Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Does Partner Responsiveness Predict Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being? A 10-Year Longitudinal Study
Does Partner Responsiveness Predict Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being? A 10-Year Longitudinal Study
Motivated by attachment theory and recent gender, extraversion, neuroticism, and perceived
conceptualizations of perceived partner respon- responsiveness of family and friends. Affective
siveness as a core feature of close relationships, reactivity, measured via an 8-day diary protocol
the authors examined change in hedonic in a subset of the sample, partially mediated
and eudaimonic well-being over a decade this longitudinal association. After controlling
in a sample of more than 2,000 married for covariates, perceived partner responsive-
adults across the United States. Longitudi- ness did not prospectively predict hedonic
nal analyses revealed that perceived partner well-being. These findings are the first to docu-
responsiveness—the extent to which individuals ment the long-term benefits of perceived partner
believe that their partner cares for, appreciates, responsiveness on eudaimonic well-being.
and understands them—predicted increases in
eudaimonic well-being a decade later. These Well-being is a key aspect of adult development,
results remained after controlling for ini- exerting lasting influences on physical and men-
tial hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, age, tal health, productivity, and even longevity (see
Chida & Steptoe, 2008; Lyubomirsky, King, &
Diener, 2005; and Ryff, 2013, for qualitative and
Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical meta-analytic reviews). Given the importance of
University, B45 Social Sciences Building, Ankara, 06800, well-being in adulthood, a great deal of atten-
Turkey (semre@metu.edu.tr). tion has been devoted to its determinants. Social
∗ Department of Psychology, Bilkent University, Ankara, relationships have emerged as a robust predic-
06800, Turkey. tor of well-being (Oishi, Krochik, & Akimoto,
∗∗ Departmentof Human Development, Cornell University, 2010; Reis, 2012), with marriage, arguably the
242 Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853. most important adult social relationship in vir-
∗∗∗ Department of Human Development and Family tually all human cultures, being at the center
Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 403 BBH of research attention (Diener, Gohm, Suh, &
Building, University Park, PA 16802. Oishi, 2000; Glenn, 1975). Although it has been
Key Words: attachment, life span development, marital qual- suggested that marriage is strongly linked to
ity, marriage, relationships, well-being. well-being (Glenn & Weaver, 1981), it is still
Journal of Marriage and Family 78 (April 2016): 311–325 311
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12272
312 Journal of Marriage and Family
unclear what specific aspects of the marital rela- 1989, 2013). Drawing from philosophical work
tionship underlie these associations. Based on of Aristotle as well as contemporary work on
attachment theory and recent conceptualizations positive psychological functioning and life span
of relationship effects on health and well-being development, Ryff (1989) identified six indica-
(Reis, 2012), we argue that perceived partner tors of eudaimonic well-being: self-acceptance
responsiveness—that is, the extent to which indi- (being aware of one’s limitations and feeling
viduals feel cared for, appreciated, and under- good about oneself at the same time), environ-
stood by their partners—is a core aspect of mental mastery (successfully managing daily
marital relationships associated with well-being. life situations, demands, and responsibilities),
Using a 10-year longitudinal data set, in the positive relationships (forming and maintain-
present study we examined the extent to which ing close positive ties with others), autonomy
perceived partner responsiveness prospectively (maintaining a sense of self-determination and
predicted change in the two components of psy- independence), purpose in life (finding meaning
chological well-being: hedonia and eudaimonia. in one’s challenges and pursuits), and personal
growth (making the most of one’s capabili-
ties by maintaining an open attitude to new
Two Distinct Conceptions of Well-being: information, experiences, and challenges).
Hedonia and Eudaimonia Based on the theoretical distinctions between
Theorizing and empirical research on well-being hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, a number
have evolved in two distinct traditions focus- of studies have investigated whether the two also
ing on two relatively distinct conceptions of form empirically distinct constructs. Analyses
well-being. In one tradition, referred to as the based on large representative samples com-
hedonic view of well-being, the focus has been prising a broad spectrum of adults from diverse
on the experience of pleasure and avoidance backgrounds have indicated that although eudai-
of pain (Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999; monic and hedonic well-being are positively
Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996). Researchers adopt- correlated, variation in these constructs is most
ing the hedonic view conceptualize well-being parsimoniously represented as two separate
as a broad judgment of how good (vs. bad) one’s factors as opposed to a single overarching factor
life is and how much pleasure (vs. pain) one (Gallagher, Lopez, & Preacher, 2009; Keyes
experiences in life. As such, hedonic well-being et al., 2002).
is typically operationalized along three compo-
nents: life satisfaction, the presence of positive
Perceived Partner Responsiveness as a
affect, and the absence of negative affect (Lucas
Predictor of Well-being
et al., 1996).
