the virtue of problem-solving: perceived partner …satisfaction (e.g., hunler & gencoz, 2005;...

Personal Relationships, 20 (2013), 511–523. Printed in the United States of America.Copyright © 2012 IARR; DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01421.x

The virtue of problem-solving: Perceived partnervirtues as predictors of problem-solving efficacy

AMANDA VELDORALE-BROGAN,a NATHANIEL M. LAMBERT,a

FRANK D. FINCHAM,a AND C. NATHAN DEWALLb

aThe Florida State University and bUniversity of Kentucky

AbstractThree studies involving dating relationships and friendships tested the hypothesis that higher perceived partnervirtues (or personal strengths enacted in the context of relationships) are related to greater relationshipproblem-solving efficacy. Studies 1 and 2 showed that higher perceived partner virtues were related to morerelationship problem-solving efficacy concurrently and longitudinally. Study 3 showed that perceiving one’s partneras more virtuous predicted increased turning toward one’s partner for assistance, which, in turn, predicted increasedproblem-solving efficacy. All 3 studies showed that higher perceived partner virtues were related to greaterrelationship problem-solving efficacy.

All relationships have problems at some point.In marital research, it is widely acceptedthat the difference between couples who ter-minate their relationship and couples whostay together is not whether they experi-ence problems, but rather how they dealwith those problems (e.g., Fincham, 2003;Gottman, 1994). Not surprisingly, numer-ous studies show that problem-solving abil-ity is an important predictor of relationshipsatisfaction (e.g., Hunler & Gencoz, 2005;Johnson et al., 2005). A 2-year communica-tion intervention study found that relation-ship quality improved when wives increasedtheir positive problem-solving behaviors and

Amanda Veldorale-Brogan, Department of Family andChild Sciences, The Florida State University; NathanielM. Lambert, Department of Family and Child Sciences,The Florida State University; Frank D. Fincham, Depart-ment of Family and Child Sciences, The Florida StateUniversity; C. Nathan DeWall, Department of Psychol-ogy, University of Kentucky.

This study was made possible by Grant 90FE0022/01from the Department of Health And Human ServicesAdministration for Children and Families awarded to thethird author.

Correspondence should be addressed to AmandaVeldorale-Brogan, Department of Family and Child Sci-ences, 230 Sandels Building, Florida State University,Tallahassee, FL 32306, e-mail: [email protected].

husbands decreased their negative problem-solving behaviors (Bodenmann, Bradbury, &Pihet, 2009). Similarly, the ability to workwith one’s partner to constructively solveproblems before marriage positively affectslater marital stability (Clements, Stanley, &Markman, 2004). Despite the importance ofrelationship problem-solving skills, little isknown about the factors that lead some cou-ples to be good problem solvers, while othersare not.

Carroll, Badger, and Yang (2006) pro-posed a developmental model of competencewithin close relationships, which was orig-inally applied to marital relationships. Inthat model, they suggested that competencecomprises three domains: (a) communication,(b) virtue, and (c) identity. Communicationrefers to the couple’s ability to negotiate andcan be thought of as the skills componentof relationship competence. It encompassesprocesses such as empathetic communica-tion, conflict resolution, and problem solv-ing. Virtue refers to the ability to love othersand involves the enactment of intrapersonalstrengths such as forgiveness and sacrifice.The final domain, identity, has to do withpersonal security or the ability to love one’s

511

512 A. Veldorale-Brogan et al.

self. It encompasses individual characteristicssuch as self-worth, temperament, and attach-ment. Carroll and colleagues suggested thatidentity and virtue provide the base for com-munication. In other words, it is necessary forpeople to be secure in themselves and focusedon others before they are able to engage inpositive communication skills. They furtherproposed that close relationship competenceis a capacity that develops over time throughinteractions in childhood and adolescence.

The link proposed earlier has been sup-ported by work on the development of roman-tic relationships in adolescents and youngadults. Findings from this research suggestthat close friend relationships play an impor-tant role in the development of roman-tic relationships and relationship skills andshare a number of important characteristics,such as reciprocity and affiliation (Connolly& Goldberg, 1999; Furman, 1999; Furman,Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002; Scharf &Mayseless, 2001). Thus, this study seeks toexpand Carroll and colleagues’ (2006) modelof competence to relationships that are at ear-lier developmental stages and examines theconnection between perceived partner virtuesand relationship problem-solving efficacycross-sectionally and over time in both emerg-ing adult dating couples and friend pairs.In addition, we examine the mechanism bywhich this process occurs. More specifically,we focus on perceived partner virtues (asopposed to the personal trait of having virtues)by applying attribution theory to hypothesizethat perceiving one’s partner as more virtu-ous will be related to enhanced problem-solving efficacy. We further predict that therelation between perceived partner virtues andproblem-solving efficacy will be mediated byhow much partners turn to each other forsupport. The current study focuses specif-ically on problem-solving efficacy becausenumerous studies show that it affects not onlyactual problem-solving behaviors but also theuse of coping skills (Belzer, D’Zurilla, &Maydeu-Olivares, 2002; Karademas &Kalantzi-Azizi, 2004; Takaki et al., 2003) andmental health (Chan, 2002; Cheung & Sun,2000; Wu, Tang, & Kwok, 2004).

