The dyadic influences of mindfulness on relationship functioning

Abstract

Using family stress and coping theory, the current study assessed dyadic influences of specific facets of mindfulness (nonreactivity, acting with awareness, and nonjudgment), accounting for stress levels, on relationship quality and sexual satisfaction in an ethnically and economically diverse sample of 847 married and unmarried heterosexual couples. Results from actor–partner interdependence models indicated a positive association between one’s own report and partners’ report of nonreactivity and one’s own reports of relationship quality for both men and women. Men’s and women’s acting with awareness was associated with women’s sexual satisfaction. Nonjudgment was not uniquely associated with one’s own or one’s partner’s relationship quality or sexual satisfaction. Since the majority of research on mindfulness and relationship quality uses broad global measures of mindfulness, this study provides novel information on the comparative strength of dimensions of mindfulness on distinct areas of couple functioning using a dyadic approach. Suggestions for future work and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Full text

Article
The dyadic influences
of mindfulness on
relationship functioning
Julianne M. McGill
Leah K. Burke
Francesca Adler-Baeder
Auburn University, USA
Abstract
Using family stress and coping theory, the current study assessed dyadic influences of
specific facets of mindfulness (nonreactivity,acting with awareness,andnonjudgment),
accounting for stress levels, on relationship quality and sexual satisfaction in an ethnically
and economically diverse sample of 847 married and unmarried heterosexual couples.
Results from actor–partner interdependence models indicated a positive association
between one’s own report and partners’ report of nonreactivity and one’s own reports of
relationship quality for both men and women. Men’s and women’s acting with awareness
was associated with women’s sexual satisfaction. Nonjudgment was not uniquely associ-
ated with one’s own or one’s partner’s relationship quality or sexual satisfaction. Since the
majority of research on mindfulness and relationship quality uses broad global measures of
mindfulness, this study provides novel information on the comparative strength of
dimensions of mindfulness on distinct areas of couple functioning using a dyadic approach.
Suggestions for future work and implications for research and practice are discussed.
Keywords
Actor–partner interdependence model, mindfulness, relationship quality, sexual
satisfaction, stress
Corresponding author:
Julianne M. McGill, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Auburn University, 203 Spidle
Hall, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
Email: mclanjm@auburn.edu
Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships
2020, Vol. 37(12) 2941–2951
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0265407520944243
journals.sagepub.com/home/spr
J S P R

Introduction
Broadly, mindfulness is conceptualized as “the awareness that emerges through paying
attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally to the unfolding
experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145). Based on this definition,
there are multiple components involved in mindfulness and its practice. Baer and col-
leagues (2006) delineated five mindfulness facets—nonreactivity to inner experience,
observing thoughts/feelings,acting with awareness,describing with words, and non-
judging of experience. This opened the door to the possibility of exploring the relative
influence of specific facets of mindfulness on individual and relational functioning.
Mindfulness research has historically focused on individual benefits (e.g., Brown &
Ryan, 2003) and indicates positive benefits for individual mental and physical health
(e.g., Grossman et al., 2004). More recently, research has considered relational outcomes
influenced by mindfulness, such as romantic relationship quality (e.g., Karremans et al.,
2017). Specifically, a systematic review of the literature (Kozlowski, 2013) and a recent
meta-analysis (McGill et al., 2016) indicate that higher levels of overall mindfulness are
associated with higher ratings of relationship satisfaction. Further, a growing number of
mindfulness studies have considered other indicators linked to relationship health, such
as sexual satisfaction (e.g., Khaddouma et al., 2015, 2017; Silverstein et al., 2011).
These studies indicate that mindfulness training can assist couples in experiencing
more sexual satisfaction in their relationship (Khaddouma et al., 2017). Specifically, the
increased awareness developed through mindfulness training improved females’ sexual
functioning and physiological response (Silverstein et al., 2011). Another study found
that sexual satisfaction fully mediated the association between two facets of mindfulness
(observing and nonjudging of inner experience) and relationship satisfaction in a sample
of young adults (Khaddouma et al., 2015).
Another area of growth in the study of mindfulness and relationships are the recent
studies that consider the dyadic influence of mindfulness on relationships. Findings are
mixed, however, with some studies finding some support for partner effects of mind-
fulness (Lenger et al., 2017; Williams & Cano, 2014; Zamir et al., 2017) and other
studies finding no support for the influence of partner (Barnes et al., 2007; Pakenham &
Samios, 2013; Schellekens et al., 2016). Most of these studies did not include an
emphasis on specific dimensions of mindfulness and used more global assessments.
One exception was Lenger and colleagues’ (2007) dyadic study of the influence of
five mindfulness facets on relationship quality. They found that only nonreactivity was
uniquely important to one’s spouse’s relationship satisfaction—indicating the value of
distinguishing aspects of mindfulness for greater clarity in patterns. Because their study
used a homogenous sample of 164 White, high-resource, long-term married couples,
replication with more diverse samples of couples, like in the current study, will add to a
better understanding and greater ability to generalize findings.
Most prior research on couple relationships and mindfulness lacked explicit
descriptions of theoretical underpinnings; however, there is an encouraging trend
toward utilizing theory in this area of research. Karremans et al. (2017) present a the-
oretical framework, built on empirical literature, of the influence of mindfulness on
romantic relationship processes and, ultimately, relationship satisfaction. Specifically,
2942 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37(12)

