Content uploaded by Brian Ogolsky
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brian Ogolsky on Mar 10, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Family Psychology
Conflict, Negative Emotion, and Reports of Partners’
Relationship Maintenance in Same-Sex Couples
Brian G. Ogolsky and Christine R. Gray
Online First Publication, August 31, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000148
CITATION
Ogolsky, B. G., & Gray, C. R. (2015, August 31). Conflict, Negative Emotion, and Reports of
Partners’ Relationship Maintenance in Same-Sex Couples. Journal of Family Psychology.
Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000148
Conflict, Negative Emotion, and Reports of Partners’ Relationship
Maintenance in Same-Sex Couples
Brian G. Ogolsky
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Christine R. Gray
Texas State University
The literature on relationship maintenance has focused primarily on the beneficial outcomes of mainte-
nance, and, as a result, little is known about relational processes that may interfere with reports of
partners’ maintenance. The authors examine how daily conflict influences individuals’ reports of their
partners’ maintenance, and how a constructive communication style buffers this influence by reducing
negative emotion on conflict days. In a daily diary study of 98 same-sex couples in romantic relation-
ships, they found that the negative association between conflict and reports of a partner’s relationship
maintenance was mediated by negative emotion. That is, there was an indirect effect by which daily
conflict was associated with higher levels of daily negative emotion, which was associated with reports
of lower levels of partners’ relationship maintenance. This indirect effect was moderated by couples’
overall level of constructive communication such that higher levels diminished the degree to which
couples experienced negative emotion on days with episodes of relational conflict. The authors discuss
results in the context of interpersonal theory and provide implications for clinicians and practitioners.
Keywords: relationship maintenance, conflict, negative emotion, constructive communication, couples
The study of romantic relationships centers upon the analysis of
relational features that promote or hinder successful relationship
development. Researchers have identified relationship mainte-
nance as an essential component of healthy relationships defined
as the cognitive and behavioral efforts that partners put forth to
promote the continuation, stability, or health of the relationship
(Dindia & Canary, 1993). A recent meta-analysis (Ogolsky &
Bowers, 2013) confirmed that five factors of maintenance (i.e.,
positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and sharing
tasks) identified in previous work (Canary & Stafford, 1992;
Stafford & Canary, 1991) were related to relationship quality in a
number of important ways. Maintenance was associated with sev-
eral positive relationship outcomes, including, satisfaction, com-
mitment, control mutuality, love, and liking. Furthermore, these
data revealed that individuals’ reports of partners’ maintenance
predicted relationship quality more strongly than individuals’ self-
enacted maintenance behaviors. Thus, for the benefits of mainte-
nance to operate fully in a relationship, individuals must recognize
the maintenance efforts that their partners are putting forth. Until
recently, the literature on relationship maintenance, however, has
focused on the beneficial correlates of maintenance, and as a
result, little is known about relational processes that may interfere
with reports of partners’ maintenance (Canary, Stafford, & Semic,
2002; Ogolsky, 2009).
One area ripe with potential is relationship conflict because the
link between the manner in which partners handle conflict and
relationship quality and stability has been well established (for
reviews, see Amato, 2010; Driver, Tabares, Shapiro, & Gottman,
2012; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). More specifically, the construc-
tive or destructive patterns of partners’ cognitive activity (e.g.,
thought patterns, expectations, and attributions), behavioral ex-
changes, and negative emotional reactivity surrounding the man-
agement of their conflict play critical roles in the prediction of
relationship distress versus success over time (e.g., Clements,
Stanley, & Markman, 2004; Durtschi, Fincham, Cui, Lorenz, &
Conger, 2011; Gottman & Levenson, 1992; Gottman et al., 2003;
Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1994). Yet to our knowledge,
no research has examined how the management of conflict may
influence reports of partners’ maintenance.
Identifying the relational processes that influence reports of
partners’ maintenance affords researchers a greater understanding
of how maintenance promotes relationship satisfaction and stabil-
ity, and may be implemented into interventions designed to pre-
vent dissatisfaction and dissolution (e.g., PREP; Markman, Stan-
ley, & Blumberg, 2010). Needless to say, the far-reaching and well
documented consequences of relationship distress and dissolution
that include individual distress for partners (Liu & Umberson,
2008) and negative effects for children over the life course (Amato
& Sobolewski, 2001; for a review, see Amato, 2010) provide
sufficient reason for exploring the processes that interfere with
reports of maintenance. Thus, the goals of this article are to
elucidate how daily relationship conflict influences individuals’
reports of partners’ maintenance and to explore how a constructive
Brian G. Ogolsky, Department of Human and Community Development,
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Christine R. Gray, De-
partment of Family and Child Development, Texas State University.
This research was supported by a U.S. Department of Agriculture/
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA/NIFA) Hatch Act of
1887 grant (Grant ILLU-793-356) to Brian G. Ogolsky.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian G.
Ogolsky, Department of Human and Community Development, The Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2007 Christopher Hall, MC-081,
904 W. Nevada St., Urbana, IL, 61801. E-mail: bogolsky@illinois.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Family Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 29, No. 6, 000 0893-3200/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000148
1
communication style may moderate this influence by reducing or
preventing the negativity of emotions on days with conflict.
Relationship Maintenance
Relationship maintenance serves to promote the continuation,
stability, and/or health of relationships by means of targeted cog-
nitive and behavioral efforts (Dindia & Canary, 1993). These
efforts can be classified as strategic (i.e., done explicitly to main-
tain the relationship) or routine (i.e., everyday activities that may
implicitly serve a maintaining function; Dainton & Stafford,
1993). The research on relationship maintenance is predicated on
the idea that romantic partners must actively work to facilitate
positive relationship development. Relationship maintenance is
clearly a multifaceted construct that includes a number of strate-
gies important to relationship functioning such as positivity (the
degree to which a partner is cheerful and positive), openness
(self-disclosure and relational conversation), assurances (behaviors
that focus on commitment or faithfulness), social networks (the use
of friends and affiliations for relationship development), and shar-
ing tasks (the equality of tasks that a couple might face; Stafford
& Canary, 1991).