Perceived partner virtues

Increasingly, the field of relationship researchis moving away from focusing solely on whatis lacking in relationships to a picture of rela-tionship health that is more multidimensional(Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007). This shiftbrings to the forefront new processes and vari-ables for examination, as well as highlightingmeaning and motivation for couples. The con-cept of perceived partner virtues fits into thelarger frame of positive psychology, whichshifts the attention of research from pathol-ogy to strengths (Seligman & Csikszentmiha-lyi, 2000).

What are relationship virtues? Fowers(2005) conceptualized virtues as “the form ofexcellence that allows an individual to pur-sue worthwhile ends in everyday activities”(p. 27). In the context of relationships, virtuesrefer to those personal strengths, such as for-giveness, loyalty, and fairness, that allow indi-viduals to pursue positive relationship interac-tions and relational outcomes. Perceived part-ner virtues are the extent to which the partneris aware of the enactment of these personalstrengths. Given that these virtues are enactedin a relational context, the perception of thepartner is paramount.

The basis for the virtues framework con-structed by Fowers (1998, 2000, 2001) restson an Aristotelian notion of virtues, in whichpeople achieve excellence in their ability touse their intellect rationally and to experiencehappiness. The virtues framework has recentlybeen expanded. In these more recent clarifica-tions, virtue is not seen as a simple internalstate, but rather as something requiring action(Broadie, 1991). This idea is illustrated inresearch on mutual responsiveness in conflict-of-interest situations, in which partners mustput their own needs and desires on hold tosuccessfully navigate the situation (Murray &Holmes, 2009).

Perceived partner virtues are not sim-ply positive illusions, although similaritiesexist between the two constructs. Positiveillusions are “the widespread tendency toadopt an unrealistically positive view” ofone’s relationship (Fowers, Lyons, Montel, &Shaked, 2001, p. 96). Although a component

Perceived partner virtues and problem solving 513

of perceiving one’s partner as virtuous couldindeed be considered an “unrealistically posi-tive view,” some aspect of this perception willreflect actual virtue. This conceptualizationof perception jibes with past research, whichsuggests that illusions are only one facet ofperception (Lemay, Clark, & Feeney, 2007;Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). Thus, per-ceived partner virtues encompass not only aperson’s unrealistic hopes that his or her part-ner will act generously or be other-centered(examples of perceived partner virtues) withinthe context of their relationship but also thepartner’s actual enactment of these virtues.

Fowers (2000) applied a virtues frameworkto relationship interactions and communica-tion skills. He noted that when working withcouples, partners could use the communica-tion skills in session, but they often expe-rienced difficulties enacting them at home.He suggested that communication skills, anessential part of good problem solving, wereinsufficient alone and required a certainamount of personal character, or virtue, to beenacted. Hence, perceived partner virtues mayprove crucial in understanding how relation-ships flourish. What remains unclear, how-ever, is whether perceived partner virtuesfacilitate problem solving and, if so, why thatoccurs.

How perceiving virtues in one’s partner mayfacilitate problem-solving efficacy

Attribution theory offers hints regarding apossible link between perceived partnervirtues and effective problem-solving behav-iors. Attribution theory suggests that whenpeople interact, they attribute the causes ofother’s behavior to themselves, other peo-ple, or the circumstances (Doherty, 1982).These attributions may be either positiveor negative and have been shown to affectproblem solving (Doherty, 1982). The consid-erable literature linking attributions to prob-lem solving (see Fincham, 2001) suggeststhat when couples are problem solving, howproblem-solving behaviors are viewed andwhat causes are assigned to those behaviorsmay just be as important as the behaviorsthemselves.

Making positive attributions and interpreta-tions about a partner’s behaviors and motivescan be viewed as one enactment of perceivedpartner virtues. It may be that individuals whoperceive their partner as being more virtuousmake more positive attributions and are there-fore more likely to perceive themselves andtheir partners as problem solving in construc-tive ways. This is similar to the idea of per-ceived partner responsiveness (Reis, Clark, &Holmes, 2004), which suggests that intimacyand closeness in relationships is fostered bythe extent to which partners view each otheras focusing on and responding supportivelyto their desires, needs, and values. Perceivedpartner virtues moves from the construct ofresponsiveness to encompass the enactmentof more personal strengths, such as loyaltyand understanding; however, they may act inmuch the same way. In other words, perceivedpartner virtues may serve to foster closenessin the relationship, and hence more construc-tive, problem-solving situations.

How perceiving virtues in one’s partner mayfacilitate turning to one’s partner

As previously noted, attribution theory statesthat people respond to others based on thecauses they ascribe to the others’ actions.In addition to being directly related to anincrease in positive problem-solving efficacyfor those who perceive their partners asbeing more virtuous, higher perceived part-ner virtues may be linked to a greater like-lihood of turning to one’s partner for help.For example, positive perceptions of attach-ment with one’s partner were linked to higherlevels of support behaviors (Cobb, Davila,& Bradbury, 2001). Similarly, in dating cou-ples, people whose partners view them morepositively are more likely to share intimatelywith their partner, than those whose part-ners do not (Swann, de la Ronde, & Hixon,1994). Within the context of the develop-mental model of relational competence, weexpect the domains of virtue and identity(attachment) to be linked and to providethe basis for more positive problem solving.Thus, we expect that participants who viewtheir partners as more virtuous will be morelikely to turn to them for support.