The eudaimonic view, on the other hand, A host of studies to date have documented
views well-being as distinct from pleasure and that marriage is a key social relationship
positive affect (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002; construct predicting well-being (e.g., Glenn &
Ryan & Deci, 2001). According to this view, Weaver, 1981; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Proulx,
high pleasure and positive affect do not neces- Helms, & Buehler, 2007). Yet it is still unclear
sarily mean that the individual experiences high what aspects of marriage affect long-term
psychological well-being. Researchers adopt- well-being and through which mechanisms.
ing the eudaimonic well-being approach have Drawing from diverse theoretical perspectives
conceptualized well-being not in terms of the on close relationships—such as attachment
attaining of pleasure but of the achieving of one’s theory (Bowlby, 1988), applications of inter-
potential, finding meaning in life, and meeting dependence theory (e.g., Drigotas, Rusbult,
life span developmental challenges (Keyes Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999), and models
et al., 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 1989). of social support (Cutrona, 1996)—Reis and
Accordingly, issues of self-development, per- colleagues (e.g., Reis, 2012; Reis, Clark, &
sonal growth, purpose in life, and autonomous Holmes, 2004) have argued that perceived part-
engagement with the environment have been ner responsiveness—that is, the extent to which
at the center of the eudaimonic perspective. To individuals believe that their partner really cares
date, one of the most comprehensive conceptu- for, understands, and appreciates them—is the
alizations of eudaimonic well-being was made central process that determines relationship
by Ryff and colleagues (Keyes et al., 2002; Ryff, happiness and links romantic relationships to
Partner Responsiveness and Well-being 313
well-being and health. The idea that perceiv- Although perceived partner responsiveness
ing relationship partners as responsive leads has been shown to promote hedonic well-being,
to greater well-being figures prominently in the extent to which it predicts eudaimonic
attachment theory, one of the most influential well-being has not been studied much in the liter-
theories of close relationships. According to ature. Given the theoretical as well as empirical
attachment theory, maintaining relationships distinction between the two types of well-being,
with responsive attachment figures (whether the extant findings on the link between partner
a parent during infancy and childhood or a responsiveness and hedonic well-being cannot
romantic partner in adulthood) instills a sense of be assumed to hold for eudaimonic well-being,
felt security, a psychological state characterized so it is necessary to examine this question empir-
by calmness and safety, which in turn enhances ically. Prior studies have largely focused on the
well-being. A normative function of attachment role of marital status in eudaimonic well-being
relationships is stress buffering—that is, the (e.g., Bierman, Fazio, & Milkie, 2006) and a
attachment figure’s ability to down-regulate direct test of whether perceived partner respon-
one’s reactivity to stressful events. In infancy siveness predicts eudaimonic well-being and
and childhood, the quality of relationships with through which mechanism is lacking.
parents is an important regulator of stress reac- According to attachment theory, with the
tivity, an effect that extends even into the adult felt security conferred by responsive spouses
years (Mallers, Charles, Neupert, & Almeida, come increased autonomy and engagement with
2010). In adulthood, romantic partners replace environment, which are both integral parts of
parents as primary attachment figures (e.g., eudaimonic well-being (Ryff, 2013). Responsive
Doherty & Feeney, 2004) and become the major partners provide a “secure base” (Bowlby, 1988)
close relationship partner regulating one’s stress from which individuals autonomously pursue
reactivity (Selcuk, Zayas, & Hazan, 2010). their goals, grow as a person, and actualize them-
When individuals encounter stressful events selves. When individuals feel that a responsive
(e.g., an interpersonal argument, a problem at partner is available when needed, they are more
work), a viable strategy for many married adults likely to embrace important challenges and
is to turn to their spouse to cope with the stress. pursue goals that would contribute to their per-
Spouses’ responsive behavior at such times sonal growth and self-actualization (Mikulincer
alleviates stress reactivity and negative affect & Shaver, 2007). Supporting this view, indi-
and restores felt security. Such repeated positive viduals who perceived their partner as more
interactions with responsive partners are thought responsive in a discussion of personal goals
to contribute to well-being over the long term. later reported higher confidence in achieving
To date, this hypothesis has been largely these goals (Feeney, 2004). Moreover, findings
examined in the context of hedonic well-being. from a recent experimental study (Caprariello
For instance, naturally occurring or experi- & Reis, 2011) indicated that feelings of safety
mentally induced variation in perceived partner and security conferred by responsive partners
responsiveness is associated with greater sus- were associated with less defensive reactions to
tainability of positive affect or alleviation of failure (attributing failure to external sources),
negative affect when disclosing a recent worry which would be expected to increase one’s sense
(Collins & Feeney, 2000), talking about a daily of personal growth and self-acceptance. Overall,
stressor (Maisel & Gable, 2009), or working on the existing findings provide indirect support
a challenging task (Feeney, 2004), suggesting for the attachment theoretical contention that
that perceived partner responsiveness helps perceived partner responsiveness is linked to
preserve hedonic well-being in the face of core aspects of eudaimonic well-being (Keyes
stressors. Other studies have found that merely et al., 2002; Ryff, 2013). However, to date,
holding the hand of one’s partner or looking at a no studies have directly investigated the link
photograph of the partner can alleviate negative between partner responsiveness and eudaimonic
affect induced by threatening stimuli or stressful well-being.