Relationship maintenance provides unique information about a
relationship because it indicates adaptability and responsiveness to
relationship changes. That is, relationship maintenance strategies
promote commitment (Ogolsky, 2009) and assist in repairing re-
lationships in distress (Dindia & Baxter, 1987). Moreover, reports
of relationship maintenance are related to higher relationship sat-
isfaction and other positive relational variables (e.g., love; Ogolsky
& Bowers, 2013). Despite the robustness of these findings, there is
considerable variability in reports of relationship maintenance both
within and between couples. In fact, reports of relationship main-
tenance have been shown to vary on a daily basis (Ogolsky, 2009).
Given the tremendous variability in reports of maintenance, it is
important to understand the processes that may influence these
reports.
Relationship Conflict, Reports of Partners’
Maintenance, and Negative Emotion
Conflict is a relational process that may influence individuals’
reports of their partners’ maintenance. As interdependence theory
posits, due to the fact that partners’ outcomes are intertwined,
when relationship conflict occurs, an individual’s sequence of
behavior (i.e., intrachain sequence) is interrupted by the partner,
and individuals’ expectations may be violated triggering physio-
logical arousal and a variety of negative emotions (Berscheid,
2002). For example, individuals may feel anxious, sad, or angry
depending on how they interpret their partners’ behavior and
intentions (Caughlin, Scott, & Miller, 2009; Feeney, 2004; Fin-
cham, Bradbury, & Grych, 1990). Thus, negative emotions engen-
dered by conflict may be associated with reports of partners’
maintenance and play a collective role in interfering with reports
of partners’ maintenance.
Although the way that negative emotion is associated with
reports of partners’ behavior is unknown, we argue that the liter-
ature from several disparate areas provides some guidance as to the
underlying processes that may be operating. For example, senti-
ment override refers to the process by which individuals’ reports
and evaluations of their partners’ behavior are colored by their
overall affect toward the partner rather than their partners’ current
behaviors (Weiss, 1980). Individuals with negative sentiment
override interpret their partners’ neutral or positive behavior in
negative ways. Empirical findings support this association in that
spouses in distressed marriages reported their partners’ pleasurable
behavior at a lower hourly rate than spouses in nondistressed
marriages; however, trained in-home observers rated pleasurable
behaviors at equivalent frequencies for the two groups (Robinson
& Price, 1980). These data suggest that the overall negative affect
that characterized these distressed marriages influenced individu-
als’ reports of their partners’ behavior such that spouses whose
marriages were characterized by higher levels of negative senti-
ment either failed to notice some of the pleasurable behaviors or
mislabeled these behaviors as negative. Thus, on days with con-
flict, negative sentiment override is one process that may influence
individuals’ reports of their partner’s maintenance attempts.
Another explanation of how negative emotions may influence
reports of partners’ maintenance behavior is based on the idea that
when an individual reaches an extreme point of arousal, multiple
cognitive functions break down. A large body of evidence shows
that when physiological arousal during conflict reaches the level of
alarm or defense in response to a “blend of strong emotions”
(Gottman, 1999, p. 79), referred to as the flight or fight syndrome,
or diffuse physiological arousal (i.e., DPA), individuals experience
extreme limitations in their ability to process information, take in
new information, use active listening, engage in effective problem
solving, and apply a sense of humor to conflict situations (for a
review, see Gottman, 2011). The breakdown of these cognitive
functions may extend beyond the immediate conflict episode to
affect the assessment of subsequent behavior and may make it less
likely that individuals report maintenance attempts by their part-
ners. In addition, intense negative arousal and affective reactions
over periods of time result in the experience of escalating negative
emotions (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). Taken
together, these data show that negative emotionality on days with
conflict plays an important role in shaping individuals’ reports of
partners’ behavior. Thus, we predict that the occurrence of conflict
will have a negative effect on individuals’ reports of partners’
maintenance (H1), and that this effect will be mediated by indi-
viduals’ negative emotions (H2).
Although we have argued that the existing literature supports a
model in which negative emotion mediates the association be-
tween conflict and reports of partners’ maintenance, the correla-
tional nature of past findings does not rule out the possibility of
several other plausible models. For example, it is possible that
conflict mediates the association between negative emotion and
reports of partners’ maintenance. A reverse model may also be
possible whereby reports of partners’ maintenance is associated
with negative emotion, which is, in turn, associated with conflict.
To provide a more stringent analysis of the interrelation between
conflict, negative emotion, and reports of partners’ maintenance,
we test each of these alternative models in addition to the primary
hypotheses. We also note a third plausible model is that partners
actually engage in less maintenance when they experience nega-
tive emotions. Given the past meta-analytic findings that percep-
tions of relational maintenance were more strongly related to
relational outcomes than enacted maintenance (see Ogolsky &
Bowers, 2013), we focused exclusively on perceptions of partners’
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2OGOLSKY AND GRAY
maintenance. Thus, a test of this third model was beyond the scope
of this study.
Communication Style as a Moderator
A large body of research has shown that the way in which
conflict is handled, particularly the communication behaviors that
relationship partners exchange, is linked to the experience of
emotion surrounding conflict (Driver et al., 2012; Fruzzetti &
Iverson, 2004; Levenson & Gottman, 1983; Levenson et al., 1994;
Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993). Individuals
who exhibit a more constructive communication style experience
less intense negative affect surrounding conflict. A constructive
communication style includes partners engaging in greater
problem-solving initiation and techniques, more perspective tak-
ing, gentler start-up (i.e., softer and less harsh initiation of conflict
discussions), fewer negative behaviors (i.e., criticism, contempt,
defensiveness, and stonewalling), and less negative escalation
(e.g., one partner responds to the other’s negative behavior with a
more negative behavior; Markman et al., 1993).