they suggest that mindfulness is linked with emotional skills, which in turn are linked to
relationship-specific behavioral responses, which in turn are linked to one’s own and
one’s partner’s relationship satisfaction.
In addition to utilizing the dyadic aspects of Karremans et al.’s (2017) framework, we
incorporated principles from family stress and coping theory (FSCT; Patterson, 2002) in
the current study. Family stress and coping theorists take a systemic approach and
emphasize strengths and skills that are essential for successful family adaptation in the
context of stress. Mindfulness is considered an individual resource, skill, or character-
istic that has the ability to positively influence one’s own relationship functioning in the
context of stress (McGill & Adler-Baeder, 2019). Empirical evidence supports these
assumptions. For example, a recent study found that mindfulness enhances individuals’
use of positive emotion regulation skills in the face of stressful situations (Dixon &
Overall, 2016), and another study found that mindfulness buffers against the effects of
anxious attachment in a relationship (Saavedra et al., 2010).
Current study
In the current study, we built upon the one previous study assessing dyadic influences of
mindfulness facets on relationship quality (Lenger et al., 2017). We utilized a larger,
more racially and economically diverse sample of married and unmarried couples; we
explicate an FSCT approach and considered the confounding influence of stress on
relationship functioning; and we included assessment of both relationship quality and
sexual satisfaction as relational outcomes. Our research questions center on testing in the
same model the intraindividual and cross-partner associations (i.e., actor–partner
interdependence model [APIM]) between indicators of relationship functioning, stress,
and three mindfulness facets. We expected to uncover the relative importance of distinct
mindfulness facets, accounting for stress levels, on self and partner for both relationship
quality and sexual satisfaction.
Method
Procedures and participants
Couples from across a southeastern state were recruited as part of a randomized control
trial (RCT) examining the efficacy of couple relationship education programs. Couples
were eligible for the RCT if both partners were 19 years or older and were in a committed
(self-defined) couple relationship. The current study used baseline data only to examine
concurrent links among variables. Procedures were guided by a research protocol
approved by a university IRB for Human Subjects.
The original sample was composed of 929 couples in which one or both completed the
baseline survey. Due to the dyadic nature of the current study, the analytic sample
consisted the 847 heterosexual couples that enrolled in the RCT and provided complete
data sets (i.e., both individuals in the couple completed a baseline survey). Same-sex
couples (N¼15) also were not included because the method utilized in the current study
requires distinguishable groups. The racial background reported was 61%White, 34%
McGill et al. 2943

