NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY NOVEMBER 11, 2019. ATTACHED ARE RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT.

Neuroticism and Close Relationships: How Negative Affect is Linked with Relationship Disaffection in Couples

Irum Saeed Abbasia, Neelam Rattanb, Tehmina Kousarc, and Fatma Khalifa Elsayedd

aSan Jose State University, Psychology, San Jose, USA; bSan Jose State University, Psychology, San Jose, CA, USA; cFatima Jinnah Women University, Psychology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; dKing Abdul Aziz University, Arts and Humanities, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 31 July 2017 Revised 20 March 2018 Accepted 27 March 2018

ABSTRACT Dispositional vulnerability afforded by personality can lead to adverse relationship outcomes. Neuroticism personality is bundled with a disadvantageous temperament that makes people high in neuroticism more sensitive to negativity. Consequently, neuroticism signifies negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, and sadness. Neuroticism is also inversely related to marital satisfaction. The present study examined the relationship between relationship disaffection (emotional indifference) and negative affect in the context of neuroticism. The present study included 819 participants (511 females, 308 males) between the ages of 18 years to 74 years (M D 27.16, SD D 10.58) who were in a committed or married heterosexual relationship. Our mediation model explored the relationship between neuroticism and relationship disaffection with negative affect acting as a mediator. We found a modest indirect relationship between neuroticism and relationship disaffection via negative affect. Acknowledging that individuals high in neuroticism are temperamentally sensitive to negative stimuli, therapists can assist partners in learning ways to curb negative mood to combat relationship disaffection. Future studies can build on these findings and design research addressing the limitation of the present study.

Personality, partly determined by genetics, is relatively stable (Bouchard & McGue, 2003; Ganiban et al., 2009). The classical way of describing human personality involves the Big Five personality dimensions: conscientiousness, openness to expe- rience, neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness (Longley et al., 2017; McCrae & Costa, 1997). The influence of personality traits on mood and behaviors, which eventually affect marital outcomes, is studied extensively (Akram & Malik 2011; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; 1997; Knabb & Vogt, 2011; Luo et al., 2008; McCabe, 2006; Nemechek & Olson 1999). A meta-analysis of marital research based on the Big Five traits found that

CONTACT Irum Saeed Abbasi [email protected] © 2018 Taylor & Francis

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 2018, VOL. 46, NO. 2, 139–152 https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2018.1461030

neuroticism is most strongly related to negative marital outcomes when compared with the other four personality traits (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Generally, individuals high in neuroticism report less satisfaction with their partners (Gattis et al., 2004; White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004) than those who are low in neuroticism. For the present study, we were interested in the neuroticism personality dimension; therefore, we will limit our discussion to neuroticism.

Neuroticism is described as a tendency to experience negative affect and is also a measure of mood and emotional control (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Individuals high in neuroticism are "prone to have irrational ideas, be less able to control their impulses, and cope more poorly than others with stress" (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p.14). Such individuals are typically portrayed as anxious, moody, and depressed, which is contrasted by the calm demeanor and good emotional control displayed by individuals who are low in neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Orchard & Fullwood, 2010). Research on personality and emotional distress revealed that symptoms of general distress (e.g., anger, depression, and anxiety) are related to personality, particularly neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Smith & Mumma, 2008). There are many facets of neuroticism such as anxiety, angry hostility, self- consciousness, vulnerability, and depression (Renshaw, Blais, & Smith, 2010); nev- ertheless, neuroticism is more often used interchangeably with negative affectivity, which is a disposition towards reporting "distress, discomfort, and dissatisfaction over time and regardless of the situation, even in the absence of any overt or objec- tive source of stress" (Watson & Clark, 1984, p. 483). With this temperament, it is no surprise that neuroticism is linked with experiencing low social support (Swick- ert, Hittner, Harris, & Herring, 2002), feelings of loneliness (Correa, Hinsley, & de Zuniga, 2010), and fear of rejection (Malone, Pillow, & Osman, 2012).

