ArticlePDF Available

Profile Similarities Among Romantic Partners' Character Strengths and Their Associations with Relationship- and Life Satisfaction

May 2022
Journal of Research in Personality 99:104248

DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104248

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Kay Brauer

Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg

Rebekka Sendatzki

Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg

Willibald Ruch

University of Zurich

Show all 5 authorsHide

We studied the similarity among partners' character strengths (i.e., positively valued traits) across two studies. In Study 1, N = 68 couples completed the 240-item VIA Inventory of Strengths and in Study 2, N = 143 couples completed a 24-item brief-form and measures of life-and relationship satisfaction. We computed raw, normative, and distinctive profile similarities for the 24 strengths and found support for partners' similarity in both studies (normative: rs ≥ .84; raw: rs ≥.23; distinctive: rs ≥ .06). Actor-Partner Interdependence Model analyses (Study 2) provided no evidence for the notion that similarity relates to couples' satisfaction. We discuss our findings regarding prior research, assortative mating preferences, and extensions to the study of partner-and ideal partner perceptions.

Normative Profiles of Character Strengths Assessed With the 240-item VIA-IS for the Women and Men in Study 1.

…

Figures - uploaded by Kay Brauer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Kay Brauer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Kay Brauer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

Available online 29 May 2022

Prole similarities among romantic partners’ character strengths and their

associations with relationship- and life satisfaction

Kay Brauer

, Rebekka Sendatzki

, Fabian Gander

, Willibald Ruch

, Ren´

e T. Proyer

Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

University of Basel, Switzerland

University of Zurich, Switzerland

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model

Character strengths

Partner similarity

Prole similarity

Romantic relationships

Relationship satisfaction

Values in action

ABSTRACT

We studied the similarity among partners’ character strengths (i.e., positively valued traits) across two studies. In

Study 1, N =68 couples completed the 240-item VIA Inventory of Strengths and in Study 2, N =143 couples

completed a 24-item brief-form and measures of life- and relationship satisfaction. We computed raw, normative,

and distinctive prole similarities for the 24 strengths and found support for partners’ similarity in both studies

(normative: rs ≥0.84; raw: rs ≥0.23; distinctive: rs ≥0.06). Actor-Partner Interdependence Model analyses

(Study 2) provided no evidence for the notion that similarity relates to couples’ satisfaction. We discuss our

ndings regarding prior research, assortative mating preferences, and extensions to the study of partner- and

ideal partner perceptions.

1. Introduction

Romantic relationships are positive institutions that contribute to

well-being and positive experiences (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,

2014) and most adults strive to establish and maintain close relation-

ships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Human mating is far from random

and partner similarity relates to the formation and longevity of re-

lationships (e.g., Buss, 1994, 2016). Common wisdom (e.g., “birds of a

feather ock together”) aligns with the similarity attraction hypothesis,

which assumes that people are attracted to others who are similar to

themselves in a variety of variables, including personality traits (e.g.,

Buss, 1994; Byrne, 1971, 1997). Empirical research has provided robust

support for the notion that similarity attracts and that partners are on

average similar at the on-set as well as later phases of relationships (for

an overview, see Luo, 2017; Montoya et al., 2008). While many studies

have examined partner similarity for broad personality traits such as the

big ve and HEXACO traits, research on character strengths in close

relationships has received comparatively little attention thus far, which

is surprising given that several character strengths are among the traits

most sought after in potential partners (e.g., Buss & Barnes, 1986).

Particularly, we are not aware of research on partner similarity in

character strengths. This is surprising as the core criterion for the

denition of character strengths (“A strength contributes to various

fulllments that comprise the good life, for the self and for others.”)

implies that character strengths may be benecial to the partner

(Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 17). We aimed to narrow this gap in the

literature by studying the similarity in romantic partners’ proles of

character strengths across two studies. In addition, we used Actor-

Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005) analyses

to study whether prole similarities are associated with relationship

satisfaction (RS) and life satisfaction (LS).

1.1. Character strengths

Character strengths are morally positively valued personality traits

and Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) Values-in-Action (VIA) classica-

tion of strengths and virtues covers 24 character strengths. These are

assigned to six broader virtues (i.e., wisdom, courage, humanity, justice,

temperance, and transcendence). Peterson and Seligman selected the

strengths based on ten criteria (e.g., they must be fullling, morally

valued, or not diminishing others when displayed, for an evaluation of

these criteria, see Ruch & Stahlmann, 2019). The strengths relate

differentially to outcomes such as well-being and LS (Baumann et al.,

2020; Buschor et al., 2013), posttraumatic growth (Peterson et al., 2006)

* Corresponding author at: Emil-Abderhalden-Str. 26-27, 06099 Halle, Germany.

E-mail addresses: kay.brauer@psych.uni-halle.de (K. Brauer), rebekka.sendatzki@psych.uni-halle.de (R. Sendatzki), mail@fabiangander.ch (F. Gander), w.ruch@

psychologie.uzh.ch (W. Ruch), rene.proyer@psych.uni-halle.de (R.T. Proyer).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104248

Received 21 December 2021; Received in revised form 21 May 2022; Accepted 25 May 2022

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

and growth after collective life events such as the COVID-19 pandemic

(Gander & Wagner, 2021), health behaviors (Proyer et al., 2013), and

work-related outcomes such as job performance (Harzer et al., 2021), to

name but a few.

Seligman’s (2012) PERMA (R indicating “Relationships”) model of

ourishing posits that (positive) relationships are an important foun-

dation for well-being. Empirical ndings support this notion. For

example, studies showed robust associations between self-reports of

engaging in positive relationships and LS and ourishing (Gander et al.,

2017), and daily exercises to increase attention to relationships in day-

to-day life improved well-being and alleviated depressiveness in a

placebo-controlled randomized control study (Gander et al., 2016).

Moreover, Seligman proposes that the use and enactment of strengths

contribute to ourishing in the domain of relationships; particularly for

those strengths that play a role in social settings and might affect how

oneself but also the partner experiences the relationship (e.g., self-

regulation, kindness, and gratitude). In line with the personality-

relationship transaction model (Mund et al., 2016; Neyer & Asen-

dorpf, 2001), which posits that personality traits affect how people

interact with their social environment and considering that character

strengths are dened as fullling, morally valued, and do not diminish

others (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), we argue that character strengths

contribute to the formation and experience of relationships and how

people interact with their partner. Initial ndings support this notion, as,

for example, character strengths predicted being accepted by peers and

experiencing friendship quality even at an early age (Wagner, 2019).

However, the role of the VIA strengths is comparatively understudied in

romantic life.

1.2. Character strengths in romantic life

Although theoretical and empirical research has highlighted the role

of character strengths for, particularly close, relationships (e.g., Peter-

son & Seligman, 2004; Ruch et al., 2018; Seligman, 2012; Wagner,

2019), to the best of our knowledge, only two studies have thus far

examined the VIA character strengths in romantic relationships. Using a

sample of 177 opposite-sex adult couples, Boiman-Meshita and Littman-

Ovadia (2022) tested the associations between the higher-order strength

factors caring (including the character strengths of gratitude, kindness,

love, teamwork, social intelligence, and leadership), self-control (pru-

dence, perseverance, self-regulation, honesty, and humility), and

inquisitiveness (curiosity, creativity, zest, bravery, love of learning, and

hope) and marital satisfaction, intimacy, and burnout. APIM analyses

showed positive actor effects of the strength factors for all study vari-

ables and positive associations with their partner’s RS (i.e., partner ef-

fects). Supplementary analyses showed positive actor effects for the

single strengths (except for appreciation of beauty, gratitude, and humor

in men; prudence in women). Further, they found positive partner ef-

fects of creativity, curiosity, fairness, forgiveness (in women), gratitude

(in women), honesty, hope, humility, judgment, prudence, self-

regulation, social intelligence, teamwork, and zest on RS. Hence, char-

acter strengths relate to indicators of RS in actors and in some cases their

partner’s, which is in accordance with Peterson and Seligman’s (2004)

notion of character strengths being benecial for oneself and the part-

ner. In addition, they found robust similarity among partners’ higher-

order strength factors, with coefcients between 0.21 and 0.27. How-

ever, similarity ndings for single strengths were not reported and as-

sociations between partners’ similarity in strengths and RS were not

tested.

Weber and Ruch (2012) examined the partner similarity of 87

adolescent couples (mean age: 16.5 years) with analyses of self- and

ideal partner ratings of the 24 character strengths assessed with an age-

appropriate measure, the German version of the VIA-Youth (Park &

Peterson, 2006; Ruch et al., 2014). They found overall positive partner

similarity correlations (≥0.20) for creativity, bravery, honesty, zest,

fairness, perseverance, teamwork, fairness, beauty, gratitude, hope, and

spirituality. Moreover, Weber and Ruch tested whether similarity

(measured as absolute differences between partners’ scores in strengths,

i.e., greater differences indicate higher dissimilarity) relates to LS.

Multiple regression analyses, including the strengths of actors (Step 1),

partners (Step 2), and the couples’ dissimilarity scores (Step 3), showed

mixed ndings: For boys, similarity in perseverance, zest, forgiveness,

and humor was associated with their LS, whereas similarity in honesty

and teamwork was associated with girls’ LS. Further, they found

consensus in partners’ desires for an ideal partner’s expressions in the

strengths when computing the rank-order correlation (r =0.89). Weber

and Ruch’s study suggests that adolescents show assortative mating

preferences and partner similarity concerning the VIA strengths.

Taken together, the ndings of these studies support the notion that

individual differences in character strengths relate to how people

experience their relationship and provide preliminary support for the

notion that partners are similar in their strengths. However, an analysis

of the similarity in the full proles of the strengths and an examination of

their associations with relationship outcomes in a well-powered adult

sample is thus far missing.

1.3. Partner similarity in romantic couples

The role of partner similarity has received major interest in research

on romantic relationships. Studies testing the degree of partner simi-

larity showed systematic similarity across a wide range of variables, and

similarity has been argued to play a role for initial romantic attraction,

satisfaction with and the longevity of relationships, and the heritability

of traits (e.g., Buss, 1994, 2016; Byrne, 1971, 1997; Luo, 2017; Watson

et al., 2004, 2014; Weidmann et al., 2016). Hence, the study of similarity

concerns two distinct questions; namely, the description (i.e., “how

similar are partners?”) and the effects of similarity (i.e., “does similarity

relate to outcomes such as romantic interest, relationship satisfaction, or

longevity of a relationship?”).

