i 
 
Discussing my romantic problems with my best friend:  
Longitudinal examinations of relationship work in younger and older couples  
 
by 
 
Jakob Facer Jensen 
 
 
 
 
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
August 2, 2014 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: relationship work, romantic love, romantic conflict, marital satisfaction, social 
networks, intimate disclosure 
 
 
Copyright 2014 by Jakob Facer Jensen 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Amy Rauer, Chair, Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
Scott Ketring, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
Jennifer Kerpelman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
Thomas Smith, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies 
  
ii 
 
Abstract 
 
 
 All couples experience romantic challenges and sharing these problems with others seems 
innately human. This dissertation underscores the importance of carefully considering with whom 
and how often one should discuss romantic relationship problems. Further, it highlights the 
importance of taking a developmental approach when investigating these processes, as the frequency 
and impact of romantic problem disclosures appear to change over time. Among two distinct 
samples, we investigated how frequently partners discussed relationship problems with one 
another and with a best friend as well as the impact of these discussions on the relationship over 
time (e.g., romantic stability, relationship satisfaction).  
 The first study examined a sample of 82 romantically-involved young adults and revealed 
that they were more likely to discuss romantic problems with partners than with friends and that 
discussions with partners increased over time. Logistic regression analyses revealed that when 
individuals discussed relationship problems with partners, they were more likely to remain in 
that relationship over time, whereas discussing problems with friends was associated with greater 
likelihood of breaking up. Furthermore, structural equation modeling suggested that those who 
experienced more conflict early in the relationship were less likely to later speak with their 
partners about romantic problems. Failing to discuss romantic problems with either the partner or 
the friend was linked with greater conflict, whereas discussing the issue with only the partner 
was associated with less conflict. Overall, young adults appeared to benefit most when 
discussing their romantic challenges with their partners. 
 
iii 
 
The second study examined similar processes among a sample of 53 older-adult married 
couples. Results suggested that both wives and husbands more frequently discussed marital 
problems with one another than with friends, however, these discussions decreased in frequency 
over time. Multi-level modeling (MLM) analyses indicated that frequently discussing marital 
problems with the spouse was associated with declines in marital satisfaction over the course of 
one year. MLM results also suggested that those who were less maritally satisfied were more 
likely to discuss marital problems with friends one year later. Unlike younger adults, older adults 
appear to benefit from not engaging in discussions of romantic problems with their spouses.   
iv 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
Most of the successes I have enjoyed in life have come as a result of working alongside 
individuals who are more gifted than I am. So it is with this dissertation. It has been completed 
largely because I have been surrounded by extremely talented colleagues who have shouldered a 
significant portion of the load. Words cannot express my gratitude those who have helped me. 
To my committee, Dr. Scott Ketring, Dr. Jennifer Kerpelman, and Dr. Tom Smith: Thank you 
for encouraging me, strengthening me, and challenging me. Your feedback and support have 
helped make this dissertation a document I can read with pride. To my major professor, Dr. Amy 
Rauer: I cannot begin to convey how indebted I feel for the guidance you have offered over the 
last six years. You have molded me into the independent researcher I am today. The countless 
hours you spent performing innumerable tasks on my behalf have been nothing short of 
inspirational. My success was guaranteed the moment you accepted me as one of your students. 
Thank you for being a superb example of what it means to be a researcher, teacher, mentor, and 
friend. Thank you for making things hard. Thank you for making things fun. Thank you for 
seeing the potential in me that I often lose sight of. I hope I can make you proud in the future. 
Finally, to the most important person, my wife and best friend, Elisa: Thank you for your 
positivity. You, more than anyone else, are aware of my limitations and vulnerabilities. Without 
someone like you, someone like me could not have completed a project like this. You rode the 
roller coaster beside me the last six years, always smiling, always encouraging. You have been 
my motivation and inspiration. I?m glad wherever the future takes us, you?ll be there at my side. 
v 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv 
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii 
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii 
Chapter 1 - General Introduction .....................................................................................................1 
Chapter 2 - Young adults? relationship work over time: The impact of disclosing romantic  
            problems to partners and friends ..........................................................................................6 
  
 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................7 
 Method  ..............................................................................................................................14 
 Results  ...............................................................................................................................18 
 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................21 
 
Chapter 3 ? Marriage work in older couples: Disclosure of marital problems to spouses and  
            friends over time ................................................................................................................39 
  
 Introduction   ......................................................................................................................40 
 Method  ..............................................................................................................................48 
 Results  ...............................................................................................................................52 
 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................54 
Chapter 4 ? General Discussion .....................................................................................................65 
References   ....................................................................................................................................69 
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................87
vi 
 
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................88 
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................................90 
Appendix D ....................................................................................................................................92 
  
vii 
 
List of Tables 
 
 
Study 1 
Table 1 ...........................................................................................................................................34 
Table 2 ...........................................................................................................................................35 
Study 2 
Table 1 ...........................................................................................................................................63 
Table 2 ...........................................................................................................................................64 
  
viii 
 
List of Figures 
 
General Introduction  
Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................................2 
Study 1 
Figure 1 ..........................................................................................................................................36 
Figure 2 ..........................................................................................................................................37 
Figure 3 ..........................................................................................................................................38 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
I. General Introduction 
Intimate couples do not exist in isolation, but rather are impacted by the complex social 
networks in which they are embedded (Birditt & Antonucci, 2007; Felmlee, 2001). Members of a 
couple?s social circle, including friends (Sprecher, 2011) and family members (Sprecher & 
Felmlee, 1992) may act as vital sources of information and support (Julien et al., 2000). The 
feedback provided by such individuals shapes multiple avenues of couple functioning, from 
contributing to the formation of the couples? dyadic identity to influencing couple dynamics 
(Etcheverry & Agnew, 2004; Sprecher, 1988). Although the social network appears to influence 
intimate relationships, we still know very little regarding the nature of what couples discuss with 
their friends. Despite the fact that the empirical literature on the influence of the social network 
on intimate relationships is relatively underdeveloped in comparison to work on other predictors 
of relationship functioning (e.g., personality, attachment; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Lehnart & 
Neyer, 2006), those attempting to understand the dyadic processes of successful couples continue 
to include a social component in their theoretical frameworks.       
Huston (2000) presented a model that suggested that the social network is a critical piece 
for understanding intimate relationships. In his framework of marriage as a behavioral ecosystem 
(see Figure 1), he posited that three distinct factors, 1) the macroenvironment, 2) individual 
characteristics, and 3) relationship behavior in context, should be considered when attempting to 
understanding intimate relationship functioning and outcomes. With regards to the marital 
relationship in context, Huston asserted that both interactions within the dyad and interactions 
with members of the social network contribute to relationship functioning. He added that 
 
 
 
2 
 
although dyadic interactions form the foundation of intimate relationships, the social network 
contributes both indirectly and directly to intimate-partner relationships. Merely being in the 
presence of some friends is enough to indirectly impact certain couple interactions (e.g., displays 
of affection). Moreover, Huston asserted that couples? joint and independent direct interactions 
with friends also impact the couple?s relationship. Therefore, researchers aiming to capture 
factors influencing intimate relationship dynamics must begin with a theoretical framework that 
accounts for the social influences that affect couples as their relationships progress.      
 
Figure 1. Huston?s (2000) Three-level Model for Viewing Marriage 
 
Although friends and others clearly impact intimate relationships in meaningful ways, a 
couples? social network is dynamic, which suggests that its impact on a couple may change over 
the lifespan (Luong, Charles, & Fingerman, 2011). Explaining these changes in the network, 
Carstensen?s (1992) Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST) posits that individuals 
 
 
 
3 
 
intentionally prune their social network across the lifespan in order to maximize emotionally-
rewarding experiences as they grow older. Therefore, although the size of the social network 
tends to decrease with age, it increases in quality. The benefits of selectively trimming the social 
network with age are evident, as older adults report having more satisfying and positive 
interactions with members of their social network than do younger adults (Charles & Piazza, 
2007). Due to the fact that older adults tend to retain friends who are supportive of and invested 
in the well-being of their marital relationship (Luong et al., 2011), it is likely that members of the 
social network in older adulthood may thus be more inclined to offer positive feedback about 
one?s intimate relationship. Further, Sprecher, Felmlee, Orbuch, and Willetts (2002) suggested 
that young adults? social networks are not as supportive as is often assumed due to friends 
occasionally offering feedback that is incorrect or unsupportive of the couple. Therefore, 
consistent with the tenets of SST, it appears that the influence of the social network on intimate 
relationships may change as a function of an individual?s age and life stage.   
Nicely combining Huston?s (2000) social ecology framework and Carstensen?s (1992) 
SST is a small body of work that examines the extent to which friends? influence is explicitly 
solicited by intimate partners and the effects of this on the intimate relationship. Pioneering this 
line of work, Helms, Crouter, and McHale (2003) examined how the disclosures of marriage 
problems to spouses and friends, a construct known as ?marriage work? (MW), were related to 
marital functioning. They noted significant gender differences in MW behaviors with husbands 
primarily disclosing marital problems to spouses, and wives disclosing nearly equally to spouses 
and friends. They found that when wives exclusively turned to friends to discuss marital 
challenges, spouses reported less marital love and more arguing (see also Proulx, Helms, & 
Payne, 2004). Extending this work to a sample of romantically-involved younger adults, Jensen 
 
 
 
4 
 
and Rauer (in press) found that both males and females turned more frequently to partners than 
to friends when experiencing intimate-relationship problems at this earlier romantic stage. 
Although the authors also found that young adults who turned exclusively to friends had poorer 
romantic functioning, Jensen and Rauer additionally discovered that turning to both the partner 
and a friend often resulted in the most favorable evaluations of the intimate relationship, 
especially for males. Such findings hearken back to Huston?s (2000) claim that both dyadic 
interactions and contact with members of the social network uniquely and significantly impact 
intimate relationships.  
Despite the meaningful contributions made by these studies to what we know regarding 
the social network and intimate relationships, conclusions drawn from their findings are limited 
due to the nature of the samples examined and the design of the studies. First, previous work 
examining disclosures to partners and friends did not account for the dyadic nature of intimate 
couples. For example, Jensen and Rauer (in press) examined intimately-involved individuals, but 
not couples. Therefore, their results should be interpreted with caution given that disclosure 
patterns from both partners likely impact relationship satisfaction (Morry, 2005). Further, even 
though Helms and colleagues? (2003) examined both spouses, their use of separate regression 
models for husbands and wives did not account for the linked nature of the data. To 
simultaneously examine outcomes for both members of the dyad, a technique such as Actor-
Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005) or multi-level modeling 
(MLM; Hruschka, Kohrt, & Worthman, 2004) should be utilized. Moreover, previous studies in 
this area have been cross-sectional in design, which prevents conclusions about whether turning 
outside of your relationship is a cause or a consequence of relationship distress. It is equally 
plausible that an intimate partner would turn outside the relationship to disclose to a friend as a 
 
 
 
5 
 
result of an unsatisfying intimate relationship as it is that disclosing to a friend instead of a 
partner could lead to less favorable evaluations of the intimate relationship. Only by examining 
couples over time can researchers begin to identify the etiology of these processes.  
The two studies that constitute this dissertation will extend current research by addressing 
these limitations and by utilizing SST to understand how individuals tap into their social 
networks over time at different relationship and life stages. Although the two studies nicely 
complement one another, each stands on its own as a unique and necessary addition to the 
literature. Study 1, a follow-up examination of Jensen and Rauer?s (in press) study of romantic-
problem disclosures in young adulthood, examines the extent to which disclosures to partners 
and friends predict changes in the stability and quality (i.e., love, conflict) of the romantic 
relationship. Building off of this work, Study 2 takes a dyadic approach via MLM to examine the 
interplay between spouses? MW and marital satisfaction over time in a sample of older couples, a 
heretofore unstudied population that is uniquely situated in an emotionally-rewarding social 
context. Given the complexity of the marital relationship and its implications for adult and child 
(Brown, 2010; Waite & Lehrer, 2003) well-being, researchers must continue their efforts to 
understand how partners maintain a healthy and positive intimate relationship. Given that both 
theoretical and empirical work highlight the importance of the social network for these efforts 
(Helms et al., 2003; Huston, 2000), these two proposed studies make a significant contribution to 
the literature by illuminating how romantic disclosures to both partners and friends are linked to 
romantic functioning over time.   
  
 
 
 
6 
 
II. Paper 1 - Young adults? relationship work over time: The impact of disclosing romantic 
problems to partners and friends 
 
Abstract 
The current study examined the frequency with which 82 young adults from the 
Southeastern United States discussed romantic relationship problems with their partners and with 
a best friend, a process referred to as ?relationship work? (RW). Results from data collected over 
two time points revealed no gender differences in RW patterns, yet suggested young adults 
engage in more frequent RW with partners than with friends. Logistic regression analyses 
suggested that frequent RW with partner predicted greater romantic stability, whereas frequent 
RW with friend was linked with increased likelihood of romantic breakup. Results using 
structural equation modeling indicated that those reporting greater conflict were less likely to 
later share their romantic problems with their partners. Finally, moderation analyses suggested 
that individuals who did not discuss romantic problems with either their partners or friends 
experienced greater romantic conflict later in the relationship, whereas those who frequently 
discussed these problems with only their partner reported less conflict. Results suggest that 
discussing romantic challenges with one?s partner likely has a positive impact on the relationship 
both immediately and over time. Clinicians may therefore significantly aid couples by 
encouraging partners to turn to one another rather than to friends to work through romantic trials.  
 
Keywords: young adults, romantic disclosure, romantic stability, romantic quality 
 
 
 
7 
 
Young adults? relationship work over time: The impact of disclosing romantic problems 
to partners and friends 
Successful romantic relationships in young adulthood have been found to promote health 
and well-being including lower rates of physical and emotional distress and more favorable 
physiological functioning (Schneiderman, Zagoory-Sharon, Leckman, & Feldman, 2012). Thus, 
it is critical that we understand factors influencing the ability to maintain such relationships over 
time across young adulthood once they are formed (Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). One 
powerful but understudied predictor of romantic stability during this time is the social network in 
which the relationship occurs (Huston, 2000). Although there is variability in the extent to which 
individuals and couples permit influence from network members, the importance of the social 
network is not surprising as romantic relationships begin and develop in the presence of others. 
Members of the social circle are not mere passive observers of the relationship but oftentimes 
actively affect the romantic relationship in both positive and negative ways (Felmlee, 2001; 
Sprecher, Felmlee, Orbuch, & Willets, 2002). For example, friends often serve as sources of aid 
when young couples face challenges, providing constructive insight to help the young adult learn 
from and process romantic experiences (Seiffge-Krenke, 2003; Sprecher et al., 2000), which is 
one reason Seiffge-Krenke suggested that social connections with friends are linked to romantic 
relationship stability in young adulthood. Given that friends appear to play a key role in romantic 
stability in young adulthood, it is imperative to understand how turning to one?s friend when 
problems arise may affect both the short- and long-term success of one?s romantic relationship. 
Recent research finds that the effects of turning to one?s friend may depend largely on whether it 
is complementary or supplementary to turning to one?s romantic partner. Examining a construct 
they identified as ?marriage work?, or the disclosure of romantic issues to a spouse or close 
 
 
 
8 
 
friend, Helms, Crouter, and McHale (2003) examined a sample of 142 middle-aged married 
couples with children. They found that middle-aged wives who disclosed marital problems to 
friends and excluded husbands from such discussions experienced poorer marital outcomes (e.g., 
less love, more arguing). Jensen and Rauer (in press) expanded upon these findings by 
examining the frequency of ?relationship work? (RW), or the disclosure of romantic problems to 
partners and best friends, in a sample of 106 romantically-involved young adults. Similar to 
Helms and colleagues, they found that engaging in frequent RW with friends to the exclusion of 
romantic partners was linked with poorer romantic outcomes (e.g., less happiness, commitment, 
love), whereas engaging in frequent RW with partners, regardless of RW performed with friends, 
was associated with positive romantic functioning.  
Although these studies significantly enhance our comprehension of how partners involve 
friends in romantic problems and how this is linked with romantic quality, capturing the effects 
of disclosing problems to friends is challenging given that such disclosures may vary over time 
according to the current state of the romantic union and the friendship. Because we know that 
both romantic (Raley, Crissey, & Muller, 2007) and social (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003) 
relationships in young adulthood are dynamic, assessing the frequency and impact of RW with 
partners and friends at only one time point offers a limited view of the potential consequences of 
these disclosures for the couple?s relationship. Further, due to the fact that previous research on 
RW has been cross-sectional, researchers have not yet been able to comment on direction of 
effects. Do individuals turn to friends when their relationship is troubled or does turning to 
friends cause problems in the romantic relationship? Accordingly, to address this gap in the 
existing literature, the current study will take a dynamic approach by capturing RW over 
approximately one year and its effects on romantic stability and functioning. In this study we aim 
 