Black, and 5%other races. The average age of respondents was 37 years. The sample
reported a wide range of household income: 31%reported less than US$25,000; 44%
reported between US$25,000 and US$74,999; and 25%reported above US$75,000. The
majority (69%) were married, and the remaining 31%were in a committed relationship.
Measures
Mindfulness. Three facet subscales—nonreactivity,acting with awareness,and nonjud-
ging—from the Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006)
were used to assess participants’ level of mindfulness. The survey included items only
for these three, since they were directly related to concepts taught in the relationship
education programs. This is in line with suggestions from Baer (2011), the creator of the
FFMQ, who notes that the observing subscale may be confusing to non-meditating
participants and the describing subscale may not be relevant to certain mindfulness
training approaches. This suggestion is especially important considering our community-
based sample, on the whole, likely did not have a meditation background or had not
received mindfulness training. Five items were used for each of the subscales. Responses
ranged from 1 (never or very rarely true)to5(very often or always true). For easier
interpretability, items were reverse coded so that higher scores indicate higher levels of
each mindful facet. Reliability was good for all three: nonreactivity (a¼.74), acting
with awareness (a¼.83), and nonjudging (a¼.78). In our sample, significant corre-
lations among the three facets range from .07 to .53, indicating facets represent related
but distinct constructs.
Stress. A global item, “How would you rate your overall level of stress?,” was used to
assess perception of stress. Responses ranged from 1 (no stress)to7(high stress), thus
higher scores indicate higher perceptions of stress.
Relationship quality. Three items from the Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983) were
used to assess respondents’ reports of relationship quality. The 3 items were, “We have a
good relationship,” “Our relationship is strong,” and “My relationship makes me happy.”
Response options formed a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from very strongly disagree
(1) to very strongly agree (7); mean scores were computed and higher scores indicate
higher relationship quality. The acoefficient for internal consistency indicated excellent
reliability (a¼.95).
Sexual satisfaction. Three items from the Sexual Function Index (Rosen et al., 2000) were
used to assess respondents’ reports of sexual satisfaction. The 3 items focused on how
satisfied respondents were with, “the amount of emotional closeness during sexual
activity,” “the sexual relationship with your partner,” and “your overall sexual life.”
Response options formed a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very dissatisfied (1) to
very satisfied (5); mean scores were computed and higher scores indicate higher ratings
of sexual satisfaction. The acoefficient for internal consistency indicated excellent
reliability (a¼.89).
2944 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37(12)

Results
IBM SPSS Amos 25 was used to test a series of APIMs to examine whether individuals’
reports of three mindfulness facets were linked to relationship quality and sexual
satisfaction for themselves and for their partners, accounting for reported level of global
stress. Before testing the models, variables were analyzed for normal distribution of data
for both men and women. Each variable was normally distributed and did not require
transformation (George & Mallery, 2010). Bivariate correlations were also assessed to
understand basic associations among study variables. Results indicated small to mod-
erate significant correlations (r¼|.12–.53|) between predictors and outcome measures
for both men and women. Because men’s and women’s nonreactivity, acting with
awareness, and nonjudgment were not significantly correlated (r¼.01 to .13) with one
another, we did not include these covariances in the final models.
Relationship quality
The goodness of fit indices for the APIM assessing the baseline associations among
nonreactivity, acting with awareness, nonjudgment, stress, and relationship quality
indicated an acceptable fit of data to the model (w
2
¼76.97, df ¼15, p¼.000; CFI ¼
.96; RMSEA ¼.07, p¼.02). The model (see Figure 1) predicted 11%and 14%of the
variance in men’s and women’s relationship quality, respectively.
Accounting for all other variables in the model, men’s and women’s reports of
nonreactivity were the most closely related to their own reports of relationship quality
Figure 1. Results from APIMs assessing the association between mindfulness and relationship
quality. w
2
¼76.97, df ¼15, p< .001; CFI ¼.96. APIM ¼actor–partner interdependence model.
McGill et al. 2945