In the context of romantic relationships, individual differences in neuroticism are strongly connected with marital dissatisfaction (Abbasi, 2017; Gattis et al., 2004; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2010; White et al., 2004). Theoretically, many models support this connection. For example, the relationship-influence model holds that the characteristic traits that spouses bring to the marriage may influence their overall interpersonal relationship course (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000). In this context, the interpersonal model (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1997) suggests that individuals high in neuroticism experi- ence low relationship satisfaction because they create negative events, which are bolstered by negative behaviors. Furthermore, the intrapersonal model (Cot�e & Moskowitz, 1998) contends that individuals high in neuroticism perceive life events more negatively, which in turn affects their relationship satisfaction. Empirical research suggests that individuals high in neuroticism maintain a significantly higher negative affect even in neutral conditions (Abbasi, 2016). The contrast avoidance model explains that individuals high in neuroticism tend to maintain a higher baseline negative affect to combat the unexpected emotional shifts (Newman & Llera, 2011). Thus, during an aversive interaction, these individuals may reach their negative affect threshold and feel

140 I. S. ABBASI ET AL.

overwhelmed with negative emotions, and eventually withdraw from the distress caus- ing situation (Caughlin & Huston, 2006) rather than engaging in confrontation. Behav- iors adopted during the romantic relationship may also play an important role in the link between neuroticism and relationship outcomes. For example, evidence suggests that sexual relationship mediates the connection between neuroticism and marital satis- faction (Fisher & McNulty, 2008).

Furthermore, low relationship satisfaction is linked with relationship dissatisfac- tion, which also facilitates the development of marital disaffection (Kayser, 1996). Marital disaffection is defined as a gradual loss of love involving the "loss of emo- tional attachment, a decline in caring, [and] an increasing sense of apathy and indifference toward one’s partner" (Kayser, 1996, p. 83). This romantic decline that involves an emotional and affective deadening in couples is synonymously also called romantic disengagement (Barry, Lawrence, & Langer, 2008). Relation- ship disaffection significantly contributes to marital breakdown (Kayser, 1993), and disaffected spouses engage in cognitive and behavioral strategies that are focused on disengaging with the partner physically, psychologically, and emotion- ally (Barry, 2010; also see Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2017). In this paper, we will use the term relationship disaffection to refer to disaffection experienced by partners in a close relationship.

Hypothesis

As noted earlier, individuals high in neuroticism tend to maintain a height- ened negative arousal than those who are low in neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Therefore, it is plausible that individuals high in neuroticism may experience relationship disaffection because of their disposition towards perceiving and maintaining increased negative affect than those who are low in neuroticism. We explored a mediation model to examine the direct and indirect paths between neuroticism and relationship disaffection. Essentially our models explored if neuroticism is significantly positively related to rela- tionship disaffection via negative affect (H1). We base our support for the proposed mediation model on the intrapersonal model (Cote ́ & Moskowitz, 1998) and contrast avoidance model (Newman & Llera, 2011). Acknowledging that negative affect is a facet of neuroticism and is also correlated with neu- rotic traits, we suggest that it is this negative affect facet that could be making people high in neuroticism withdrawn from their partner.

Method

Participants

The present study included 819 participants (511 females, 308 males) between the ages of 18 years to 74 years (M D 27.16, SD D 10.58). Participants included in the analyses were either in a marital (31.5%) or committed heterosexual relationship

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 141

(68.5%). The committed participants were younger (M D 22.88, SD D 7.80) than married participants (M D 35.98, SD D 10.83). The sample was ethnically diverse: White (34.5%), Asian (37.9%), Hispanic (20.9%), African American (5.7%), and Native American (1%). The education of participants ranged vastly; 39.1% partici- pants reported completing a high school diploma, 17% an Associate’s degree, 30.0% a Bachelor’s degree, 10.4% a Master’s degree, 2.2% a Doctorate degree, and 1.3% a Post-Doctorate degree. The participants were mostly from the United States (77.2%). Incomplete surveys (4%) were excluded from the analyses. Moreover, participants who reported to be diagnosed with the mental illness were excluded from the analyses to avoid confounding negative affect state with mental illness (e.g., depression).