Constructive communication styles are believed to be linked to
less negativity and better emotional management surrounding con-
flict, in part, because partners behave in ways that validate the
others’ perspective; that is, they demonstrate acceptance without
attempts to change how the other feels (Fruzzetti & Iverson, 2004).
For example, experimental data revealed that individuals who
received validating messages during a stressful task exhibited a
reduced stress response over time evidenced by lower levels of
negative affect, heart rate, and skin conductance. Those who
received invalidating messages, however, displayed a prolonged
stress response that increased across the length of the stressful task
(Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011). These data imply that communication
styles that include mutual expression of feelings that are validated
by partners will reduce individuals’ negative emotional reactivity
across the course of the conflict, and thus, result in greater reports
of partners’ maintenance behaviors following conflict. In other
words, a constructive communication style should buffer the neg-
ative impact of conflict on reports of partners’ maintenance be-
cause a constructive communication style serves to diminish the
negative emotions surrounding conflict. Thus, we predict commu-
nication style will moderate the indirect effect of conflict on
reports of partners’ maintenance via negative emotion (H3).
Maintenance and Conflict in Same-Sex Relationships
A growing body of research suggests that in many respects,
relationship functioning operates similarly for same- and different-
sex couples (Kurdek, 2004, 2006). For example, sexual satisfac-
tion predicts relationship well-being similarly for women across
couple type (Holmberg, Blair, & Phillips, 2010). Attachment in-
security, both of individuals and their partners, was related to poor
relationship functioning (i.e., satisfaction, commitment, trust, com-
munication, and problem intensity) in ways similar to different-sex
couples (Mohr, Selterman, & Fassinger, 2013). Further, social
support from a partner both directly and indirectly (i.e., buffering
the effect of stress) affects relationship quality across couple type
(Graham & Barnow, 2013). Despite these similarities, however,
careful examination of these data reveal ways in which the unique
contextual factors same-sex couples face subtly affect relationship
functioning. For example, whereas social support received from
family members benefited relationship quality of different-sex
couples, family support was unrelated to relationship quality in
same-sex couples and friend support and relationship quality dif-
fered across couple type (Graham & Barnow, 2013).
The social and cultural context is important for how conflict and
relationship maintenance behaviors are connected and moderated by
conflict management styles. Many same-sex couples face numerous
challenging contextual factors including (a) minority stress, or inter-
nalized homophobia coupled with an expectation of experiencing
discrimination, rejection, and violence related to sexual orientation
(Meyer, 1995, 2003; Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006); (b)
fewer social norms and greater relationship ambiguity governing their
relationships (Green & Mitchell, 2008; Patterson, Ciabattari, &
Schwartz, 1999); and (c) the lack of universal legal recognition of
their unions or marriages, which affects individuals’ perceptions of
the legitimacy of unions and barriers to relationship dissolution (Fin-
gerhut & Maisel, 2010; Lannutti, 2007).
When the cultural context is less supportive for establishing and
maintaining satisfying close relationships, partners need to turn to
each other for support in handling the fluctuations of relational pro-
cesses. Same-sex couples are likely to be in such a position because
they may not be supported by their families of origin or others (Green
& Mitchell, 2008; Kurdek, 2004, 2006; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).
Instead, they may turn to their peers, developing strong “families of
choice” (Dewaele, Cox, Van den Berghe, & Vincke, 2011), or part-
ners for social support (Graham & Barnow, 2013; Kurdek, 1991,
2004, 2006) as these individuals may be more likely than family
members to understand the unique experiences of same-sex couples
and consequently, be better equipped to provide adequate social
support (e.g., matching the provision to the specific type needs of
individuals; Graham & Barnow, 2013). Thus, the way that same-sex
couples’ closest relationships function is extremely salient. It is in this
context that the way in which conflict is handled has its greatest power
to disrupt relationship functioning. For these reasons, it is important to
explore the effects of conflict on the relationship maintenance process
in same-sex couples.
Although the majority of studies on maintenance have focused
on heterosexual relationships, a few studies have examined main-
tenance in same-sex relationships (Gutierrez, 2004; Haas & Staf-
ford, 2005; Ogolsky, 2009). For example, greater commitment
predicted increases in maintenance behaviors for relationships of
longer length (Ogolsky, 2009). Haas and Stafford (2005) found
that partners in same-sex relationships used similar maintenance
strategies as heterosexual married partners, particularly shared
tasks (Haas & Stafford, 2005). Moreover, higher relationship qual-
ity was associated with greater openness and shared tasks (Guti-
errez, 2004). No study to date, however, has explored the factors
that may interfere with reports of maintenance among same-sex
couples. This study will address the paucity of research that
examines maintenance processes in same-sex couples.
Method
Sample
We sampled 98 same-sex couples (N⫽196) of which, 39
couples were male and 59 were female. The individuals ranged in
age from 18 to 60 with an average age of approximately 33 years
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE AND CONFLICT
(M⫽33.10, SD ⫽12.68). The majority (83%) of the sample was
White and the majority of individuals (96%) characterized their
relationship as seriously dating rather than casually dating (4%),
and 80% reported currently living with their partner. The sample
was highly educated with 94% having at least some college edu-
cation. Length of relationships varied from 1 to 30 years with an
average of approximately 5 years (M⫽5.17, SD ⫽7.97).
Procedure
All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board
and participants provided informed consent prior to beginning the
study. We recruited couples via email from organizations nation-
wide that support same-sex couples. Organizations included but
were not limited to campus clubs, online newsletters, electronic list
services, support groups, and social groups. Organizations not
directly online posted fliers indicating the nature of the study. We
instructed participants to email the study’s website if interested in
participating. Eligible participants were at least 18 years of age and
in a relationship. Qualified participants were asked to provide their
partner’s email address at which time research staff emailed in-
structions and a unique ID number. A total of 118 individuals
contacted the web site and were eligible for participation; however,
20 of the participants either failed to provide their partner’s email
address or had a partner who was unwilling or unable to partici-
pate. Thus, these individuals were not included in the study.