How turning to one’s partner facilitatesproblem solving efficacy

As people feel more comfortable turning totheir partner, they should be more comfortablein voicing their concerns about the relation-ship. This is supported by research on grat-itude (Lambert, Fincham, & Graham, 2011),which showed that participants who expressedgratitude toward their partners (a possibleindicator of turning to one’s partner) weremore comfortable discussing relationship con-cerns with their partners.

Furthermore, Sullivan, Pasch, Johnson, andBradbury (2010) showed that initial levels ofsupport, which can be an indicator of turn-ing to one’s partner, predicted lower sub-sequent levels of negative behavior duringproblem-solving discussions. Similarly, dis-comfort with closeness (or an inability to turnto one’s partner) related to lower levels ofsocial self-efficacy (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt,2000). Therefore, we predict that participantswho turn to their partner for support will sub-sequently exhibit higher levels of problem-solving efficacy.

Perceived virtues are more than justrelationship satisfaction

A large body of literature exists on prob-lem solving in intimate relationships (see Fin-cham & Beach, 2010). Couples who differin satisfaction behave differently toward eachother in problem-solving situations. Specif-ically, dissatisfied partners reliably recipro-cate negative partner behavior compared totheir nondistressed counterparts (see Weiss &Heyman, 1997). In light of such findings, itis important to demonstrate that relationshipconstructs do not function as proxies for rela-tionship satisfaction and do more than capturevariance in commonly used measures of sat-isfaction. In absence of such a requirement,perceived partner virtues may simply reflectrelationship quality under a different name. Asa result of such observations, Fincham, Beach,and Davila (2004) have argued for routineuse of a test of “surplus conceptual value” inrelationship research, whereby the associationbetween two relationship variables is tested,

while controlling for relationship satisfaction.Therefore, the current studies included rela-tionship satisfaction as a control variable toensure that the predicted effects were due toperceived partner virtues and not simply areflection of relationship satisfaction.

Overview of studies

The current investigation tested the hypothesisthat higher perceived partner virtues wouldpredict self-reported problem-solving efficacyconcurrently and over time (Studies 1 and2). We also predicted that the relationshipbetween perceived partner virtue and problemsolving would be mediated by how muchthe partners turn to each other for help insolving problems (Study 3). Standardized βsare reported in all study results.

Study 1

Study 1 provided an initial test of our hypoth-esis that perceived partner virtues correlatewith better problem-solving efficacy. Con-sistent with the test of surplus conceptualvalue, we controlled for relationship satisfac-tion to determine whether perception of part-ner virtues goes beyond the effect of one’ssatisfaction with the relationship in predict-ing problem-solving skills. We also controlledfor other potential confounding variables: par-ticipant gender, age, and relationship length.We predicted a positive relation betweenperception of partner virtues and problem-solving efficacy in romantic relationshipsand friendships above and beyond thesefactors.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were 179 undergraduates (117female; median age = 21 years). Participantscompleted all measures and received coursecredit. Participants reported on either a closefriend or romantic partner. There were nodifferences between the groups on any of thedependent variables. Thus, these groups werecombined for all analyses.


Measures

Perceived partner virtues. Perceived partnervirtues were measured using the 24-item mea-sure of perceived virtues (Hawkins, Fowers,Carroll, & Yang, 2007). Subscales for thismeasure are other-centeredness, generosity,admiration, teamwork, shared vision, and loy-alty/backbiting. To avoid any potential infla-tion of the relation between perceived part-ner virtues and problem-solving efficacy, theteamwork subscale was included as a sepa-rate covariate in all regressions. Items include“My partner makes personal sacrifices for thegood of the relationship” and “My partner isforgiving of my mistakes.” Participants ratedtheir partners on a 7-point scale that rangedfrom 1 = almost never to 7 = almost always.The α for perceived virtues was .90.

Problem-solving efficacy. Problem-solvingefficacy was measured using a four-item scaledesigned for the study. This measure wasdesigned to assess the extent to which par-ticipants felt they were able to address issuesin their relationships. Participants rated them-selves on a 5-point that ranged from 1 = notat all true to 5 = completely true. Sampleitems included “I am able to identify prob-lems in my relationship as they come up” and“I work well with my partner to solve prob-lems as they come up” (α = .90).

Perceived problem-solving efficacy of partner.Perceived problem-solving efficacy was mea-sured using a four-item scale designed for thestudy. This measure was designed to assessthe extent to which participants felt their part-ners were able to address issues in their rela-tionships. Participants rated their partners ona 5-point scale that ranged from 1 = notat all true to 5 = completely true. Sam-ple items included “My partner works wellwith me to solve problems in our relation-ship” (α = .91). As with the previous mea-sure, exploratory factor analysis was con-ducted. All items loaded onto a single factor,with all factor loadings above.78.

Relationship satisfaction. Funk and Rogge(2007) conducted an Item Response Theory

analysis to develop a four-item measure ofrelationship satisfaction with optimized psy-chometric properties. Sample items are “Howrewarding is your relationship with your part-ner?” (answered on a 6-point scale that rangedfrom 1 = not at all to 6 = extremely) and“I have a warm and comfortable relationshipwith my partner” (answered on a 6-point scalethat ranged from 1 = not at all true to 6 =very true). Their measure correlates .87 withthe widely used Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Inthe current sample, α was .91.