Procedure

An institutional review board (IRB) at a public US university approved the present study. The study included an anonymous online survey administered through the SurveyMonkey website. Participation was solicited through Snowball sampling. The survey link was shared on the approving university’s research website, twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, and Whats-app. Additionally, Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was employed to recruit a wider demographic of participants. MTurk is an online service that offers “requesters” (researchers) to post “Human Intelligence Tasks” (HITS) for “workers” (participants) who independently visit the website through a weblink. The survey link directed participants to the consent form first, which was followed by the main survey.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire The demographic questionnaire included items that assessed age, gender, ethnicity, education level, occupation, marital status, and so on.

The negative affect scale. The 10 item negative affect subscale from the positive affect and negative affect schedule (PANAS) was used in the study. PANAS is a 20-item self- report measure developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988) to provide a brief measure of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). The 10 NA scale items refer to negative mood experiences such as distressed, guilty, afraid, ashamed, and nervous. To avoid mood priming, three PA affect random fillers (e.g., interested, strong, and inspired) were incorporated in the NA scale. Partici- pants rated the degree to which they momentarily experienced each of the 13 mood conditions on a 5-point scale (1 D Not at all and 5 D Extremely). The reli- ability of NA scale for this study was high (Cronbach’s a D .88). The three PA items were not included in the analyses.

142 I. S. ABBASI ET AL.

Neuroticism scale For this study, we administered the eight item neuroticism subscale of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). BFI contains 44 short items that cover five major per- sonality dimensions (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). Example items include: can be tense, worries a lot, and gets nervous easily. The response format of BFI is based on a 5-point scale (1 D disagree strongly and 5 D agree strongly). Some of the neuroticism scale items were reverse scored and then summed up to get the final score. Reliability of the neuroticism scale for this study was high (Cronbach’s a D .82).

Marital disaffection scale (MDS) Kayser (1996) developed a 21-item self- report scale to measure the level of marital disaffection. MDS measures the elements of emotional estrangement in couples by focusing on the experiences of indifference, lack of care, and lack of attachment towards one’s partner (Flowers, Robinson & Carroll, 2000). The marital disaffec- tion scale is related to other evaluative scales of marital happiness (r D ¡ .56) and marital closeness (r D ¡.86; Kayser, 1996). Kayser (1996) also reported a correla- tion of .93 (p < .001) between the MDS and Snyder and Regts’ scale of disaffection (1982). Some of the example items of MDS include: I try to avoid spending time with my spouse, I often feel lonely even though I am with my spouse, I find it diffi- cult to confide in my spouse about a number of things, and I seem to enjoy just being with my spouse. The response format of the marital disaffection scale is anchored on a 4-point Likert scale (1 D not at all true, 4= very true). Some items were reverse scored and all responses were summed up to get the total score. Higher scores depict greater marital disaffection. The reliability of MDS for this study was high (Cronbach’s a D .91).

Results

Table 1 shows the Pearson’s bivariate correlations and mean and standard devia- tions of the study variables and controls. For the main analyses, we conducted the mediation analyses using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro Model 4. For this procedure, model 4 with 5000 bootstrapped resamples is used to compute 95% confidence

Table 1. Pearson bivariate correlations and mean and standard deviations of variables (N D 819). Scales 1 2 3 4 5

1. Neuroticism .31** .09** ¡.21** .23** 2. Negative Affect .24** ¡.24** ¡.04 3. Relationship Disaffection .11** ¡.08* 4. Age ¡.16** 5. Gender M 23.10 14.57 33.45 27.01 SD 6.35 5.75 9.86 10.73

