Research
Research Behind Don’t Settle, Darling
Why we ask what we ask, what evidence exists behind those areas, and exactly where the limits of that evidence are.
Layer 1
Relationship science
Why these areas are worth exploring.
Layer 2
Measurement design
How we try to measure them responsibly.
Layer 3
Validation status
What has — and hasn't — been tested about our own questionnaire.
These are three different things. Research supporting an area is not evidence that our questionnaire measures it well, and neither is proof that Don’t Settle, Darling can tell how a relationship will go. We keep them apart on purpose.
Why these questions?
Don’t Settle, Darling asks two people the same private questions about the things that shape a shared life: commitment and children, closeness and affection, conflict, money, work, family and faith. It then compares each person's needs with how the other naturally is — in both directions — and turns the result into a map of where you fit, where you differ, and what to talk about.
It isn't a dating app. It doesn't introduce people or let anyone browse profiles; it helps two people who have already met understand each other.
It is research-informed: the areas it explores are ones relationship researchers have studied extensively, and it was designed using what that research has found. It is not a scientifically validated predictor of relationship success. Nothing on this page should be read that way.
What relationship science studies
Each area of the questionnaire, and how directly research supports asking about it.
- Strong direct support
- The construct and this way of asking about it are well established.
- Supported construct
- The construct is well supported by research; our questions are original wording.
- Indirect support
- Only related research exists.
- Product judgment
- A product decision: no research we could find speaks to it directly.
The research behind each area
Open any area to see what we explore, what the research suggests, and where it stops.
Marriage and long-term commitmentSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
Whether each of you wants marriage or a committed long-term partnership, and how quickly you'd want to move toward it.
Why we ask
- Across 137 studies, commitment was among the strongest predictors of whether dating relationships lasted — stronger than personality.[61]
- When two partners' commitment differs substantially, the less committed partner tends to report lower relationship quality and more conflict.[92]
- Researchers distinguish commitment that is decided from commitment that happens by drifting through transitions. How commitment forms may matter, although the differences found are small.[81, 90, 91]
Established measures of related constructs: [83]. We don't use or copy their items.
Limits
- Studies measure commitment to a particular partner inside an existing relationship. We ask about intentions before or early in one — wanting marriage is not the same as being committed to a specific person.
- Preferences about pace (the timeline question) are only indirectly supported.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Where does marriage sit for you? · Quick Fit
- If things went really well with someone, what pace would feel natural? · Deep Fit
- Picture an ordinary Sunday ten years from now. Which is closest to what you'd love? · Quick Fit · mainly another area
Whether to have childrenSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
Whether each of you wants children, and how sure you are.
Why we ask
Limits
- We found little research following couples who disagree about wanting children. We treat a clear yes against a clear no as a potential dealbreaker because both outcomes can't happen at once — a logical judgment, not an empirical finding.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Children — honestly? · Quick Fit
- If things went really well with someone, what pace would feel natural? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- Picture an ordinary Sunday ten years from now. Which is closest to what you'd love? · Quick Fit · mainly another area
Parenting expectationsSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How you each picture sharing the work of early parenthood, and your broad approach to raising children.
Why we ask
- Coparenting — how two parents share the work and agree about childrearing — is central to parents' and children's well-being.[27]
- Expectant parents often expect a more equal share of childcare than actually happens. When those expectations are violated, satisfaction and coparenting tend to suffer.[4, 53]
- In an early long-term study, parents who agreed more on how to raise their child were more likely to still be married about 10 years later. Their agreement also went with how well sons were doing; for daughters the pattern was mixed.[5]
Limits
- Most research follows couples who already have children. Our questions ask people to imagine it.
- The study on child-rearing agreement is older and small, and its findings about children held mainly for boys.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- It's 2am and the baby is crying — again. In your ideal version of this, what happens? · Deep Fit
- In the first year with a baby, which would you rather? · Deep Fit
- Your eight-year-old is unhappy at school and falling behind. What's your first move? · Deep Fit
- Which is closest to how you'd want to raise children? · Deep Fit
- If you had to choose: at twenty-five, you'd rather your child be… · Deep Fit
Togetherness and independenceSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How much everyday time together each of you wants, and how you feel about time apart.
Why we ask
- Feeling close — including a partner in your sense of who you are — predicts whether relationships last.[2, 61]
- Time together is associated with more satisfying relationships, mainly when it's time both partners enjoy and want to share.[16, 39, 55]
- Feeling free and autonomous in a relationship, as well as connected, predicts how well it functions.[78]
- Worrying about closeness and pulling away from it (attachment anxiety and avoidance) are both associated with lower relationship quality.[47, 63]
Established measures of related constructs: [2][33]. We don't use or copy their items.
Limits
- We don't use a validated attachment scale; a few questions touch on reliance and reassurance.
- How much time together ‘feels right’ has not been studied as a matching variable in its own right.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- After work, you're both free for the evening. Which sounds most natural? · Quick Fit
- In a serious relationship, how much time together feels right in a normal week? · Quick Fit
- Your partner is away for a week. Honestly, how does that tend to go for you? · Deep Fit
- Picture an ordinary Sunday ten years from now. Which is closest to what you'd love? · Quick Fit
- You've had a truly terrible day. What would you most want from your partner? · Quick Fit · mainly another area
Physical affectionSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How physically affectionate each of you is, how much affection you want, and who tends to reach first.
Why we ask
Limits
- Studies mostly look at how much affection there is, not at differences between partners' wishes.
- Who initiates affection has been studied far less than affection itself.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- You see your partner at the end of a long day. What usually happens first? · Quick Fit
- How affectionate would you like a partner to be? · Quick Fit
- In past relationships, who usually reached first — for a kiss, a hand, a cuddle? · Deep Fit
Sexual intimacySupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How central physical intimacy is to each of you, and how you'd keep it alive and talk about it.
Why we ask
- Sexual satisfaction goes together with relationship satisfaction, love and commitment.[88]
- In a study pooling 43 couple datasets, sexual satisfaction was among the strongest relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality.[51]
- How well couples talk about sex is associated with both sexual and relationship satisfaction, and the quality of that communication matters more than how often it happens.[68, 69]
- A difference between partners' levels of desire can relate to satisfaction, although each person's own desire often matters more.[71]
- Being motivated to meet a partner's sexual needs is linked to desire that lasts.[74]
Limits
- We ask about priorities and patterns, not satisfaction with a specific partner — which is what most studies measure.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- In a long-term relationship, where does physical intimacy sit for you? · Quick Fit
- Years in, life is busy and intimacy has quietly slipped. What sounds most like you? · Quick Fit
- In a past relationship, when desire between you dipped, what actually happened? · Deep Fit
- Which is closest to you? · Deep Fit
Emotional support and responsivenessSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
What each of you needs from a partner on a hard day, how openly you like feelings to be shared, and what would leave you feeling neglected.