Results and discussion

Before completing the regression analyses,bivariate correlations were computed for allvariables of interest and control variables.Results are reported in Table 1.

As expected, higher perceived partnervirtues predicted higher levels of own rela-tionship problem-solving efficacy, β = .57,t (138) = 8.08, p < .01, and perceived part-ner relationship problem-solving efficacy, β =.70, t (135) = 11.42, p < .01. This relation-ship remained significant for both own andpartner relationship problem-solving efficacyeven after controlling for the effects of theteamwork subscale, participant gender, age,relationship length, and level of overall rela-tionship satisfaction, β = .30, t (133) = 2.21,p < .05, and β = .59, t (130) = 4.96, p <

.01, respectively.Thus, Study 1 provided initial evidence

that viewing one’s partner as more virtuous islinked with having better relational problem-solving efficacy and viewing one’s partneras having better relational problem-solvingefficacy. One shortcoming of this study isthat it used a cross-sectional design, whichprecludes inferences about how perceivingone’s partner as having virtues may relate toproblem solving over time. Study 2 addressedthis limitation.

Study 2

Study 2 examined whether perceived partnervirtues would predict changes in problem-solving efficacy across time, using alongitudinal design. We predicted a positive


Table 1. Study 1 bivariate correlations

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Partner virtues 12. Relationship

problem solving0.57∗∗ 1

3. Partner relationshipproblem solving

0.69∗∗ 0.78∗∗ 1

4. Teamwork subscale 0.78∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.56∗∗ 15. Relationship

satisfaction0.66∗∗ 0.49∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 1

6. Relationship length 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.07 17. Participant age 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.09 18. Participant gender 0.16∗ 0.09 0.12 −0.02 0.04 0.11 −0.16∗ 1

Note. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female.∗p ≤ .05. ∗∗p ≤ .01.

relation between perception of partner virtuesand problem-solving efficacy over time inromantic relationships and friendships, con-trolling for participant gender, age, relation-ship length, and relationship satisfaction.

Method


Participants were 114 undergraduates (95female; median age = 20 years). Partici-pants completed all measures twice, initially(Time 1) and again 3 weeks later (Time2). Participants reported on either a closefriend or romantic partner. Preliminary analy-ses revealed that all predictors by relationshiptype were nonsignificant. Hence, these groupswere combined for all analyses.

Measures

Perceived partner virtues. Perceived partnervirtues were measured using the same mea-sure as in Study 1 (Hawkins et al., 2007;α = .91).

Problem-solving efficacy. Problem-solvingefficacy was measured using the four-itemscale used in Study 1 (α = .83).

Perceived problem-solving efficacy of partner.Perceived problem-solving efficacy was

measured using the four-item scale used inStudy1 (α = .92).

Relationship satisfaction. We again used theFunk and Rogge (2007) four-item measure ofrelationship satisfaction (α = .94).


Before conducting the path analyses, bivariatecorrelations were computed among all vari-ables of interest and control variables. Resultsare reported in Table 2. As expected, higherperceived partner virtues at Time 1 predictedown relationship problem-solving efficacy atTime 2, as well as perceived partner problem-solving efficacy at Time 2, even when control-ling for the effects of the teamwork subscale,Time 1 relationship problem-solving efficacy,Time 1 perceived partner problem-solvingefficacy, gender, age, relationship length,and initial relationship satisfaction (β = .29,p < .01 and β = .26, p < .01, respectively).None of the control variables was signifi-cantly related to Time 2 own relationshipproblem-solving efficacy, except for Time 1own problem-solving efficacy (β = .29, p <

.01) and relationship length (β = .17, p <

.05). Likewise, none of the control vari-ables was significantly related to Time 2 per-ceived partner relationship problem-solvingefficacy, except for Time 1 perceived partner


Tabl

e2.

Stud

y2

biva

riat

eco

rrel

atio

ns

Var

iabl

es1

23

45

67

89

10

1.Pa

rtne

rvi

rtue

s1

2.T

1re

latio

nshi

ppr

oble

mso

lvin

g0.

56∗∗

13.

T2

rela

tions

hip

prob

lem

solv

ing

0.47

∗∗0.

48∗∗

14.

T1

part

ner

rela

tions

hip

prob

lem

solv

ing

0.61

∗∗0.

71∗∗

0.40

∗∗1

5.T

2pa

rtne

rre

latio

nshi

ppr

oble

mso

lvin

g0.

52∗∗

0.44

∗∗0.

65∗∗

0.58

∗∗1

6.Te

amw

ork

subs

cale

0.74

∗∗0.

50∗∗

0.32

∗∗0.

52∗∗

0.37

∗∗1

7.R

elat

ions

hip

satis

fact

ion

0.74

∗∗0.

51∗∗

0.39

∗∗0.

49∗∗

0.39

∗∗0.

59∗∗

18.

Rel

atio

nshi

ple

ngth

0.15

0.17

0.25

∗∗0.

130.

25∗∗

0.22

∗0.

23∗

19.

Part

icip

ant

age

0.01

0.07

−0.0

10.

