It's Not Just Who You'Re With, It's Who You Are Personality and Relationship Experiences Across Multiple Relationships

Its Not Just Who Youre With, Its Who You
Are: Personality and Relationship

Experiences Across Multiple Relationships
Richard W. Robins
University of California at Davis
Avshalom Caspi
Terrie E. Moffitt
Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London and
University of Wisconsin at Madison
ABSTRACT The present study examined the influence of stable person-

ality traits on romantic relationships using longitudinal data on a large,
representative sample of young adults. Relationship experiences (quality,
conflict, and abuse) showed relatively small mean-level changes over time
and significant levels of rank-order stability, even across different relation-
ship partners. Antecedent personality traits (assessed at age 18) predicted
relationship experiences at age 26 and change in relationship experiences
from age 21 to 26. Conversely, relationship experiences also predicted
This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health
(MH-61829, MH-45070, MH-49414, and MH-56344), the Graduate School of the
University of Wisconsin, and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit is supported by the New
Zealand Health Research Council. The paper benefited greatly from comments by
HonaLee Harrington. We are grateful to the Dunedin Unit investigators and staff,
and to the study members and their partners. Reprint requests should be sent to
Richard W. Robins, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis,
CA 95616-8686, or Terrie E. Moffitt, Social, Genetic and Developmental
Psychiatry Research Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, 111 Denmark Hill, London
SE5 8AF, England.
Journal of Personality 70:6, December 2002.
Copyright # 2002 by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
926 Robins et al.
change in personality. Importantly, these findings generally held across

relationship partners, suggesting that some people tend to be generally happy
(or unhappy) across relationships, and this is due, in part, to stable individual
differences in personality. Discussion focuses on the broader implications of
the findings, in particular the need for relationship researchers to consider the
importance of personality for why relationships thrive or fail and the need for
personality researchers to consider the impact of relationship experiences on
intraindividual personality development.
You interrupted me at least three times this morning, asserts Tracy.

Thats not true, responds Trevor. I only interrupted you once.
Youre always contradicting what I say! Tracy retorts. Well
youre stupid, exclaims Trevor. And so the argument continues. Such
conflicts are commonplace in intimate relationships and often lead to
dissatisfaction and, in some cases, abuse. The traditional view of
relationship satisfaction suggests that Tracy and Trevor are unhappy in
their relationship because they do not get along well with each other.
From this perspective, what makes people happy is having a partner
with whom they are compatible, who expresses thoughts and feelings
effectively, and who fulfills their needs. Numerous studies of
relationship outcomes have documented the importance of such
interpersonal dynamics (e.g., Gottman, 1998; Gottman & Levenson,
1986; Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985; Huston &
Chorost, 1994; Markman, 1981; Weiss & Heyman, 1990).
However, a burgeoning intrapersonal perspective suggests a
complementary view: It is not just who you are with that matters,
but who you are. From this perspective, Tracy and Trevor may be
dissatisfied with their relationship because they are generally unhappy,
anxious, and angry people. Several recent studies have documented
that stable personality traits reliably predict whos happy and whos
not in relationships (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000; Karney &
Bradbury, 1997; Kurdek, 1999; Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001; Robins,
Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). What is
still unknown is the extent to which the effects of personality are stable
across relationships and over time. That is, if Tracy and Trevor are
simply unhappy people, are they likely to remain unhappy in their
relationship several years down the line? And, should their relation-
ship end, will Tracy and Trevor be happy in their next relationship?
The aim of this study is to understand how personality traits
influence romantic relationships, and to test whether the influence of
Personality and Relationship Experiences 927
personality is consistent over time and across relationship partners. We

studied 712 individuals from a representative birth cohort whose
personality and relationship experiences were assessed at two points in
time during young adulthood. At ages 18 and 26, participants
completed the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ;
Tellegen, 1982; see also Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002), which
assesses Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality, and Con-
straint. At ages 18 and 26, participants were interviewed about positive
and negative aspects of their relationship, including relationship
quality, conflict, and abuse. These data provide a unique opportunity
to learn how personality and relationships develop in tandem.
Importantly, some participants remained with the same partner from
age 21 to 26, whereas others entered new relationships. This created a
natural experiment that allowed us to explore the implications of
remaining with the same partner, versus changing partners.
Goals of Research
The present study has four central goals. Our first goal was to examine
stability and change in relationship experiences during young
adulthood and to compare the level of stability to that found for
personality traits. Our second goal was to address two interrelated
questions about the effects of personality on relationships: (a) Do
antecedent personality traits predict relationship experiences? and (b)
Do antecedent personality traits predict intraindividual change in
relationship experiences? Both questions address whether there is a
personality profile that predisposes an individual to be happy or
unhappy in relationships. Our third goal was to examine whether
relationship experiences predict intraindividual change in personality.
That is, do relationship experiences change a persons personality?
Our fourth goal was to examine whether personality and relationship
experiences, and their influence on each other, are stable even across
different relationships. For example, are people who are satisfied in
one relationship more likely to be satisfied in other relationships, or are
relationship experiences, such as satisfaction, entirely a function of the
relationship itself? We also tested whether the effects of personality
generalize across different relationships: Does personality predict
relationship experiences even across different relationships? This
provides a strong test of the generalizability of personality effects
because it constitutes a cross-situational prediction; changes across
928 Robins et al.
relationships might reasonably be assumed to reflect differences

