Relationship Effort, Satisfaction, and Stability: Differences Across Union Type

Abstract

Relationship satisfaction and stability are two commonly studied outcomes in marriage and family research. Majority of studies address socio demographic variability and differences across union type in these outcomes. We extend this literature by addressing how the amount of effort one puts into their relationship is associated with stability and satisfaction. Specifically, we focus on how effort impacts these measures of quality in four union types: premarital cohabitation, first marriage, post-divorce cohabitation, and second marriage following divorce. Furthermore, we make union type comparisons in the strength of effort's association with satisfaction and stability. Using data from 8,006 respondents in the Relationship Evaluation Survey, our results show that effort was strongly and positively associated with satisfaction and stability in all four unions. Although effort is more strongly associated with satisfaction in first marriage than cohabiting relationships, no union type differences in the role of effort on stability were observed. Clinical and research implications of these findings are discussed.

Full text

RELATIONSHIP EFFORT, SATISFACTION, AND
STABILITY: DIFFERENCES ACROSS UNION TYPE
Kevin Shafer, Todd M. Jensen, and Jeffry H. Larson
Brigham Young University
Relationship satisfaction and stability are two commonly studied outcomes in marriage and
family research. Majority of studies address socio demographic variability and differences
across union type in these outcomes. We extend this literature by addressing how the amount
of effort one puts into their relationship is associated with stability and satisfaction. Specifi-
cally, we focus on how effort impacts these measures of quality in four union types: premari-
tal cohabitation, first marriage, post-divorce cohabitation, and second marriage following
divorce. Furthermore, we make union type comparisons in the strength of effort’s association
with satisfaction and stability. Using data from 8,006 respondents in the Relationship
Evaluation Survey, our results show that effort was strongly and positively associated with
satisfaction and stability in all four unions. Although effort is more strongly associated with
satisfaction in first marriage than cohabiting relationships, no union type differences in the
role of effort on stability were observed. Clinical and research implications of these findings
are discussed.
Relationship satisfaction and stability are two of the most commonly studied outcomes in
family research, and are typically linked to the larger concept of relationship quality (Amato,
Booth, Johnson & Rogers, 2007; Hawkins & Booth, 2005). Satisfaction refers to how happy indi-
viduals are with several facets of their relationship including intimacy, conflict, and equality, while
perceived stability
1
can be viewed as attitudes and behaviors associated with dissolution proneness
(Amato et al., 2007). Relationship satisfaction and stability are also positively correlated with a
number of outcomes, including psychological well-being and physical health (Proulx, Helms &
Buehler, 2007; Umberson & Williams, 2005; Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu & Needham,
2006). Children raised in happy, stable homes are less likely to have internalized and externalized
behavioral problems, do better in school, are more likely to get married, and have happy relation-
ships themselves (Amato & Booth, 1997; Amato, Loomis & Booth, 1995; Booth & Amato, 2001;
Wolfinger, 2011). Although many sociodemographic and interpersonal explanations have been
forwarded to predict relationship satisfaction and stability (Segrin & Flora, 2005), we focus on var-
iation in how the amount of effort put into a relationship affects these outcomes.
We begin with the premise that satisfying and stable romantic relationships do not just hap-
pen—they require work. Strong relationships are emotionally supportive, open, involved, and
focused on the needs of each partner (Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Greenman, 2006). Couples in
high-quality relationships evaluate behavior, set goals, and make changes, as appropriate
(Halford, 2011). As such, relationship effort, or how much an individual or couple works at their
relationship, has been linked to higher levels of relationship quality (Halford, Lizzio, Wilson &
Occhipinti, 2007; Wilson, Charker, Lizzio, Halford & Kimlin, 2005). Yet, with some variability in
satisfaction and stability by union type (Brown, 2004; Brown & Booth, 1996; Skinner, Bahr, Crane
& Call, 2002), the association between effort and quality may depend on the kind of relationship
one is in.
Our article is motivated by the strong association between satisfaction, stability, and dissolu-
tion (Amato et al., 2007; Hawkins & Booth, 2005; Johnson, Amoloza & Booth, 1992), and the role
Kevin Shafer, PhD, Todd M. Jensen, BS, and Jeffry H. Larson, PhD, School of Social Work, Brigham Young
University.
Address correspondence to Kevin Shafer, School of Social Work, Brigham Young University, 2181 JFSB,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602; E-mail: kevin_shafer@byu.edu
212 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
doi: 10.1111/jmft.12007
April 2014, Vol. 40, No. 2, 212–232

effort plays in good relationships (Halford, 2011; Halford, Sanders & Behrens, 1994; Halford
et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2005). We focus on this association in four types of unions: first mar-
riage, never-married cohabitation, divorced cohabitation, and second marriage (remarriage)
after divorce. We address not only how effort is associated with quality in each of these unions,
but also if there are differences in that association across union type. This question is an impor-
tant one to marriage and family therapists, social workers, and other clinicians as cohabitation
and remarriage have become increasingly prevalent. In fact, recent estimates suggest that up to
half of individuals will cohabit and nearly 25% of married men and women will divorce and
remarry (Cherlin, 2010). Our data comes from the RELATionship Evaluation survey (often
referred to as RELATE), a large commonly-used relationship assessment questionnaire which is
uniquely suited to answer our questions. We now turn to a discussion of hypothesized relation-
ships in our article, results from our analyses, and a discussion of the implications from our
findings.
RELATIONSHIP EFFORT
We focus on relationship effort, which is one aspect of relationship self-regulation (RSR).
RSR includes strategies utilized to produce a high-quality romantic relationship and the effort
put into a relationship (Halford et al., 1994). Relationship effort consists of individually based
behaviors and attitudes that are deemed either effective or ineffective based on a partner’s reac-
tion. Thus, self-regulatory actions, such as effort, are both individual and dyadic in nature.
Notably, the effort individuals put into their relationships is goal-oriented (i.e., actions will lead
to specific results), requires explicit action (i.e., to improve my relationship I will do Xor Y),
and need to be flexible (i.e., if Adoes not work, I will do B, C, or D; Meyer, Larson, Busby &
Harper, 2012). Although some research has been conducted on the role of effort for relationship
satisfaction, no studies of which we are aware address the association between effort and per-
ceived stability in romantic relationships. Notably, we only address the association between
effort, satisfaction, and stability, and do not focus on how self-regulatory strategies can help
produce high-quality relationships. We do this for three reasons. First, the use of relationship
strategies in individuals and couples is quite stable over time (Halford et al., 2007). Second,
strategies has a positive effect on relationship satisfaction initially, but has no long-term impact
on couples (Halford, 2011). Meanwhile, effort has strong, positive, and significant effects on sat-
isfaction over the course of a relationship. Effort also has a substantially larger association with
satisfaction than strategies—even in the first year of a relationship. Finally, many of the strate-
gies utilized by couples are skills learned in marriage education programs, whereas effort is less
of a learned skill—although it clearly can be (Halford, 2011).
SATISFACTION AND STABILITY
Although we briefly discussed satisfaction and stability in the introduction, it is important to
note the relationship between and the potential variability in these two measures of quality.
The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Stability
Relationship satisfaction and perceived stability are often considered “conceptually distinct
but empirically correlated” [41] measures (Amato et al., 2007). Scales that combine satisfaction,
stability, and other measures of relationship quality are rare because of couple-level variability in
the correlation of distinct measures of quality (see Amato et al., 2007 for a full discussion). For
example, although satisfaction and stability are strongly correlated with one another (in our data,
r=.66), a couple with unstable families-of-origin may be more likely to separate than a couple
where both partners were raised by continuously married biological parents (Teachman, 2002). In
such cases, perceived instability is common even if relationship satisfaction is high. Similarly, dis-
solution is not solely the domain of unsatisfied couples. In fact, Amato and Hohmann-Marriott
(2007) showed that satisfaction and perceived stability have distinct effects on dissolution, irrespec-
tive of how strongly correlated the two are. Viewing satisfaction and stability separately is also
important as we use cross-sectional data and linear regression in our article. Although both
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 213