19∗

0.18

0.04

0.02

0.15

110

.Pa

rtic

ipan

tge

nder

0.11

−0.0

30.

140.

030.

170.

050.

080.

120.

001

Not

e.G

ende

rw

asco

ded

0=

mal

e,1

=fe

mal

e.∗ p

≤.0

5.∗∗

p≤

.01.

β = .29**

β = .26**

PerceivedPartnerVirtues

Own Problem-Solving Efficacy

Partner Problem-Solving Efficacy

Figure 1. Time 1 perceived partner virtuespredicts Time 2 own and partner problem-solving efficacy: Study 2.Note. Control variables were included, butare not depicted. Perceived partner virtueswere measured at Time 1. Own and partnerproblem-solving efficacy were measured atTime 2.∗∗p < .01.

problem-solving efficacy (β = .41, p < .001)and relationship length (β = .18, p < .05).Main findings are summarized in Figure 1.

Thus, Study 2 provided additional evidencethat viewing one’s partner as more virtuouspredicts changes over time in one’s own rela-tional problem-solving efficacy, as well aschanges in the perception of one’s partner’srelational problem-solving efficacy. However,both Studies 1 and 2 provide limited infor-mation on the process by which this occurs.Study 3 addresses this gap by examining theextent to which participants turning to theirpartners for support functions as a mediator ofthe relation between perceived partner virtuesand problem solving.

Study 3

The previous studies provide a clear picture ofthe relation between perceived partner virtuesand problem-solving efficacy, but they do notaccount for the mechanism by which thisoccurs. Study 3 tests the hypothesis that per-ceived partner virtues will predict problem-solving efficacy through how much partnersseek out help and support from one another.The broader purpose of this study focused onfriendship, which is why we only examinedfriendship relationships.


Method


The sample comprised 119 undergraduates(94 females; median age = 19) who reportedon their relationship with their close friend(as defined by the participant). They receivedcourse credit for their participation. Partici-pants completed all measures twice, initially(Time 1) and again 3 weeks later (Time 2).

Measures

Perceived partner virtues. Perceived partnervirtues were again measured as in previousstudies (Hawkins et al., 2007; α = .90). Par-ticipants rated their partners on a 7-point scalethat ranged from 1 = almost never to 7 =almost always.

Problem-solving efficacy. Problem-solvingefficacy was measured using the four-itemscale used in Studies 1 and 2 (α = .77). Par-ticipants rated themselves on a 5-point thatranged from 1 = not at all true to 5 = com-pletely true.

Perceived problem-solving efficacy of partner.Perceived problem-solving efficacy of partnerwas measured using the four-item scale usedin Studies 1 and 2 (α = .77). Participants ratedthemselves on a 5-point that ranged from 1 =not at all true to 5 = completely true.

Support seeking. Support seeking behaviorwas measured 4 weeks apart using a 16-item(e.g., “My friend is a person I can count on foradvice”; “I make an effort to stay in contactwith my study partner”) modified version ofthe Attachment Features and Functions Scale(Tancredy & Fraley, 2006; αs = .97 and .98at Times 1 and 2, respectively).

Relationship satisfaction. Relationship sat-isfaction was assessed using the eight-itemrelationship satisfaction subscale from theInvestment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, &Agnew, 1998) measure of relationship sat-isfaction with optimized psychometric prop-erties. A sample item was “In general howsatisfied are you with your relationship”

(answered on a 7-point scale ranging fromnot at all to extremely ; higher scores indicatemore satisfaction; Time 1, α = .76; Time 2,α = .85).


Mediation analysis

Before completing the mediation analyses,bivariate correlations were computed amongall variables of interest and control variables.Results are reported in Table 3. Preparatoryto our mediation analysis, path analyses wereconducted to compute direct effects.

To examine our mediation hypothesis, apath model was specified using Amos 7.0(Arbuckle, 2006). Using Amos 7.0, we com-puted a confidence interval for the size ofthe indirect path between perceived part-ner virtues and perceived problem solvingthrough support seeking. Computer-intensiveresampling methods were used because theyinvolve fewer assumptions and are moreaccurate than traditional tests of mediation(MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). Boot-strapping was used to gain more accurate con-fidence intervals for the analysis (Preacher& Hayes, 2008). Mediational pathways weretested for both the concurrent model(Figure 2) and longitudinal model (Figure 3)for own and partner problem-solving efficacy.

We tested first for mediation at Time 1(con-current model). Preliminary path analysissupported the expected direct relation betweenTime 1 perceived partner virtues and Time1 own relationship problem-solving efficacy(β = .73, p < .01) and partner relationshipproblem-solving efficacy (β = .74, p < .01).The mediation model tested the impact ofTime 1 perceived partner virtues on Time 1own and partner relationship problem-solvingefficacy through Time 1 support seeking, con-trolling for the teamwork subscale of thevirtues profile, participant gender and age,relationship length, and relationship satisfac-tion. The indirect path through support seek-ing for concurrent perceived partner virtuesand own problem-solving efficacy was sta-tistically significant, 95% CI [0.12, 0.22].Likewise, the indirect path through sup-port seeking for concurrent perceived partner


Tabl

e3.

