For one partner, the kitchen looks clean; for the other, the kitchen needs cleaning. Is satisfaction with our relationship tied to whether we see the world the same way our partner does? In two dyadic longitudinal studies, we investigated how similarity in the perception of situations predicts relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships. In Study 1, 203 couples participated in a 14-day diary. In Study 2, 139 couples participated in a 7-day experience sampling. At each time point, partners separately reported their perception of a situation they had experienced together, using the DIAMONDS taxonomy (Study 1) and the Situational Interdependence Scale (Study 2). Across taxonomies, more similar situation perception positively predicted state relationship satisfaction and changes in trait relationship satisfaction at follow-up. Findings have important implications for understanding couples’ everyday lives and speak to the consequences of situation perception in close relationships.
Across two dyadic longitudinal studies, similarity in the perception of situations positively predicted relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships. Findings have important implications for understanding couples’ everyday lives.
Situation perception should be crucial for romantic relationships. Hypothesis: Situation perception similarity predicts relationship satisfaction. Methods: Two dyadic longitudinal studies in romantic couples. Results: Across studies, similar situation perception positively predicted relationship satisfaction. Findings have important implications for understanding couples’ everyday lives.
Imagine a couple, Ann and Ben. To Ann, the kitchen looks clean; to Ben, the kitchen looks dirty. As a consequence, Ben may mop the floor on his own, but hold a grudge because Ann did not pitch in with tidying up: Diverging perceptions of situations can create conflict and resentment. In the present research, we examined how similarity in the perception of interpersonal situations relates to relationship satisfaction.
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the subjective perception of situations (
Romantic partners spend much of their time together and, thus, jointly experience various situations. Since every individual interprets a situation through his or her own eyes (e.g.,
Much of the empirical research has focused on the positive association of spousal similarity with relationship outcomes (
Previous studies on similarity and relationship satisfaction have mainly focused on similarity in traits, such as personality traits, values, and attachment styles (
In the present article, we extend previous research by focusing on similarity in spouses’ perceptions of everyday interactions. If partners perceive the same situation differently, they may miscommunicate, misunderstand each other, and fail to coordinate their behavior (
We investigated the association between similarity in situation perception and relationship satisfaction in romantic couples in two dyadic longitudinal studies, a diary study and an experience sampling study. Longitudinal measurement enabled us to distinguish between state- and trait-like components of relationship satisfaction (e.g.,
In the present research, we studied similarity between profiles of spouses’ situation perceptions. Profile similarity follows a couple-centered approach, in contrast to variable-centered approaches such as using interaction terms from multiple regression analysis or response surface analysis (e.g.,
We conducted two dyadic longitudinal studies. Study 1 was a 14-day diary study in which we measured situation perceptions at 15 time points using the DIAMONDS scale (
The methods and hypotheses of Study 1 were preregistered (see We uploaded the pre-registration for Study 1 to the OSF on November 14th, 2016 before any data were analyzed. Data on daily situation perception and momentary relationship satisfaction Study 1 (T1-T14) were analyzed and reported in
Romantic couples participated on 15 consecutive days (T0-T14). On each assessment day, situation perceptions of each partner were assessed by having both partners report on a situation that the couple had experienced together. At each time point, relationship satisfaction of each partner was assessed.
The study was approved by the ethics committee at the University of Bamberg. We used the open source survey framework formr to implement our study (
Participants were recruited via announcements in university newsletters, via social media, and mailing lists. The study was advertised as a study about “personality and situation perception in romantic relationships.” As an incentive, participants received partial course credit (where applicable) and feedback on their personality once they had completed the diary study. In addition, couples of which both partners completed the study had the chance to win a 300€ event voucher. Based on practical constraints, we initially sought to recruit a minimum of 100 couples.
A total of 203 couples ( Five same-sex couples and one couple indicating “diverse” as the gender of one partner participated in the study.