Description of similarity. The description of similarity concerns

quantifying the degree of similarity among partners. Luo (2017) sug-

gests distinguishing between assortative mating, partner similarity, and

potential mechanisms for why partners match non-randomly: “Whereas

A[ssortative]M[ating] specically refers to initial partner similarity

evident at the beginning of the relationship that reects active or passive

assortment, (couple) similarity refers to partner similarity at any point of

the relationship, which may result from initial assortment and/or

development within the relationship” (p. 1). For both assortative mating

and partner similarity, there is robust evidence for the systematic sim-

ilarity of partners concerning various characteristics, including psy-

chologically relevant variables such as attitudes, values, and personality

traits (see e.g., Buss, 1994, 2016; Luo, 2017; Montoya et al., 2008;

Weidmann et al., 2016). Luo’s literature review shows that the magni-

tude of partner similarity correlation coefcients depends on what

variables are studied, with similarity correlation coefcients in the

range of 0.70 ≤r ≤0.90 for age, 0.40 ≤r ≤0.60 for education, 0.40 ≤r

≤0.70 for attitudes, 0.10 ≤r ≤0.40 for values, and consistently positive

but comparatively weaker similarities for personality traits (≤0.30). For

the latter, ndings apply to broad traits (e.g., big ve; Weidmann et al.,

2016) as well as narrow traits (e.g., adult playfulness, power, and dis-

positions toward ridicule and being laughed at; e.g., Brauer & Proyer,

2018; K¨

orner & Schütz, 2021; Proyer et al., 2019).

Effects of similarity. The consequences of partner similarity have been

discussed from genetic, social, and psychological perspectives (for

overviews see e.g., Buss, 2016; Luo, 2017). Here, we focus on the psy-

chological consequences of partner similarity in personality traits. It has

been argued that similarity provides partners with shared ways of

perceiving and dealing with their social environment. Thus, similar

behaviors and experiences are expected to decrease the likelihood of

conict among partners, thereby contributing to greater RS and, in the

long-term, a lower probability of dissolving the relationship (Rammstedt

et al., 2013). Studies testing the associations between similarity and

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

outcomes have provided mixed ndings. When controlling for main

effects of both partners’ personality traits, cross-sectional and longitu-

dinal studies showed positive associations between partner similarity in

broad and narrow personality traits and the outcomes of RS and LS, but

effect sizes are small to negligible (e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2018; Brauer

et al., 2021; Chopik & Lucas, 2019; Decuyper et al., 2012; Dyrenforth

et al., 2010; Furler et al., 2013; Humbad et al., 2013; Proyer et al., 2019;

van Scheppingen et al., 2019; see also Luo, 2017; Weidmann et al.,

2016). Rammstedt and colleagues (2013) used an alternative approach

to study how similarity relates to break-up, as they compared the sim-

ilarity of stable and separated couples’ big ve traits (N

total

=4,809

couples) across two assessments over a 4-year interval. Couples who

dissolved their relationship at Wave 2 showed lower initial similarity

and became less similar over time (0.10 ≤Δr ≤0.24) than couples who

did not break up. These “surviving” couples were characterized by

higher initial similarity at Wave 1 and the absence of change in simi-

larity over time (Δr ≤0.01). Taking these ndings together, partners’

similarity in personality traits has typically shown small associations

with indicators of satisfaction beyond the existence of actor and partner

effects, but Rammstedt et al.’s ndings suggest that similarity might

relate to long-term consequences for relationships. Also, when studying

similarity at the on-set of relationships, meta-analytic ndings showed

that similarity predicts romantic interest and attraction to a potential

partner (Montoya et al., 2008).

Similarity in traits and proles. Finally, two major approaches to

assessing similarity are distinguished: trait wise approaches examine

partner similarity concerning a single trait and allow inferences about

similarity across persons in a single trait (i.e., variable-centered anal-

ysis). While this approach is informative at the ne-grained level, it only

captures a fraction of the full set of personality traits, in our case

strengths, that describe a person more comprehensively. To achieve a

more comprehensive assessment, one is interested in testing the simi-

larity among a set of variables, the prole of traits (i.e., person-centered;

in dyadic studies: couple-centered analyses). Testing partners’ similarity

among proles allows for the comprehensive and simultaneous analysis

of the full information that characterize the partners in a couple (Furr,

2008; Rogers et al., 2018). Technically, the difference between both

approaches is that the trait wise approach analyzes the similarity across

all couples concerning a single attribute, whereas the prole approach

analyzes a single couple concerning a set of attributes. The latter is done

for each couple and then averaged across all couples to inform about the

average prole similarity. We argue that testing proles is of particular

interest when studying partners’ similarity in the congurations of their

24 strengths.

1.4. The present study

The VIA strengths have been theoretically and empirically linked to

how people experience and maintain their relationships; for example, in

friendships and couples of different age groups (Boiman-Meshita &

Littman-Ovadia, 2022; Seligman, 2012; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,

2014; Wagner, 2019; Weber & Ruch, 2012). We aimed to extend the

research on character strengths in romantic relationships by addressing

partner similarity across two independent studies. The aim of Study 1

was to test the magnitude of similarity in couples’ proles of their

character strengths using the full 240-item VIA-IS questionnaire. In

Study 2, we aimed to replicate the ndings of Study 1 using a brief form

of the strengths questionnaire and additionally to test how similarity is

associated with RS and LS in couples.

We expected that partners would share similar expressions of their

positively valued behaviors, thinking, and views as described in the 24

strengths of the VIA classication. Our rationale for this notion is based

on two assumptions. First, Boiman-Meshita and Littman-Ovadia’s

(2022) ndings indicate the existence of partner similarity in the range

reported in the literature on personality and values, with coefcients

between 0.20 and 0.30 (Luo, 2017). Also, Weber and Ruch’s (2012)

ndings from adolescents suggest that character strengths are desired in

potential partners and that adolescent couples are similar in their self-

reports. Further, Wagner (2019) showed that character strengths

(particularly kindness, fairness, humor, and honesty) are desired by

adolescents when they describe what they seek for in a potential best

friend and that similarity among friends’ strengths is related to higher

friendship quality. Hence, initial evidence suggests that close relation-

ships are characterized by dyadic similarity and a desire for those

character strengths in close others to be expressed similarly. Secondly,

research testing partner preferences independently from a theoretical

framework of personality trait classications found that traits and at-

tributes such as kindness, creativity, good sense of humor, and play-

fulness are among the most desired traits in potential partners (e.g., Buss

& Barnes, 1986; Chick et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2014). One might

argue that these attributes resemble Peterson and Seligman’s (2004)

character strengths to a certain degree, and we speculate that morally

positively valued traits could be sought for in partners in similar ways.

Moreover, people’s preferences are related to their self-reports but also

to their actual spouses’ self-reports, in line with the similarity attraction

hypothesis (e.g., Botwin et al., 1997; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Byrne, 1997;

Chick et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2014; Weber & Ruch, 2012).

For the description of the partner similarity, we focused on studying

the prole similarity in partners’ full sets of the 24 strengths. We used

Furr’s (2008) approach to prole analysis that allows differentiating

between the raw prole similarity and the distinctive prole similarity.

Distinctive prole similarity adjusts for stereotype effects (normative-

ness) and describes the degree of similarity in partners’ deviations from

the average person. Due to controlling for normativeness, coefcients

from distinctive prole analyses are typically lower than raw prole

correlation estimates, but they allow for a less biased assessment of

similarity (Rogers et al., 2018). Prior studies illustrated the importance

of removing stereotype effects. For example, Rogers et al. (2018) re-

ported a high raw prole similarity for the big ve traits (r =0.39) that

was reduced to 0.02 after removing normativeness. The same has been

found when studying proles of narrower traits such as dispositions

toward ridicule and being laughed at (r

raw

=0.51, r

distinctive

=0.27;

Brauer & Proyer, 2018) and facets of adult playfulness (r

raw

=0.55,

distinctive

=0.12; Proyer et al., 2019). Although distinctive prole sim-

ilarities of broad and narrow personality traits are typically numerically

small, they are consistently positive and robust in the sense that 95%

condence intervals exclude zero, thus suggesting the existence of

congural similarity among partners’ deviations from the average per-

son. Finally, the normative prole describes the prole of the average

person. In studies of opposite-sex couples, the normative prole simi-

larity is computed separately for men and women and informs about the

similarity between the stereotypical proles of men and women. Typi-

cally, normative proles are highly correlated (≈0.90; e.g., Rogers

et al., 2018). Taking prior ndings on couples’ prole similarities into

account, we expected to nd positive prole similarities, with numeri-

cally small distinctive prole similarity coefcients above chance (i.e.,

their condence intervals exceeding zero). In addition to the prole

analyses, we examined the trait wise similarity of the 24 strengths in an

exploratory fashion across both studies.

The second aim of Study 2 was to test whether partner similarity in

strengths robustly relates to RS and LS. The literature has shown that

prole similarity indices outperform single trait absolute differences

scores in terms of predictive validity (e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2018; Furler

et al., 2013; for a discussion of the disadvantages of absolute difference

scores as estimates of similarity see also Edwards, 2001). Thus, we

examined whether couples’ similarity in the proles of strengths is

associated with RS and LS over and above actor and partner effects. We

used the APIM (Cook & Kenny, 2005) to account for the partners’

interdependence in predictor and outcome variables and to control for

actor- and partner effects of the strengths on RS and LS. In line with the

literature on associations between partner similarity and indicators of

satisfaction (e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2018; Furler et al., 2013; Humbad

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

et al., 2013; Luo, 2017; Weidmann et al., 2016), we also expected pos-

itive associations of minor size between prole similarity and partners’

satisfaction.

Taken together, the data from both studies allowed us to examine the

questions of similarity in strengths among couples by using two assess-

ment approaches (i.e., brief- and full forms), to replicate the ndings

across samples and methods, and to examine the associations between

similarity and the outcomes of RS and LS in couples.

2. Study 1

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Sample

We collected data of 68 opposite-sex couples with men aged 23 to 76

years (M =49.0, SD =12.5) and women aged 21 to 84 years (M =46.9,

SD =12.5). Most couples were married (72.1%). Close to two thirds of

the sample held a degree from a university or a university of applied

sciences (61.8%), 23.6% nished high school qualifying them to attend

a university or a university of applied sciences, 12.5% completed

vocational training, 1.5% completed secondary education, and one

person did not nish secondary education. In this sample, we did not

assess information on cohabitation or relationship duration.

