Anxiety Disorders and Intimate Relationships:
A Study of Daily Processes in Couples
Talia I. Zaider and Richard G. Heimberg
Kent State University
Although adults with anxiety disorders often report interpersonal distress, the degree to which anxiety is
linked to the quality of close relationships remains unclear. The authors examined the relational impact
of anxiety by sampling the daily mood and relationship quality of 33 couples in which the wife was
diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Use of a daily process design improved on prior methodologies by
capturing relational processes closer to their actual occurrence and in the setting of the diagnosed
partner’s anxiety. Analyses revealed significant associations between wives’ daily anxiety and both partners’
perceptions of relationship quality. Associations were moderated by anxiety-specific support. Results also
indicated significant concordance between wives’ daily anxiety and husbands’ distress. Concordance was
stronger for husbands who reported frequent accommodation of wives’ anxiety symptoms. Findings are
discussed in the context of existing evidence on the social costs of anxiety disorders.
Keywords: anxiety disorders, couples, marriage, marital distress, relationship functioning
Intimate relationships are a primary context in which adults express
and manage personal distress. The study and treatment of depression
in particular have benefited from increased recognition of its inter-
personal consequences (Beach, Whisman, & O’Leary, 1994). In com-
parison, we have far more limited knowledge of how anxiety disor-
the significant other of living with a partner who suffers from persis-
tent and chronic anxiety. Given the degree of social and functional
impairment often accompanying these disorders (e.g., Bystritsky et
al., 2001), the current study sought to clarify how the presence of an
anxiety disorder impacts the relational life of a couple.
Are Anxiety Disorders Associated With Relationship
Population studies point to strong associations between an anx-
iety disorder in one partner and perceptions of poor marital quality
by both partners (e.g., McLeod, 1994). A longitudinal analysis of
4,796 married couples indicated that baseline marital quality was
a strong predictor of the onset of an anxiety disorder over a
subsequent 2-year period (Overbeek et al., 2006). Recent data from
the National Comorbidity Survey Replication have also demon-
strated that marital distress is significantly associated with in-
creased risk of having any concurrent anxiety disorder, particularly
social anxiety disorder (SAD), generalized anxiety disorder
(GAD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Whisman,
2007). The association between anxiety disorders and poor marital
functioning does not appear to be an artifact of general social
impairment (Whisman, Sheldon, & Goering, 2000) and is not
better accounted for by age, gender, or comorbidity with depres-
sion or with alcohol or drug dependence (McLeod, 1994; Whis-
man, 1999, 2007). Moreover, adults with anxiety disorders may
engage in interpersonal behaviors that elicit poor reactions from
others or jeopardize opportunities for support and intimacy (e.g.,
Darcy, Davila, & Beck, 2005).
Prior research in this area has taken a predominantly nomothetic
approach, in which associations between anxiety disorders and
marital quality were examined across a group of individuals. These
data tell us that, on average, adults with anxiety disorders are likely
to experience poor relationship quality. However, it remains un-
known whether a person affected by an anxiety disorder is more or
less likely to experience relational difficulties on those occasions
when he or she experiences elevated anxiety. Tennen, Affleck,
Armeli, and Carney (2000) cautioned against using cross-
sectional, between-person associations to draw inferences about
how two variables are related within the same person. It is possi-
ble, for instance, that adults with anxiety disorders experience
improved relationship quality during episodes of heightened anx-
iety because of increased support received from an intimate partner
at this time.
In developing theoretical models and designing interventions,
clinicians and researchers rely on idiographic formulations of how
these processes unfold for a given person. Over the last decade,
there have been significant advances in the procedural and analytic
tools available to study idiographic processes over time. In partic-
ular, the daily diary method has proven to be a useful way to
examine how two processes (e.g., marital quality and anxiety)
covary within the same person over time. In the present study,
Talia I. Zaider and Richard G. Heimberg, Department of Psychology,
Temple University; Masumi Iida, Department of Psychology, Kent State
We thank Patrick E. Shrout for statistical advice. This research was
funded by National Research Service Award 1F31MH068047-01 (National
Institute of Mental Health) to Talia I. Zaider. Portions of the article were
presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of
Behavior Therapy, Chicago, Illinois, November 2006.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Talia I.