In the diary,
The study was divided into three consecutive parts: T0, T1-T13, and T14. Every partner filled out the questionnaires of each part for themselves individually.
In addition to age and gender, participants provided information on their relationship status (married, registered partnership, in a relationship or in an open relationship), their relationship duration (in years) and whether they lived together with their partner. Furthermore, they indicated how many nights per week they usually spend together with their partner.
In order to assess a broad range of perceptions of situations, the Riverside Situational Q-sort (RSQ; 89-item version;
Relationship satisfaction was assessed with the relationship assessment scale (RAS;
In order to derive measures of similarity in situation perception, we computed indices across the 89 RSQ-items of the intake session and across the 8 S8-II-items on every day of the diary for each couple, respectively. We initially computed overall profile correlations (i.e., the actual
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Rel.Satm | 4.21 | 0.64 | — | |||
2. Rel.Satf | 4.22 | 0.67 | .56 | — | ||
3. Overall profile correlation | .50 | .18 | .16 | .25 | — | |
4. Distinctive profile correlation | .29 | .20 | .06 | .06 | .76 | — |
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Rel.Satm, int | 4.23 | 0.63 | — | |||||||
2. Rel.Satf, int | 4.22 | 0.63 | .51 | — | ||||||
3. Rel.Satm, diary | 4.00 | 0.84 | .41 | .24 | — | |||||
4. Rel.Satf, diary | 3.99 | 0.90 | .26 | .34 | .49 | — | ||||
5. Rel.Satm, fol | 4.28 | 0.59 | .85 | .45 | .46 | .29 | — | |||
6. Rel.Satf, fol | 4.33 | 0.58 | .48 | .82 | .29 | .40 | .51 | — | ||
7. Overall profile correlation | .72 | .27 | .09 | .09 | .20 | .24 | .14 | .13 | — | |
8. Distinctive profile correlation | .44 | .43 | .03 | .01 | .06 | .05 | .08 | .02 | .66 | — |
To account for the dyadic data structure, we used actor-partner interdependence models for distinguishable dyads in accordance with
The dyadic data structure at T0 included 182 dyads. An actor-partner interdependence model analysis was run to examine the impact of similarity in situation perception on general relationship satisfaction of each partner.
The multilevel structure of the dyadic diary data at T1–T14 in accordance with the multilevel model for dyadic diary data (
First, a null model was run to examine the intraclass correlation of state relationship satisfaction for every partner at T1–T14. Further models were run to examine the impact of daily similarity in situation perception (a Level 1 predictor) on state relationship satisfaction of both partners (within-level effect), and of average similarity in situation perception (a Level 2 predictor) on the mean level of relationship satisfaction for every partner across diary days (between-level effect).
We also analyzed the effect of similarity in situation perception on change in trait relationship satisfaction between the intake and the last session. Similarity in situation perception was modeled as the mean score of similarity for every dyad across diary days at the between level. Change in men’s and women’s relationship satisfaction was modeled using residualized change scores by including relationship satisfaction at intake as a predictor.