between two situations (i.e., between two relationship partners).
The findings have the potential to inform theory and research on
both relationships and personality. Researchers who study and treat
relationship dysfunction are likely to be interested in evidence that
stable personality traits influence relationship experiences, even across
different partners. Researchers seeking to understand sources of
intraindividual change in personality are likely to be interested in
evidence that experiences within an intimate relationship can alter the
course of personality development.
Previous Research on Personality and

Relationship Experiences
The study of personality and relationship outcomes has a long, but
punctuated, history. A number of early studies compared happily
married and unhappily married couples and found relatively strong
personality correlates of marital happiness, in particular Negative
Emotionality or Neuroticism (see Karney & Bradbury, 1995, for a
review). However, about two decades ago, this research was largely
supplanted by research emphasizing ongoing relationship dynamics.
This was partially a response to methodological problems with the
early research and partially a more general shift in the field away
from the study of personality differences. Research on partner abuse
has followed a similar path. Early studies pointed to the importance
of personality traits, but these studies were generally plagued by
methodological problems, and research on abuse increasingly moved
away from the study of individual differences. However, the
potential contribution of stable personality differences to shaping
abusive relationships has been underscored by several recent
longitudinal studies that have reported associations between early
developing aggressive behavioral patterns in childhood and sub-
sequent abusive behavior in adult romantic relationships (e.g.,
Giordano et al., 1999; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder,
1984; Moffitt, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000; Simons, Lin, &
Gordon, 1998).
Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the study of
personality and relationship experiences (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998;
Blum & Mehrabian, 1999; Caughlin et al., 2000; Ellis, 1998; Kurdek,
1999; Robins et al., 2000; Watson et al., 2000). In these studies,
researchers have used more sophisticated research designs and

statistical procedures to redress some of the problems with earlier
research in this area.
Extending Previous Research

The present study seeks to build on these improvements and extend
previous research in several ways. First, we conducted a longitudinal
study in which we assessed both personality and relationship experiences
at two time points. Although several studies have assessed relationship
quality at multiple time points, few have assessed both personality and
relationship experiences at two time points. Doing so allowed us to test
how changes in relationship experiences might be associated with
changes in personality. Another noteworthy feature of the design is that
our initial assessment of personality (at age 18 years) was 3 years prior to
our first assessment of relationship experiences and 8 years prior to our
second assessment of relationship experiences. For the vast majority of
participants, personality assessments were carried out before the
formation of their relationships, and relationship experiences at time
1 could not have influenced their prior personality. Thus, the design
allowed us to examine the effects of antecedent personality traits on
subsequent relationship experiences at two points in time, as well as on
intraindividual changes in relationship experiences across time.
Second, we carried out this longitudinal investigation as part of a
large-scale epidemiological study (Krueger, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000).
Unrepresentative sampling and low power compromise the general-
izability of findings from some previous studies. Given that relation-
ship experiences are multiply determined, it is unlikely that any given
predictor will account for more than a small percentage of the
variance. Karney and Bradbury (1995) noted that a sample of 600 is
needed to detect a small effect and called for more relationship
research using large samples to detect small but important main effects
and interactions. They also noted that most relationship studies have
been conducted on homogeneous samples that can restrict the
generalizability of findings and obscure important effects. Both power
and representativeness are further endangered by attrition, which
averages 31% in relationship studies (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
Attrition is concentrated among dissatisfied couples, leaving many
relationship studies with a restricted range of well-functioning
couples. In the present study, we examined the longitudinal relations
930 Robins et al.
between personality and relationship experiences in a large birth