Correlation is significant at the ��p < .01. Correlation is significant at the �p < .05.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 143

intervals (Hayes, 2013). In this model, neuroticism is added as a predictor variable (X), marital disaffection is added as an outcome variable (Y), and negative affect is added as a mediator (M). Age, gender, and the relationship status of the respond- ents are added as control variables. In the mediation model, the relationship between neuroticism and negative affect is denoted as [a] and the relationship between negative affect and marital disaffection is denoted as [b]. The direct effect is denoted as [c'], the total effect is denoted as [c] and the indirect effect is com- puted by multiplying the two path coefficients of [a] and [b] (Hayes, 2009, 2013; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). The PROCESS macro results show that neuroticism predicts negative affect (path a: b D .27, t (814) D 8.90 , p < .001, R2 D .15) and negative affect predicts marital disaffection (path b: b D .43, t(813) D 7.02, p < .001, R2 D .10). The total effect, which represents the relationship between neuroti- cism and marital disaffection is significant (path c: b D .24, t(814) D 4.30, p < .001, R2 D .05). The direct effect representing the relationship between neuroticism and marital disaffection when the mediator is present is also significant, but the effect is reduced (path c': b D .12, t(813) D 2.10, p D .04). We report partial mediation of negative affect. The direct effect remains significant when mediator is added, albeit reduced. The indirect effect is computed at .01 level of significance (Hayes, 2009, 2013; Zhao et al., 2010). The mediating role of negative affect between neuroticism and marital disaffection is significant (a £ b) (b D .12, [.08, .17].

The current study reports that negative affect acts as a mediator in the relation- ship between neuroticism and marital disaffection. Sobel test (normal theory test) which checks if c-c’ is different is also significant (z D 5.50, p < .001). In essence, our model suggests that neuroticism is linked with marital disaffection partially through negative affect. Figure 1. shows the total and direct effects of neuroticism on marital disaffection.

Discussion

Empirical research supports that neuroticism and negative affect are very closely related; neuroticism is also related to adverse marital outcomes such as relationship disaffection (Sadati, Honarmand, & Soodani, 2015; Watson & Clark, 1984; White et al., 2004). The goal of the present paper was to examine

Neuroticism

Negative Affect

Relationship Disaffection

.27** .43**

.12* (.24**)

Figure 1. Total and direct effects of neuroticism on relationship disaffection. Total effect in paren- theses. Correlation is significant (��p < .01, �p < .05).

144 I. S. ABBASI ET AL.

if negative affect plays the role of a mediator in the link between neuroticism and relationship disaffection. It is plausible that individuals high in neuroti- cism and those who also have an elevated negative affect are more susceptible to adverse marital outcomes. Consistent with the previous findings (Sadati et al., 2015), we found that an increase in neuroticism level corresponded to an increase in the level of relationship disaffection. Our mediation model was partially supported; when negative affect was added as a mediator, the indirect effect of neuroticism on relationship disaffection via negative affect was signif- icant and direct effect was reduced; albeit, it remained significant. These results suggest that the negative affect facet of neuroticism partially predicts relationship disaffection. Insights from the present study could be used to carve a therapeutic treatment plan for partners struggling with romantic disaffection.

Implications for Therapists

The potential implications of the present study for romantic partners and therapists are pertinent. In clinical settings, therapists treating clients who are high in neuroticism (or have partners who are high in neuroticism) should focus on how neuroticism could adversely influence the couple’s relationship and well-being. Clinicians could educate partners about the role of their neu- rotic traits and assist them in gaining insight and taking control of their emo- tions. Chronic stress related to poor marital adjustment has significant negative implications on the health of spouses (Caughlin & Huston, 2006; Loving, Heffner, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2006). For example, when relationship sat- isfaction is low, depressive symptoms tend to be high (Whitton, Stanley, Markman, & Baucom, 2008). It is noteworthy that individuals high in neuroti- cism have an added disadvantage as neuroticism itself predicts transitory symptoms of anxiety, anger, and depression (Martin, Watson, & Wan, 2000).

