Moor

E. L.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Emons

W. H. M.

Bleidorn

Luhmann

Orth

Chung

J. M.

(2021). Self-esteem and satisfaction with social relationships across time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(1), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000379

16.

Dijkstra

Barelds

D. P. H.

(2008). Do people know what they want: A similar or complementary partner? Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), Article 147470490800600. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600406

17.

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

18.

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

19.

Gebauer

J. E.

Sedikides

Wagner

Bleidorn

Rentfrow

P. J.

Potter

Gosling

S. D.

(2015). Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 526–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000052

20.

Goldberg

L. R.

Rosolack

T. K.

(2014). The Big Five factor structure as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s PEN model. In The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 7–35). Psychology Press.

21.

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

22.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Carter

Galen Buckwalter

(2010). Assortative mating, convergence, and satisfaction in married couples. Personal Relationships, 17(4), 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01309.x

23.

Grimm

K. J.

Ram

Estabrook

(2016). Growth modeling: Structural equation and multilevel modeling approaches. Guilford Publications.

24.

Haehner

Kritzler

Fassbender

Luhmann

(2022). Stability and change of perceived characteristics of major life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(6), 1098–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000394

25.

Hammond

M. D.

Sibley

C. G.

(2021). Romantic partners are similar in their well-being and sociopolitical attitudes but change independently over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211019843

26.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

Bono

J. E.

Thoresen

C. J.

(2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.693

27.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

28.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.5.1075

29.

Kreuzer

Gollwitzer

(2021). Neuroticism and satisfaction in romantic relationships: A systematic investigation of intra- and interpersonal processes with a longitudinal approach. European Journal of Personality, 36(2), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211001258

30.

Kwan

V. S.

Bond

M. H.

Singelis

T. M.

(1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.5.1038

31.

Laceulle

O. M.

Rienks

Meijer

de Moor

E. L.

Karreman

(2023). A developmental approach to youth maladaptive personality traits: Variable-versus person-centered change in the transition from childhood to adolescence. European Journal of Personality, 37(6), 649–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221130116

32.

Lavner

J. A.

Weiss

Miller

J. D.

Karney

B. R.

(2018). Personality change among newlyweds: Patterns, predictors, and associations with marital satisfaction over time. Developmental Psychology, 54(6), 1172–1185. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000491

33.

Leonhardt

N. D.

Rosen

N. O.

Dawson

S. J.

Kim

J. J.

Johnson

M. D.

Impett

E. A.

(2021). Relationship satisfaction and commitment in the transition to parenthood: A couple‐centered approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12785

34.

Lewis

N. A.

Yoneda

(2021). Within-couple personality concordance over time: The importance of personality synchrony for perceived spousal support. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 76(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa163

35.

Lippa

R. A.

(2008). Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social-environmental theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9380-7

36.

Liu

Xiao

Wang

Geng

(2023). The psychological mechanism underlying neuroticism on divorce proneness: The chain mediating roles of negative partner support and couple burnout and the moderating role of economic level. Journal of Affective Disorders, 327, 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.01.092

37.

Luciano

E. C.

Orth

(2017). Transitions in romantic relationships and development of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000109

38.

Lynn

Martin

(1997). Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 nations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(3), 369–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595447

39.

Mund

Neyer

F. J.

(2016). Rising high or falling deep? Pathways of self–esteem in a representative German sample. European Journal of Personality, 30(4), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2063

40.

Neyer

F. J.

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2001). Personality-relationship transaction in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1190–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1190

41.

Nguena Nguefack

H. L.

Page

M. G.

Katz

Choiniere

Vanasse

Dorais

Samb

O. M.

Lacasse

(2020). Trajectory modelling techniques useful to epidemiological research: A comparative narrative review of approaches. Clinical Epidemiology, 12, 1205–1222. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S265287

42.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302

43.

Olaru

Allemand

(2022). Correlated personality change across time and age. European Journal of Personality, 36(5), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211014054

44.

O’Meara

M. S.

South

S. C.

(2019). Big Five personality domains and relationship satisfaction: Direct effects and correlated change over time. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12468

45.

Orth

Erol

R. Y.

Ledermann

Grob

(2018). Codevelopment of well-being and self-esteem in romantic partners: Disentangling the effects of mutual influence and shared environment. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000400

46.

Orth

Robins

R. W.

(2022). Is high self-esteem beneficial? Revisiting a classic question. American Psychologist, 77(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000922

47.

Pfund

G. N.

Allemand

(2022). Correlated change between personality traits and perceived social support in old age. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221120493

48.

Reitz

A. K.

(2022). Self-esteem development and life events: A review and integrative process framework. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(11), Article e12709. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12709

49.

Roberts

B. W.

Wood

Smith

J. L.

(2005). Evaluating Five Factor Theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(1), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002

50.

Robins

R. W.

Tracy

J. L.

Trzesniewski

Potter

Gosling

S. D.

(2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324

51.

Rosenberg

(1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures package, 61(52), 18.

52.

Schafer

R. B.

Keith

P. M.

(1999). Change in adult self-esteem: A longitudinal assessment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164185

53.

Schaffhuser

Wagner

Ludtke

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

54.

Schunk

Trommsdorff

(2023). Longitudinal associations of neuroticism with life satisfaction and social adaptation in a nationally representative adult sample. Journal of Personality, 91(5), 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12783

55.

Schwaba

Bleidorn

Hopwood

C. J.

Manuck

S. B.

Wright

A. G. C.

(2022). Refining the maturity principle of personality development by examining facets, close others, and comaturation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000400

56.

Tambs

Moum

(1992). No large convergence during marriage for health, lifestyle, and personality in a large sample of Norwegian spouses. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(4), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/353175

57.

Wagner

Voelkle

M. C.

Hoppmann

C. A.

Luszcz

M. A.

Gerstorf

(2017). We are in this together. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416679742

58.

Wang

Kim

Stokes

J. E.

(2020). Dyadic profiles of personality among older couples: Associations with marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(6), 2012–2031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520916246

59.

Wang

Xie

Wang

Nie

Lei

(2018). Self-esteem and depression among Chinese adults: A moderated mediation model of relationship satisfaction and positive affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.055

60.

Wright

A. J.

Jackson

J. J.

(2023). Are some people more consistent? Examining the stability and underlying processes of personality profile consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(6), 1314–1337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000429

61.

Wright

A. J.

Jackson

J. J.

(2024). The associations between life events and person‐centered personality consistency. Journal of Personality, 92(1), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12802

62.

Xie

Liu

Xia

Liu

(2007). Chinese family strengths and resiliency. Marriage and Family Review, 41(1-2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v41n01_08

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

0.32 MB