life events (Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006; According to attachment theory, alleviation of
Selcuk, Zayas, Günaydin, Hazan, & Kross, stress reactivity is an important mechanism by
2012). Taken together, these findings demon- which perceived responsiveness enhances eudai-
strate that perceived partner responsiveness monic well-being as well. Having someone who
promotes hedonic well-being. is responsive to one’s needs is a crucial resource
314 Journal of Marriage and Family
when things go wrong and makes coping with in both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
stressors and autonomously and purposefully The advantage of such a design is that it is
engaging with the environment, even in the face possible to test whether the observed associa-
of adversity, easier (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). tions between perceived partner responsiveness
In other words, to the extent that individuals and one type of well-being is unique to partner
show lower reactivity to daily stressors they are responsiveness or can be accounted for by the
more likely to continue working toward daily life other type of well-being. Thus, our analyses
responsibilities and goals, learning new informa- predicting eudaimonic well-being controlled
tion, and growing as a person in an uninterrupted for hedonic well-being and vice versa. More-
manner, which in the long run promotes eudai- over, previous studies have rarely attempted
monic well-being. to rule out the possibility that the associations
Integrating theoretical models on the neurobi- between perceived partner responsiveness and
ology of attachment and eudaimonic well-being well-being is attributable to personality traits
also leads to the hypothesis that reduced or relationship experiences with people other
affective reactivity to stressors would medi- than one’s romantic partner. Therefore, in the
ate the association between perceived partner present study we controlled for extraversion
responsiveness and long-term enhancement of and neuroticism, the two reliable personality
eudaimonic well-being. Responsive interactions predictors of well-being (e.g., Keyes et al.,
with spouses lead to enhanced oxytocin and opi- 2002), and perceived responsiveness of other
oid neurotransmission (e.g., Depue & Morrone- social network members, namely, family and
Strupinsky, 2005). The activation of these friends.
two neurotransmitter systems, in turn, down- Finally, in the present study we tested the
regulates the reactivity of the hypothalamic– attachment theoretical hypothesis that stress
pituitary–adrenocortical axis and the autonomic alleviation is a mechanism linking perceived
nervous system and results in lower stress reac- responsiveness with well-being. To assess affec-
tivity. The same two neurotransmitter systems tive reactivity, a subset of participants completed
are also thought to be the major biological measures of stressors and negative affect over
substrates of eudaimonic well-being (Ryff & 8 consecutive days. We used these daily experi-
Singer, 1998), suggesting that the long-term ence data to compute an affective reactivity score
association between perceived partner respon- for each participant. Prior work investigating
siveness and eudaimonic well-being can be the consequences of affective reactivity using
explained by lower reactivity to daily stressors, repeated daily assessments has demonstrated
a mechanism yet to be empirically tested. that daily affective reactivity is associated with
elevated risk of affective disorders (depression
The Present Study or anxiety; Charles, Piazza, Mogle, Sliwinski,
& Almeida, 2013), chronic health conditions
Despite the strong theoretical contentions, no (Piazza, Charles, Sliwinski, Mogle, & Almeida,
studies to date have investigated whether per- 2013), sleep impairment (Ong et al., 2013),
ceived partner responsiveness is concurrently inflammation (Sin, Graham-Engeland, Ong,
associated with eudaimonic well-being or pre- & Almeida, 2015), and mortality (Mroczek
dicts change in eudaimonic well-being over the et al., 2015). Yet no studies have so far exam-
long-term. Addressing this critical gap in the ined whether daily affective reactivity predicts
literature was the primary aim of the present long-term changes in well-being or mediates the
study. We examined this question in a large sam- long-term association between perceived partner
ple of married adults assessed on two occasions responsiveness and well-being. In the present
10 years apart. In addition to providing the first study we aimed to close this important gap.
test of whether perceived partner responsiveness
would predict change in eudaimonic well-being
a decade later, in the present study we extended Method
past research in a number of ways. Prior work
Sample and Procedure
on perceived partner responsiveness has largely
focused on hedonic well-being. The present The data for the present study come from the
study is the first to investigate whether per- first and second waves of the National Survey
ceived partner responsiveness predicts change of Midlife Development in the United States
Partner Responsiveness and Well-being 315
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. M2 HWB —
2. M2 EWB .587***—
3. M1 HWB .570*** .443*** —
4. M1 EWB .411*** .605*** .577*** —
5. M1 PPR .244*** .269*** .332*** .306*** —
6. M1 age .163*** .048* .120*** −.008 .052*** —
7. M1 EXT .214*** .297*** .331*** .356*** .146*** −.003 —
8. M1 NEU −.390*** −.365*** −.558*** −.456*** −.179*** −.131*** −.159*** —
9. M1 PFamR .231*** .262*** .309*** .307*** .294*** .137*** .224*** −.171*** —
10. M1 PFriR .213*** .293*** .259*** .324*** .206*** .041** .330*** −.141*** .413*** —
11. Reactivity −.371*** −.349*** −.420*** −.397*** −.108* −.118** −.142*** .298*** −.129** −.114** —
12. Gendera −.050* −.022 −.056*** −.059*** −.122*** −.051*** .059*** .114*** .099*** .199*** .093* —
M 0.059 5.608 0.119 5.680 3.593 47.590 3.189 2.190 3.510 3.267 0.119
SD 0.667 0.761 0.630 0.724 0.523 11.762 0.553 0.652 0.556 0.634 0.112
Cronbach’s 𝛼 .914 .786 .920 .768 .833 .779 .750 .663 .813
Note: M2 = National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States, Wave 2 (MIDUS II); HWB = hedonic
well-being; EWB = eudaimonic well-being; M1 = MIDUS I; PPR = perceived partner responsiveness; EXT = extraversion;
NEU = neuroticism; PFamR = perceived family responsiveness (excluding spouse); PFriR = perceived friend responsiveness;
Reactivity = affective reactivity. For continuous variables, higher scores reflect higher standing on the variable. The sample size
was 4,167 for estimates including only MIDUS I variables, 2,348 for estimates including MIDUS II variables but excluding
affective reactivity, and 555 for estimates including affective reactivity.