Why we ask
- Intimacy grows from sharing and from feeling that the other person is responsive.[60]
- Support helps when it fits what the other person actually needs; how responsive it is matters more than how much there is.[36, 67]
- Needing constant reassurance is associated with strain in relationships.[93]
- The popular idea that each person has one preferred ‘love language’ a partner must match has little empirical support. Our question about feeling neglected starts a conversation; it isn't a love-language test.[48]
Limits
- Responsiveness is best judged in real interactions. Self-report can only estimate it.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- You've had a truly terrible day. What would you most want from your partner? · Quick Fit
- Work goes badly wrong — a real setback that wasn't your fault. How do you usually get through a week like that? · Deep Fit
- Your partner is away for a week. Honestly, how does that tend to go for you? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- What would be most likely to make you feel neglected in a relationship? · Deep Fit
Staying steady under stressSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How each of you tends to handle setbacks, criticism and hard weeks.
Why we ask
- A partner's emotional stability, agreeableness and conscientiousness are associated with the other person's relationship satisfaction.[70]
- Yet personality explains only a small share of satisfaction, and a partner's personality even less.[21]
- How couples adapt to stress is central to how marriages change over time.[52]
Limits
- We deliberately don't score this area: doing so would grade a person, not the fit between two people. It only feeds a check that asks couples to talk about heated moments.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Work goes badly wrong — a real setback that wasn't your fault. How do you usually get through a week like that? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- Your partner says, kindly, that something you said at dinner with friends came across badly. Your first reaction? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- You see your partner at the end of a long day. What usually happens first? · Quick Fit · mainly another area
- On a first date, you trip on the pavement in front of a café full of people. Honest reaction? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
Conflict and repairSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
What each of you does after an argument, how you own mistakes, and how quickly you need to resolve things.
Why we ask
- How couples handle conflict predicts how relationships go: hostility is robustly linked to lower satisfaction, and couples caught in cycles of negativity and withdrawal are more likely to separate.[40, 41, 98]
- In the demand/withdraw pattern, one partner presses for change while the other retreats. It is consistently associated with poorer outcomes.[12, 84]
- Forgiveness is associated with better conflict resolution.[28]
- Conflict was among the strongest relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality across 43 datasets.[51]
Limits
- Conflict research mostly observes couples arguing. We ask people to describe themselves, which is less accurate, and people may behave differently with a new partner.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- You're upset after an argument. What do you usually do? · Quick Fit
- Mid-argument, you realise you were actually wrong. What happens next? · Quick Fit
- Your partner says, kindly, that something you said at dinner with friends came across badly. Your first reaction? · Deep Fit
- Think of your last real argument with someone close. How did it actually end? · Deep Fit
- Something your partner keeps doing quietly bothers you. What usually happens — honestly? · Deep Fit
Honesty and making decisions togetherSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How you each think big decisions should be made, and how directly you say when you disagree.
Why we ask
- Early studies mostly found that couples with an equal say in decisions were the most satisfied, though results depended on how “power” was measured.[42]
- Feeling a sense of power, and being satisfied with the balance, predicts relationship quality more than who formally holds power.[56]
- Direct requests for change can feel uncomfortable but lead to more change over time; blunt problem-solving helps when problems are serious and hurts when they are minor.[72, 76]
Limits
- The review of decision-making is decades old, and roles have changed since.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- In a long-term relationship, how should big decisions get made? · Deep Fit
- You're buying a home. Your partner knows the market far better than you, and loves a place you have doubts about. What happens? · Quick Fit
- Which would you rather have in a partner? · Deep Fit
- You and a partner disagree about an idea — something in the news, or a book. What usually happens? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- You're about to make a choice your partner thinks is a mistake. What would you want from them? · Deep Fit
- Which matters more to you in a partner? · Deep Fit
- Your partner says, kindly, that something you said at dinner with friends came across badly. Your first reaction? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- Something your partner keeps doing quietly bothers you. What usually happens — honestly? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
Loyalty, privacy and the couple boundaryIndirect support
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
What stays between the two of you, and how you each handle disagreement in front of others.
Why we ask
Limits
- We found no direct research on confiding in friends or disagreeing in public as a compatibility factor. This area rests on related work and on product judgment.
Evidence level: Indirect support.
Questions in this area
- At dinner with friends, your partner says something you strongly disagree with. You… · Deep Fit
- When things have been hard in a relationship, who actually heard about it? · Deep Fit
- Your mother criticises your partner's career move, in front of you both. What do you do? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
Humor and playSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How playful each of you is, and how teasing lands with you.
Why we ask
- Across 43 samples, positive humor was associated with relationship satisfaction and negative humor with lower satisfaction. Humor partners share showed larger associations than how funny people rated themselves.[45]
Limits
- Self-rated humor, which is what we ask about, showed only small associations with satisfaction.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- How does teasing land with you? · Deep Fit
- On a first date, you trip on the pavement in front of a café full of people. Honest reaction? · Deep Fit
- What are your closest friendships like, mostly? · Deep Fit
Ideas and conversationIndirect support
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How curious each of you is, and how you enjoy disagreeing about ideas.
Why we ask
Limits
- We found no direct evidence that matching on intellectual curiosity predicts how relationships go. We include it because many people say it matters to them — a product judgment.
Evidence level: Indirect support.
Questions in this area
- Your date lights up about something you know nothing about — say, the history of maps. You… · Quick Fit
- You and a partner disagree about an idea — something in the news, or a book. What usually happens? · Deep Fit
- Which dinner sounds better? · Deep Fit
Career and ambitionSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How central work is to each of you, and how ambitious you'd like a partner to be.
Why we ask
- Across a meta-analysis, work interfering with family life was consistently associated with poorer family outcomes.[1]
- Couples whose goals fit together tend to be more satisfied; conflicting goals go with lower satisfaction.[95]
- Day to day, people feel best when they and their partner are together doing something that suits both of them.[38]
- Responsive support for a partner's goals and growth matters for their well-being.[26]
- Long combined working hours cut the time couples spend together.[55]
- What people say they want in a partner's earning prospects predicts poorly who they are actually drawn to once they meet.[22, 23]
Limits
- The evidence is about work–family conflict and goal fit, not about matching levels of ambition directly.
- A partner's career standing, and wanting to work on things together, are asked about to surface expectations; neither is studied as a compatibility factor, so both carry moderate weight.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Which would you rather build a life with? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- In the first year with a baby, which would you rather? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- It's 2am and the baby is crying — again. In your ideal version of this, what happens? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- A great opportunity comes up for your partner in another city. You… · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- Picture a household that runs smoothly. How does it work? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- Which is closest to your working life right now? · Deep Fit
- How much do a partner's education and career matter to you? · Deep Fit
- Two people you could marry. Which would you choose? · Deep Fit
- Which version of married life feels most like the one you want? · Deep Fit
- Which would you rather? · Deep Fit
Money and financial riskSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How each of you handles money, and how comfortable you are with financial risk.
Why we ask
- In a national sample of 4,574 couples, financial disagreements were the strongest type of disagreement predicting divorce.[19]
- Money conflicts are more pervasive, recurrent and often unresolved than other conflicts.[77]
- Spenders and savers tend to marry each other — yet that very difference predicts money conflict and lower marital well-being.[82]
- Economic pressure strains marriages indirectly, by increasing hostility and reducing warmth.[13]
Limits
- We ask about attitudes to risk and predictability. Studies mostly measure disagreements and spending styles.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Which would you rather build a life with? · Deep Fit
- Your partner wants to leave a stable path to build a business. Savings would cover about a year of family costs. You'd feel… · Deep Fit
Home life and rolesSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How you each picture running a home, and who earns.
