The relationship between marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction EVA WUNDERER* AND KLAUS A. SCHNEEWIND University of Munich, Germany Abstract Different types of cognitions in close relationships have been identified. Yet, little is known about the nature and effects of most of them, such as marital standards. In our research project `What makes marriages last?' we applied a German adaptation of the `Inventory of Specific Relationship Standards,' a questionnaire measuring how much sharing, egalitarianism and investment spouses feel they should have and actually experience in their own marriage. We hypothesized that high, i.e., relationshipfocused standards, should be associated with dyadic coping processes as well as with marital satisfaction. Thereby, dyadic coping was expected to play a mediating role between standards and marital satisfaction. Based on a sample of 663 German married couples, we found significant correlations between standards, marital satisfaction, and dyadic coping processes. Moreover, supportive behavior in stressful situations had the expected partial mediating effect, which turned out to be slightly different for husbands and wives. Implications for preventive and therapeutic intervention are discussed. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Over the last decades the question how marriages develop and what factors influence their success or failure has aroused the interest of psychological research (e.g., Bodenmann, 2001; Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000; Engl, 1997; Gottman & Levenson, 2000b; Gottman & Levenson, 2000c; Halford, Kelly, & Markman, 1997; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). As a consequence, research has accumulated quite a solid knowledge about the relevance of communication processes and conflict resolution styles (e.g., Christensen, 1988; Fitzpatrick, 1988; Gottman, 1993; Gottman & Levenson, 2000a; Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Kurdek, 1993; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Schlee, Monson, Ehrensaft, & Heyman, 1998), dyadic coping skills (Bodenmann, 2000), personal characteristics and vulnerabilities (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) and stress in the marriage (Bodenmann, 2000; Bodenmann & Cina, 2000). Cognition also plays a central role (e.g., Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Bradbury et al., 2000; Fletcher & Fincham, European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) Published online 14 November 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.405 *Correspondence to: Dr. Eva Wunderer, Department of Psychology, University of Munich, Leopoldstraße 13, 80802 Munich, Germany. E-mail: wunderer@psy.uni-muenchen.de Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 5 April 2004 Accepted 30 August 2006 1991b; Noller, Beach, & Osgarby, 1997) and researchers have replicated the effect of attributions on marital well-being (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham, Harold, & Gano-Phillips, 2000; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991a; Johnson, Karney, Rogge, & Bradbury, 2001; Karney & Bradbury, 2000). Little is known, however, about the impact of other types of cognitions such as expectancies or standards on marital relationships (Baucom et al., 1996a). Baucom and Epstein (1990; Baucom, Epstein, Rankin, & Burnett, 1996b; Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, & Sher, 1989) differentiate five types of cognitions: (a) selective attention or perceptions, (b) attributions, (c) expectancies, (d) assumptions, and (e) standards (Figure 1). Whereas assumptions refer to a person's conception of the characteristics of objects and events that actually exist, standards refer to the person's conception of those characteristics that should exist (Baucom & Epstein, 1990). Thus, standards include an evaluative aspect, which is not the focus of assumptions. In addition, standards serve positive functions in intimate relationships as they provide the partners with ethical guidelines for their common life (Epstein, Baucom, & Daiuto, 1997). Difficulties can arise, if standards are not met or if partners endorse extreme or unrealistic standards. Baucom and his associates (1996b) developed a self-report inventory to assess relationship standards, the `Inventory of Specific Relationship Standards' (ISRS), a German adaptation of which we included in the assessment battery of our research project `What makes marriages last?' The ISRS covers various areas (e.g., leisure, parenting, sexual interaction) and dimensions of marriage (i.e., boundaries, control-power, and investment). Partners with high standards, as measured by the ISRS, ask for few boundaries within their relationship, egalitarian decision-making, and high investment in the marriage (Baucom et al., 1996a). Therefore, Baucom and his associates use the term `relationship-focused standards'. Greater adherence to relationship-focused standards is associated with higher self-reported marital satisfaction (Baucom et al., 1996b; Epstein, Chen, & Beyder-Kamjou, 2005; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), while discrepancies between partners' standards only show low correlations with marital PAST PRESENT FUTURE standards (how things should be) EVENT assumptions (how things are) attributions (why events occur) perceptions (what events occur) expectancies (what events will occur) Figure 1. Five types of cognitions in marriage (Baucom et al., 1996b) Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction 463 satisfaction level (Baucom et al., 1996b). For their sample of 386 couples Baucom and his associates (1996b) report high standards, which were met to a very high extent. Adherence to relationship-focused standards is also associated with more constructive communication patterns and behaviors (Baucom et al., 1996a; Baucom et al., 