 
 
9 
 
to (1) capture change in frequency of RW with partners and friends over time, (2) discover 
whether or not RW is linked with romantic relationship maintenance or dissolution, and (3) to 
describe how RW with partners and friends predicts change in romantic love and conflict.  
Discussing Romantic Problems with Partners and Friends  
Experiencing romantic difficulties is inevitable, yet not devastating for most couples 
(Shulman, 2003). Couples have developed numerous ways for coping with relationship problems 
such as practicing forgiveness (Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2010) or taking the perspective of 
the partner (Schroder-Abe & Schutz, 2011). Regardless of the specific strategy chosen to handle 
the issue, overcoming romantic challenges begins with the ability to openly disclose and discuss 
problems (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004). Not only has the disclosure of personal problems to others 
(e.g., partners, friends, family members) been linked with increased physical and mental health 
(Pennebaker, 1990), but specifically discussing romantic challenges with partners is linked to 
greater romantic satisfaction (Finkenauer & Hazan, 2000). On the other hand, when partners 
avoid discussing romantic issues, they experience lower perceptions of romantic closeness 
(Dillow, Dunleavy, & Weber, 2009). Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, and Khouri (1998) suggested 
that some individuals fear disclosing romantic problems to their partners because they fear 
rejection or conflict escalation. Although some partners may feel that avoiding certain 
problematic topics is beneficial, topic avoidance often leads to perceptions of concealment, 
which have been linked with reports of poorer romantic well-being and feelings of romantic 
exclusion (Finkenauer, Kerkhof, Righetti, & Branje, 2009). Therefore, it appears that romantic 
relationships benefit much more from open discussions of romantic problems as opposed to 
avoiding discussions of such topics with partners. It is important to note that the vast majority of 
studies examining communication about romantic problems between members of a romantic 
 
 
 
10 
 
dyad have been conducted among White, middle-class individuals in relatively healthy and 
stable romantic relationships. Additionally, many of these studies have examined samples of 
newlywed or middle-aged couples and individuals.     
Although discussing romantic challenges with a partner has been found to be beneficial 
for both men?s and women?s relationships, women seem to be more willing than men to engage 
in such discussions with a partner (Barbee et al., 1993), perhaps because women are socialized to 
be more expressive than are men (Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003). Guerrero and 
Afifi (1995) noted that men, more than women, avoided discussing specific issues including 
romantic challenges and dating experiences. This comes as no surprise given that men in the 
United States are typically socialized to appear in control, to appear less reliant upon others, and 
to maintain a position of leadership and assertion (Reevey & Maslach, 2001). Despite men?s 
hesitancy to discuss romantic challenges, the benefits of disclosing romantic problems persist for 
both sexes, with some researchers actually discovering that men may experience greater personal 
and relational gains from open discussions of such issues (Jensen & Rauer, in press).      
In the pioneering study of this type of relationship work, Helms and colleagues? (2003) 
found that these discussions of marital problems were not limited to the couple, but often 
involved a third-party in the form of a close friend. Further, involving a friend in discussions of 
one?s marriage was found to have significant effects on the marriage for some wives. Wives who 
turned exclusively to their friends about their marital problems, thus excluding their husbands 
from these discussions, reported poorer marital functioning (i.e., less love, greater ineffective 
arguing). In contrast, when wives frequently addressed marital issues with husbands, the act of 
turning to a friend was unrelated to love or ineffective arguing. These findings were supported in 
a follow-up study of wives conducted by Proulx, Helms, and Payne (2004). Further, recent work 
 
 
 
11 
 
by Jensen and Rauer (in press) on young adults also found that despite both sexes disclosing 
more to partners than to friends, those individuals who turned exclusively to friends reported 
experiencing poorer romantic functioning (e.g., less happiness, commitment, and love).  
Although these findings certainly suggest the importance of disclosing relationship 
problems to partners, the cross-sectional nature of these studies prevents definitive conclusions 
about the nature and effects of relationship work. Does RW with a friend lead to declines in 
romantic relationship quality or does RW with a friend develop as a result of negative 
relationship functioning? Although certain studies (Jensen & Rauer, in press) have argued that 
their direction of analyses was theoretically driven, whereby RW with a friend leads to romantic 
problems, they cannot rule out the possibility that individuals in an unfulfilling romantic 
relationship may be more likely to turn outside their relationship to discuss romantic problems. 
Perhaps some participants turned to friends only after it became clear that turning to the partner 
would not improve the relationship. Only assessing RW and romantic functioning over time can 
show direction of influence. Not only will examining these constructs over time establish 
whether RW patterns drive romantic functioning or vice versa, but will also allow us to account 
for the natural progression that occurs in relationships over time as well as their stability 
(Shulman, Tuval-Mashiach, Levran, & Anbar, 2006). Specifically, as intimacy grows in a 
relationship, so likely will self-disclosure (Kito, 2005; Schneiderman et al., 2012). On the other 
hand, turning to someone other than the partner may convey exclusion and distance (Finkenauer 
et al., 2009), both of which are predictors of divorce (Gottman & Levenson, 2002), and thus RW 
with a friend may predict romantic relationship instability. We anticipate that these changes in 
disclosure over time will influence the romantic relationship functioning and stability in 
significant ways.   
 
 
 
12 
 
Change in Romantic Relationships in Young Adulthood 
Examination of relationship stability over time is especially pertinent among young 
adults (i.e., those between 18 and 30 years old) given that romantic relationships at this time are 
often turbulent. Raley and colleagues (2007) examined unmarried young adults ages 18 to 26 and 
found varying levels of commitment both within and across relationships (Raley et al., 2007). 
Banker, Kaestle, and Allen (2010) conducted a qualitative study in which they asked young 
adults ages 18 to 24 to describe how they knew they were in a romantic partnership. Participants 
were found to use a complex array of labels and definitions regarding romantic standing, leading 
Banker and colleagues to posit that young adulthood is a time when defining romantic status and 
determining levels of romantic quality (e.g., love) may be somewhat nebulous. Upon concluding 
their examination of 285 Israeli young adults, averaging 23 years of age, Shulman, Scharf, 
Livne, and Barr (2013) asserted that because young adults increasingly engage in casual 
romantic encounters, examining factors contributing to romantic stability over time is vital to 
gain an accurate understanding of young people?s romantic relationships. 
Not only has previous research established that romantic conflict predicts relationship 
stability over time (Shulman et al., 2006), but it also appears that communication with partners 
and others about this conflict predicts stability. In a longitudinal study of the effects of self-
disclosure on romantically-involved young adults? relationships, Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) 
examined a sample of 101 heterosexual couples who had been dating for an average of 18 
months. They discovered that greater self-disclosure to a partner was positively associated with 
relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment over time. The more women perceived the 
partner disclosed at Time 1, the less likely the couple was to break up by Time 2. Not only did 
their findings highlight the importance of capturing men?s disclosure patterns to partners, but 
 
 
 
13 
 
also they suggested that disclosure to a romantic partner may predict romantic stability over time 
in young adulthood. Beyond communicating with one?s partner, young adults also frequently 
disclose romantic information to friends and others (Sprecher et al., 2002), and these disclosures 
affect romantic stability. Sprecher and Felmlee (1992) found that among dating couples in their 
early twenties, greater support from family and friends of romantic couples predicted increased 
love, satisfaction, and commitment in the romantic union in young adulthood over a two-year 
span. Findings from these longitudinal studies suggest that communication about the romantic 
relationship with both partners and members of the social network contributes to whether or not 
couples who have been dating for several months will remain together in young adulthood. What 
is now needed is a study that unites these two lines of research by examining disclosure of 
romantic problems to both partners and friends over time, as this will better capture how 
communication about the romantic relationship predicts romantic stability.  
Current Study 
Because healthy romantic relationships in young adulthood have been linked to better 
physical and psychological health (Burman & Margolin, 1992), researchers should focus on 
identifying antecedents predictive of healthy romantic functioning. Previously, researchers have 
considered individual antecedents (e.g., attachment; Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007) as 
well as couple factors including communication patterns such as negative affect reciprocity, 
harsh start-up, de-escalation strategies (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). 
Additionally, as suggested by Huston (2000), some studies have considered the impact of 
interactions with friends on romantic stability in young adulthood (Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). 
However, very few studies have considered how specifically involving friends in romantic 
problems shapes romantic dynamics. With few exceptions (Jensen & Rauer, in press), those that 
 
 
 
14 
 
have examined the impact of disclosing romantic problems to partners and friends have focused 
primarily on middle-aged couples with children (e.g., Helms et al, 2003; Proulx et al., 2004). 
Given that young adulthood represents a time of life involving considerable instability, 
especially with regards to romantic relationships (Banker et al., 2010), researchers should now 
not only turn their attention to understanding disclosure processes at this critical life stage, but 
also track disclosure patterns to partners and friends over time and their potential effects on 
relevant romantic constructs. Not only will this allow researchers to chart natural relationship 
trajectories and capture precursors of romantic stability, but also it will enable researchers to 
identify the potential etiology of romantic problems and instability.  
Accordingly, the present study will consider romantic disclosures to partners and friends 
as well as self-reports of love and conflict from romantically involved young adults across two 
time points. This data will help us answer the following questions: 1) Does the frequency of 
disclosure of romantic problems to partners and friends, or RW, change as romantic relationships 
progress across young adulthood? 2) Does RW with partners and friends predict romantic 
stability among young adults? 3) Do these patterns predict change in romantic outcomes (e.g., 
love, conflict) over time among young adults (see Figures 1 and 2)? This study aims to provide a 
greater understanding of the antecedents of romantic problems and instability in young adulthood 
and aid researchers and clinicians alike as they seek to improve the quality of romantic 
relationships in young adulthood.        
Method 
Participants and Procedures 
Data in this paper are drawn from a larger study and only relevant procedures are 
discussed. One hundred and six romantically-involved young adults from a Southern University 
 
 
 
15 
 
in the United States participated at Time 1 (T1). Participants were recruited from statistics, social 
sciences, engineering, and political science courses. To qualify for the study, individuals had to 
be 19 years or older. At T1, participants were 21.3 years old (SD = 1.7; range 19-30 years), with 
77% of the sample being female and most indicating they were Caucasian (88%). Average 
romantic relationship length was 25 months (SD = 20.2; range 1-96 months). None of the 
participants reported having children. Of the participants, 91% reported having same-sex best 
friends. Participants? average friendship length was 8.3 years (SD = 5.7; range 1-22 years). 
Eighty-two of the original 106 participants agreed to participate in the second wave of 
data collection and completed Time 2 (T2) questionnaires, reflecting a retention rate of 77%. Of 
those who completed a T2 questionnaire, 93% were unmarried and 7% married. The 24 
participants who did not complete the T2 questionnaire either asked not to be recontacted (n = 
12) or were unable to be reached (n = 12). Of the 82 participants that completed both T1 and T2 
questionnaires, 56 indicated that they remained in the same romantic relationship approximately 
one year later, with 26 indicating that they had broken up with their former romantic partners. 
Data were analyzed for all 106 participants at T1 and all 82 who completed a T2 questionnaire, 
regardless of relationship status. Attrition analyses revealed that compared with the retained 
sample, young adults lost to attrition did not differ based on age (t(104) = .18, p = .86), sex 
(t(104) = 1.75, p = .09), romantic relationship length (t(104) = .40, p = .69), or friendship length 
(t(104) = .78, p = .44). Attrition analyses further revealed that the retained sample did not differ 
from those lost to attrition based on RW with partner (t(104) = 1.35, p = .18), RW with friend 
(t(104) = .18, p = .86), love (t(104) = .92, p = .36), or conflict (t(104) = .92, p = .36). Therefore, 
those lost to attrition did not significantly differ on any variable examined in the current study.  
 
 
 
16 
 
Participants completed both the T1 and T2 questionnaires in one sitting (usually 15-20 
minutes). They were compensated with extra credit points in their classes for completing the T1 
questionnaire. Participants who completed the T2 questionnaire were compensated ten dollars for 
their time.    
Measures 
Relationship work. The degree to which participants engaged in RW with their romantic 
partner and with a best friend was measured at both T1 and T2 using a modified version of the 
Marriage Work Scale (Helms, Crouter, & McHale, 2003; Jensen & Rauer, in press). This 
measure can be seen in Appendix A. This scale assesses the degree to which participants bring 
up romantic problems to a partner and to a best friend on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (never) 
to 9 (always). When reporting on discussions with a friend, participants were specifically asked 
to report about their ?best friend, who was not the romantic partner?. For purposes of the current 
study, we used 5 items from the original 10-item scale. The retained items were those that were 
more relevant to younger couples (i.e., dropped items related to childrearing and couple 
household tasks): relationship communication, decision making, current financial situation, 
relations with the partner?s family members, and social life and leisure (e.g., ?How often do you 
bring up the way that you and your partner spend free time (e.g., the activities you do, and/or the 
people you socialize with)??). Participants were specifically directed to report on romantic 
relationship ?concerns or problems? in each area and how frequently these concerns were 
discussed with a partner and with a friend. The modified version of this scale demonstrated good 
reliability for both the romantic partner scale (T1: ? = .79, T2: ? = .77) and the best friend scale 
(T1: ? = .80, T2: ? = .85).  
 
 
 
17 
 
Romantic love. To assess love for the partner, participants completed the 10-item love 
subscale from Braiker and Kelly?s (1979) Intimate Relations Questionnaire. This subscale 
measured the individual?s degree of belonging, closeness, and interdependence with a romantic 
partner (e.g., ?To what extent do you have a sense of belonging with your partner??) on a 9-point 
scale (1 = not at all to 9 = very much; T1: ? = .82, T2: ? = .84).  
Romantic conflict. To assess conflict in the relationship, participants completed the 5-
item conflict subscale from Braiker and Kelly?s (1979) Intimate Relations Questionnaire. This 
subscale measured the individual?s overt behavioral conflict and communication of negative 
affect with a romantic partner (e.g., ?How often do you and your partner argue with one 
another??) on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all to 9 = very much; T1: ? = .80, T2: ? = .76). Braiker 
and Kelly?s Questionnaire can be seen in Appendix B.  
Data Analysis Plan 
 To answer our first research question, we examined descriptive statistics, correlations, 
and t-tests to determine whether or not the frequencies of RW with partner and friend 
significantly change over time and whether this depends on gender. To answer our second 
research question regarding whether or not RW predicts romantic stability, we utilized logistic 
regression to determine the fitted odds ratio of an individual in our sample remaining in a 
romantic relationship at T2 based on RW behaviors with both the partner and the best friend at 
T1. To answer our final research question, we conducted cross-lagged analyses controlling for 
autoregressive effects to examine how RW behaviors at T1 predicted romantic love and conflict 
at T2. To ensure a conservative estimation, we attempted to reduce potential confounds by 
controlling for length of romantic relationship, length of friendship, age, and sex as these may 
influence romantic relationship functioning and disclosures (Aron et al., 2005; Kito, 2005; 
 
 
 
18 
 
Sprecher, 1999). Also to note, due to sample size constraints, we examined autoregressive effects 
for love and conflict in separate models (See Figures 1 and 2). To determine whether or not the 
relationship between RW with partner and T2 love (or conflict) was influenced by level of RW 
with friend, we also included in our models an interaction term representing the interaction 
between RW with partner at T1 and RW with friend at T1. Significant interactions were plotted 
using equations containing high and low values of RW with partner and RW with friend (plus 
and minus one standard deviation from the centered mean). To note, all continuous controls and 
predictors were centered prior to analyses (Aiken & West, 1991).     
Results 
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are presented for all study variables in Table I.  
Does Relationship Work Change Over Time in Young Adulthood? 
The first goal of our study was determine whether or not the frequencies of RW with 
partner and friend significantly change over time and whether this depends on gender (see Table 
1). To note, the somewhat small number of men in our sample should be taken into account 
when interpreting results as the effects for males may not be as stable as those for females. 
Paired t-tests to examine mean-level differences revealed that participants engaged in more 
frequent RW with their partners at T2 than at T1 (t(55) = 3.56, p < .001; d = .48). Young adults, 
however, did not engage in more frequent RW with their friends at T2 than at T1 (t(55) = .94, p 
= .35; d = .12). T-tests also revealed that young adults engaged in significantly more RW with 
partners than with friends at both T1 ((t(55) = 7.70, p = .00; d = 1.03) and T2 (t(55) = 9.12, p = 
.00; d = 1.81). T-tests to examine sex differences revealed that females (M = 6.51) and males (M 
= 7.28) did not differ in the frequency of RW with partner at T1 (t(54) = 1.71, p = .33; d = .59), 
nor did females (M = 7.28) and males (M = 7.38) differ in RW with partner at T2 (t(54) = .24, p 
 