Why we ask
- Seeing the division of housework as unfair is associated with lower marital happiness.[34]
- Whether an unequal division feels unfair depends on each person's expectations about roles — which is why we ask about expectations, not just arrangements.[43]
- In recent data, sharing housework was not associated with less sex, and how it was arranged mattered for sexual satisfaction.[10]
- How couples divided paid work, rather than their financial resources, was associated with divorce risk, consistent with lingering expectations about who earns.[54]
Limits
- Much of this research is about married different-sex couples in the United States.
- Two questions cover this whole area; tidiness and planning are not studied as a compatibility factor.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Picture a household that runs smoothly. How does it work? · Deep Fit
- Which sounds most like your home and your calendar? · Deep Fit
Faith and backgroundSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How much faith and background matter to each of you, and whether you'd want them shared.
Why we ask
- Greater religiousness is associated with slightly lower divorce risk and better marital functioning, but the effects are small.[66]
- Belonging to different denominations matters little; differences in how often partners practise, and in what they believe, are linked to more conflict — and some of those differences to higher divorce risk.[17, 97]
- Similarity in values relates to satisfaction more than similarity in religiosity.[37]
Limits
- Cultural background is not directly covered by these studies. We raise it as a conversation, not a score.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Faith and background — how much do they need to match in a partner? · Deep Fit
Extended family and friendsSupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
How involved you'd each want extended family to be, and how you'd handle their views.
Why we ask
Limits
- Research looks at family relationships as they are; we ask about hopes for them.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Your mother criticises your partner's career move, in front of you both. What do you do? · Deep Fit
- When things have been hard in a relationship, who actually heard about it? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- Picture an ordinary Sunday ten years from now. Which is closest to what you'd love? · Quick Fit · mainly another area
- Faith and background — how much do they need to match in a partner? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
Where you'll liveProduct judgment
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
Whether each of you would move for a strong shared reason.
Why we ask
- Partners whose goals fit together tend to be more satisfied, and a move is one of the largest shared goals a couple faces.[95]
Limits
- We found no peer-reviewed research directly linking differences in willingness to relocate to relationship outcomes. We ask because a move is a major shared decision — a product judgment.
Evidence level: Product judgment.
Questions in this area
- A great opportunity comes up for your partner in another city. You… · Deep Fit
Everyday life and social energySupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
Whether you each prefer plans or spontaneity, and a quiet or busy social life.
Why we ask
- Following couples for more than a decade, time together helped only when couples did things both of them enjoyed; leisure one partner disliked was linked to dissatisfaction.[16]
Limits
- This is a flexible area with little weight: lifestyle preferences often adapt.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Which of these are true for you? · Deep Fit
- Picture an ordinary Sunday ten years from now. Which is closest to what you'd love? · Quick Fit · mainly another area
- What are your closest friendships like, mostly? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
- A free Saturday night after a long week. What sounds best? · Deep Fit
- Which sounds most like your home and your calendar? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
What matters most to each of youIndirect support
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
Which areas each of you would find hardest to do without, and where you could happily differ. Your own must-haves count for more when the map reads how well a partner meets your needs; areas you're flexible on count for less.
Why we ask
- People hold ideals for a partner, and how closely a partner matches them relates to how the relationship is evaluated.[30]
- How much a gap between ideals and a real partner matters depends on how flexible those ideals are.[9]
- Stated preferences are an unreliable guide to who people are actually drawn to, so we use them to weight areas, never to filter people.[23, 50]
Limits
- Whether weighting areas by stated importance produces better maps is exactly the kind of claim only our own validation could test.
Evidence level: Indirect support.
Questions in this area
- Which of these would you find hardest to do without in a partner? · Quick Fit
- And where could you happily be with someone quite different from you? · Deep Fit
Answering honestlySupported construct
What Don’t Settle, Darling explores
A few checklist items that almost nobody can honestly claim (for example, never having felt jealous). They never change results; they only lower how confident the map is allowed to be.
Why we ask
Limits
- Our candor items are original and have not been validated against an established social-desirability scale.
Evidence level: Supported construct, original question wording.
Questions in this area
- Which of these are true for you? · Deep Fit · mainly another area
Why structured relationship assessment can help
Don’t Settle, Darling rests on a simple idea: two people independently describe themselves and what they expect, and the comparison helps them see where they align, where they differ, and what to talk about. Premarital assessments such as PREPARE/ENRICH and RELATE have worked this way for decades, and they have been studied.
- Several comprehensive premarital questionnaires (including PREPARE, FOCCUS and RELATE) cover similar ground — couple interaction, expectations, family background — and have published reliability and validity data.[7, 58]
- Research reviews identify premarital factors, including how couples interact and what they expect, that predict later marital quality and stability.[57]
- Researchers measure relationship quality with validated scales. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale includes partners' agreement on important matters — the kind of alignment Don’t Settle, Darling asks about — and the Couples Satisfaction Index measures satisfaction more precisely. We use neither and copy nothing from them; they show how established these constructs are.[35, 86]
- In developer-run studies, premarital PREPARE scores distinguished couples who later separated or divorced from happily married couples.[31, 32]
- Taking RELATE with a therapist's interpretation increased couples' awareness of their strengths and challenges and improved communication in the short term. Couples who interpreted results on their own saw a small initial dip in satisfaction before a marked improvement.[59]
- An assessment-based programme did better than a workbook or unstructured sessions on couples' problem areas, and participants valued the chance to discuss issues they hadn't discussed before.[8]
- In an independent randomised trial, a brief assessment-and-feedback ‘checkup’ improved intimacy, acceptance and relationship distress compared with a wait-list, over two years.[15]
- Relationship and premarital education produces modest improvements, most clearly in communication. When unpublished studies are included, effects on satisfaction are not reliable.[11, 25, 46]
- In a large survey, couples who had premarital education reported higher satisfaction and commitment and lower divorce odds — an association, not proof of cause.[89]
What this means for Don’t Settle, Darling
- Much of the evidence about specific assessments comes from their own developers. We mark those studies in the library.
- The most consistent benefit is communication: surfacing issues couples hadn't discussed. That's what the relationship map is designed to do — every finding comes with a question to ask each other.
- The benefits studied usually involve a trained facilitator. Don’t Settle, Darling is self-guided, which may be less effective, and self-interpreted results can unsettle couples at first.
- None of these findings validate Don’t Settle, Darling itself. They show that the approach — independent answers, shared feedback, guided conversation — has been useful elsewhere.
Compatibility isn't the same as similarity
It would be easy to reward two people for giving the same answers. The research suggests that would be a mistake.
- In three national samples of more than 23,000 couples, each person's own personality explained about 6% of their relationship satisfaction, their partner's 1–3%, and how similar they were less than 0.5%.[21]
- Actual similarity predicts attraction between strangers, but not within existing relationships; feeling similar matters more than being similar.[73]
- Which kind of similarity matters is inconsistent: some studies find similarity in values or personality relates to satisfaction, while similarity in attitudes matters less.[37, 62, 64]
- Shared goals are a stronger signal: goal congruence was among the clearest correlates of satisfaction in a recent meta-analysis.[95]
- Some differences are complementary on the surface and still cause friction: spenders and savers are drawn to each other, yet the difference predicts money conflict.[82]
- Doing things together helps only when both people enjoy them — a difference in preferences, not in personality, is what matters.[16]
- People hold ideals for a partner, and the closer a partner comes to them, the more positively the relationship tends to be seen. Large gaps prompt efforts to change the partner, which go with lower relationship quality.[9, 30, 75]
- But stated preferences are a weak guide: what people say they want in the abstract barely predicts who they actually desire after meeting, and in one set of surveys, how well a partner matched someone's stated ideals predicted satisfaction less consistently than how that partner compared with the alternatives.[14, 22, 23]
What this means for Don’t Settle, Darling
- Don’t Settle, Darling doesn't score similarity. It compares one person's needs with what the other naturally offers — in both directions: A's needs against B, and B's needs against A. The weaker direction decides.