methodological choices are common in studies of relationship quality (e.g., Addo & Sassler, 2010;
Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Amato et al., 2007; Skinner et al., 2002), it is difficult to
correlate the two measures with one another using such a modeling strategy because it is theoreti-
cally unclear if satisfaction leads to stable relationships or stable relationships help generate satis-
fying unions.
2
Differences in Satisfaction and Stability by Union Type
There is some variability in relationship satisfaction and stability by union type—which are
commonly compared to first marriage in the literature. Cohabiting couples tend to report lower
levels of satisfaction, more conflict, and poorer communication than the first married (Brown,
2004; Brown & Booth, 1996). Yet, there is some variability in satisfaction among cohabiters
which impacts the significance of these differences. Cohabiters who plan to marry have higher
quality relationships than cohabiters with no such plans and differences between “engaged” co-
habiters and married couples in satisfaction are either extremely small or non-existent (Brown &
Booth, 1996). However, married couples with a prior cohabitation history do have more unstable
relationships than non-cohabiters (Skinner et al., 2002). Similarly, dissolution rates for cohabita-
tion are substantially higher than in first or higher order marriages (Lichter & Qian, 2008; Lichter,
Qian & Mellott, 2006). Importantly, comparisons between cohabiting and married couples are
almost always between never-married cohabiting and first married couples, while potential com-
parisons with divorced cohabiters and remarried couples are lacking from the literature. One
study notes, however, that cohabitation prior to remarriage is associated with low-marital quality
(Xu, Hudspeth & Bartkowski, 2006).
Remarriages appear to be just as satisfying as first marriages. Skinner et al. (2002) found simi-
lar levels of happiness, communication, fairness, and disagreement between first and second mar-
ried couples, while Amato et al. (2007) noted no difference in marital satisfaction in a recent study.
Yet, remarried couples have lower perceived stability than the first married. Although slightly less
than half of first marriages end in divorce, more than 60% of second marriages will dissolve
(Copen, Daniels, Vespa & Mosher, 2012). Furthermore, challenging re-marital stability, divorc
es
often see divorce as the best solution to marital strife (Amato & Booth, 1991) and maintain low
divorce initiation thresholds (Amato et al., 2007). Similarly, most divorc
es feel they can handle
separation from their romantic partner (Skinner et al., 2002) and have little moral objection to
divorce (Booth & Edwards, 1992).
EFFORT, SATISFACTION, AND STABILITY
We expect that effort predicts relationship satisfaction and stability—which is conventional in
both effort and RSR models. Working at one’s relationship requires one or both partners to reflect
on which behaviors produce positive responses, negative responses, and how to change negative
behaviors in a way that brings about beneficial change (Halford, 2011; Halford et al., 2007). Cou-
ples who work at their relationships do so persistently which, unsurprisingly, has a stronger and
more sustainable effect on a relationship than a one-time burst of effort. Hence, our measures of
effort are cast in a way that asks respondents to take a long view on their relationship, not a
snapshot.
Although we have good theoretical reason to expect that effort leads to increased relationship
quality, an alternative specification is possible. In one alternative, relationship quality predicts
effort (Halford et al., 1994). This may be due to the attribution of poor and/or unstable relation-
ships to the notion that one or both partners did not work hard enough. In other work, we have
run analyses for these two possibilities (our theoretical model and the alternative) using structural
equation models (SEM). Although our data were cross-sectional, the best model (according to
model fit and highest variance explained) had effort as a predictor of satisfaction and stability.
Thus, statistical analyses supported the theoretical model underlying RSR. In choosing such a
model we argue, like the majority of RSR scholars, that interpersonal processes are more likely to
produce happy marriages than happy marriages are to produce positive interactions. Such a model
is congruent with the expectations of marriage and family practitioners, such as social workers or
marriage and family therapists.
214 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

Potential Union Type Variation in the Association of Effort and Relationship Quality
Building on the notion that RSR, including effort, is shaped by social context (Halford et al.,
1994), relationship effort could have a different association with quality in various types of unions.
As such, we discuss each union type and how it may mediate the relationship between effort and
quality in detail below.
Nearly 90% of individuals will eventually marry—although there is substantial racial, ethnic,
and socioeconomic variability in marriage rates (Cherlin, 2010). Although cohabitation, remar-
riage, and other family forms continue to emerge, marriage is still viewed by most as the best fam-
ily structure in which to raise children and is often seen as beneficial to both individuals and
society (Cherlin, 2004; Smock, 2004). Compared to other relationship types, first marriages are rel-
atively stable, committed relationships (Amato et al., 2007). While slightly less than half of mar-
riages will end in divorce, other union types are more likely to dissolve (Amato, 2010).
There are two possible relationships between effort and relationship quality among first mar-
ried couples. In one respect, first married couples are in highly committed relationships and have
low levels of relational uncertainty which could minimize the link between effort and quality when
compared to cohabiting and remarital relationships. In other words, the amount of effort put into
their relationships may be less critical for first married couples because they are already in unions
which are typically built on good communication skills, high commitment, and compassionate ide-
als such as love, friendship, and shared interests (Amato et al., 2007; Burgess & Locke, 1960). On
the other hand, low relational uncertainty may yield high returns on effort. For example, Young,
Curran and Totenhagen (2012) found that highly committed couples see significantly larger returns
on positive interpersonal processes (such as effort) than couples in less stable relationships (e.g.,
cohabitation or remarriage). However, large positive returns of effort may also mean that individu-
als and couples who put little effort into their relationships may have poor quality marriages.
People’s motivation to cohabit may lead to less stable relationships than exists for first
married couples. Many people who choose to cohabit do so because they fear a marriage will end
in divorce, and they want uncomplicated options to end a relationship (Miller, Sassler & Kusi-
Appouh, 2011). Other times the decision to cohabit is less conscious. Some slide into cohabitation
because they need housing, want to benefit from economies of scale, pregnancy, or simply out of
convenience. Cohabiters are less likely than married couples to enter their unions on the basis of
compassionate ideals or the desire for a stable partnership (Brown, 2004; Brown & Booth, 1996;
Huang, Smock, Manning & Bergstrom-Lynch, 2011). They also tend to hold much more liberal
attitudes about divorce, sex, the importance of marriage, and the desire for long-term committed
relationships than married men and women (Willoughby & Carroll, 2012). On the one hand, this
may lead cohabiters to benefit more from effort than married couples because it can reduce rela-
tional uncertainty, signal high commitment, and illustrate a desire to take the relationship to the
next step (e.g., marriage and/or childbearing). Although we expect that effort is positively associ-
ated with relationship quality among cohabiters, it is also possible that the association is less posi-
tive than in first marriage because of high relational uncertainty present in cohabitation (Young
et al., 2012).
Remarried couples face a number of unique challenges which may be met with increased
effort to build high quality relationships. Unlike first married and never-married cohabitating
couples, remarried people often have close ties to an ex-spouse, non-normative stepparent-step-
child relationships, must negotiate family roles and boundaries, and regularly try to integrate
family cultures (Brimhall, Wampler & Kimball, 2008; Coleman, Fine, Ganong, Downs & Pauk,
2001; Falke & Larson, 2007). Other remarital characteristics, such as heterogeneous partnerships
(Shafer, 2012), mean partners may have difficulty working together to build positive relation-
ships. Unclear behavioral norms in remarriage (Sweeney, 2010) may lead to misdirected and
unhelpful efforts which fail to improve satisfaction or stability (Meyer et al., 2012). The selective
attributes of divorc
es, such as their inclination toward divorce and high gender/partner distrust
due to first marriage experiences, may also undermine the work each partner puts in (Amato &
Booth, 1991). While we expect effort to have smaller effects on satisfaction and stability for
remarried couples because of these contextual factors, as they may lead to unstable or uncertain
relationships, they could also be associated with a strong, positive relationship between effort
and quality.
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 215