Researchers have previously examined predictors of relationship dissatisfaction and divorce (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), and have found neuroticism to be a longitudinal predictor of marital distress and sepa- ration (Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Kelly & Conley, 1987). Neuroticism also pre- dicts actor’s (self) and partner’s negative communication behaviors (Caughlin et al., 2000). Some researchers, however, argue that negative relationship outcomes specific to neuroticism are not related to the nature of couple’s communication behaviors (Karney & Bradbury, 1997). Despite this inconsistency, research sup- ports that an adverse pattern of communication that involves high demand/with- draw (one spouse nags and the other avoids) is positively related to neuroticism of either spouse (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000). For example, a longitudinal study involving couples found a positive relationship between newly wed wives’ neuroti- cism scores and both forms of demand/withdraw seen in their relationship pat- terns after thirteen years (Caughlin & Huston, 2006). This pattern may be cyclical;

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 145

demand from one partner in a dyad elicits withdrawal from the other partner, and more withdrawal elicits more demand (Caughlin & Ramey, 2005). Moreover, therapists also contend that it is difficult to break a rigid demand/withdraw com- munication pattern (Caughlin & Huston, 2006).

Romantic partners may withdraw from conflictual situations using dis- engagement strategies (Nichols, Backer-Fulghum, Boska, & Sanford, 2015). Researchers have identified two different types of conflict disengagements: pas- sive immobility and withdrawal (Sanford, 2014). During passive immobility, a partner seeks to address the conflictual situation but waits for the other part- ner to notice and take initiative to resolve the problem (expectation of mind reading); whereas, during withdrawal, the partner deliberately avoids conflic- tual interactions with an angry partner and becomes uncommunicative or may leave during the discussion (Nichols et al., 2015). Withdrawal is analo- gous to Gottman’s (1993) stone-walling in which a partner becomes silent and indifferent; it is also associated with "flat emotion" which is comprised of boredom, disengagement, and indifference (Sanford, 2007). Therefore, in cou- ple’s therapy, interventions are often specifically targeted to curb withdrawal behaviors that are linked with relationship malfunctioning involving emotion, attachment, and relationship cognition (Sevier, Eldridge, Jones, Doss, & Chris- tensen, 2008).

Furthermore, one of the most cited reason underlying close relationship dis- tress and/or divorce is romantic disengagement (Barry, 2010) or marital disaf- fection (Kayser, 1993, 1996). Nevertheless, evidence supports that couples who have high marital disaffection scores are also susceptible to counseling (Kayser, 1996). Therapists may choose to measure the level of relationship dis- affection and neuroticism in couples. However, caution is advised when dis- cussing relationship disaffection or neuroticism scores due to the possibility of harm from labeling one partner disaffected or neurotic. Partners, especially those who are high in neuroticism or have partners who are high in neuroti- cism could be educated to better manage circumstances that produce conflicts so that manifestation of their dysfunctional behaviors could be curbed (Cau- glin & Huston, 2006). Marital satisfaction is negatively linked with neuroti- cism in self and in the significant other (Renshaw et al., 2010); hence, both actor effects (the effect of self on one’s own marital adjustment) and partner effect (the effect of partner on marital adjustment) should be taken into account when considering the influence of neuroticism on marital satisfaction (Renshaw et al., 2010). It is worth noting that marriage is the most conse- quential in the development of negative affect (Beach, Martin, Blum, & Roman, 1993), therefore, therapists should educate partners to be receptive to positive stimuli and make an effort to ignore negative stimuli in the environment.

Notably, relationship disaffection is manifested in low levels of excitement during spousal interactions and a general absence of strong positive emotions,