2.1.2. Instruments

The Values-in-Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson et al.,

2005; German version by Ruch et al., 2010) is the 240-item self-report

instrument for the assessment of the 24 character strengths from the

VIA classication. Each strength is assessed with 10 items. All items are

answered on a 5-point Likert-style scale ranging from 1 =“very much

unlike me” to 5 =“very much like me.” A sample item is “I nd the world

a very interesting place” (curiosity). Ruch et al. (2010) report good in-

ternal consistency (0.71 ≤

≤0.90) and retest-reliability (r

≥0.65 for

6-month intervals and ≥0.62 for 9-month intervals) and provide evi-

dence for criterion validity.

2.1.3. Procedure

Data collection was carried out before the COVID-19 pandemic and

participants provided informed consent. The study was approved by the

local ethics committee. The data analyzed here are a subsample of 5,521

participants who took part in an online training program for character

strengths that was advertised in online forums, newspaper articles, and

mailing lists. Inclusion criteria were being ≥18 years of age, no con-

sumption of illegal drugs, and currently not being in psychotherapeutic

treatment. Participants were asked to provide the email address of their

partner if they also participated in the training program. Based on this

information, a total of 68 opposite-sex couples could be matched. Par-

ticipants received no nancial compensation, but individualized feed-

back on their character strengths at the end of the program. The data

reported here partially overlap with those reported in Wagner et al.

(2020), who investigated the relationship between character strengths

and PERMA but did not examine dyadic relationships.

2.1.4. Data analysis

We used two approaches to prole similarity. First, we correlated the

rank order of the strengths of the men and women. This allows to derive

an estimate of how the relative rankings of the strengths are associated

among men and women on average. Secondly, we used Furr’s (2008)

approach to examine the within-couple prole similarity (i.e., each

couple is denoted by a similarity coefcient). Furr suggests analyzing

three types of proles and, accordingly, three types of similarity. First,

normative proles are based on the men’s and women’s respective sample

means in the strengths, thus reecting the expressions of strengths for

the average man and average woman. The normative prole similarity

describes how the average man and the average woman converge in

their strengths. Next, we computed raw prole similarities for each couple

by correlating the couples’ man’s and woman’s respective responses to

the 240 items of the VIA-IS, which informs about the overlap of partners’

raw proles. Thirdly, we computed distinctive proles by mean-centering

the women’s and men’s scores on their respective sample means. Thus,

the distinctive proles describe deviations from the average man’s and

average woman’s prole and the distinctive prole similarity informs

about partners’ similarity in deviations from the stereotypical prole.

This procedure adjusts the proles for normativeness and controls for

stereotype effects (Furr, 2008; Rogers et al., 2018). After computing the

raw and distinctive prole similarity correlations for each couple, we

computed the mean of the similarity coefcients across all couples on

basis of Fisher r-to-z transformed values. The mean value was trans-

formed back by z-to-r transformation and informs about the average

similarity in the sample (i.e., across all couples). We examined the sta-

tistical signicance of the prole similarities with one-sample t-tests

(test value =0; two-tailed). As a supplementary analysis, we examined

the trait wise similarities in single strengths by computing bivariate

correlations between the men’s and women’s VIA-IS scale scores. For all

correlation analyses, we computed bootstrapped (k =5,000 samples)

95% condence intervals (CI) and assumed statistical signicance of a

coefcient when the CI excludes zero and when p <.05 (two-tailed).

Sample size rationale. We determined the sample size appropriate for

our research based on the rationale of our main analyses; namely, testing

the prole similarity in couple-centered analyses. For each couple, we

computed the prole correlation on basis of each partner’s responses to

the N =240 items of the VIA-IS. Thus, our analyses rely on the number of

items that constitute a prole (Furr, 2008; Rogers et al., 2018), and each

prole correlation is computed on basis of 240 observations. Simulation

studies showed that this sample size provides stable estimates of cor-

relations, showing minor uctuations around

(Sch¨

onbrodt & Perugini,

2013). After computing the prole correlations for each couple, result-

ing in 68 prole correlation coefcients, we tested the mean prole

correlation among all couples by averaging the stable correlations using

Fisher r-to-z transformation. This allowed us to derive a robust initial

estimate of the average prole similarity among couples.

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Preliminary analyses

The internal consistencies of the VIA-IS scales were in line with prior

ndings on the German-language version (e.g., Ruch et al., 2010), with

coefcients between 0.62 (self-regulation) and 0.93 (spirituality;

median

=0.76). The mean and SD values of the VIA-IS scales were comparable

to Ruch et al.’s (2010) ndings. On average, men and women showed

small mean differences in their strengths (Cohen’s ds ≤0.44) except for

a moderate effect size in judgment (d =0.62) with men reporting greater

expressions than women (see Fig. 1). All coefcients of the descriptive

statistics and internal consistencies are displayed in ESM A.

As a preliminary analysis, we inspected the similarity in the single

strengths. We found statistically signicant partner similarity in ve of

the 24 strengths, namely zest, gratitude, hope, humor, and spirituality

(rs ≥0.24, ps ≤.048, 95% CIs not including zero; see Table 1).

As in

Weber and Ruch (2012), we also found inclinations to similarity in

creativity (r =0.18), teamwork (r =0.21), and appreciation of beauty (r

=0.19), but coefcients were not statistically signicant (95% CI

including zeros and ps ≤.092) and should not be overinterpreted

without replication. Against expectations, we found initial evidence for

complementarity in the strengths of judgment (r =-0.30, 95% CI [-0.47,

-0.12], p =.013) and social intelligence (r =-0.25, 95% CI [-0.43, -0.05]

p =.043).

We also found a statistically signicant (p =.014) similarity coefcient of r

=0.29 for love, but the standard error was comparatively large (0.15) and the

bootstrapped 95% CI included zero. The nding awaits replication before

interpretation.

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

2.2.2. Prole similarity

First, we examined the rank order similarity between men and

women, which was robustly positive (r =0.88, 95% CI [0.74, 0.96], p <

.001; see ESM A for the ranks). This aligns well with the robust

normative prole similarity (r =0.87, 95% CI [0.84, 0.90], p <.001)

and the visual inspection of trajectories of men’s and women’s strengths

(Fig. 1). Thus, the expressions of the strengths were similar for the

average man and the average woman.

Secondly, we tested the raw and distinctive prole similarity using

the full set of the 240 VIA-IS items for each couple. On average, we found

robustly positive raw prole similarity (M

=0.23, 95% CI[0.20, 0.26],

=14.97, p <.001; SD

=0.13; ranging between -0.04 and 0.48). As

expected, the distinctive prole similarity decreased when controlling

for normativeness (M

=0.06, 95% CI [0.02, 0.09], t

=3.36, p =.001;

=0.14; ranging between -0.22 and 0.44).

2.3. Discussion

Our ndings extended the study of character strengths in couples by

providing initial evidence for partner similarity in proles of the VIA

strengths. As expected, the normative prole similarity indicated that

the average man and woman show highly similar proles of strengths,

whereas the within-couple prole similarities revealed numerically low,

but above chance (i.e., 95% CIs exclude zero), similarity coefcients

after controlling for normativeness. The distinctive prole similarity

coefcient found for the strengths exceeded those reported for the big

ve traits (Rogers et al., 2018), but ts well into prior ndings of nar-

rower traits such as adult playfulness and dispositions toward ridicule

and being laughed at (Brauer & Proyer, 2018; Proyer et al., 2019). In

conclusion, on average, couples showed positive but numerically small

distinctive prole similarity. Furthermore, the range and SDs of the

similarity coefcients indicated that couples vary in their similarity,

Fig. 1. Normative Proles of Character Strengths Assessed With the 240-item VIA-IS for the Women and Men in Study 1.

Table 1

Similarity Correlation Coefcients with Bootstrapped (k =5,000 Samples) 95%

Condence Intervals in Study 1 and 2 (N =68 and 143).

Study 1

(240-item VIA-IS)

Study 2

(24-item CSRF)

Prole similarity

Normative 0.87*** [0.84, 0.90] 0.84*** [0.51, 0.95]

Raw 0.23*** [0.20, 0.26] 0.27*** [0.22, 0.23]

Distinctive 0.06** [0.02, 0.09] 0.10*** [0.05, 0.15]

Trait wise similarity

Creativity 0.18 [-0.07, 0.40] -0.06 [-0.20, 0.08]

Curiosity -0.04 [-0.26, 0.18] 0.11 [-0.08, 0.30]

Judgement -0.30* [-0.47, -0.12] 0.08 [-0.09, 0.25]

Love of learning -0.07 [-0.27, 0.13] -0.01 [-0.17, 0.16]

Perspective -0.08 [-0.33, 0.17] 0.10 [-0.06, 0.26]

Bravery -0.03 [-0.21, 0.15] 0.22** [0.04, 0.38]

Perseverance -0.16 [-0.39, 0.08] 0.06 [-0.12, 0.23]

Honesty -0.02 [-0.26, 0.23] 0.25** [0.06, 0.42]

Zest 0.24* [0.03, 0.43] 0.12 [-0.05, 0.29]

Love 0.29* [-0.02, 0.55] 0.23** [0.05, 0.40]

Kindness 0.24 [0.02, 0.46] 0.07 [-0.13, 0.28]

Social

intelligence

-0.25* [-0.43, -0.05] 0.10 [-0.08, 0.28]

Teamwork 0.21 [-0.02, 0.41] 0.28*** [0.13, 0.43]

Fairness 0.04 [-0.20, 0.27] 0.47*** [0.30, 0.62]

Leadership -0.12 [-0.39, 0.17] 0.01 [-0.16, 0.18]

Forgiveness -0.05 [-0.33, 0.22] 0.12 [-0.06, 0.29]

Humility -0.01 [-0.30, 0.28] 0.15 [-0.05, 0.33]

Prudence -0.13 [-0.38, 0.13] 0.14 [-0.04, 0.32]

Self-regulation 0.12 [-0.15, 0.37] 0.08 [-0.08, 0.23]

Beauty 0.19 [-0.03, 0.39] 0.14 [-0.01, 0.29]

Gratitude 0.43*** [0.25, 0.58] 0.28*** [0.12, 0.44]

Hope 0.35** [0.19, 0.51] 0.20* [0.05, 0.35]

Humor 0.27* [>0.00, 0.52] 0.09 [-0.08, 0.26]

Spirituality 0.54*** [0.34, 0.70] 0.47*** [0.30, 0.61]

Note. Coefcients in boldface indicate that 95% CIs do not include zero. *p <.05.