cohort sample distinguished by minimal attrition.
Third, we examined relationship experiences during the transition
from adolescence to adulthood. One of the principle developmental
tasks of this transition period is to invest in and commit to intimate
relationships (Arnett, 2000; Erikson, 1963; White, 1966). Many
serious relationships are first formed in early adulthood. For example,
at age 18, 5% of the participants in our longitudinal study were living
with an intimate partner, whereas 59% were doing so by age 26. Many
important relationship outcomes also emerge during this age period.
For example, partner violence is heavily concentrated among young
adults and unmarried cohabiters (Greenfield et al., 1998). Given the
transitional nature of these years, young adulthood is an important
developmental period in which to examine the implications of earlier-
established personality characteristics for relationship experiences,
and it may also be a time during which personality and relationship
experiences are especially susceptible to change and mutual influence.
Moreover, by focusing on a single age group, age differences in
personality and relationship experiences cannot confound the effects.
Fourth, we examined the effects of personality across different
relationships. As Figure 1 shows, some of the participants in our study
Figure 1
Longitudinal design of the study. Personality and relationship
measures were available only for the study member,
and not his/her relationship partner.
remained with the same partner at both assessments, whereas others

changed partners. This natural experiment allowed us to determine the
extent to which relationship experiences reflect something about the
relationship versus something about the individuals personality. From
an interactional perspective, relationship experiences emerge out of
the transaction between who you are (i.e., your personality) and the
relationship environment you jointly create with your partner. Thus,
evidence that relationship experiences, and the effects of personality
on those experiences, generalize across different partners would
support the view that relationship experiences are, at least in part, a
feature of the person, and not just the environment.
Fifth, rather than focus exclusively on a single trait, we incorporated
into our longitudinal study a comprehensive personality assessment
system which measures one of the better known structural models of
personality traits (Patrick et al., 2002; Tellegen, 1982). The link
between Negative Emotionality and relationship dissatisfaction is now
well documented (Buss, 1991; Caughlin et al., 2000; Karney &
Bradbury, 1997; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Kurdek, 1999; Robins et al.,
2000; Watson et al., 2000), but much less is known about the role of
other personality traits in shaping the quality of relationships (Watson
et al., 2000). Our measure of personality (the MPQ) is particularly well
suited to the study of personality and relationships. Recent research has
highlighted the centrality of affective variables in relationship
experiences (Berscheid & Reis, 1998), and the MPQ maps the basic
domain of dispositions to experience certain emotions (Tellegen, 1982).
Sixth, we examined multiple indicators of relationship experiences.
Just as personality psychologists appreciate the need for comprehen-
sive trait coverage (Costa & McCrae, 1995; John & Srivastava, 1999;
Saucier & Goldberg, 1998), relationship researchers appreciate the
need to examine patterns of stability and change for different kinds of
relationship experiences (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Karney & Brad-
bury, 1995; Kurdek, 1999). We assessed three aspects of relationship
experiencesquality, conflict, and abuseand assessed how these
experiences changed over time. These three measures reflect both
adaptive and maladaptive aspects of relationships and both subjective
impressions (quality, conflict) and behavioral accounts (abuse) of what
goes on between intimate partners.
We approach the study of personality and relationships from a
particular theoretical perspective. Specifically, we see relationship
outcomes as emerging out of an ongoing transaction between stable
932 Robins et al.
individual differences and the relationship environment (e.g., Neyer &