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Analyses testing whether the long-term responsiveness, hedonic and eudaimonic well-
association between perceived partner respon- being, extraversion, neuroticism, and NSDE
siveness and well-being is mediated by affective affective reactivity. The Cronbach’s alphas
reactivity to daily stressors were based on 555 (range: .66–.92), means, standard deviations,
MIDUS respondents who also participated in and correlations of the variables are provided
the NSDE and had affective reactivity data. The in Table 1. For all variables, items were reverse
NSDE is an 8-day daily telephone diary study coded where necessary so that higher scores
that assessed affective reactions to everyday reflected higher standing on the variable.
stressors. The NSDE data were collected during
1996–1997 after completion of data collec- Perceived partner responsiveness. Perceived
tion in MIDUS I and before MIDUS II. The partner responsiveness was measured with
mean age of the participants in the longitudinal three items (revised from Schuster, Kessler, &
sample who completed the NSDE was slightly Aseltine, 1990). The items, also used in a previ-
lower (M = 46.50 years) than those who did not ous study on perceived partner responsiveness
(M = 47.92 years, t = 2.500, p = .012). There (Selcuk & Ong, 2013), asked participants to
were no differences between the participants answer the following questions: “How much
who completed the NSDE versus those who does your spouse or partner really care about
did not in terms of gender, racial background, you?”, “How much does he or she understand
education, current work status (all χ2 s < 1.032, the way you feel about things?”, and “How
ps > .309), perceived partner responsiveness,
much does he or she appreciate you?” These
or hedonic or eudaimonic well-being (all
questions matched the three components of per-
ts < 0.315, all ps > .752).
ceived partner responsiveness (understanding,
validating, and caring) identified in the litera-
Measures ture (Reis et al., 2004). Participants answered
Measures used in the present study were the questions on a 4-point scale (1 = a lot to
MIDUS perceived partner, family, and friend 4 = not at all).
Partner Responsiveness and Well-being 317
Hedonic well-being. In line with prior work well-being. Following prior work showing that
(e.g., Gallagher et al., 2009), hedonic well-being self-acceptance, environmental mastery, auton-
was operationalized as the extent to which par- omy, purpose in life, and personal growth all
ticipants were satisfied with their life and the load onto a single latent construct (Gallagher
frequency with which they experienced positive et al., 2009), we computed a composite eudai-
and negative affect. Life satisfaction was mea- monic well-being score by averaging across all
sured by a single item that asked participants to items.
rate their life overall on a Likert scale that ranged
from 0 (the worst possible) to 10 (the best pos- Perceived responsiveness of family and friends.
sible). Positive affect and negative affect were Participants’ perception of their family’s and
measured with a 12-item instrument developed friends’ responsiveness was measured with
for the MIDUS project. The measure was con- two items that were also used for measuring
structed based on widely used and well-validated perceived partner responsiveness. For family
measures of affect and well-being (e.g., the (excluding spouse) and friends separately, par-
Affect Balance Scale [Bradburn, 1969], the Gen- ticipants rated how much these social network
eral Well-Being Schedule [Fazio, 1977]). Par- members “really care for you” and “understand
ticipants indicated how much of the time they the way you feel about things.” Participants
felt “cheerful,” “in good spirits,” “extremely rated the items on a 4-point scale (1 = a lot to
happy,” “calm and peaceful,” “satisfied,” “full of 4 = not at all).
life,” “so sad nothing could cheer you up,” “ner-
vous,” “restless or fidgety,” “hopeless,” “that Extraversion and neuroticism. Extraversion
everything was an effort,” and “worthless” in and neuroticism were measured using the
the past 30 days (1 = all of the time to 5 = none Midlife Development Inventory Personal-
of the time). A hedonic well-being score was ity Scales (Lachman & Weaver, 1997), an
computed by standardizing and averaging all 13 instrument developed specifically for the
items: one assessing life satisfaction, six assess- MIDUS project. The items were largely taken
ing positive affect, and six assessing negative from existing well-validated personality inven-
affect. tories (e.g., the Big Five Inventory; John,
1990). The Extraversion subscale consisted of
Eudaimonic well-being. Eudaimonic well-being five items (outgoing, friendly, lively, active,
was assessed with 15 items. The items talkative), and the Neuroticism subscale con-
corresponded to the components of eudai- sisted of four items (moody, worrying, nervous,
monic well-being identified by Ryff (1989): calm). Participants were asked to indicate how
self-acceptance (e.g., “I like most parts of my much each item described them (1 = a lot to
personality”), environmental mastery (e.g., “I 4 = not at all).