Overall, our expectation is that effort will be positively associated with satisfaction and stabil-
ity in all union types. Although our prior discussion focused on the possibility that this positive
effect will differ across unions, it is also possible that no or very small differences may be observed.
This pattern would be consistent with the notion that strong, stable, and satisfying relationships
are possible if couples continuously work at their partnership, are emotionally available to one
another, involved, and responsive to each other’s needs (Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Greenman,
2006). If such a finding is observed, it suggests that context matters less than the act of putting
effort into the relationship. As such, working at one’s relationship may lead to trust, love, relational
security, interdependence, and beneficial behaviors such as good communication and agreed-upon
boundaries (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith & George, 2001; Johnson & Greenman, 2006).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To summarize, we focus on two main research questions:
1. What impact does relationship effort have on stability and satisfaction in first marriages,
pre-marital cohabitation, post-divorce cohabitation, and remarriage?
2. How does the association between relationship effort and relationship quality, as mea-
sured by satisfaction and stability, vary across union type?
METHOD
Sample and Procedures
We use the RELATE, a secondary data set gathered from an online relationship assessment
questionnaire taken by individuals in committed romantic relationships (Busby, Holman &
Taniguchi, 2001). RELATE offers feedback to couples on potential problem areas in their partner-
ships and is available to researchers as rich, in-depth data on romantic relationships. Respondents
were asked to complete the survey independently of their partner. Importantly, the data are not
from a random sample, but instead primarily consists of college students in family-focused courses,
participants in couple workshops, couples seeking therapy, and individuals who happened upon
the questionnaire via web search. These procedures prevent us from claiming that our results are
generalizable in any way. However, data are large, diverse, includes batteries of questions not
found in other data sources and are commonly used (e.g., Busby, Holman & Niehuis, 2009; Busby,
Holman & Walker, 2008; Busby et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2012). In fact, the sample we use is large
and includes cohabiters, although prior studies had only previously focused only on married cou-
ples (Halford et al., 2007, 2010; Wilson et al., 2005). Therefore, it is likely data comes from a less
select group than many other studies of effort, satisfaction, and perceived stability.
Our sample consisted of 8,006 heterosexual males (38%) and females (62%) in one of four
relationship types: married for the first time (N=3,745, 47%), cohabiting with no previous mar-
riages (N=2,693, 33%), cohabiting following their first and only divorce (N=1,005, 13%), and
married for the second time (N=563, 7%). Participants were between 17 and 77 years of age
with a mean age of 31.4 (SE =0.106). Table 1 provides the sociodemographic characteristics of
the entire sample and for each group.
All four groups had similar educational and race/ethnicity compositions. About 81% of the
sample was Caucasian, 5% African American, 5% Latino, 4% Asian, and 5% some other racial
or ethnic identification. The sample was better educated than the U.S. as a whole, with nearly 24%
of the sample having earned a Bachelor’s degree and 33% attending or completing a graduate or
professional school, 39% attended college but lacked a bachelor’s degree, with the remaining 5%
having earned a high school diploma or less.
Our sample was also not representative on religious affiliation. Twenty-three percent of the
participants were Protestant, 24% were Latter-day Saints (LDS; Mormon), 15% were Catholic,
15% identified with other groups, and 23% were not affiliated with any religion. Table 1 shows
that the proportions of religious groups were notably different between the first married, never-
married cohabiting, post-divorce cohabiting, and remarried groups. As a result, we controlled for
religious differences in our models. Finally, nearly 56% of first married respondents had biological
216 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables for Full Sample and by Union Type
Full sample (n=8,006)
First married
(n=3,745)
Never-married
cohabit
(n=2,693)
Divorced
cohabit
(n=1,005)
Remarried
(n=563)
Range Imputed (%) Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Relationship effort 1–5 0 3.213 0.008 3.148
bc
0.011 3.245
ac
0.013 3.366
abd
0.022 3.216
c
0.027
Relationship satisfaction 1–5 0.13 3.666 0.010 3.563
bcd
0.016 3.818
ad
0.015 3.818
ad
0.024 3.349
abc
0.042
Relationship stability 1–5 0.23 4.053 0.009 4.130
bcd
0.013 4.012
ad
0.015 4.022
ad
0.025 3.798
abc
0.039
Sociodemographic characteristics
Female 0–1 0 0.617 —0.591 —0.646 —0.635 —0.615 —
Age 17–77 0 31.394 0.106 32.390 0.169 27.902 0.109 30.842 0.254 42.438 0.461
Income 0–11 0.89 2.943 0.027 2.709 0.041 3.021 0.043 3.201 0.069 3.669 0.122
Relationship status
First married
a
0–1 0 0.468 —————
Never-married cohabitation
b
0–1 0 0.333 —————
Divorced cohabitation
c
0–1 0 0.130 —————
Remarried
d
0–1 0 0.069 —————
Educational attainment
High school or less 0–1 0 0.053 —0.046 —0.052 —0.066 —0.074 —
Some college 0–1 0 0.384 —0.458 —0.295 —0.345 —0.374 —
Bachelor’s degree 0–1 0 0.237 —0.199 —0.298 —0.261 —0.158 —
Graduate education 0–1 0 0.326 —0.296 —0.353 —0.327 —0.394 —
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black 0–1 0 0.050 —0.047 —0.057 —0.042 —0.051 —
Asian 0–1 0 0.043 —0.034 —0.054 —0.055 —0.023 —
Non-Hispanic White 0–1 0 0.805 —0.826 —0.775 —0.793 —0.831 —
Latino 0–1 0 0.046 —0.047 —0.047 —0.044 —0.039 —
Other race/ethnicity 0–1 0 0.054 —0.045 —0.063 —0.064 —0.054 —
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 217