**p <.01. ***p <.001. Two-tailed.

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

which poses the follow-up question of whether similarity relates to in-

dicators of RS and LS (i.e., are similar couples happier than less similar

couples?). When it comes to the similarities in single strengths, our

ndings converged well with those reported for adolescent couples

(Weber & Ruch, 2012), both numerically and conceptually, regarding

which strengths indicated partner similarity. Against expectations, we

found dissimilarity among partners’ expressions in the strengths of

judgment and social intelligence, which might also have reduced the

prole similarities.

While the sample size was appropriate for the prole similarity an-

alyses, it is desirable to replicate the ndings in a larger sample. Further,

it must be noted that our sample was comparatively old. Since similarity

is typically higher in older couples (e.g., Brauer et al., 2021; Rammstedt

& Schupp, 2008), replication in a sample comprising younger couples is

also desirable. Therefore, the main ambitions behind Study 2 were to

replicate our ndings and to extend the analyses to test associations

between prole similarity and indicators of relationship- and life

satisfaction.

3. Study 2

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Sample

Our sample comprised 143 opposite-sex couples with an average

relationship duration of 5.0 years (SD =6.5; median =3.0; range: 1

month to 44.3 years). Most couples (78.3%) lived together and 11.9%

were married. The average age was M =26.0 years (SD =7.3) in women

and 28.9 years (SD =8.3) in men. Approximately half of the sample were

students (52.1%), 42.3% were employed, and the remainder (5.6%)

were in vocational training, unemployed, or retired. The educational

level was high, as 45.0% held an academic degree, 38.1% nished high

school qualifying them to attend university, 9.1% completed vocational

training, 5.2% held a regular high school diploma, and 2.1% responded

with “other.”

3.1.2. Instruments

The Character Strengths Rating Form (CSRF) by Ruch et al. (2014) is a

brief measure of Peterson and Seligman’s (2014) VIA-classication. For

each strength, a brief description is provided, which is then rated on a 9-

point Likert-type scale (1 =very much unlike me; 9 =very much like me). A

sample item is “Creativity (originality, ingenuity): Creative people have

a highly developed thinking about novel and productive ways to solve

problems and often have creative and original ideas. They do not content

themselves with conventional solutions if there are better solutions.”

The CSRF showed high convergence with the VIA-IS and relationships

with external measures, and demographic variables were highly com-

parable to those of the VIA-IS (Ruch et al., 2014).

The Relationship Quality Questionnaire (RQQ; Siffert & Bodenmann,

2010) is a 26-item questionnaire that assesses six dimensions of RS:

Fascination (3 items; i.e., being attracted to and fascinated by the part-

ner; “I admire many things about my partner”), Engagement (5 items; i.e.,

investing into the relationship; “I invest in our relationship”), Sexuality

(5 items; i.e., sexual satisfaction in the partnership; “Our partnership is

sexually satisfying for me”), Future (5 items; i.e., expecting a stable

relationship with the partner; “I think that our couple relationship has a

future”), Mistrust (3 items; “Sometimes I distrust my partner”), and

Constraint (5 items; i.e., feeling constrained in one’s autonomy by the

partner[ship]; “I feel restricted in our partnership”). Further, we esti-

mated a latent global RS factor by using the scale scores as indicators.

Siffert and Bodenmann (2010) reported good internal consistency co-

efcients (between 0.75 and 0.94), good factorial validity using

conrmatory factor analyses, and convergent validity (robust correla-

tions with alternative measures of RS). In this study, the internal con-

sistencies were 0.84 (Future and Sexuality), 0.79 (Constraint and

Mistrust), 0.77 (Fascination), and 0.70 (Engagement).

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985; German

version by Glaesmer et al., 2011) is a global measure of subjective life

satisfaction. The ve items are answered on a 7-point Likert-like scale (1

=strongly disagree, 7 =strongly agree) and summed up to a total score. A

sample item is “If I could live my life over, I would change almost

nothing.” The original scale has very good psychometric properties (

0.87; two-months retest-correlation r

=0.82) and convergent validity

(e.g., strong correlations with other subjective well-being scales; Diener

et al., 1985). Also, the German version is characterized by high internal

consistency (0.92) and a unidimensional factor structure (Glaesmer

et al., 2011). In our study, the internal consistency was 0.84.

3.1.3. Procedure

We advertised the study online on websites of the department of our

university and on the website of a popular German psychology magazine

(Psychology Today) under the title “personality traits in romantic re-

lationships.” The advertisements contained the link to the online ques-

tionnaire (hosted on https://www.soscisurvey.de) and the inclusion

criteria, which stated that both partners of a couple should complete the

questionnaire independently from each other and being ≥18 years of

age. Participants did not receive nancial compensation, but psychology

students were given the opportunity to earn course credit. Partners

generated a couple code on basis of their names and years of birth to

match the data within dyads. Data collection was carried out before the

COVID-19 pandemic.

3.1.4. Data analysis

As in Study 1, we computed the trait and prole similarity co-

efcients. In addition to the analyses used in Study 1, we tested whether

prole similarity relates to LS and RS. We used the Actor-Partner

Interdependence Model (Cook & Kenny, 2005; see Fig. 2) to control

for actor and partner effects

of the 24 character strengths on RS and LS

and also account for partners’ interdependence in predictor and

outcome variables. As in earlier studies (e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2018;

Furler et al., 2013), we used the raw and distinctive prole coefcients

as predictor variables in the APIM to estimate associations with RS and

LS for both partners, respectively (see Fig. 2). We computed the analyses

in Mplus 8.4 (Muth´

en & Muth´

en, 2017) using the maximum-likelihood

estimator and bootstrapped standard errors (k =1,000 samples). In

line with Cook and Kenny (2005), we report the effect parameters

describing the association between similarity and RS and LS as unstan-

dardized coefcients b. We tested whether effects of similarity differed

for men and women by computing constrained (i.e., setting effect pa-

rameters equal) and saturated (i.e., estimating effects for men and

women freely) models and comparing their t with

difference tests.

Fig. 2. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model to Examine Similarity Effects.

Note. –Actor effects. – –Partner effects. –Similarity effects. RS =Relationship

satisfaction. LS =Life satisfaction.

Note that we use the terms “effect” and “predictor” in accordance with the

language use of the APIM literature. Because our data were cross-sectional, we

cannot draw causal conclusions but only examine associations.

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

We accepted the parsimonious model (i.e., same effects for men and

women) when the

difference test was not statistically signicant (p >

.20; see Cook & Kenny, 2005).

Sample size rationale. As in Study 1, we determined the sample size

based on the requirements of our main analysis. Again, we used couple-

centered analyses for the description of the prole similarity and

computed the prole similarity for each couple on basis of each part-

ner’s 24 responses to the brief measure of character strengths, resulting

in 143 prole correlation coefcients that we computed in accordance

with Study 1. In addition to the analyses used in Study 1, we tested the

associations between couples’ prole similarity and outcomes (i.e., RS

and LS) with the APIM, which requires the variable-centered approach.

Thus, the dyad is the unit of analysis, and the number of couples is of

interest for sample size considerations in this study. We aimed to meet

Ledermann and Kenny’s (2017) sample size recommendation of 100 to

150 couples for the APIM analyses.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Preliminary analyses

Preliminary analyses showed that the means and SDs of the RQQ and

SWLS were comparable to prior research in German-speaking samples

(see ESM B; e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2018; Glaesmer et al., 2011). In line

with prior dyadic studies (Furler et al., 2013; K¨

orner & Schütz, 2021),

partners showed interdependence in the RQQ facets and SWLS (0.32 ≤

rs ≤0.51) while the mean differences among men and women were

negligible (ds ≤0.29; see ESM B for all coefcients). The expressions in

the CSRF aligned with previous ndings from German-speaking samples

(e.g., Ruch et al., 2014; see ESM A).

We tested the trait wise similarity in the single strengths and found

robust similarity for eight strengths (rs ≥0.20, 95% CIs not including

zero, ps ≤.019; Table 1), namely, bravery, honesty, love, teamwork,

fairness, gratitude, hope, and spirituality.

3.2.2. Prole similarity

We examined the correlation between the ranks of men’s and

women’s character strengths. There was a strong convergence in the

relative rankings of men’s and women’s strengths (r =0.70, 95% CI

[0.47, 0.84], p <.001). This is also reected in the normative prole

similarity, which showed high positive associations (r =0.84, 95% CI

[0.51, 0.95], p <.001), indicating that, on average, men and women

showed similar expressions of the VIA strengths. The visual inspection of

the average proles of the men and women (Fig. 3) and effect size an-

alyses (ESM A) showed that, on average, the strengths converged well,

except for men reporting greater expressions than women in judgment

(d =0.49), bravery (d =0.70), leadership (d =0.46), and self-regulation

(d =0.62).

When testing within-couple similarities, we found positive raw

prole similarity (M

=0.27, 95% CI [0.22, 0.32], t

142

=10.11, p <.001;

=0.27, ranging between -0.42 and 0.95). As expected, the distinc-

tive prole similarity showed numerically lower overlap among part-

ners, but the similarity was still positive and above chance after

controlling for stereotype effects (M

=0.10, 95% CI [0.05, 0.15], t

142

3.81, p <.001; SD

=0.28, ranging between -0.57 and 0.85).

3.2.3. Associations between prole similarity and satisfaction

We tested the associations between raw and distinctive prole sim-

ilarities and RS and LS using APIM analyses. We did not nd evidence of

statistically signicant associations between prole similarities in

character strengths and indicators of RS and LS over and above actor and

partner effects (all bs ≤|0.55|, ps ≥.176; see ESM C for all coefcients).

Thus, partner’s prole similarities were unrelated to satisfaction in

couples.