We collected data via an Internet-based system designed for our
study. Participants entered their unique ID number and password
to access the survey, and we instructed each partner in the couple
to complete all parts of the survey individually. After login, each
participant filled out an initial questionnaire containing demo-
graphic information and several relational scales. Following the
completion of the initial questionnaire, we instructed participants
to log on to the website at the same time for each of 14 consecutive
days to complete a daily measures questionnaire. The daily mea-
sures were the same each day and consisted of a series of measures
designed to capture the events that took place over the last 24
hours. A total of 71% of the sample completed the entire 14-day
diary, and 85% completed at least seven of the 14 days resulting in
a total of 2,439 days of data. Each subject was paid $20 at the
completion of the study.
Measures
Daily reports of relationship maintenance. To examine
daily reports of maintenance behaviors, we used Ogolsky’s (2009)
measure, which is a 20-item scale that was generated in a sample
of same-sex couples. Each participant was asked to assess whether
their partner had engaged in each of the listed maintenance activ-
ities (e.g., “My partner was fun to be with;” “My partner listened
carefully to what I had to say;” “My partner was optimistic and
cheerful”) using a dichotomous scale (0 ⫽no, 1 ⫽yes). The items
were summed to create a total daily score for each day (␣⫽.98 in
this sample).
Daily conflict. To assess daily conflict, we used the first stem
question from the Daily Inventory of Stressful Events (DISE;
Almeida, Wethington, & Kessler, 2002). The DISE is a semistruc-
tured interview that contains seven stem questions regarding the
occurrence of stressful events within various relational contexts.
For the current study, the first question was adapted to capture
relationship specific conflict and read, “In the past 24 hours, did
you have an argument or disagreement with your partner?” Par-
ticipants completed this question each day by indicating whether
or not a conflict with their partner had occurred (0 ⫽no, 1 ⫽yes).
Daily negative emotion. We assessed daily negative emotion
with the three-item Negative Feelings Scale (Ridley, Ogolsky,
Payne, Totenhagen, & Cate, 2008). This scale measures the degree
of negative feelings of anger, anxiety, and sadness over the course
of the day (e.g., How anxious did you feel in the last 24 hours?).
Participants responded on a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from
0⫽not at all)to4(very strongly) to each item on each day (␣⫽
.77 in this sample). We calculated the daily negative emotion score
with the average of the three items.
Constructive communication. To measure constructive com-
munication, we administered the Communication Patterns Ques-
tionnaire (CPQ; Christensen & Sullaway, 1984) at the first time
point as part of the initial questionnaire. The CPQ is a 35-item
measure that assesses stable communication patterns among dyads
during three stages of conflict: when a conflict arises (stage 1),
during an argument or discussion of some relationship problem
(stage 2), and after an argument or discussion of some relationship
problem (stage 3). Participants responded to each item on a
9-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely)to9(very
likely) as part of the initial questionnaire. The CPQ has been used
to examine a wide variety of communication patterns but of
principal interest in our study was an absolute measure of con-
structive communication. Following the original scoring proce-
dures, we created the constructive communication subscale by
subtracting the three verbal aggression items (blame, threat, and
aggression) in Stage 1 from the three mutual problem-solving
items (discussion, expression, and negotiation) in Stage 2 (Chris-
tensen & Sullaway, 1984). We calculated the average score across
partners because constructive communication was conceptualized
as a stable, couple-level variable and because partners’ scores on
the CPQ were highly correlated, r(96) ⫽.89, p⬍.001. To afford
more clarity in the interpretation, we grand mean centered the scale
for analysis (M⫽0.00; SD ⫽8.22; range ⫽⫺28.47 to 9.53; ␣⫽
.80 in this sample).
Covariates. We included four covariates in our analyses: age,
gender, relationship length, and relationship satisfaction. Age was
reported in years and gender was dummy coded (0 ⫽female, 1 ⫽
male). Relationship length was measured in years and averaged
across partner reports. We assessed daily relationship satisfaction
by asking participants, “How satisfied were you with your partner
in the last 24 hours?” Participants responded on a 5-point, Likert-
type scale ranging from 0 (not at all)to4(very strongly) on each
day.
Results
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are presented in
Table 1. Given the nonindependence inherent in these data, bivari-
ate correlations are presented for descriptive purposes only be-
cause they include multiple sources of variance. On average, both
male and female participants reported a conflict with their partner
on one out of every 5 days (470 total conflicts). Report of partner
relationship maintenance was negatively correlated with conflict
and negative emotion and positively correlated with constructive
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4OGOLSKY AND GRAY
communication. We hypothesized that daily relational conflict
would be negatively related to daily partners’ reports of relation-
ship maintenance, but that this effect would be mediated by the
presence of daily negative emotion. We further hypothesized that
differences in the direct and indirect effects of conflict would be
explained by a couple’s overall level of constructive communica-
tion (i.e., a moderated mediation). Because our data were nested
(repeated assessments of partners within couples), we followed the
procedures for multilevel mediation (and moderated mediation)
specified by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006). Multilevel modeling
is necessary because traditional approaches for testing mediation
assume that the causal effects are fixed (vs. random) across Level
2 units. To test the first hypothesis, we used a model known as
1¡1¡1 mediation, so named because all three paths are specified
at Level 1, and thus may have random effects (i.e., variability
across Level 2 units).
To test our initial model, the Level 1 equations were as follows:
Negative Emotionij ⫽dej ⫹aj(Conflictij)⫹eeij
Report of Maintenanceij ⫽dmj ⫹bj(Negative emotionij)
⫹c1j(Conflictij)⫹emij
where d
ej
and d
mj
are the intercepts, a
j
is the path from daily
conflict to daily negative emotion, b
j
is the path from daily
negative emotion to daily report of relationship maintenance, and
cj
1is the direct path from daily conflict to daily report of relation-
ship maintenance. We estimated random effects for each of the
coefficients, which were allowed to covary, and we specified the
residual variance structure as advocated by Bauer and colleagues
(2006). We included age, relationship satisfaction, relationship
length, and gender as covariates in all models. We also specified a
model that tested whether gender and/or relationship satisfaction
moderated any of the three pathways. Neither gender nor relation-
ship satisfaction moderated any of the pathways so we removed
these interactions from the final models. To handle missing data,
we estimated models using the restricted maximum likelihood
algorithm, which provides unbiased estimates of the complete data
given the incomplete data (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).