Table 1
Continued
Full sample (n=8,006)
First married
(n=3,745)
Never-married
cohabit
(n=2,693)
Divorced
cohabit
(n=1,005)
Remarried
(n=563)
Range Imputed (%) Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Religion
Catholic 0–1 0 0.150 —0.111 —0.191 —0.185 —0.153 —
Protestant 0–1 0 0.224 —0.177 —0.251 —0.286 —0.293 —
Latter-day Saint 0–1 0 0.243 —0.477 —0.016 —0.014 —0.178 —
Other religion 0–1 0 0.151 —0.110 —0.174 —0.219 —0.192 —
No religion 0–1 0 0.229 —0.122 —0.363 —0.295 —0.185 —
Frequently attend church 0–1 0 0.319 —0.569 —0.063 —0.085 —0.302 —
Family characteristics
Marital orientation 1–5 0 3.434 0.010 3.833 0.015 3.058 0.015 3.019 0.023 3.327 0.036
Parents divorced 0–1 0.30 0.299 —0.236 —0.348 —0.388 —0.314 —
Family-of-origin quality 1–5 0 2.900 0.010 2.955 0.015 2.933 0.016 2.786 0.029 2.587 0.041
Biological child 0–1 19.49 0.432 —0.559 —0.117 —0.577 —0.812 —
Non-biological child 0–1 19.49 0.204 —0.094 —0.122 —0.579 —0.638 —
Relationship duration 1–11 0 4.787 0.021 5.172 0.040 4.569 0.020 4.479 0.033 3.811 0.058
Source: RELATE.
Note. Superscript letters next to mean values indicate significant mean differences between that group and the other specified group(s). a = first
married, b = never-married cohabit, c = divorced cohabit, and d = remarried. These mean differences are then provided for effort, satisfaction, and
stability.
218 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

children, as did 58% of divorced cohabiters and 81% of remarried respondents. Respondents with
non-biological children were rare in first marriage and never-married cohabitation and much more
common among previously-married individuals.
Measures
Relationship effort. Relationship effort measured how willing and able individuals put forth
effort into their relationships. The scale comes from a modified version of questions used by Hal-
ford et al. (1994) and Wilson et al. (2005) on relationship effort and has been utilized in prior
research (Meyer et al., 2012). This variable is a four-item scale, using the following questions: “If
things go wrong in the relationship I tend to feel powerless”, “I tend to fall back on what is com-
fortable for me in relationships, rather than trying new ways of relating”, “Even when I know what
I could do differently to improve things in the relationship, I cannot seem to change my behavior”,
and “If my partner doesn’t appreciate the change efforts I am making, I tend to give up.” We
reverse coded the variables from 1 to 5 so that higher values indicated more effort. Cronbach’s
alpha is .72 for this measure, indicating good consistency and reliability. We provide the reliability
coefficients for this measure, satisfaction, and stability by group in Table 2.
Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction measured how happy respondents were
with various dimensions of their relationship. Although standardized scales of satisfaction are not
common in secondary data, the questions available in RELATE have been used frequently in the
satisfaction literature (e.g., Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Amato et al., 2007). Individuals
were asked about their satisfaction with seven different aspects of their relationship: physical inti-
macy, love, conflicts, equality, time spent together, communication, and a global measure of satis-
faction. Items were scored on a 1–5 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .91 for the full sample.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations Between Latent Exogenous and
Endogenous Variables For All Groups
Variable Effort Satisfaction Stability
Correlations
Relationship satisfaction
First married .513**
Never-married cohabiting .468**
Post-divorce cohabiting .461**
Remarried .430**
Relationship stability
First married .409 ** .697 **
Never-married cohabiting .396 ** .653 **
Post-divorce cohabiting .425 ** .672 **
Remarried .368 ** .684 **
Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)
First married .720 .920 .779
Never-married cohabiting .716 .869 .801
Post-divorce cohabiting .703 .881 .805
Remarried .680 .912 .786
Note.*p <.05, **p <.01. The variables in this table are composite scales for the purpose of
assessing overall correlations, means, and standard deviations.
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 219

Relationship stability. Relationship stability measured the respondent’s perception of rela-
tionship insecurity. Like with satisfaction, standardized measures of stability are not commonly
available in secondary data. However, RELATE includes a battery of questions used in prior stud-
ies which are empirically associated with dissolution (e.g., Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007;
Amato et al., 2007). This measure consisted of three questions asking respondents how often they
thought about ending their relationship, discussed dissolution, and frequency of break-up, separa-
tion, and reunion. Scores ranged from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating less frequency or more
stability. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .79 (See Table 2 for reliability coefficients by group).
Control variables. We control for various individual characteristics because they may be asso-
ciated with relationship quality and effort (Amato et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2012). This includes
several sociodemographic characteristics such as race, socioeconomic status, age, and gender. We
control for self-identified race and ethnicity with a set of dichotomous variables for non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic White, Latino, Asian, and other racial/ethnic group. We include control vari-
ables for two socioeconomic characteristics: educational attainment and income. Education was
measured through dichotomous measures for high school degree or less, some college, including
an Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, and graduate/professional education (degree or attend-
ing). Income is an ordinal variable with values ranging from 0 =none to 11 =$300,000 or greater.
Age was measured with a continuous variable whereas gender was identified with a dichotomous
variable with 0 =male and 1 =female.
Religion and other attitudes have also been linked to relationship quality. Self-identified reli-
gious affiliation was measured with dichotomous variables for Catholic, Protestant, LDS (or Mor-
mon), other religious affiliation, and no religion. Notably, our sample is disproportionately LDS
which is likely due to the initial focus of RELATE on the Intermountain West, where over half of
all American Mormons reside. Furthermore, the majority of LDS respondents in our sample are
first married. The lack of self-identified Mormons in the cohabiting and remarried after divorce
groups likely coincides with LDS beliefs about pre-marital sex, non-marital cohabitation, and sub-
stantially lower divorce rates among Mormons, compared to the national average (The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2012).
Commitment to marriage and family, as an institution, has been associated with relationship
quality (Amato et al., 2007) and may influence effort, as well. We use a four-item standardized
scale (a=.74), consisting of the following items: “Being married is among the one or two most
important things in life”, “If I had an unhappy marriage and neither counseling nor other actions
helped, my spouse and I would be better off if we divorced”, “Marriage is a covenant, not just a
legal contract recognized by the law”, and “Living together is an acceptable alternative to mar-
riage.” All variables were coded on a 1–5 scale with higher scores indicating greater commitment
to marriage. Intergenerational transmission of marital behaviors and attitudes is also extremely
common (Teachman, 2002). As a result, we include a measure for family relationship quality in the
family-of-origin, which is a four item scale asking if the respondent’s family growing up was safe
and warm, confusing and unfair, happy, and if their childhood was happy. Items were scored 1–5,
with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was.86.
Finally, we control for three relationship-specific characteristics. Relationship duration was
specified by participants selecting one of the various duration options ranging from 1 =0to
3 months and 11 =More than 40 years (outcomes not interpretable in year units). The presence of
children has been linked to low levels of relationship quality—especially among remarried couples
(Amato, Kane & James, 2011; Cole & Cole, 1999; Goldscheider & Sassler, 2006; Golish, 2003). As
a result, we include dichotomous variables for the presence of biological and non-biological chil-
dren, relative to the respondent, in the household with dichotomous variables.
Analysis Strategy
We use ordinary least-squares (OLS) multiple regression in our analysis of effort, satisfaction,
and stability. Alternative analyses using SEM group comparison models, not presented here, were
also run and are available from the authors upon request. However, we present OLS models
because they had substantively similar results, allowed us to integrate more control variables, and
simplified the interpretation of union type comparisons. We used multiple imputation in Stata 12
to account for a small number of missing cases on satisfaction, stability, and some of our control
220 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