(men: b¼.20; p< .001; women: b¼.12; p< .001). There were no unique actor effects
for acting with awareness or nonjudgment for men or women on relationship quality.
In addition, both men’s and women’s reports of nonreactivity were positively and
significantly associated with partners’ reports of relationship quality (b¼.15; p< .001;
b¼.11; p¼.050). There are no unique partner effects evident for acting with awareness
or nonjudgment for men or women on relationship quality.
Sexual satisfaction
The goodness of fit indices for the APIM assessing the baseline associations among
nonreactivity, acting with awareness, nonjudgment, stress, and sexual satisfaction
indicated an acceptable fit of data to the model (w
2
¼76.76, df ¼15, p< .001; CFI ¼.95;
RMSEA ¼.07, p¼.02). The model (see Figure 2) predicted 12%and 11%of the
variance in men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction, respectively.
Accounting for all other variables in the model, actor effects were evident for reports
of men’s nonreactivity (b¼.11; p¼.002) and women’s acting with awareness (b¼.11;
p¼.006) on sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction was most closely and positively
related to acting with awareness for women and to nonreactivity for men. There were no
unique actor effects for nonjudgment on sexual satisfaction for men or women.
In addition, men’s reports of acting with awareness (b¼.08; p¼.048) were posi-
tively and significantly associated with their partner’s reports of sexual satisfaction.
There were no unique partner effects for nonreactivity or nonjudgment of experience on
sexual satisfaction for men or women.
Figure 2. Results from APIMs assessing the association between mindfulness and sexual satis-
faction. w
2
¼76.76, df ¼15, p< .001; CFI ¼.95. APIM ¼actor–partner interdependence model.
2946 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37(12)

Discussion
The current study adds to the dyadic research centered on mindfulness and romantic
relationships and provides new insight into the facets of mindfulness and their relative
value for two aspects of relationship well-being. We built upon Lenger and colleagues’
(2017) study by utilizing a more racially diverse sample of married and unmarried
couples, by considering level of stress, and by considering both sexual satisfaction and
relationship quality. The current study demonstrates the importance of nonreactivity for
one’s own and one’s partner’s reports of relational quality, as well as women’s own and
their partners’ acting with awareness for women’s reports of sexual satisfaction across a
diverse population of couples. In the context of these two dimensions of mindfulness and
stress, nonjudgment practices were not uniquely associated with either one’s own or
one’s partner’s relational outcomes. These findings are framed within a family stress and
coping theoretical framework and highlight specific strengths that can be targeted for
interventions focused on maintaining and improving couple relational health and overall
family functioning.
Overall, nonreactivity—the ability to notice feelings or thoughts and not immediately
react to them—was an especially important facet, above and beyond other facets for
assessments of relationship quality. Lenger and colleagues (2017) also found that non-
reactivity was important for one’s partner’s report of relationship satisfaction. This facet,
requiring skills in noticing and self-regulation of potentially negative reactivity/defen-
siveness, is a key element of healthy relationships functioning, particularly interactions
during conflict and stress (Levenson & Gottman, 1985). Overall, a body of research
confirms that when one or both partners can listen without reacting negatively, argu-
ments may have less negative overtones, which is linked to higher quality relationships.
Acting with awareness, or turning off one’s automatic pilot or distractions and
behaving purposefully, was the facet of mindfulness most strongly related to sexual
satisfaction. Our findings provide an intersection between studies of mindfulness and
studies of sexual health for couples. An especially novel finding was that the more
important mindfulness dimension for women’s reports of their sexual satisfaction was
their own as well as their partner’s report of acting with awareness. This is noteworthy
because no unique partner effect for acting with awareness was found for relationship
quality, indicating that dimensions of mindfulness may be more or less important,
depending on the aspect of relationship functioning of interest.
Our finding is in line with previous research on women’s sexual satisfaction that also
indicated women’s ability to act with awareness may be particularly important for their
own reports of sexual functioning (Silverstein et al., 2011). The findings of our study add
the information that women’s partners’ ability to act with awareness also uniquely
predicts women’s reports of sexual satisfaction. This mindful practice conveys attune-
ment to self and other and mindful engagement. We interpret this finding to mean that it
is the combination of one’s own and one’s partner’s ability to act with awareness that
may be particularly meaningful for women in the context of intimate experiences with
their partners.
There were no unique and significant paths between relational outcomes and non-
judgment, the ability to be an impartial witness to each moment, when considering the
McGill et al. 2947