The results of our first model are shown in Table 2. The pathway
of daily conflict to daily negative emotion (a
j,
) was positive and
significantly differed from zero. The pathways to daily reports of
relationship maintenance (b
j,
and cj
1, respectively) were negative
and significantly differed from zero. In addition, daily relationship
satisfaction was positively related to daily reports of partner main-
tenance and negatively associated with daily negative emotion. We
also found a gender difference in that male couples reported fewer
partner maintenance behaviors than female couples.
Although we hypothesized same-day effects, one of the recom-
mendations for testing mediation models is that the variables are
assessed in a temporal sequence. Thus, we wanted to test for the
presence of lagged effects. To do so, we specified the same model
as above with one modification. We lagged conflict by 1 day so
that we could examine the effects of conflict experienced on Day
1 with subsequent negative emotion and reports of partners’ main-
tenance on Day 2, while still testing for same-day effects. The
results of the analysis showed that neither of the lagged effects was
significant, whereas the same-day effects remained significant and
in the same direction as the original model. Moreover, the lagged
model showed significantly worse model fit than the original
model (⫺2 log-likelihood ⫽12,019.29;
2
(1) ⫽2,714.55, p⬍
.001).
We also wanted to test the possibility of two other plausible
models before moving on to the next step in the analysis. We ran
each model two times using the same approach as above; once
including only same-day effects and once including both lagged
and same-day effects. The first alternative model examined
whether daily conflict mediated the association between daily
negative emotion and daily reports of partners’ maintenance in-
cluding all of the same covariates as the model presented in Table
2. Both the same-day (⫺2 log-likelihood ⫽12,244.34;
2
(1) ⫽
2,939.60, p⬍.001) and the lagged (⫺2 log-likelihood ⫽
11,758.30;
2
(1) ⫽2,453.56, p⬍.001) models fit the data
significantly worse than our original model. We next specified a
reverse model in which daily negative emotion mediated the
association between daily reports of partner relationship mainte-
nance and daily conflict with all of the same covariates. The
same-day (⫺2 log-likelihood ⫽12,923.73;
2
(1) ⫽3,618.99, p⬍
.001) and lagged (⫺2 log-likelihood ⫽14,333.92;
2
(1) ⫽
5029.18, p⬍.001) models both reduced model fit significantly.
Given the significant decrease in model fit for each of the alter-
native models, we retained our original model and proceeded to the
next step of the analysis.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Study Variables
Variable
Descriptive statistics
Bivariate correlations
b
Men
(n⫽78)
Women
(n⫽118)
MSDMSD 1
a
2345
1. Conflict .20 .21 .25 .22 .58
ⴱⴱ
————
2. Report of partner maintenance 14.19 3.47 16.16 2.68 ⫺.24
ⴱⴱ
.46
ⴱⴱ
———
3. Negative emotion 1.49 1.45 1.25 1.15 .43
ⴱⴱ
⫺.44
ⴱⴱ
.39
ⴱⴱ
——
4. Constructive communication ⫺.19 7.76 .14 8.60 ⫺.23
ⴱⴱ
.32
ⴱⴱ
⫺.27
ⴱⴱ
.89
ⴱⴱ
—
5. Relationship satisfaction 3.89 .73 3.16 .62 ⫺.27
ⴱⴱ
.66
ⴱⴱ
⫺.55
ⴱⴱ
.36
ⴱⴱ
.40
ⴱⴱ
Note. Daily data were aggregated across days to generate descriptive statistics (N⫽196).
a
Point-biserial correlation.
b
Values bolded on the diagonal are correlations between partners in the same dyad.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE AND CONFLICT
Although indirect effects were originally calculated in a step-
wise approach (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986), current recommen-
dations suggest that these effects be tested with the product of the
unstandardized paths and tested for significance by means of
bootstrapping a 95% confidence interval (CI; see Preacher &
Hayes, 2004). Thus, the average indirect effect is a function of the
product of the unstandardized a and b path estimates and
the covariance between the random effects of these two estimates.
The average total effect is a function of the average indirect effect
and the unstandardized c path estimate. Using these formulae and
bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples, we estimated the average
indirect effect of daily conflict on daily reports of relationship
maintenance as ⫺1.27 (SE ⫽0.18; 95% CI ⫽⫺1.62, ⫺0.93) and
the average total effect as ⫺1.88 (SE ⫽0.17; 95%
CI ⫽⫺2.22, ⫺1.55). Thus, approximately 68% of the total effect
of daily conflict on daily reports of partner relationship mainte-
nance was mediated by daily negative emotion. Moreover, the
sizable standard errors in the average indirect and total effects
suggest that there was meaningful variability across couples.
To assess the differences in the strength of these effects, we
specified a moderated mediation model by adding couples’ overall
communication pattern to the Level 2 model. We first tested for
moderation of the direct paths. Constructive communication sig-
nificantly moderated the a path (B⫽0.33, SE ⫽.17, p⬍.05), but
not the b (B⫽0.01, SE ⫽.02, p⬍.94) or ‘c’ (B⫽0.01, SE ⫽
.03, p⫽.89) paths. To probe this interaction, we examined daily
conflict as a predictor of daily negative emotion at the mean, 1 SD
above, and 1 SD below the mean levels of overall constructive
communication (see Figure 1). Given the significant moderation of
the direct effect, it follows that the indirect effect should also vary
as a function of the moderator. The recommended approach for
testing moderated mediation is to condition one or both of the
indirect paths at meaningful values of the moderating variable,
calculate the conditional indirect effect, and then test the signifi-
cance of the conditional indirect effect or calculate a confidence
interval (Bauer et al., 2006). We conditioned the indirect paths at
values equal to the grand mean, 1 SD above, and 1 SD below the
grand mean level of constructive communication (Aiken & West,
1991).