variables. The percent of missing cases on which we imputed are available in Table 1. The data
appeared to be missing at random or missing completely at random, allowing for the use of multi-
ple imputation procedures (Enders, 2010). Imputing on the dependent variable can be controver-
sial (Von Hippel, 2007), but is now common practice—especially in cases like ours where <2% of
cases were missing. The most commonly imputed variable was the presence of biological children,
where <25% of cases were imputed. Comparisons to models using list-wise deletion were substan-
tively similar to the results we present using imputation methods.
Our analytic strategy proceeds in the following manner: first, we analyze data by running
union type specific regression models for satisfaction and stability; second, we include all union
types in a model which provides differences in our measures of quality across relationships; finally,
we include interactions between union type and effort to assess differences in the effect of effort on
satisfaction and stability by relationship.
RESULTS
Relationship Satisfaction
Table 3 reports the regression results for relationship satisfaction on relationship effort and
control variables by union type. We find that relationship effort was positively associated with sat-
isfaction in all four relationship types we examined. In first marriage, a one point increase in effort
is associated with a 0.599 point increase in satisfaction. The corresponding effects for non-marital
cohabitation, post-divorce cohabitation, and remarriage are 0.465, 0.452, and 0.588, respectively.
To understand the magnitude of these relationships, we provide standardized regression coeffi-
cients of effort.
3
In all relationship types, a one standard deviation increase in effort was associated
with an approximately 0.4 standard deviation increase in satisfaction, indicating a relatively strong
association between effort and satisfaction. All effects are significant at p<.001. Some of the con-
trol variables are also significantly associated with satisfaction. In first marriage, women and
Blacks have lower levels of satisfaction than men and whites. Religious affiliation, the presence of
biological children, and relationship duration are also negatively associated with satisfaction. High
levels of marital orientation and family-of-origin quality are associated with higher levels of satis-
faction among the first married. Similar effects for race/ethnicity, family quality, biological chil-
dren, and relationship duration are seen in most other relationship types. The presence of non-
biological (step) children in a home is associated with lower levels of quality among remarried cou-
ples—potentially because parental expectations for stepparents are significantly lower than for bio-
logical parents (Coleman et al., 2001).
Relationship Stability
The analogous results for relationship stability are reported in Table 4. Like with satisfaction,
effort has strong positive effects on stability in all union types. In first marriage, a one point
increase in effort is associated with a 0.372 point increase in stability. The corresponding results for
other relationship types is 0.411 in non-marital cohabitation, 0.422 in divorced cohabitation, and
0.447 in remarriage. Like with satisfaction, the standardized coefficients of effort indicate that
effort is strongly related to stability in all union types. All effects are significant at p<.001. The
results for the control variables are also reported in Table 4 and are very similar to those observed
for satisfaction.
Differences in Satisfaction and Stability by Union Type
Table 5 shows the main effects of relationship type on satisfaction and interactive effects
between effort and union type.
4
Although we present only the key variables in this table, the full
set of controls presented in Tables 3 and 4 are included in each interactive model. Our main effects
model shows that both non-marital and divorced cohabiters have slightly higher relationship satis-
faction than first married couples in our data. Supplementary analyses found that relationship
duration and age differences significantly mediated these differences
5
.
Our interactive model, which indicates union type differences in the effect of effort shows that
effort has smaller positive effects on relationship effort in non-marital and divorced cohabiting
relationships. However, at the lowest levels of effort cohabiters appear to have slightly higher satis-
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 221

Table 3
OLS Regression of Relationship Satisfaction on Relationship Effort and Control Variables
First marriage Non marital cohabiting Divorced cohabiting Remarriage
bSEbSEbSEbSE
Relationship effort
a
0.599 (0.419) 0.019*** 0.465 (0.404) 0.019*** 0.452 (0.403) 0.033*** 0.588 (0.381) 0.060***
Sociodemographic characteristics
Female 0.081 0.027** 0.075 0.028** 0.079 0.047 0.094 0.085
Age 0.003 0.002 0.014 0.003*** 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004
Income 0.020 0.006** 0.012 0.007* 0.001 0.011 0.012 0.015
Educational attainment
b
High school or less 0.026 0.065 0.034 0.063 0.145 0.095 0.056 0.154
Some college 0.017 0.034 0.012 0.035 0.053 0.056 0.072 0.093
Bachelor’s degree 0.028 0.036 0.025 0.031 0.002 0.060 0.115 0.110
Race/ethnicity
c
Non-Hispanic Black 0.213 0.063** 0.132 0.058* 0.365 0.106** 0.704 0.173***
Asian 0.071 0.070 0.005 0.056 0.055 0.099 0.156 0.251
Latino 0.069 0.061 0.006 0.060 0.208 0.108 0.222 0.203
Other race/ethnicity 0.121 0.060* 0.018 0.052 0.093 0.087 0.327 0.162*
Religion
d
Catholic 0.222 0.053*** 0.111 0.091 0.111 0.177 0.180 0.154
Protestant 0.087 0.043* 0.045 0.090 0.057 0.175 0.095 0.131
Other religion 0.101 0.051* 0.003 0.092 0.010 0.176 0.028 0.145
No religion 0.051 0.059 0.028 0.090 0.082 0.178 0.071 0.164
Frequently attend church 0.009 0.039 0.038 0.053 0.143 0.079 0.133 0.103
Family characteristics
Marital orientation 0.148 0.023*** 0.035 0.019 0.016 0.032 0.191 0.057**
Family-of-origin quality 0.127 0.015*** 0.137 0.015*** 0.077 0.025** 0.142 0.040***
Biological child 0.308 0.033*** 0.361 0.067*** 0.273 0.077** 0.477 0.133**
Non-biological child 0.021 0.045 0.007 0.067 0.060 0.079 0.228 0.087**
222 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