 
 
19 
 
= .74; d = .09). Additional t-tests examining sex differences revealed that females (M = 4.80) and 
males (M = 5.04) did not differ in the frequency of RW with friend at T1 (t(54) = .44, p = .73; d 
= .16), nor did females (M = 5.03) and males (M = 5.30) differ in RW with friend at T2 (t(54) = 
.43, p = .19; d = .15). To note, t-tests revealed that T2 love was significantly greater than T1 love 
(t(54) = 4.39, p = .00; d = .58). Also, t-tests revealed that T2 conflict was marginally lower than 
T1 conflict (t(54) = 1.75, p = .09; d = .23). In conclusion, we found no gender differences in RW 
with partner or friend at either time point. Further, although participants increased their RW with 
partners from T1 to T2, their RW with friends remained stable over time.    
Does RW with Partners and Friends Predict Romantic Stability? 
Next, to determine whether RW predicted romantic relationship stability, we conducted a 
logistic regression to determine the fitted odds ratio of an individual in our sample remaining in a 
romantic relationship at T2 based on RW behaviors with both the partner and the best friend at 
T1. To note, RW with partner at T1 was significantly positively correlated with romantic 
stability, suggesting that early RW with partner was linked with greater romantic stability (see 
Table 1). RW with friend at T1, however, was not significantly correlated with stability.  
A summary of our findings using logistic regression analyses can be found in Table 2. To 
ensure a conservative estimation of our findings, romantic relationship length, friendship length, 
age, and sex were included as controls in the model. To note, the Nagelkerke R-square value 
(which is similar to the R2 in multiple regression; Peng, Lee, & Ingersoll, 2002) indicated that we 
accounted for 24% of the variance in romantic stability. Logistic regression analyses revealed a 
significant positive association between RW with partner and romantic stability (see Table 2), 
suggesting that greater RW with partner at T1 was linked with greater romantic stability. 
Furthermore, the odds ratio indicated that for every one unit increase in RW with partner at T1, 
 
 
 
20 
 
participants were 2.09 times more likely to remain in the same relationship over time, controlling 
for all other variables in the model. In other words, a participant who had a 6 (i.e., often bring up 
relationship problems) on RW with partner was twice as likely to remain in the same relationship 
one year later as someone who had a 5 (i.e., sometimes bring up relationship problems) on RW 
with partner. Conversely, results revealed a significant negative association between RW with 
friend and romantic stability, suggesting that greater RW with friend at T1 was associated with 
less romantic stability (see Table 2). The odds ratio indicated that for every one unit increase in 
RW with friend, the odds of remaining in the same relationship decrease by 34%, controlling for 
all other variables in the model1. Thus, we discovered that greater RW with partner at T1 
predicted greater odds of remaining in the same relationship over time, whereas greater RW with 
friend at T1 predicted greater likelihood of breaking up with one?s partner.     
Do Early RW Patterns Predict Later Romantic Outcomes?  
To determine whether T1 RW patterns predict T2 romantic outcomes (e.g., love, 
conflict), we utilized Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), including cross-lagged analyses 
controlling for autoregressive effects in MPlus 6.12 (Muthen & Muthen, 2009). Given our 
limited power due to our sample size, love and conflict were examined in separate models. To 
ensure a conservative estimation for both models, we controlled for length of romantic 
relationship, length of friendship, age, and sex on all dependent variables in the models. Finally, 
independent variables were allowed to covary with one another as were dependent variables.  
Looking first at love, the fully-saturated model (i.e., a perfect fitting model with zero 
degrees of freedom; Cook & Kenny, 2005) explained meaningful variance in T2 RW with 
partner, in T2 RW with friend, and in T2 love. As expected, there was significant stability over 
time in the constructs. RW with partner at T1 significantly predicted RW with partner at T2; RW 
 
 
 
21 
 
with friend at T1 significantly predicted RW with friend at T2; love at T1 significantly predicted 
love at T2 (see Figure 1). No other longitudinal links were found between T1 and T2 constructs. 
Thus, neither T1 RW with partners nor with friends predicted T2 love. Looking at the concurrent 
links between the constructs, T1 love was significantly positively correlated with T1 RW with 
partner, but was not associated with T1 RW with friend. Also, T1 RW with partner was 
significantly positively correlated with T1 RW with friend. Similarly, T2 love was significantly 
correlated with T2 RW with partner but was not associated with T2 RW with friend. T2 RW with 
partner was significantly positively correlated with T2 RW with friend.  
 Looking next at conflict, the fully-saturated model explained meaningful variance in T2 
RW with partner, in T2 RW with friend, and in T2 conflict. In addition to the stability found in 
relationship work with partners and friends, there was significant stability over time in conflict 
(see Figure 2). Further, T1 conflict significantly negatively predicted T2 RW with partner, 
suggesting that the more conflict reported at T1, the less RW individuals engaged in with 
partners at T2. We also discovered that the interaction between RW with partner and RW with 
friend significantly predicted T2 conflict (see Figure 2). To illustrate how the relationship 
between T1 RW with partner and T2 conflict was moderated by T1 RW with friend, we plotted 
equations containing high and low values (i.e., one standard deviation above and one standard 
deviation below the mean) of RW with partner and RW with friend and mean values of the 
controls (see Figure 3). We found that at low RW with partner, those who engaged in low RW 
with friend reported greater conflict than those who engaged in high RW with friend. 
Alternatively, at high RW with partner, those engaging in high RW with friends reported greater 
conflict compared to those engaging in low RW with friends.  
Discussion 
 
 
 
22 
 
 Young adulthood is a time of major change and instability in romantic relationships with 
communication between romantic partners about the relationship being especially challenging at 
this life stage (Banker et al., 2010). As romantic trials are inevitable, partners often seek to 
discuss such challenges with one another and with members of their social network. In this 
study, we set out to understand how frequently young adults disclosed these problems to partners 
and friends, whether or not the frequency of these disclosures changed over time, and how such 
actions impacted romantic stability and quality (i.e., love, conflict). Overall, our findings 
suggested that young adults are more likely to disclose their relationship problems to partners 
than to friends and that discussions of these problems increase in frequency over time with 
partners but not with friends. Further, frequently discussing romantic challenges with partners 
was linked with greater romantic stability and quality, whereas frequently discussing such 
challenges with friends resulted in inconsistent findings. Although those who engaged in 
frequent RW with friends were more likely to break up with their partners, those who remained 
together despite frequent RW with partners experienced less conflict a year later. Given that 
achieving intimacy in a romantic relationship is considered to be critical for developmental 
success at this life stage (Erikson, 1968), understanding how young adults handle romantic 
challenges is critical. Our study suggests that focusing in particular on the longitudinal effects of 
deliberately involving friends in romantic challenges in young adulthood may be especially 
important for understanding romantic functioning among this population (Huston, 2000).   
Relationship Work and Stability: With Whom You Work on Your Relationship Matters 
 Maintaining romantic relationships over time is a critical part of successful romantic 
relationships in young adulthood (Rauer, Pettit, Lansford, Bates, & Dodge, 2013). Investigating 
stability is especially important given that it has been found to promote mental and physical 
 
 
 
23 
 
well-being throughout the lifespan (Waite, 1995). In our examination of possible antecedents of 
romantic stability in young adulthood, we discovered that greater RW with partner at T1 
predicted greater likelihood of being in the same romantic relationship approximately one year 
later. These results were not surprising as Hendrick, Hendrick, and Adler (1988) discovered that 
self-disclosure to a partner was significantly greater among couples who remained together over 
time. Turning toward a partner to work on one?s relationship often fosters opportunities for 
increased intimacy (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998), which likely leads to greater 
commitment and stability in the union. Moreover, actively working through romantic challenges 
with a partner has been found to strengthen the relationship and has been linked with greater 
romantic stability (Billingham & Sack, 1987). Our results also support previous RW studies that 
suggest that when partners turn toward one another to discuss romantic challenges, relationships 
flourish (Helms et al., 2003; Proulx et al., 2004).   
  Whereas engaging in frequent discussions of romantic problems with the partner 
appeared to help stabilize the relationship, engaging in such discussions with friends was linked 
with greater likelihood of the romantic partners ending their relationship. Multiple potential 
reasons exist for why turning to one?s friends might be linked to romantic instability. First, 
friends have been found to have more negative perceptions of couples? romantic relationships 
than couple members themselves (Agnew, Loving, & Drigotas, 2001). Receiving counsel from 
someone who has a more negative slant on the relationship may adversely affect the partner?s 
perspective. Loving (2006) clarifies, however, that friends are not necessarily negatively biased, 
but that romantic partners may be positively biased regarding the relationship. Loving argued 
that given the amount of effort individuals exert toward their romantic relationships, they are 
likely motivated to view these relationships in a positive light. Unfortunately, this motivation 
 
 
 
24 
 
may be at odds with objective assessment of relationship characteristics. Therefore, although not 
necessarily beneficial for the stability of the relationship, perhaps friends offer more realistic 
assessments of the relationship, negatively skewing the partner?s viewpoint on a romantic 
challenge. Even in the event that the friend does not possess a more negative view of the 
relationship, turning to a friend regarding romantic conflicts may further entrench partners in 
their original positions, as friends often validate controversial opinions of the disclosing partner 
(Eaton & Sanders, 2012). In addition to this, friends are not always kept abreast of the current 
romantic relationship standing. If, for example, the friend is not aware that partners have 
reconciled a difference in their relationship, the friend may continue harboring negative opinions 
of one partner which may spill over into feedback given. For these and other complex reasons, it 
seems that turning to friends to handle romantic challenges has the potential to bring about 
unintended negative consequences including less romantic stability.  
RW Influences Love and Conflict Differently 
Extending our findings beyond the links between RW and romantic stability, we now turn 
our attention to how RW patterns are associated with romantic love and conflict for those who 
remained in an intact relationship over time. In addition to discovering that early RW with 
partner predicted greater romantic stability, we also found that young adults increased their RW 
with partners over time, but not with friends. This is consistent with research finding that among 
younger couples, romantic partners become more central figures over time and young adults are 
more likely to turn to them than to others for social support and intimacy (Furman, Simon, 
Schaffer, & Bouchey, 2002).  
Underscoring the multifaceted nature of relationship quality, we found that the concurrent 
and longitudinal associations between RW with partner and friend and romantic processes 
 
 
 
25 
 
depended greatly on which process was being examined. Looking first at love, we found that 
neither RW with partner or friend nor the interaction between these variables at T1 was linked 
with love at T2. This was somewhat surprising as Helms et al. (2003) found that engaging in low 
RW with partner and high RW with friend was linked with less self-reported love among their 
sample of middle-aged wives. Yet, similar to Helms and colleagues we did find concurrent links 
at both T1 and T2 between RW with partner and love. At both time points, greater RW with 
partner was associated with greater love, suggesting that those who engaged in more frequent 
talks with their partners about their romantic challenges also reported feeling more love, and vice 
versa. As to why only concurrent links were found, perhaps discussing romantic challenges with 
a partner immediately impacts (or is impacted by) the love one feels in that relationship. 
Knobloch and Solomon (2004) reported that romantic interdependence, a component of the love 
construct measured in the current study, is linked with current emotional investment in the 
relationship. A reflection of one?s current emotional investment may be willingness to discuss 
romantic challenges with a partner. Therefore, disclosures of romantic problems may simply be 
more impactful at the time they are enacted and their influence may dwindle and become 
insignificant over the course of a year, at which time the new current RW patterns will more 
meaningfully influence love.   
 Our findings for conflict revealed an entirely different pattern of associations between 
RW and relationship functioning, one that highlighted the importance of considering the 
bidirectional influences of RW and relationship processes. Although RW with either the partner 
or the friend at T1 did not predict conflict at T2, greater conflict at T1 predicted less RW with 
partner at T2. Thus, conflict appeared to act as a deterrent from engaging in discussions of 
romantic problems with partners. Because individuals who display poorer conflict resolution 
 
 
 
26 
 
skills have also been found to possess undesirable individual traits (e.g., less empathy, insecure 
attachment, more neuroticism; Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000; Creasy, 2002; de Wied, Branje, & 
Meeus, 2006), partners may turn away from such individuals who are more prone to conflict. 
Alternatively, perhaps frequent conflict poisons RW attempts, rendering them ineffective as the 
damage to the relationship done by conflict prevents future RW attempts from improving 
romantic dynamics. Accordingly, perhaps in attempting to prevent additional conflict in the 
relationship, individuals simply learn to avoid discussing certain topics with partners, choosing 
to keep these issues to themselves or to turn elsewhere for support. Although this may function 
as a temporary solution, given that successful resolution of daily disagreements has been linked 
with romantic stability (Carrere, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruckstuhl, 2000), this strategy is 
unlikely to prove successful long-term. Rather than keeping such issues to themselves, some 
partners may have learned to take their romantic problems elsewhere (i.e., to friends, family 
members, coworkers) to individuals who support their stances (Eaton & Sanders, 2012). In such 
instances, it may be easier to disclose problems to someone who likely agrees with one?s position 
than to a partner with whom conflictual interactions are frequent. Unfortunately, our findings on 
romantic stability suggest that turning away from the partner to a friend may only exacerbate 
relationship problems and contribute to more romantic instability down the road.  
Involving Others in Our Relationships brings Complex Consequences 
 Underscoring the complex nature of RW in young adulthood, despite finding that neither 
RW with partner nor RW with friend directly impacted later evaluations of love or conflict, when 
considered together, these two RW patterns impacted romantic conflict at T2. Our findings 
challenge the supposition that simply turning to a partner is always best and suggest a more 
nuanced approach is needed when considering the long-term benefits and costs of working on 
 
 
 
27 
 
one?s relationship with partners and friends. First, consistent with previous work (e.g., Jensen & 
Rauer, in press), we found that those who engaged in low RW with both partners and friends at 
TI reported the greatest conflict a year later. Failure to disclose romantic problems to others may 
be associated with greater conflict given that disclosure of personal problems to others has been 
linked with better mental health (Sarason & Sarason, 2009). Moreover, because actively 
processing and expressing emotions to others during stressful times has been linked with greater 
quality of life (Stanton et al., 2000), choosing to not discuss romantic challenges with anyone 
likely reduces the opportunity for these positive benefits and may contribute to more negativity 
(i.e., conflict). When experiencing a relationship challenge, it appears more beneficial to share 
that challenge with someone else than to keep it to oneself. Also consistent with previous RW 
work, moderation analyses suggested that engaging in more RW with partner and less RW with 
friend at TI was associated with low conflict at T2. Consistent with the fact that romantic 
fondness and intimacy are higher when partners actively work on their relationships together 
(Finkenauer et al., 2009), our findings suggested that discussing romantic challenges frequently 
with one?s partner can bring long-term benefits to the relationship.      
 In addition to uncovering results that supported previous RW findings, we also 
discovered unexpected patterns regarding RW and romantic outcomes. In contrast previous RW 
findings, moderation analyses suggested that those who engaged in less RW with partner and 
more RW with friend at T1 reported low levels of conflict at T2. Although previous moderation 
work has found that turning to a friend instead of one?s partner was linked to more romantic 
conflict (Proulx et al., 2004) and even our own findings on romantic stability suggest turning to 
one?s friend can be problematic, we may be detecting critical information regarding how these 
processes operate differently over time. Certain individuals may, indeed, benefit from avoiding 
 
 
 