Zaider, who is now at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641
Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022. E-mail: zaidert@
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
2010, Vol. 119, No. 1, 163–173
© 2010 American Psychological Association
daily diary reports were used to determine the within-person
association between anxiety and relationship quality among adults
with anxiety disorders and their partners.
One limitation of prior literature on anxiety disorders and rela-
tionship quality is the inconsistency across studies in how rela-
tionship quality is defined. Daiuto, Baucom, Epstein, and Dutton
(1998) argued that it is important to distinguish relationship sat-
isfaction (i.e., subjective appraisal of how happy one is in a
relationship) from relationship adjustment (i.e., the quality of
specific relational processes such as communication or problem-
solving). The utility of this distinction is supported by previous
studies showing that aspects of relationship adjustment (e.g.,
avoidance of communication) significantly predicted the outcome
of treatment for an anxiety disorder, even when global relationship
satisfaction was high (Craske, Burton, & Barlow, 1989; Marcau-
relle, Belanger, & Marchand, 2003). Exclusive reliance on global
evaluations of relationship satisfaction may therefore miss clini-
cally useful information about areas of relationships more or less
disrupted by anxiety. Even when couples describe their relation-
ships as high functioning across multiple domains, couples who
struggle to accommodate one partner’s anxiety symptoms (e.g.,
with effective support and communication) may experience more
pronounced relational impact in the context of these symptoms
(Craske et al., 1989). In observed interactions between agorapho-
bic women and their husbands, problem-solving difficulties were
greater when the topic of discussion was the wife’s anxiety
(Chambless, Bryan, Aiken, Steketee, & Hooley, 2001). In the
present study, we used a measure of anxiety-specific relationship
adjustment to provide a contextually sensitive assessment of rela-
tionship functioning. We hypothesized that anxiety-specific rela-
tionship adjustment would be more informative in predicting the
strength of the association between anxiety and daily relationship
quality than would a measure of global relationship functioning.
What Is the Experience of the Significant Other?
Research on the interpersonal consequences of depression high-
lights the adverse effects of one partner’s mood disturbance on
another (Joiner & Katz, 1999). The tendency to “catch” another
person’s distress is referred to as emotional contagion and has
been supported extensively in social psychology (e.g., Hatfield,
Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994) as well as in the literature on depres-
sion (Katz et al., 1999). Spouses of depressed partners show higher
levels of depressed mood than do controls, with a substantial
portion carrying levels of distress that warrant clinical intervention
(Benazon & Coyne, 2000; Coyne et al., 1987). Yet data on the
concordance of anxiety in dyads is sparse. One study found that
displays of anxiety elicited high levels of distress, rejection, and
devaluation from others, with some evidence for affect-specific
mood induction (Gurtman, Martin, & Hintzman, 1990). However,
most studies in this area used nonclinical samples and did not
examine these phenomena in the context of intimate relationships.
Adults who meet diagnostic criteria for an anxiety disorder may be
more likely to show dyadic concordance in distress than nonclini-
cal groups, perhaps as a function of the severity, chronicity, and
perceived unmanageability of their anxiety (e.g., Joiner & Katz,
1999). A second focus of the current study was therefore to
examine the degree to which one partner’s anxiety is associated
with elevated distress in the partner.
We were further interested in specifying conditions that
strengthen this concordance in distress. Studies examining familial
responses to a relative with an anxiety disorder have identified
response styles that may contribute to shared distress (Calvocor-
essi et al., 1995). For example, Amir, Freshman, and Foa (2000)
found that the degree of distress felt by relatives of patients with
obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was significantly related to
how frequently they accommodated the patient’s symptoms and
how critical or rejecting they felt toward the patient. Geffken et al.
(2006) similarly reported that high levels of family accommoda-
tion to OCD patients’ symptoms was strongly related to relatives’
disengagement and denial in the face of stressful situations. In the
present study, we examined whether adults with anxiety disorders
were more likely to transmit distress to their partners when their
partners featured certain habitual response styles, such as hostility
and rejection, or symptom accommodation.