To investigate whether the relation between similarity in situation perception and relationship satisfaction differed with respect to gender, we constrained the effects across gender in subsequent analyses (see
Focusing on overall profile correlations, results revealed that participants reported higher general relationship satisfaction when they perceived the situation more similarly to their partner (
Effect | Estimate | Posterior |
One-tailed |
LCL | UCL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall profile correlation | |||||
Rel.Satm ← Sim | .17b | 0.07 | .020 | .03 | .29 |
Rel.Satf ← Sim | .26b | 0.07 | < .001 | .12 | .37 |
Distinctive profile correlation | |||||
Rel.Satm ← Sim | .06a | 0.06 | .170 | -.05 | .18 |
Rel.Satf ← Sim | .06a | 0.06 | .170 | -.05 | .17 |
aconstrained effects across gender
bunconstrained effects across gender
Results from the null model revealed an intraclass correlation of ICC = .39 for male spouses’ and an ICC = .28 for female spouses’ relationship satisfaction. Analyses indicated that 39% of the variance in male spouses’ daily relationship satisfaction and 28% in female spouses’ daily relationship satisfaction was due to differences between dyads, whereas 61% in male spouses and 72% in female spouses was due to differences between daily situations (see also
Investigating the within-level effect of daily situation perception on state relationship satisfaction by focusing on overall profile correlations revealed that partners were more satisfied with their relationship on days when their situation perceptions converged than on days when they differed. In addition, we also investigated whether average similarity in situation perceptions across diary days related to the mean level of relationship satisfaction across diary days (between-level effects; Model comparison revealed a smaller DIC for the constrained model than the unconstrained model, indicating better model fit of the constrained model. This finding is in line with research showing that the DIC is prone to overfitting and is less robust in mixed model designs (
We also tested whether similarity in situation perception predicted change in relationship satisfaction (
Effect | Study 1 |
Study 2 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | Posterior |
One-tailed |
LCL | UCL | Estimate | Posterior |
One-tailed |
LCL | UCL | |
Overall profile correlation | ||||||||||
Within-Level | ||||||||||
Rel.Satm ← Sim | .17b | 0.03 | < .001 | .11 | .21 | .04b | .02 | .014 | .01 | .08 |
Rel.Satf ← Sim | .19b | 0.03 | < .001 | .12 | .22 | .05b | .02 | .013 | .01 | .08 |
Between-Level | ||||||||||
Rel.Satm ← Sim | .08b | 0.04 | < .001 | .03 | .16 | .20b | .05 | < .001 | .10 | .30 |
Rel.Satf ← Sim | .09b | 0.04 | < .001 | .03 | .16 | .19b | .04 | < .001 | .10 | .26 |
Distinctive profile correlation | ||||||||||
Within-Level | ||||||||||
Rel.Satm ← Sim | .03a | 0.02 | .036 | -.00 | .07 | -.05b | .02 | .010 | -.08 | -.01 |
Rel.Satf ← Sim | .03a | 0.02 | .059 | -.01 | .06 | -.04b | .02 | .038 | -.08 | .00 |
Between-Level | ||||||||||
Rel.Satm ← Sim | .04a | 0.05 | .250 | -.07 | .12 | .06b | .06 | .120 | -.05 | .18 |
Rel.Satf ← Sim | .04a | 0.06 | .250 | -.08 | .14 | .02b | .05 | .305 | -.08 | .13 |
aconstrained effects across gender
bunconstrained effects across gender
Effect | Study 1 |
Study 2 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | Posterior |
One-tailed |
LCL | UCL | Estimate | Posterior |
One-tailed |
LCL | UCL | |
Overall profile correlation | ||||||||||
Rel.Satm, fol ← Sim | .17b | 0.04 | < .001 | .11 | .25 | .07b | .08 | .180 | -.09 | .22 |
Rel.Satf, fol ← Sim | .16b | 0.05 | < .001 | .07 | .23 | .24b | .08 | <.001 | .05 | .39 |
Distinctive profile correlation | ||||||||||
Rel.Satm, fol ← Sim | .14b | 0.05 | < .001 | .06 | .24 | -.11a | .27 | .350 | -.66 | .38 |
Rel.Satf, fol ← Sim | .05b | 0.06 | .270 | -.06 | .14 | -.11a | .27 | .350 | -.66 | .38 |
aconstrained effects across gender
bunconstrained effects across gender
In Study 2, we sought to replicate the findings from Study 1 using experience sampling and a different situation taxonomy. For one week, romantic couples received seven questionnaires a day. Situation perceptions were assessed by asking each member to report on the last situation they had experienced with their partner and then rating this situation. Relationship satisfaction was assessed at each time point, as well as a day before and a week after the experience sampling phase.