28 
 
particular issues with partners and disclosing them instead to friends. Although some researchers 
may identify this strategy as a type of ineffective conflict avoidance (Laurenceau, Troy, & 
Carver, 2005), it may also be framed as wisely ?choosing one?s battles?. This strategy may be 
particularly advantageous in longer-term relationships (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003), as some 
couples may have learned over time that certain issues inevitably foster conflict in their 
relationship. For select individuals, actively avoiding particular topics with partners could be 
seen as quite constructive when attempting to maintain a healthy and positive relationship. 
Alternatively, this finding may simply reflect that those who inherently experience low RW with 
partner are aided by sharing their romantic problems with a friend as young adults seem to 
benefit from disclosing their romantic problems to someone.  
 Another unexpected finding was that young adults who sought to work on their 
relationship challenges with both their partners and their friends at T1 actually reported more 
conflict at T2, a finding inconsistent with previous cross-sectional work (Helms et al., 2003). 
Given the more rigorous methodological approach utilized in the current study, our unique 
results may have been due to the fact that we captured the influence of RW with partners and 
friends on romantic quality over time. Perhaps disclosing romantic problems to multiple 
individuals is helpful in reducing conflict in the short-term as it allows the person to repeatedly 
work through challenges in distinctive ways. However, this solution may prove to be problematic 
long-term as it may also introduce the potential for competing and/or inconsistent feedback from 
multiple sources. If partners begin sharing with one another the perspectives of their friends, they 
may perceive that their own social network is more supportive of their perspectives than their 
partner?s (Klein & Milardo, 2000). Thus, over time, if an individual learns that his or her partner 
 
 
 
29 
 
has disclosed the issue to a friend after discussing the matter together as a couple, he or she may 
feel betrayed.  
Strengths and Limitations 
 Our confidence in the findings of this study is bolstered by strengths in its 
methodological design. The longitudinal nature of the study allowed us to clarify that disclosing 
romantic problems to friends operates as a cause of later romantic instability. Further, whereas 
previous RW studies (e.g., Helms et al., 2003; Proulx et al., 2004) surmised that RW impacted 
reports of romantic conflict, our longitudinal approach revealed that RW with partner and friend 
at T1 did not impact conflict at T2. In fact, we discovered the opposite to be true -- conflict at T1 
actually predicted RW with partner at T2. Our longitudinal approach also allowed us to discuss 
the stability of RW patterns over time which revealed differences in RW with partner and RW 
with friend. Moreover, our inclusion of both love and conflict revealed differing results for 
positive and negative indicators of romantic relationship quality, highlighting important 
differences in the way that RW with partner and friend impacts romantic dynamics over time and 
is in turn differentially impacted by these dynamics. Our differential findings for positive and 
negative indicators of relationship quality underscore the importance of treating relationships as 
dynamic, multifaceted systems.  
 However, certain limitations suggest that our results should be interpreted with caution. 
First, the generalizability of our results is limited due to our sample being comprised of mostly 
highly-educated, heterosexual, Caucasian individuals from relatively affluent homes. Given that 
same-sex couples and African-Americans rely more heavily on their social networks than do 
Caucasian, heterosexual couples (Julien, Chartrand, & Begin, 1999; Shook, Jones, & Forehand, 
2010), RW with friends may be linked with more positive indicators of relationship stability and 
 
 
 
30 
 
quality among these groups given the increased importance of the role of the social network for 
such individuals. Next, we failed to assess for whether or not individuals were cohabiting with 
romantic partners. Because cohabitation has been linked with poorer communication between 
partners (James & Beattie, 2012) future studies should consider whether living with one?s partner 
impacts RW patterns. Further, the results of our study may not generalize to lower-income young 
adults. Given that research has shown that financial strain is linked with more stress between 
partners (Falconier & Epstein, 2011), lower-income young adults may be more likely to turn to 
friends given that financial struggles may increase stress between partners. Also to note, our 
discovery that RW was linked with conflict over time, yet only concurrently with love, may have 
been due, in part, to the RW assessment itself. Specifically discussing romantic ?concerns or 
problems? may more readily foster or hinder conflict in the relationship. It is possible that other 
types of RW, including discussions of positive aspects of the relationship with the partner or a 
friend, may more meaningfully impact reports of love over time. It is also possible that the RW 
items (see Appendix A) were interpreted differently by young adults as compared to Helms and 
colleagues? (2003) middle-aged sample. Next, due to power constraints associated with our 
limited sample size, we examined the love and conflict outcomes in separate models. Because 
relationship outcomes exist together, future research should aim to examine a larger sample in 
order to consider multiple outcomes in the same model. Additionally, as romantic disclosure 
patterns from both partners impacts relationship outcomes (Morry, 2005), capturing dyadic data 
is critical for future research. Further, information about friends? romantic relationship status and 
quality, as well as their perceptions of the partners? relationship, should also be assessed. 
Receiving feedback from a friend who is highly supportive of the couple and is also in a 
 
 
 
31 
 
satisfying romantic relationship may impact a couple differently from turning to someone who 
does not approve of the partner and is in an unsatisfying union.  
Conclusions 
 Young adult couples do not exist in isolation, but rather are continually impacted by the 
complex social network that surrounds them (Birditt & Antonucci, 2007). The findings of the 
current study significantly enhance our knowledge of how frequently partners solicit help from 
members of their social network when experiencing romantic challenges and how friends? 
engagement impacts romantic stability and quality over time. Our findings may have significant 
implications for clinicians as they consider the vital role that the social network can play in 
shaping romantic dynamics. Therapists and counselors will be able to design more effective 
treatment plans for couples if they assess for involvement of members of the social network in 
romantic problems. Underscoring the importance of outside perspectives on romantic disputes is 
recent literature detailing a couples? intervention by Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, and Gross 
(2013). They encouraged participants to reflect upon how a neutral, unbiased person might see 
the disagreement and then attempt to take the perspective of that person during interactions with 
the partner. This intervention proved quite successful as it mitigated much of normal declines in 
marital quality over time. Thus, it appears that feedback from outsiders is so powerful that even 
considering the stance of an unbiased, albeit imaginary, person was beneficial for couples. 
However, if couples are unwilling or unable to only consider unbiased third-party opinions 
regarding their relationship, therapists may simply encourage them to turn toward one another to 
discuss relationships issues. By persuading romantic partners to remove the abdication of 
relationship problems to friends who may be biased and actively turn instead toward one another, 
clinicians and the couples themselves may come to notice improvement in romantic quality and 
 
 
 
32 
 
stability. In this way, the findings of this study may prove quite significant as clinicians work to 
strengthen couples? romantic relationships through frequent and effective discussions of 
romantic challenges together.  
 
 
 
33 
 
Footnote 
 
1 In addition to fitting a logistic regression model that controlled for romantic relationship length, 
length of friendship, age, and sex, we also examined the results for a model with no controls per 
recent recommendations (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). The results of both models 
were quite similar in direction and magnitude, though the model containing the controls (shown in 
Table 2) had a slightly greater fitted odds ratio for RW with partner and a slightly smaller fitted 
odds ratio for RW with friend. Given the importance of providing a conservative estimate of these 
links (Aron et al., 2005; Sprecher, 1999), we report on the model with the controls included in the 
paper.      
 
 
 
 
34 
 
Table 1.  
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for study variables. (N=56)
 
 
 
35 
 
Table 2. 
Logistic regression analysis of individuals? likelihood of remaining in the same romantic relationship over time, controlling for 
romantic relationship length, friendship length, age, and sex. (N=82).  
 
 
 
 
Note. Rom. = Romantic; T1 = Time 1; RW = Relationship Work 
*p < .05. 
**p <.01. 
 
 
 
36 
 
Figure 1.  
 
Autoregressive effects for a model examining RW with partner, RW with friend, romantic love, and an interaction term at Time 1 
predicting RW with partner, RW with friend, and love at Time 2, controlling for romantic relationship length, friendship length, age, 
and sex (N = 56). 
 
 
 
Note: All path coefficients are standardized. For ease of interpretation, significant pathways and correlations are presented; other non-
significant pathways are not shown. *p < .05; **p < .01. 
Model fit statistics: ?2 = 0.00, df = 0; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00. 
 
 
 
 
37 
 
Figure 2.  
 
Autoregressive effects for a model examining RW with partner, RW with friend, romantic conflict, and an interaction term at Time 1 
predicting RW with partner, RW with friend, and conflict at Time 2, controlling for romantic relationship length, friendship length, 
age, and sex (N = 56). 
 
 
 
 
Note: All path coefficients are standardized. For ease of interpretation, significant pathways and correlations are presented; other non-
significant pathways are not shown. * p ? .05; ** p ? .01. Model fit statistics: ?2 = 0.00, df = 0; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00. 
 
 
 
38 
 
Figure 3.  
 
Prototypical plot for T2 conflict, as explained by T1 RW with partner, moderated by T1 RW with friend, controlling for romantic 
relationship length, friendship length, age, and sex (N = 56). 
 
 
 
39 
 
III.  Paper 2 ? Marriage work in older couples: Disclosure of marital problems to 
spouses and friends over time 
 
Abstract 
This study examined ?marriage work? (MW), or the act of discussing marital problems with 
spouses and friends, among a sample of older married couples (N=64). Multi-level modeling 
(MLM) techniques were utilized to assess both changes in MW over time and the impact of MW 
on later reports of marital satisfaction. Results revealed that both wives and husbands engaged in 
more MW with spouses than with friends, yet only MW with spouse decreased over time. MLM 
analyses suggested that frequently discussing marital problems with the spouse was associated 
with declines in marital satisfaction over the course of one year. Additionally, results indicated 
that those who were less maritally satisfied were more likely to later discuss marital problems 
with friends. Findings suggest that older adulthood may represent a unique relationship stage at 
which frequent discussions of romantic problems with a spouse may be linked with negative 
marital outcomes. Given that older adults tend to actively avoid conflictual interactions in an 
attempt to maximize emotional rewards, researchers and clinicians may note that traditional 
approaches to working through romantic conflict may not be appropriate for aging couples. 
Therapists working with older couples may benefit from tailoring interventions to focus more on 
positive marital dynamics.  
 
 Keywords: marriage work; marital satisfaction; socioemotional selectivity theory
 
40 
 
Marriage work in older couples: Disclosure of marital problems to spouses and friends 
over time 
Older adulthood represents a unique life stage in which the onset of retirement not only 
brings changes in employment status, income, and day-to-day routine, but also introduces 
noteworthy social changes (Bosse, Aldwin, Levenson, Spiro, & Mroczek, 1993). After decades 
of relative social stability across middle adulthood, older adults experience significant changes in 
both the quantity and, perhaps more importantly, the quality of their social networks (Carstensen, 
1992). As older adults perceive that they have less time remaining in their lives, they begin to 
actively prune their social circles to maximize emotional rewards (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & 
Charles, 1999). Therefore, although older adults tend to have smaller social networks than their 
younger counterparts, the nature of their interactions with members of those social groups is 
more intimate. Friends that are retained as members of older adults? social circles tend to be 
those who support their broader life goals, one of which is to maintain a healthy and positive 
intimate relationship (Luong, Charles, & Fingerman, 2011). Thus, it seems likely that the 
changes in the social network that accompany aging may spill over and influence marriage in 
distinct ways in older adulthood.  
In support of this supposition, Sprecher (2011) examined young adults from the 
Midwestern United States and determined that the social network importantly influences intimate 
relationship functioning at earlier points in the lifespan. This is not surprising as friends can 
affect intimate relationships through interactions with partners, participation in joint activities, 
and provision of positive and negative feedback regarding the relationship (Sprecher, Felmlee, 
 
41 
 
Orbuch, & Willetts, 2002). In their examination of middle-aged married couples with children, 
Helms, Crouter, and McHale (2003) found that friends? influence may actually be explicitly 
solicited by intimate partners. Examining a process they labeled ?marriage work? (MW), or the 
disclosure of marital problems to spouses and friends, they discovered that when wives discussed 
their marital problems with best friends but not with spouses, spouses reported less marital love 
and more arguing. Looking at intimately-involved young adults from the Southeast United 
States, Jensen and Rauer (in press) similarly found that both males and females reported less 
happiness, commitment, and love when discussing relationship problems with friends and not 
with partners. Although these studies suggest that interactions with friends can shape 
relationships among younger couples, they cannot necessarily generalize across the lifespan in 
light of the significant changes in older adults? social networks.  
Not only do older married couples enjoy a particularly intimate social circle that is not 
common among younger adults, but also they deal with a unique set of problems not common 
earlier in the lifespan. For example, retirement brings change in finances, perhaps opening the 
door for conflict regarding money (Dew & Yorgason, in press). Additionally, due to increasing 
challenges with physical health that accompany aging (Coe & Zamarro, 2011), older adults may 
experience more problems when trying to agree upon leisure activities that are enjoyable for both 
partners. Due to the distinct challenges facing older adults and their changing social network, 
examining MW processes and their influences on aging couples? evaluations of their marriage 
seems warranted. The supportive social environment experienced in older adulthood may 
provide a unique window into how the social network is utilized to support one?s intimate 
relationships, suggesting that MW with friends likely enhances older couples? marital 
satisfaction. Additionally, it may be critical to examine social interactions among this age group 
 
42 
 
due to the social changes that accompany retirement (Bosse et al., 1993). For example, although 
retirees report having less extensive social networks and fewer social interactions (van Tilberg, 
2003), researchers have found that older adults who have recently retired often want to 
reestablish social ties lost in the retirement transition (Cozijnsen, Stevens, & van Tilburg, 2010). 
Therefore, older adulthood may represent a time when individuals are actively seeking social 
connections to compensate support provided previously by coworkers. Moreover, in light of the 
fact that previous MW studies have been cross-sectional in nature, they cannot specify whether 
turning outside the marriage to discuss marital problems occurs as a result of poor marital 
dynamics or whether characteristics of the marriage influence individuals to turn away from 
spouses. Finally, the interdependent nature of couples? lives requires research that utilizes a 
dyadic approach to understand the impact of spouses? MW not only on their own marital 
satisfaction, but that of their spouses?. Therefore, to address the gaps in the current MW 
literature, the current study will examine MW and its impact on marital satisfaction using dyadic 
data collected across two time points from 64 high-functioning older couples.  
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory  
To understand the nature of the social network in older adulthood, we draw upon 
Carstensen?s (1992) socioemotional selectivity theory (SST). SST posits that reduced rates of 
social interaction observed in old age represent the finale of a lifelong process of selectively 
trimming the social network to strategically maximize social and emotional gains over the 
lifespan. In other words, SST claims that as individuals age and naturally feel their lives drawing 
to a close, they purposefully shrink their social network in order to glean the most out of 
relationships with their closest friends and family members. In support of this claim, Luong and 
colleagues (2011) have reported that interactions with friends in older adulthood are markedly 
 
43 
 
more positive as aging individuals actively seek relationships that are most rewarding and 
disband ties that are less so. As a result of their comparison of a sample of older adults (age 65 to 
87) and younger adults (age 18 to 29), Penningroth and Scott (2012) added that although the 
maximization of emotional gains is a lifelong social process, as individuals age they increasingly 
attempt to enhance personal relationships that are already intimate. Therefore, it appears that the 
process of pruning the social network to maximize emotional rewards accelerates in older 
adulthood.  
Previous research finds that older adults appear to be quite successful in these efforts to 
create a social environment that is emotionally-rewarding and intimate. For example, compared 
to younger adults (ages 20 to 29), older adults (ages 60 and up) report greater satisfaction and 
less negativity in their relationships (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003) and perceive more support from 
their social network (Schnittker, 2007). Involvement with a social network that is ever-increasing 
in intimacy situates older couples in a social environment that is quite invested in both their 
individual and relational well-being (Luong et al., 2011). It is likely, therefore, that across the 
lifespan adults may gradually become more open with their friends regarding their personal lives, 
including their marriage. This likely occurs as a result of increased intimacy with the social 
network, as self-disclosure is a measure of emotional closeness (Kito, 2005). Due to the social 
context enjoyed in older adulthood, aging couples likely receive feedback that is more supportive 
of their marriage during challenging times than would younger adults. Due to the fact that older 
adults engage in strategies that optimize positive social experiences even when discussing 
discouraging topics, social partners tend to reciprocate by responding in positive and supportive 
manners (Luong et al., 2011). Nevertheless, because some studies have found that not all social 
communication among older adults is positive, particularly as it relates to family life, (i.e., 
 