Asendorpf, 2001). From this perspective, relationship-specific dy-
namics are manifestations of enduring personality traits. The thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors that occur within the context of a relationship
are not generated entirely through dyadic, interactional processes, but
rather, individuals create the microinteractional processes that
characterize healthy and unhealthy relationships. People bring
histories to relationships, and these histories are captured in part by
stable personality traits. For example, the relationship-specific
behaviors that Gottman (1994) considers detrimental to relation-
shipscriticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewallingmay
be seen as context-specific manifestations of a broader disposition
toward negative emotionality. Thus, depending on their constellation
of personality traits, some individuals may be happy in any
relationship whereas others may be unhappy in all relationships.
Based on this theoretical perspective, we formulated a set of
expectations about the developmental course of personality and
relationships during young adulthood. First, we expect that relation-
ship outcomes will be moderately stable over time. That is, individuals
who are in happy (or unhappy) relationships at age 21 will be more
likely to be in happy (or unhappy relationships) at age 26. This will be
true, regardless of whether the individual remains with the same
relationship partner. However, we expect that the stability of
relationship functioning will be lower than for personality because
relationship outcomes depend on the stability of both personality traits
and the transactional processes that occur between personality traits
and the relationship environment.
Second, we expect that personality traits will predict relationship
outcomes both concurrently and over time. Based on previous
research, negative emotionality will have the strongest and most
consistent effect on the quality of a relationship. Third, we expect that
personality traits will predict intraindividual change in relationship
outcomes. For example, individuals who tend to be nervous,
emotionally volatile, alienated, and prone to other forms of negative
emotionality will experience relationships that progressively deterio-
rate over time. Fourth, based on our transactional view of personality
and relationships, we expect that relationship experiences will predict
intraindividual change in personality. For example, individuals in
unhappy and abusive relationships will become increasingly tense,
fearful, hostile, and angry.
METHOD
Research Participants
Participants are members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and
Development Study, a longitudinal investigation of health and behavior in a
complete birth cohort (Silva & Stanton, 1996). The study members were born
in Dunedin, New Zealand, between April 1972 and March 1973. The original
birth cohort constitutes a general population sample, representative of the
social class and ethnic distribution of the general population of New Zealands
South Island. Study members are predominantly of European ancestry; fewer
than 7% of the sample identified themselves as part or full Maori or Pacific
Islander. The generalizability of findings from New Zealand, and specifically
from the Dunedin sample, to other industrialized nations has been documented
through cross-national comparisons of several health and behavior problems
and their correlates (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001).
When the children were first assessed at 3 years of age, 1,037 (91% of the
eligible births; 52% males) participated in the assessment and constitute the
base sample for the longitudinal study. Nine hundred ninety-three study
members (97% of living cohort members) participated in the age 18
assessment, 961 (94% of living cohort members) participated in the age 21
assessment, and 980 (96% of living cohort members) participated in the age
26 assessment. Participants were included in the present study if they had
been in an exclusive relationship of at least 1 month during the year prior to
the age 21 assessment and during the year prior to the age 26 assessments:
712 participants (384 women and 328 men) met these criteria. (These 712
participants represent 74% of the 956 study members who participated in
both the age 21 and 26 assessments.) Four percent of the participants were
married (and 9% were engaged to be married) at age 21 and 22% were
married (13% engaged) at age 26; 2% were married at both assessments, all
but one to the same partner. The mean relationship duration was 19 months at
age 21 and 43 months at age 26.
Measurement of Personality
We used a modified version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
(MPQ; Tellegen, 1982) to assess individual differences in personality. The
MPQ is a comprehensive assessment instrument that has been used in our
previous research on relationships in the Dunedin study (Robins, Caspi, &
Moffitt, 2000), as well as in previous investigations of the personality correlates
of relationship outcomes (e.g., Jockin, McGue, & Lykken, 1996).
The MPQ was designed to assess a broad range of individual differences
in affective and behavioral style and includes 10 primary scales that define
three higher-order superfactors: Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality,
934 Robins et al.
and Constraint (Tellegen & Waller, in press). The Negative Emotionality

superfactor consists of the Stress Reaction, Alienation, and Aggression scales;
individuals scoring high on Negative Emotionality have a low threshold for the
experience of negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and anger. Positive
Emotionality consists of the Well-Being, Social Potency, Social Closeness, and
Achievement scales; individuals scoring high on Positive Emotionality have a
low threshold for the experience of positive emotions, and tend to view life as
an essentially pleasurable experience. Constraint consists of the Control, Harm
Avoidance, and Traditionalism primary scales; individuals scoring high on
Constraint tend to act in a cautious and restrained manner, avoid thrills, and
endorse and conform to social norms.
Participants completed the MPQ when they were 18 years old (3 years
prospective to the age-21 relationship experiences) and again when they were
26 years old (concurrent with the age-26 relationship experiences). Composite
reliabilities for the three superfactors were .86 and .89 for Negative
Emotionality, .80 and .86 for Positive Emotionality, and .82 and .87 for
Constraint (at ages 18 and 26, respectively). Tellegen and Waller (in press)
reported 1-month test-retest reliabilities of .89 for all three superfactors.
Measurement of Relationship Functioning:

Quality, Conflict, and Abuse
To assess relationship experiences, participants were interviewed privately
at the Research Unit, with confidentiality guaranteed. Participants did not
know in advance the content of the interview schedule. Our 50-minute
relationship interview protocol was guided by contemporary research in this
area (e.g., Beier & Sternberg, 1987; Hudson, 1987; Larzelere & Huston,
1980; Locke & Wallace, 1987; Margolin, Burman, John, & OBrien, 1990;
Olson, Portner & Bell, 1982; Spanier, 1986; Straus, 1990). Three different
aspects of adult romantic relationships were derived from this interview.
Quality
Relationship quality was assessed using 28 interview questions that ask about
shared activities and interests, the balance of power, respect and fairness,
emotional intimacy and trust, and open communication. Answers were coded
0 (almost never), 1 (sometimes), or 2 (almost always), and were summed
across items to generate a score for each participant. Scale means were 35.3
at age 21 (coefficient alpha reliability = .92) and 37.5 at age 26 (alpha
reliability = .92).1
1. Differences between the present age 21 findings and those reported by Robins et al.
(2000) are due to the fact that Robins et al. reported data from a subsample of 360
Dunedin study members and their partners who were in relationships of at least
6 months or longer, using a 40-item measure of relationship quality.
Conflict
Relationship conflict was assessed using 18 interview questions concerning
sources of disagreement that participants experienced with their partners in a
number of domains (e.g., money, having/raising children, sexual relations,
future plans). Answers were coded 0 (none), 1 (some), or 2 (a lot), and summed
across items to generate a score for each participant. Scale means were 8.1 at
age 21 (alpha reliability = .84) and 6.5 at age 26 (alpha reliability = .83).
Abuse
Before interviewers turned to the topic of partner abuse, they gave
participants the option to decline that part of the interview. No participant
refused. Each abuse item was read aloud by the interviewer while participants
circled yes or no on a private answer sheet, reporting on their past-year
perpetration of abuse. Elsewhere, we have described in detail the interview
procedures, item content, source instruments, and reliability and validity of
the abuse measures used in the Dunedin study (Moffitt et al., 1997). The
abuse scale comprised 13 items describing physical acts such as slapping,
strangling, kicking, hitting, beating up, forcing sex, and using a weapon. The
yes responses to each act were summed to create a scale of the variety of
different abusive behaviors performed.2 Scale scores ranged from 0 to 11 at
age 21 (36% engaged in at least one act of abuse) and from 0 to 12 at age 26
(18% engaged in at least one act of abuse).
The Dunedin birth cohort includes persons perpetrating all levels of
partner abuse, from no abuse at all to clinically significant levels (i.e., abuse
resulting in injury, medical treatment, police intervention, a court conviction,
and/or self-reported help-seeking from a shelter, therapist, or a lawyer). The
mean abuse scores for Dunedin Study men and women in clinically abusive
couples were respectively 1.48 SD and 1.51 SD higher than the mean for men
and women in non-abusive couples, supporting the construct validity of the
Abuse scale (Moffitt, Robins, & Caspi, 2001).
2. Variety scales are desirable for several reasons (for a review see Moffitt et al.,
2000). First, variety scores are less skewed than frequency scores. Second, they give
equal weight to all acts, unlike frequency scores, which give more weight to
nonserious acts that are committed frequently (e.g., slapping a partner) and give less
weight to serious but infrequent acts (e.g., using a knife on a partner). Third, variety
scales are more reliable than frequency reports because Has X happened? is a more
accurate response format than How many times has X happened? especially among
respondents whose violent acts have lost their salience because they happen
frequently. Fourth, variety measures have been shown to be highly correlated with
frequency scores and with scores weighted for act seriousness and are known to be the
strongest predictors of future violence.
936 Robins et al.
The Abuse scale had an alpha reliability of .73 at age 21 and .83 at age 26.
Based on analyses of the age 21 data (Moffitt et al., 1997), approximately
three-fourths of the variance in Dunedin perpetrators reports was
corroborated by their victims, indicating strong validity for the measures of
mens abuse (latent r = .83) and womens (latent r = .71).3 (A correlation
between relationship partners reports is interpreted without squaring as the
proportion of variance that is explained or corroborated [Kenny, 1998].)
Individual Differences in Change

A common approach to assessing change across two waves of longitudinal
data is to predict time 2 scores controlling for time 1 scores (e.g., Caughlin
et al., 2000, p. 333). This analysis predicts the residual variance in time 2
scores after the variance due to time 1 scores has been removed. Another way
to do the same analysis, and one that is more typical in studies emphasizing
individual differences in change, is to compute residualized change scores by
regressing time 2 scores on time 1 scores and saving the residuals. This
provides an individual-level measure of how much a person changed and in
which direction. Residual change scores adjust for differences in initial status
and thus estimate how much individuals would have changed had they all
started out at the same level.
Change in the three MPQ scales was assessed using residual scores
computed by regressing age 26 scores on age 18 scores. Change in the three
relationship experiences was assessed using residual scores computed by
regressing age 26 scores on age 21 scores. For all six residual change scores,
positive scores indicate increases over time, and negative scores indicate
decreases. To examine predictors of individual differences in change, we
computed correlations between hypothesized predictors of change and the
residual change scores. For example, we correlated Negative Emotionality at
age 18 with residualized change in Abuse to determine whether adolescents
who are high in Negative Emotionality tend to increase in abuse from age 21
to 26.
Same -vs.-New Relationship Partner