4. General discussion

We aimed at narrowing a gap in the literature by describing adult

couples’ partner similarity in the proles of character strengths (Peter-

son & Seligman, 2004), and testing whether similarity relates to rela-

tionship satisfaction (RS) and life satisfaction (LS). Overall, our ndings

converged well across both of our studies and also with initial ndings

from adolescent couples (Weber & Ruch, 2012). In line with Weber and

Ruch (2012), we found high rank-order and normative prole similarity

correlations. Thus, the relative expressions (rank-order) and average

expressions (normative proles) are highly similar for men’s and

women’s character strengths. This ts into the literature on the negli-

gible gender differences in the VIA strengths (Heintz et al., 2019) and

high normative prole similarity associations that also exist for broad

and narrow personality traits (e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2018; Rogers et al.,

2018). More importantly, the within-couple associations showed the

expected positive similarity across the raw and distinctive proles across

studies. The similarity of partners’ proles of the 24 VIA strengths was

expectedly positive, irrespective of using the full 240-item VIA-IS (Study

1) or the brief 24-item form (CSRF; Study 2). Moreover, after adjusting

for stereotype effects (i.e., distinctive prole similarity; Furr, 2008;

Rogers et al., 2018), partners’ deviations from the average person

converged well above chance (i.e., 95% CIs did not contain zero), thus,

indicating congural similarity in partners’ proles of strengths. Across

both studies and measures, the effect sizes replicated very well. As ex-

pected, the distinctive prole similarities were numerically small. In

comparison, they exceeded those reported for the broad big ve per-

sonality traits (Rogers et al., 2018) and were comparable to coefcients

reported for narrower traits such as adult playfulness and dispositions

toward ridicule and being laughed at (Brauer & Proyer, 2018; Brauer

et al., 2021; Proyer et al., 2019). Our ndings could be interpreted as

preliminary evidence for the notion that similarity can attract when it

comes to Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) set of 24 positively valued

traits.

In Study 2, we tested the associations between couples’ prole sim-

ilarities and indicators of satisfaction in APIM analyses (Cook & Kenny,

2005). In line with the majority of studies that tested whether partner

similarity in personality traits relates to outcomes beyond actor- and

partner effects, we found positive but negligible effect sizes (see e.g.,

Brauer et al., 2021; Chopik & Lucas, 2019; Dyrenforth et al., 2010;

Furler et al., 2013; Humbad et al., 2013; Proyer et al., 2019; van

Scheppingen et al., 2019; Weidmann et al., 2016). Thus, although

partners resemble each other in their proles of strengths, similarity is

unrelated to satisfaction (i.e., similar couples do not report greater

satisfaction than less similar couples).

In addition to the proles, we also examined partner similarity in

single strengths (trait wise analysis). We found that across our studies

and Weber and Ruch’s (2012), three strengths emerged as robustly

similar among partners, independent of the samples’ age and the mea-

sure used; namely, gratitude, hope, and spirituality. Also, there was

convergence across our and Weber and Ruch’s (2012) studies concern-

ing partner similarity in love (all coefcients ≥0.19; average correlation

of 0.24 across studies [n =298 couples]), teamwork (all coefcients ≥

0.20; average similarity correlation of 0.23 across studies), and zest (all

coefcients ≥0.12; average correlation of 0.23 across studies).

Considering that the former strengths focus on emotional expressiveness

(so-called strengths of the heart; Peterson, 2006), we preliminarily

conclude that partners share an understanding of such heart-related

strengths that contribute to interpersonal understanding and behaviors

that might support the maintenance of close relationships, whereas

strengths that focus on intellectual restraint (strengths of the mind; e.g.,

self-regulation, learning, and perspective) are less interdependent and

more individually expressed across partners. However, integrating our

ndings from prole and trait wise similarity analyses, it could be

argued that although no single strength of the mind yielded statistically

signicant trait wise similarity, partners show on average similarity in

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

the conguration across the full set of these strengths as well. Overall, the

effect sizes of the discussed trait wise similarity correlations were in the

expected range that is typically reported for personality traits and values

(Luo, 2017). An exception was spirituality, which showed the compar-

atively strongest effect sizes across studies. However, this aligned well

with prior ndings that showed that inclinations to religion and reli-

giousness are consistently characterized by notably high partner simi-

larity coefcients (rs ≈0.50; Luo, 2017; Watson et al., 2004, 2014).

Because our data are of cross-sectional nature, we cannot examine

the mechanisms behind the existence of partner similarity. In line with

Luo (2017), at least two possible explanations could account for the

existence of partner similarity: While assortative mating assumes that

partners share initial similarity, convergence assumes that partners

become similar over time. Meta-analytic ndings (Montoya et al., 2008)

and literature reviews (Luo, 2017) suggest that there is robust evidence

for the notion that assortative mating explains partner similarity. Also,

the literature suggests that there is little evidence for congruence, i.e.,

the notion that couples grow more similar over time (Luo, 2017; see also

Rammstedt et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2014). It could be argued that

convergence does not account for partner similarity in strengths since

our similarity ndings did not considerably differ across the older (Study

1) and younger (Study 2) couples. However, longitudinal data are

needed to clarify the trajectories of couples’ similarity across time, and

our ndings on this question can only be viewed as preliminary.

Further, initial similarity contributes to providing the basis for estab-

lishing a romantic relationship as it predicts romantic attraction and

-interest. A mechanism that supports initial assortative preferences is the

notion of active and passive choices during the mating process. Prior

studies addressing the VIA strengths and attributes that resemble the

strengths showed that people seek for morally valued traits when

describing their ideal close friend and partner, and that these prefer-

ences converge with actual expressions of the friend’s or partner’s

strengths (Wagner, 2019; Weber & Ruch, 2012; see also Buss, 2016; Buss

& Barnes, 1986; Chick et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2014). Drawing on

these ndings, it is feasible that people have certain preferences

regarding an ideal partner’s strengths; for example, they desire higher

expressions of honesty, humor, love, and kindness, whereas spirituality,

love of learning, perseverance, and leadership are less desired attributes

in idealized partners (Weber & Ruch, 2012), and people actively seek a

partner that overlaps with their ideal. Prior research has provided evi-

dence that people can accurately perceive the strengths of others (Ruch

et al., 2010), which is the prerequisite for identifying the strengths of a

potential partner. However, it is unclear whether people nd a partner

who possesses their ideal traits, idealize their partner according to their

desires, or adjust their perceptions of their partner to match their ideal

partner (Michelangelo phenomenon; e.g., Bühler et al., 2020; see Rusbult

et al., 2009 for an overview). Collecting partner- and ideal partner re-

ports additionally would help addressing this research question in future

studies as they add incremental value over and beyond self-reports

(Brauer et al., 2021) and allow examining the overlap between these

levels of perceptions on the intra- and interpersonal level (e.g., whether

one’s partner view converges with their ideal partner desires; Decuyper

et al., 2012). Decuyper and colleagues (2012) showed that the assumed

similarity is uniquely associated with RS and more predictive of RS than

the partners’ actual similarity. Finally, other mechanisms such as social

homogamy (i.e., partners sharing social and geographical backgrounds;

Luo, 2017) might also play a role. For example, those high in spirituality

might visit institutions such as a church more frequently than those low

in spirituality, thus nding a partner with similar expressions of

Fig. 3. Normative Proles of Character Strengths Assessed With the 24-item CSRF for the Women and Men in Study 2.

One might argue that analyzing couple similarity and relationship duration

with the data of Study 2 could clarify this question, but we omitted these an-

alyses because they often produce misleading ndings and conclusions (for a

discussion, see Brauer et al., 2022).

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

spirituality might be more likely in a shared background. Market forces

might also play a role: if someone is characterized by a prole of

consensually desired traits, they have more options of choosing partners

than someone who is characterized by a less favorable prole of

strengths and therefore has fewer options of choosing partners (Luo,

2017). Further research is needed to learn more about the mechanisms

behind partner similarity and partner selection regarding character

strengths.

Our ndings only provide preliminary knowledge by using cross-

sectional data, and we encourage follow-up studies that directly aim

at uncovering the potential developmental trajectories and effects of

partner similarity. We propose several future directions for the study of

strengths in romantic life. For example, longitudinal studies have shown

the stability of strengths over time (Gander et al., 2020), but also indi-

cated that people change in their strengths naturally and, when being

exposed to interventions, deliberately (Harzer & Ruch, 2016; Proyer

et al., 2015). It can be assumed that such changes affect partner simi-

larity depending on whether changes co-occur in partners or whether

changes are limited to only one partner of the dyad. Changes in strengths

go along with changes in well-being in individuals (Gander et al., 2020),

but no data exist for dyadic change in strengths and its effects on

satisfaction. Considering that our ndings indicate interdependence of

partners’ single strengths and proles, it could be speculated that the

dyadic interdependence affects the individuals’ change (e.g., Chopik

et al., 2018; Mund et al., 2016). Thus, extension to longitudinal data on

the dyadic development of the strengths is desirable to learn more about

the trajectories of similarity in couples’ strengths over time as well as its

effects on relationship outcomes and relationship dissolution. Future

research might also examine the consequences of partner similarity on

the heritability of the strengths. Steger et al., 2007 found support for the

existence of a genetic component to individual differences in the

strengths (14 to 59% genetic effects; median =42%). However, Steger

et al.’s classical twin design did not allow for modeling effects of

parental similarity on heritability and assumed random assortative

mating. A replication and extension to include estimates of assortative

mating is desirable to learn more about the role of partner similarity in

the heritability of the strengths and its comparison to other individual

difference variables (e.g., Borkenau et al., 2001; Buss, 2016; Kandler

et al., 2012; Luo, 2017; Vinkhuyzen et al., 2012).

Although we did not nd direct associations between partner simi-

larity and RS and LS, similarity could affect third variables that might

mediate or moderate associations. For example, strengths are robust

predictors of stress coping and buffer negative effects on satisfaction

(Harzer & Ruch, 2015), and it could be speculated that both partners’

strengths contribute to dyadic coping with relationship-related and in-

dividual problems and stressors (e.g., Herzberg, 2013). We encourage

further work on the potential practical relevance of taking proles into

account when working with clients. This may help when counseling

clients, discussing their (dis-)similarity in character strengths and how

they can capitalize on their strengths in their daily lives.

Limitations. Our ndings should be interpreted with certain limita-

tions. First, we only tested German-speaking opposite-sex couples with

comparatively high educational status, and extension to other de-

mographic groups (e.g., non-German-speaking and same-sex couples)

would contribute to generalizability. Secondly, our data are solely based

on self-reported character strengths, whereas multi-method assessment

approaches (e.g., daily diary data on the enactment of strengths; Gander

et al., 2021) would extend the validity of the ndings. Thirdly, our data

do not allow to draw causal conclusions, but only provide a cross-

sectional snapshot of the partners’ similarity. Fourthly, we have not

examined the similarity-satisfaction associations for single strengths. We

argue that an independently collected and larger sample is needed to

address this aim by using Dyadic Response Surface Analyses

(Sch¨

onbrodt et al., 2018) as an extension of the APIM for modeling the

main effects of the strengths and dyadic trait-similarity effects on in-

dicators of satisfaction. Fifthly, we have not controlled for partner

similarity in broader traits. For example, openness to new experiences

and honesty-humility are highly preferred traits in potential partners

(Liu et al., 2018), and future research should examine partner similarity

(and preferences) under consideration of the relationship between the

strengths and broader traits (see e.g., Harzer et al., 2021).