1996b; Gordon, Baucom, Epstein, Burnett, & Rankin, 1999). The higher the desire for sharing, egalitarianism and investment in the marriage is, the more constructive communication, less demand-withdrawal and less avoidance-withdrawal spouses show in their marital interaction. Gordon and her associates (Gordon et al., 1999) found an interaction effect confirming that, for women with more relationship-focused standards, the correlation of communication with marital adjustment is higher than for women with less relationship-focused standards. Interestingly, there was no such interaction for men. The authors speculate that women are monitoring their relationships more closely, which leads them to be more aware of inconsistencies between communication and standards. This, in turn, affects their marital well-being and behavior. Results of a study of Rankin-Esquer, Burnett, Baucom, and Epstein (1997) support this interpretation with regard to relatedness behavior, which was measured by evaluating spouses' perceptions of the amount of closeness that partners provided. Wives' provision of relatedness (as reported by their husbands) was significantly correlated with their own and their husbands' standards, while husbands' relatedness behaviors were not. As Baucom and his associates showed, the actual standards are not related to attribution processes in marriage, whereas the number of unmet standards is (Baucom et al., 1996a). Besides, the latter is correlated with negative emotional responses, active-destructive behavioral responses to relationship problems, less constructive communication, more demand-withdraw interaction and more avoidance-withdrawal as reported by the spouses themselves (Baucom et al., 1996a,b). The current study aims at finding out about the relationship between marital standards and dyadic coping skills, which to our knowledge so far has not been examined. Bodenmann, (1997, 2000, 2005) describes dyadic coping as a process, which is characterized by specific stress signals of one partner and verbal or nonverbal responses to these signals by the other. He distinguishes several forms of dyadic coping processes: common dyadic coping (both partners engage symmetrically in the coping process), supportive dyadic coping (one partner supports the other in stressful situations) or delegated dyadic coping (one partner asks the other partner to take over some of his tasks; Bodenmann, Charvoz, Cina, & Widmer, 2001). Supportive dyadic coping either focuses on the problem (e.g., giving advice) or on emotions (e.g., providing tender gestures). Furthermore, there are negative forms, for example, ambivalent (one partner supports the other but perceives his support as superfluous) or hostile dyadic coping (e.g., criticizing the partner or making fun of him or her). What type of dyadic coping is shown depends on the spouses' individual and dyadic competences, motivational factors and characteristics of the situation in which stress occurs. Dyadic coping is correlated with the spouses' level of relationship quality (Bodenmann, 1999, 2000), relationship stability (Bodenmann, 2001; Bodenmann & Cina, 1999; Bodenmann & Cina, 2000) and communication behavior (Bodenmann & Cina, 2000). Effective dyadic coping not only reduces stress and enhances marital well-being, but also strengthens a feeling of `we-ness' in the partners. HYPOTHESES As relationship-focused standards place a major emphasis on the marriage and can be seen as demand for `we-ness' within the relationship, we expect that they should be correlated significantly with dyadic coping. More specifically, partners who want a lot from their marriages concerning sharing, egalitarianism, and investment should support each other in stressful situations (Hypothesis 1). Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 464 Eva Wunderer and Klaus A. Schneewind Furthermore relationship-focused standards--as well as dyadic coping--should be associated with high marital satisfaction (Hypothesis 2). The correlation between standards and satisfaction, however, is supposed to decline once dyadic coping is included in the regression model. In this case dyadic coping would show a mediating effect between relationship-focused standards and marital satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). This third hypothesis is derived from the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model of marriage proposed by Karney and Bradbury (1995; see Figure 2). Marital standards are supposed to be more long-standing schemas or cognitive structures (Epstein et al., 2005) and thus to belong to enduring vulnerabilities rather than to adaptive processes which mainly cover interaction processes--such as dyadic coping strategies. The variables used in the present study are print in italics in Figure 2. The model sees dyadic coping as a process variable in the mediating role. Standards as relationship-specific cognition are perceived as structural variable. Thus they are not supposed to be subject to change as easily as dyadic coping processes, and are not conceptualized as a mediating factor. Of course, the cross-sectional design of the study does not allow making causal interpretations, which will be discussed later on. METHOD Subjects The data presented in this study are part of a research project at the Ludwig­Maximilians University of Munich titled `What makes marriages last?' The project is supported by the German Science Foundation and aims at working out different patterns of stable, albeit more or less happy relationships. In cooperation with the German Youth Institute in Munich the couples participating in our study were recruited from the sample of the German Family Survey which is a large, representative sociological panel study conducted by the German Youth Institute. Our sample consists of 663 first-marriage couples from the so-called old states of the Federal Republic of Germany. The mean duration of