The Current Study
We observed associations between anxiety and relationship
quality (RQ) among couples in which one partner (the wife) was
diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. We used a daily process
design to improve on prior studies that relied on cross-sectional,
between-person analyses. Specifically, we hypothesized that:
1.Wives’ daily anxiety would be associated with daily
perceptions of RQ for both partners.
2.The associations between wives’ anxiety and perceptions
of RQ would be moderated by wives’ anxiety-specific,
but not global, relationship adjustment. We hypothesized
that associations would be stronger for couples with
lower anxiety-specific relationship adjustment.
3.On days in which wives reported elevations in anxious
mood, husbands would be perceived as having at least
some involvement in their wives’ anxiety. Exploratory
analyses examined how often husbands were perceived
as contributing to the (a) reason for anxiety, (b) worsen-
ing of anxiety, or (c) alleviation of anxiety.
4.Wives’ daily anxiety would be associated with husbands’
level of distress (i.e., anxiety, anger, depression) on the
5.The association between wives’ anxiety and husbands’
levels of distress would be moderated by (a) husband-
reported hostility toward the wife and (b) husband’s
accommodation of wives’ anxiety symptoms. We hy-
pothesized that wives’ anxiety would be more strongly
associated with husbands’ distress for husbands who
report greater hostility and greater accommodation of
Our sample consisted of 33 married and/or cohabiting (?6
months) heterosexual couples in which the female partner met
ZAIDER, HEIMBERG, AND IIDA
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.;
DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for a
principal anxiety disorder. Exclusion criteria included evidence of
psychosis, risk of self-harm, partner abuse, alcohol or substance
abuse in the last 6 months, an organic mental disorder, or a history
of bipolar disorder. Couples were excluded if the diagnosed part-
ner met criteria for a current major depressive episode to minimize
the potentially confounding effects of comorbid depression.
Participants were recruited from four sites in the Philadelphia
area: (a) the Adult Anxiety Clinic of Temple University (n ? 16
couples; 47.1%), (b) the Psychological Services Center of Temple
University (n ? 7; 20.6%), (c) the Anxiety and Agoraphobia
Treatment Center (n ? 4; 11.8%), and (d) the Temple University
student body (n ? 7; 20.6%) during 2004–2005.
The majority of couples (n ? 21; 62%) were married (M ? 7.6
years, SD ? 8.7) or cohabiting for a mean duration of 3.04 years
(SD ? 2.0). The average age was 33.8 years (SD ? 10.3). Partic-
ipants were predominantly Caucasian (61.8%), with 17.6% iden-
tified as African American, 2.9% Hispanic, 8.8% Asian/Asian
American, and 8.8% Other. Analysis of variance for age and
chi-square analyses for categorical variables revealed site differ-
ences in the age of the diagnosed partner, Welch F(3, 10) ? 7.30,
p ? .05, and the frequency of married versus cohabitating and
unmarried couples, ?2(3, N ? 66) ? 19.89, p ? .05. None of these
variables were significantly related to mean aggregated scores on
daily measures of mood or relationship quality or baseline mea-
sures of relationship adjustment.
Married or cohabiting adults seeking psychotherapy at the clin-
ics listed above were contacted by a research assistant about a
study on “relationships and stress.” Students were contacted if they
endorsed being married or living with a significant other. All
prospective participants were administered a telephone screening
interview by a master’s-level clinician to inquire about the pres-
ence of anxiety disorder symptoms and to evaluate exclusion
criteria. Those who endorsed clinically significant anxiety disorder
symptoms in this phone interview were invited to complete a
face-to-face diagnostic interview with a master’s-level clinician.
Couples who met study criteria and provided informed consent
were given baseline questionnaires and 14 diary reports. Partners
were instructed to complete diary reports separately at the end of
each day, to refrain from discussing their responses, and to return
each report in a prestamped envelope after completion. Compli-
ance was monitored in two ways: (a) Couples were phoned once at
the end of each study week to remind them to complete question-
naires separately, give them an opportunity to ask questions, and
encourage consistent mailing of reports; (b) on each diary, partic-
ipants were asked to indicate whether they completed the report on
a day other than the one designated on the form. At study com-
pletion, couples were debriefed and given $100.00 remuneration.
Of 34 couples (i.e., 68 participants) enrolled, 91.2% (n ? 31) of
wives and 91.2% (n ? 31) of husbands provided 14 daily reports.