Data for Study 2 were independently collected as part of the Interdependence in Daily Life Study (
Participants were recruited via two Dutch panel agencies as well as word of mouth. The study required a romantic relationship of at least four months. Participants were informed that the study consisted of a 2–2.5-hour laboratory intake session and a seven-day experience sampling phase. Participants were paid a show-up fee of €20, up to €10 in performance-dependent pay for unrelated measures, €0.50 for each completed experience sampling survey, as well as €20 if they completed at least 80% of the experience sampling surveys. Participants earned on average €63.65 (
139 couples (
With each survey, participants were asked to describe the last situation they had experienced with their partner since the preceding measurement, reporting
The study consisted of three parts, a laboratory intake, an experience sampling phase beginning the day after the intake, and an online follow-up survey a week after the end of the experience sampling phase.
In the laboratory, participants first completed individual difference questionnaires, relationship-specific measures, and demographic measures. Participants also played a series of incentivized economic games. Finally, participants received detailed instructions about the experience sampling phase. Research assistants read a script and used slides to present and explain all questionnaires included in the experience sampling surveys. The exact text of the instructions can be found in the Procedures document in the
For seven consecutive days, participants received seven messages a day between 08:00 and 22:00. This window was divided into seven blocks of two hours, and participants received a message at a random time within each block (with a minimum of 45 minutes between messages). Partners were contacted simultaneously. If participants did not open the link in the message, a reminder was sent after 15 minutes. Survey links remained open for 45 minutes; the median time until opening the link was 3 minutes. Each link directed participants to a short survey (median time to completion 2:36 minutes).
Participants were first asked whether they had experienced a situation with their partner since responding to the last questionnaire. If so, they were asked to report on the last situation they had experienced with their partner. If not, participants were asked about a situation they had experienced with another person or alone. Participants were instructed to describe the situation in one to three sentences, focusing on who was present and what happened. Afterwards, participants completed a measure of situation perception and a number of attitude items, including their relationship satisfaction.
One week after the end of their experience sampling phase, participants were invited to complete a ten-minute online follow-up survey, which included a measure of relationship satisfaction. A reminder was sent after three days. A total of 212 participants started the follow-up survey.
In addition to age and gender, participants provided information on their relationship status (unmarried, civil partnership, married, other) and the start of their relationship (month/year) in the intake survey.
We measured the perception of daily life situations using the Dutch 10-item short-version of the Situational Interdependence Scale (SIS;
During intake and follow-up, we assessed relationship satisfaction with items from the Global Investment Model Scale (
Following the same analytic strategy in Study 1, we computed overall and distinctive profile correlations (
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Rel.Satm, int | 6.10 | .91 | — | |||||||
2. Rel.Satf, int | 6.07 | .97 | .43 | — | ||||||
3. Rel.Satm, exp | 4.67 | .59 | .32 | .28 | — | |||||
4. Rel.Satf, exp | 4.67 | .62 | .17 | .43 | .29 | — | ||||
5. Rel.Satm, fol | 6.12 | .83 | .47 | .46 | .45 | .20 | — | |||
6. Rel.Satf, fol | 6.05 | .91 | .26 | .61 | .19 | .57 | .42 | — | ||
7. Overall profile correlation | .53 | .36 | .13 | .15 | .18 | .17 | .09 | .18 | — | |
8. Distinctive profile correlation | .20 | .47 | .07 | .04 | .05 | .02 | .07 | .03 | .66 | — |
The analyses for Study 2 closely followed Study 1; therefore, here we only note deviations. We analyzed data using Mplus Version 8.2 (
Intraclass correlations from the null model indicated that 69.1% of the variance in men’s and 70.5% in women’s relationship satisfaction was due to differences between dyads, whereas 30.9% of the variance in men and 29.5% in women was due to situational differences.