44 
 
discussions regarding role expectations, finances, physical health; Adams & Blieszner, 1995), 
more research is needed to understand how social interactions influence marital satisfaction in 
older adulthood. The changes in the social network across this life stage offer researchers a 
unique population for examining the influence of the social circle on marital satisfaction. 
 ?Marriage Work?: What We Know  
To begin to understand the influence of the social network on marital satisfaction, 
researchers first began to assess to which individuals in the network partners were most likely to 
turn. Oliker (1989) determined that wives frequently disclosed their marital problems to their 
closest female friends. In addition to identifying close friends as the primary confidants of 
married women, she also attempted to discover the impact of wives? disclosures of marital 
problems to these friends on their own attitudes and feelings about their marriages. Among the 
middle-class women in her study, she found that friends not only validated wives? marital 
feelings, but also introduced new supportive perspectives. Wives who frequently discussed 
marital problems with friends enjoyed greater marital satisfaction and commitment. To note, 
Oliker did not assess whether engaging in MW with spouses moderated the impact of engaging 
in MW with friends and marital outcomes. Although Oliker?s findings suggest that disclosures to 
friends may impact evaluations of the marriage in specific ways for wives, research regarding 
gender differences in motivation for engaging the social network suggest that these same patterns 
may not hold true for husbands. Aukett, Ritchie, and Mill (1988) concluded that whereas wives? 
friendships tend to serve as sources of emotional support based on reciprocal communication, 
husbands? friendships tend to function as sources of companionship based on shared interests 
and activities. Thus, husbands may be less likely to disclose marital problems to friends given 
 
45 
 
that their interactions with the social network are more likely to focus on engaging in mutually 
satisfying activities and less on intimacy.  
In their study examining the links between MW and marital evaluations, Helms and 
colleagues (2003) found significant sex differences that supported the above-mentioned disparate 
motivations for engaging the social network. Husbands? disclosure patterns to wives and friends 
were unrelated to marital quality as men much more frequently discussed marital problems with 
spouses. Conversely, wives? MW was linked with marital quality as wives engaged in similar 
levels of MW with spouses and friends. Alternatively, Jensen and Rauer (in press) discovered 
that young adult men and women did not differ in the frequency of disclosure of intimate 
relationship problems to partners or to friends. Surprisingly, they found that both sexes disclosed 
significantly more to partners. This was especially unexpected for young adult women given that 
Helms and colleagues? found that married women disclosed equally to spouses and friends. 
Perhaps the unique romantic stage of being in a new relationship is associated with more 
frequent disclosure to the partner as young adults place great importance on establishing 
romantic intimacy (Boden, Fischer, & Niehuis, 2009). Given these conflicting findings, it seems 
that to truly capture the influence of disclosing relationship problems to friends, researchers must 
account for the relationship stage and explore MW across the lifespan.  
Although previous studies consistently suggest that spouses appear to benefit most when 
disclosing relationship problems to one another, existing MW findings are limited due to certain 
considerations that have gone unaddressed. Previous studies have not considered the 
emotionally-rewarding nature of the intimate social circle enjoyed by older adults (Carstensen, 
1992). It is possible that due to the intimate and supportive nature of their social network, aging 
couples, unlike their younger counterparts, may actually enjoy marital benefits when discussing 
 
46 
 
marital problems with friends, even in the absence of such discussions with spouses. Beyond a 
lack of attention to the developmental context of the individuals within the relationship, previous 
MW research has relied on cross-sectional studies that limit our ability to understand the etiology 
and changing nature of these processes. Do couples experience marital challenges as a result of 
disclosing problems to friends in lieu of spouses or do couples who experience marital problems 
then turn outside of their unsupportive relationship to seek support from a friend?  
It is probable that both processes are occurring to some extent, though to our knowledge 
the latter pathway has yet to be examined. Finally, in addition to these limitations, previous work 
(e.g., Jensen & Rauer, in press) examined intimately-involved individuals, not couples, which 
restricted  their conclusions given that disclosure patterns from both partners likely impact 
relationship satisfaction (Morry, 2005). In sum, it appears that a study is needed which not only 
examines the understudied population of older adults and accounts for their unique social 
networks, but also considers the intertwined nature of couples? married lives and evaluates 
couples over time. 
Current Study 
Due to the unparalleled growth in the number of older adults in the United States (U.S. 
Census Bureau, 2011), coupled with the rising divorce rates among this group (Brown & Lin, 
2012), the time has never been more critical to identify and understand processes influencing 
marital well-being in older adulthood. In light of previous work revealing the influence of 
members of the social network on intimate relationships (Helms et al., 2003; Jensen & Rauer, in 
press; Proulx et al., 2004) examining the impact of interactions with close friends on marital 
satisfaction appears warranted. The current study therefore elucidates how the social network 
 
47 
 
significantly contributes to both individual and spousal well-being in older adults by examining 
how MW with a best friend impacts marital satisfaction of both spouses.   
To accomplish this goal, we seek to answer the following questions: 1) Do older adults 
disclose marital challenges more frequently to spouses or to friends and are there gender 
differences in these patterns? 2) Do the frequencies of marital dyads? disclosure patterns change 
over the course of a year? 3) Do MW behaviors with a spouse and a friend predict later reports of 
marital satisfaction? To ensure a conservative estimate of our findings, we control for age and 
marital duration. Because those in new relationships actively engage in behaviors (e.g., self-
disclosure) designed to increase intimacy (Boden et al., 2009), marital duration may be a key 
control related to rates of MW with spouse and friend. In light of the fact that older adults seek to 
maximize already intimate relationships, with the spousal relationship being the most intimate of 
all (Penningroth & Scott, 2012), we hypothesized that both husbands and wives would engage in 
significantly more MW with one another than with friends at both time points. Next, given that 
our two time points only differed by one year, we did not anticipate that these couples (who have 
been married for an average of 42 years) would engage in significantly different rates of MW 
with spouses or friends across this time. Finally, due to previous significant links between MW 
patterns and marital outcomes (Helms et al., 2003; Jensen & Rauer, in press), we hypothesized 
that engaging in more frequent MW with spouses than with friends would result in greater 
marital satisfaction.  
Unlike previous work (Helms et al., 2003), the current study examined spouses 
simultaneously in the same model to account for their interdependencies. Therefore, we not only 
hypothesized that those who engaged the spouse more often would report greater marital 
satisfaction, but also that their spouses would benefit from having a partner who prioritizes MW 
 
48 
 
within the marriage. On the other hand, we predicted that those who disclosed more to friends 
than to spouses would not experience these marital benefits, nor would their spouses.      
Method 
Participants and Procedures 
Sixty-four married heterosexual couples were recruited at Time 1 (T1) as part of The 
Marriage and Retirement Study, a larger study examining marital relationships and individual 
and relationship well-being in older adulthood. Couples were recruited from newspaper 
advertisements, churches, and other community organizations in the Southeast United States. 
Recruitment materials described the study as an exploration of the links between marriage and 
health in retirement. To be eligible to participate, spouses had to meet three criteria: (1) be 
married, (2) be at least partially retired (i.e., working less than 40 hours a week), and (3) be able 
to drive to the on-campus research center to ensure that participants still had relatively high 
functional health.  
At T1, couples participated in a visit lasting around 2-3 hours at an onsite research 
laboratory. During this visit, couples participated in several marital communication tasks (e.g., a 
relationship narrative task, a problem solving task, a support task). At the conclusion of the visit, 
wives and husbands each received a questionnaire that assessed individual, marital, and social 
functioning. Couples were compensated $75 for their participation in T1 data collection once 
they returned these questionnaires. Approximately 1 year (M = 16.4 months) after the first data 
collection occurred we recontacted couples. Those who agreed to participate in a second wave of 
data collection were sent a second set of questionnaires via mail. These questionnaires again 
assessed individual, marital, and social functioning. Couples were compensated $45 once they 
returned these Time 2 (T2) questionnaires. 
 
49 
 
At T1, wives and husbands were, on average, approximately 70 years old (SD = 7.0; 
range = 56-89) and 71 years old (SD = 7.4; range = 59-93), respectively. Wives and husbands 
were predominantly white (n = 60 and 61, respectively). With regard to education, 10 wives had 
a high school education or less and 54 engaged in or completed some form of higher education. 
For husbands, 4 had a high school education or less and 60 engaged in or completed some form 
of higher education. Although perhaps not an ideal measure of income in older adulthood due to 
varying retirement plans, couples? median annual income was US$74,000 (SD = US$64,074) and 
the median total wealth (i.e., property, pensions, IRAs, and income) was US$750,000 (SD = 
US$1,277,611). Forty-seven of the couples were fully retired (73.4%) and at least one spouse 
was currently working for pay in 17 couples. Fifty-one couples (79.7%) were in their first 
marriage and couples were married for an average of 42 years (SD = 15.0). On average, the 
couples reported having 2.6 children (SD = 1.3; range = 0-6).  
At T2, 53 of the original 64 couples agreed to participate in the second wave of data 
collection. This reflected a retention rate of 83%. The 11 couples who did not complete the T2 
questionnaire were unable to be reached. Attrition analyses revealed that wives lost to attrition 
did not differ from those retained at T2 based on age (t(60) = .99 p = .32), MW with spouse 
(t(58) = .64 p = .52), MW with friend (t(57) = .53, p = .60), or marital satisfaction (t(62) = 1.30, 
p = .20). Furthermore, attrition analyses showed that husbands lost to attrition did not differ from 
those who were retained based on age (t(62) = .55 p = .59), MW with spouse (t(61) = 1.49, p = 
.14), MW with friend (t(61) = .22, p = .83), or marital satisfaction (t(62) = .71, p = .48). Finally, 
attrition analyses revealed that couples lost to attrition did not differ from those retained at T2 
based on marital duration (t(62) = .99, p = .32). Therefore, those lost to attrition did not 
significantly differ on any variable examined in the study.    
 
50 
 
Measures 
Marriage work. The degree to which participants engaged in MW with their spouse and 
with a best friend was measured using a modified version of the Marriage Work Scale (Helms et 
al., 2003). This scale assessed the degree to which participants bring up relationship problems to 
a spouse and to the best friend on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 9 (always). When 
reporting on discussions with a friend, participants were specifically asked to report about their 
?close friend? who was not the spouse. For purposes of the current study, we used 7 items from 
the original 10-item scale. The three items we chose to remove were not applicable for our 
retired couples (i.e., they either asked about current employment or about factors related to 
raising younger children such as discipline and/or taking children to activities). Retained items 
assessed disclosure of challenges in the following areas of the marriage: communication, 
housework, parenting, decision making, finances, relations with in-laws, and social life and 
leisure (e.g., ?How often do you bring up the way that you and your spouse spend free time (e.g., 
the activities you do, and/or the people you socialize with)?? ).  
Participants were specifically directed to report on marital ?concerns or problems? in 
each area and how frequently these concerns were discussed with a spouse and with a friend. The 
modified version of this scale demonstrated good reliability for both the spouse scale (Wives T1: 
? = .83, Husbands T1: ? = .92, Wives T2: ? = .88, Husbands T2: ? = .93) and the best friend 
scale (Wives T1: ? = .81, Husbands T1: ? = .89, Wives T2: ? = .80, Husbands T1: ? = .91).  
Marital Satisfaction. Participants? satisfaction with their marriage was assessed using 
the Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons (Haynes et al., 1992). This 24-item 
questionnaire measured various dimensions of marital satisfaction thought to be developmentally 
appropriate for older adults (e.g., how satisfied are you with your spouse?s physical health) in 
 
51 
 
addition to more standard questions on specific topics such as satisfaction with time spent with 
spouse and conflict management. Questions were rated on a scale of one to four, one to five, or 
one to six with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Reliability for this measure was 
excellent (Wives T1: ? = .93, Husbands T1: ? = .93, Wives T2: ? = .91, Husbands T2: ? = .95).  
Data Analysis Plan 
To answer our first two research questions regarding whether older adults engage in more 
frequent MW with spouses or with friends and whether this changes over time, as well as to 
determine whether there are gender differences in these patterns, we examined descriptive 
statistics, bivariate correlations, and t-tests. Before answering our third research question 
regarding how MW patterns predict later evaluations of marital satisfaction, we first determined 
whether accounting for the nesting of individuals within couples using multi-level modeling 
(MLM) would be a proper analytic technique to answer this question. Although exploratory 
analyses and examination of descriptive statistics may provide some evidence of variability in 
the sample, the calculation of the Intra Class Correlation (ICC) is a better indicator of the amount 
of shared variance between any two scores (i.e., reveals whether the non-independence 
assumption has been violated; Hruschka, Kohrt, & Worthman, 2004). Subsequently, we fit an 
unconditional means model (Model 1) to assess the amount of variability in marital satisfaction 
at T2 that was attributable to between-couple differences. Given that the ICC was equal to .61, 
we concluded that 61% of the variability in marital satisfaction was attributable to between-
couple differences, suggesting the need to account for the fact that individuals were nested 
within couples using MLM (Hruschka et al., 2004). Thus we proceeded to answer the question of 
how MW patterns predict later reports of marital satisfaction using this analytic by fitting a one-
 
52 
 
way ANCOVA with no controls (Model 2), followed by a one-way ANCOVA containing level-1 
(i.e., individual-level) and level-2 (i.e., couple-level) variables and controls. 
Results 
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are presented for all study variables in Table 1.  
To Whom Do Older Adults Disclose Their Romantic Problems?  
To first determine whether older adults engage in more MW with spouses or friends, we 
examined descriptive statics, bivariate correlations, and paired t-tests (see Table 1). To note, a 
Cohen?s d value of .30 or less signifies a small effect size, a value of .30 to .60 signifies a 
moderate effect, and a value greater than .60 signifies a large effect size; Cohen?s d can also be 
greater than one, representing a large effect size and signifying that the difference between the 
two means being compared is greater than one standard deviation (Rosenthal, 1991). First, 
results of paired t-tests revealed that wives engaged in significantly more MW with spouses than 
with friends at both T1 (t(58) = 13.19, p < .01; d = 1.72) and at T2 (t(50) = 11.75, p < .01; d = 
1.64). Next, results of paired t-tests revealed that husbands engaged in significantly more MW 
with spouses than with friends at both T1 (t(62) = 13.41, p < .01; d = 1.69) and at T2 (t(51) = 
13.39, p < .01; d = 1.86). 
Looking next at gender differences in MW with spouses and friends at both time points, 
results of our paired t-tests revealed that wives and husbands did not significantly differ in 
frequency of MW with spouse at T1 (t(58) = .92, p = .36; d = .12), nor did wives and husbands 
significantly differ in the frequency of MW with spouse at T2 (t(49) = 1.06, p = .30; d = .15). 
Wives did, however, engage in more MW with friends than did husbands at both at T1 (t(57) = 
2.30, p < .05; d = .30) and T2 (t(49) = 1.77, p < .10; d = .25).  
Does MW with Spouses and Friends Change Over Time among Older Adults? 
 
53 
 
Next we examined whether wives? and husbands? MW patterns changed over time (see 
Table 1). Results of the paired t-tests revealed that wives? engaged in marginally greater MW 
with spouse at T1 than at T2 (t(48) = 1.77, p < .10; d = .25). Wives? MW with friend, however, 
at T1 and T2 remained stable (t(48) = 1.33, p = .19; d = .19). Next, paired t-tests revealed that 
husbands engaged in significantly more MW with spouse at T1 than at T2 (t(50) = 2.18, p < .05; 
d = .31). Similar to wives, husbands? MW with friend remained stable from T1 to T2 (t(50) = 
1.09, p = .28; d = .15). Therefore, both wives and husbands decreased their MW with spouses 
over the course of approximately one year in older adulthood, whereas their MW with friends 
remained stable.  
Do MW Behaviors with a Spouse and a Friend Predict Later Marital Satisfaction? 
To determine whether marital satisfaction at T2 was predicted by MW patterns among 
older adults, MLM was used to account for the fact that individuals were nested within couples. 
Table 2 shows the parameter estimates and fit statistics from each of the MLM models. We 
began by fitting a model that included random effects for all level-1 predictors. However, none 
of the random effects were significant, indicating that the relationship (i.e., slope) between each 
predictor and the outcome did not differ across couples. Therefore, we proceeded to estimate 
models in which only the intercept was allowed to vary across couples. We fit a multi-level 
model that contained no control variables (Model 2), followed by one which included level-1 and 
level-2 controls (e.g., gender, age, marital duration; Model 3). Model 3 had the lowest deviance 
statistic and included controls that provided a conservative estimate of our findings. Therefore, 
results from Model 3 were interpreted as it proved to be the most appropriate model for 
answering our research questions.  
 