am quite good at managing the many respon-
sibilities of my daily life”), autonomy (e.g., “I Daily affective reactivity. On each of the 8 days
judge myself by what I think is important, not by during the NSDE, participants completed the
the values of what others think is important”), Daily Inventory of Stressful Events (Almeida,
purpose in life (e.g., “Some people wander aim- Wethington, & Kessler, 2002). This measure
lessly through life, but I am not one of them”), asks participants to indicate whether they had
and personal growth (e.g., “For me, life has been experienced that day any of the following com-
a continuous process of learning, changing, and mon daily stressors: an interpersonal conflict, a
growth”). Participants indicated the degree to situation that could end in an argument but they
which they agreed with each statement on a decided to avoid, a problem at work, a problem
scale that ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 at home, something bad happening to a close
(strongly disagree). The scale also had three other, perceived discrimination, and any other
items that assessed positive relations with oth- stressful experience not covered by the previ-
ers. These items were not included in the present ous categories. Participants also indicated the
analyses because participants are likely to take frequency with which they had experienced sev-
into account the quality of their marriage when eral negative affective states that day (0 = none
evaluating their relationships, which in turn may of the time to 4 = all of the time). The items were
artificially increase the association between per- adapted from the Non-Specific Psychological
ceived partner responsiveness and eudaimonic Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2002) and included
318 Journal of Marriage and Family
the affective states of being depressed, restless, the person-mean frequency of stressor exposure
nervous, worthless, sad, tired, and hopeless. in the model allowed us to estimate affective
Initial multilevel modeling analyses with reactivity while controlling for the effect of
the number of stressors as the dependent vari- between-participant stressor exposure differ-
able and perceived partner responsiveness ences on negative affect. Finally, the error terms,
as the person-level predictor indicated that r0j and r1j , represent deviations from average
participants who perceived their spouse as negative affect and average affective reactiv-
responsive reported fewer stressors in daily life ity in the entire sample. Using this two-level
(B = −0.078, SE = 0.035, p = .027). Therefore, model, we estimated a within-person affective
we controlled for individual differences in the reactivity slope (𝜋 1j ) for each participant in the
number of stressors when computing affec- sample.
tive reactivity (see also Charles et al., 2013;
Mroczek et al., 2015, for a similar approach.) Results
Affective reactivity was estimated with the
following two-level model using HLM software Predicting Well-being at Wave 1
(Version 7): To investigate whether perceived partner respon-
siveness predicted hedonic and eudaimonic
Level 1 ∶ negative affectij = 𝜋0j + well-being at Wave 1, we constructed two
multiple regression models. Model 1 predicted
𝜋1j stressor exposureij + eij MIDUS I hedonic and eudaimonic well-being
Level 2 ∶ 𝜋0j = 𝛽00 + 𝛽01 person from MIDUS I perceived partner responsive-
ness. Model 2 repeated the same analyses by
mean stressor exposurej + r0j adding the covariates to the model. In addition
to controlling for age, gender, extraversion,
𝜋1j = 𝛽10 + r1j
neuroticism, perceived family responsive-
ness, and perceived friend responsiveness, we
At Level 1, 𝜋 0j is the intercept and represents controlled for eudaimonic well-being when
negative affect experienced on a day when predicting hedonic well-being and vice versa.
the participant did not experience a stressor. To facilitate the interpretation of the inter-
Stressor exposure is a dichotomous variable and cepts and the comparison of the associations
was coded as 0 when no stressors were experi- of predictors with hedonic versus eudaimonic
enced versus 1 when at least one stressor was well-being, all variables (except gender) were
experienced. Hence, 𝜋 1j is the within-person standardized using the entire MIDUS data
affective reactivity slope corresponding to the prior to being entered into the models. The
difference in participant’s negative affect on analyses revealed that perceived partner respon-
days when at least one stressor was experienced siveness was positively associated with both
compared to days when no stressors were expe- hedonic (B = 0.322, SE = 0.014, p < .001) and
rienced. (We also estimated affective reactivity eudaimonic well-being (B = 0.311, SE = 0.015,
by treating stressor exposure as a continuous p < .001) at Wave 1, and this association
variable reflecting the number of stressors a remained significant even after controlling
person experienced on a particular day. The for all the covariates (B = 0.126, SE = 0.012,
resulting reactivity scores were very highly p < .001 for hedonic and B = 0.088, SE = 0.013,
correlated with the ones estimated by treating p < .001 for eudaimonic well-being; see Table 2
stressor exposure as a dichotomous variable for R2 s, all regression coefficients, their standard
[r = .95, p < .001]. Thus, to be consistent with errors, p values, and 95% confidence intervals).
prior work, we retained stressor exposure as
a dichotomous variable.) The error term, eij ,
represents the participant’s deviation from her Predicting Well-being at Wave 2
or his average negative affect. At Level 2, 𝛽 00 Next, we constructed two regression models to
and 𝛽 10 represent the sample average of negative investigate whether perceived partner respon-
affect on no-stressor days and affective reactiv- siveness prospectively predicted change in hedo-
ity, respectively. In addition, 𝛽 01 represents the nic and eudaimonic well-being over the 10-year
association between person-mean frequency of period. Again, continuous variables were stan-
stressor exposure and negative affect. Including dardized before being entered into the models.