- Areas where you differ but both of your needs are met appear as ‘where you're different’, not as problems.
- Shared life goals (marriage, children) are compared directly, because they can't be met halfway. Only a genuine yes-against-no clash on those becomes a potential dealbreaker.
- Because the evidence on stated preferences is mixed, the map describes where expectations may differ and asks you to talk. It never claims that meeting each other's stated preferences will make you happy.
What this research does — and does not — mean
Don’t Settle, Darling is research-informed. Our exact questionnaire and scoring model have not been independently clinically or scientifically validated as a predictor of relationship success.
The research supports
- That the areas we ask about are relevant to how relationships go.
- That structured assessment followed by conversation can help couples notice and discuss important differences — most clearly in communication.
It does not show
- That any particular couple will succeed, or should marry.
- That compatibility can be reduced to a percentage.
- That questionnaire answers can predict chemistry.
- That Don’t Settle, Darling can predict divorce.
- That our weights or thresholds are scientifically established.
Evidence supporting the constructs is not validation of our instrument. Those are different questions, and only the first has an answer yet.
What questionnaires cannot tell you
The honest centre of this page: much of what makes a relationship work only shows up when two people are actually together.
- In speed-dating studies, more than 100 self-reported traits and preferences could not predict which two people would desire each other specifically.[50]
- Across 43 longitudinal couple datasets, relationship-specific experiences (such as feeling appreciated and perceiving a partner's commitment) predicted relationship quality far better than individual traits, and changes in quality over time were largely unpredictable from any self-report.[51]
- A review of online dating found no compelling evidence that matching algorithms work, and concluded that information available before two people meet is unlikely to explain more than a small share of long-term outcomes.[29]
- What people say they want in the abstract is a weak guide to whom they actually desire.[22, 23]
- Self-reports can tilt toward the flattering, and people often describe their relationships in unrealistically positive terms.[24, 79]
What this means for Don’t Settle, Darling
- Chemistry, how conflict actually goes, reliability over time, real affection, responsiveness under stress and how the relationship itself feels can only emerge through time together.
- The questionnaire helps people ask better questions before making major relationship decisions. It does not replace experiencing the relationship.
How Don’t Settle, Darling uses this research
Which areas we ask about
Each area of the questionnaire corresponds to constructs relationship researchers have studied. Where we ask about something research barely covers, we say so above.
Which differences we surface
Research on commitment gaps, differing wishes about children, demand/withdraw conflict, money disagreements and violated expectations about parenting and housework informed the mismatch patterns the map highlights.
Which conversations we encourage
Assessment research most consistently shows better communication, so every finding comes with a question for the two of you to ask each other.
What we don't take from it
The numbers inside the model — answer values, weights, tolerances and cut-offs — are our own judgment calls. No paper sets them, and we test how much the results depend on them.
Our methodology
Layer 2: how we try to measure these areas responsibly. This is careful design, not external validation.
15
Quick Fit questions
56
Deep Fit questions
32/32
key traits measured by 3+ questions
Quick Fit and Deep Fit
Quick Fit asks the essentials in about four minutes and produces an early read, clearly labelled as one. Deep Fit adds the rest, asking only what your profile hasn't answered.
Several questions per trait, from different angles
Important traits are measured by at least three questions: what you usually do, what happened last time, a concrete scenario, or a forced choice between two appealing options. Readings average them, and disagreement between them lowers confidence instead of being hidden.
Hidden scoring, no right answers
Answers map to traits through values the questionnaire never shows, and every option describes a likeable person making a different trade-off, so there's no obvious ‘right’ answer to give.
Both directions, neither person the benchmark
Each area compares A's needs with how B naturally is, and B's needs with how A naturally is. The weaker direction decides. Swapping the two people mirrors the result exactly — this is tested.
Confidence, not just a result
Every reading carries a confidence based on how many answers it rests on and whether they agree. An area resting on too few answers is shown as an early sign, never as a finding.
A candor check
A few checklist items catch answers almost nobody can honestly give. They never change a result; they only cap how confident it's allowed to be.
Sensitivity testing
Every hand-picked number (answer values, tolerances, weights, cut-offs) is randomly nudged hundreds of times to see how often labels flip. Results near a cut-off are treated as borderline.
Invariant and fuzz tests
Automated tests check properties that must hold for any two people: removing an answer never raises confidence, one answer can't produce a confident result, candor never changes fit, and a genuine dealbreaker is never averaged away.
Test–retest and calibration, ready but not yet run
Tools exist to measure whether people answer the same way twice, and to compare predictions with how relationships actually go. Neither has real data yet.
Validation status
Layer 3: what has and hasn't been tested about our own questionnaire.
Tested
Internal consistency of the scoring: invariant and fuzz tests, symmetry between the two people, and sensitivity of every label to the model's hand-picked numbers.
Not yet tested
Whether people answer the same way twice (test–retest), whether our trait readings agree with established scales, and whether maps relate to how relationships actually go. The tools for the first and last exist; the data doesn't yet.
Assumptions that would need our own validation study (17)
- 1. The hidden values each answer contributes to a trait (0–1) reflect real differences between people.
How it could be tested: Compare trait readings with established scales (e.g. attachment, satisfaction, commitment) in the same people — convergent and discriminant validity.
- 2. Scaling an area's weight by 1.75 when someone calls it a must-have, and by 0.5 when they say they're flexible, reflects how much those areas actually matter to them.
How it could be tested: Compare maps with and without the weighting against how couples later rate those areas.
- 3. Each question measures the traits it is mapped to, and not something else.
How it could be tested: Factor analysis of real answers; check each trait's questions hang together.
- 4. People give the same (or adjacent) answers when they take it again a couple of weeks later.
How it could be tested: Pilot retakes — the tooling exists, but no pilot data has been collected yet.
- 5. Three consistent answers are enough for high confidence, and a spread of 0.55 between answers signals genuinely mixed readings.
How it could be tested: Relate confidence levels to test–retest agreement and to agreement with established scales.
- 6. One person's stated need, set against the other's natural way of being, captures something that matters to how a relationship goes. The evidence on stated preferences is mixed.
How it could be tested: Follow couples over time and check whether need-versus-offer gaps predict later satisfaction beyond each person's own answers.
- 7. The tolerance and fall-off of each comparison (how big a gap still counts as a fit) are about right.
How it could be tested: Sensitivity analysis already shows how much labels depend on them; outcome data would be needed to set them.
- 8. The weaker of the two directions should decide an area's status.
How it could be tested: Compare the minimum against averages or both-direction models in predicting later satisfaction.
- 9. Area weights and tiers reflect how much each area matters.
How it could be tested: Estimate weights from outcome data, or from couples' own ratings of importance, and compare.