Hypothesis 3 stated that the indirect effect of daily conflict on
daily reports of partner relationship maintenance through daily
negative emotion would differ as a function of overall constructive
communication. The conditional indirect effect was significant
at 1SD below the grand mean ⫺1.47 (SE ⫽0.18; 95% CI
Table 2
Fixed and Random Effect Estimates for the Mediational Model Predicting Reports of Partner
Relationship Maintenance
Effect Estimate SE p
Fixed effects
Intercept negative emotion, d
e
.89 .07 ⬍.001
Gender .26 .16 .10
Relationship length ⫺.01 .01 .57
Age ⫺.01 .02 .84
Relationship satisfaction ⫺.59 .04 ⬍.001
Intercept report of partner relationship maintenance, d
m
16.31 .21 ⬍.001
Gender ⫺1.64 .37 ⬍.001
Relationship length ⫺.01 .03 .80
Age ⫺.01 .02 .79
Relationship satisfaction 1.85 .09 ⬍.001
Conflict ¡negative emotion, a
j
1.94 .16 ⬍.001
Negative emotion ¡report of partner relationship maintenance, b
j
⫺.70 .07 ⬍.001
Conflict ¡report of partner relationship maintenance, c
j
⫺.61 .29 .04
Random effects
e
27.33 2.71 ⬍.001
m
2.84 .92 ⬍.001
Model deviance (⫺2 log-likelihood) 9304.74
Note. All coefficients are unstandardized.
b= .10
b= .43 **
b = .76 **
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
01
Negave Emo on
Conflict
+1SD Construcve Communicaon
Mean Construcve Communicaon
-1SD Construcve Communicaon
.
Figure 1. Conflict predicting negative emotion as a function of construc-
tive communication.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6OGOLSKY AND GRAY
[⫺1.83, ⫺1.14]), the grand mean ⫺1.14 (SE ⫽0.17; 95%
CI ⫽⫺1.47, ⫺0.80), and 1 SD above the mean ⫺0.80 (SE ⫽0.16;
95% CI [⫺1.12, ⫺0.48]) level of overall constructive communi-
cation. The conditional total effect was also significant at 1 SD
below the grand mean ⫺2.08 (SE ⫽0.18; 95% CI
[⫺2.42, ⫺1.76]), the grand mean ⫺1.75 (SE ⫽0.17; 95% CI
[⫺2.07, ⫺1.42]), and 1SD above the mean ⫺1.41 (SE ⫽0.16;
95% CI [⫺1.72, ⫺1.10]) level of constructive communication.
Thus, the indirect effect of daily negative emotion accounted for
71% (at 1 SD below the grand mean), 65% (at the grand mean),
and 57% (at 1 SD above the grand mean) of the total effect of daily
conflict on daily reports of partner maintenance.
Discussion
In this study we examined the way that daily conflict relates to
reports of a partner’s relationship maintenance behaviors. We
found support for our hypothesis that the association between daily
conflict and daily report of maintenance is mediated by daily
negative emotion. The experience of daily conflict is associated
with higher levels of negative emotion, which, in turn, is associ-
ated with fewer reports of partners’ maintenance attempts. More-
over, we found support for our hypothesis that the mediational
effect of daily negative emotion was moderated by the couple’s
degree of constructive communication. That is, higher overall
levels of constructive communication were associated with a
weaker association between negative emotion and partner’ percep-
tions of maintenance behaviors.
Interpersonal theory posits that conflict occurs when differences
between partners interfere with or disrupt behavior (Kelley, 1979).
As a result of this disruption, partners experience increases in
negative arousal and negative emotion (e.g., anger, anxiety, sad-
ness, hurt; Caughlin et al., 2009) surrounding conflict (Berscheid,
2002). Individuals’ specific cognitions and emotions surrounding
conflict depend heavily on their interpretations of partners’ behav-
ior and motives and are believed to shape subsequent attention to
or interpretation of partners’ behavior and motives (Caughlin et al.,
2009). Our data show that greater negative emotionality experi-
enced on days with episodes of conflict is associated with indi-
viduals’ reports of partners’ maintenance. The literature suggests
three plausible explanations for this association.
The first possibility is that conflict that is consistently managed
poorly creates a situation that promotes negative sentiment over-
ride. That is, individuals’ pervasive negative affect in conflicted
interactions with partners negatively colors their interpretation of
partners’ behavior, regardless of the actual behavior that occurs.
For example, individuals with negative sentiment override inter-
pret both neutral and in some cases, positive behavior of partners
(i.e., as measured by objective observers) as negative (Robinson &
Price, 1980). Thus, negative sentiment override operates such that
individuals enter conflicted interactions with negative expectations
(i.e., of partners’ behavior and intentions as well as the interac-
tion), individuals’ negative affect and arousal prior to interactions
reflects this anticipation of negativity, and individuals perceive
partners’ behavior surrounding conflict in ways consistent with
this anticipated negativity (Fincham, Garnier, Gano-Phillips, &
Osborne, 1995; Levenson & Gottman, 1983, 1985). Although this
past work focuses on how negative sentiment influences conflict
behavior specifically, we contend that the same rationale would
apply to our findings in that negative sentiment override may
influence individuals’ reports of partners’ daily maintenance. Al-
though we were unable to test this explanation directly, we tested
whether relationship satisfaction moderated any of the analytic
pathways and found no significant effects suggesting that negative
emotion operates similarly regardless of the specific relational
climate.
Thus, a more plausible explanation for why negative emotion
influences reports of partners’ maintenance is that negative phys-
iological arousal breaks down cognitive functions, which inhibits
individuals from noticing or attending to partners’ positive behav-
ior. Individuals overwhelmed by physiological arousal and nega-
tive emotion surrounding a conflict are unable to process new
information, think creatively, problem solve, or use humor in
problem discussions (Gottman, 2011). Thus, in the interactions
surrounding and following conflict, individuals with more arousal
and negative emotionality may fail to notice, attend to, recognize,
or label partners’ behavior as maintenance.