Stud

y3

biva

riat

eco

rrel

atio

ns

Var

iabl

es1

23

45

67

89

10

1.Pa

rtne

rvi

rtue

s1

2.T

1re

latio

nshi

ppr

oble

mso

lvin

g0.

73∗∗

13.

T2

rela

tions

hip

prob

lem

solv

ing

0.65

∗∗0.

59∗∗

14.

T1

part

ner

rela

tions

hip

prob

lem

solv

ing

0.75

∗∗0.

88∗∗

0.40

∗∗1

5.T

2pa

rtne

rre

latio

nshi

ppr

oble

mso

lvin

g0.

52∗∗

0.42

∗∗0.

75∗∗

0.40

∗∗1

6.Te

amw

ork

subs

cale

0.72

∗∗0.

54∗∗

0.55

∗∗0.

58∗∗

0.49

∗∗1

7.R

elat

ions

hip

satis

fact

ion

0.58

∗∗0.

47∗∗

0.38

∗∗0.

46∗∗

0.29

∗∗0.

41∗∗

18.

Rel

atio

nshi

ple

ngth

−0.1

5−0

.01

−0.0

6−0

.06

−0.0

4−0

.07

−0.1

01

9.Pa

rtic

ipan

tag

e−0

.02

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.05

−0.1

10.

36∗∗

110

.Pa

rtic

ipan

tge

nder

0.18

0.07

0.24

∗∗0.

100.

23∗

0.07

−0.0

2−0

.05

−0.1

51

Not

e.G

ende

rw

asco

ded

0=

mal

e,1

=fe

mal

e.∗ p

≤.0

5.∗∗

p≤

.01.

β = .74** β = .29**

β = .23**β = .73**

(β = .52**)

β = .74**(β = .57**)


TurningTowardsPartner

OwnRelationship

Problem-Solving

PartnerRelationship

Problem-Solving

Figure 2. Turning to partner mediates therelation between perceived partner virtues andown and partner relationship problem-solvingefficacy at Time 1: Study 3.Note. Control variables were included, but arenot depicted.∗∗p < .01.

β = .65** β = .56**

β = .47**

β = .65**

(β = .35**)

β = .52**(β = .16**)


TurningTowardsPartner

OwnRelationship

Problem-Solving

PartnerRelationship

Problem-Solving

Figure 3. Turning to partner at Time 2 medi-ates the relation between perceived partnervirtues at Time 1 and own and partner rela-tionship problem-solving efficacy at Time 2:Study 3.Note. Control variables were included, but arenot depicted.∗∗p < .01.

virtues and perceived partner problem-solvingefficacy was significant, 95% CI [0.17, 0.25].Thus, support-seeking mediated the relationbetween concurrent perceived partner virtuesand own problem-solving efficacy, even whencontrolling for the teamwork subscale of thevirtues profile, initial levels problem solving,relationship satisfaction, age, and gender.

We then tested whether this mediationrelationship held up over time. Preliminarypath analysis supported the expected direct


relation between Time 1 perceived partnervirtues and Time 2 own relationship problem-solving efficacy (β = .65, p < .01) and part-ner relationship problem-solving efficacy (β =.52, p < .01). The longitudinal mediationmodel tested the relation between Time 1perceived partner virtues and Time 2 ownrelationship problem-solving efficacy throughTime 2 support seeking, controlling for theteamwork subscale of the virtues profile, par-ticipant gender and age, relationship length,relationship satisfaction, and initial levels ofrelationship problem solving. Results indi-cated CI 95% [0.32, 0.40] for Time 2 ownrelationship problem-solving efficacy and CI95% [0.26, 0.35] for Time 2 partner relation-ship problem-solving efficacy, controlling forthe teamwork subscale of the virtues profile,initial levels of problem solving, relationshipsatisfaction, age, and gender. This indicatesthat support-seeking behaviors are related tolater improved own and perceived partnerproblem-solving efficacy.

Testing an alternative model

Although our theoretical model focused on aspecific direction of effects, we acknowledgethat the variables included in this study likelyhave bidirectional effects and other modelsare plausible. For example, it could be thatrelationship problem-solving efficacy medi-ates the relation between partner virtues andsupport seeking or between perceived rela-tionship problem-solving efficacy and supportseeking. We tested the direct effects of thesemodels through a stepwise regression anal-ysis and found that Time 1 perceived part-ner virtues predicted Time 2 support seek-ing, β = .61, t (114) = 9.66, p < .01, and thisrelation remained, even when controlling forTime 1 support seeking, relationship satisfac-tion, and participant age and gender, β = .20,t (110) = 2.14, p < .05. However, it becamenonsignificant when also controlling for theteamwork subscale of the virtues profile, β =.03, t (109) = .24, p = .81. Mediation wasnot tested due to the insignificance of the maineffect. This lends support to the directionalitysuggested by our original model.

General Discussion

Every relationship encounters problems andchallenges that must be faced and workedthrough if the relationship is to continue.Yet the complex processes underlying theseinteractions have not been fully understood.We used a developmental model of relationalcompetence as a framework, supported byattribution theory, to examine the relationsbetween partner virtues, attachment featuresand functions, and problem solving in friend-ship pairs and dating couples. Our findingsprovide support for this model by show-ing that for friendship pairs and dating cou-ples, higher perceived partner virtues pre-dicted more positive problem-solving efficacythrough the mechanism of attachment featuresand functions. This relation occurred bothconcurrently and across time. In the cross-sectional study, participants who viewed theirpartners as virtuous reported better positiveproblem-solving efficacy. Longitudinally, par-ticipants who viewed their partner as morevirtuous initially viewed themselves and theirpartners as better problem solvers later.