Investigating the within-level effect of situation perception on situational relationship satisfaction by focusing on overall profile correlations revealed that partners were more satisfied with their relationship in situations when situation perceptions converged than in situations when they differed (
We also tested whether average similarity in situation perception predicted change in relationship satisfaction (
We show that the degree to which partners agree in their perception of everyday situations relates positively to their relationship satisfaction, both in the moment and as a trait. Further, we found that similarity in situation perception predicted a change in relationship satisfaction up to two weeks later. Although previous research has already highlighted the predictive nature of situation perception regarding affect and behavior of individuals (e.g.,
Situation perception similarity was, in both studies, consistently positively associated with relationship satisfaction when using overall profile correlations as an index of similarity, which is in line with our preregistered hypothesis. The effects for distinctive profile correlations were mostly smaller and inconsistently predictive of relationship satisfaction. This is in line with research showing distinctive profile correlations to be smaller in size than overall profile correlations and to exhibit weaker associations with desirable outcomes (
Exploratory analyses comparing different types of profile similarity — i.e., shape, scatter, elevation (
How does situation perception similarity in shape relate to relationship satisfaction? Indices of similarity in shape are particularly sensitive to the varying degrees of agreement across different dimensions of situation perception. Relationship researchers have long recognized that objective features of situations are mentally processed, and that it is the perceived situation that people act upon (
Previous research has shown that situation perception is associated with affective states and social behavior (
While the use of different taxonomies and measures across two studies adds to the validity and generalizability of this research, it also raised some questions. Intraclass correlations of state relationship satisfaction varied somewhat between Study 1 and Study 2. This may be due to the use of a very short (one-item) scale in Study 2. Limited variance in this item may also have been the reason why within-level effects of the similarity indices on relationship satisfaction were smaller in Study 2 than in Study 1. Further differences, such as gender differences in the relation between situation perception and change in relationship satisfaction, may also be due to using the DIAMONDS taxonomy (
Despite these strengths, the generalizability of our findings is constrained by our samples, which albeit heterogeneous, overrepresented younger and more educated couples. In addition, our samples were from two Western European countries and findings may not generalize across cultures. Further examination of demographic, cultural, and relationship characteristics may uncover effect heterogeneity.
One potential way to interpret our findings is that similar situation perception is associated with relationship satisfaction through joint behavior of both partners. Future research may elucidate whether shared perceptions of situations are associated with better communication, greater mutual understanding, and more efficient coordination as pathways to relationship satisfaction. For example, longitudinal studies may explore the relationship between similarity in situation perception and the development of relationship-specific norms and joint goals (e.g., both want each other to make a career;
Another way to interpret our findings is that perceiving situations in a normative, desirable way (i.e., to experience situations with the partner like most other people do) was related to relationship satisfaction. Thus, future research may want to elaborate on the core of normativeness in situation perceptions. For example, it is possible that shared perceptions of positivity/negativity may have driven the effects. Previous research has shown that measures of situation perception are to some extent correlated with positive/negative affect (e.g.,
Throughout their daily lives, romantic partners experience a great variety of situations with each other. A shared understanding of these situations may afford couples the opportunity to engage in responsive and pro-relationship behaviors. The current work shows that the degree to which partners agree in their perception of these situations is associated with their relationship satisfaction both in the moment and in the longer term.
We thank Tessa Kohlberg, Aileen Marske, Catherine Molho, Susanne Rosenheinrich, Elisabeth Stenzel, and the Interdependence in Daily Life team for help with data collection. We are grateful to Bettina Weber for her contributions to the piloting of Study 1.
Study 1 was supported by a research grant from the University of Bamberg awarded to Katrin Rentzsch. Study 2 was supported by an ERC Starting Grant (European Research Council; 635356) awarded to Daniel Balliet.
Study 1 was approved by the ethics committee at the University of Bamberg. Data for Study 2 were independently collected as part of the Interdependence in Daily Life Study (
Anonymized data from Study 2 are freely available (for access see
For this article, the following Supplementary Materials are available (for access see
The PDF-file "Supplemental_Material.pdf" including additional analyses, tables, figures.
For Study 1, preregistration documentation, codebook and analysis scripts.
For Study 2, codebook, data and analysis scripts.
For additional information, please refer to the readme file provided with the Supplementary Materials.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.