Partner Responsiveness and Well-being 319
Model 1a Model 2a
B SE p 95% CI B SE p 95% CI
Predictor Hedonic well-being
Intercept 0.092 0.014 <.001 [0.066, 0.119] −0.161 0.043 <.001 [−0.245, −0.077]
M1 PPR 0.322 0.014 <.001 [0.294, 0.350] 0.126 0.012 <.001 [0.103, 0.149]
M1 EWB 0.292 0.013 <.001 [0.266, 0.318]
M1 age 0.004 0.001 <.001 [0.003, 0.006]
Gendera 0.009 0.021 .673 [−0.033, 0.051]
M1 extraversion 0.119 0.011 <.001 [0.097, 0.141]
M1 neuroticism −0.333 0.012 <.001 [−0.356, −0.310]
M1 PFamR 0.075 0.013 <.001 [0.051, 0.100]
M1 PFriR 0.005 0.012 .654 [−0.018, 0.029]
Adjusted R2 .110 .491
Eudaimonic well-being
Intercept 0.081 0.014 <.001 [0.053, 0.109] 0.447 0.047 <.001 [0.355, 0.539]
M1 PPR 0.311 0.015 <.001 [0.282, 0.340] 0.088 0.013 <.001 [0.062, 0.113]
M1 HWB 0.356 0.016 <.001 [0.325, 0.388]
M1 age −0.008 0.001 <.001 [−0.009, −0.006]
Gendera −0.100 0.024 <.001 [−0.146, −0.053]
M1 extraversion 0.139 0.013 <.001 [0.114, 0.164]
M1 neuroticism −0.202 0.014 <.001 [−0.229, −0.174]
M1 PFamR 0.079 0.014 <.001 [0.052, 0.106]
M1 PFriR 0.122 0.013 <.001 [0.095, 0.148]
Adjusted R2 .093 .434
Note: N = 4,167 in all models. CI = confidence interval; M1 = National Survey of Midlife Development in the United
States, Wave 1; PPR = perceived partner responsiveness; EWB = eudaimonic well-being; HWB = hedonic well-being;
PFamR = perceived family responsiveness (excluding spouse); PFriR = perceived friend responsiveness. All continuous vari-
ables were standardized before being entered into the models. For continuous variables, higher scores reflect higher standing
on the variable.
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
Hedonic well-being. As displayed in Model p < .001; see Model 1b in Table 3). The positive
1a in Table 3, MIDUS I perceived partner association between MIDUS I perceived part-
responsiveness predicted MIDUS II hedonic ner responsiveness and change in eudaimonic
well-being, controlling for MIDUS I hedonic well-being held even after controlling for
well-being (B = 0.055, SE = 0.019, p = .004). MIDUS I hedonic well-being, extraversion,
However, MIDUS I perceived partner respon- neuroticism, perceived family responsiveness,
siveness was no longer associated with change perceived friend responsiveness, age, and gen-
in hedonic well-being over a decade after we der (B = 0.057, SE = 0.020, p = .004; see Model
controlled for MIDUS I eudaimonic well-being, 2b in Table 3).
extraversion, neuroticism, perceived family
responsiveness, perceived friend responsive-
ness, age, and gender (B = 0.027, SE = 0.020, Mediating Role of Daily Affective Reactivity
p = .172; see Model 2a in Table 3). We tested whether the long-term association
between perceived partner responsiveness and
Eudaimonic well-being. Perceived partner re- eudaimonic well-being was mediated by daily
sponsiveness predicted eudaimonic well-being affective reactivity by estimating bootstrap
a decade later, after controlling for MIDUS I confidence intervals for the indirect associa-
eudaimonic well-being (B = 0.099, SE = 0.019, tion (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). To rule out the
320 Journal of Marriage and Family
Model 1a Model 2a
B SE p 95% CI B SE p 95% CI
Predictor Hedonic well-being
Intercept −0.015 0.016 .336 [−0.047, 0.016] −0.003 0.023 .886 [−0.049, 0.042]
M1 HWB 0.590 0.019 <.001 [0.552, 0.628] 0.467 0.025 <.001 [0.418, 0.515]
M1 PPR 0.055 0.019 .004 [0.018, 0.093] 0.027 0.020 .172 [−0.012, 0.066]
M1 EWB 0.102 0.022 <.001 [0.059, 0.145]
M2 age 0.081 0.018 <.001 [0.047, 0.116]
Gendera −0.036 0.033 .277 [−0.100, 0.029]
M1 extraversion −0.006 0.018 .735 [−0.041, 0.029]
M1 neuroticism −0.070 0.020 <.001 [−0.109, −0.032]
M1 PFamR 0.014 0.019 .482 [−0.024, 0.051]
M1 PFriR 0.041 0.019 .031 [0.004, 0.077]
Adjusted R2 .327 .348
Eudaimonic well-being
Intercept −0.009 0.016 .573 [−0.040, 0.022] 0.001 0.023 .965 [−0.045, 0.047]
M1 EWB 0.594 0.018 <.001 [0.559, 0.629] 0.472 0.022 <.001 [0.429, 0.514]
M1 PPR 0.099 0.019 <.001 [0.062, 0.136] 0.057 0.020 .004 [0.018, 0.096]
M1 HWB 0.083 0.025 .001 [0.034, 0.131]
M2 age −0.001 0.018 .952 [−0.036, 0.034]
Gendera −0.021 0.033 .525 [−0.085, 0.043]
M1 extraversion 0.053 0.018 .003 [0.018, 0.088]
M1 neuroticism −0.079 0.020 <.001 [−0.117, −0.040]
M1 PFamR 0.027 0.019 .163 [−0.011, 0.065]
M1 PFriR 0.071 0.019 <.001 [0.034, 0.107]
Adjusted R2 .373 .395
Note: N = 2,348 in all models. CI = confidence interval; M1 = National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States,
Wave 1 (MIDUS I); HWB = hedonic well-being; PPR = perceived partner responsiveness; EWB = eudaimonic well-being;
PFamR = perceived family responsiveness (excluding spouse); PFriR = perceived friend responsiveness; M2 = MIDUS II. All
continuous variables were standardized before being entered into the models. For continuous variables, higher scores reflect
higher standing on the variable.
a 0 = male, 1 = female.
possibility that the observed associations are due accounted for 11% of the association between
to Wave 1 levels of eudaimonic well-being, we perceived partner responsiveness and eudai-
first regressed Wave 2 eudaimonic well-being monic well-being after controlling for initial
scores onto Wave 1 eudaimonic well-being and levels of eudaimonic well-being.
used the resulting residuals as the dependent
variable in the mediational analysis. As shown
in Figure 1, Wave 1 perceived partner respon- Discussion
siveness was associated with lower affective Motivated by attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988)
reactivity to daily stressors. Attenuated stress and recent conceptualizations of perceived
reactivity, in turn, predicted greater eudaimonic partner responsiveness as a core aspect of
well-being, indicating that affective reactiv- interpersonal well-being and flourishing (Reis,
ity to daily stressors partially mediated the 2012), in the present study we investigated
long-term association between perceived part- whether perceived partner responsiveness
ner responsiveness and eudaimonic well-being concurrently and prospectively predicted hedo-
(95% confidence interval for the indirect asso- nic and eudaimonic well-being in married
ciation: [0.004, 0.055]). Affective reactivity individuals using data collected at two time
Partner Responsiveness and Well-being 321
Figure 1. The Indirect Longitudinal Association Between Perceived Partner Responsiveness and Eudaimonic
Well-being.
Affective
Reactivity
The numbers above the solid line at the bottom represent the association between perceived partner responsiveness and
eudaimonic well-being when affective reactivity is included in the model. The numbers below the dashed line represent the same
association when affective reactivity is not included in the model. To rule out the possibility that the observed associations are
due to Wave 1 eudaimonic well-being, residual eudaimonic well-being scores (obtained via regressing the Wave 2 eudaimonic
well-being scores on Wave 1 eudaimonic well-being scores) were used as the dependent variable in the mediation analyses.
N = 555 for all analyses.
members. It is also important to note that the yet fully understood and, as a result, the lit-
longitudinal analyses also controlled for Wave eratures on relationships and well-being have
1 eudaimonic well-being. Second, and perhaps remained relatively separate from one another
more important, these small effects are likely to (Oishi et al., 2010; Reis, 2012). Together with
have important practical consequences because recent theorizing (Reis, 2012) and empirical
partner responsiveness would exert its effects work (Feeney, 2004; Maisel & Gable, 2009; Sel-
regularly on a daily basis, probably more fre- cuk et al., 2012; Selcuk & Ong, 2013; Slatcher,
quently than any other social or environmental Selcuk, & Ong, 2015), the present findings sug-
factor. As a result of such frequent repeated gest that perceived partner responsiveness can
exposure, small effects may lead to important be used to integrate several diverse processes
consequences for personal well-being. For underlying the effect of relationships on psy-
instance, in a recent meta-analysis of the links chological functioning, ranging from affect reg-
between marriage and physical health Robles, ulation to self-actualization. As such, perceived
Slatcher, Trombello, and McGinn (2014) found partner responsiveness is a promising candidate
that marital quality predicted biomarkers pre- to bridge the gap between the relationships and
dicting disease progression with an effect size well-being literatures (Oishi et al., 2010; Reis,
comparable to that observed in the present study 2012). The present findings support this con-
and noted that daily effects of similar size are tention by showing the long-range consequences
typically considered important policy targets for of perceived partner responsiveness for eudai-
improving public well-being. In a similar vein, monic well-being.
interventions aimed at improving perceived Second, the present findings have the poten-
partner responsiveness have the potential to lead tial to advance the understanding of how
to lasting improvements in personal well-being. marriage affects physical and mental health.