146 I. S. ABBASI ET AL.

absence of open conflict, and low levels of anger (Gottman, 1994, 1999; Smith, Viv- ian, & O’Leary, 1990). In this context, emotionally focused therapy (EFT) can be used to treat couples in distress. EFT is a multidimensional intervention that is based on the attachment theory (Johnson & Greenberg, 1985). Attachment is the basic human need for developing and maintaining a strong affectional bond with the significant other (Bowlby, 1988). Empirical evidence supports EFT interven- tions for couples in therapy (Greenman & Johnson, 2013). EFT specifically treats attachment insecurity and attachment injury. Attachment insecurity is rooted in the partner’s emotional disengagement or relationship disaffection for the signifi- cant other, which may surface in the form of negative interactions and negative affect; whereas, attachment injury begins when the partner undermines the expec- tation that the spouse could drive comfort at a critical moment from him or her (Johnson, 2004). EFT treatment starts with identifying emotional experiences that are rooted in problematic interactions. The therapist helps partners to be sensitive and recognize their own as well as their significant other’s emotional experiences, which is followed by the restructuring of the couple’s interactional styles to reen- gage the withdrawing partner. This could help in the development of a secure attachment bond. The last step of EFT includes consolidation and integration of the progress made in therapy (Greenman & Johnson, 2013). Also integrate behav- ioral interventions as an additive to experiential and insight oriented models in order clinical effectiveness with clients suffering from increased neuroticism.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several factors limit the scope of the current findings. This study employed the cross-sectional research design based exclusively on self-report measures collected via the Internet. The cross-sectional design precludes us from examining the direc- tion of the relationship between variables, and the self-report scales may be less reliable and more biased. For example, someone who may be prone to increased negativity may also be prone to evaluate his or her relationship disaffection more strongly. Moreover, we did not match our 819 heterosexual participants with their specific partner to identify if their partners also evaluated their relationship com- paratively. Future studies can focus on dyads and explore how neuroticism reported by both partners (self-reported and partner-reported) is linked to rela- tionship disaffection, satisfaction, and closeness.

It is also important to mention that we did not control the environment in which respondents took the surveys. Therefore, many variables could have con- founded the results such as the time of the day, mental state, stress level, and whether taken alone or in the presence of partner or others. Qualitative research design can help researchers decipher hidden themes and guide them towards other variables that may be affecting these results. Furthermore, these results cannot be generalized to homosexual or bisexual populations because less than 1% of the par- ticipants reported being in a non-heterosexual relationship. To avoid the sexual

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 147

preference confound, we only included the participants who reported to be in an exclusively heterosexual relationship.

Other extraneous variables may also have confounded the results. For example, researchers have found that workaholic tendencies and over-controlling behaviors of partners are significantly positively related to relationship disaffection (Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2001; Robinson, Flowers, & Kok-Mun, 2006). Also, raised cortisol, catecholamines, and corticosteroids are linked with relationship disaffection (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1997). It was beyond the scope of the present study to measure workaholic tendencies or hormonal levels, which could be mea- sured in future research. Finally, evidence supports a significant link between depressive symptoms and marital adjustment (Whisman, Uebelacker, Tolejko, Chatav, & McKelvie, 2006). Depression is also an important indicator of negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984). In this study, we excluded individuals who reported to have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Nevertheless, there may still be some individuals who may have had depressive symptoms but were not clini- cally diagnosed. Future studies can measure depressive symptoms of the partici- pants and employ longitudinal research design to track if fluctuations in negative affect due to stressors and/or depressive tendency could potentially have an enhanced impact on neuroticism related relationship disaffection. Despite these limitations, our study is a step forward in relationship research and is particularly useful for clinicians who can use the insights from this study to devise a custom- ized treatment plan for individuals who are high in neuroticism.

Author’s Contribution

The lead author has contributed at-least 65% in this manuscript.

Note

This research was presented at the Western Psychological Association (WPA) conference at Portland, Oregon, USA.

References

Abbasi, I. (2016). The role of neuroticism in the maintenance of chronic baseline stress percep- tion and negative affect. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 1–9. doi:10.1017/sjp.2016.7

Abbasi, I. S., & AlGhamdi, N. (2017). Polarized couples in therapy: Recognizing indifference as the opposite of love. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43(1), 40–48. doi:10.1080/ 0092623X.2015.1113596

Abbasi, I. S. (2017). Personality and marital relationships: Developing a satisfactory relationship with an imperfect partner. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 39(3), 184–194. doi:10.1007/s10591-017-9414-1

Akram, H., & Malik, N. I. (2011). Relationship between personality traits and marital adjust- ment of teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(4), 718– 724.

148 I. S. ABBASI ET AL.

Barry, R. A., Lawrence, E., & Langer, A. (2008). Conceptualization and assessment of disengage- ment in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 15(3), 297–315. doi:10.1111/j.1475- 6811.2008.00200.x

Barry, R. A. (2010). Romantic disengagement as a developmental process that contributes to mar- ital distress and decline (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/779 .