Table 3
Continued
First marriage Non marital cohabiting Divorced cohabiting Remarriage
bSEbSEbSEbSE
Duration of relationship 0.028 0.009*** 0.119 0.012*** 0.119 0.021*** 0.036 0.030
Constant 1.351 2.822 3.099 0.988
N3,745 2,693 1,005 563
R
2
.413 .311 .299 .262
Source: RELATE.
Notes.
a
Parenthetical values are standardized regression coefficients for relationship effort;
b
Reference is graduate education;
c
reference is non-Hispanic
White,
d
reference is Latter-day Saint. ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two-tailed tests).
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 223

Table 4
OLS Regression of Relationship Stability on Relationship Effort and Control Variables
First marriage Non marital cohabiting Divorced cohabiting Remarriage
bSEbSEbSEbSE
Relationship effort
a
0.372 (0.304) 0.017*** 0.411 (0.339) 0.021*** 0.422 (0.370) 0.034*** 0.447 (0.318) 0.056***
Sociodemographic characteristics
Female 0.050 0.024* 0.064 0.030* 0.106 0.048* 0.010 0.079
Age 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.004
Income 0.004 0.005 0.020 0.007** 0.004 0.012 0.002 0.014
Educational attainment
b
High school or less 0.220 0.059*** 0.029 0.069 0.268 0.097** 0.095 0.144
Some college 0.059 0.031 0.020 0.038 0.095 0.058 0.155 0.087
Bachelor’s degree 0.032 0.033 0.050 0.034 0.022 0.061 0.043 0.103
Race/ethnicity
c
Non-Hispanic Black 0.419 0.057*** 0.390 0.064*** 0.626 0.109*** 0.828 0.162***
Asian 0.230 0.063*** 0.110 0.061 0.086 0.100 0.320 0.233
Latino 0.190 0.055** 0.257 0.065*** 0.439 0.111*** 0.148 0.189
Other race/ethnicity 0.107 0.055* 0.067 0.056 0.226 0.090* 0.260 0.151
Religion
d
Catholic 0.119 0.048* 0.173 0.099 0.119 0.182 0.068 0.143
Protestant 0.012 0.039 0.260 0.098** 0.072 0.180 0.055 0.122
Other religion 0.087 0.046 0.212 0.100* 0.084 0.181 0.007 0.135
No religion 0.085 0.053 0.280 0.098** 0.103 0.184 0.219 0.152
Frequently attend church 0.104 0.036** 0.018 0.057 0.036 0.081 0.027 0.096
Family characteristics
Marital orientation 0.189 0.020*** 0.040 0.020 0.029 0.033 0.172 0.053**
Family-of-origin quality 0.108 0.013*** 0.117 0.017*** 0.081 0.026** 0.164 0.037***
Biological child 0.209 0.041*** 0.253 0.075** 0.141 0.115 0.371 0.124**
Non-biological child 0.224 0.041*** 0.166 0.060* 0.133 0.099 0.001 0.083
224 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

Table 4
Continued
First marriage Non marital cohabiting Divorced cohabiting Remarriage
bSEbSEbSEbSE
Duration of relationship 0.030 0.009** 0.147 0.014*** 0.105 0.021*** 0.005 0.028
Constant 2.179 2.799 2.993 1.584
N3,745 2,693 1,005 563
R
2
.341 .261 .284 .225
Source: RELATE.
Notes.
a
Parenthetical values are standardized regression coefficients for relationship effort;
b
reference is graduate education;
c
reference is non-Hispanic
White;
d
reference is Latter-day Saint. ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two-tailed tests).
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 225

Table 5
Main Effects and Interactive Models of Union Type Differences in Satisfaction and Stability
Satisfaction Stability
b(SE) b(SE) b(SE) b(SE)
Relationship effort 0.540*** (0.013) 0.604*** (0.018) 0.405*** (0.013) 0.385*** (0.018)
Union type (vs. first marriage)
Non-marital cohabitation 0 191*** (0.024) 0 591*** (0.090) 0.084** (0.027) 0.193* (0.089)
Divorced cohabitation 0.294***(0.032) 0.836*** (0.126) 0.043(0.031) 0.014 (0.123)
Remarriage 0.043(0.039) 0.083 (0.167) 0.168*** (0.039) 0.454** (0.162)
Effort*non-marital cohabitation 0.126***(0.027) 0.034(0.026)
Effort*divorced cohabitation 0.166*** (0.037) 0.014 (0.123)
Effort*remarriage 0.011(0.050) 0.089 (0.049)
Constant 1.781 1.581 2.382 2.446
N8,006 8,006 8,006 8,006
R
2
.368 .371 .292 .292
Source: RELATE.
Notes. Full controls are included in both the main effects and interactive models. Controls had substantively similar results to those presented in
Tables 3 and 4. ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two-tailed tests).
226 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

faction than first married couples. This may be due to low expectations in cohabiting couples. In
other words, due to the nature of cohabitation and why people cohabit, effort may be less expected
among cohabiters than married couples. Yet, at higher levels of effort, married couples see slightly
higher satisfaction than cohabiters. This is illustrated in Figure 1 which shows the expected value
of relationship satisfaction by effort in first marriage, never-married cohabitation, and divorced
cohabitation. Remarriage is excluded because of non-significant differences. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, however, is the fact that effort has substantial positive effects on relationship satisfaction
among all groups and the differences, although significant, are less substantial than we expected.
Effort-relationship type interactions for relationship stability are also provided in Table 5.
Notably, the main effects model indicates that relationship stability is significantly lower in never-
married cohabiting and remarried couples than first married couples. Yet, the interactive model
shows no differences in the slope of effort on stability. Thus, effort has a similar positive effect on
all relationship types. But, unlike satisfaction, the initial differences in stability are not overcome
by additional relationship effort.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Stability and satisfaction are two common ways to think about how couples are doing. Prior
research has shown these outcomes are affected by sociodemographic characteristics and interper-
sonal processes (e.g., Amato et al., 2007). Although it is commonly understood among scholars,
practitioners, and the general public that good relationships require work, research addressing this
notion is uncommon. The important research and clinical implications of effort for happy and sta-
ble relationships underscores our article, which focused on the association between effort and rela-
tionship satisfaction/perceived stability in different romantic relationships and possible differences
across union type.
We found that working at your relationship is positively associated with satisfaction and sta-
bility, no matter the type of committed relationship. Although our findings are similar to the
results of prior studies, our major contribution is in the use of a large sample and our focus on dif-
ferences in the association between effort and quality in various types of relationships. Prior studies
were limited almost exclusively to married couples, the vast majority of which were in first mar-
riages (e.g., Halford et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2005). Thus, relationship effort seems important to
Figure 1. Union type differences in relationship effort on satisfaction. Only statistically significant
effects are shown in the figure.
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 227