other facets of mindfulness in the model, and accounting for stress. This is counter to
Lenger and colleagues’ (2017) findings that nonjudgment was the only significant pre-
dictor of one’s own relationship quality while simultaneously considering the other four
facets. This discrepancy may be a reflection of the differing characteristics of the samples
and suggests that replication of our findings in other diverse samples is necessary. It may
also reflect a measurement issue. The nonjudging items in the measure used in this study
are individually focused (e.g., “I make judgements about whether my thoughts are good or
bad.”) and do not capture judgment of partner in the couple relationship. For future studies
of mindfulness and couple functioning, we recommend adaptation of items to better
capture the dynamic processes of interactions in relationships.
The findings of this study advance our understanding of point-in-time relationships
among specific elements of mindfulness and elements of relationship functioning within
a couple dyad. We encourage future work that assesses relationships across time to
provide a more accurate picture of both normative influences between relationship
functioning and mindfulness practices and the value of targeting mindfulness elements in
intervention. Based on the novel partner effects found, we encourage future research to
continue consideration of dyadic influences.
The total variance in relationship quality predicted in the model was 11–14%, which
is comparable to other studies assessing the relationship between mindfulness and
relationship quality (11–18%; Kappen et al., 2018; Wachs & Cordova, 2007). Clearly,
other unmeasured predictors of relationship quality account for additional variance. We
do note that our more diverse sample of participants both makes it more challenging to
find strong associations and allows us to assert greater generalizability of our findings to
a more diverse group of couples. Finally, we encourage future explorations of the
diversity that may validate both differences and similarities in these patterns of asso-
ciations between subgroups of couples.
Finally, based on the findings of the current study, we encourage those working with
couples in prevention and intervention settings to integrate mindfulness-based practices.
There is a growing trend of incorporating mindfulness activities and training into therapy
and educational programs for couples (e.g., Bihari & Mullan, 2014; Carson et al., 2004);
however, limited studies exist exploring particular areas and practices of mindfulness
that are more salient predictors of relationship quality than others which can inform
program content. Because the current study examined specific dimensions of mind-
fulness and their influence on relationship functioning, we can suggest that emphasizing
practices in nonreactivity (e.g., learning and using body scan techniques) and acting with
awareness (e.g., practicing mindful conversations that include “mindful pause and plan”
responses) may be especially valuable in cultivating positive couple relationships.
Conclusions
This study represents an advancement in the study of couple dyadic processes and
combines mindfulness, relationship quality, and couple sexual functioning literature. We
incorporated a theoretical framework that includes family stress and considers mind-
fulness practices as a strength related to individuals’ and their partners’ relationship
well-being. We found evidence of dyadic influences and the comparative saliency of
2948 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37(12)

nonreactivity for relationship quality and acting with awareness in sexual satisfaction.
Because distinct dimensions of mindfulness were associated with these relationship
outcomes, we encourage continued efforts to explore the distinct role of different facets
of mindfulness in relationship functioning and testing of increasingly complex models to
further our empirical base for practice and policy.
Authors’ note
A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the National Council on Family Relations
Annual Conference in 2018.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was supported by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration of Children and Families under Grant #90FM0082.
ORCID iD
Julianne M. McGill https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3226-1777
Open research statement
As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the
following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the
research are available. The data and materials can be obtained by emailing: mclanjm@auburn.edu.
References
Baer, R. A. (2011). Measuring mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism,12(1), 241–261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14639947.2011.564842
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment,13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1073191105283504
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The role of
mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship stress. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy,33(4), 482–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.
00033.x
Bihari, J. L. N., & Mullan, E. G. (2014). Relating mindfully: A qualitative exploration of changes
in relationships through mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. Mindfulness,5(1), 46–59.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0146-x
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84(4), 822–848.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Mindfulness-based relationship
enhancement. Behavior Therapy,35(3), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-
7894(04)80028-5
Dixon, H. C., & Overall, N. C. (2016). Dispositional mindfulness attenuates the link between
daily stress and depressed mood. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,35(3), 255–268.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2016.35.3.255
McGill et al. 2949