marriage is 27.4 years (SD 10.2 years), ranging from 1 to 49 years. The sample consists predominantly of long-term relationships, which can be attributed to the fact that the first wave of the Family Survey took place in 1988. About 8% of the couples have no children, 609 couples have one to six children. On average, the husbands of our study are 53.1 years old (SD 9.6 Enduring Vulnerabilities Marital Standards Stressful Events Adaptive Processes Dyadic coping Marital Quality Marital Stability B E D C A G F H Figure 2. The vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) in the context of the present study Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction 465 years; range: 31­82 years), the wives are 50.3 years old (SD 9.5 years; range: 25­70 years). The mean monthly net income per household is 2.860 s (SD 1.700 s; min 520 s; max 33.230 s). About one-fifth of the sample has already retired (husbands: 25%, wives 11%). More than 60% of the respondents are employed (husbands: 69%, wives: 56%), whereas about 3% of the husbands and 28% of the wives (mainly housewives) are not part of the labor force. About half of all participants report that extended elementary school was their highest graduation (husbands: 51%, wives: 48%). Eighty-eight per cent of the husbands and 91% of the wives were born in the Federal Republic of Germany, 9% of the husbands and 7% of the wives come from Eastern Europe countries. Finally, about half of the respondents live in cities, and half of them in rural areas. Procedure Both partners separately filled in questionnaires. which besides personality and contextual variables, required detailed information concerning various aspects of their relationship. On average, it took about one hour to complete the questionnaire. Each couple received about 20 Euro for taking part in the study. Relationship-Focused Standards Standards are assessed by a German adaptation of the ISRS (Baucom et al., 1996b) covering 10 different areas of marriage (i.e., career issues, leisure, finances, household tasks, communicating negative thoughts and feelings, sexual interaction, affection, relations with family, religion, and parenting) and three different dimensions, that is, (1) boundaries, (2) power-control, (3a) instrumental, and (3b) emotional investment. For the German translation, we made use of the questionnaire `Standards in der Partnerschafť (standards in couple relationships), which Beer, Schuman and Zahn developed under supervision of Braukhaus and Hahlweg and which is based on the ISRS as well (personal correspondence with R. Beer, 22 November 2000 and K. Hahlweg, 29 November 2000). The boundaries dimension measures to what extent spouses believe they should share or be similar in various aspects of their lives. The spouses' responses to the items of the power-control dimension indicate how much they desire to have equal say in decisions. Concerning investment in the marriage Baucom and his associates (1996b) distinguish instrumental investment (task-oriented behaviors) and expressive investment (acts of caring and concern toward the partner). For each standard the respondent in our study answered two questions: How often should a given behavior or characteristic exist in his or her marriage (actual standard; 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 `never' to 5 `always'), and whether he or she feels the standard is or is not met in his or her marriage (`Are you satisfied with the way this standard is being met in your marriage?'; response options `yes' or `no'). In our adaptation, we changed the sequence of the items and chose to present the four standards for each relationship area in a row. Preliminary factor and item analyses suggested the construction of global scales consisting of four areas: leisure, communicating negative thoughts and feelings, sexual interaction and affection (for details see Wunderer, 2003). Sample items include: `My partner and I should have the same ideas about how to spend our leisure time together' (area: leisure; dimension: boundaries); `We should have equal say about whether we discuss certain negative thoughts and feelings that we have about our relationship' (area: communicating negative thoughts and feelings; dimension: power-control); `We should be willing to sacrifice time from other areas of our life (for example, doing house work, doing work for job) to make our sex life satisfying' (area: sexual Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 466 Eva Wunderer and Klaus A. Schneewind interaction; dimension: instrumental investment); `Expressing our love and commitment for each other should be our primary goal when we are physically affectionate (for example, holding hands or sitting close together)' (area: affection; dimension: emotional investment). Cronbach's Alpha is 0.89 for the global scale measuring the actual standards. The scale consists of 16 items (4 areas x 4 questions for the 3 dimensions). The scale was built by calculating the mean of all 16 items. Dyadic Coping The questionnaire is a short version of the `Fragebogen zur Erfassung von dyadischem Coping als generelle Tendenz' (FDCT-N) [Questionnaire to asses dyadic coping as general tendency] (Bodenmann, 1996). We included items describing the own dyadic coping and the perceived dyadic coping of the partner. Positive dyadic coping was measured with three items (e.g., `He/she gives me the impression that he/she understands me'; view on the partner; 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 `never' to 5 `always'), negative dyadic coping with two items (e.g., `I let him/her know that I don't want to be bothered with his/her problems'; view on self; 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 `never' to 5 `always'). Taking into account the results of factor analyses it appeared to be advisable to combine all items to one scale for self and for partner, respectively (Cronbach's Alpha 