develop high-quality relationships, particularly in relationships that are traditionally thought of as
unstable and unsatisfying—such as cohabitation and remarriage.
We expected the association between effort, satisfaction, and stability to vary across union
type. Notably, we argued that much of this might be associated with the relational uncertainty
inherent to cohabiting and remarital unions, when compared to first marriages. With respect to
satisfaction, we did find differences by union type. Despite slightly higher satisfaction at the lowest
levels of effort for cohabiters, the returns on relationship effort are slightly lower for cohabiters
than first married couples. The higher levels of satisfaction at very low levels effort for cohabiters
may be linked to comparatively low relationship expectations, instability, and other characteristics
which distinguish cohabiters from married couples (Brown, 2004; Cherlin, 2010). Yet, the most
important takeaway from our article should be the nearly universal positive effects that effort has
on satisfaction, regardless of union type.
We also found a positive association between effort and relationship stability in all four rela-
tionship types. But, we found no statistically significant differences in the effect of effort on stability
by union type. Although we acknowledged this possibility, we are somewhat surprised by these
findings given the comparative instability of cohabiting and remarital unions and the potential
positive returns which could result from effort in such relationships. As a result, we can say that
relationship effort is positively associated with perceived stability in all relationship forms, and the
size and strength of that association is similar regardless of one’s union status.
Importantly, we do not advocate for a particular therapeutic model or form of relationship
education. Instead, a common factors approach (Sprenkle & Blow, 2004) might be most appropri-
ate for understanding and applying our findings since our data suggests a positive association
between effort and relationship quality—which could be achieved in various ways. A common fac-
tors framework suggests that no one therapy or model is necessarily better for clients than another.
Instead, the act of getting relevant, applicable, and competent therapy has positive effects. A recent
meta-analysis by Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin and Fawcett (2008) showed that various relation-
ship education programs have very similar effects on increases in satisfaction between pre- and
post-test. This suggests to us that various programs and approaches are valid for producing posi-
tive relationships and committing to improving one’s relationship is a potential key to worthwhile
relationship education and marital therapy (Markman & Rhoades, 2012). Similarly, the notion
that one is doing something to develop positive relationships might be a key component to any
connection between effort and relationship quality (Lebow, Chambers, Christensen & Johnson,
2012).
However, it is worth noting that although we do not advocate for one particular therapeutic
or educational model, there are still important aspects of the client-therapist relationship which
should not be ignored. For example, according to advocates of the common factors approach
(Blow, Davis & Sprenkle, 2012; Simon, 2012a,b), marital and family therapists, social workers,
relationship educators, and other practitioners should align their therapeutic goals and efforts with
those of clients. In other words, a therapist’s notion of change should match that of their client,
which in turn improves the chances of having a positive impact on a relationship. Thus, to the
extent that the amount of effort a couple puts into their relationship is something they are willing
to change, it may prove a helpful strategy to create satisfying and stable relationships. Of course,
this recommendation should be tempered by the fact that our data does not come from therapy or
educational programs and, as a result, cannot be construed as causal. As such, our recommenda-
tions are speculative and require testing in educational and therapeutic settings.
LIMITATIONS
In addition to the representativeness of our data, which we discussed in the method section,
our study is limited in other ways as well. We can only view relationship effort, satisfaction, and
stability through the lens of one partner. Although we include a question about the respondent’s
behavior and reaction to their partner’s behavior, we simply lack a full assessment of respondent
behavior, partner reactions to this behavior, and vice-versa. We suspect that relationship effort is
really a combined effort of both partners and their reactions to these efforts. An additional limita-
tion of our study is that we lack longitudinal data on the relationship between effort, stability, and
228 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

satisfaction. This is likely a dynamic association, changing over time, with significant life events,
and with the general ups and downs of life in a committed relationship. Unfortunately, we can only
provide a snapshot measure in our study. Finally, cohabiting relationships are heterogeneous,
which we cannot capture in our study. Some people are engaged cohabiters, others are in trial mar-
riages, whereas others have slid into living together. This sort of variability may have important
implications for how effort affects stability and satisfaction.
IMPLICATIONS
To summarize our results for practitioner applicability, we find that couples who work at their
relationships have good relationships. This work includes recognition of potential problem areas
in a relationship, how one’s behavior and attitudes contribute to the problem, effort put forth to
change behaviors, and flexibility in strategies after feedback. These are things that practitioners
can help couples learn. How big can the positive effect of effort be? Certainly, our study shows that
effort is associated with substantial positive increases in satisfaction and perceived stability. In
prior research, Halford et al. (2007) found that effort had even stronger effects on relationship sat-
isfaction than communication quality. In this way, relationship effort may be a foundational
behavior for other positive relationship attributes. We want to caution, however, that relationship
effort is not a catch all. Substantial variability in satisfaction and stability remain. And, although
effort was positively correlated with quality in all union types, we did find some union type differ-
ences in its association with satisfaction. Therefore, our study may also signal that a relationship
cannot be improved simply by working harder or having more flexible strategies to create satisfy-
ing and stable relationships—particularly in unique and challenging union types.
Interestingly, we find that effort is strongly associated with perceived stability in the least sta-
ble union types. As a result, practitioners working with cohabiters who desire long-lasting, positive
relationships could help these couples learn how to put forth greater effort in their relationships.
Relationship effort could also improve the satisfaction and stability of remarried couples. How-
ever, remarried couples have the lowest levels of effort, which may be influenced by ties to their for-
mer spouse or issues with stepchildren (Meyer et al., 2012). Given this, it appears that remarried
couples need to put more effort into their relationships than first married couples and take a holis-
tic approach to their new families by working on their own relationships and relationships with
children.
For researchers, our study focused on an overlooked interpersonal process in romantic rela-
tionships. To date, effort and RSR have been largely ignored in the marital quality literature. This
is unfortunate, because a more substantial understanding of interpersonal dynamics and variability
in these dynamics could help us develop richer and more robust theories of satisfaction, stability,
and other aspects of relationship quality. Therefore, we see our article as a jumping-off point for
future inquiry into the effect of effort and other aspects of RSR in marital and non-marital unions.
REFERENCES
Addo, F. R., & Sassler, S. (2010). Financial arrangements and relationship quality in low-income couples. Family
Relations,59, 408–423.
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Fam-
ily,72(3), 650–666.
Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1991). The consequences of divorce for attitudes toward divorce and gender-roles. Jour-
nal of Family Issues,12(3), 306–322.
Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Amato, P. R., Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Rogers, S. J. (2007). Alone together: How marriage in America is
changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high- and low-distress marriages that end in
divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family,69(3), 621–638.
Amato, P. R., Kane, J. B., & James, S. (2011). Reconsidering the “Good Divorce”. Family Relations,60(5), 511–524.
Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being during
early adulthood. Social Forces,73(3), 895–915.
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 229