Despite these limitations, we think that our studies are a fruitful

starting point for future research on the role of similarity in strengths of

character in romantic relationships. Overall, our data suggest that (I)

partners are similar regarding their character strengths proles, (II)

especially regarding strengths entailing emotional expressiveness

(strengths of the heart), but that (III) similarity does not yield an addi-

tional robust association with relationship- or life satisfaction beyond

the main effects of partners’ character strengths.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence

the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This study was not preregistered. We are grateful to Rico Crucius for

his help in collecting the data, and to Anna Ramona R¨

oßner and Linnea

Marie Vierow for their help with preliminary analyses.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specic grant from funding

agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.

Open Data

All data, syntaxes, and materials are openly available in the Open

Science Framework under https://osf.io/b4qy3/.

Open materials

All materials of this study are openly available and links with per-

manent identiers are linked in the manuscript.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104248.

References

Baumann, D., Ruch, W., Margelisch, K., Gander, F., & Wagner, L. (2020). Character

strengths and life satisfaction in later life: An analysis of different living conditions.

Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15, 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-

018-9689-x

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,

497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Boiman-Meshita, M., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2022). Is it me or you? An actor-partner

examination of the relationship between partners’ character strengths and marital

quality. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-

021-00394-1

Borkenau, P., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2001). Genetic and

environmental inuences on observed personality: Evidence from the German

Observational Study of Adult Twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

655–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.655

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate

preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of

Personality, 65, 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x

Brauer, K., & Proyer, R. T. (2018). To love and laugh: Testing actor-, partner-, and

similarity effects of dispositions towards ridicule and being laughed at on

relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 165–176. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.008

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

Brauer, K., Sendatzki, R., & Proyer, R. T. (2021). Testing the associations between

dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at and romantic jealousy in couples:

An APIM analysis. Journal of Personality, 89, 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/

jopy.12621

Brauer, K., Sendatzki, R., & Proyer, R. T. (2022). A primer on studying effects of

relationship duration in dyadic research: Contrasting cross-sectional and

longitudinal approaches. Advance online publication Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221074677.

Brauer, K., Sendatzki, R., Scherrer, T., Chick, G., & Proyer, R. T. (2021). Revisiting adult

playfulness and relationship satisfaction: APIM analyses of middle-aged and older

couples. Advance online publication International Journal of Applied Positive

Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-021-00058-8.

Bühler, J. L., Finkenauer, C., & Grob, A. (2020). A dyadic personality perspective on the

Michelangelo phenomenon: How personality traits relate to people’s ideal selves and

their personal growth in romantic relationships. Journal of Research in Personality,

86, Article 103943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103943

Buschor, C., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2013). Self- and peer-rated character strengths:

How do they relate to satisfaction with life and orientations to happiness? Journal of

Positive Psychology, 8, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.758305

Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82, 238–249.

Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Basic Books.

Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.50.3.559

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.

Byrne, D. E. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the

attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417–431.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0265407597143008

Chick, G., Proyer, R. T., Purrington, A., & Yarnal, C. (2020). Do birds of a playful feather

ock together? Playfulness and assortative mating. American Journal of Play, 12,

178–215.

Chopik, W. J., Kim, E. S., & Smith, J. (2018). An examination of dyadic changes in

optimism and physical health over time. Health Psychology, 37, 42–50. https://doi.

org/10.1037/hea0000549

Chopik, W. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2019). Actor, partner, and similarity effects of personality

on global and experienced well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 78,

249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.12.008

Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model

of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 29, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

Decuyper, M., De Bolle, M., & De Fruyt, F. (2012). Personality similarity, perceptual

accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal

Relationships, 19, 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01344.x

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grifn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/

s15327752jpa4901_13

Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting

relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative

samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and

similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 690–702. https://

doi.org/10.1037/a0020385

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4,

265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005

Furler, K., Gomez, V., & Grob, A. (2013). Personality similarity and life satisfaction in

couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jrp.2013.03.002

Furr, R. M. (2008). A framework for prole similarity: Integrating similarity,

normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00521.x

Gander, F., Hofmann, J., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths–Stability,

change, and relationships with well-being changes. Applied Research in Quality of Life,

15, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9690-4

Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2016). Positive psychology interventions

addressing pleasure, engagement, meaning, positive relationships, and

accomplishment increase well-being and ameliorate depressive symptoms: A

randomized, placebo-controlled online study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 686. https://

doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00686

Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2017). The subjective assessment of

accomplishment and positive relationships: Initial validation and correlative and

experimental evidence for their association with well-being. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 18, 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9751-z

Gander, F., & Wagner, L. (2021). Character growth following collective life events: A

study on perceived and measured changes in character strengths during the rst

wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Advance online publication European Journal of

Personality. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211040975.

Gander, F., Wagner, L., Amann, L., & Ruch, W. (2021). What are character strengths good

for? A daily diary study on character strengths enactment. Advance online

publication The Journal of Positive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/

17439760.2021.1926532.

Glaesmer, H., Grande, G., Braehler, E., & Roth, M. (2011). The German version of the

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties, validity, and

population-based norms. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 127–132.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000058

Harzer, C., Bezuglova, N., & Weber, M. (2021). Incremental validity of character

strengths as predictors of job performance beyond general mental ability and the Big

Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.518369

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2015). The relationships of character strengths with coping,

work-related stress, and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 165. https://doi.

org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00165

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2016). Your strengths are calling: Preliminary results of a web-

based strengths intervention to increase calling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17,

2237–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9692-y

Heintz, S., Kramm, C., & Ruch, W. (2019). A meta-analysis of gender differences in

character strengths and age, nation, and measure as moderators. The Journal of

Positive Psychology, 14, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1414297

Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and

dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress & Coping,

26, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.655726

Humbad, M. N., Donnellan, M. B., Iacono, W. G., McGue, M., & Burt, S. A. (2013).

Quantifying the association between personality similarity and marital adjustment

using prole correlations: A cautionary tale. Journal of Research in Personality, 47,

97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.007

Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political

orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating,

and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645. https://

doi.org/10.1037/a0025560

K¨

orner, R., & Schütz, A. (2021). Power in romantic relationships: How positional and

experienced power are associated with relationship quality. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 38, 2653–2777. https://doi.org/10.1177/

02654075211017670

Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling

versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family

Psychology, 31, 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000290

Liu, J., Ludeke, S., Haubrich, J., Gondan-Rochon, M., & Zettler, I. (2018). Similar to and/

or better than oneself? Singles’ ideal partner personality descriptions. European

Journal of Personality, 32, 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2159

Luo, S. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and

consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, Article e12337. https://

doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for

attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700

Mund, M., Finn, C., Hagemeyer, B., & Neyer, F. J. (2016). Understanding dynamic

transactions between personality traits and partner relationships. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 25, 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416659458

Muth´

en, L. K., & Muth´

en, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide (Version 8). Muth´

en &

Muth´

en.

Neyer, F. J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Personality–relationship transaction in young

adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1190–1204. https://doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1190

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character strengths among

adolescents: The development and validation of the Values in Action Inventory of

Strengths for Youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

adolescence.2006.04.011

Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Assessment of character strengths. In:

G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S.S. Hill III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference (2nd

ed., Vol. 3, pp. 93-98). Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Greater strengths of character and

recovery from illness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 7-26. doi: 10.1080/

17439760500372739.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and

classication. Oxford University Press.

Proyer, R. T., Brauer, K., Wolf, A., & Chick, G. (2019). Adult playfulness and relationship

satisfaction: An APIM analysis of romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality,

79, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.001

Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2013). What good are character

strengths beyond subjective well-being? The contribution of the good character on

self-reported health-oriented behavior, physical tness, and the subjective health

status. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/

17439760.2013.777767

Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2015). Strengths-based positive

psychology interventions: A randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term

effects for a signature strengths-vs. a lesser strengths-intervention. Frontiers in

Psychology, 6, 456. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00456

Rammstedt, B., & Schupp, J. (2008). Only the congruent survive–Personality similarities

in couples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 533–535. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.007

Rammstedt, B., Spinath, F. M., Richter, D., & Schupp, J. (2013). Partnership longevity

and personality congruence in couples. Personality and Individual Differences, 54,

832–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.007

Rogers, K. H., Wood, D., & Furr, R. M. (2018). Assessment of similarity and self-other

agreement in dyadic relationships: A guide to best practices. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 35, 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712615

Ruch, W., Gander, F., Platt, T., & Hofmann, J. (2018). Team roles: Their relationships to

character strengths and job satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13,

190–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1257051

Ruch, W., Martínez-Martí, M. L., Proyer, R. T., & Harzer, C. (2014). The Character

Strengths Rating Form (CSRF): Development and initial assessment of a 24-item

rating scale to assess character strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 68,

53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.042

K. Brauer et al.

Journal of Research in Personality 99 (2022) 104248

Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010).

Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the

German version and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual

Differences, 31, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000022

Ruch, W., & Stahlmann, A. G. (2019). 15 years after Peterson and Seligman (2004): A

brief narrative review of the research on the 12 criteria for character strengths–The

forgotten treasure of the VIA classication. In M. Brohm-Badry, C. Peifer,

J. M. Greve, & B. Berend (Eds.), Zusammen wachsen–F¨

orderung der positiv-

psychologischen Entwicklung von Individuen, Organisationen und Gesellschaft [Growing

together-Promoting positive psychological development of individuals, organizations, and

society] (pp. 142–172). Pabst Science Publishers.

Ruch, W., Weber, M., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2014). Character strengths in children and

adolescents: Reliability and initial validity of the German Values in Action Inventory

of Strengths for Youth (German VIA-Youth). European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 30, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000169

Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1467-8721.2009.01657.x

Sch¨

onbrodt, F. D., Humberg, S., & Nestler, S. (2018). Testing similarity effects with

dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32, 627–641.

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169

Sch¨

onbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?

Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jrp.2013.05.009

Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-

being. Simon and Schuster.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction.

