Abstract
In this study, the actor-partner interdependence model was utilized to investigate the impact that personality has on marital adjustment in a sample of 270 couples (N = 540) in marital distress that presented to an intensive outpatient marital therapy program. Sixteen Personality Factor Fifth Edition (16PF Fifth Edition) scores revealed significant personality differences between husbands and wives, as well as significant actor and partner effects, suggesting that certain personality traits of one partner predict his or her own, as well as his or her spouse’s, marital adjustment. Gender effects also were evident among the sample, suggesting that a number of personality correlates of marital adjustment tended to be different for the husbands and wives in this study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In that the authors used an archival data set for this study—the two self-report measures were administered to couples on day one of a week-long intensive marital therapy program solely as an initial assessment of personality and marital adjustment—we did not track marital outcomes. This, of course, was a major limitation of our study. In the future, studies that measure these variables in the context of marital therapy may wish to longitudinally track personality and marital adjustment so as to examine whether or not marital interventions have an impact on personality and marital adjustment over time.
We decided to organize our predictions around three distinct hypotheses based on the ways in which prior marital research has been conducted. Thus, our first set of hypotheses are simply based on prior research examining spousal personality differences. With this very basic type of research, personality data among couples are examined solely based on gender, with researchers examining both happily and unhappily married couples to see if gender differences in personality exist between the two groups. Our second set of hypotheses, on the other hand, are based on more advanced statistical procedures—marital studies that focus specifically on actor or partner effects. This area of research typically utilizes regression analyses to examine the ways in which personality predicts marital adjustment; again, these are much more sophisticated statistical procedures than the procedures utilized within the first area of research. Moreover, the APIM statistical procedure, which we used in our study, investigates both actor and partner effects because these are very distinct, yet overlapping, phenomena within marital research—actor effects focus on intrapsychic phenomena (i.e., how certain characteristics of an individual impact other characteristics of that same individual), whereas partner effects measure interdependence (i.e., how certain characteristics of an individual impact the characteristics of others he or she is somehow connected to or affiliated with). In other words, actor effects focus solely on the individual, a salient area of marital research, whereas partner effects examine the system, also an important area of marital research. So, an individual can simultaneously have both actor and partner effects, or only actor or partner effects, in that he or she has an influence on both him- or herself, as well as the system he or she is embedded in, to varying degrees. Finally, we offered a third hypothesis to examine the impact that gender has on actor and partner effects in that this is a seldom studied area of marital research. Overall, although the different hypotheses in our study may seem to have some overlap, they are distinct areas of marital research that utilize very different statistical procedures and yield divergent results.
References
Barton, K., & Cattell, R. (1972). Marriage dimensions and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 369–375.
Bradbury, T. (1995). Assessing the four fundamental domains of marriage. Family Relations, 44, 459–468.
Bradbury, T., & Karney, B. (2004). Understanding and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 862–879.
Cattell, H. (1989). The 16PF: Personality in depth. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Cattell, R., & Nesselroade, J. (1967). Likeness and completeness theories examined by sixteen personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 351–361.
Cattell, H., & Schuerger, J. (2003). Essentials of 16PF assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Caughlin, J., Huston, T., & Houts, R. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326–336.
Cook, W., & Kenny, D. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.
Craig, R., & Olson, R. (1995). 16 PF profiles and typologies for patients seen in marital therapy. Psychological Reports, 77, 187–194.
Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guttman, R. (1987). Spouse similarities in personality items: Changes over years of marriage and implications for mate selection. Behavior Genetics, 17, 179–189.
Johnson, S. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.
Karson, S., & O’Dell, J. (1976). A guide to the clinical use of the 16 PF. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Kashy, D., & Kenny, D. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Kenny, D., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366.
Kim, A., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (1989). Effects of personality on marital satisfaction: Identification of source traits and their role in marital stability. Family Therapy, 16, 243–248.
Knabb, J., Vogt, R., Brickley, D., & Newgren, K. (2011). Personality typologies for conservative Christians in intensive marital therapy. Marriage and Family Review, 47, 23–44.
Levine, K., & Hennessy, J. (1990). Personality influences in the stability of early (teen-age) marriage in the United States. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9, 296–303.
Luo, S., Chen, H., Yue, G., Zhang, G., Zhaoyang, R., & Xu, D. (2008). Predicting marital satisfaction from self, partner, and couple characteristics: Is it me, you, or us? Journal of Personality, 76, 1231–1265.
Meck, D., & Leunes, A. (1977). Marital instability in a semi-rural setting: Personality considerations. Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 278–281.
Nurse, R. (1999). Family assessment: Effective uses of personality tests with couples and families. New York: Wiley.
Robins, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251–259.
Russell, M., & Karol, D. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition administrator’s manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Russell, R., & Wells, P. (1994). Personality and quality of marriage. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 161–168.
Schumm, W., Webb, F., & Bollman, S. (1998). Gender and marital satisfaction: Data from the National Survey of Families and Households. Psychological Reports, 83, 319–327.
Shiota, M., & Levenson, R. (2007). Birds of a feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarity on big five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666–675.
South, S., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. (2008). Personality disorder symptoms and marital functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 769–780.
Spanier, G. (1987). Dyadic adjustment scale. In N. Fredman & R. Sherman (Eds.), Handbook of measurements for marriage and family therapy (pp. 52–58). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Terman, L., Buttenwieser, P., Ferguson, L., Johnson, W., & Wilson, D. (1938). Psychological factor in marital happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Udry, J. (1967). Personality match and interpersonal perception as predictors of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 722–725.
Whisman, M., Uebelacker, L., & Weinstock, L. (2004). Psychopathology and marital satisfaction: The importance of evaluating both partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 830–838.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knabb, J.J., Vogt, R.G. The Relationship Between Personality and Marital Adjustment Among Distressed Married Couples Seen in Intensive Marital Therapy: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Analysis. Contemp Fam Ther 33, 417–440 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-011-9167-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-011-9167-1