Blow, A. J., Davis, S. D., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2012). Therapist–worldview matching: Not as important as matching to
clients. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,38,13–17.
Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce well-being. Journal of
Marriage and Family,63(1), 197–212.
Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1992). Starting over –why remarriages are more unstable. Journal of Family Issues,13
(2), 179–194.
Brimhall, A., Wampler, K., & Kimball, T. (2008). Learning from the past, altering the future: A tentative theory of
the effect of past relationships on couples who remarry. Family Process,47(3), 373–387.
Brown, S. L. (2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship quality. Social Science Research,
33(1), 1–19.
Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of
Marriage and Family,58(3), 668–678.
Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. J. (1960). The family, from institution to companionship (2nd ed.). New York: American
Book Co.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009). The association between partner enhancement and self-enhance-
ment and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family,71(3), 449–464.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the individual, family,
cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations,50(4), 308–316.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Walker, E. (2008). Pathways to relationship aggression between adult partners. Fam-
ily Relations,57(1), 72–83.
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family,66(4), 848–
861.
Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage
and Family,72(3), 403–419.
Cole, C. L., & Cole, A. L. (1999). Boundary ambiguities that bind former spouses together after the children leave
home in post-divorce families. Family Relations,48(3), 271–272.
Coleman, M., Fine, M. A., Ganong, L. H., Downs, K. J. M., & Pauk, N. (2001). When you’re not the Brady Bunch:
Identifying perceived conflicts and resolution strategies in stepfamilies. Personal Relationships,8(1), 55–73.
Copen, C. E., Daniels, K., Vespa, J., & Mosher, W. D. (2012). First marriage in the United States: Data from the 2006
–2010 national survey of family growth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Falke, S. I., & Larson, J. H. (2007). Premarital predictors of remarital quality: Implications for clinicians. Contempo-
rary Family Therapy,29(1), 9–23.
Fox, J. (1997). Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Incorporated.
Goldscheider, F., & Sassler, S. (2006). Creating stepfamilies: Integrating children into the study of union formation.
Journal of Marriage and Family,68(2), 275–291.
Golish, T. D. (2003). Stepfamily communication strengths –understanding the ties that bind. Human Communication
Research,29(1), 41–80.
Halford, W. K. (2011). Marriage and relationship education: What works and how to provide it. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Halford, W. K., Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. L., & Occhipinti, S. (2007). Does working at your marriage help? Couple
relationship self-regulation and satisfaction in the first 4 years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology,21(2),
185–194.
Halford, W. K., Sanders, M. R., & Behrens, B. C. (1994). Self-regulation in behavioral couples’ therapy. Behavior
Therapy,25(3), 431–452.
Halford, W. K., Wilson, K., Watson, B., Verner, T., Larson, J., Busby, D., et al. (2010). Couple relationship educa-
tion at home: Does skill training enhance relationship assessment and feedback? Journal of Family Psychology,
24(2), 188–196.
Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education
work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,76(5), 723.
Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality marriages on well-being.
Social Forces,84(1), 451–471.
Huang, P. M., Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Bergstrom-Lynch, C. A. (2011). He says, she says: Gender and
cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues,32(7), 876–905.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed
years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80(2),
237.
Johnson, S. M. (2008). Emotionally focused couple therapy. Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy,4, 107–137.
230 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014

Johnson, D. R., Amoloza, T. O., & Booth, A. (1992). Stability and developmental change in marital quality: A three-
wave panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family,54(3), 582–594.
Johnson, S. M., & Greenman, P. S. (2006). The path to a secure bond: Emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal
of Clinical Psychology,62(5), 597–609.
Lebow, J. L., Chambers, A. L., Christensen, A., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Research on the treatment of couple dis-
tress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,38(1), 145–168.
Lichter, D. T., & Qian, Z. C. (2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of Marriage and Family,
70(4), 861–878.
Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z. C., & Mellott, L. M. (2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabit-
ing women. Demography,43(2), 223–240.
Markman, H. J., & Rhoades, G. K. (2012). Relationship education research: current status and future directions.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,38(1), 169–200.
Meyer, M. J., Larson, J. H., Busby, D., & Harper, J. (2012). Working hard or hardly working? Comparing relation-
ship self-regulation levels of cohabiting, married, and remarried individuals. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,
53(2), 142–155.
Miller, A. J., Sassler, S., & Kusi-Appouh, D. (2011). The specter of divorce: Views from working- and middle-class
cohabitors. Family Relations,60(5), 602–616.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Marriage and Family,69(3), 576–593.
Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shafer, K. (2012). Unique matching patterns in remarriage: Educational assortative mating among divorced men and
women. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0192513X12459020.
Simon, G. M. (2012a). The role of the therapist in common factors: Continuing the dialogue. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy,38,1–7.
Simon, G. M. (2012b). The role of the therapist: What effective therapists do. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
38,8–12.
Skinner, K. B., Bahr, S. J., Crane, D. R., & Call, V. R. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, and remarriage –a compari-
son of relationship quality over time. Journal of Family Issues,23(1), 74–90.
Smock, P. J. (2004). The wax and wane of marriage: Prospects for marriage in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage
and Family,66(4), 966–973.
Sprenkle, D. H., & Blow, A. J. (2004). Common factors and our sacred models. Journal of Marital and Family Ther-
apy,30(2), 113–129.
Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century.
Journal of Marriage and Family,72(3), 667–684.
Teachman, J. D. (2002). Childhood living arrangements and the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of
Marriage and Family,64(3), 717–729.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2012). Deseret News 2012 church almanac. Deseret News.
Umberson, D., & Williams, K. (2005). Marital quality, health, and aging: Gender equity? The Journals of Gerontol-
ogy. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,60(2), S109–S113.
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D. A., Liu, H., & Needham, B. (2006). You make me sick: Marital quality and
health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,47(1), 1–16.
Von Hippel, P. T. (2007). Regression with missing Ys: An improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data.
Sociological Methodology,37(1), 83–117.
Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2012). Correlates of attitudes toward cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues,33
(11), 1450–1476.
Wilson, K. L., Charker, J., Lizzio, A., Halford, K., & Kimlin, S. (2005). Assessing how much couples work at their
relationship: The behavioral self-regulation for effective relationships scale. Journal of Family Psychology,19(3),
385–393.
Wolfinger, N. H. (2011). More evidence for trends in the intergenerational transmission of divorce: A completed
cohort approach using data from the general social survey. Demography,48(2), 581–592.
Xu, X., Hudspeth, C. D., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2006). The role of cohabitation in remarriage. Journal of Marriage and
Family,68(2), 261–274.
Young, V., Curran, M., & Totenhagen, C. (2012). A daily diary study: Working to change the relationship and
relational uncertainty in understanding positive relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0265407512453826.
NOTES
1
We use perceived stability and stability interchangeably for sake of parsimony.
April 2014 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 231

2
Nevertheless, we did use stability as a control variable in our analysis of satisfaction and
vice-versa. The association of effort with measures of quality was substantively similar in both
magnitude and statistical significance. In supplemental analyses we used structural equation
modeling and correlated the two measures together which produced substantively similar results,
as well. However, we do not report the results here because the inclusion of different measures of
quality in models predicting other dimensions of quality is extremely uncommon in the literature
(Amato et al., 2007).
3
Standardized values are not reported for control variables because they are not appropriate
for dichotomous or categorical variables (Fox, 1997). Standardized values for continuous control
variables are available upon request.
4
Notably, standardized regression coefficients cannot be fit for interaction effects (Fox, 1997).
In order to show the size of differences across union type, we provide Figure 1 which we discuss in
detail below.
5
Interactions between union status and these variables showed there were no significant differ-
ences in intercept and slope between first married and never-married cohabiters. Although we con-
trol for age and relationship duration in all models, these results suggest that this unexpected result
is likely due to differences in the subsamples of cohabiters and married couples. Although not pre-
sented here, these results are available from the authors upon request.
232 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2014