54 
 
The average T2 marital satisfaction, controlling for all other variables in the model, was 
50.81. Results confirmed a significant increase in marital satisfaction over time, with a .42 
difference in marital satisfaction from T1 to T2. Further, we unexpectedly found that those who 
engaged in more MW with spouse at T1 reported significant declines in marital satisfaction from 
T1 to T2 (see Table 2, Model 3). However, MW with friend was not significantly linked with 
marital satisfaction. As previously noted, random effects were estimated for the intercept only as 
the relationship between other predictors and the outcome did not differ across couples. Results 
revealed significant variability in marital satisfaction at T2, suggesting couples meaningfully 
differed in their reports of marital satisfaction. To ensure that we could confidently comment on 
the direction of effects among the constructs examined, we tested an alternative model in which 
marital satisfaction was treated as a predictor of MW with spouses and friends. Results revealed 
that, controlling for gender, age, and marital duration, neither marital satisfaction at T1 nor at T2 
significantly predicted MW with spouse at T2. However, we did discover that those reporting 
less marital satisfaction at T1 reported greater MW with friend at T2 both in the controlled (? = -
.02, p < .05) and uncontrolled (? = -.02, p < .05) MLM models.  
Discussion 
 Given the changing nature of socioemotional needs in older adulthood and its possible 
effects on the quality of older adults? relationships (Luong et al., 2011; Penningroth & Scott, 
2012), the aims of the current study were to understand how older adults? discussions of their 
marital problems with one another and with friends changed over time and the effects of these 
discussions on their marriages. Overall, our findings suggest although wives are more likely than 
husbands to disclose marital problems to friends, both spouses are much more likely to discuss 
these issues with one another than with a friend. In contrast to previous MW studies (Jensen & 
 
55 
 
Rauer, in press; Helms et al., 2003; Proulx et al., 2004), we found that older adults who engaged 
in more MW with spouse at T1 reported less marital satisfaction at T2, suggesting that discussing 
romantic challenges with the spouse is actually counterproductive in older adulthood. Our study 
highlights the importance of accounting for the life cycle stage when examining couple dynamics 
and suggests that older adults may not glean the same marital benefits as younger adults when 
discussing marital problems with one another.  
Discussing Marital Problems with the Spouse in Older Adulthood: It May not be Worth It       
It is noteworthy that against the backdrop of cognitive decline accompanying older 
adulthood (e.g., slower processing speed, poorer short- and long-term memory functioning; 
Morris & Price, 2001), research has suggested that emotional functioning and self-regulation 
may be enhanced at this time (Carstensen & Mikels, 2005). Birditt and Fingerman (2003) 
suggested that the resulting increase in positivity may be due in part to older adults actively 
abstaining from situations that have the potential to lead to conflict. This may help to explain 
why older adults in our sample significantly decreased their frequency of discussing marital 
problems with their spouse over time. Further supporting this line of thought, those who engaged 
in more MW with spouse at the first time point were less happy with their marriage a year later. 
Active avoidance of conflict in the pursuit of maintaining harmonious relationships has proven to 
be an effective and common strategy enacted by aging individuals (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003). 
Therefore, frequently discussing romantic problems likely runs counter to older adults? primary 
social goals of increasing positivity and securing emotional intimacy. As previous research 
suggests (e.g., Charles & Piazza, 2007; Luong et al., 2011), discussing romantic problems may 
be replaced by more positive interactions even among spouses. Nevertheless, caution should be 
 
56 
 
used when interpreting our results, given that they may not generalize to all older couples due to 
sample characteristics.   
Aging couples? increasing conflict avoidance with the spouse may be partially explained 
by the tenets of SST, which assume that aging individuals place a greater emphasis on enhancing 
intimacy (Carstensen & Charles, 1998). Carstensen and colleagues (1992) posit that older adults? 
perception of time likely leads to prioritization of positive and rewarding interpersonal 
interactions. As the end of one?s life draws nearer, the importance of maximizing emotional 
rewards from those who constitute our most intimate interpersonal ties grows ever more 
important (Penningroth & Scott, 2012). Because the spouse is generally the most important 
member of the social network (Dakof & Taylor, 1990), fostering emotionally-rewarding 
interactions with this person becomes paramount as individuals age. 
Aging couples may also have learned to choose their battles sparingly because previous 
attempts to discuss certain issues have proven ineffective or costly. Gottman and Levenson 
(1999) reported that the majority of marital issues are perpetual problems that persist across the 
course of the relationship. Most often, these types of problems concern fundamental differences 
between partners (e.g., one partner is more social) that may be quite challenging to resolve to the 
satisfaction of each spouse. Wile (1988) also added ?[e]ach potential relationship has its own set 
of inescapable recurring problems?There is value in realizing that you will inevitably be 
choosing a particular set of irresolvable problems that you?ll be grappling with for the next ten, 
twenty, or fifty years? (pp. 12-13). By the time spouses reach older adulthood, it is likely that 
most have come to understand that certain marital problems will likely remain unresolved and 
that repeatedly discussing those issues with each other may do more harm than good.  
 
57 
 
Our findings underscore the need to consider the life cycle stage when examining marital 
and social communication. In contrast to what has been found in both young adulthood (Jensen 
& Rauer, in press) and middle adulthood (Helms et al., 2003; Proulx et al., 2004), we found that 
engaging in more MW with a spouse in older adulthood was linked with poorer marital 
satisfaction. There appears to be a shift between middle-age and older adulthood in which 
actively discussing marital problems changes from a positive relational practice to one that is less 
helpful. Prominent life occurrences during this time such as the transition to retirement may 
partially account for this shift. Although retirement often permits spouses to spend considerably 
more time together, this transition has been linked with increased conflict and decreased marital 
quality as couples adjust to new roles and routines (Kulik, 2001; Moen, Kim, & Hofmeister, 
2001). Spending more time in the presence of a loved one may lead to greater intimacy but also 
has the potential to result in more frequent negative interactions. In this distinct context of 
transitioning to new roles and to spending more time together, discussing marital challenges may 
prove burdensome, resulting in unnecessary focus on negative topics instead of the positivity and 
emotional rewards older adults seek.     
Although actively engaging in discussions about marital problems with the spouse 
appeared problematic for the marriage, discussing these issues with friends was unrelated to later 
marital satisfaction. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the social network in older adulthood 
tends to be quite invested in spouses? marital success (Luong et al., 2011). Therefore, friends 
may have provided feedback supportive of the marriage, which may not significantly impact 
marital satisfaction. Despite older adults? MW with friends being unrelated to later marital 
satisfaction, we discovered that those who were less maritally satisfied at T1 turned more often 
to friends to discuss their marital problems at T2. Individuals need emotional outlets when 
 
58 
 
experiencing challenges (Sarason & Sarason, 2009), and thus those who find discussing their 
problems with their spouses ineffectual may instead turn to friends.  Friends may provide a 
listening ear and validate the spouse?s feelings, but are less likely than younger adults to provide 
feedback that would be detrimental to the marriage.   
Therapeutic Considerations of Marriage Work in Older Adulthood 
Young married couples often believe they can afford to spend considerable time solving 
problems in their relationship, both with each other and with others, because solutions may 
prevent future conflicts (Carstensen et al., 1999). Conversely, aging couples appear to benefit 
from abstaining from such discussions as the potential payoff does not appear to outweigh the 
cost, a conclusion in line with our own findings regarding the effects of marriage work on later 
marital satisfaction. This age difference in approaching marital problems is clearly illustrated by 
Flori?s (1989) ?age gradient hypothesis? of psychotherapy, which states that chronological age in 
adulthood is inversely related to psychotherapy attendance. Miller, Yorgason, Sandberg, and 
White (2003) noted that older couples were significantly less likely than younger couples to 
attend marital therapy to work through problems.     
Perhaps explaining this reticence is that older couples who choose to engage in marital 
therapy may not experience the same marital benefits as younger couples. Given that we found 
that older spouses were overall unlikely to disclose their marital problems to even their closest 
friends, it comes as no surprise that older couples have historically been hesitant to seek couples 
counseling. An unfortunate consequence of this disparity in help-seeking is that theory-building 
and clinical intervention development within the mental health field have somewhat overlooked 
aging couples (James & Haley, 1995), perhaps resulting in less effective clinical treatment for 
such persons. The belief that older adults are rigid, ill, or incompetent, and lack interest in social 
 
59 
 
interaction, has too often lead therapists to believe that the elderly are poor candidates for 
therapy (Reekie & Hansen, 1992). Unfortunately, these stereotypes have likely played a role in 
the infrequency of older adults seeking clinical aid. However, new cohorts of older adults may be 
more willing to share their marital problems with others. Although we did not examine how 
frequently spouses disclosed to a clinician, we did find that when spouses reported less marital 
satisfaction, they were more likely to turn outside their marriage and discuss their problems with 
a friend. Zarit and Knight (1996) predicted that older adults will continue to become more 
inclined to share their marital challenges and even attend marital therapy as newer cohorts 
become more amenable to clinical treatment and an ever-greater portion of the population is 
affected by aging issues. As the number of older adults in therapy is likely to increase, it is 
imperative that clinicians become more adept at working with aging couples and considering the 
unique marital and social context that such couples bring to the therapy office. In addition to this, 
given their focus on emphasizing positive relationship dynamics and emotional stability (Adler-
Baeder et al., 2010), marital education programs may also be quite effective for strengthening 
older adults? marriages.   
 Though caution should be exercised in making recommendations due to the high-
functioning nature of our sample, the findings of the current study may provide a helpful 
example of the importance of considering the life stage of the couple. Unlike the conclusions of 
the current study, most clinical approaches to working with couples suggest that couples will 
benefit from spending time working through marital problems together (e.g., structural family 
therapy; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). For example, Greenberg and Goldman (2008) posit that 
couples experience positive change when they openly risk being vulnerable with one another by 
sharing their underlying emotions surrounding a challenge in the relationship. Therefore, 
 
60 
 
traditional techniques emphasized in clinical training programs may be less well-suited for 
working with aging couples (Ivey, Wieling, & Harris, 2000). Despite its shortcomings, the 
current study suggests that clinicians working with older couples may therefore benefit from 
adjusting their intervention strategies to encourage aging couples to devote more time to 
focusing on positive aspects of their marriage. Unlike most younger couples, perhaps older 
adults would enjoy greater peace and emotional rewards by avoiding problematic topics and 
simply letting irresolvable issues remain as they are.    
Strengths and Considerations 
Our confidence in our findings is augmented by the fact that we acknowledged the 
nesting of individuals within couples by utilizing MLM. This allowed us to discuss individual 
differences by accounting for variance in marital satisfaction at the couple level (Hruscha et al., 
2004). The current study also extended the examination of MW with spouse and friend to older 
adults, a previously unexamined population. Focusing on older adults revealed that this 
population may differ from their younger counterparts in the frequency and effects of discussing 
marital problems with spouses and friends. Moreover, capturing MW and marital satisfaction 
over time strengthened our study by allowing us to discuss change in the constructs and 
illustrated how early MW can influence later marital satisfaction and vice versa. 
In spite of these strengths, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Because our 
sample was primarily composed of highly educated, financially well-off, White couples, it is not 
representative of all older adult couples. In light of the fact that education, income, and race have 
all been associated with marital satisfaction (Broman, 1993; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), the 
findings of the current study may not be generalizable to all older adult couples. For example, 
given that insufficient financial resources have been linked with heightened marital conflict 
 
61 
 
(Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994), examining a lower-SES sample may reveal that 
these couples discuss financial challenges more frequently, resulting in more opportunities for 
conflict and potentially less marital satisfaction. Moreover, because our sample was highly 
maritally satisfied (i.e., at T1, the mean scores for both husbands and wives were over 1 SD 
above the means presented in the development of the assessment; Haynes et al., 1992), it may 
not be representative of the larger population of long-term marriages given that some have found 
that marital happiness declines with marital duration (VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001). 
Also to note, it is possible that although older married couples do not appear to garner the same 
benefits as younger couples when engaging in MW with one another, other types of marital work 
(e.g., compassion, caring, meeting each other?s needs) may become more important. As these 
other types of marital work were not captured in this study, future research should consider 
assessing for the relevance of these constructs among aging couples. Finally, although we 
captured the frequency with which spouses discussed marital problems with one another and 
with a friend, we did not collect information regarding the type of feedback provided about the 
problem by either the spouse or the friend. Previous research (e.g., Felmlee, 2001) has shown 
that feedback from friends may influence romantic quality and stability. Future research in this 
area should prioritize the capturing of actual feedback from spouses and friends and consider 
how the type of feedback influences marital dynamics.   
Conclusions 
 Our study suggests that older adulthood represents a unique window of time in which 
common assumptions about marital communication may not hold true. Despite previous MW 
studies contending that openly working through romantic problems with a spouse is beneficial 
for the relationship (Jensen & Rauer, in press; Proulx et al., 2004), we found that older adults 
 
62 
 
who engage in more frequent MW with spouse reported lower marital satisfaction one year later. 
Further illustrating older spouses? reluctance to engage one another about marital concerns was 
our finding that when experiencing lower marital satisfaction, they actively turned to friends and 
not toward one another. When attempting to explain the findings of our study, it may be 
important to examine what constitutes successful aging. Scholars suggest that successful aging 
occurs when individuals prioritize emotionally-rewarding social interactions and allow less 
important social goals to go unmet (Carstensen et al., 1999; Baltes & Baltes, 1990). Given that 
older adults have been found to value emotional intimacy with those closest to them, it would 
appear that an integral part of successful aging may be learning to ignore potentially conflictual 
situations in favor of accentuating moments that are enjoyable. In conclusion, our study expands 
current understanding of how older adults handle marital challenges and underscores the 
importance of examining marital and social communication across the lifespan.         
 
 
 
63 
 
Table 1.  
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for study variables (N = 106). 
 
Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; MW = Marriage Work; Mar. = Marital 
?p < .10. 
 *p < .05. 
 **p < .01. 
 
 
64 
 
Table 2.  
 
Fixed effects of predictors on marital satisfaction at T2 for retired, married couples for multiple multilevel models (N=106). 
 
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 
Fixed effects    
  Final status 113.83** 78.90** 50.81* 
     T1 Marital Satisfaction            .36** .42** 
     T1 MW with Spouse  -2.26* -2.14* 
     T1 MW with Friend  .15 .39 
     T2 MW with Spouse  .55 .36 
     T2 MW with Friend  1.39           1.55 
     Female              .15 
     Age              .33 
     Marital Duration             -.08 
Model fit statistics    
       -2LL (df) 869.65(3) 793.28(8) 791.82(11) 
       ?LL (df) -- 76.37**(5) 1.46(3) 
       Comp Model -- Model 1 Model 2 
       AIC 875.65 809.28 813.82 
       BIC 883.64 830.04 842.37 
 
Note: ** p < .01, * p < .05 
Note: T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; MW = Marriage Work, N = 53 couples 
Model 1: Unconditional Means Model; Model 2: One-way ANCOVA with no controls; Model 3: One-way ANCOVA with Level-1 
and Level-2 Predictors and Control  
 
65 
 
IV. General Discussion 
All relationships, like lives, have beginnings, all have ends, if only through death, 
and many have substantial middles as well. Existing research has emphasized the 
relatively more salient and dramatic fare of beginnings and endings rather than the 
complex dynamics by which relationships are maintained, are renewed, or 
deteriorate over time. To understand the influence of relationships on the 
individual?s behavior and development, it is necessary to view relationships 
themselves in a developmental context, both in their progression from one level of 
interdependence to another and as a function of the partner?s maturation. (Reis, 
Collins, & Berscheid, 2000, p. 860). 
Our examination of individuals? discussions of their romantic problems with both 
partners and friends over time and at various stages of the lifespan has underscored the 
importance of taking a developmental approach both at the individual and couple levels. At the 
individual level, we have observed that the specific life cycle stage (e.g., young adult, older 
adult) of an individual likely impacts how that person both engages in and is affected by the 
discussion of romantic problems with others. Our studies suggest that what may be beneficial for 
the romantic relationship at certain stages may actually be detrimental at others. At the couple 
level, examining these processes concurrently versus over time appears to play a significant role 
in the effects of disclosing romantic problems to partners and friends. Given that romantic 
disclosures and the impact of those disclosures on the relationship change over time, it is critical 
to treat relationship dynamics dynamically. Therefore, researchers examining romantic and social 
 