0.81 for dyadic coping self and 0.84 for dyadic coping partner). Marital Satisfaction To assess marital satisfaction we used a German translation oft the `Relationship Assessment Scale' (Hendrick, 1988). It contains 7 Items on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g. `How much do you love your wife/husbanď). Cronbach's Alpha is 0.91. Data Analysis As the sample does not contain independent cases, we conducted separate analyses for husbands (n 663) and wives (n 663). All analyses, except path analyses, were done with SPSS for Windows 12.0. We used the `Expectation Maximization' (EM) model to replace missing data. All correlations reported are based on Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficients. To test the mediator models (with more than one mediator variable), we used path analysis (AMOS 3.62, Arbuckle, 1997) with sex as grouping variable to find out whether the same model was suitable for husbands and wives. By doing so we again took into account that the sample does not consist of 1326 independent cases but rather of 663 couples. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Our sample is characterized by high relationship-focused standards and high marital satisfaction (Table 1). Thus our sample endorses similar standards as the sample of Baucom and his associates (1996b). The means for dyadic coping are high as well, indicating that spouses experience themselves and their partners as supportive in stressful situations. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction 467 Hypothesis 1 Table 2 shows the results of correlation analyses. The more relationship-focused the standards of the spouses are, the more they support each other in stressful situations and the more they feel supported by their partners. Hypothesis 2 Marital standards are highly correlated with marital satisfaction. Thus, if spouses demand `we-ness' in their marriage, they are more satisfied. Furthermore, dyadic coping is significantly correlated with marital satisfaction for both spouses (Table 3). Hypothesis 3 The results reported above lead to the third hypothesis stating that dyadic coping has a mediating effect on the relationship between standards and the respondenťs marital satisfaction. Correlation analyses revealed that the more relationship-focused standards are the more satisfied partners are in their marriage. As shown before, there are significant correlations between standards and dyadic coping on the one side as well as between dyadic coping and marital satisfaction on the other side. Thus, all methodological requirements for mediation are met (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In a path-analytic model without any restriction of paths we find the correlation between standards and the respondenťs perceived marital satisfaction notably reduced if we include dyadic coping (Figure 3; H husbands, W wives). To find out about the relevance of the own coping skills and the perceived coping skills of the partner, we included the view on the self and on the partner in our path analyses. Table 1. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the variables used in the analyses Standards (global scale) Marital Satisfaction Dyadic coping self Dyadic coping partner M SD M SD M SD M SD Husbands 4.01 0.48 4.20 0.65 4.09 0.64 4.10 0.65 Wives 4.04 0.49 4.08 0.73 4.26 0.54 3.91 0.72 Table 2. Correlations between standards and dyadic coping Standards < Standards , DyCo < 0.51 DyCo , 0.42 DyCo , as seen by < 0.47 DyCo < as seen by , 0.34 Note: Pearson-correlations. p 0.001. n 663. DyCodyadic coping. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 468 Eva Wunderer and Klaus A. Schneewind To get indices of model fit we need to restrict one path in order to get an additional degree of freedom. As there is seemingly only a small difference between husbands and wives concerning the correlation between standards and relationship satisfaction, we decide to equal the two paths (Figure 4). As can be seen, the fit of this mediation model is excellent. For husbands, 39% of the variance of marital satisfaction can be explained by the dyadic coping variables and marital standards; for wives, it is even 48%. For husbands, standards explain 26% of the variance of their own dyadic coping (as seen by themselves) and 22% of the dyadic coping of their wives (as perceived by the husbands). For wives, 17% of the variance of their own support for their husbands and 12% of the variance of the perceived support trough their husbands are explained by relationship-focused standards. To test statistical significance of an observed partial mediator effect, Baron and Kenny (1986) propose the Sobel test. It uses the regression weights and standard errors in order to find out whether the indirect effect, which the independent variable has on the dependent variable via the mediator, is Table 3. Correlations between standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction Marital satisfaction < Marital satisfaction , Standards < 0.44 Standards , 0.35 DyCo < 0.53 DyCo , 0.53 DyCo , as seen by < 0.57 DyCo < as seen by , 0.67 Note: Pearson-correlations. p 0.001. n 663. DyCo dyadic coping. Relationshipfocused standards H Marital Satisfaction H Dyadic Coping W as seen by H Dyadic coping H as seen by H ***12.***15. ***63.***74. .16*** (.44***) R=.26 R=.39 R=.22 .53*** Relationshipfocused standards W Marital Satisfaction W Dyadic Coping H as seen by W Dyadic coping W as seen by W ***41.***14. ***55.