One of the novel features of the present study is that some participants
remained in the same relationship between ages 21 and 26, whereas others
had entered new relationships during the 5-year period. Of the 712
participants, 215 (30.2%) had the same relationship partner at both
3. In the age 21 assessment, the partners of a subset of study members (N = 360)

completed personality and relationship measures. These data are analyzed and
discussed in Robins et al. (2000) and Moffitt et al. (2001).
assessments, and 497 (69.8%) had a different partner. In subsequent sections,

we refer to these two subsamples as same partner and new partner, and to
a dummy variable distinguishing between the two groups as same-vs.-new
partner. In the same partner subsample, 7% were married (13% engaged)
at age 21, and 47% were married (17% engaged) at age 26; mean relationship
duration was 25 months at age 21 and 86 months at age 26. In the new
partner subsample, 2% were married (7% engaged) at age 21, and 10% were
married (11% engaged) at age 26; mean relationship duration was 16 months
at age 21 and 25 months at age 26.
Women (35%) were more likely than men (24%) to have stayed with the
same partner from age 21 to 26, c2 (N = 712, df = 1) = 9.7, p < .01. To control
for this gender difference, we partial gender out of all subsequent analyses
involving same-vs.-new partner.
It is also important to determine whether same-vs.-new partner is correlated
with antecedent personality and relationship variables. Significant correlations
would indicate the presence of selection effects that need to be considered
when evaluating the effects of same-vs.-new partner. None of the antecedent
personality traits, measured at age 18, predicted who subsequently remained
with the partner they had at age 21 (rs ranged from .06 to .09).4 Moreover,
abuse at age 21 was not correlated with staying in the same relationship
(r = .00), indicating that people in abusive relationships were not more inclined
to get out of those relationships. However, we did find that Quality and Conflict
at age 21 were, respectively, positively (r = .23, p < .01) and negatively
(r = .10, p < .01) correlated with the tendency to remain with the same
partner; thus, people in happy relationships were slightly more likely to stay in
those relationships. To control for these differences, we partial same-vs.-new
out of all subsequent analyses involving relationship experiences.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results are divided into three sections. The first section reports
concurrent intercorrelations among the personality scales and among
4. To test whether this relation was moderated by initial relationship functioning, we

conducted moderated multiple regression analyses predicting the same-vs.-new
relationship variable from: (a) Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality, or
Constraint at age 18, (b) Relationship Quality, Conflict, or Abuse at age 21, and (c) the
product of their standard scores. Of the nine possible interactions, only one was
significant ( p < .05): Relationship Quality moderated the effect of Negative
Emotionality on the likelihood of staying in a relationship, such that high Negative
Emotionality individuals were more likely to stay in a relationship if it was bad
(b = .08 when Quality was one SD below the mean), and less likely to stay in a
relationship if it was good (b = .08 when Quality was one SD above the mean).
938 Robins et al.
the relationship experiences and gender differences on both sets of

variables. The second section assesses the stability of personality and
relationship experiences using two indexes of stability: mean-level
change and correlations over time. The third section predicts
relationship experiences from antecedent and concurrent personality
traits and, conversely, predicts personality from relationship experi-
ences; that is, we ask: Are there personality traits that predispose an
individual to have a happy and non-abusive relationship, and does the
experience of being in a happy and non-abusive relationship influence
personality development? In each section, we examine the potential
moderating and confounding effects of gender and same-vs.-new
partner. Statistical significance was evaluated using a p < .01 alpha
level for the total sample, and a p < .05 alpha level for analyses within
subsamples (gender, same-vs.-new partner) and for analyses involving
moderator or covariate effects.
Intercorrelations and Gender Differences

Personality Variables
Table 1 shows the concurrent intercorrelations among the MPQ
personality scales. The correlations are shown separately for age 18
(top half of the table) and age 26 (bottom half), and separately for men
(below the diagonal) and women (above the diagonal). The three
dimensions were generally weakly intercorrelated at both ages and for
both genders. This pattern suggests that Negative Emotionality,
Positive Emotionality, and Constraint represent three relatively
independent dimensions of personality, which is consistent with
previous research and theory (e.g., Tellegen & Waller, in press).
We found several sex differences (shown in the last column of
Table 1). Men were higher than women in Negative Emotionality at
age 18, t(681) = 3.42, p < .01, but not at age 26, t(710) = 1.67, ns. Men
were higher in Positive Emotionality at age 18, t(681) = 2.60, and at
age 26, t(710) = 3.74, both ps < .01. Women were higher in Constraint
at age 18, t(681) = 8.63, and at age 26, t(710) = 10.04, both ps < .01.
Table 2 shows the concurrent inter-correlations among the three
relationship variables. The pattern of findings was similar at age 21
(top half of the table) and age 26 (bottom half) and for both men
Table 1
MPQ Personality Scales: Concurrent Intercorrelations and
Sex Differences
Personality Negative Positive Sex

scale emotionality emotionality Constraint differencea
Age 18
Negative
emotionality .18* .28* M > F (d = .26*)
Positive
emotionality .16* .00 M > F (d = .20*)
Constraint .31* .19* M < F (d = .66*)
Age 26
Negative
emotionality .20* .17* M = F (d = .12)
Positive
emotionality .21* .04 M > F (d = .28*)
Constraint .19* .13* M > F (d = .75*)
Note. N = 384 women (above the diagonal) and 328 men (below the diagonal).
* p < .05.
a
Standardized mean difference (Cohens d) between men (M) and women (F).
Positive d values indicate that men scored higher than women.
(below the diagonal) and women (above the diagonal). Relationship