Attribution theory suggests that interper-sonal interactions are shaped by the interpre-tations each partner ascribes to the interactionand their partners’ behaviors. The presentresults are consistent with the documentedassociation between relationship-enhancingattributions (e.g., perceiving partner as hav-ing more relationship virtues) and positiveproblem-solving behaviors (Bradbury &Fincham, 1992) in that they show participantswho ascribed more positive characteristics totheir partner viewed themselves and their part-ners as more efficacious in solving their rela-tionship problems.

Taking these perspectives in concert, peo-ple who perceive their partners as virtuousdisplay more relational problem-solving effi-cacy and view their partners as better problemsolvers. Three studies, using multiple mea-sures, consistently supported this hypothesis.The first study showed that perceived partnervirtues predicted concurrent problem-solvingefficacy (as suggested by attribution theory),even when controlling for levels of relation-ship satisfaction. The second study showed


that this relation also held true across timeand that perceived partner virtues predictedlater problem-solving efficacy even when con-trolling for levels of relationship satisfactionand initial problem-solving efficacy. Study 3showed that support-seeking behavior medi-ated the relation between perceived partnervirtues and own and partner problem-solvingefficacy. Thus, people who experience theirpartners as being virtuous are more likely toturn to their partner for support, which in turnleads to better problem-solving efficacy.

This research has implications for coupleintervention by moving practitioners fromsole reliance on skills-based education to helppartners identify virtues in one another andto turn to their partners for support andhelp when in problem-solving situations. Thisresearch also highlights the importance of thistype of relationship education for people notpresently in relationships as well as thosein dating relationships. Further research willbe needed in this area to determine the bestmethod of assisting people in this work.In addition, this research provides furthersupport for the importance of looking beyondnegatives and what is missing in relationshipsto focus on positives in the relationship.

Limitations and future directions

The current research utilizes a variety of mea-sures and methods in an attempt to fullyaddress the topic investigated, but it is notwithout limitations. Future studies shouldbe conducted with more diverse samples,over longer time periods, and with a bet-ter validated measure of problem solving toensure the generalizability of the current find-ings. Also, it should be noted that positiveproblem-solving skills may not be beneficialfor all couples. McNulty and Russell (2010)found that negative problem-solving behav-iors (e.g., blaming and commanding) signifi-cantly decreased marital satisfaction over timewhen problems were minor. However, theopposite was true when initial problems weresevere (e.g., substance abuse). In light ofthis finding, future research should be con-ducted to determine for whom perceivingtheir partner as more virtuous might not be

beneficial. Next, although it is assumed thatperceived partner virtues reflect both subjec-tive attribution and actual enactment of virtue,it was not possible to parse out the effectsin the context of the current studies. Like-wise, although it is likely that problem-solvingefficacy is related to actual problem-solvingbehaviors, this cannot be determined in thecurrent studies. Future research should exam-ine these distinctions.

Conclusions

Our research supports a developmental modelof relational competence, supported by anattribution theory perspective and points to theimportance of the perception of virtues withinone’s partner in relationship problem-solvingefficacy. People who view their partners asmore virtuous display better problem-solvingskills than those who do not. This relationshipis displayed across time, as well. In addition,our data provide a starting point for under-standing the mechanism through which part-ner’s perceptions play out in problem-solvinginteractions: people who believe their partnersto be virtuous turn to their partners more forhelp and support. Although there is poten-tially more to uncover about perceived partnervirtues and their effects on problem-solvingefficacy, our research provides a solid basefor understanding this relationship.

References

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Belzer, K. D., D’Zurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A.

(2002). Social problem solving and trait anxiety aspredictors of worry in a college student population.Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 573–585.

Bodenmann, G., Bradbury, T. N., & Pihet, S. (2009).Relative contributions of treatment-related changes incommunication skills and dyadic coping skills to thelongitudinal course of marriage in the framework ofmarital distress prevention. Journal of Divorce andRemarriage, 50, 1–21.

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributionsand behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 63, 613–628.

Broadie, S. (1991). Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford, Eng-land: Oxford University Press.

Carroll, J. S., Badger, S., & Yang, C. (2006). Theability to negotiate or the ability to love? Evaluatingthe developmental domains of marital competence.Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1001–1032.


Chan, D. W. (2002). Stress, self-efficacy, social support,and psychological distress among perspective Chineseteachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 22,557–569.

Cheung, S. K., & Sun, S. Y. K. (2000). Effects of self-efficacy and social support on the mental health con-ditions of mutual and organization members. SocialBehavior and Therapy, 28, 413–422.

Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J.(2004). Before they said “I do”: Discriminatingamong marital outcomes over 13 years. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 66, 613–626.

Cobb, R. J., Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Attach-ment security and marital satisfaction. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1131–1143.