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and
reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction
and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,57(1), 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.
bpg016
Kappen, G., Karremans, J. C., Burk, W. J., & Buyukcan-Tetik, A. (2018). On the association
between mindfulness and romantic relationship satisfaction: The role of partner acceptance.
Mindfulness,9(5), 1543–1556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0902-7
Karremans, J. C., Schellekens, M. P. J., & Kappen, G. (2017). Bridging the sciences of mind-
fulness and romantic relationships: A theoretical model and research agenda. Personality and
Social Psychology Review,21(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315615450
Khaddouma, A., Coop Gordon, K., & Bolden, J. (2015). Zen and the art of sex: Examining
associations among mindfulness, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in dating
relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,30(2), 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14681994.2014.992408
Khaddouma, A., Coop Gordon, K., & Strand, E. B. (2017). Mindful mates: A pilot study of the
relational effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on participants and their partners.
Family Process,56(3), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12226
Kozlowski, A. (2013). Mindful mating: Exploring the connection between mindfulness and rela-
tionship satisfaction. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,28(1-2), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14681994.2012.748889
Lenger, K. A., Gordon, C. L., & Nguyen, S. P. (2017). Intra-individual and cross-partner associa-
tions between the five facets of mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. Mindfulness,8(1),
171–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0590-0
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change
in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49(1), 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.85
McGill, J., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2019). Exploring the link between mindfulness and relation-
ship quality: Direct and indirect pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12412
McGill, J., Adler-Baeder, F., & Rodriguez, P. (2016). Mindfully in love: A meta-analysis of the
association between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Human Sciences and
Extension,4(1), 89–101. https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/623/678
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302
Pakenham, K. I., & Samios, C. (2013). Couples coping with multiple sclerosis: A dyadic perspec-
tive on the roles of mindfulness and acceptance. JournalofBehavioralMedicine,36(4),
389–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-012-9434-0
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage
and Family,64(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00349.x
Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsign, R., Ferguson, D., &
D’Agostino, R. (2000). The female sexual function index (FSFI): A multidimensional
2950 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37(12)

self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy,26(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278597
Saavedra, M. C., Chapman, K. E, & &Rogge, R. D. (2010). Clarifying links between attachment
and relationship quality: Hostile conflict and mindfulness as moderators. Journal of Family
Psychology,24(4), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019872
Schellekens, M. P. J., Karremans, J. C., van der Drift, M. A., Molema, J., van den Hurk, D. G. M.,
Prins, J. B., & Speckens, A. E. M. (2016). Are mindfulness and self-compassion related to
psychological distress and communication in couples facing lung cancer? A dyadic approach.
Mindfulness,8(2), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0602-0
Silverstein, R. G., Brown, A. H., Roth, H. D., & Britton, W. B. (2011). Effects of mindfulness
training on body awareness to sexual stimuli: Implications for female sexual dysfunction.
Psychosomatic Medicine,73(9), 817–825. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e318234e628
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulnesss and emotion
repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,33(4),
464–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x
Williams, A. M, & Cano, A. (2014). Spousal mindfulness and social support in couples with
chronic pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain,30(6), 528–535. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.
0000000000000009
Zamir, X., Gewirtz, X., & Zhang, X. (2017). Actor–partner associations of mindfulness and
marital quality after military deployment. Family Relations,66(3), 412–424. https://doi.org/
10.1111/fare.12266
McGill et al. 2951