- 10. The cut-offs that turn scores into ‘aligned’, ‘worth talking about’ and so on are sensible.
How it could be tested: Ask couples whether each placement matched their experience; compare with outcomes.
- 11. The gaps that make marriage, children, time together, affection or intimacy a potential dealbreaker are set at the right size.
How it could be tested: Check how often gate failures match couples' own view of a dealbreaker, and later outcomes.
- 12. The mismatch patterns (e.g. one person withdrawing while the other pursues) fire at the right thresholds.
How it could be tested: Compare flagged patterns with observed or diary-reported conflict behaviour.
- 13. Claiming things almost nobody can honestly claim (e.g. never having felt jealous) signals a less candid response.
How it could be tested: Correlate with an established social-desirability scale.
- 14. The rules that place an area in a map section (a one-sided gap of 0.15, a difference of 0.35) reflect meaningful distinctions.
How it could be tested: Ask couples whether sections matched their experience.
- 15. Fourteen Quick Fit questions give a useful early read.
How it could be tested: Compare Quick Fit maps with the same couples' Deep Fit maps.
- 16. What people expect before or early in a relationship relates to how it goes later at all. Large studies suggest this link is weak.
How it could be tested: A longitudinal study of couples who used Don’t Settle, Darling, with blind follow-up of outcomes (the calibration module is ready for it).
- 17. The plain-language profile summary describes people in a way they recognise.
How it could be tested: Ask people to rate how accurate their own summary is.
Where the evidence is thinnest (24 questions)
- If things went really well with someone, what pace would feel natural? Indirect support
Preferences about pace have not been studied as a compatibility factor.
- Picture an ordinary Sunday ten years from now. Which is closest to what you'd love? Indirect support
A broad scenario that feeds several traits a little each.
- Which version of married life feels most like the one you want? Indirect support
Goal fit is well supported; wanting to work on things together, as such, is not directly studied.
- In past relationships, who usually reached first — for a kiss, a hand, a cuddle? Indirect support
Who initiates affection is little studied.
- Which is closest to you? Indirect support
Initiation style is inferred, not directly studied.
- Your date lights up about something you know nothing about — say, the history of maps. You… Indirect support
- You and a partner disagree about an idea — something in the news, or a book. What usually happens? Indirect support
- Which dinner sounds better? Product judgment
A forced choice between a debate-led and a people-led evening; no research speaks to it directly.
- Which would you rather? Indirect support
A forced choice about working side by side; goal fit research is the nearest evidence.
- Which is closest to your working life right now? Indirect support
How much work is part of someone's identity is asked to meet a partner's stated wish, not as a predictor in itself.
- How much do a partner's education and career matter to you? Indirect support
Stated preferences for a partner's earning prospects predict real attraction poorly; asked to surface expectations, weighted lightly.
- Two people you could marry. Which would you choose? Product judgment
A forced trade-off between standing and warmth. Research suggests warmth wins in practice; the question checks whether each person's stated wish agrees.
- If you had to choose: at twenty-five, you'd rather your child be… Indirect support
- Your partner says, kindly, that something you said at dinner with friends came across badly. Your first reaction? Indirect support
- At dinner with friends, your partner says something you strongly disagree with. You… Indirect support
- When things have been hard in a relationship, who actually heard about it? Indirect support
- Which matters more to you in a partner? Indirect support
- On a first date, you trip on the pavement in front of a café full of people. Honest reaction? Indirect support
- What are your closest friendships like, mostly? Indirect support
- A great opportunity comes up for your partner in another city. You… Product judgment
No direct research on relocation differences and relationship outcomes.
- Which sounds most like your home and your calendar? Indirect support
Tidiness and planning differences are a common source of household friction, but not studied as a compatibility factor.
- Which of these would you find hardest to do without in a partner? Indirect support
People hold ideals of differing importance; we use stated importance to weight areas, which our own validation would need to test.
- And where could you happily be with someone quite different from you? Indirect support
Flexibility of ideals moderates how much a gap matters.
- What would be most likely to make you feel neglected in a relationship? Indirect support
Resembles popular ‘love languages’, whose matching claims lack support; used to prompt conversation, not to match.
Research library
98 sources. Each was checked against its publisher record and its abstract to confirm it supports the statement it's cited for. Studies written by an assessment's own developers are marked.
- [1] Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022170
Meta-analysis · 427 effect sizes
Work interfering with family life was consistently associated with poorer family outcomes.
- [2] Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
Instrument · 2 studies
The Inclusion of Other in the Self scale: a validated measure of closeness that predicted whether relationships were intact three months later.
- [3] Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273
Experiment · survey plus 3 experiments
Doing novel, exciting things together was linked to higher relationship quality.
- [4] Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2012). First-time parents' expectations about the division of childcare and play. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026608
Longitudinal · first-time parents, pregnancy to 4 months postpartum
Expectant parents often hold unrealistic expectations about sharing childcare; violated expectations related to later satisfaction and depression.
- [5] Block, J. H., Block, J., & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental Agreement-Disagreement on Child-Rearing Orientations and Gender-Related Personality Correlates in Children. Child Development, 52(3), 965–974. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129101
Longitudinal · 83 couples and their children (38 boys, 45 girls); divorce follow-up on 57 families · checked against the full text
Parents who agreed more on child-rearing values when their child was about 3½ were more likely to still be married about 10 years later. Agreement also went with better development in sons, but not in the same way for daughters.
- [6] Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The Influence of In‐Laws on Change in Marital Success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00614.x
Longitudinal · long-married couples
Discord with in-laws predicted later perceptions of marital success.
- [7] Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship Evaluation of the Individual, Family, Cultural, and Couple Contexts. Family Relations, 50(4), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00308.x
Instrument · by the assessment's developers
RELATE's model of individual, family, cultural and couple contexts, and its reliability and validity.
- [8] Busby, D. M., Ivey, D. C., Harris, S. M., & Ates, C. (2007). Self‐Directed, Therapist‐Directed, and Assessment‐Based Interventions for Premarital Couples. Family Relations, 56(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00459.x
Experiment · premarital couples, 3 programmes compared · by the assessment's developers
An assessment-based programme outperformed a workbook and unstructured therapy on problem areas; couples valued discussing previously undiscussed issues.
- [9] Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2001). Ideal Standards, the Self, and Flexibility of Ideals in Close Relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274006
Cross-sectional · 2 studies incl. dating couples
A partner matching one's ideals related to relationship quality, depending on how flexible those ideals were.
- [10] Carlson, D. L., Miller, A. J., Sassler, S., & Hanson, S. (2016). The Gendered Division of Housework and Couples' Sexual Relationships: A Reexamination. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4), 975–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12313
Survey · two national surveys compared
In recent data, couples sharing housework did not have less sex, and how housework was arranged mattered for sexual satisfaction.
- [11] Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Premarital Prevention Programs: A Meta‐Analytic Review of Outcome Research. Family Relations, 52(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00105.x
Meta-analysis · premarital programme outcome studies
Premarital programmes produced immediate and short-term gains in skills and relationship quality; long-term evidence was lacking.
- [12] Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73
Experiment · 31 couples, observed conflicts
Describes the demand/withdraw pattern: one partner presses for change while the other retreats.