The mean number of data points provided was 13.8 (range ?
12–14; SD ? 0.41) for wives and 13.76 (range ? 10–14; SD ?
0.81) for husbands. Baseline questionnaires were completed by all
participants. One couple was eliminated because more than half of
their reports were noncompliant (completed on an incorrect day).
Eight additional couples had noncompliant reports (M ? 2,
range ? 1–3). Rather than eliminate their data, we omitted from
our analyses their noncompliant days (19 total). Our final sample
was therefore 33 couples.
Baseline Measures for Wives
Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM–IV (ADIS–
IV; Brown, DiNardo, & Barlow, 1994).
semistructured clinical interview used to assess the presence of
current DSM–IV anxiety, mood and substance-use disorders
among adults. In this study, anxiety, mood and substance-use
modules were administered to determine diagnostic status as well
as the presence of comorbid disorders. Brown, DiNardo, Lehman,
and Campbell (2001) reported good to excellent reliability for the
diagnosis of a principal anxiety disorder (K ? .67–.86). Interview-
ers were advanced doctoral students trained to the exacting stan-
dards specified by Brown et al. (2001). Interviews were audiotaped
to avoid observer drift and half of the interviews were randomly
selected for rerating by the investigator. Excellent interrater reli-
ability was demonstrated for the Clinician’s Severity Rating asso-
ciated with the primary diagnosis of an anxiety disorder (intraclass
correlation coefficient [ICC] ? .87).
Couples Interaction Questionnaire (CIQ; Craske et al.,
The CIQ, a measure of anxiety-specific relationship ad-
justment, inquires about the degree of communication, understand-
ing, and support perceived by wives when they experience anxiety.
Total scores range from 0 (poorest relationship adjustment) to 30
(highest relationship adjustment). Craske et al. (1989) reported
weak correlations between the CIQ and patient-reported marital
happiness, suggesting that this measure captures aspects of rela-
tionship adjustment that are distinct from global measures of
marital satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha was .82 in this sample.
The ADIS–IV is a
Baseline Measures for Husbands
Family Accommodation Questionnaire—Modified (FAQ–M).
The FAQ–M is a modified version of the Family Accommodation
Questionnaire (FAQ; Calvocoressi et al., 1995), a 13-item self-
report measure originally developed to assess the frequency of
accommodating behavior in response to a family member with
OCD. To make the FAQ applicable to the broader class of anxiety
disorders, the wording of items was changed to refer to “anxiety
symptoms” rather than “obsessive-compulsive disorder,” and
OCD-specific items (e.g., “How often did you provide objects for
your partner’s compulsions?”) were removed. The FAQ–M as-
sessed husbands’ participation in symptom-related behavior,
changes in routine due to wives’ anxiety symptoms, and distress
caused by symptom accommodation. The original FAQ correlated
highly with relevant subscales of the Questionnaire on Resources
and Stress for Families with Chronically Ill or Handicapped Mem-
bers (Calvocoressi et al., 1995). Alpha in our sample was .82.
Patient Rejection Scale (PRS; Kreisman, Simmens, & Joy,
The PRS is an 11-item questionnaire assessing family
hostility, a central component of expressed emotion and a demon-
strated predictor of relapse (Hooley, 1985). Items are statements
concerning the husband’s perceptions of the wife (e.g., “I get more
ANXIETY DISORDERS AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
irritated with her as time goes on”). Husbands were asked to rate
the frequency with which these statements apply to them on a scale
from 0 (never) to 2 (often). Items were summed to calculate a total
score. Alpha in our sample was .60.
Husbands completed two additional questionnaires assessing
levels of anxiety, depression and general psychological distress:
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Trait version (STAI–T;
A 20-item scale used to assess the degree to
which husbands feature a stable tendency to experience anxiety
and depression. The trait scale of the STAI has been shown to have
high convergent validity and test–retest reliability (Spielberger,
1983). Bieling, Antony, and Swinson (1998) identified two sub-
scales of the STAI–T: (a) STAI–D (13 items), which loaded highly
on a depression-content trait factor, and (b) STAI–A (seven items),
which loaded highly on an anxiety-content trait factor. In the
present sample, alphas for the STAI–D and STAI–A were .90 and
The Symptom Checklist–90–Revised (SCL–90–R; Deroga-
A 90-item measure of psychological symptom dis-
tress in the past week, with each item rated on a 5-point Likert
scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). We used the Global
Severity Index (GSI), a mean score of all responses, to reflect
levels of general symptom distress among husbands. Raw GSI
scores of 0.57 or above have been shown to reflect clinically
significant symptom distress (Schauenburg & Strack, 1999).