In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology (pp.

279–298). Springer.

Siffert, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2010). Entwicklung eines neuen multidimensionalen

Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Partnerschaftsqualit¨

at (FPQ) [Development of a new

multidimensional questionnaire for the assessment of relationship quality (FPQ)].

Journal of Family Research, 22, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-277

Steger, M. F., Hicks, B. M., Kashdan, T. B., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2007).

Genetic and environmental inuences on the positive traits of the values in action

classication, and biometric covariance with normal personality. Journal of Research

in Personality, 41, 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.002

van Scheppingen, M. A., Chopik, W. J., Bleidorn, W., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2019).

Longitudinal actor, partner, and similarity effects of personality on well-being.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, e51–e70. https://doi.org/10.1037/

pspp0000211

Vinkhuyzen, A. A., Van Der Sluis, S., Maes, H. H., & Posthuma, D. (2012). Reconsidering

the heritability of intelligence in adulthood: Taking assortative mating and cultural

transmission into account. Behavior Genetics, 42, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10519-011-9507-9

Wagner, L. (2019). Good character is what we look for in a friend: Character strengths

are positively related to peer acceptance and friendship quality in early adolescents.

The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39, 864–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0272431618791286

Wagner, L., Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths and

PERMA: Investigating the relationships of character strengths with a

multidimensional framework of well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15,

307–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9695-z

Watson, D., Beer, A., & McDade-Montez, E. (2014). The role of active assortment in

spousal similarity. Journal of Personality, 82, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/

jopy.12039

Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004).

Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed

couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-

3506.2004.00289.x

Weber, M., & Ruch, W. (2012). The role of character strengths in adolescent romantic

relationships: An initial study on partner selection and mates’ life satisfaction.

Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1537–1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

adolescence.2012.06.002

Weidmann, R., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2016). The interdependence of personality

and satisfaction in couples. European Psychologist, 21, 284–295. https://doi.org/

10.1027/1016-9040/a000261

K. Brauer et al.

The Effect of Parenting on Young Adult Romantic Relationship Quality: A Longitudinal Study on Young Adults

Article

Jan 2024

Ting Tin Tin

On person-community fit: Trait-, person-, and type-based approaches to measurement

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Personality / Individual Differences: Relationship Satisfaction

Chapter

Full-text available

Apr 2023

Relationship satisfaction describes evaluations of and attitudes toward one’s relationship and is one of the most frequently studied variables in relationship research (Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002). Relationship satisfaction is typically studied in couples, but it can also be studied in other types of relationships, such as between friends or colleagues. Numerous relationship-specific (relationship length and intimate partner violence) and individual difference variables (e.g., psychological well-being) have been shown to influence relationship satisfaction, including personality traits (Joel et al., 2020). Relationship satisfaction is affected by numerous relationship-specific (e.g., relationship length and intimate partner violence) and individual difference variables (e.g., psychological well-being), including personality traits (Joel et al., 2020). In this entry, we provide an overview of research on the relationship between personality traits and relationship satisfaction in couples.

Enhancing Relationship Quality through Behavioral-Based Appreciation of Romantic Partner’s Character Strengths

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024

Recognizing strengths in romantic partners is associated with relationship quality. However, is mere recognition sufficient, or does genuine appreciation play a more pivotal role? We address this question in a mixed-methods study comprising 90 heterosexual couples, randomly allocated into one of three groups: (1) intervention: six weekly 20-minute sessions of mutual appreciation of partners’ strengths used during the week; (2) placebo control: six weekly sessions focused on mutual sharing of paired interactions, and (3) no-treatment control. Participants completed questionnaires measuring marital satisfaction and burnout before, immediately following, and a month following the 6-week intervention. Additionally, before and after the intervention, participants rated two perceptions of partner strengths: (1) the benefits (the utility and effectiveness associated with their use) and (2) the costs (potential drawbacks of their use). The main analyses showed no significant effect of the intervention. However, a non-significant trend was observed among women, but not men, in the intervention group between the initial and post-intervention evaluations of benefits. Qualitative analysis revealed that compared with men, women were significantly more attributed with strengths of social intelligence and love and were nearly twice as likely as men to express appreciation for their partners’ strengths-based behaviors directed toward them. Whether due to women being more attuned to these actions or men being more inclined to demonstrate strengths to their wives, women reported accruing greater benefits from their partners’ strengths than men. Overall, this study emphasizes the contribution of behavioral-based appreciation for the partner’s strengths in enhancing relationship quality, particularly for women.

A Scalable Approach for Strengthening Social Media Ties Using Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Article

Aug 2023

Doctrine-Shaped Trait Forgiveness and Relationship Satisfaction in People who Identify as Christians — A Multiple Mediation Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Despite increasing attention to the study of forgiveness, little consideration has been imparted to the act of forgiving as a religiously shaped path towards relationship satisfaction. This study examines (1) whether a person’s doctrine-shaped trait forgiveness (DTF) is positively associated with relationship satisfaction; and (2) whether two dimensions of offense-specific forgiveness — benevolence and resentment–avoidance — mediate this association. Using structural equation modeling, we analyzed cross-sectional data of an adult German sample (N = 980), all of whom stated their affiliation to a Christian church. The analysis of the non-mediator model indicated a positive direct path between DTF and relationship satisfaction (β = 0.123). Computing the mediation effects, we found a significant, positive total effect of DTF on relationship satisfaction (β = 0.129). Our findings suggest indirect paths between DTF and relationship satisfaction through resentment–avoidance (β = 0.074) and benevolence (β = 0.021). Neither gender nor denomination effects emerged within the invariance analyses. The results supported the assumption that individuals with a higher level of DTF also experience greater satisfaction in their intimate relationships, by engaging in less resentful and avoidant as well as more benevolent behavior.

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Muslim Community’s Practice of Choosing a Life Partner Based on Beauty and Health in Malaysia

Chapter

Dec 2024

Etymologically, kafa’ah refers to appropriateness or equality. In Islam, marriage is considered “ibadah.” Numerous studies explore the criteria for selecting a life partner within the Muslim community, predominantly focusing on four key aspects derived from Islamic teachings: religious commitment, physical attractiveness, material possessions, and familial lineage. However, investigations into alternative criteria remain limited. Therefore, the purpose of this article was to investigate the practice of choosing a life partner based on beauty and health criteria among Muslim community in Malaysia. Employing a descriptive survey methodology entrenched in quantitative research, this study utilizes an online questionnaire-based method for data collection. As a result of the pilot study, reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.81, suggesting a high level of consistency within the study. The questionnaire was distributed online among residents across Malaysian states, gathering responses from 381 individuals’ assembly specific inclusion criteria: Muslim, aged between 18 and 51 years, with educational attainment at least equivalent to Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM). Data analysis, which was performed using Statistical Package for Social Science Version (SPSS 28.0), employed descriptive statistics such as percentages, frequencies, mean scores, and standard deviations. The results showed that respondents valued beauty and health characteristics in partner selection, as reflected by consistently high mean values ranging from 3.85 to 4.76 across relevant categories. However, respondents did not prioritize having a pleasing appearance in the eyes of others when selecting a partner. As a comprehensive religion, Islam provides guidance for various matters including when it comes to finding a mate. In building a marriage bond that is harmonious and blessed by God, to follow the guidance of Shariah and prophetic advice that is, prospective husbands are encouraged to prioritize women who are pious (religious) and can give birth to offspring in addition to having other special characteristics.

A New Sentiment Analysis-based Approach for the Prediction of Users Beliefs

Conference Paper

Jul 2024

CAUSES OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS: A STUDY OF DIVORCE CASES IN THE SYARIAH SUBORDINATE COURT AT SHAH ALAM

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2023

The reality of family in Malaysia shows that the trend of divorce is increasing every year. There are many factors that lead to divorce and one of the factors that recorded the highest percentage is lack of understanding. Couples who divorce due to misunderstanding have their own reasons for divorce. Therefore, this study aims to identify the factors that cause disagreements between husband and wife. This study uses data analysis methods from 15 case files with specialization on the reason for divorce due to lack of understanding from 2017-2022. The study was conducted at Shah Alam Syariah Subordinate Court. Among the aspects studied are the age of the husband and wife, the duration of the marriage and the reason for disagreement. The results of the study show that misunderstanding often occurs due to communication problems, maintenance problems and neglect of the couple's feelings which is the most important factor, in addition to other factors such as neglect of religious responsibility and health problems.

Effective Estimation of Relationship Strength Among Facebook Users Applying Pearson Correlation and Jaccard’s Coefficient

Chapter

Jun 2023

Numerous ways have been established till the present to identify tie strength among users on online social media. Although calculating relationship strength among interconnected users has been a burning research topic, it is not also easy to find out powerful interconnections in a dynamic network as the volatility of user connections over a period of time. Mainly, the highest frequency of sharing information between two users in a network indicates strong bonding in a social network. And possible mutual connections may be established based on the strong bonding between two users. In this paper, we have proposed a novel method to calculate relationship strength among Facebook users with Pearson Correlation and Jaccard’s Coefficient. We propose two factors Analogy Profile and Analogy Friendship to obtain the final relationship strength. The performance of our proposed model is compared with the popular existing model, namely Trust Propagation-User Relationship Strength (TP-URS) using the assessment matrices Precision, Recall, and Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Our proposed method provides a precision value of 0.66, recall value of 0.74, and DSC value of 0.71 which are comparatively better than the existing algorithm.KeywordsRelationship StrengthTie StrengthSocial NetworksFacebookAnalogy

A Primer on Studying Effects of Relationship Duration in Dyadic Research: Contrasting Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Approaches

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2022
J SOC PERS RELAT

There has been increasing interest in the analysis of dyadic data. While there is ongoing progress in the development of statistically fine-grained methods to model complex dyadic data, many studies examine relationship duration in dyads using cross-sectional data (e.g., when testing the effects of acquaintanceship on the accuracy of personality judgments). We discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of analyzing and interpreting time-based variables in dyadic research on basis of the cross-sectional and longitudinal design approaches. We give examples from the literature on romantic relationships and interpersonal perception. Finally, we derive recommendations on addressing questions of time-based indexes in dyadic research and discuss advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

Character Growth Following Collective Life Events: A Study on Perceived and Measured Changes in Character Strengths During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2021
EUR J PERSONALITY