- [13] Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Huck, S., & Melby, J. N. (1990). Linking Economic Hardship to Marital Quality and Instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(3), 643. https://doi.org/10.2307/352931
Longitudinal · 76 couples
Economic pressure harmed marriages indirectly, by increasing hostility and reducing warmth.
- [14] Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(6), 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.003
Survey · 3 studies; 860 people in relationships (individuals, not couples) · checked against the full text
How closely a partner matched someone’s stated ideals mattered less than how that partner compared with them and with other available partners; in two of three studies the match added nothing once those comparisons were counted.
- [15] Cordova, J. V., Fleming, C. J. E., Morrill, M. I., Hawrilenko, M., Sollenberger, J. W., Harp, A. G., Gray, T. D., Darling, E. V., Blair, J. M., Meade, A. E., & Wachs, K. (2014). The Marriage Checkup: A randomized controlled trial of annual relationship health checkups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(4), 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037097
Randomised trial · 215 married couples over 2 years
A brief assessment-and-feedback checkup improved intimacy, acceptance and relationship distress compared with a wait-list.
- [16] Crawford, D. W., Houts, R. M., Huston, T. L., & George, L. J. (2002). Compatibility, Leisure, and Satisfaction in Marital Relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00433.x
Longitudinal · married couples followed 13 years
Time together helped only when couples did things both enjoyed; leisure one partner disliked was linked to dissatisfaction.
- [17] Curtis, K. T., & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religious Heterogamy and Marital Conflict: Findings From the National Survey of Families and Households. Journal of Family Issues, 23(4), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X02023004005
Survey · 2,945 married couples
Different denominations mattered little, but differences in religious attendance and beliefs were linked to more conflict.
- [18] Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2013). Touch as an Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Process in Couples’ Daily Lives: The Mediating Role of Psychological Intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1373–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497592
Diary · 102 dating couples
Everyday touch was linked to better mood through feelings of intimacy, and to well-being six months later.
- [19] Dew, J., Britt, S., & Huston, S. (2012). Examining the Relationship Between Financial Issues and Divorce. Family Relations, 61(4), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00715.x
Longitudinal · 4,574 couples, national sample
Financial disagreements were the strongest type of disagreement predicting divorce.
- [20] Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013969
Longitudinal · 218 couples over 8 years
A first child was followed by a lasting, small-to-medium decline in relationship functioning.
- [21] Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020385
Survey · 3 national samples; 23,000+ couples
Each person's own personality explained about 6% of their relationship satisfaction, the partner's 1–3%, and similarity under 0.5%.
- [22] Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
Experiment · speed-dating with follow-up
Stated preferences for attractiveness and earning prospects did not predict who people actually desired after meeting.
- [23] Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432
Meta-analysis · review plus meta-analysis of 97 studies
Differences in what people say they want (e.g., men and women on attractiveness and earning prospects) barely appear in how they evaluate real partners.
- [24] Edmonds, V. H. (1967). Marital Conventionalization: Definition and Measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29(4), 681. https://doi.org/10.2307/349220
Instrument
People often describe their marriages in unrealistically positive terms (‘marital conventionalization’).
- [25] Fawcett, E. B., Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., & Carroll, J. S. (2010). Do Premarital Education Programs Really Work? A Meta‐analytic Study. Family Relations, 59(3), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00598.x
Meta-analysis · 47 studies
With unpublished studies included, premarital education did not improve satisfaction, but it did improve communication.
- [26] Feeney, B. C. (2004). A Secure Base: Responsive Support of Goal Strivings and Exploration in Adult Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631
Experiment · couples, observational and experimental phases
Responsive, non-intrusive support for a partner's goals and growth mattered for their happiness and confidence.
- [27] Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The Internal Structure and Ecological Context of Coparenting: A Framework for Research and Intervention. Parenting, 3(2), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01
Theory or review
Coparenting is a central part of family life that shapes parents' adjustment, parenting and children's outcomes.
- [28] Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and Conflict Resolution in Marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72
Cross-sectional · 2 studies of married couples
Forgiveness — less retaliation, more benevolence — was associated with better conflict resolution.
- [29] Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522
Theory or review · checked against the full text
No compelling evidence that matching algorithms work; information available before two people meet is unlikely to explain more than a small share of long-term outcomes.
- [30] Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
Survey · 6 studies
People hold ideals for a partner and a relationship; the closer the current partner and relationship match, the more positively they are evaluated.
- [31] Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1986). Predicting marital success with PREPARE: A predictive validity study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12(4), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1986.tb00673.x
Longitudinal · 164 couples over 3 years · by the assessment's developers
PREPARE scores before marriage distinguished couples who later separated or divorced from happily married couples.
- [32] Fowers, B. J., Montel, K. H., & Olson, D. H. (1996). Predicting marital success for premarital couple types based on PREPARE. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1996.tb00190.x
Longitudinal · 393 couples over 3 years · by the assessment's developers
Premarital couple types identified with PREPARE predicted satisfaction and separation over three years.
- [33] Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Instrument · 1,085 participants
Item-response analysis of adult attachment questionnaires; the basis of the revised Experiences in Close Relationships scale.
- [34] Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived Housework Equity, Marital Happiness, and Divorce in Dual-Earner Households. Journal of Family Issues, 24(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X02238520
Survey · nationally representative dual-earner couples
Seeing housework as unfair was associated with lower marital happiness, and with higher divorce odds among wives.
- [35] Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
Instrument · 5,315 participants
The Couples Satisfaction Index: more precise measurement of relationship satisfaction than older scales.
- [36] Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What Do You Do When Things Go Right? The Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Benefits of Sharing Positive Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
Diary · 4 studies
Responding enthusiastically to a partner's good news was associated with more intimacy and satisfaction.
- [37] Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple Similarity and Marital Satisfaction: Are Similar Spouses Happier? Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00414.x
Cross-sectional · 248 married couples
Similarity in values and personality related to satisfaction more than similarity in attitudes or religiosity.
- [38] Gere, J., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R. T., & Lockwood, P. (2011). The effects of romantic partners’ goal congruence on affective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.010
Diary · 97 married couples (194 people) and 28 dating couples (56 people) · checked against the full text
In a two-week study that prompted married people through the day, they felt best when with their partner doing something that suited both partners’ goals; doing something only for the partner went with lower mood.
- [39] Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Faingataa, S. (2014). “Date nights” take two: The maintenance function of shared relationship activities. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12020
Longitudinal · 196 individuals; 83 couples over 3 months
Shared activities that built closeness predicted better relationship quality — when both partners wanted to share them.
- [40] Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
Longitudinal · 73 couples over 4 years
Couples whose conflict involved more negativity, stubbornness and withdrawal were more likely to move toward separation.
- [41] Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The Timing of Divorce: Predicting When a Couple Will Divorce Over a 14‐Year Period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x
Longitudinal · couples over 14 years
Negative emotion during conflict predicted early divorce; a lack of positive emotion predicted later divorce.
- [42] Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93(3), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.3.513
Theory or review · review of marital power studies · full text unavailable; checked through papers that cite it
A review of earlier marital power studies: most found couples with an equal say in decisions the most satisfied. Results varied with how power was measured, and the authors cautioned that who has the final say misses much of what happens between spouses.
- [43] Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Gender Ideology and Perceptions of the Fairness of the Division of Household Labor: Effects on Marital Quality. Social Forces, 74(3), 1029. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/74.3.1029
Survey · national sample
Whether an unequal division of housework feels unfair depends on each person's beliefs about roles — expectations shape the effect.