Beach, S. R., Martin, J. K., Blum, T. C., & Roman, P. M. (1993). Effects of marital and co-worker relationships on negative affect: Testing the central role of marriage. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21(4), 313–323. doi:10.1080/01926189308251002

Bouchard, T. J., & Mc Gue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 4–45. doi:10.1002/neu.10160

Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determi-

nants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964–980. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326–336. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.326

Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2000). An individual difference explanation of why married couples engage in the demand/withdraw pattern of conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 523–551. doi:10.1177/0265407500174004

Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). Demand/withdraw patterns in marital relationships: An individual differences perspective. In R. M. Dailey & B. A. Le Poire (Eds.), Applied Interper- sonal Communication Matters: Family, Health, and Community Relations (pp. 11–38). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Caughlin, J. P., & Ramey, M. E. (2005). The demand/withdraw pattern of communication in parent-adolescent dyads. Personal Relationships, 12(3), 337–355.

Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: Intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247–253. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PIR): Profes- sional manual. Lutz, FL: Psycho- logical Assessment Resources, Inc.

Cote, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between interpersonal behav- ior and affect: Prediction from Neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1032–1046. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.1032

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50 doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2

Eysenck, H. J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1981). Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfac- tion. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 3, 151–192. doi:10.1016/0146-6402(81) 90002-3

Flowers, C. P., Robinson, B. E., & Carroll, J. J. (2000). Criterion-related validity of the Marital Disaffection Scale as a measure of marital estrangement. Psychological Reports, 86, 1101–1103.

Fisher, T. D., & McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction: The mediating role played by the sexual relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 112–122. doi:10.1037/ 0893-3200.22.1.112

Ganiban, J. M., Ulbricht, J. A., Lichtenstein, P., Hansson, K., Spotts, E. L., Reiss, D., & Neiderh- iser, J. M. (2009). Understanding the role of personality in explaining associations between marital quality and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(5), 646–660. doi:10.1037/ a0016091

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 149

Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 564–574. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.564

Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychol- ogy, 7, 57–75. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57

Gottman, J. M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail: And how you can make yours last. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. New York, NY: Norton.

Greenman, P. M., & Johnson, S. M. (2013). Process research on emotionally focused therapy (EFT) for couples: Linking theory to practice. Family Process, 52(1), 46–61. doi:10.1111/ famp.12015

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millen- nium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574–600. doi:10.1037/0033-2909. 130.4.574

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory-versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Johnson, S. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (1985). The differential effects of experiential and problem- solving interventions in resolving marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 53, 175–184. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.175

Kiecolt-Glaser J. K., Glaser, R., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCallum, R. C., Snydersmith, M., Kim, C., & Malarkey, W. B. (1997). Marital conflict in older adults: Endocrinological and immunologi- cal correlates. Psychosomatic Medicine, 59, 339–349.

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. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.118.1.3

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075

Kayser, K. (1993). When love dies: The process of marital disaffection. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kayser, K. (1996). The marital disaffection scale: An inventory for assessing emotional estrange- ment in marriage. American Journal of Family Therapy, 24(1), 83–88. doi:10.1080/ 01926189508251019

Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of mari- tal stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 27–40. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.27

Knabb, J., & Vogt, R. (2011). The relationship between personality and marital adjustment among distressed married couples seen in intensive marital therapy: An actor-partner inter- dependence model analysis. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 33(4), 417–440. doi:10.1007/s10591-011-9167-1

Longley, S. L., Miller, S. A., Broman-Fulks, J., Calamari, J. E., Holm-Denoma, J. M., & Meyers, K. (2017). Taxometric analyses of higher-order personality domains. Personality & Individ- ual Differences, 108, 207–219. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.018

150 I. S. ABBASI ET AL.

Loving, T. J., Heffner, K. L., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2006). I’ve got you under my skin: Physiology and interpersonal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Luo, S., Chen, H., Yue, G., Zhang, G., Zhaoyang, R., & Xu, D. (2008). Predicting marital satisfac- tion from self, partner, and couple characteristics: Is it me, you, or us? Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1231–1266. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00520.x