What is the underlying mechanism that In their meta-analysis demonstrating the links
accounts for the longitudinal association between the quality of marital relationships and
between perceived partner responsiveness and biomarkers predicting future physical disease
eudaimonic well-being? According to attach- (e.g., low-density cholesterol levels), Robles
ment theory, one mechanism is attenuation of et al. (2014) concluded that psychological
affective reactivity in response to stressors in mechanisms underlying these associations are
daily life. Prior research provides compelling largely unknown. It is interesting that a separate
evidence that a central function of romantic study (Ryff, Singer, & Dienberg Love, 2004)
relationships is attenuation of affective reac- found that these biomarkers were linked to
tivity to stressors (e.g., Selcuk et al., 2012; see levels of eudaimonic well-being. Given our
Selcuk et al., 2010, for a review). Yet whether findings that perceived partner responsive-
lower daily affective reactivity would explain the ness promotes eudaimonic well-being over the
long-term association between perceived partner long term, one of the missing psychological
responsiveness and eudaimonic well-being has mechanisms Robles et al. (2014) noted may be
not been studied. Our findings provide evidence eudaimonic well-being. Similarly, given that
for the theoretical contention that perceived eudaimonic well-being is also associated with
partner responsiveness is associated with atten- lower risk for mental health disorders (Ryff,
uated affective reactivity to daily stressors. The 2013), improvement in eudaimonic well-being
attenuated affective reactivity, in turn, prospec- may explain the association between quality of
tively predicted eudaimonic well-being, and it marriage and resilience against mental health
partially mediated the long-term association risks documented in previous longitudinal work
between perceived partner responsiveness and (Proulx et al., 2007). Testing these possibilities
change in eudaimonic well-being. is an important avenue for future research.
The finding that perceived partner respon- Finally, from an applied perspective, our
siveness uniquely predicts long-term change in findings have implications for therapy. An
eudaimonic well-being has a number of impli- important goal of couples therapy is to help
cations for family, marriage, and relationship partners be more responsive to each other.
research. First, although the link between social Indeed, removing the barriers in front of per-
relationships and well-being has long been rec- ceived partner responsiveness—such as the
ognized, researchers have increasingly argued individual’s maladaptive relational schemas or
that the processes underlying this link are not the partner’s unresponsive behavior—improves
Partner Responsiveness and Well-being 323
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 594–600. relationships and subjective well-being:
doi:10.2307/350523 Antecedents and consequences across individuals
Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1981). The contri- and cultures. Social and Personality Psychology
butions of marital happiness to global happiness. Compass, 4, 403–416. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 161–168. 2010.00264.x
doi:10.2307/351426 Ong, A. D., Exner-Cortens, D., Riffin, C., Steptoe, A.,
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxon- Zautra, A., & Almedia, D. (2013). Linking stable
omy: Dimensions of personality in the natural lan- and dynamic features of positive affect to sleep.
guage and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46, 52–61.
Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. Piazza, J. R., Charles, S. T., Sliwinski, M. J., Mogle,
66–100). New York: Guilford Press. J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). Affective reactiv-
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). ity to daily stressors and long-term risk of report-
(1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic ing a chronic physical health condition. Annals of
psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Behavioral Medicine, 45, 110–120. doi:10.1007/
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., s12160-012-9423-0
Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L. T., … Zaslavsky, Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic
A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor and resampling strategies for assessing and com-
population prevalences and trends in non-specific paring indirect effects in multiple mediator mod-
psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, els. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
32, 959–976. doi:10.1017/S0033291702006074 doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007).
Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-
two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69,
Psychology, 82, 1007–1022. doi:10.1037//0022- 576–593.
3514.82.6.1007 Radler, B. T., & Ryff, C. D. (2010). Who partici-
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1997). The Midlife pates? Accounting for longitudinal retention in the
Development Inventory (MIDI) Personality Scales:
MIDUS national study of health and well-being.
Scale construction and scoring. Waltham, MA:
Journal of Aging and Health, 22, 307–331. doi:10.
Brandeis University Press.
1177/0898264309358617
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discrim-
Reis, H. T. (2012). Perceived partner responsive-
inant validity of well-being measures. Journal of
ness as an organizing theme for the study of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.
relationships and well-being. In L. Campbell &
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The T. J. Loving (Eds.), Interdisciplinary research
benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happi- on close relationships: The case for integration
ness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, (pp. 27–52). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
803–855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 logical Association.
Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The para- Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004).
dox of received social support: The importance Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing
of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20, construct in the study of intimacy and closeness.
928–932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), The handbook of
Mallers, M. H., Charles, S. T., Neupert, S. D., & closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah,
Almeida, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of child- NJ: Erlbaum.
hood relationships with mother and father: Daily Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., &
emotional and stressor experiences in adulthood. McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health:
Developmental Psychology, 46, 1651–1661. A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin,
doi:10.1037/a0021020 140, 140–187.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happi-
patterns in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and ness and human potentials: A review of research
change. New York: Guilford Press. on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual
Mroczek, D. K., Stawski, R. S., Turiano, N. A., Chan, Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. doi:10.1146/
W., Almeida, D. M., Neupert, S. D., & Spiro, A. annurev.psych.52.1.141
(2015). Emotional reactivity and mortality: Lon- Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is
gitudinal findings from the VA Normative Aging it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
Study. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psycho- well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
logical Sciences and Social Sciences, 70, 398–406. chology, 57, 1069–1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt107 57.6.1069
Oishi, S., Krochik, M., & Akimoto, S. (2010). Ryff, C. D. (2013). Psychological well-being revis-
Felt understanding as a bridge between close ited: Advances in the science and practice of
Partner Responsiveness and Well-being 325