- [44] Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H., & Stahmann, R. F. (2003). Romantic Physical Affection Types and Relationship Satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180390201936
Cross-sectional · 295 college students
Physical affection — hugging, kissing, cuddling, holding hands — correlated with relationship and partner satisfaction.
- [45] Hall, J. A. (2017). Humor in romantic relationships: A meta‐analysis. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12183
Meta-analysis · 43 samples; 15,177 people
Positive, shared humor was associated with relationship satisfaction; negative humor with lower satisfaction.
- [46] Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(5), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012584
Meta-analysis · 117 studies
Relationship education produced modest gains in relationship quality and communication skills.
- [47] Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Survey · 2 questionnaire studies
Adult romantic love can be understood as an attachment process, with secure, anxious and avoidant styles.
- [48] Impett, E. A., Park, H. G., & Muise, A. (2024). Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages From a Relationship Science Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231217663
Theory or review
Little evidence supports the love-languages claims that people have one preferred language and that matching it improves satisfaction.
- [49] Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017). Affectionate Touch to Promote Relational, Psychological, and Physical Well-Being in Adulthood: A Theoretical Model and Review of the Research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307
Theory or review
Affectionate touch plausibly supports relational, psychological and physical well-being; adult evidence is still developing.
- [50] Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2017). Is Romantic Desire Predictable? Machine Learning Applied to Initial Romantic Attraction. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1478–1489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714580
Experiment · 2 speed-dating studies; 100+ self-report measures
Traits and preferences reported before meeting could not predict which two people would desire each other specifically.
- [51] Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Allison, C. J., Arriaga, X. B., Baker, Z. G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Bergeron, S., Birnbaum, G. E., Brock, R. L., Brumbaugh, C. C., Carmichael, C. L., Chen, S., Clarke, J., Cobb, R. J., Coolsen, M. K., Davis, J., de Jong, D. C., Debrot, A., DeHaas, E. C., Derrick, J. L., Eller, J., Estrada, M. J., Faure, R., Finkel, E. J., Fraley, R. C., Gable, S. L., Gadassi-Polack, R., Girme, Y. U., Gordon, A. M., Gosnell, C. L., Hammond, M. D., Hannon, P. A., Harasymchuk, C., Hofmann, W., Horn, A. B., Impett, E. A., Jamieson, J. P., Keltner, D., Kim, J. J., Kirchner, J. L., Kluwer, E. S., Kumashiro, M., Larson, G., Lazarus, G., Logan, J. M., Luchies, L. B., MacDonald, G., Machia, L. V., Maniaci, M. R., Maxwell, J. A., Mizrahi, M., Muise, A., Niehuis, S., Ogolsky, B. G., Oldham, C. R., Overall, N. C., Perrez, M., Peters, B. J., Pietromonaco, P. R., Powers, S. I., Prok, T., Pshedetzky-Shochat, R., Rafaeli, E., Ramsdell, E. L., Reblin, M., Reicherts, M., Reifman, A., Reis, H. T., Rhoades, G. K., Rholes, W. S., Righetti, F., Rodriguez, L. M., Rogge, R., Rosen, N. O., Saxbe, D., Sened, H., Simpson, J. A., Slotter, E. B., Stanley, S. M., Stocker, S., Surra, C., Ter Kuile, H., Vaughn, A. A., Vicary, A. M., Visserman, M. L., & Wolf, S. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061–19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117
Meta-analysis · 43 longitudinal couple datasets from 29 labs
Relationship-specific experiences predicted relationship quality far better than individual traits; changes in quality over time were largely unpredictable from self-reports.
- [52] Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
Theory or review · 115 longitudinal studies; 45,000+ marriages
Review of how marriages change over time, and an integrative model of vulnerabilities, stress and adaptation.
- [53] Khazan, I., McHale, J. P., & Decourcey, W. (2008). Violated wishes about division of childcare labor predict early coparenting process during stressful and nonstressful family evaluations. Infant Mental Health Journal, 29(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20183
Longitudinal · new parents, observed family interactions
Unmet wishes about how childcare would be shared were linked to less positive early coparenting.
- [54] Killewald, A. (2016). Money, Work, and Marital Stability: Assessing Change in the Gendered Determinants of Divorce. American Sociological Review, 81(4), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416655340
Longitudinal · national panel, 1968–2013
Financial resources did not predict divorce, but how couples divided paid work did — consistent with lingering expectations about who earns.
- [55] Kingston, P. W., & Nock, S. L. (1987). Time Together Among Dual-Earner Couples. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 391. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095358
Survey · 177 dual-earner couples' time diaries
Combined work hours cut couples' time together; more time together in certain activities went with more satisfying marriages.
- [56] Körner, R., & Schütz, A. (2021). Power in romantic relationships: How positional and experienced power are associated with relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(9), 2653–2677. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211017670
Cross-sectional · 181 couples
Feeling a personal sense of power, and being satisfied with the balance, predicted relationship quality; formal positional power did not.
- [57] Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (1994). Premarital Predictors of Marital Quality and Stability. Family Relations, 43(2), 228. https://doi.org/10.2307/585327
Theory or review
Review of premarital factors — background, individual traits and couple interaction — that predict later marital quality and stability.
- [58] Larson, J. H., Newell, K., Topham, G., & Nichols, S. (2002). A review of three comprehensive premarital assessment questionnaires. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(2), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2002.tb00360.x
Theory or review · by the assessment's developers
Describes and compares the psychometrics of three premarital questionnaires: PREPARE, FOCCUS and RELATE.
- [59] Larson, J. H., Vatter, R. S., Galbraith, R. C., Holman, T. B., & Stahmann, R. F. (2007). The RELATionship Evaluation (RELATE) With Therapist‐Assisted Interpretation: Short‐Term Effects on Premarital Relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(3), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00036.x
Experiment · 39 couples · by the assessment's developers
Taking RELATE with a therapist's help raised awareness of strengths and challenges and improved communication; self-interpretation caused a small initial dip in satisfaction before improving.
- [60] Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Diary · 2 studies of daily interactions
Intimacy grows from sharing and from feeling that the other person is responsive.
- [61] Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x
Meta-analysis · 137 studies; 37,761 participants
Commitment, love, closeness and dependence were among the strongest predictors of whether dating relationships ended; personality measures predicted little.
- [62] Leikas, S., Ilmarinen, V. J., Verkasalo, M., Vartiainen, H. L., & Lönnqvist, J. E. (2018). Relationship satisfaction and similarity of personality traits, personal values, and attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.024
Cross-sectional · 312 couples expecting a child
Similarity in some values and political attitudes related to satisfaction; similarity in most personality traits did not.
- [63] Li, T., & Chan, D. K. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: A meta‐analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1842
Meta-analysis · 73 studies; 21,602 participants
Attachment anxiety and avoidance were both associated with lower relationship quality.
- [64] Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative Mating and Marital Quality in Newlyweds: A Couple-Centered Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304
Cross-sectional · 291 newlywed couples
Newlyweds were similar in attitudes but not personality; personality similarity, not attitude similarity, related to marital quality.
- [65] Luo, S. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337
Theory or review
Couples are most similar on attitudes and values and less on personality; similarity arises for several different reasons.