***43. .11*** (.35***) R=.17 R=.48 R=.12 .58*** Figure 3. Mediating effect of dyadic coping (model without restriction) Note: ***p < 0.001; in brackets: Pearson-correlation between standards and satisfaction Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction 469 significant. The Sobel test is highly significant for both mediators (dyadic coping self and partner) for husbands as well as for wives, indicating that dyadic coping has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between marital standards and marital satisfaction (Table 4). Apparently, for wives in comparison to husbands, marital satisfaction depends more on the partner's perceived coping skills. In order to find out about gender differences, we used group comparisons with restrictions of singular paths. If the difference in x2 between the two models (with and without restriction) is significant, taking into account the degrees of freedom, there is a significant gender difference for that path. For husbands the correlation between standards and their own dyadic coping is significantly higher than for wives (Table 5). For wives, the correlation between marital satisfaction and perceived support through the partner is significantly higher than for husbands. Relationshipfocused standards H Marital Satisfaction H Dyadic Coping W as seen by H Dyadic coping H as seen by H ***22.***15. ***73.***74. .14*** (restr.: a) R=.26 R=.39 R=.22 .53*** Relationshipfocused standards W Marital Satisfaction W Dyadic Coping H as seen by W Dyadic coping W as seen by W ***31.***14. ***45.***43. .12*** (restr.: a) R=.17 R=.48 R=.12 .58*** Group comparison = .79 df= 1 p= .37 AGFI= .99 CFI= 1.00 RMSEA= .00 Figure 4. Mediating effect of dyadic coping (model with restriction) Note: ***p < 0.001. AGFI adjusted goodness of fit index. CFI comparative fit index. RMSEA root mean square error of approximation Table 4. Significance of partial mediator effects (Sobel test) Mediator Sobel z < Sobel z , Dyadic coping self 5.11 3.48 Dyadic coping partner 7.57 7.85 Note: Pearson-correlations. p 0.001. n 663. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 470 Eva Wunderer and Klaus A. Schneewind DISCUSSION The current study shows that marital standards are associated with the partners' supportive behavior in stressful situations. It seems that there is a kind of `self-fulfilling'-effect: `People who expect a lot out of their relationships appear to behave in ways that confirm those expectations (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991, p. 74)'. As a consequence of dyadic coping spouses feel satisfied in their marriage. Thus supportive behavior in stressful situations--an adaptive process--has a mediating effect on the relationship between standards--which can be conceptualized as enduring vulnerabilities--and marital satisfaction. This was to be expected as the finding supports the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model of Karney and Bradbury (1995). Relationship-focused standards thus can be seen as motivational factors for dyadic coping. Bodenmann (2000) mentions the intention to invest in the relationship as intrinsic motive for dyadic coping, a great desire for autonomy and an imbalance of what one invests into and receives out of a relationship as motivational barriers. High standards imply a strong sense of `we-ness' in the marriage which has been proven to enhance marital well-being (Acitelli & Young, 1996; Reibstein, 1997; Wallerstein, 1994). Further support Table 5. Group comparisons for singular paths of the mediator model Mediator Model (see Figure 4)(a) Model with restriction of one path(b) Difference between the two models(c) Significance(d) Restriction of path x2 0.79 x2 15.03 D x2 14.24 p 0.001 between standards df 1 df 2 D df 1 and dyadic coping self p 0.37 p 0.00 AGFI 0.99 AGFI 0.94 CFI 1.00 CFI 0.99 RMSEA 0.00 RMSEA 0.07 Restriction of path x2 0.79 x2 4.26 D x2 3.47 p > 0.05 between standards and df 1 df 2 D df 1 dyadic coping partner p 0.37 p 0.12 AGFI 0.99 AGFI 0.98 CFI 1.00 CFI 1.00 RMSEA 0.00 RMSEA 0.03 Restriction of path x2 0.79 x2 1.18 D x2 0.39 p > 0.05 between dyadic coping df 1 df 2 D df 1 self and marital p 0.37 p 0.5 satisfaction AGFI 0.99 AGFI 1.00 CFI 1.00 CFI 1.00 RMSEA 0.00 RMSEA 0.00 Restriction of path x2 0.79 x2 11.86 D x2 11.07 p 0.001 between dyadic coping df 1 df 2 D df 1 partner and marital p 0.37 p 0.00 satisfaction AGFI 0.99 AGFI 0.96 CFI 1.00 CFI 0.99 RMSEA 0.00 RMSEA 0.06 Note: Comparisons of the mediator model--as shown in Figure 4(a) --with models in which one path has been equalled for husbands and wives (b) . A significant difference of x2 (D x2 ) taking in account the degrees of freedom (D df) (c) indicates a significant gender difference for the path under examination (d) . Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction 471 comes from the results of the `Oral History Interview' which also takes the partners' feeling of `we-ness' into account (Buehlman, Gottman & Katz, 1992; Gottman & Levenson, 2000c). Since dyadic coping is also associated with such a sense of `we-ness', it is not surprising that it shows high correlations with marital standards. In fact, as further analyses show, these correlations turned out to be higher than those between marital standards and other relationship-specific variables such as conflict strategies or positive communication in the marriage (Wunderer, 2003). We find significant gender differences: For husbands the correlation between standards and their own dyadic coping is higher than for wives. Whereas for wives marital satisfaction depends to a higher degree on the support experienced through their partner than for husbands. Thus, marital standards of husbands are of central importance for the relationship: Husbands with high standards support their wives, who, in turn, actually feel that they are being supported as can be inferred from the highly significant correlation (r 0.58) between dyadic coping of husbands as seen by themselves and by their wives. As a consequence, wives are more satisfied in their relationship. That the support received by their husbands is more important for wives' marital satisfaction than the support they provide might be explained by gender differences in self-concept since it has been shown that women tend to have more relational self-concepts than men (Acitelli & Young, 