Malone, G. P., Pillow, D. R., & Osman, A. (2012). The general belongingness scale (GBS): Assessing achieved belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 311–316. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027

Martin, R., Watson, D., & Wan, C. K. (2000). A three-factor model of trait anger: Dimensions of affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality, 68, 869–897. doi:10.1111/1467- 6494.00119

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five- Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analy- sis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509

McCabe, M. P. (2006). Satisfaction in marriage and committed heterosexual relationships: Past, present, and future. Annual Review of Sex Research, 17(1), 39–58.

Nemechek, S., & Olson, K. R. (1999). Five-factor personality simi- larity and marital adjustment. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 27(3), 309–318. doi:10.2224/ sbp.1999.27.3.309

Newman, M., & Llera, S. (2011). A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 371–382. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.008

Nichols, N. B., Backer-Fulghum, L. M., Boska, C. R., & Sanford, K. (2015). Two Types of Dis- engagement During Couples’ Conflicts: Withdrawal and Passive Immobility. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 203–214. doi:10.1037/pas0000045

Orchard, L. J., & Fullwood, C. (2010). Current perspectives on personality and Internet use. Social Science Computer Review, 28(2), 155–169. doi:10.1177/0894439309335115

Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2001). Marital estrangement, positive affect, and locus of control among spouses of workaholics and spouses of nonworkaholics: A national study. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 397–410.

Robinson, B. E., Flowers, C., & Kok-Mun, N. (2006). The relationship between workaholism and marital disaffection: Husbands’ perspective. Family Journal, 14(3), 213–220. doi:10.1177/ 1066480706287269

Renshaw, K. D., Blais, R. K., & Smith, T. W. (2010). Components of negative affectivity and marital satisfaction: The importance of actor and partner anger. Journal of Research on Per- sonality, 44(3), 328–334. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.005

Sadati, S. E., Honarmand, M. M., & Soodani, M. (2015). The causal relationship of differentia- tion, neuroticism, and forgiveness with marital disaffection through mediation of marital conflict. Journal of family psychology, 1(2), 55–68.

Sanford, K. (2007). The Couples Emotion Rating Form: Psychometric properties and theoretical associations. Psychological Assessment, 19, 411–421. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.411

Sanford, K. (2014). A latent change score model of conflict resolution in couples: Are negative behaviors bad, benign, or beneficial? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(8), 1068–1088. doi:10.1177/0265407513518156.

Sevier, M., Eldridge, K., Jones, J., Doss, B. D., & Christensen, A. (2008). Observed communica- tion and associations with satisfaction during traditional and integrative behavioral couple therapy. Behavior Therapy, 39, 137–150. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2007.06.001

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 151

Smith, D. A., Vivian, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (1990). Longitudinal prediction of marital discord from premarital expressions of affect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(6), 780–798. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.790

Smith, P. N., & Mumma, G. H. (2008). A multi-wave web-based evaluation of cognitive content specificity for depression, anxiety, and anger. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 50–65. doi:10.1007/s10608-007-9171-9

Snyder, D. K., & Regts, J. M. (1982). Factor scales for assessing marital disharmony and disaffec- tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 736 doi:10.1037/0022- 006X.50.5.736

Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., Harris, J. L., & Herring, J. A. (2002). Relationships among Internet use, personality, and social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(4), 437–451. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00054-1

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aver- sive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490. doi:10.1037/0033-2909. 96.3.465

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relation- ship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1519–1530. doi:10.1016/j. paid.2004.02.019

Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., Tolejko, N., Chatav, Y., & McKelvie, M. (2006). Marital dis- cord and well-being in older adults: Is the association confounded by personality? Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 626–631. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.626

Whitton, S.W., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Baucom, B. R. (2008). Women’s weekly rela- tionship functioning and depressive symptoms. Personal Relationships, 15, 533–550. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00214.x

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257

152 I. S. ABBASI ET AL.

Copyright of American Journal of Family Therapy is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.