66 
 
dynamics are strongly encouraged to consider developmental antecedents of these processes as 
well as how the processes themselves develop over time.   
Looking first at the individual level, our studies highlight the need to account for 
individual development across the lifespan. Underscoring the importance of considering when in 
the life cycle stage these processes are occurring, we discovered that in young adulthood, 
romantic partners significantly increased their RW with their partners over time, whereas in older 
adulthood, spouses decreased their discussions of romantic problems. Moreover, although young 
adult relationships appeared to benefit from frequent discussions of romantic problems (i.e., 
greater romantic stability), older adults? marriages appeared to be negatively impacted (i.e., less 
marital satisfaction). Furthermore, not only did RW with partner and its effects differ by life 
cycle stage, so too did RW with a friend. For young adults, discussing romantic challenges 
frequently with a friend was linked with an increased chance of romantic relationship 
dissolution, whereas for older adults, RW with friend was not predictive of later marital 
satisfaction. In fact, older adults who experienced less marital satisfaction later turned more 
frequently to friends, perhaps in an attempt to avoid such discussions with the spouse and 
prevent further decreases in marital satisfaction. Given that the tenets of SST suggest that social 
priorities shift over time, it comes as little surprise that the effects of including members of the 
social network in romantic problems also depend largely on an individual?s developmental stage.  
Beyond individual development, development of the relationship itself also appears to 
importantly influence the link between RW and couple dynamics, as the association between RW 
and romantic functioning cannot be assumed to remain static as a relationship progresses. For 
example, previous work suggests that engaging in high levels of RW with both partner and friend 
in young adulthood was concurrently linked with positive indicators of romantic functioning 
 
67 
 
(e.g., greater romantic happiness; Jensen & Rauer, in press). We found here, however, that 
engaging in high levels of RW with both partner and friend in young adulthood was linked with 
greater conflict later in the relationship. Furthermore, among young adults, we found that 
although greater RW with partner was concurrently linked with greater love across two waves, 
there were no longitudinal links between RW with partner and love. It seems that although 
discussing romantic challenges with a partner appears to immediately impact (or is impacted by) 
the love one feels in that relationship, these links diminish over time. Our findings suggest that 
researchers should use caution when extrapolating concurrent findings as romantic dynamics 
pertaining to romantic problem disclosures clearly change as the relationship progresses.    
Despite these studies enhancing our knowledge of how romantic partners communicate 
with one another and with friends about their relationship problems at various points in the 
lifespan, much remains to be understood regarding how people talk to others about their 
romantic problems. Researchers should include observational assessments of discussions of 
romantic problems with both partners and friends in future work on this topic. Although self-
report measures utilized in previous work informed researchers about the frequency of such 
discussions, observational assessment would more comprehensively capture interactional 
dynamics (Melby, Ge, Conger & Warner, 1995). For example, observational tasks would allow 
for the examination of the intent (i.e., seeking advice, seeking validation, venting) with which 
partners appear to discuss the issue. Furthermore, this approach would permit researchers to 
consider the accompanying affect (i.e., positive, negative) with which individuals disclose 
problems to partners and friends. The content and method of delivery have proven to be critical 
factors for understanding interactional dynamics (Verhofstadt, Buysse, & Ickes, 2007). 
Additionally, this type of assessment would permit researchers to study both the type of feedback 
 
68 
 
(i.e., supportive of the partner, critical of the partner, neutral) as well as the communicative 
dynamics (i.e., sensitivity, engagement) of the partner and friend as he or she listens to the 
romantic problem.  
Researchers should also consider expanding this research to a clinical setting, as the 
venue is conducive to romantic partners disclosing relationship problems to one another and to 
someone else. Social scientists may expand their understanding of romantic disclosure processes 
by identifying personal, romantic, and therapeutic antecedents that accompany the decision to 
disclose couple challenges to a therapist. For example, capturing the therapeutic alliance in such 
cases may prove beneficial, as this alliance has been critically linked with partners successfully 
working through challenges in therapy (Garfield, 2004). Exploring RW in a clinical setting would 
also allow researchers to compare and contrast the effects of discussing romantic problems with a 
clinician versus with a friend, thus enabling us to better determine whether it is the act of going 
outside the relationship to discuss romantic problems that is consequential or if these effects are not 
uniform across different audiences.     
In conclusion, all couples experience some kind of romantic challenge and it seems innately 
human that people share these challenges with others. The findings of these studies underscore the 
importance of more carefully considering with whom and how often one should discuss romantic 
relationship problems. Perhaps individuals ought to think about not only the immediate relief of 
unburdening themselves but also the long-term ramifications of doing so, and how this may be 
shaped by current life and romantic relationship stage.      
 
 
 
 
 
69 
 
References 
Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1995). Aging well with friends and family. American Behavioral  
Scientist, 39, 209-225.    
Adler-Baeder, F., Bradford, A., Skuban, E., Lucier-Greer, M., Ketring, S., & Smith, T. (2010). 
Demographic predictors of relationship and marriage education: Participants? pre- and 
post-program relational and individual functioning. Journal of Couple and Relationship 
Therapy, 9, 113-132.    
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: 
Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042-1057.  
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. 
Newbery Park: Sage. 
Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (2011). Family interaction. Boston, MA: Allyn  
& Bacon. 
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H. & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, 
motivation, and emotion systems, associated with early stage intense romantic love. 
Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 327-337.  
Aukett, R., Ritchie, J., & Mill, K. (1988). Gender differences in friendship patterns. Sex Roles,  
19, 57-66.   
Baltes, P. B., & BaRes, M. M. (Eds.). (1990). Successful aging. Perspectives from the behavioral
 sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
 
70 
 
Banker, J. E., Kaestle, C. E., & Allen, K. R. (2010). Dating is hard work: A narrative approach to 
understanding sexual and romantic relationships in young adulthood. Contemporary 
Family Therapy, 32, 173-191.  
Barbee, A.P., Cunningham, M. R., Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Gulley, M. R., Yankeelov, 
P.A., & Druen, P. B. (1993). Effects of gender role expectations on the social support 
process. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 175-190.  
Benson, M. J., Larson, J., Wilson, S. M., & Demo, D. H. (1993). Family of origin influences on 
late adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 663-672. 
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260-266.  
Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1987). Conflict tactics and the level of emotional commitment 
among unmarrieds. Human Relations, 40, 59-74.  
Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Age and gender differences in adults? emotional 
reactions to interpersonal tensions. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 
58B, 237?245. 
Birditt, K. S. & Antonucci, T. C. (2007). Relationship quality profiles and well-being among    
married adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 595-604.  
Boden, J. S., Fischer, J. L., & Niehuis, S. (2009). Predicting marital adjustment from young  
adults? initial levels and changes in emotional intimacy over time. A 25-year longitudinal  
study. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 121-134.  
Bosse, R., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R., Spiro, A., & Mroczek, D. K. (1993). Change in  
social support after retirement: Longitudinal findings from the normative aging study. 
Journal of Gerontology, 48, P210-P217.  
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.  
 
71 
 
Bradbury, T.N, Fincham, F.D., & Beach, S.R. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants 
of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 946-
980.   
Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. 
Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (135?168). 
New York: Academic Press. 
Broman, C. (1993). Race differences in marital well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family,  
55, 724-732. 
Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal 
of Marriage and Family, 72, 1059-1077.  
Brown, S. L., & Lin, I. (2012). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged  
and older adults, 1990-2010. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences  
and Social Sciences, 67, 731-741.  
Burke, R. J., Wier, T., & Harrison, D. (1976). Disclosure of problems and tensions experienced 
by marital partners. Psychological Reports, 38, 531-542.  
Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships 
and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 39-63.  
Bushfield, S. Fitzpatrick, T., & Vinick, B. H. (2008). Perceptions of ?impingement? and marital  
satisfaction among wives of retired husbands. Journal of Women and Aging, 20, 199-213.  
Carrere, S., Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., Coan, J. A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting 
marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 42-
58.  
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Social support for  
 
72 
 
socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331-338. 
Carstensen, L. L.. & Charles, S. (1998). Emotion in the second half of life. Current Directions in 
Psychological Science, 7, 144-149.   
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of  
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.  
Carstensen, L. L., & Mikels, J. A. (2005). At the intersection of emotion and cognition: Aging 
and the positivity effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 117-121.  
Caughlin, J. P., & Afifi, T. D. (2004). When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining 
moderator of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human 
Communication Research, 30, 479-513.  
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.  
Charles, S. T. & Piazza, J. R. (2007). Memories of social interactions: Age differences in 
emotional sensitivity. Psychology and Aging, 22, 300-309. 
Coe, N. B., & Zamarro, G. (2011). Retirement effects on health in Europe. Journal of Health 
Economics, 30, 77-86.  
Cohen, P., Kasen, S., Chen, H., Hartmark, C., & Gordon, K. (2003). Variations in patterns of 
developmental transitions in the emerging adulthood period. Developmental Psychology, 
39, 657-669. 
Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2000). Competence in early adult 
romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.  
 
73 
 
Conger, R. D., Ge, X. G., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, 
coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 
65, 541-561.  
Cook, W., & Kenny, D. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of 
bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral 
Development, 9, 101-109. 
Cozijnsen, R., Stevens, N. L., & van Tilburg, T. G. (2010). Maintaining work-related personal 
ties following retirement. Personal Relationships, 17, 345-356.  
Creasy, G. (2002). Associations between working models of attachment and conflict 
management behaviors in romantic couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 365-
375.  
Cui, M. & Fincham, F. (2010). The differential effects of parental divorce and marital  
conflict on young adult romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 17, 331-343.   
Czar, K. A., Dahlen, E. R., Bullock, E. E., Nicholson, B. C. (2011). Psychopathic personality 
traits in relational aggression among young adults. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 207-214.  
Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims' perceptions of social support: What is helpful 
from whom?  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80-89. 
de Wied, M., Branje, S., & Meeus, W., (2006). Empathy and conflict resolution in friendship 
relations among adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 48-55.  
Dew, J., & Yorgason, J. (in press). Economic pressure and marital conflict in retirement-aged 
couples. Journal of Family Issues.  
 
74 
 
Dillow, M. R., Dunleavy, K. T., & Weber, K. D. (2009). The impact of relational characteristics 
and reasons for topic avoidance on relational closeness. Communication Quarterly, 57, 
205-223.  
Dinero, R. E., Conger, R. D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., & Larsen-Rife, D. (2008). 
Influence of family of origin and adult romantic partners on romantic attachment 
security. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 622-632.  
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophesy in 
close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 545-560.  
Eaton, J., & Sanders, C. B. (2012). A little help from our friends: Informal third parties and 
interpersonal conflict. Personal Relationships, 19, 623-643.  
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.  
Etcheverry, P. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of romantic 
relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11, 409-428.  
Falconier, M. K., & Epstein, N. B. (2010). Relationship satisfaction among Argentinean couples 
under economic strain: Gender differences in a dyadic stress model. Journal of Social 
and Personal Relationships, 27, 781-799.   
Falconier, M. K., & Epstein, N. B. (2011). Couples experiencing financial strain: What we know 
and what we can do. Family Relations, 60, 303-317.  
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic 
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.  
Felmlee (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social 
Forces, 79, 1259-1287.  
 
75 
 
Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief 
intervention to promote reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological 
Science, 24, 1595-1601.  
Finkenauer, C., & Hazan, H. (2000). Disclosure and secrecy in marriage: Do both contribute to 
marital satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 245-263.  
Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., Righetti, F., & Branje, S. (2009). Living together apart: Perceived 
concealment as a signal of exclusion in marital relationships. Personality and Social 
Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1410-1422.  
Fitzpatrick, T. R., & Vinick, B. H. (2003). The impact of husbands? retirement on wives? marital  
quality. Journal of Family Social Work, 7, 83-100.  
Flori, D. E. (1989). The prevalence of later life family concerns in the marriage and family  
 therapy literature (1976-1985): A content analysis. Journal of Marital and Family 
Therapy, 15, 289-297.  
Furman, W. E., Simon, V. A., Schaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents? working 
models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child 
Development, 73, 241-255.  
Garfield, R. (2004). The therapeutic alliance in couples therapy: Clinical considerations. Family 
Process, 43, 457-465.  
Glenn, N. D. (1989). Duration of marriage, family composition, and marital happiness. National  
 Journal of Sociology, 3, 3-24.  
Golish, T. D. (2000). Is openness always better? Exploring the associations among topic 
avoidance, satisfaction, and parenting styles of stepparents. Communication Quarterly, 
48, 137-158.  
 
76 
 
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital 
interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and 
Clinical Psychology, 61, 6-15.  
Gottman, J., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and 
stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 5-22.  
Gottman, J., & Levenson, R. (1999). How stable is marital interaction over time? Family 
Process, 38, 159-165.  
Gottman, J., & Levenson, R. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will 
divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Processes, 41, 83-
96. 
Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2008). Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of 
emotion, love, and power. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.  
Gross, J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Skorpen, C. G., & Hsu, A. Y. (1997). 
Emotion and aging: Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging, 12, 590-
599.  
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1995). Some things are better left unsaid: Topic avoidance in 
family relationships. Communication Quarterly, 43, 276-296.  
Ha, T., Overbeek, G., Cillessen, A. H., & Engels, R. (2012). A longitudinal study of the 
associations among adolescent conflict resolution styles, depressive symptoms, and 
romantic relationship longevity. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1247-1254.  
Hall, S. S. & Adams, R. (2011). Newlyweds? unexpected adjustments to marriage. Family and 
Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39, 375-387.  
Haynes, S. N., Floyd, F. J., Lemsky, C., Rogers, E., Winemiller, D., Heilman, N., Werle, M.,  
 
77 
 
 Murphy, T., & Cardone, L. (1992). The Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older  
 Persons. Psychological Assessment, 4, 473?482. 
Helms, H. M., Crouter, C., & McHale, S. M. (2003). Marital quality and spouses? marriage work 
with close friends and each other. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 963-977. 
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, 
and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980-988. 
Holland, A. S., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Adult attachment security and young adults? dating 
relationships over time: Self-reported, observational, and physiological evidence. 
Developmental Psychology, 46, 552-557.  
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A  
 meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7, 1-20.  
Hook, M., Gerstein, L., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring 
intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 
462?472. 
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. L., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression: Third 
edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 
Hruscha, D. J., Kohrt, B. A., & Worthman, C. M. (2004). Estimating between- and within- 
 individual variation in cortisol levels using multilevel models. 
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 698-714.    
Huston, T. (2000). The social ecology of marriage and other intimate unions. Journal of 
Marriage and Family, 62, 298-320. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00298.x 
Ivey, D. C., Wieling, E., & Harris, S. M. (2000). Save the young ? the elderly have lived their 
lives: Ageism in marriage and family therapy. Family Process, 39, 163-175.  
 
78 
 
James, S. L., & Beattie, B. A. (2012). Reassessing the link between women?s premarital 
cohabitation and marital quality. Social Forces, 91, 635-662.  
James, J. W., & Haley, W. E. (1995). Age and health bias in practicing clinical psychologists. 
Psychology and Aging, 10, 610-616.  
Jensen, J. F., & Rauer, A. J. (in press). Turning inward versus outward: Relationship work in 
young adults and romantic functioning. Personal Relationships.  
Julien, D., Chartrand, E., & Begin, J. (1999). Social networks, structural interdependence, and 
conjugal adjustment in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Marriage and 
Family, 61, 516-530.  
Julien, D., Tremblay, N., Belanger, I., Dube, M., Begin, J., Bouthillier, D. (2000). Interaction 
structure of husbands? and wives? disclosure of marital conflict to their respective best 
friend. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 286-303. 
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: 
A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. 
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCullum, R. C., Snydersmith, M., Kim, C., 
& Malarkey, W. B. (1997). Marital conflict in older adults: Endocrinological and 
immunological correlates. Psychosomatic Medicine, 59, 339-349.  
Kito, M. (2005). Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships among American and 
Japanese college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 127-140.  
Klein, R., & Milardo, R. (2000). The social context of couple conflicts: Support and criticism 
from informal third parties. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 618-637.  
 
79 
 
Knobloch, L. K. & Solomon, D. H. (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the 
development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 
11, 115-130.  
Kulik, L. (2001). The impact of men?s and women?s retirement on marital relations: A 
comparative analysis. Journal of Women and Aging, 13, 21-37.   
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L.F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal 
process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner 
responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 74, 1238-1251.  
Laurenceau, J. P., Troy, A. B., & Carver, C. S. (2005). Two distinct emotional experiences in 
romantic relationships: Effects of perceptions regarding approach of intimacy and 
avoidance of conflict. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1123-1133.  
Lee, G. R. (1988). Marital intimacy among older persons: The spouse as confidant. Journal of 
Family Issues, 9, 273-284.  
Lehnart, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2006). Should I stay or should I go? Attachment and personality in 
stable and instable romantic relationships. European Journal of Personality, 20, 475-495.  
Levenson, R.W., Cartensen, L.L., & Gottman, J.M. (1994).  Marital interaction in old and 
middle-aged long-term marriages:  Physiology, affect, and their interrelations.  
Psychology and Aging, 8, 301-313. 
Loving, T. J. (2006). Predicting dating relationship fate with insiders? and outsiders? 
perspectives: Who and what is asked matters. Personal Relationships, 13, 349-362.  
Luong, G., Charles, S. T., & Fingerman, K . L. (2011). Better with age: Social relationships 
across adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 9-23. 
 
80 
 
Mackinnon, S., Sherry, S., Antony, M., Stewart, S., Sherry, D., & Hartling, N. (2012). Caught in 
bad romance: Perfectionism, conflict, and depression in romantic relationships. Journal 
of Family Psychology, 26, 215-225.  
Madsen, S. D. & Collins, W. A. (2011). The salience of adolescent romantic experiences for 
romantic relationship qualities in young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 
21, 789-801.  
Melby, J. N., Ge, X., Conger, R. D., & Warner, T. D. (1995). The importance of task in  
evaluating marital interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 981-994.  
Miller, R. B. (2000). Misconceptions about the U-shaped curve of marital satisfaction over the 
life course. Family Science Review, 13, 60-73.  
Miller, R. B., Yorgason, J. B., Sandberg, J. G., & White, M. B. (2003). Problems that couples 
bring to therapy: A view across the family life cycle. The American Journal of Family 
Therapy, 31, 395-407.  
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family Therapy Techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press.  
Moen, P., Kim, J. E., & Hofmeister, H. (2001). Couples?work/retirement transitions, gender, and 
marital quality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 55-71. 
Morris, J. C., & Price, J. L. (2001). Pathologic correlates of nondemented aging, mild cognitive 
impairment, and early-stage Alzheimer?s Disease. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience, 
17, 101-118.  
Morry, M. M. (2005). Allocentrism and friendship satisfaction. The mediating roles of disclosure 
and closeness. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 37, 211-222.  
 
81 
 
Muth?n, L. K., & Muth?n, B. O. (2009). Mplus user?s guide (v5. 2). Los Angeles: Muth?n & 
Muth?n.  
Oliker, S. J. (1989). Best friends and marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press. 
Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in close 
relationships: Within and cross partner effects. University Psychology, 9, 35-56.  
Peng, C. J., Lee, K. L. & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis 
and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 3-14.  
Pennebaker, J. W. (1990). Opening up: The healing power of confiding in others. New York, 
NY: Morrow.  
Penningroth, S. L. & Scott, W. D. (2012). Age-related differences in goals: Testing predictions 
from selection optimization, and compensation theory and socioemotional selectivity 
theory. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 74, 87-111.   
Peterson (1990). Husbands? and wives? perceptions of marital fairness across the family life 
cycle. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 31, 179-188.  
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Payne, C. C. (2004). Wives? domain specific ?marriage work? 
with friends and spouses: Links to marital quality. Family Relations, 53, 393-404. 
Raley, R. K., Crissey, S., & Muller, C. (2007). Of sex and romance: Late adolescent 
relationships and young adult union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 
1210-1226.  
Rauer, A. J., & Jensen, J. F. (under contract). The other side of the U-shaped curve? Marital  
quality during the retirement years. In J. Bookwala (Ed.), Couple relationships in mid 
and late life: Current Perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological 
Association.  
 
82 
 
Rauer, A., J., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2013). Romantic 
relationship patterns in young adulthood and their developmental antecedents. 
Developmental Psychology, 49, 2159-2171. 
Reekie, L., & Hansen, F. J. (1992). The influence of client age on clinical judgments of male and 
female social workers. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 19, 67-82.  
Reevey, G. M., & Maslach, C. (2001). Use of social support: Gender and personality differences. 
Sex Roles, 44, 437-459.  
Ries, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior 
and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844-872.  
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2003). Work experiences and personality development 
in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 582-593.   
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 
Sabey, A. K., Rauer, A.J., & Jensen, J. F. (in press). Compassionate love as a mechanism linking 
sacred qualities of marriage to older couples? marital satisfaction. Journal of Family 
Psychology. 
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2009). Social support: Mapping the construct. Journal of Social 
and Personal Relationships, 26, 113-120.  
Schneiderman, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., & Feldman, R. (2012). Oxytocin during 
the initial stages of romantic attachment: Relations to couples? interactive reciprocity. 
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37, 1277-1285.  
Schnittker, J. (2007). Look (closely) at all the lonely people: Age and the social psychology of 
social support. Journal of Aging and Health, 19, 659?682. 
 
83 
 
Schroder-Abe, M. & Schutz, A. (2011). Walking in each other?s shoes: Perspective taking 
mediates effects of emotional intelligence on relationship quality. European Journal of 
Personality, 25, 155-169.  
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young 
adulthood: Evidence of a developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral 
Development, 27, 519-531.  
Shook, S. E., Jones, D. J., & Forehand, R. (2010). The mother-coparent relationship and youth 
adjustment: A study of African-American single-mother families. Journal of Family 
Psychology, 24, 243-251.   
Shulman, S. (2003). Conflict and negotiation in romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), 
Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical 
implications (pp. 109?136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Shulman, S., Scharf, M., Livne, Y., & Barr, T. (2013). Patterns of romantic involvement among 
emerging adults: Psychosocial correlates and precursors. International Journal of 
Behavioral Development, 37, 460-467.   
Shulman, S., Tuval-Mashiach, R., Levran, E. & Anbar, S. (2006). Conflict resolution patterns  
and longevity of adolescent romantic couples: A 2-year follow-up study. Journal of 
Adolescence, 29, 575-588.  
Simon, R. W., & Marcussen, K. (1999). Marital transitions, marital beliefs, and mental health.  
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 111?125. 
 
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed
 flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.     
 
84 
 
Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. 
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the 
experience and expression of emotions in romantic relationships: A developmental 
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 355-367.  
Sprecher, S. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of relationship 
commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 318-328.  
Sprecher, S. (1999). ?I love you more today than yesterday?: Romantic partners? perceptions of 
changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 76, 46-53.   
Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: Through the 
lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630-644.  
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and 
stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave, longitudinal investigation. Journal of 
Marriage and Family, 54, 888-900.  
Sprecher, S. & Felmlee, D. (2000). Romantic partners? perceptions of social network attributes 
with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7, 325-340.  
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and change 
in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), 
Stability and change in relationships (pp. 257?284). New York: Cambridge University 
Press. 
Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations 
with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical 
Psychology, 23, 857-877.  
 
85 
 
Stanton, A., Danoff-Burg, S., Cameron, C., Bishop, M., Collins, C., Kirk, S., Sworowski, L., 
Twillman, R. (2000). Emotionally expressive coping predicts psychological and physical 
adjustment to breast cancer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 875-882.  
Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health.  
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 145-161.  
Tschann, J. M. (1988). Self-disclosure in adult friendship: Gender and marital status differences.  
 
Journal of Social and Interpersonal Relationships, 5, 65-81.   
 
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A  
meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 574-583.   
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D., Lui, H., & Needham, B. (2006). You make me sick: 
Marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 
47, 1-16.  
U. S. Census Bureau. (2011). Decennial Census of Population, 1900-2000. 2010 Census 
Summary File 1. 
VanLaningham, J., Johnson, D. R., & Amato, P. (2001). Marital happiness, marital duration, and 
the U-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 78, 1313-
1341.  
Van Tilburg, T. (2003). Consequences of men?s retirement for the continuation of work-related 
personal relationships. Ageing International, 28, 345-358.  
Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., & Ickes, W. (2007). Social support in couples: An  
examination of gender differences using self-report and observational methods.  
Sex Roles, 57, 267-282.  
 
86 
 
Vinick, B. H., & Ekerdt, D. J. (1991). Retirement: What happens to husband-wife relationships? 
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 23-40.  
Waite, L. J. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32, 483-507. 
Waite, L. J., & Lehrer, E. L. (2003). The benefits from marriage and religion in the United 
States: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 29, 255-275.  
Wanic, R., & Kulik, J. (2011). Toward an understanding of gender differences in the impact of 
marital conflict on health. Sex Roles, 65, 297-312.  
White, L. K., Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1986). Children and marital happiness: Why the  
negative correlation? Journal of Family Issues, 7, 131-147. 
Wickrama, K., O?Neal, C., & Lorenz, F. (2013). Marital functioning from middle to late years: A  
 life-course stress process framework. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5, 15-34.  
Wile, D. B. (1988). After the honeymoon. New York: John Wiley & Sons.  
Zarit & Knight, (1996). A guide to psychotherapy and aging: Effective clinical interventions in a 
life-stage model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.   
 
87 
 
Appendix A 
Study 1 ? Modified Marriage Work Scale  
Partners often vary in how much they talk to their [partner/close friends] about concerns they have about 
their relationship.  Please circle the number that best describes how often you bring up a concern and talk it 
through with your partner and with your best friend, when problems or concerns arise in the following areas 
of your relationship.   
 
1              2          3                   4      5             6     7             8                   9 
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  
         Never          Sometimes                Always 
 
1. How often do you bring up how well you and your partner talk over important and unimportant issues?  
     
With Your Partner      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
2. How often do you bring up the way decisions about your relationship get made and the level of influence you have 
in those decisions?    
    
With Your Partner      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
3. How often do you bring up your financial situation?    
    
With Your Partner      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
4. How often do you bring up how well you and your partner get along with one another?s families and how much 
and how often you see them?    
    
With Your Partner      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
5. How often do you bring up the way that you and your partner spend free time (e.g. the activities you do, and/or the 
people you socialize with)?    
    
With Your Partner      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
 
 
88 
 
Appendix B 
 
Study 1 ? Braiker and Kelly?s Intimate Relations Questionnaire 
 
The following questions ask about certain aspects of your romantic relationship.  Please answer these 
questions for the present time in your relationship by CIRCLING the number that best characterizes your 
relationship. 
 
 
1. To what extent do you have a sense of "belonging"        1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9  
to your partner?             Not at all                        Very much 
 
2. To what extent do you reveal or disclose very         1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
 intimate facts about yourself to your partner?          Not at all                        Very much 
 
3. How often do you argue with one another?                      1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
                         Very infrequently                            Very frequently 
 
4. How much do you feel you "give" to the relationship?       1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
             Very little                       Very much 
 
5. To what extent do you try to change things about your       1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
partner that bother you (e.g., behaviors, attitudes, etc.)?        Not at all                       Very much 
 
6. How confused are you about your feelings toward        1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
your partner?             Not at all                         Extremely 
 
7. To what extent do you love your partner at this stage?        1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
             Not at all                        Very much 
 
8. How much time do you and your partner spend                  1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
discussing and trying to work out problems between you?    No time at all                    A great deal of time 
 
9. How much do you think about or worry about                    1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
losing some of your independence by being involved            Not at all                                                             Very much 
with your partner? 
 
10. To what extent do you feel that the things that                  1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
happen to your partner also affect or are important to you?    Not at all                                                                Very much 
 
11. How much do you and your partner talk about the            1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
quality of your relationship (e.g., how "good" it is, how         Never                        Very often 
satisfying how to improve it, etc.)? 
 
 
 
89 
 
12. How often do you feel angry or resentful toward               1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
your partner?             Never                                                             Very often 
 
13. To what extent do you feel that your relationship is       1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
somewhat unique compared to the others you've been in?     Not at all                                   Very much 
 
14. To what extent do you try to change your behavior          1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9    
to help solve certain problems between you and your       Not at all                                                        Very much 
partner? 
 
15. How ambivalent or unsure are you about continuing        1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
in the relationship with your partner?                     Very unsure                                       Very sure 
 
16. How committed do you feel toward your partner?            1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
              Not at all                         Extremely 
17. How close do you feel toward your partner?                     1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
      Not close at all                                       Extremely close 
 
18. To what extent do you feel that your partner demands      1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
or requires too much of your attention?                              Not at all                       Very much 
 
19. How much do you need your partner at this stage?           1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
              Not at all                       Very much 
 
20. To what extent do you feel "trapped" or pressured           1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
to continue in this relationship?                      Not at all                       Very much 
 
21. How sexually intimate are you with your partner?            1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
             Not at all                       Very much   
 
22. How much do you tell your partner what you        1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
want or what you need from the relationship?                    Not at all                       Very much 
 
23. How attached do you feel to your partner?                 1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
             Not at all                       Very much 
 
24. When you and your partner argue, how serious       1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9 
are the problems or arguments?                         Not serious at all                    Very serious 
 
25. To what extent do you communicate negative feelings    1         2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9    
toward your partner (e.g., anger, frustration, etc.)?                  Not at all                                    Very much 
 
Note: Love was assessed using the following items: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23. 
Conflict was assessed using the following items: 3, 5, 12, 24, 25. 
 
 
90 
 
Appendix C 
 
Study 2 ? Modified Marriage Work Scale 
 
Spouses often vary in how much they talk to their [spouse/close friends] about concerns they have about their 
marriage.  Please circle the number that best describes how often you bring up a concern and talk it through with 
your spouse and with a close friend, when problems or concerns arise in the following areas of you marriage.   
 
1           2                3           4             5               6        7       8               9 
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  
         Never          Sometimes                Always 
 
1. How often do you bring up how well you and your spouse talk over important and unimportant issues?   
    
With Your Spouse       1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
2. How often do you bring up how you and your spouse divide housework such as cooking, cleaning, yard work, etc.?  
   
With Your Spouse       1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
3. How often do you bring up the extent to which your spouse makes you feel good about the kind of parent you are (e.g., 
supports your decisions about rules and discipline, etc.)?      
   
With Your Spouse       1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
4. How often do you bring up the way decisions in your family get made and the level of influence you have in those 
decisions?     
   
With Your Spouse       1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
5. How often do you bring up your family?s total financial situation?     
   
With Your Spouse       1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
6. How often do you bring up how well you and your spouse get along with one another?s families and how much and      
how often you see them?     
   
With Your Spouse       1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9
  
 
 
91 
 
7. How often do you bring up the way that you and your spouse spend free time (e.g. the activities you do, and/or the 
people you socialize with)?     
   
With Your Spouse       1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9  
 
 With Your Friend      1             2             3              4             5             6             7             8             9 
 
  
 
92 
 
Appendix D 
 
Study 2 ? Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons 
 
Please answer the following questions as carefully as possible. You may choose not to answer specific questions, but 
you are encouraged to answer as many as possible. Please indicate your current level of satisfaction or 
dissatisfaction for each of the items listed below. 
 
1  2  3  4  5  6 
Very 
dissatisfied 
 Dissatisfied  Somewhat 
dissatisfied 
 Somewhat 
satisfied 
 Satisfied  Very 
satisfied 
 
1. The amount of time my spouse and I    1               2               3               4               5               6 
 spend in shared recreational activities.  
 
2. The degree to which my spouse and I    1               2               3               4               5               6 
 share common interests. 
 
3. The day-to-day support and encouragement   1               2               3               4               5               6 
 provided by my spouse. 
 
4. My spouse?s physical health.     1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
5. The degree to which my spouse motivates me.  1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
6. My spouse?s overall personality.    1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
7. The amount of consideration shown by my spouse. 1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
8. The manner in which affection is expressed   1               2               3               4               5               6 
 between my spouse and me. 
 
9. How my spouse reacts when I share feelings.  1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
10. The way disagreements are settled.    1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
11. The number of disagreements between my spouse and me.  1           2               3               4               5               6 
 
12. My spouse?s philosophy of life.     1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
13. My spouse?s values.     1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
14. My spouse?s emotional health.     1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
 
 
93 
 
15. The frequency of sexual or other physically   1               2               3               4               5               6 
 intimate relationships with my spouse. 
 
16. The quality of sexual or other physically intimate 1               2               3               4               5               6 
 relations with my spouse. 
 
17. The frequency with which my spouse and I  1               2               3               4               5               6 
 have pleasant conversations. 
 
18. My overall compatibility with my spouse.   1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
19. How decisions are made in my marriage.   1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
20. How well my spouse listens to me.   1               2               3               4               5               6 
 
21. Of all the attention you receive from your spouse, 1            2            3            4            
 what percent is pleasant or positive?             0-25%          26-50%             51-75%         76-100% 
 
22. Overall, how satisfied are you with your marriage         1        2            3             4                5     6 
 right now?               Very          Much less      Less      Satisfied      More    Very 
           dissatisfied     satisfied       satisfied               satisfied    satisfied 
 
23. In the past year, how often have you had significant          1                  2                3                     4        
 problems in your marriage?                  Very often           Often             Seldom          Never 
 
24. Compared to five years ago, how satisfied are you 1                   2                 3                  4                 5           
 with your marriage?                        much less           less            equally            more        much more 
                 satisfied         satisfied       satisfied         satisfied       satisfied