Quality and Conflict were negatively correlated (rs ranging from .42
to .61), suggesting that relationships characterized by positive
interpersonal interactions (e.g., intimacy and trust) are less likely to be
characterized by high levels of conflict. Abuse was negatively
correlated with Quality (rs ranging from .16 to .31) and positively
correlated with Conflict (rs ranging from .17 to .36). The lower
correlations with Abuse may reflect the fact that the Abuse scale is
behaviorally based, referring to specific behavioral acts, whereas the
Quality and Conflict scales involve subjective experience.5
In terms of sex differences (shown in the last column of Table 2),
men and women did not differ significantly in Relationship Quality or
5. Another possibility is that correlations with the Abuse scale are attenuated by
skewness in the measure (i.e., most individuals perpetrate little or no abuse). To test
this, we log-transformed the Abuse scale to reduce skewness. In every case, the
log-transformed Abuse scale had even weaker correlations with Quality and Conflict
than the untransformed scale.
940 Robins et al.
Table 2
Relationship Outcomes: Concurrent Intercorrelations and
Sex Differences
Quality Conflict Abuse Sex differencea

Age 21
Quality .42* .31* M < F (d = .10)
Conflict .49* .36* M < F (d = .08)
Abuse .20* .35* M < F (d = .19*)
Age 26
Quality .61* .22* M = F (d = .01)
Conflict .49* .29* M = F (d = .00)
Abuse .16* .17* M < F (d = .12)
Note. N = 384 women (above the diagonal) and 328 men (below the diagonal).
* p < .05.
a
Standardized mean difference (Cohens d) between men (M) and women (F).
Positive d values indicate that men scored higher than women.
Conflict at either age 21 or 26, all ts < 1.3, ns. Women were slightly
more likely than men to report engaging in physical abuse at age 21,
t(702) = 2.54, p = .01, but there was no gender difference at age 26,
t(708) = 1.61, p > .10.
Stability of Personality and

In this section, we examine two types of stability and change: (a)
mean-level change and (b) rank-order stability. Mean-level change
refers to normative change in a populations average level on a
dimension. Such changes are thought to result from maturational or
historical processes shared by a population. Mean-level change was
assessed by examining differences in mean scores across the two
assessments, which indicate whether the sample as a whole is
increasing or decreasing on each dimension.
Rank-order stability reflects the degree to which the relative
ordering of individuals on a given dimension is maintained over time,
irrespective of whether the sample as a whole goes up or down on that
dimension. Changes in rank ordering are thought to result from
maturational or experiential factors that differentially affect people.
Rank-order stability was assessed by the correlation between scores
across the two assessments.
Mean-Level Change
Table 3 shows mean-level changes over time in standard score units,
separately for the total sample, for women and men, and for
individuals with the same and a new partner. We first discuss the
findings for the personality variables and then turn to the relationship
variables. For each personality trait, we conducted a repeated-
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with time (age 18, age 26)
as the within-subjects factor and gender and same-vs.-new partner as
between-subjects factors. A main effect of time indicates significant
mean-level change. An interaction between time and gender indicates
that men showed different mean-level changes than women. An
interaction between time and same-vs.-new partner indicates that
individuals with the same partner showed different mean-level
changes than individuals with a different partner.
We found a main effect of time for all three personality traits. On
average, participants in our sample decreased in Negative Emotion-
ality and increased in Positive Emotionality and Constraint from age
18 to 26, all ps < .01. There were no interactions between time and
gender, all ps > .10. Thus, men and women followed similar
developmental trajectories during young adulthood. We did find a
Table 3
Mean-Level Change in Personality and Relationship Outcomes
Same New
Total Women Men partner partner
MPQ personality scale
Negative emotionality .34* .29* .39* .36* .33*
Positive emotionality +.44* +.41* +.46* +.41* +.44*
Constraint +.14* +.23* +.06 +.30* > +.07
Relationship outcomes
Quality +.28* +.22* +.34* +.08 < +.35*
Conflict .30* .32* .27* .15 < .36*
Abuse .39* .45* .32* .40 .37*
Note. N = 712 (total sample), 384 (women), 328 (men), 215 (same partner), and 497
(new partner). Values in the table show mean-level changes in standard score units
(Cohens d) from age 18 to 26 for the MPQ scales and from 21 to 26 for the
relationship outcomes. The symbols < and > indicate significant differences
between the effects for same and new partner.
* p < .01 (total sample), p < .05 (women and men; same and new partner).
942 Robins et al.
significant interaction between time and same-vs.-new partner for