Alpha was .88.
Baseline Measure for Both Spouses
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976).
is a widely used 32-item measure of global relationship quality.
The summed total score, which ranges from 0 to 151 (higher scores
reflect better functioning), was used to characterize global rela-
tionship functioning. Alpha was .90 for the total sample (.91
wives, .89 husbands).
All standard deviations reported below and in Table 1 for the
diary measures represent within-subject variation, not a combina-
tion of variation over days and participants. The reliability of these
scales represents within-person consistency (reliability of change;
Cranford et al., 2006). See Table 1 for means, standard deviations,
and reliabilities and Table 2 for intercorrelations between daily
Affects Balance Scale (ABS; Derogatis, 1975).
multidimensional mood and affect measure consisting of 40 feel-
ing words that cluster into specific emotional domains. Six factors
emerged in a factor analysis using data from a psychiatric popu-
lation (Derogatis & Rutigliano, 1996). Among these were four
lower order negative affect dimensions, three of which were used
in the present study: anxiety, anger/hostility, and depression. Each
subscale consisted of five items, each rated on a 4-point scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed
across each day to produce a daily subscale score for each dimen-
sion of affect.
Perceived involvement in wives’ anxiety.
dorsed at least moderate anxiety (i.e., responses above 0 for
anxiety-associated items) were asked to respond to three related
questions about the degree and nature of the husbands’ contribu-
tion to their anxiety. Specifically, wives were asked to rate on a
4-point scale (where 0 represents not at all and 3 represents very
much) the degree to which they felt their partner had something to
do with causing, worsening, or alleviating their anxiety that day.
Relationship Quality (RQ).
positive and negative relationship qualities on the day of reporting.
Items were adapted from interview questions used by McLeod
(1994). Based on a factor analysis of 11 measures of marital
quality, McLeod (1994) identified two indices with good internal
consistency: a 5-item index of positive RQ (e.g., “partner showed
concern,” “partner was dependable”) and a five-item index of
The ABS is a
Wives who en-
Each partner was asked to rate
Descriptive Statistics for Baseline and Diary Measures for Wives and Husbands
M SDM SD
Dyadic Adjustment Scale
Patient Rejection Scale
Questionnaire—Modified; RQ ? relationship quality. Standard deviations of diary measures reported here are the within-person deviations. Table cells containing dashes
are those for which questionnaires were not completed (some questionnaires were filled out by husbands but not wives, hence no data in the “wives” column).
aMeans were compared using a multilevel approach to account for within-dyad dependencies.
generalizability approach for diary measures described by Cranford et al. (2006). Denoted as Rchange, these figures capture within-person reliability.
?p ? .05.
CIQ ? Couples Interaction Questionnaire (Craske et al., 1989); STAI ? State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1983); FAQ ? Family Accommodation
bReliability coefficients were calculated using the
??p ? .001.
ZAIDER, HEIMBERG, AND IIDA
negative RQ (e.g., “partner was demanding,” “partner was criti-
cal”). Items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at
all) to 3 (very much) and summed to produce subscale scores of
positive and negative RQ.
Description of Sample
Wives featured the following primary anxiety disorders: panic
disorder with agoraphobia (PDA; n ? 2; 6%), GAD (n ? 9;
27.2%), SAD (n ? 15; 45.5%), OCD (n ? 5; 15.1%), and PTSD
(n ? 2; 6%). The majority were receiving treatment for their anxiety
(84.8% in psychotherapy, 24.2% receiving psychotropic medication),
although most were enrolled in this study during the first 3 weeks of
their current treatment (n ? 24; 85.7%). Ten (30.3%) met criteria for
comorbid dysthymic disorder, and 19 (57.6%) met criteria for at least
one additional anxiety disorder, including GAD (n ? 4), SAD (n ?