Did the COVID-19 pandemic promote character growth? Studies using sequential samples suggest that collective life events can result in character growth, but their conclusions have been questioned. This study used three approaches to examine character growth during the first wave of the pandemic: perceived changes in oneself and in a close other, and a longitudinal analysis of changes. In addition, we tested whether character strengths assessed before the pandemic predicted specific instances of growth, that is, engagement in volunteering and compliance with regulations during the pandemic. German-speaking participants (N = 366, 76.5% female, mean age: 45.33 years) who had completed an assessment of character strengths before the pandemic reported on perceived changes in character strengths, engagement in volunteering, and compliance with regulations. A subsample also completed a second assessment of character strengths. The results showed that (a) participants reported perceived changes for most character strengths in both themselves and close others, while (b) longitudinal increases were only observed for humility and prudence. Pre-pandemic character strengths predicted (c) engagement in volunteering and (d) compliance with regulations. We conclude that actual character growth was smaller than the perceived changes but that the character strengths did predict relevant behaviors related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Revisiting Adult Playfulness and Relationship Satisfaction: APIM Analyses of Middle- Aged and Older Couples

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2021

There is robust support for the notion that playfulness is important for how people initiate and engage in their romantic relationships. Our study sought to extend the knowledge on associations between four facets of playfulness (Other-directed, Lighthearted, Intellectual, and Whimsical; OLIW) with facets of relationship satisfaction (RS) in 116 middle-to-older age couples (median = 54 and 57 years in women and men). In comparison to younger samples, we found lower expressions in Other-directed playfulness. Using Actor-Partner Interdependence Modelling, we found that (a) older couples showed comparatively higher similarity in the single OLIW facets and their profiles than previously found in younger couples; (b) similarity is again unrelated to RS; and (c) findings on playfulness-RS associations partially replicated, with Other-directed and Whimsical playfulness showing the numerically strongest actor and partner effects, but mainly in women. We discuss the differences in similarity with regard to an attrition effect. Overall, we conclude that playfulness is important in older couples in similar ways as in younger couples.

What are character strengths good for? A daily diary study on character strengths enactment

Article

Full-text available

May 2021

While character strengths are expected to contribute to the ‘good life,’ they also may serve specific purposes (e.g., the strength of curiosity should support the acquisition and use of knowledge). This study explored the potential functions of character strengths from a within-person perspective. We used a literature review and qualitative and quantitative surveys to determine potential functions. This resulted in 17 distinguishable functions (e.g., ‘feeling free and independent’). We used a diary study that included N = 196 participants (84.4% women, mean age: 25.68 years) who reported their daily character strength enactments and their experiences of the functions for 14 consecutive days. Our results suggested that the enactment of character strengths was positively related to several functions. However, the character strengths also showed distinguishable patterns of relationships with the functions, which were largely in line with – but not limited to – the functions suggested in the VIA classification.

Power in romantic relationships: How positional and experienced power are associated with relationship quality

Article

Full-text available

May 2021
J SOC PERS RELAT

Power dynamics have been described as being constitutive of romantic relationships and can impact outcomes such as relationship quality. Yet, in relationships nowadays, power may be less important than in the past due to changes in gender roles and society’s expectations. We analyzed four power characteristics and their effects on a multidimensional measure of relationship quality using an actor-partner interdependence model framework with 181 heterosexual couples. There was usually a balance of power in the couples with respect to a personal sense of power but an imbalance in positional power. We found actor and partner effects: Personal sense of power and satisfaction with power predicted actors’ and partners’ relationship quality. By contrast, positional power, the general power motive, and the balance of power were not associated with relationship quality. There were hardly any differences in actor or partner effects between men and women. Apparently, it is not objective, positional power but subjective, experienced power that is relevant to overall relationship quality. Furthermore, what matters most for satisfaction with the relationship is not the balance of power but rather the perceived personal level of power. Future research may extend these findings by using domain-specific power measures and behavioral power indicators.

Is it me or you? An Actor-partner Examination of the Relationship between Partners’ Character Strengths and Marital Quality

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2022

Numerous studies examined the association between character strengths—positive traits that comprise a good personality—and satisfaction with different aspects of life. However, few studies explored the connection between character strengths and marital satisfaction. The present study, conducted on a sample of 177 married couples, aims to examine this connection. Given the findings of previous studies, showing that both spouses’ personality traits contribute to relationship quality, we expect to find a connection between the spouses’ strengths and their marital quality. Using actor-partner interdependence model analyses, we examined the effects of three strengths factors (caring, self-control, and inquisitiveness) of both the individual and the partner on marital quality, evaluated by indices measuring marital satisfaction, intimacy, and burnout. Our findings revealed that the individual’s three strengths factors were related to all of his or her marital quality indices (actor effects). Moreover, women’s caring, inquisitiveness and self-control factors were associated with men’s marital quality, and men’s inquisitiveness and self-control factors were associated with women’s marital quality (partner effects). Our findings join the efforts of previous studies to understand the association between character strengths and the various elements of mental well-being, especially romantic relationships.

Incremental Validity of Character Strengths as Predictors of Job Performance Beyond General Mental Ability and the Big Five

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2021

Over the last decades, various predictors have proven relevant for job performance [e.g., general mental ability (GMA), broad personality traits, such as the Big Five]. However, prediction of job performance is far from perfect, and further potentially relevant predictors need to be investigated. Narrower personality traits, such as individuals' character strengths, have emerged as meaningfully related to different aspects of job performance. However, it is still unclear whether character strengths can explain additional variance in job performance over and above already known powerful predictors. Consequently, the present study aimed at (1) examining the incremental validity of character strengths as predictors of job performance beyond GMA and/or the Big Five traits and (2) identifying the most important predictors of job performance out of the 24 character strengths, GMA, and the Big Five. Job performance was operationalized with multidimensional measures of both productive and counterproductive work behavior. A sample of 169 employees from different occupations completed web-based self-assessments on character strengths, GMA, and the Big Five. Additionally, the employees' supervisors provided web-based ratings of their job performance. Results showed that character strengths incrementally predicted job performance beyond GMA, the Big Five, or GMA plus the Big Five; explained variance increased up to 54.8, 43.1, and 38.4%, respectively, depending on the dimension of job performance. Exploratory relative weight analyses revealed that for each of the dimensions of job performance, at least one character strength explained a numerically higher amount of variance than GMA and the Big Five, except for individual task proactivity, where GMA exhibited the numerically highest amount of explained variance. The present study shows that character strengths are relevant predictors of job performance in addition to GMA and other conceptualizations of personality (i.e., the Big Five). This also highlights the role of socio-emotional skills, such as character strengths, for the understanding of performance outcomes above and beyond cognitive ability.

Testing the Associations between Dispositions Toward Ridicule and Being Laughed at and Romantic Jealousy in Couples: An APIM Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2021
J PERS

Objective: How people deal with ridicule and being laughed at plays a role in romantic life. We extend the research on the fear of being laughed at (gelotophobia), joy in being laughed at (gelotophilia), and joy in laughing at others (katagelasticism) by testing their associations with romantic jealousy and its consequences for relationship satisfaction (RS). Method: Our study is based on Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) analyses of self and partner ratings of the laughter-related dispositions using data from 228 opposite-sex couples. APIM mediation analyses estimated indirect effects of jealousy on the associations between the dispositions and RS. Results: As expected, gelotophobia related positively to jealousy in actors, whereas gelotophilia and katagelasticism showed differential relationships. The analysis of partner effects showed that the actual expressions in the dispositions are unrelated to jealousy but perceived expressions account robustly for experiences of jealousy beyond self-ratings. Finally, jealousy had indirect effects on the associations between the dispositions and RS. Conclusion: These findings contribute to our understanding of the role of dealing with ridicule and laughter in romantic life. We embed the findings into the literature, discuss practical implications, and derive future directions to expand the knowledge on gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelasticism in romantic life.

Running head: A brief review of the research on the 12 criteria for VIA character strengths 1 15 years after Peterson and Seligman (2004): A brief narrative review of the research on the 12 criteria for character strengths -the forgotten treasure of the VIA classification Willibald Ruch

Chapter

Full-text available

Mar 2020

Due to Allport's (1927) claim that character is merely personality evaluated (and personality is character devalued) and personality alone will do, "character" had largely been neglected when exploring individual differences. This however changed with the emergence of positive psychology, which brought a renaissance of the concept of character on personality psychology. Early in the search for the roots of a good life, character was rediscovered as key to investigating and fostering subjective, objective and societal fulfillment. In 2004, these considerations were recognized in the VIA classification, which introduced 24 character strengths and six virtues. The fundament of the classification are criteria that define character strengths by means of decisive and verifiable benchmarks. In this narrative review, we delineate the progression of the list of criteria for character strengths (from seven to 12). Furthermore, we discuss the extent to which the literature shows that the 24 strengths indeed satisfy these criteria. It is evident that many studies were published, for example, to demonstrate that character strengths predict various indicators of well-being. However, there is surprisingly little research into this very foundation of the classification, for example, whether all character strengths are inherently morally valued and whether character strengths could be selectively missing in a person altogether. We argue that more research should be directed at the study of these criteria as they form the backbone of what character strengths are and may be considered the nucleus of an emerging theory of character.

A Dyadic Personality Perspective on the Michelangelo Phenomenon: How Personality Traits Relate to People's Ideal Selves and Their Personal Growth in Romantic Relationships

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2020
J RES PERS

Personality matters for romantic relationships. In this study, we investigated personal growth in couples (the Michelangelo phenomenon) and targeted questions of personality effects. We explored whether traits intrapersonally predict ideal selves as well as whether traits intra- and interpersonally account for why some people are more likely to benefit from the Michelangelo phenomenon than others. We used data from a 4-year study of 163 couples (Mage = 50.72 years). Logistic regressions indicate complementarity effects for men, in that those high in neuroticism were likely to wish to be emotionally stable. Actor–partner interdependence models revealed positive actor effects of emotional stability, extraversion, and agreeableness, while few partner effects emerged. We discuss dyadic personal growth in view of individual trait differences. Word Count: 120

Profile Similarities Among Romantic Partners' Character Strengths and Their Associations with Relationship- and Life Satisfaction

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Character Strengths and PERMA: Investigating the Relationships of Character Strengths with a Multidi...

Character Strengths: Person–Environment Fit and Relationships With Job and Life Satisfaction

Editorial: Introduction to the Special Issue "Well-being in Romantic Relationships"

Revisiting Adult Playfulness and Relationship Satisfaction: APIM Analyses of Middle- Aged and Older...