Connolly, J., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Romantic relation-ships in adolescence: The role of friends and peersin their emergence. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, &C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic rela-tionships in adolescence (pp. 266–290). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Corcoran, K. O., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attach-ment, self-efficacy, perspective taking, and conflictresolution. Journal of Counseling and Development,78, 473–483.

Doherty, W. J. (1982). Attributional style and negativeproblem solving in marriage. Family Relations, 31,201–205.

Fincham, F. D. (2001). Attributions and close relation-ships: From Balkanization to integration. In G. J.Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbookof social psychology (pp. 3–31). Oxford, England:Blackwell.

Fincham, F. D. (2003). Marital conflict: Correlates, struc-ture and context. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 12, 23–27.

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage inthe new millennium: A decade in review. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 72, 630–649.

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Davila, J. (2004). For-giveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journalof Family Psychology, 18, 72–81.

Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H.(2007). Transformative processes in marriage: Ananalysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 69, 275–292.

Fowers, B. J. (1998). Psychology and the good marriage.American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 516–541.

Fowers, B. J. (2000). Beyond the myth of marital happi-ness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fowers, B. J. (2001). The limits of a technical conceptof a good marriage: Exploring the role of virtue incommunication skills. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 27, 327–340.

Fowers, B. J. (2005). Virtue and psychology: Pursuingexcellence in ordinary practices. Washington, DC:APA Press.

Fowers, B. J., Lyons, E., Montel, K., & Shaked, N.(2001). Positive illusions about marriage amongmarried and single individuals. Journal of Family Psy-chology, 15, 95–109.

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the rulerwith item response theory: Increasing precision ofmeasurement for relationship satisfaction with theCouples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psy-chology, 21, 572–583.

Furman, W. (1999). Friends and lovers: The role of peerrelationships in adolescent romantic relationships. InW. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships asdevelopmental contexts, the Minnesota symposia onchild psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 133–154) Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A.(2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles forrelationships with parents, friends, and romantic part-ners. Child Development, 73, 241–255.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or failand how you can make yours last. New York, NY:Fireside.

Hawkins, A. J., Fowers, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Yang, C.(2007). Conceptualizing and measuring a constructof marital virtues. In S. Hofferth & L. Casper (Eds.),Handbook of measurement issues in family research(pp. 67–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hunler, O. S., & Gencoz, T. (2005). The effect of reli-giousness on marital satisfaction: Testing the mediatorrole of marital problem solving between religiousnessand marital satisfaction relationship. ContemporaryFamily Therapy, 27, 123–136.

Johnson, M. D., Cohan, C. L., Davila, J., Lawrence, E.,Rogge, R. D., Karney, B. R., . . . Bradbury, T. N.(2005). Problem-solving skills and affective expres-sions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73,15–27.

Karademas, E. C., & Kalantzi-Azizi, A. (2004). Thestress process, self-efficacy expectations, & psycho-logical health. Personality and Individual Differences,37, 1033–1043.

Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & Graham, S. M.(2011). Feeling comfortable voicing concerns in arelationship: The role of gratitude. Emotion, 11,52–60.

Lemay, E. P., Jr., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007).Projection of responsiveness to needs and the con-struction of satisfying communal relationships. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,834–853.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007).Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,593–615.

McNulty, J. K., & Russell, M. V. (2010). When “nega-tive” behaviours are positive: A contextual analysisof the long-term effects of problem-solving behav-iors on changes in relationship satisfaction. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 587–604.

Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2009). The architectureof interdependent minds: A motivation-managementtheory of mutual responsiveness. PsychologicalReview, 116, 908–928.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996)The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and


the construction of satisfaction in close relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,79–98.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic andresampling strategies for assessing and comparingindirect effects in multiple mediator models. BehaviorResearch Methods, 40, 879–891.

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004).Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizingconstruct in the study of intimacy and closeness.In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook ofcloseness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998).The investment model scale: Measuring commitmentlevel, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, andinvestment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.

Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2001). The capacity forromantic intimacy: Exploring the contribution of bestfriend and marital and parental relationships. Journalof Adolescence, 24, 379–399.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Pos-itive psychology: An introduction. American Psychol-ogist, 55, 5–14.

Sullivan, K. T., Pasch, L. A., Johnson, M. D., & Brad-bury, T. N. (2010). Social support, problem-solving,

and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,631–644.

Swann, W. B., de la Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994).Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage andcourtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 66, 857–869.

Takaki, J., Nishi, T., Shimogama, H., Inada, T., Mat-suyama, N., Kumano, H., & Kuboki, T. (2003).Interaction among a stressor, depression, and anxi-ety in maintenance hemodialysis patients. BehavioralMedicine, 29, 107–112.

Tancredy, C. M., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). The natureof adult twin relationships: An attachment-theoreticalperspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 90, 78–93.

Weiss, R. L., & Heyman, R. E. (1997). A clinical-research overview of couples interactions. In W. K.Halford & H. J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbookof marriage and couples intervention (pp. 13–41).New York, NY: Wiley.

Wu, A. M. S., Tang, C. S. K., & Kwok, T. C. Y. (2004).Self-efficacy, health locus of control, and psycho-logical distress in elderly Chinese women withchronic illnesses. Ageing and Mental Health, 8,21–28.

the virtue of problem-solving: perceived partner …satisfaction (e.g., hunler & gencoz, 2005;...

Documents