11),PDA(n?1),PTSD(n?2),and anxiety disorder not otherwise
specified (n ? 1). Husbands’ mean scores on the STAI–A (M ?
12.90, SD ? 3.02) and the STAI–D (M ? 24.67, SD ? 6.57)
subscales were comparable to those reported by Bieling and col-
leagues (1998) for their control sample (STAI–A M ? 10.20,
SD ? 2.45; STAI–D M ? 23.18, SD ? 4.58). Husbands’ mean raw
score on the SCL–90 GSI subscale (M ? 0.55, SD ? 0.12) was
below the clinical threshold suggested by Schauenburg and Strack
(1999), with the majority of husbands (73.5%) scoring below the
cut-off. Although husbands’ diagnostic status was not formally
assessed, they did not demonstrate generally elevated levels of
Wives and husbands reported nearly identical levels of global
relationship satisfaction on the DAS (see Table 1). Total DAS
scores were comparable to those reported for a sample of agora-
phobic married and cohabiting women (M ? 103.2, SD ? 17.2;
Chambless et al., 2001). Based on empirically established cutoffs
(i.e., 98; Eddy, Heyman, & Weiss, 1991), 29.5% of couples in the
current sample had at least one partner who scored within the
distressed range of marital functioning. Mean levels of daily neg-
ative mood aggregated across the study period were significantly
higher for wives than for husbands, as would be expected given
wives’ clinical status. ICCs, representing the proportion of vari-
ance between-persons indicated that significant variability existed
between and within persons on affect measures for wives (anxiety
ICC ? .44; anger ICC ? .34; depression ICC ? .40) and husbands
(anxiety ICC ? .42; anger ICC ? .33; depression ICC ? .31).
Hypothesis 1. Wives’ Daily Anxiety Will Be Associated
With Perceptions of RQ for Both Husband and Wife
We used a multilevel statistical model to investigate these
associations separately for positive and negative RQ. Multilevel
modeling accounts for the bias in standard errors and statistical
tests that result from nonindependent data and effectively handles
“unbalanced” or missing data at the level of repeated observations
by using all available data for participants. Inferences are valid
assuming missing data are missing at random (see Schafer &
Graham, 2002). The models had two levels: within-dyad (over
time) and between-dyad. Using the dyadic longitudinal approach
described by Bolger and Shrout (2007), we included wives’ and
husbands’ RQ in a single multilevel analysis to account for the fact
that wives’ and husbands’ data were clustered within dyad. All
analyses were conducted using the MIXED procedure in SAS
(Version 9.1.3, 1997).
The within-dyad level of the analysis allowed each dyad’s RQ to
be modeled as a function of husbands’ and wives’ anxiety. We
predicted a given day’s husbands’ and wives’ RQ for a particular
dyad and adjusted for number of days in the study and weekend
effects. Because husbands’ anxiety may be highly associated with
husbands’ evaluations of RQ, husbands’ anxiety was included to
adjust for this effect. The model specified was as follows:
Yijk? ?Wifeijk? ? ?b0w? b1wDaysik? b2wWeekendik
? b3wWAnxik? b4wHAnxik? eijk? ? ?Husbijk? ? ?b0h
? b1hDaysik? b2hWeekendik? b3hWAnxik? b4hHAnxik? eijk?,
where Yijkis the RQ for dyad i for person j (j ? 1 is wife’s report;
j ? 2 is husband’s report) on day k. When the outcome is the
Mean Within-Dyad Correlations of Daily Variablesa
1. Wives’ anxiety
2. Wives’ anger/hostility
3. Wives’ depression
4. Wives’ positive RQ
5. Wives’ negative RQ
6. Husbands’ anxiety
7. Husbands’ anger/hostility
8. Husbands’ depression
9. Husbands’ positive RQ
10. Husbands’ negative RQ
aCorrelations were calculated within-dyad (across days) and then averaged across couples. To test whether the average correlation was different from zero,
we used a one-sample t test with couple as the unit of analysis (df ? 32).
?p ? .05.
RQ ? relationship quality.
??p ? .001.
ANXIETY DISORDERS AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS