LAWRENCE A.
KURDEK Wright State University
Gender and Marital Satisfaction Early in Marriage:
A Growth Curve Approach
The purpose of this study is to assess differences
between husbands and wives (N ¼ 526 couples
at the first assessment) on (a) growth curves
over the first 4 years of marriage for psycholog-
ical distress, marriage-specific appraisals,
spousal interactions, social support, and mari-
tal satisfaction; (b) the strength of intraspouse
links and cross-spouse links involving the initial
assessment of the first four variables and the
growth curve for marital satisfaction; and (c)
differences between spouses headed for divorce
versus spouses in stable marriages on the
growth curves for all five variables. On the
basis of evidence that interspouse differences
were largely nonsignificant, there was little sup-
port for the view that there are his and her ver-
sions of the processes that affect marital
outcomes.
Based primarily on the pioneering work of Ber-
nard (1982), family scholars often regard mar-
riage as coming in his and her versions. Indeed,
two classes of theories support the position
that men and women experience their close rela-
tionships in different ways. The class of bi-
ological theories posits that men and women
process events in their relationships differently
at the cardiovascular, endocrinological, immu-
nological, neurosensory, and neurophysiologi-
Department of Psychology, Wright State University,
Dayton, OH 45435-0001 (larry.kurdek@wright.edu).
Key Words: gender differences, growth curves, longitudinal
study, marital satisfaction.
68 Journal of Marriage and Family 67 (February 2005): 68–84
cal levels. For example, Kiecolt-Glaser and
Newton (2001) reviewed evidence showing that
although men are more physiologically sensi-
tive than women to acute stressors (e.g., men
show larger changes in blood pressure and epi-
nephrine to laboratory stressors such as doing
mental arithmetic in front of an audience),
women show stronger and more durable physio-
logical changes to marital conflict than men do.
Other biologically oriented theories propose
that men and women differ in areas in which
they have faced distinct adaptive challenges in
the course of their evolutionary past (see review
by Simpson & Gangestad, 2001). For example,
in a meta-analysis of evidence regarding strate-
gies used to attract a mate, Schmitt (2002)
found that whereas appearance-related tactics
(e.g., enhancing one’s appearance) were judged
to be more effective for women than for men (a
moderate effect), resource-related tactics (e.g.,
demonstrating one’s financial security) were
judged to be more effective for men than for
women (a large effect). This pattern of findings
is consonant with the idea that men value physi-
cal attractiveness as a response to their distinct
evolutionary challenge of finding a mate who
can bear children, and that women value re-
source prospects as a response to their distinct
evolutionary challenge of finding a mate who
will provide for a family.
The class of social psychological theories
posits that men and women differ in ways di-
rectly relevant to relationship functioning, such
as the content and structure of how the self is
construed (e.g., Cross & Madson, 1997), per-
sonality traits (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae,
Gender and Marital Satisfaction
2001), and socialized roles (Eagly, 1987). For
example, Cross and Madson reviewed results
indicating that whereas women represent their
self-attributes and preferences within the narrow
context of dyadic relationships, men represent
them within the broad context of group mem-
berships. In a meta-analysis of studies con-
ducted within the framework of the Big Five
model of personality, Costa et al. reported that
women are higher than men in neuroticism (a
large effect), agreeableness (a large effect), and
extraversion (a medium effect). Finally, Eagly
argued that the underlying cause of gender-
typed social behavior is the division of labor
between women and men. As a consequence of
this division, women are expected to behave
communally, and these expectations get trans-
lated into behaviors such as cooking and child
care, which equip them for fulfilling domestic
roles. Men, on the other hand, are expected to
behave agentically, and these expectations get
translated into behaviors relevant to earning
capacity that equip them for fulfilling occupa-
tional roles.
The biological and social psychological theo-
ries might lead one to expect large differences
between men and women in average values of
marriage-relevant variables. Indeed, as noted
earlier, large effect sizes have been found in
meta-analytic reviews of gender differences in
both biological variables (Schmitt, 2002) and
social psychological variables (Costa et al.,
2001). However, because most of the evidence
pertinent to marriage involves comparisons be-
tween married men and married women from
different marriages, it cannot be used to draw
conclusions about the experiences of men and
women in the same marriage. Given that
spouses within the same marriage are often sim-
ilar to each other as a result of assortative mat-
ing (Buss, 1984; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese,
2000), comparisons between husbands and wives
from the same marriage may yield smaller differ-
ences than comparisons between husbands and
wives from different marriages.
Although much of the literature on gender
and marriage has focused on differences be-
tween husbands and wives on average levels of
variables relevant to marriage, gender differ-
ences also can be examined with regard to
whether links between marriage-relevant varia-
bles are of the same strength for husbands and
for wives. Gender differences in patterns of
such linkages may be of greater theoretical
69
interest than gender differences in average
levels of individual variables because the for-
mer set of differences could mean that the pro-
cesses that regulate marital functioning differ
for husbands and for wives.
Social psychological theories in particular
could be used to argue that relationships are
more rule-governed for women than they are
for men. For example, Eagly and Wood (1999)
speculated that as one consequence of accom-
modating to domestic roles and to female-
dominated occupations, women have acquired
communal characteristics that highlight the
adaptive value of being interpersonally skilled.
The assertion that wives function as relationship
experts often has been used to explain findings
that outcomes for married couples are predicted
better by information from wives than by infor-
mation from their husbands (e.g., Bentler &
Newcomb, 1978; Floyd & Markman, 1983;
Karney, Bradbury, Fincham, & Sullivan, 1994).
This assertion also has been used to explain
a pattern of cross-spouse effects in which hus-
bands’ marital outcomes are more strongly
influenced by their wives’ predictors than
wives’ marital outcomes are influenced by their
husbands’ predictors (e.g., Davila, Bradbury, &
Fincham, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1997;
Sabatelli & Bartle-Haring, 2003).
Despite claims that women function as rela-
tionship experts, in a meta-analysis of studies in
which information was collected from both
spouses from the same couple, Karney and
Bradbury (1995) found that demographic, per-
sonality, and behavioral interaction variables
were linked to marital satisfaction to the same
degree for husbands as they were for their
wives. In addition, information from husbands
predicted marital stability as well as information
from their wives did. Although Karney and
Bradbury concluded that gender differences in
marriage have been exaggerated, it is now
widely acknowledged that analyses with couple-
level data require special statistical techniques
(e.g., Schulz, Cowan, Cowan, & Brennan,
2004). Because these techniques were not
employed in most of the studies reviewed by
Karney and Bradbury, the issue of gender differ-
ences in marital processes warrants further
study.
Differences between husbands and wives in
the correlates of marital outcomes traditionally
have been assessed by doing a separate analysis
for each spouse on data collected at only one
70
point in time, and then determining whether the
effect (e.g., a correlation or a partial regression
coefficient) is significant for one or both
spouses. There are at least four problems with
this procedure. First, although an effect may
reach a critical value for statistical significance
for one spouse and not the other, the actual
magnitude of the effect may not differ statisti-
cally between spouses. Second, the effects for
husbands and wives may not be accurately esti-
mated because separate analyses assume that
spouses’ scores are independent of each other.
In a structural equation modeling framework in
which there are husband and wife versions of
the same outcome score (e.g., ratings of marital
satisfaction), the residuals associated with
spouses’ outcome scores are typically moder-
ately correlated (e.g., Davey, Fincham, Beach,
& Brody, 2001). Correlated residuals can af-
fect the estimation of partial regression coeffi-
cients and their standard errors (Kurdek, 2003;
Verbeke & Lesaffre, 1997).
Third, the interdependence between spouses’
scores is reflected not only in the presence of
correlated errors in the outcome score for each
spouse, but also in the fact that the predictors of
those outcome scores are likely to operate in
both an intraspouse fashion and a cross-spouse
fashion. For example, a husband’s predictor
variable may affect his own marital outcome
and that of his wife, and a wife’s predictor vari-
able may affect her own marital outcome and
that of her husband. Because the variables used
as predictors for husbands and for wives may
themselves be related to each other through
a process of assortative mating (Watson et al.,
2000), the unique effects associated with either
intraspouse linkages or cross-spouse linkages
need to be determined by assessing both types
of linkages simultaneously (Kenny, Mohr, &
Levesque, 2001). Finally, because marital pro-
cesses are dynamic rather than static (Huston,
2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), single assess-
ments do not capture the mechanisms by which
marriage changes over time.
On the basis of the premise that change is
a core marital process (Huston, Caughlin, Houts,
Smith, & George, 2001; Karney & Bradbury,
1995, 1997), the focus of the current study is
on assessments of both spouses made annually
over the first 4 years of marriage. The early
years of marriage were of interest because 20%
of all first marriages and 23% of all second
marriages end in separation or divorce by 5
Journal of Marriage and Family
years of marriage (Bramlett & Mosher, 2001).
Because marriages are complex systems, multi-
ple factors are needed to understand how they
begin, are maintained, and end. In a recent
account of these factors, Huston (2000) argued
that relationships need to be studied at three
levels. The first level involves the individual
partner and refers to the personal characteristics
that each partner brings to the relationship and
the ways in which each partner actively filters
information about the relationship. The second
level involves partner interactions and refers to
how partners behave toward each other. The
final level involves societal forces and under-
scores the fact that relationships exist within the
context of other social relationships.
Based on Huston’s (2000) social ecological
model, four domains of variables were of inter-
est in the current study. The level of the individ-
ual partner is represented by two domains of
variables. The first domain is that of individual
differences variables that represent stable or
enduring characteristics (Karney & Bradbury,
1995) that influence the extent to which partners
adapt to the challenges posed by the marriage.
Psychological distress is selected based on evi-
dence that it represents a stable individual
differences variable (e.g., McCrae, 1993) and
that spouses high in psychological distress are
at risk for poor marital outcomes (Karney &
Bradbury, 1995). The second domain is that of
marriage-specific appraisal variables that repre-
sent beliefs and attitudes regarding either the
self or the spouse in the marriage. Because of
the multidimensional nature of these beliefs and
attitudes (e.g., Baldwin, 1992), four variables
widely used in past research were selected.
These include love for one’s spouse (Rubin,
1970), liking of one’s spouse (Rubin), intrinsic
motives for being in the marriage (Rempel,
Holmes, & Zanna, 1985), and perceptions of
levels of trust in the marriage (Rempel et al.).
Given that these marriage-specific appraisals
are interrelated (e.g., Attridge, Berscheid, &
Simpson, 1995), a single latent variable was
used to represent them.
The level of partner interactions is repre-
sented by the domain of spousal interaction
variables that represent what happens between
spouses in the marriage. Because these interac-
tions are multidimensional in nature (Spanier,
1976), three variables commonly used in past
research were selected. These included the fre-
quency with which spouses agree on important
Gender and Marital Satisfaction
issues, the frequency of behaviors indicative of
affection/sexual interest, and the frequency of
shared activities. Given the high overlap among
these kinds of interactions (Sabourin, Lussier,
Laplante, & Wright, 1990), a single latent vari-
able is used to represent them.
Finally, the level of societal forces is repre-
sented by the domain of social support varia-
bles that represent the fact that couples are
embedded in social contexts that involve family
members and friends, and that the forces from
these social contexts affect the stability of rela-
tionships (Milardo & Helms-Erikson, 2000).
Satisfaction with perceived levels of social sup-
port was selected based on evidence that it ac-
counts for variability in marital outcomes above
and beyond that accounted for by personality
variables (e.g., Kurdek, 1989).
Because four annual assessments on the same
variables were obtained, each spouse’s trajec-
tory of change on each variable was described
with regard to two aspects of a growth curve.
The first aspect was the average level of that
variable over all assessments (the intercept of
the growth curve), and the second aspect was
the rate of linear change in that variable over all
assessments (the slope of the growth curve).
Estimating husbands’ and wives’ trajectories of
change within the same model has several
distinct advantages (Newsom, 2002). First, be-
cause models were estimated using full infor-
mation maximum likelihood techniques, all
available data were used, including those from
couples with only one assessment. Second, in-
terdependencies within each spouse’s scores
over time were handled by allowing the error
terms for husbands’ outcome scores and the
error terms for wives’ outcome scores to be cor-
related across time. Third, interdependencies
between spouses’ scores were handled by esti-
mating intraspouse links and cross-spouse links
simultaneously, and by allowing the error terms
between spouses’ outcome scores to be corre-
lated at each assessment. Fourth, because
spouses’ intercepts and slopes were estimated in
the same model, differences between spouses’
intercepts and differences between spouses’
slopes could be tested statistically (Schulz et al.,
2004).
The first purpose of this study is to assess dif-
ferences between husbands and their wives in
average levels (intercepts) and rates of change
(slopes) for the growth curves for the variables
from the five domains of interest. Because few
71
studies have assessed interspouse differences
within a growth curve context, predictions based
on biological and social psychological theories
were more easily advanced for average levels
than for change. Because women are more likely
than men to amplify negative moods by ruminat-
ing about them and their causes as a result of
genetic or hormonal predispositions (Nolen-
Hoeksema, 2003), the average levels for psycho-
logical distress were expected to be higher for
wives than for their husbands. Because women
are socialized more strongly than men to define
themselves in terms of their connections with
others (Cross & Madson, 1997), and because
women have faced the adaptive challenge of
using social resources (e.g., groups of other
women) to protect themselves and their children
(Buss, 1998), the average levels for social sup-
port were expected to be higher for wives than
for their husbands. Finally, because women may
be more strongly motivated than men to con-
struct positive evaluations about themselves,
their spouses, and their marital interactions
(Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996), average
levels for marriage-specific appraisals, spousal
interactions, and marital satisfaction were
expected to be higher for wives than for their
husbands.
The second purpose of this study is to com-
pare differences between husbands and their
wives with regard to the strength with which
variables from the individual differences, mar-
riage-specific appraisals, spousal interaction,
and social support domains were linked to the
growth curves for marital satisfaction. Given
strong practical interest in identifying early risk
factors for later marital distress (Karney &
Bradbury, 1995), the assessments of the varia-
bles from the individual differences, marriage-
specific appraisals, spousal interaction, and
social support domains taken at the beginning
of the marriage were used to predict both aver-
age level (the intercept) and rate of linear
change (the slope) for marital satisfaction over
the first 4 years of marriage. Both intraspouse
links (one’s own predictor linked to one’s own
growth curve for marital quality) and cross-
spouse links (one’s own predictor linked to the
growth curve for marital quality of one’s
spouse) were examined as one reflection of the
interdependent processes underlying marital
functioning (Bond & Kenny, 2003).
Despite Karney and Bradbury’s (1995) find-
ings that intraspouse and cross-spouse effects
72
did not differ between husbands and wives, gen-
der differences in intraspouse and cross-spouse
links were examined because many of the intra-
spouse and cross-spouse effects that were part
of Karney and Bradbury’s meta-analysis were
not obtained with adequate statistical proce-
dures. On the basis of the assertion from social
psychological theories that wives function as
relationship experts, it was expected that the
links between the various predictors and marital
satisfaction would be stronger for wives than
for husbands, and that wives’ predictors would
be linked to their husbands’ marital satisfaction
more strongly than husbands’ predictors would
be linked to their wives’ marital satisfaction.
Because previous work involving the link
between earlier assessments and change in mar-
ital satisfaction is limited, and because cross-
spouse effects have not been routinely obtained,
the most confident predictions were made for
the intraspouse links involving average levels.
Specifically, high levels of psychological dis-
tress at the start of the marriage were expected
to be related to low average levels of mar-
ital satisfaction (Karney & Bradbury, 1995),
whereas favorable marriage-specific appraisals,
positive spousal interactions, and high levels of
satisfaction with social support at the start of the
marriage were each expected to be related to
high average levels of marital satisfaction
(Kurdek, 1988, 1992; Rempel et al., 1985;
Rubin, 1970).
The final purpose of this study is to compare
whether husbands headed for divorce differ
from wives headed for divorce with regard to
the growth curves for psychological distress,
marriage-specific appraisals, spousal interac-
tion, social support, and marital satisfaction.
Identifying the distinctive features of divorce-
prone spouses was of practical interest given
the stress associated with divorce (Amato,
2000), and was of methodological interest given
that previous prospective longitudinal studies
(Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998;
Huston et al., 2001; Karney & Bradbury, 1997)
have identified only a relatively small number
of couples who provided information from mul-
tiple assessments shortly before the divorce
occurred.
On the basis of previous studies using growth
curve methods (e.g., Huston et al., 2001;
Karney & Bradbury, 1997), it was expected
that, compared with spouses from stable cou-
ples, spouses headed for divorce would show
Journal of Marriage and Family
a growth curve profile indicative of greater dis-
tress for each outcome variable. This profile
included not only higher average levels of dis-
tress (intercepts), but also larger increases in
distress over time (slopes). Thus, spouses from
couples who would eventually divorce were ex-
pected to show higher average levels of psycho-
logical distress and lower average levels of
positive marriage-specific appraisals, positive
spousal interactions, satisfaction with social sup-
port, and marital satisfaction as compared with
spouses from stable couples. Further, spouses
from couples who would eventually divorce
were expected to show larger increases in psy-
chological distress and larger decreases in levels
of positive marriage-specific appraisals, positive
spousal interactions, satisfaction with social sup-
port, and marital satisfaction as compared with
spouses from stable couples.
Although showing that the growth curves for
spouses from couples headed for divorce dif-
fered from those of spouses from stable couples
is of interest in its own right, of particular inter-
est in this study was whether husbands and
wives differed in the strength of these effects.
That is, for both average levels and rates of lin-
ear change, was the difference between hus-
bands from divorced couples and husbands from
stable couples equal to the difference between
wives from divorced couples and wives from
stable couples? If wives serve as the barometers
of marital health (Floyd & Markman, 1983),
then differences between wives from divorced
versus stable couples should be larger than those
between husbands from divorced versus stable
couples.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were recruited from the marriage
licenses published in the local newspaper of
a midwestern city from May 1986 through
January 1988. Of the 7,899 couples who re-
ceived a letter explaining the study, 1,407 indi-
cated an interest in the study. This response rate
of 18% is similar to that obtained from other
studies recruiting unpaid participants from pub-
lic records (e.g., 17% by Spanier, 1976, and
18% by Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999).
Completed surveys were returned by 538 cou-
ples at the first assessment (Year 1), shortly
after their wedding. This return rate of 38% is
Gender and Marital Satisfaction 73

similar to the rate of 33% obtained by Kurdek TABLE 1. DESCRIPTIVE DATA FOR HUSBANDS’ AND
and Schmitt (1986) in a study that involved WIVES’ DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AT EACH OF THE
a survey of similar length, but required anony- FOUR ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS
mous participation of both partners. For the cur-
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
rent study, 12 couples (2% of the sample) were
dropped from the sample because one or both Mean age in years
spouses were previously widowed, reducing the Husbands 29.19 30.22 31.47 32.91
base sample size to 526. Wives 27.14 28.29 29.54 30.89
Data were also obtained at three annual Mean level of annual income
follow-up assessments (Year 2, Year 3, and Husbands 5.80 6.77 7.31 7.88
Year 4). Over this time period, sample size Wives 4.02 4.58 4.95 5.21
decreased because couples separated, withdrew % White
from the study because they no longer wished Husbands 95 96 96 96
to participate, or were dropped from the study Wives 95 97 97 97
because they did not return their surveys. Over % with baccalaureate degree
the 4 years, 265 couples (50% of the sample) Husbands 41.00 49.70 54.90 55.80
provided data at all assessments (396 at Years 1 Wives 40.10 48.00 55.80 58.50
and 2, and 310 at Years 1–3); 57 couples (11% % employed
of the sample) separated (23 at Year 2, 21 at Husbands 92 92 95 94
Year 3, and 13 at Year 4); 64 couples (12% of Wives 79 79 80 77
the sample) withdrew from the study (41 at % in first marriage
Year 2, 17 at Year 3, and 6 at Year 4), and 140 Husbands 65 66 66 66
couples (27% of the sample) were dropped from Wives 64 66 68 69
the study (66 at Year 2, 48 at Year 3, and 26 at Mean # children
Year 4). Husbands and wives are described in Husbands 0.13 0.22 0.34 0.48
Table 1 for each of the four assessments with Wives 0.41 0.48 0.56 0.67
regard to mean age, mean annual personal Mean # stepchildren
income (on a 12-interval scale), percent Husbands 0.35 0.30 0.27 0.23
White, percent with at least a baccalaureate Wives 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.04
degree, percent employed, percent in first Mean years of cohabitation 0.75 1.69 2.72 3.76
marriage, mean number of children, mean Note: For annual income, 1 ¼ less than $5,000, 12 ¼
number of stepchildren, and mean years of $50,000 or more.
cohabitation. The large percentage of White
respondents and the large percentage of re-
spondents with at least a baccalaureate degree
indicate that the sample is not a representa- Measures
tive one. Demographic variables. Spouses provided in-
formation about age, personal annual income
(1 ¼ less than $5,000, 12 ¼ $50,000 or more),
Procedure level of education (1 ¼ less than seventh grade,
8 ¼ doctoral degree), race, whether they were
At each assessment, both partners from each employed, divorce history, the number of
couple were mailed identical surveys. Spouses months they had lived with their partners, and
were directed to respond to their surveys pri- whether they had (step)children.
vately and not to discuss their answers with
each other until the surveys were completed, Psychological distress. Psychological distress
although no checks were made to ensure that was assessed by the global severity index
these directions were followed. Completed sur- derived from the Symptom Checklist 90-R
veys were returned in separate postage-paid en- (Derogatis, 1994). Spouses indicated how
velopes. In the few instances in which returned much discomfort (0 ¼ not at all, 4 ¼ extremely)
surveys had missing data, they were returned to each of 90 problems caused them during the
the spouse with a request that the missing infor- past 7 days. Problem areas included somatic
mation be provided. All spouses complied with complaints, obsessions-compulsions, interper-
this request. sonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility,
74
phobias, paranoia, and psychoticism. Across
spouses and assessments, Cronbach’s alpha for
the summed composite score was .96. The aver-
age interspouse correlation (as determined by
the correlation between the intercepts of
spouses’ growth curves) was .23, p , .01.
Marriage-specific appraisals. Appraisals of the
marriage were assessed by four scores. The love
score and the liking score were derived from
Rubin’s (1970) measure of romantic love. The
13-item love score tapped affiliative and depen-
dent need, predisposition to help, exclusiveness,
and absorption (e.g., I would do almost any-
thing for my partner), whereas the 13-item lik-
ing score tapped favorable evaluations of one’s
partner and the perception that the partner is
similar to one’s self (e.g., I think that my partner
is unusually well adjusted). For all items, re-
spondents indicated how true each item was for
them (1 ¼ not at all true, 9 ¼ definitely true).
The intrinsic motives score was part of Rempel
et al.’s (1985) Motivation Scale and tapped rea-
sons for being in the relationship that were
inherent to the relationship itself. Participants
indicated how much of a role (0 ¼ plays no role
at all, 8 ¼ plays a major role) each of six items
(e.g., We are close and intimate) played in
forming the basis for the relationship. Finally,
the trust score was derived from Rempel et al.’s
Trust Scale and tapped predictability of the part-
ner, dependability of the partner, and faith in
the future of the relationship. Participants indi-
cated how strongly (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼
strongly agree) they agreed with 18 items (e.g.,
Though times may change and the future is
uncertain, I have faith that my partner will
always be ready and willing to offer me strength
and support, come what may) that described
their relationship. Across spouses and assess-
ments, Cronbach’s alpha for the summed com-
posite love, liking, intrinsic motives, and trust
scores was .84, .89, .75, and .88, respectively.
The average interspouse correlation for these
scores was .44, .34, .60, and .52, respectively,
ps , .01.
Because the four marriage-specific appraisals
at each year were expected to be correlated for
each spouse, their common variance was
assumed to be captured by a single latent vari-
able for each spouse. This assumption was
tested with a confirmatory factor analysis in
which each spouse’s four appraisals at each year
defined a single factor, the resulting eight fac-
Journal of Marriage and Family
tors (four for each spouse) were allowed to cor-
relate, correlated errors were estimated for each
of the four appraisals at 1-year lags (e.g., Year 1
and Year 2, Year 2 and Year 3) for each spouse,
and correlated errors between spouses were esti-
mated at each year for each of the four apprais-
als. The fit of this measurement model was very
good (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] ¼ .96,
Tucker Lewis Index [TLI] ¼ .95, Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ¼
.05; see Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Spousal interactions. Interactions between
spouses were assessed by three scores derived
from Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic Adjustment
Scale. The consensus score tapped level of
agreement between partners and involved par-
ticipants indicating the extent of such agreement
(0 ¼ always disagree, 5 ¼ always agree) for 13
areas (e.g., handling family finances). The
affectional expression score tapped level of
demonstrated affection between partners and
involved participants using one of two response
formats (0 ¼ always disagree, 5 ¼ always
agree, or 0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes) to assess four items
(e.g., whether not showing love caused a prob-
lem during the past few weeks). Finally, the
dyadic cohesion score tapped the number or the
frequency of shared activities and involved par-
ticipants using two response formats (0 ¼ none
of them, 5 ¼ all of them or 0 ¼ never, 5 ¼ more
often) to rate five items (e.g., How often did you
and your partner laugh together?). Across
spouses and assessments, Cronbach’s alpha for
the consensus, affectional expression, and
dyadic cohesion summed composite scores
(unit-weighted) was .85, .67, and .77, respec-
tively. The average interspouse correlation for
these scores was .69, .72, and .61, respectively,
ps , .01.
Because the three spousal interaction varia-
bles at each year were expected to be correlated
for each spouse, their common variance was
assumed to be captured by a single latent vari-
able for each spouse. This assumption was
tested with a confirmatory factor analysis in
which each spouse’s three interaction variables
at each year defined a single factor, the resulting
six factors (three for each spouse) were allowed
to correlate, correlated errors were estimated for
each of the three interaction scores at 1-year
lags for each spouse, and correlated errors
between spouses were estimated at each year
for each of the three interaction scores. The fit
Gender and Marital Satisfaction
of this measurement model was very good
(CFI ¼ .97, TLI ¼ .95, RMSEA ¼ .05).
Social support. Level of satisfaction with per-
ceived social support was assessed by Sarason,
Sarason, Shearin, and Pierce’s (1987) Social
Support Scale. Respondents indicate how satis-
fied (1 ¼ very dissatisfied, 6 ¼ very satisfied)
they were with the support they received in six
areas (e.g., Think of the people you can count
on to be dependable when you need help).
Across spouses and assessments, Cronbach’s
alpha for the summed composite score was .88.
The average interspouse correlation was .32,
p , .01.
Marital satisfaction. Marital satisfaction was as-
sessed by four items from the Dyadic Satisfac-
tion subscale of Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic
Adjustment Scale. Each item involved making
a global evaluation of the marriage. Respondents
used two response formats. The first format (1 ¼
all the time, 6 ¼ never) was used to respond to
the following items: How often do you discuss
or have you considered divorce, separation, or
terminating your relationship? In general, how
often do you think that things between you and
your partner are going well? Do you ever regret
that you married? The second format (1 ¼
extremely unhappy, 7 ¼ perfect) was used to
assess degree of happiness in the relationship.
Across spouses and assessments, Cronbach’s
alpha for the summed composite score (unit-
weighted) was .86. The average interspouse cor-
relation was .81, p , .01.
RESULTS
Estimating Husbands’ and Wives’ Growth
Curves Within a Latent Variable Framework
For each variable, average levels (intercepts)
and rates of linear change (slopes) for husbands
and wives were estimated in the same model
with a latent variable approach using version
3.00 of the Mplus program (Muthén & Muthén,
2004). General information regarding conduct-
ing growth curve analyses with both spouses
from married couples can be found in Kurdek
(2003). For the analyses involving psychologi-
cal distress, social support, and marital satisfac-
tion, there was only one observed indicator per
spouse for each of the 4 years. For these var-
iables, the latent variable representing each
75
spouse’s average level was obtained by weight-
ing scores at Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4
with a value of 1, and the latent variable repre-
senting each spouse’s rate of linear change was
obtained by weighting these scores with values
of
3,
1, 1, and 3, respectively. The weights
for linear change are those used in orthogonal
polynomial analyses in which four assessments
are equally spaced and the intercept is to be in-
terpreted as the value of the outcome score aver-
aged over all assessments (Cohen, Cohen,
West, & Aiken, 2003).
Because the analyses for the set of marriage-
specific appraisal scores and the set of spousal
interaction scores involved multiple observed
indicators at each year, spouses’ average levels
and rates of linear change for these scores were
derived with second-order latent growth curve
models (Sayer & Cumsille, 2001). For each set
of scores, four first-order latent variables and
two second-order latent variables were created.
The first-order latent variables represented each
relevant construct (i.e., appraisal or interaction)
at each of the 4 years of assessment. Because
the metrics for the multiple observed indicators
differed, the observed scores were first con-
verted to z scores over year of assessment and
spouse. For the set of appraisal scores, four
observed indicators (love, liking, intrinsic moti-
vations, and trust) defined a latent appraisal
score at each year, whereas for the set of inter-
action scores, three observed indicators (con-
sensus, affective expression, and cohesion)
defined a latent interaction score at each year.
The two second-order latent variables repre-
sented the average levels and rates of linear
change, respectively, for the first-order latent
variables at Year 1–Year 4. For the second-
order latent variable that represented average
level, the first-order latent variables at Year
1–Year 4 were each weighted with a 1. For the
second-order latent variable that represented
rate of linear change, the first-order latent varia-
bles at Year 1–Year 4 were weighted with
values of
3,
1, 1, and 3, respectively.
Preliminary analyses indicated that attrition
in the sample was not random. Compared with
husbands who completed all four assessments,
those who did not had higher average levels of
psychological distress, less positive average
levels of and stronger declines in marriage-
specific appraisals, less positive average levels
of and stronger declines in spousal interactions,
and less positive average levels of and stronger
76 Journal of Marriage and Family

declines in marital satisfaction, all ps , .01.
Wives showed the same pattern. Thus, dummy
variables indicating the three reasons for miss-
ing data (i.e., divorced, withdrawn from the
sample, or dropped from the sample) were used
as control variables in which spouses from
couples who provided data at all assessments
served as the reference group.
Preliminary analyses also indicated that error
covariances needed to be modeled. For all anal-
yses, separate error variances were estimated at
each assessment for each spouse, errors between
spouses at each assessment were allowed to cor-
relate, and errors between adjacent assessments
(i.e., Year 1 and Year 2, Year 2 and Year 3, and
Year 3 and Year 4) were allowed to correlate
for each spouse. Because dummy variables indi-
cating whether each spouse had been divorced
(0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes) did not improve the fit of any
model, these variables were not considered fur-
ther. Following Hox (2002), the fit of each
growth curve model was assessed with the
RMSEA for which values less than .08 indicate
acceptable fit, and values less than .05 indicate
good fit (all CFIs and TLIs were above .95).
Differences Between Husbands’ and Wives’
Growth Curves
The RMSEA associated with the model for each
of the five outcome scores of interest is pre-
sented in Table 2. Each model showed at least
an acceptable level of fit. The unstandardized
coefficients for average level and rate of linear
change obtained from each model are also pre-
sented for husbands and for wives in this table.
Positive values for rate of change indicated that
the outcome score increased over time, whereas
negative values for rate of change indicated that
the outcome score decreased over time. Differ-
ences between spouses’ average levels and dif-
ferences between spouses’ rates of linear change
were assessed by comparing the v2 value for
a model in which spouses’ average levels (or
rates of linear change) were freely estimated
with the v2 value for a model in which spouses’
average levels (or rates of linear change) were
constrained to be equal. The difference between
the two v2 values is itself a v2 value with 1
degree of freedom, and is presented next to the
unstandardized coefficients in Table 2 as the
Husband vs. wife v2 value. Following Rosenthal
(1994), the effect size for the v2 difference value
was expressed as r, where r ¼ Ov2/N. These
effect-size r’s are presented next to the v2 values
in Table 2. Following Cohen (1988), cut-off
values for small, medium, and large effects were
represented by r’s of .10, .30, and .50, respec-
tively. Unless indicated otherwise, all effect
sizes reported in this study were small.
With regard to psychological distress, wives
reported higher average values than their hus-
bands did. Although the decrease in psychologi-
cal distress was significant only for husbands,
the difference between spouses’ rates of change
was not significant. With regard to marriage-
specific appraisals, wives’ average values were
higher than those of their husbands. Although
both spouses showed significant decreases in
appraisals over time, this decrease was stronger
for wives than it was for their husbands. With
regard to spousal interactions, wives’ average

TABLE 2. ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR OF APPROXIMATION (RMSEA), UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS FOR AVERAGE
LEVEL AND LINEAR CHANGE FOR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, v2 TEST FOR INTERSPOUSE DIFFERENCE IN COEFFICIENTS,
2
AND EFFECT-SIZE R FOR THE v TEST FOR INTERSPOUSE DIFFERENCE FOR DISTRESS, MARRIAGE-SPECIFIC APPRAISALS,
SPOUSAL INTERACTION, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND MARITAL SATISFACTION VARIABLES

Average Level Linear Change

Coefficients Husband vs. Wife Coefficients Husband vs. Wife

Variable RMSEA Husband Wife v2 r Husband Wife v2 r

Distress .001 0.35 0.44 12.34** .15
0.01* 0.00 1.83 .05
Marriage-specific appraisals .04
0.06 0.04 4.27* .09
0.07**
0.09** 4.00* .08
Spousal interaction .04
0.08 0.04 8.90** .13
0.07**
0.08** 2.40 .06
Social support .06 31.23 31.75 3.47 .08
0.35**
0.38** 0.17 .01
Marital satisfaction .01 17.52 17.60 0.44 .02
0.17**
0.25** 6.51* .11
*p , .05. **p , .01.
Gender and Marital Satisfaction 77

values were higher than those of their husbands,
and both spouses showed equivalent decreases
over time. With regard to satisfaction with social
support, husbands and wives had equivalent
average values and showed equivalent decreases
over time. Finally, with regard to marital satis-
faction, spouses showed equivalent average
values. Although both spouses showed signifi-
cant decreases in marital satisfaction over time,
this decrease was stronger for wives than it was
for their husbands.
Differences Between Husbands’ and
Wives’ Intraspouse Links
The next issue addressed whether one’s own
levels of psychological distress, marriage-
specific appraisals, spousal interaction, and so-
cial support assessed at the beginning of the
marriage predicted both one’s own average
level of marital satisfaction over the first 4 years
of marriage (intercept) and change in one’s own
marital satisfaction over this same time period
(slope) equally well for husbands and their
wives. These intraspouse links were estimated
with growth curve analyses using latent varia-
bles (as described earlier) in which each
spouse’s latent variable representing average
level and each spouse’s latent variable repre-
senting change were predicted by that spouse’s
version of the predictor of interest. The other
spouse’s version of the same predictor was used
as a control variable. For analyses involving
psychological distress and social support, the
relevant predictor was the single observed indi-
cator at Year 1, whereas for analyses involving
marriage-specific appraisals and spousal inter-
actions, the relevant predictor was the latent var-
iable derived from the set of scores at Year 1.
The unstandardized coefficients for the intra-
spouse links are presented for husbands and for
wives in the left portion of Table 3 for average
level and rate of linear change by each predictor
variable. For descriptive purposes, the effect
sizes associated with these coefficients are also
given, where r ¼ Z/O N (Rosenthal, 1994).
Tests of differences between husbands and their
wives in the size of these coefficients were
made by comparing the difference between the
v2 value associated with a model in which coef-
ficients for each spouse were freely estimated,
and the v2 value associated with a model in
which coefficients for each spouse were con-
strained to be equal. This v2 difference value is
presented in Table 3, along with its associated
effect-size r.
With regard to psychological distress, for
each spouse, high levels at the start of the mar-
riage were linked to low average levels of mari-
tal satisfaction, and the strength of these links

TABLE 3. UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS FOR INTRASPOUSE AND CROSS-SPOUSE LINKS BETWEEN YEAR 1
LEVELS OF DISTRESS, MARRIAGE-SPECIFIC APPRAISALS, SPOUSAL INTERACTION, AND SOCIAL SUPPORT VARIABLES
2
AND AVERAGE LEVEL OF AND LINEAR CHANGE IN MARITAL SATISFACTION FOR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, v TEST FOR
2
INTERSPOUSE DIFFERENCE, AND EFFECT-SIZE R FOR THE v TEST

Intraspouse Cross-Spouse

Husband Wife Husband vs. Wife Husband Wife Husband vs. Wife
2
Variable Coefficient r Coefficient r v r Coefficient r Coefficient r v2 r

Distress
Average
1.65** .25
1.33** .21 0.39 .03
0.89** .12
0.95** .16 0.03 .00
Change 0.01 .00 0.03 .02 0.12 .01 0.00 .00 0.03 .02 0.07 .01
Appraisals
Average 1.43** .36 1.90** .41 2.41 .02 0.30 .07 0.60** .15 1.18 .05
Change
0.06 .06
0.02 .01 0.32 .00
0.01 .01 0.02 .01 0.12 .04
Interaction
Average 1.27** .27 1.48** .27 0.33 .06 0.28 .05 0.64** .16 1.22 .04
Change
0.04 .03
0.16* .10 1.52 .02 0.05 .03 0.01 .01 0.21 .01
Support
Average 0.13** .19 0.15** .22 0.27 .02 0.04 .05 0.09** .15 1.60 .04
Change
0.01 .02
0.01 .03 0.02 .05
0.01 .06 0.00 .00 1.19 .01
*p , .05. **p , .01.
78
did not differ between spouses. With regard to
marriage-specific appraisals, for each spouse,
high levels at the start of the marriage were
linked to high average levels of marital satisfac-
tion, effect sizes were medium in strength for
each spouse, and the strength of these links did
not differ between spouses. With regard to
spousal interactions, for each spouse, high
levels at the start of the marriage were linked to
high average levels of marital satisfaction, and
the strength of these links did not differ between
spouses. Finally, with regard to satisfaction with
social support, for each spouse, high levels at
the start of the marriage were linked to high
average levels of marital satisfaction, and the
strength of these links did not differ between
spouses. Overall, initial levels of psychological
distress, marriage-specific appraisals, spousal
interactions, and social support failed to predict
change in marital satisfaction for either spouse.
In sum, analyses involving the intraspouse links
failed to reveal interspouse differences in the
strength of these links.
Differences Between Husbands’ and Wives’
Cross-Spouse Links
The next issue addressed whether one’s own
levels of psychological distress, marriage-
specific appraisals, spousal interaction, and
social support assessed at the beginning of the
marriage predicted both the average level of
marital satisfaction of one’s spouse and change
in the marital satisfaction of one’s spouse equally
well for husbands and for their wives. As already
noted, these cross-spouse links were estimated in
latent variable growth curve analyses with con-
trols for intraspouse links. The unstandardized
coefficients for the cross-spouse links, the asso-
ciated effect-size r’s, the v2 associated with the
test of differences between spouses in the
strength of the effects, and the associated effect-
size r’s are presented in the right portion of
Table 3. The entries for husbands refer to the
link between husbands’ predictors and their
wives’ marital satisfaction, whereas the entries
for wives refer to the link between wives’ pre-
dictors and their husbands’ marital satisfaction.
With regard to psychological distress, for
both husbands and their wives, high levels at
the start of the marriage were linked to low
average levels of marital satisfaction for one’s
spouse, and the strength of these links did not
differ between husbands and their wives. With
Journal of Marriage and Family
regard to satisfaction with marriage-specific ap-
praisals, spousal interactions, and social sup-
port, although cross-spouse effects were not
significant for husbands, wives’ high levels for
these variables at the start of the marriage were
linked to high average levels of marital satisfac-
tion for their husbands. Nonetheless, husbands
and their wives did not differ in the strength of
any of these cross-spouse effects. Because no
variable showed cross-spouse links involving
change in marital satisfaction, no interspouse
differences in these effects occurred. In sum,
analyses involving the cross-spouse links failed
to reveal interspouse differences in the strength
of these links.
Differences Between Husbands From Divorced
Versus Stable Couples and Wives From
Divorced Versus Stable Couples
The final issue focused on whether comparisons
between the growth curves for spouses who
divorced and those who did not divorce differed
between spouses. For this issue, spouses from
57 couples who were known to have divorced
were compared with spouses from 469 couples
who did not divorce. Although this latter group
included spouses from couples who withdrew
from the study, were dropped from the study, or
completed all assessments, all spouses within
this group came from stable couples. Latent var-
iables representing each spouse’s average level
and each spouse’s change were derived as in the
first set of analyses, and only a dichotomous
divorce variable (0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes) was used as
a predictor of each latent variable.
The unstandardized coefficient for this
dummy variable is presented for husbands and
for their wives in Table 4 for each of the five
variables of interest. For average values, posi-
tive coefficients indicate that spouses from
divorced couples had higher values than spouses
from stable couples, whereas negative coeffi-
cients indicate that spouses from divorced cou-
ples had lower values than spouses from stable
couples. For change, positive coefficients indi-
cate that spouses from divorced couples had
steeper increases than spouses from stable cou-
ples, whereas negative coefficients indicate that
spouses from divorced couples had steeper
decreases than spouses from stable couples.
Differences between effects for husbands and
effects for wives were assessed by comparing
the v2 values from models in which spouse
Gender and Marital Satisfaction 79

TABLE 4. UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS FOR HUSBANDS AND WIVES FOR LINK BETWEEN DUMMY VARIABLE
FOR DIVORCED COUPLES (N = 57) VERSUS STABLE COUPLES (N = 469), AND AVERAGE LEVEL OF AND LINEAR CHANGE
FOR DISTRESS, MARRIAGE-SPECIFIC APPRAISALS, SPOUSAL INTERACTION, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND MARITAL
SATISFACTION VARIABLES, v2 TEST FOR INTERSPOUSE DIFFERENCE, AND EFFECT-SIZE R FOR THE v2 TEST

Average Level Linear Change

Coefficient Husband vs. Wife Coefficient Husband vs. Wife

Variable Husband Wife v2 r Husband Wife v2 r

Distress 0.16** 0.15** 0.01 .00
0.01
0.03 1.54 .05

Appraisals
0.78**
1.12** 3.55 .08
0.18**
0.29** 4.00* .08
Interaction
0.60**
0.55** 0.17 .01
0.14**
0.15** 0.04 .00
Support
1.90** 0.14 4.32* .09
0.16 0.40 2.96 .07
Satisfaction
3.29**
3.85** 1.83 .05
0.70**
0.86** 1.25 .04
*p , .05. **p , .01.

effects were freely estimated with those in
which they were constrained to be equal. The
resulting v2 difference values are presented in
Table 4, along with the associated effect-size r.
Findings are presented first for average value
and then for change. With regard to psychologi-
cal distress, for both husbands and their wives,
spouses from divorced couples had higher aver-
age levels than did spouses from stable couples.
With regard to marriage-specific appraisals,
spousal interactions, and marital satisfaction,
for both husbands and their wives, spouses from
divorced couples had lower average levels than
did spouses from stable couples. With regard to
social support, the comparison between average
levels was significant only for husbands such
that husbands from divorced couples had lower
average levels than did husbands from stable
couples. Concerning differences between hus-
bands and their wives in the strength of these ef-
fects, only one difference was found such that
the effect involving social support was signifi-
cantly stronger for husbands than it was for
their wives. Thus, low average levels of social
support were linked to eventual divorce for hus-
bands but not for wives.
Regarding the slopes for psychological dis-
tress and social support, comparisons between
spouses from divorced couples and spouses
from stable couples were not significant for
either husbands or their wives. Regarding the
slopes for marriage-specific appraisals, spousal
interactions, and marital satisfaction, decreases
were stronger for spouses from divorced cou-
ples than they were for spouses from stable
couples for both husbands and their wives. Con-
cerning differences between husbands and their
wives in the strength of these effects, only one
difference was found such that the effect for
marriage-specific appraisals was stronger for
wives than it was for their husbands. Thus, de-
creases in positive marriage-specific appraisals
was linked to eventual divorce more strongly
for wives than it was for their husbands. In sum,
because only 2 out of 10 differences between
husbands and their wives were found, analyses
involving comparisons between spouses from
divorced couples and spouses from stable cou-
ples generally did not reveal consistent inter-
spouse differences.
DISCUSSION
The major goal of this study is to reassess the
position—based, in part, on biological and
social psychological theories—that there are his
and her versions of every marriage. This reas-
sessment was warranted because most of the
authors of previous studies who collected lon-
gitudinal data from husbands and wives from
the same marriage (see review by Karney &
Bradbury, 1995) did not employ appropriate sta-
tistical procedures to assess differences between
spouses’ scores. In the current study, gender dif-
ferences in marriage were assessed with longitu-
dinal data collected over the first 4 years of
marriage, and couple-level statistical procedures
were employed that allowed not only for accu-
rate estimates of effects for each spouse, but
also for direct tests of differences between
spouses’ effects.
80
Three issues were addressed with sets of vari-
ables derived from the individual partner, part-
ner interactions, and societal forces levels of
Huston’s (2000) social ecological model. Psy-
chological distress and marriage-specific ap-
praisals represented the level of the individual
partner, spousal interactions represented the
level of partner interactions, and satisfaction
with social support represented the level of soci-
etal forces. Both marital satisfaction and marital
stability were used as outcome variables. The
first issue was whether husbands and their wives
differed in either average level (i.e., the inter-
cept of growth curves) or rate of linear change
(i.e., the slope of growth curves) for psychologi-
cal distress, marriage-specific appraisals, spou-
sal interaction, social support, and marital
satisfaction. The second issue was whether hus-
bands and their wives differed in either intra-
spouse or cross-spouse effects involving the
link between the growth curves for marital satis-
faction and values for psychological distress,
marriage-specific appraisals, spousal interaction,
and social support at the start of the marriage.
The final issue was whether husbands headed
for divorce differed from husbands in a stable
marriage as much as wives headed for divorce
differed from wives in a stable marriage on the
growth curves for psychological distress, mar-
riage-specific appraisals, spousal interaction,
social support, and marital satisfaction.
Do Husbands and Wives Differ in Average
Levels and in Rates of Linear Change?
Spouses differed in average levels over the first
4 years of marriage for psychological distress,
marriage-specific appraisals, and spousal inter-
actions, but not for social support and marital
satisfaction. Consistent with previous evidence
based on single assessments, relative to their
husbands, wives showed higher levels of psy-
chological distress (Derogatis, 1994), more pos-
itive marriage-specific appraisals (Cross &
Madson, 1997), and more positive spousal in-
teractions (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001).
The effect size for each of these differences was
small. In line with findings from other prospec-
tive longitudinal studies (Huston et al., 2001;
Karney & Bradbury, 1997), there was evidence
of change over the first 4 years of marriage for
at least one spouse in each of the five sets of
variables of interest. Spouses differed, however,
in the rate of linear change for marriage-specific
Journal of Marriage and Family
appraisals and marital satisfaction, but not for
psychological distress, spousal interactions, and
social support. Relative to their husbands, wives
showed stronger declines in both marriage-
specific appraisals and marital quality. Once
again, however, the effect size associated with
each of these differences was small.
The findings that husbands and wives dif-
fered in average levels and rates of change on
variables relevant to marital functioning is con-
sistent with predictions from both biological
and social psychological theories. Because all
effects were small in size, however, the findings
run counter to popular accounts of substantial
differences in his and her versions of marriage
(e.g., Gray, 2004). Further, the current study
cannot address which theory is better able to
account for the obtained differences. Such evi-
dence could come from studies that specifically
target the identification of processes that medi-
ate interspouse differences. For example, a lon-
gitudinal study that included the variables
studied here, as well as sets of physiological
variables (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001)
and gendered family role variables (e.g., Eagly,
1987), would be ideal to examine whether inter-
spouse differences in growth curve parameters
were fully accounted for by either biological or
social psychological processes, or some combi-
nation of both types of processes.
Do Husbands and Wives Differ
in Intraspouse Links?
Given strong practical interest in predicting
marital outcomes from information gathered at
the start of the marriage (Huston et al., 2001),
there was reason to examine interspouse differ-
ences in the extent to which levels of psycho-
logical distress, marriage-specific appraisals,
spousal interactions, and social support at the
beginning of the marriage forecasted both aver-
age level and the rate of linear change in marital
satisfaction over the early years of marriage. In
recognition of the interdependence in marital
processes (Bond & Kenny, 2003), both intra-
spouse and cross-spouse effects were assessed
within the same analysis. In contrast to previous
studies using growth curve methods (e.g.,
Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Huston et al., 2001),
these intraspouse and cross-spouse effects were
assessed with controls for both types of
attrition and correlated errors within spouses
and between spouses.
Gender and Marital Satisfaction
Consistent with evidence from previous stud-
ies (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995), intra-
spouse effects were significant for average
levels of marital satisfaction for both spouses.
Specifically, high levels of psychological dis-
tress, low levels of marriage-specific appraisals,
low levels of spousal interactions, and low
levels of satisfaction with social support were
each linked to low average levels of marital sat-
isfaction. Nearly all of these effects were small
in size. In contrast to any claims that social psy-
chological processes in particular make marital
satisfaction a more rule-governed phenomenon
for wives than for their husbands, there was no
evidence that the correlates of average levels of
marital satisfaction differed in strength between
spouses.
Further, there was little evidence of intra-
spouse effects regarding how initial levels of
psychological distress, marriage-specific ap-
praisals, spousal interactions, and social support
forecasted the degree of change in marital satis-
faction for either spouse. In fact, initial levels of
these variables generally failed to show any
reliable links to patterns of change in marital
satisfaction, making the question of interspouse
differences in these effects moot. Karney and
Bradbury (1997) reported a similar pattern of
findings for their self-report measures. In light
of the dynamic nature of marital processes
(Huston, 2000), future studies could examine
interspouse differences in how patterns of
change in predictors are linked to patterns of
change in marital satisfaction.
Do Husbands and Wives Differ
in Cross-Spouse Links?
The evidence regarding cross-spouse effects
showed a similar pattern to that obtained for in-
traspouse effects in that cross-spouse effects for
variables assessed at the start of the marriage
occurred more frequently for links to average
levels of marital satisfaction than for links to
change in marital satisfaction. For both hus-
bands and their wives, high levels of psycholog-
ical distress in one’s spouse were linked to
one’s own low average marital satisfaction, and
the strength of these cross-spouse effects did
not differ between spouses. The major method-
ological point of the current study is nicely
illustrated by cross-spouse effects involving the
marriage-specific appraisal, spousal interaction,
and social support variables. For these varia-
81
bles, cross-spouse effects were significant only
for wives, such that low levels of wives’
marriage-specific appraisals, spousal interac-
tions, and social support at the start of the mar-
riage were linked to low average levels of their
husbands’ marital satisfaction. The strength of
the cross-spouse effects obtained for wives,
however, did not differ from the strength of the
parallel cross-spouse effects obtained for their
husbands. Thus, although cross-spouse effects
occurred more frequently for wives than they
did for their husbands, the lack of statistically
significant interspouse differences in these
cross-spouse effects provided no support for the
view derived from social psychological theories
that wives function as relationship experts
(e.g., Floyd & Markman, 1983; Sabatelli &
Bartle-Haring, 2003).
Do Husbands and Wives Differ in
At-Risk Profiles for Divorce?
The last area in which husbands and their wives
were compared involved the at-risk profiles for
divorce. Of particular interest was whether the
size of differences between spouses headed for
divorce and spouses in stable couples in both
average levels and rate of change for the psy-
chological distress, marriage-specific appraisals,
spousal interactions, social support, and marital
satisfaction variables was the same for husbands
and their wives. Consistent with data from other
prospective longitudinal studies (Huston et al.,
2001; Karney & Bradbury, 1997), for both hus-
bands and their wives, spouses headed for
divorce reported higher average levels of psy-
chological distress, lower average levels of and
stronger declines in marriage-specific apprais-
als, lower average levels of and stronger
declines in spousal interactions, and lower
average levels of and stronger declines in
marital satisfaction as compared with spouses
from stable marriages. For husbands only,
lower average levels of social support dis-
criminated between spouses who divorced
from those who remained married. Of the 10
interspouse differences assessed, only 2 were
significant (each small in size) and might best
be attributed to chance. Thus, there was no
consistent evidence that differences between
spouses headed for divorce and spouses from
stable marriages were more pronounced for
wives as relationship experts than they were
for their husbands.
82
Limitations
The findings from this study must be viewed in
the context of its limitations. No claim is made
that the sample of couples is representative of
all newlywed couples, the number of couples
completing all assessments was relatively small
given the size of the sample at the first assess-
ment, more frequent assessments could have
been made over the 4 years of study to yield
more reliable evidence of change, nearly all
measures were open to biases associated with
self-report methods, other variables from the
domains of interest could have been sampled,
and other domains (such as sexual behavior)
could have been selected. In defense of the
measures used here, however, they had accept-
able psychometric properties, showed gender
differences in average levels similar to those re-
ported in other studies, replicated intraspouse
and cross-spouse linkages found in other stud-
ies, and reliably discriminated spouses in stable
couples from spouses in divorced couples.
Nonetheless, it is possible that larger differences
between husbands and wives could have been
obtained with actual observations of husbands
and wives, or with different self-report mea-
sures of different variables.
CONCLUSION
The growth curve findings from this study
nicely supplement the longitudinal evidence
summarized by Karney and Bradbury (1995),
but provide more accurate estimates of effects
for husbands and wives because of the couple-
level statistical analyses employed. In an exten-
sion of Karney and Bradbury’s conclusion that
claims derived from biological and social psy-
chological theories have led to exaggerated gen-
der effects in marriage, the current findings
showed that although there were small differen-
ces in average levels of growth curves for varia-
bles relevant to marital functioning, there were
no differences between husbands and wives in
the strength of intraspouse and cross-spouse
predictions of marital satisfaction and in the size
of comparisons that discriminated between
spouses headed for divorce and those headed
for stable marriages. Thus, within the confines
of the specific set of variables studied here, the
findings provide no support for the existence of
his and her versions of marital processes.
Rather, the findings support an alternative view
Journal of Marriage and Family
that despite slight gender differences in aver-
age levels of variables relevant to marriage, the
processes that account for variability in both
marital satisfaction and marital stability are
similar for husbands and wives. Because couple-
level data analyses can now be conducted in
readily available statistical programs, additional
work regarding gender differences in marriage
would do well to employ those analyses so that
accurate estimates of effects for husbands and
wives are obtained, statistical tests of differ-
ences between effects for husbands and those
for their wives can be conducted, and the effect
size associated with those tests of interspouse
differences can be reported and used in future
meta-analytic reviews of gender differences in
marriage.
NOTE
I would like to thank the couples who participated in this
study.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce
for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 62, 1269–1287.
Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Simpson, J. A. (1995).
Predicting relationship stability from both partners
versus one. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 69, 254–268.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the
processing of social information. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Bentler, P. M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1978). Longitu-
dinal study of marital success and failure. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1053–
1070.
Bernard, J. (1982). The future of marriage. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bond, C. F., & Kenny, D. A. (2003). The triangle of
interpersonal models. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 355–366.
Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2001). First mar-
riage dissolution, divorce, and remarriage: United
States. Advance data from vital and health statis-
tics (No. 323). Hyattsville, MD: National Center
for Health Statistics.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Toward a psychology of person-
environment (PE) correlation: The role of spouse
selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 47, 361–377.
Gender and Marital Satisfaction
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Histori-
cal origins and current status. Journal of Sex
Research, 35, 19–31.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic
Press.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S.
(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R.
(2001). Gender differences in personality traits
across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
322–331.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the
self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological
Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
Davey, A., Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., &
Brody, G. H. (2001). Attributions in marriage:
Examining the entailment model in dyadic context.
Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 721–734.
Davila, J., Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1998).
Negative affectivity as a mediator of the associa-
tion between adult attachment and marital satisfac-
tion. Personal Relationships, 5, 467–484.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999).
Attachment change processes in the early years of
marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 76, 783–802.
Derogatis, L. (1994). SCL 90-R: Administration,
scoring, and procedures manual. Minneapolis,
MN: National Computer Systems.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behav-
ior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex
differences in human behavior: Evolved disposi-
tions versus social roles. American Psychologist,
54, 408–423.
Floyd, F. J., & Markman, H. J. (1983). Observational
biases in spouse observation: Toward a cognitive/
behavioral model of marriage. Journal of Consul-
ting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 450–457.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C.
(1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability
from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 60, 5–22.
Gray, J. (2004). Men are from Mars, women are from
Venus: The classic guide to understanding the
opposite sex. New York: HarperCollins.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and
applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Huston, T. L. (2000). The social ecology of marriage
and other intimate unions. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 298–320.
Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith,
S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial
crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of
marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
237–252.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longi-
tudinal course of marital quality and stability: A
review of theory, method, and research. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroti-
cism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of mar-
ital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.
Karney, B. R., Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., &
Sullivan, K. T. (1994). The role of negative affec-
tivity in the association between attributions and
marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 413–424.
Kenny, D. A., Mohr, C. D., & Levesque, M. J.
(2001). A social relations variance partitioning of
dyadic behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
128–141.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001).
Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 472–503.
Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Perceived social support in
gays and lesbians in cohabiting relationships. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
504–509.
Kurdek, L. A. (1989). Social support and psychologi-
cal distress in first-married and remarried newly-
wed husbands and wives. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 51, 1047–1052.
Kurdek, L. A. (1992). Dimensionality of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale: Evidence from heterosexual and
homosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 6, 22–35.
Kurdek, L. A. (2003). Methodological issues in
growth-curve analyses with married couples. Per-
sonal Relationships, 10, 235–266.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Relationship
quality of partners in heterosexual married, hetero-
sexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 711–720.
84
McCrae, R. R. (1993). Moderated analyses of longi-
tudinal personality stability. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65, 577–585.
Milardo, R. M., & Helms-Erikson, H. (2000). Net-
work overlap and third-party influence in close
relationships. In S. S. Hendrick & C. Hendrick
(Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 33–
45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W.
(1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealiza-
tion and the construction of satisfaction in close re-
lationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 79–98.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus
users’ guide: Statistical analysis with latent varia-
bles. Los Angeles: Authors.
Newsom, J. T. (2002). A multilevel structural equa-
tion model for dyadic data. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9, 431–447.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Women who think too
much. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985).
Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect
size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The
handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16,
265–273.
Sabatelli, R. M., & Bartle-Haring, S. (2003). Family-
of-origin experiences and adjustment in married
couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65,
159–169.
Sabourin, S., Lussier, Y., Laplante, B., & Wright, J.
(1990). Unidimensional and multidimensional
models of dyadic adjustment: A hierarchical
Journal of Marriage and Family
reconciliation. Psychological Assessment, 2, 333–
337.
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N., &
Pierce, G. R. (1987). A brief measure of social
support: Practical and theoretical implications.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
497–510.
Sayer, A. G., & Cumsille, P. E. (2001). Second-order
latent growth models. In L. M. Collins & A. G.
Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of
change (pp. 177–200). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Schmitt, D. P. (2002). A meta-analysis of sex differ-
ences in romantic attraction: Do rating contexts
moderate tactic effectiveness judgments? British
Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 387–402.
Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., &
Brennan, R. T. (2004). Coming home upset: Gen-
der, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of
workday experience into couple interactions. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 18, 250–263.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (2001). Evolu-
tion and relationships: A call for integration. Per-
sonal Relationships, 8, 341–355.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment:
New scales for assessing the quality of marriage
and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 38, 15–28.
Verbeke, G., & Lesaffre, E. (1997). The effect of
misspecifying the random-effects distribution in
linear mixed models for longitudinal data.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 23,
541–556.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-
other agreement in personality and affectivity:
The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility and
assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 546–558.