1996; Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1982; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Vangelisti, 1997). For both sexes, however, the support experienced by the partner rather than their own supportive behavior contributes to marital satisfaction. In Bodenmann's (2000) analyses it also turned out that perceived support by the partner is highly important for the couple's relationship quality. When considering the findings of the present study several limitations should be noted. Firstly, since this is a cross-sectional correlation study we cannot make definite statements on the causal directions of the paths in the mediation model. Thus, it can equally be argued that, as a consequence of low marital satisfaction, supportive behavior decreases. Longitudinal studies are warranted to disentangle the nature of causal directions. As stated before, the model conceptualizes dyadic coping as mediator as it is a process variable, whereas standards can be seen as structural variable. Secondly, we solely used self-report questionnaire data which leads to common method variance, discussed as the `glop problem' which refers to high correlations among variables measured with self-report questionnaires by a single reporter (Bank, Dishion, Skinner, & Patterson, 1990; Gottman, 1998). On theoretical grounds it has also been argued that subjective data might actually be more influential than objective assessments (Kelley & Burgoon, 1991). Finally, our sample consists mainly of long-term marriages. Thus, on the one hand the present study sheds some light on the relationship between dyadic coping processes and marital standards in midlife, a period which is getting increasingly important as societies grow older. On the other hand, it would be interesting to know whether the results replicate for a comparable sample of husbands and wives in their early years of marriage. Allen et al. (Allen, Baucom, Burnett, Epstein, & Rankin-Esquer, 2001) found differences in standards of members of second and subsequent marriages compared to those of members of first marriages. In our sample we only have first-married partners. It should also be noted that the sample of the present study is rather large which we consider a major advantage if we want to generalize its results. Furthermore, the sample is quite unbiased concerning the couples' socio-economic status which also adds to the generalizability of the findings presented. IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTIVE AND THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION The mediation model implies that there are two central starting points for intervention: dyadic coping and standards themselves. If the aim of a therapeutic or preventive approach is to enhance marital well-being, one could try to strengthen dyadic coping skills which is part of the `Couples Coping Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 472 Eva Wunderer and Klaus A. Schneewind Enhancement Training (CCET)' (Bodenmann, 2000; Bodenmann et al., 2001; Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004). This cognitive behavioral prevention program includes six units, each delivered in a 3-hour session: (1) theoretical introduction on stress and coping, (2) enhancement of individual and (3) dyadic coping, (4) fairness in the relationship, (5) communications skills and (6) conflict and problem-solving skills. Evaluative studies show that the program has substantial positive impact on relationship quality as well as on communication and dyadic coping skills (Bodenmann et al., 2001; Bodenmann, Pihet, Cina, Widmer, & Shantinath, 2004). If a couple wants to work on its (dyadic) coping skills, however, it might also be worthwhile to focus on the standards. Epstein and his associates (1997) present five steps for changing unrealistic or extreme standards: (1) clarification of existing standards, (2) discussion of the pros and cons of the standards, (3) helping the spouses to think of ways that the standards can be modified to maintain their positive and decrease their negative features, (4) finding ways to incorporate the revised standards at the behavioral level into the relationship, and (5) evaluating the ongoing process. This holds for extreme standards, but as our result show, there actually is no `too much' in the relationship-focused direction: the higher standards are the more satisfied spouses are in their marriage. Thus spouses do not inevitably have to alter their standards if they are extremely high. Rather it seems promising to enhance relationship-focused standards, that is, the demand for sharing, egalitarianism and investment in the marriage. Of course, this may hold only for couples with relatively high marital satisfaction as in our sample. Kohn and Sayers (2005) found that extreme standards were associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction among nondiscordant wives, whilst it was associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction among discordant husbands and wives. Besides, partners might have different views concerning the issue of investment in the marriage. What does investment actually mean? Does it mean, for example, that a husband invests a lot in his marriage if he works overtime to earn more money for his family? Or does it attest to the husbanďs investment if he works less and helps his wife with the children and housework? Apparently, answering questions like these involves specific attribution processes which can be a major topic in therapy: `. . .to help the partners understand the conflict between their behavioral standards concerning investment in their relationship, consider the subjectivity of standards and the absence of one `righť way to invest oneself in a relationship, and devise ways of taking each other's preferences into accounť (Epstein & Baucom, 1996, p. 148). As the present study shows, especially the supportive behavior