- [66] Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 559–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.559
Meta-analysis · 94 studies
Greater religiousness was associated with slightly lower divorce risk and better marital functioning; effects were small.
- [67] Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The Paradox of Received Social Support: The Importance of Responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20(8), 928–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x
Diary · 67 cohabiting couples
Support helped only when it was responsive to what the recipient actually needed.
- [68] Mallory, A. B., Stanton, A. M., & Handy, A. B. (2019). Couples’ Sexual Communication and Dimensions of Sexual Function: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(7), 882–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1568375
Meta-analysis · 48 studies
Couples' sexual communication was associated with better sexual function.
- [69] Mallory, A. B. (2022). Dimensions of couples’ sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(3), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000946
Meta-analysis · 93 studies; 38,499 people
Sexual communication was associated with relationship and sexual satisfaction; its quality mattered more than its frequency.
- [70] Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004
Meta-analysis · 19 samples; 3,848 people
Lower neuroticism and higher agreeableness, conscientiousness and extraversion were associated with a partner's relationship satisfaction. The effects were small, strongest for neuroticism; openness was not linked.
- [71] Mark, K. P. (2012). The relative impact of individual sexual desire and couple desire discrepancy on satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 27(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2012.678825
Cross-sectional · 133 couples
Partners' difference in sexual desire related to sexual satisfaction (for men); each person's own desire mattered more for relationship satisfaction.
- [72] McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When “negative” behaviors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term effects of problem-solving behaviors on changes in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017479
Longitudinal · 2 studies of newlyweds
Blunt, direct problem-solving hurt when problems were minor but helped when problems were serious.
- [73] Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
Meta-analysis · 313 studies
Actual similarity predicted attraction before and early in interaction, but not within existing relationships; perceived similarity did.
- [74] Muise, A., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Keeping the Spark Alive: Being Motivated to Meet a Partner’s Sexual Needs Sustains Sexual Desire in Long-Term Romantic Relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612457185
Diary · 44 long-term couples over 21 days
Being motivated to meet a partner's sexual needs was linked to stronger and more lasting desire.
- [75] Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 662–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.662
Longitudinal · 200 individuals; 62 couples
Gaps between ideals and a partner prompted efforts to change the partner, which were linked to lower relationship quality.
- [76] Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 620–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012961
Longitudinal · 61 couples over 1 year
Direct requests for change felt less successful at first but produced more actual change over the following year.
- [77] Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., & Goeke‐Morey, M. C. (2009). For Richer, for Poorer: Money as a Topic of Marital Conflict in the Home. Family Relations, 58(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x
Diary · 100 couples; 748 conflicts
Conflicts about money were more pervasive, problematic and recurrent than other conflicts, and more often unresolved.
- [78] Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 434–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434
Diary · 3 studies incl. couples and daily diaries
Feeling autonomous, capable and connected in a relationship predicted how well it functioned; both partners' need fulfilment mattered.
- [79] Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Instrument · 3 studies of undergraduates (425, 86 and 100 people) · checked against the full text
Socially desirable responding has two parts: self-deception (honestly believed, largely unconscious) and deliberate impression management.
- [80] Petronio, S. (2010). Communication Privacy Management Theory: What Do We Know About Family Privacy Regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(3), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x
Theory or review
Communication privacy management: how families negotiate the boundaries around private information.
- [81] Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The pre-engagement cohabitation effect: A replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(1), 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014358
Survey · 1,050 married adults
People who lived together before getting engaged reported somewhat lower marital quality; differences were small.
- [82] Rick, S. I., Small, D. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Fatal (Fiscal) Attraction: Spendthrifts and Tightwads in Marriage. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.2.228
Survey · married adults
Spenders and savers tend to marry each other, but that difference predicts money conflict and lower marital well-being.
- [83] Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
Instrument · 3 studies
The Investment Model Scale: a reliable, validated measure of commitment and its bases (satisfaction, alternatives, investment).
- [84] Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A Meta-Analytical Review of the Demand/Withdraw Pattern of Interaction and its Associations with Individual, Relational, and Communicative Outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.813632
Meta-analysis · 74 studies; 14,255 people
The demand/withdraw pattern was moderately associated with poorer relational and personal outcomes.
- [85] Sinclair, H. C., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright, B. L. (2015). Don’t Tell Me Who I Can’t Love: A Multimethod Investigation of Social Network and Reactance Effects on Romantic Relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272514565253
Experiment · survey (858), vignette and lab studies
Approval from friends and family led people to feel more love and commitment toward a partner.
- [86] 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(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547
Instrument
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale, including a subscale for agreement on important matters (consensus).
- [87] Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The Influence of Parents and Friends on the Quality and Stability of Romantic Relationships: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(4), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.2307/353170
Longitudinal · 101 dating couples, surveyed 3 times over about 18 months
Couples who felt their family and friends approved reported more love, satisfaction and commitment, which tended to grow over time. Only the woman’s sense of approval predicted whether they stayed together; the man’s did not.
- [88] Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552141
Longitudinal · dating couples over several years
Sexual satisfaction went with relationship satisfaction, love and commitment, with some evidence for stability.
- [89] Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.117
Survey · random household survey, 4 US states
Premarital education was associated with higher satisfaction and commitment, less conflict and lower divorce odds (correlational).
- [90] Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect. Family Relations, 55(4), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x
Theory or review
Argues that ‘sliding’ through relationship transitions, rather than deciding, can raise risk for some couples.
- [91] Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, Formation, and the Securing of Romantic Attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x
Theory or review
Commitment stabilises romantic attachment, and how commitment forms matters.
- [92] Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Scott, S. B., Kelmer, G., Markman, H. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). Asymmetrically committed relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(8), 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516672013
Longitudinal · 315 couples, national sample
When partners' commitment differed substantially, the less committed partners reported lower relationship adjustment and more conflict.
- [93] Starr, L. R., & Davila, J. (2008). Excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and interpersonal rejection: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(4), 762–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013866
Meta-analysis · 38 studies; 6,973 people
Excessive reassurance seeking was associated with depression and, more weakly, with rejection by others.
- [94] Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, 34(3), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/3038288
Longitudinal · national panel of married couples
Both partners' wishes about children shaped births; when couples disagreed about wanting a child, intentions shifted toward not having one.
- [95] Toma, A. M., Rusu, P. P., & Podina, I. R. (2023). The role of goal interdependence in couples’ relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(6), 1740–1769. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221128994
Meta-analysis · 32 reports; 49 samples
Goal congruence (r = .43) and goal support went with relationship satisfaction; goal conflict with lower satisfaction.
- [96] Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and Marital Satisfaction: A Meta‐Analytic Review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x
Meta-analysis · parents vs non-parents
Parents reported somewhat lower marital satisfaction than non-parents (a small effect), largest for mothers of infants.
- [97] Vaaler, M. L., Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (2009). Religious Influences on the Risk of Marital Dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(4), 917–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00644.x
Longitudinal · 2,979 couples, national sample
Differences between partners in religious attendance and belief were associated with higher divorce risk.
- [98] Woodin, E. M. (2011). A two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: Meta-analytic findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023791
Meta-analysis · 64 studies; 5,071 couples
Hostility during conflict was robustly linked to lower satisfaction; withdrawal less so; warmth and problem solving to higher satisfaction.
One source can't be read without paying and has no public abstract, so it was checked through open-access papers that cite it.