A third plausible explanation is that on days with negative
emotion, partners actually perform less maintenance. Although
findings from a meta-analysis showed that perceptions of rela-
tional maintenance were more strongly related to relational out-
comes than enacted maintenance (see Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013),
it is nonetheless possible that individuals may perform less main-
tenance on days with conflict or negative emotion. Because of
limitations of our data, however, we were unable to perform direct
tests of individuals’ enactment of maintenance or physiological
responses so we recommend that future research examine which of
these mechanisms may be at play. Our results clearly indicate that
episodes of conflict are associated with a negative emotional
climate that hampers reports of a partner’s relationship mainte-
nance. This negative emotional climate, however, differed as a
function of communication style.
A large body of research shows that the manner in which
conflict is managed, or a couple’s style of communication, is
linked to the emotional experiences of partners. Characterized by
more positive behavioral and cognitive conditions surrounding
conflict, a constructive communication style serves to limit the
physiological arousal and negative emotionality of conflict (Gott-
man et al., 1998; Markman et al., 1993; Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011).
Couples with less negative arousal and emotionality surrounding
conflict are better equipped to recognize each others’ attempts at
humor, for example, as well as other positive behaviors. Our data
add to this body of research by showing that the couple’s degree of
constructive communication moderated the indirect effect of neg-
ative emotion on reports of partners’ maintenance. Although we
were unable to test this association longitudinally, given the pleth-
ora of studies that demonstrate reports of partners’ maintenance
are related to relationship quality and stability, it is crucial to
identify mechanisms of interference in order to intervene.
Our results suggest that interventions aimed at preventing rela-
tionship distress need to focus on improving communication skills
surrounding conflict (e.g., PREP programs teach communication
skills), and more specifically, these communication skills should
include techniques for improving emotional management. Our data
support and extend the body of literature on conflict and emotion
(e.g., Fruzzetti, 2006; Gottman, 1999; Markman et al., 2010;
Siegel, 2010) by identifying a new piece of the puzzle, that is, on
days with conflict, negative emotion is associated with fewer
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE AND CONFLICT
reports of partners’ maintenance behaviors but the effect of neg-
ative emotion is buffered by a more constructive communication
style. Furthermore, our data suggest that interventions could ben-
efit from a stronger emphasis on teaching individuals to practice
attending to partners’ positive behavior. In our study, the routine
tasks of maintenance, because they are often subtle, may be
viewed as neutral (rather than positive) behaviors unless partners
are actively working to create positive sentiment override. That is,
partners must apply conscious effort toward developing a positive
(vs. negative) mindset, in order to perceive their partners’ positive
behaviors.
The need to manage conflict constructively with regard to
noticing partners’ positive behaviors may be particularly salient
for same-sex couples who rely heavily on partners for social
support and face unique challenges. It is unclear, however, if our
findings reflect a universal pattern of conflict processes, one that
corresponds to a growing body of literature directly examining
processes in same- and different-sex samples (e.g., Kurdek, 2004,
2006), or is a pattern unique to same-sex couples. Future studies
should test these hypotheses with a sample of different-sex cou-
ples.
As with all studies, we had several limitations that warrant
consideration. Our analyses lend stronger support for our predicted
model than two alternative models: that (a) daily conflict mediates
the association between daily negative emotion and daily reports
of partners’ maintenance behaviors, and (b) daily negative emotion
mediates the association between daily reports of partner relation-
ship maintenance and daily conflict. Given the correlational nature
of these data, however, causal explanations cannot be ruled out
entirely. Despite examining cross-lagged models, our final models
were based upon concurrent data, which can bias tests of media-
tion. We also used a single item to measure conflict and relation-
ship satisfaction. Limitations of single-item measures have been
documented but we chose to include this measure in order to limit
participant burden in our intensive repeated measures design. Our
measure of relationship maintenance focused on individuals’ re-
ports of partners’ maintenance rather than one’s own enactment,
which limited our ability to test for differences between self and
partner reports and may be biased by the reporter. This limitation
of the data also precluded us from ruling out the possibility that on
days with conflict, partners enacted fewer maintenance behaviors.
We measured negative emotion for the whole day rather than in
response to a specific conflict, which limited our ability to deter-
mine the temporal sequence. The sample in the study consisted
exclusively of same-sex couples who were primarily European
American and highly educated, which may limit the generalizabil-
ity of the findings to those who are demographically similar. We
studied participants over a relatively short period of time, which
may have limited our ability to capture infrequent events. Lastly,
several of our measures relied upon the same reporter, which may
have resulted in shared method variance. Despite the limitations,
our study is the first that identifies mechanisms that interfere with
reports of partners’ maintenance and highlights the skills critical to
coordinated relationship maintenance.
References
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (2002). The Daily
Inventory of Stressful Events: An interview-based approach for measur-
ing daily stressors. Assessment, 9, 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1073191102009001006
Amato, P. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new devel-
opments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650 – 666. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x
Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effects of divorce and
marital discord on adult children’s psychological well-being. American
Sociological Review, 66, 900 –921. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088878
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and
testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel
models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
11, 142–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
Berscheid, E. (2002). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Chris-
tensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger,...D.R.Peterson
(Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110 –168). Clinton Corners, NY:
Percheron Press.
Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:
Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Canary, D., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relationship maintenance strategies and
equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376268
Canary, D., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. (2002). A panel study of the
associations between maintenance strategies and relational characteris-
tics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 395– 406. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x
Caughlin, J. P., Scott, A. M., & Miller, L. (2009). Conflict and hurt in close
relationships. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships
(pp. 143–166). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770548.009
Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication Patterns Ques-
tionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Ange-
les.
Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Before they
said “I do”: Discriminating among outcomes over 13 years. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 66, 613– 626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.0022-2445.2004.00041.x
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A
comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255–271. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000206
Dewaele, A., Cox, N., Van den Berghe, W., & Vincke, J. (2011). Families
of choice? Exploring the supportive networks of lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 312–331. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00715.x
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing
marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
143–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407587042003
Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives
on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 10, 163–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000201
Driver, J., Tabares, A., Shapiro, A. F., & Gottman, J. M. (2012). Couple
interaction in happy and unhappy marriages: Gottman laboratory studies.
In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and
complexity (pp. 57–77). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Durtschi, J. A., Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D.
(2011). Dyadic processes in early marriage: Attributions, behavior, and
marital quality. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Ap-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8OGOLSKY AND GRAY
plied Family Studies, 60, 421– 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2011.00655.x
Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Towards
integrative models of the negative effects of hurtful events. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487–508. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0265407504044844
Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N., & Grych, J. H. (1990). Conflict in close
relationships: The role of intrapersonal phenomena. In S. Graham &
V. S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Application to achievement,
mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 161–184). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Fincham, F. D., Garnier, P. C., Gano-Phillips, S., & Osborne, L. N. (1995).
Preinteraction expectations, marital satisfaction, and accessibility: A
new look at sentiment override. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 3–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.9.1.3
Fingerhut, A. W., & Maisel, N. C. (2010). Relationship formalization and
individual and relationship well-being among same-sex couples. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 956 –969. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0265407510376253
Fruzzetti, A. (2006). The high-conflict couple: A dialectical behavior
therapy guide to finding peace, intimacy, and validation. Oakland, CA:
New Harbinger.
Fruzzetti, A. E., & Iverson, K. M. (2004). Mindfulness, acceptance, vali-
dation, and ‘individual’ psychopathology in couples. In S. C. Hayes,
V. M. Follette, & M. M. Linehan (Eds.), Mindfulness and acceptance:
Expanding the cognitive-behavioral tradition (pp. 168 –191). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital
therapy. New York, NY: Norton.
Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for
couples. New York, NY: Norton.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting
marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353438
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of
later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.63.2.221
Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Gross, J., Frederickson, B. L., McCoy,
K., Rosenthal, L., . . . Yoshimoto, D. (2003). Correlates of gay and
lesbian couples’ relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution.
Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 23– 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J082v45n01_02
Graham, J. M., & Barnow, Z. B. (2013). Stress and social support in gay,
lesbian, and heterosexual couples: Direct effects and buffering models.
Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 569 –578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0033420
Green, R. J., & Mitchell, V. (2008). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy:
Minority stress, relational ambiguity, and families of choice. In A. S.
Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4th ed., pp. 662–
680). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gutierrez, V. (2004). Maintenance behaviors and conflict level, areas, and
resolution strategies in same-sex couples. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of California, CA.
Haas, S. M., & Stafford, L. (2005). Maintenance behaviors in same-sex
and marital relationships: A matched sample comparison. Journal of
Family Communication, 5, 43– 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327698jfc0501_3
Holmberg, D., Blair, K. L., & Phillips, M. (2010). Women’s sexual
satisfaction as a predictor of well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex
relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/00224490902898710
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, 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909
.118.1.3
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and pro-
cesses. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kurdek, L. (1991). Sexuality in homosexual and heterosexual couples. In
K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp.
177–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabitating couples really
different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66, 880 –900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004
.00060.x
Kurdek, L. A. (2006). Differences between partners from heterosexual,
gay, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family,
68, 509 –528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00268.x
Lannutti, P. J. (2007). The influence of same-sex marriage on the under-
standing of same-sex relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 135–
151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v53n03_08
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). The
influence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrela-
tions: A study of long-term marriages. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 56 – 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.56
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physio-
logical linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45, 587–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.45.3.587
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective
predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49, 85–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.49.1.85
Liu, H., & Umberson, D. J. (2008). The times they are a changin’: Marital
status and health differentials from 1972 to 2003. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 49, 239 –253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
002214650804900301
Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Clements, M.
(1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict
management training: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 61, 70 –77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.61.1.70
Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. L. (2010). Fighting for
your marriage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38 –56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2137286
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian,
gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.129.5.674
Mohr, J. J., Selterman, D., & Fassinger, R. E. (2013). Romantic attachment
and relationship functioning in same-sex couples. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60, 72– 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030994
Ogolsky, B. (2009). Deconstructing the association between relationship
maintenance and commitment: Testing two competing models. Personal
Relationships, 16, 99 –115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009
.01212.x
Ogolsky, B. G., & Bowers, J. R. (2013). A meta-analytic review of
relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 30, 343–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407512463338
Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress
and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 23, 81–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407506060179
Patterson, D. G., Ciabattari, T., & Schwartz, P. (1999). The constraints of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE AND CONFLICT
innovation: Commitment and stability among same-sex couples. In J. M.
Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment
and relationship stability: Perspectives on individual differences (pp.
339 –359). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4773-0_20
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of
lesbians and gay men. The Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405– 424.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re-
search Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 717–731. http://dx.doi
.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Ridley, C., Ogolsky, B., Payne, P., Totenhagen, C., & Cate, R. (2008).
Sexual expression: Its emotional context in heterosexual, gay, and les-
bian couples. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 305–314. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00224490802204449
Robinson, E. A., & Price, M. G. (1980). Pleasurable behavior in marital
interaction: An observational study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 48, 117–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.48.1
.117
Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). The impact of invalidating and
invalidating responses on emotional activity. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 30, 163–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011
.30.2.163
Siegel, D. J. (2010). Mindsight: The new science of personal transforma-
tion. New York, NY: Random House.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic
relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 8, 217–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407591082004
Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model
for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in
family intervention assessment and theory (vol. 1, pp. 229 –271). Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press.
Received June 25, 2014
Revision received July 10, 2015
Accepted July 29, 2015 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 OGOLSKY AND GRAY
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Family Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