of the partner is important for marital quality. Against the backdrop of this finding, systemic approaches appear to be particularly promising. In this context, interventions should include past experiences focusing on the family of origin, relationships with previous partners and the spouses' relationship history. Further results, which have not been presented here (see Wunderer, 2003), show that marital standards are influenced by the retrospective experience of the `climate' in the family of origin (Schneewind, 1988; Schneewind & Ruppert, 1998). Other influencing factors are relationship personality (Schneewind & Gerhard, 2002; Vierzigmann, 1995) and implicit theories of relationships (Knee, 1998; Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2001; Wunderer & Schneewind, 2005), which can also be a promising issue in marital therapy and prevention programs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research project `What makes marriages last?' is financed by the German Scientific Foundation (SCHN111/15-3/4) and financially supported by the German Youth Institute in Munich. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction 473 REFERENCES Acitelli, L. K., & Young, A. M. (1996). Gender and thought in relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher, & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 147­168). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Allen, E. A., Baucom, D. H., Burnett, C. K., Epstein, N. B., & Rankin-Esquer, L. A. (2001). Decision-making power, autonomy and communication in remarried and first-married spouses. Family Relations, 50, 326­334. Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos user's guide. Version 3.6. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation. Bank, L., Dishion, T., Skinner, M., & Patterson, G. R. (1990). Method Variance in Structural Equation Modeling: Living with ``Glop''. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression in family interaction. Advances in family research (pp. 247­279). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173­1182. Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral marital therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Daiuto, A. D., Carels, R. A., Rankin, L. A., & Burnett, C. K. (1996a). Cognitions in marriage: The relationship between standards and attributions. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 209­222. Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Rankin, L. A., & Burnett, C. K. (1996b). Assessing relationship standards: The Inventory of Specific Relationship Standards. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 72­88. Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S. L., & Sher, T. G. (1989). The role of cognitions in marital relationships: Definitional, methodological, and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 31­38. Bodenmann, G. (1996). Die Erfassung des dyadischen Coping. Der FDCT-2 Fragebogen. Zeitschrift fu¨r Familienforschung, 7, 119­149. Bodenmann, G. (1997). Stress und Partnerschaft. Gemeinsam den Alltag bewa¨ltigen. Bern: Huber. Bodenmann, G. (1999). Scheidung: Was wissen wir heute zu ihren Ursachen? Zeitschrift fu¨r Familienforschung, 11, 5­27. Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren. Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe. Bodenmann, G. (2001). Psychologische Risikofaktoren fu¨r Scheidung: Ein U¨ berblick. Psychologische Rundschau, 52, 85­95. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33­50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bodenmann, G., Charvoz, L., Cina, A., & Widmer, K. (2001). Prevention of marital distress by enhancing the coping skills of couples: 1-year follow-up-study. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 60, 3­10. Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (1999). Der Einfluss von Stress, individueller Belastungsbewa¨ltigung und dyadischem Coping auf die Partnerschaftsstabilita¨t: Eine 4-Jahres-La¨ngschnittstudie. Zeitschrift fu¨r Klinische Psychologie, 28, 130­139. Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2000). Der Einfluss von Stress auf die Partnerschaftsqualita¨t und -stabilita¨t. Kontext, 31, 124­138. Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., Cina, A., Widmer, K. J., & Shantinath, S. (2004). Improving dyadic coping in couples with a stress-oriented approach: A 2-year longitudinal study. Behavior Modification, 27, 1­12. Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, D. (2004). The couples coping enhancement training (CCET): A new approach to prevention in marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations, 53, 477­484. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3­33. Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964­980. Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295­318. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (Monographs in social psychology of language, No. 1, pp. 31­52). Clevedon, England UK: Multilingual Matters. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 474 Eva Wunderer and Klaus A. Schneewind Engl, J. (1997). Determinanten der Ehequalita¨t und Ehestabilita¨t. Eine fu¨nfja¨hrige La¨ngsschnittstudie an heiratswilligen und jungverheirateten Paaren. Mu¨nchen: Institut fu¨r Forschung und Ausbildung in Kommunikationstherapie e.V. Epstein, N., & Baucom, D. H. (1996). A cognitive-behavioral approach to couples' problems: A program of research and its clinical applications. In W. Dryden (Ed.), Research in counselling and psychotherapy: Practical applications (pp. 133­161). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Epstein, N. B., Baucom, D. H., & Daiuto, A. (1997). Cognitive-behavioral couples therapy. In W. K. Halford, & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions (pp. 415­449). New York: Wiley. Epstein, N. B., Chen, F., & Beyder-Kamjou, I. (2005). Relationship standards and marital satisfaction in Chinese and American couples. Journal of Martial and Family Therapy, 31(1), 59­74. Fincham, F. D., Harold, G. T., & Gano-Phillips, S. (2000). The longitudinal association between attributions and marital satisfaction: Direction of effects and role of efficacy expectations. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 267­285. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Fletcher, G. J. O., & Fincham, F. D. (1991a). Attribution processes in close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher, & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognitions in close relationships (pp. 7­35). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Fletcher, G. J. O., & Fincham, F. D. (Eds.). (1991b). Cognition in close relationships. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Burnett, C. K., & Rankin, L. A. (1999). The interaction between marital standards and communication patterns: How does it contribute to marital adjustment? Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 25, 211­223. Gottman, J. M. (1993). The role of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6­15. Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of the marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169­197. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000a). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737­745. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000b). Wie stabil sind Ehebeziehungen u¨ber mehrere Jahre? Familiendynamik, 25, 4­13. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000c). Wie vera¨ndern sich Ehebeziehungen im Laufe der Jahre? Eine Studie u¨ber alternative Prognosemodelle. Familiendynamik, 25, 14­38. Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 927­947. Halford, W. K., Kelly, A., & Markman, H. J. (1997). The concept of a healthy marriage. In W. K. Halford, & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions (pp. 3­12). Chichester: Wiley. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93­98. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). The relationship standards and assumptions of violent versus nonviolent husbands. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 87­103. Johnson, M. D., Karney, B. R., Rogge, R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). The role of marital behavior in the longitudinal association between attributions and marital quality. In V. Manusov, & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships. Advances in personal relations (pp. 173­192). New York: Cambridge University Press. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3­34. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2000). Attributions in marriage: State or trait? A growth curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 295­309. Kelley, D. L., & Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Understanding marital satisfaction and couple type as functions of relational expectations. Human Communication Research, 18, 40­69. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 502­512. Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 360­370. Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808­819. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction 475 Kohn, C. S., & Sayers, S. L. (2005). Extreme relationship standards in the context of discordant and nondiscordant couples. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 12, 319­323. Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 221­242. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Schlee, K. A., Monson, C. M., Ehrensaft, M., & Heyman, R. (1998). Whaťs love got to do with it?: Perceptions of marital positivity in H-to-W aggressive, distressed, and happy marriages. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 197­212. Noller, P., Beach, S., & Osgarby, S. (1997). Cognitive and affective processes in marriage. In W. K. Halford, & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions (pp. 43­71). Chichester: Wiley. Rankin-Esquer, L. A., Burnett, C. K., Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N. (1997). Autonomy and relatedness in marital functioning. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 175­190. Reibstein, J. (1997). Rethinking marital love: Defining and strengthening key factors in successful partnerships. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 12, 237­247. Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53­78. Schneewind, K. A. (1988). Die Familienklimaskalen. In M. Cierpka (Hrsg.), Familiendiagnostik (S. 243­255). Berlin: Springer. Schneewind, K. A., & Gerhard, A. K. (2002). Relationship personality, conflict resolution, and marital satisfaction in the first 5 years of marriage. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 51, 63­71. Schneewind, K. A., & Ruppert, S. (1998). Personality and family development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L. (1997). Gender differences, similarities, and interdependencies: Some problems with the different cultures perspective. Personal Relationships, 4, 243­253. Vierzigmann, G. (1995). Entwicklung von Skalen zur Erfassung individueller Beziehungskompetenzen (SEBE). Zeitschrift fu¨r Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 16, 103­112. Wallerstein, J. S. (1994). The early psychological tasks of marriage: I. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 640­650. Wunderer, E., & Schneewind, K. A. (2005). Relationship-specific aspects of the self: The role of implicit relationship theories and their contribution to marital well-being. In W. Greve, K. Rothermund, & D. Wentura (Eds.), The adaptive self: personal continuity and intentional self-development (pp. 245­261). Go¨ttingen/NY: Hogrefe/Huber publishers. Wunderer, E. (2003). Partnerschaft zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 462­476 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 476 Eva Wunderer and Klaus A. Schneewind