Constraint, F(1, 679) = 8.43, p < .01. Individuals who remained with
the same partner increased more in Constraint (d = +.30) than those
who changed partners (d = +.07).
For each relationship outcome, we conducted a repeated-measures
ANOVA with time (age 21, age 26), gender, and same-vs.-new partner
as independent variables. We found a main effect of time for all three
variables. Overall, participants increased in Relationship Quality and
decreased in Conflict and Abuse from age 21 to 26, all ps < .01 (see
Table 3). Consistent with the personality findings, there were no
significant interactions between time and gender, all ps > .10. However,
we did find an interaction between time and same-vs.-new partner for
Relationship Quality, F(1, 701) = 7.75, p < .01, and Relationship
Conflict, F(1, 706) = 6.35, p = .01. Individuals who changed relationship
partners showed larger increases in Relationship Quality (d = +.35) and
sharper declines in Conflict (d = .36) than those who remained with
the same partner (d = +.08 and .15, respectively). Despite these
improvements in relationship functioning, individuals who changed
relationship partners continued to report lower levels of Quality at
age 26 than individuals who remained with the same partner (t = 2.5,
p = .01); the two groups did not differ in Conflict at age 26 (t < 1).
In summary, these mean-level changes paint a rosy picture of
psychological development during early adulthood. Most individuals
were developing in a positive direction, showing improvements in their
relationships and increasing maturity in their personalities (Roberts,
Caspi, & Moffitt, 2001; Robins, Fraley, Roberts, & Trzesniewski,
2001). Importantly, the findings also reveal distinct developmental
trajectories for individuals who settled into a relationship versus those
who did not, with those settled in experiencing less positive change in
their relationships but greater intraindividual increases in Constraint.
Rank-Order Stability
Table 4 shows rank-order stability correlations, separately for the total
sample, for men and women, and for individuals with the same versus
a new partner. In the total sample, correlations ranged from .53 to .64
for the personality variables. In other words, individuals who were
relatively high (or low) in Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotion-
ality, and Constraint at age 18, tended to remain relatively high (or
low) on those traits at age 26.
Table 4
Rank-Order Stability of Relationship Outcomes and Personality
Total Women Men Same Partner New Partner

MPQ personality scale
Negative emotionality .59* (.59*) .59* (.59*) .59* (.59*) .58* (.58*) .59* (.59*)
Positive emotionality .53* (.52*) .47* (.47*) < .57* (.57*) .49* (.46*) .54* (.54*)
Constraint .64* (.60*) .61* (.61*) .59* (.59*) .66* (.63*) .63* (.58*)
Relationship outcomes
Quality .29* (.28*) .18* (.18*) < .43* (.41*) .40* (.40*) > .24* (.24*)
Conflict .31* (.31*) .26* (.25*) .38* (.38*) .37* (.37*) .29* (.28*)
Abuse .33* (.33*) .20* (.20*) < .48* (.48*) .44* (.44*) > .29* (.29*)
Note. N = 712 (total sample), 384 (women), 328 (men), 215 (same partner), and 497 (new partner). Values in the table are 8-year test-retest
correlations for the MPQ personality scales (age 18 with age 26) and 5-year test-retest correlations for the relationship outcomes (age 21
with age 26). Values in parentheses are partial correlations controlling for gender and same-vs.-new partner (correlations in the total sample),
same-vs.-new partner (correlations for women and men), and gender (correlations for same and new partner). The symbols < and >
indicate significant differences between the effects for men and women and the effects for same and new partner.
* p < .01 (total sample), p < .05 (women and men; same and new partner).
944 Robins et al.
To test whether these correlations varied by gender or by same-vs.-new

partner, we conducted a series of moderated multiple regression analyses
predicting each time 2 personality score from (Step 1) the corresponding
time 1 score, gender, and same-vs.-new partner, and (Step 2) all possible
interactions among the predictors (time 1 score X gender, time 1 score
X same-vs.-new partner, gender X same-vs.-new partner). There were
no significant interaction effects, except that time 1 scores and gender
had a weak interactive effect on Positive Emotionality scores at time 2
(beta = .08, p < .05). This interaction reflected the fact that men showed
higher levels of rank-order stability on this trait than women.
The relationship variables all showed significant levels of stability
over time (see Table 4); in the total sample, correlations ranged from
.29 to .33. However, relationship experiences were somewhat less
stable than personality, at least during young adulthood. This is
particularly true, considering that the time interval between assess-
ments was longer for personality (8 years) than for the relationship
variables (5 years).
Moderated multiple regression analyses showed that rank-order sta-
bility was greater for men than for women for both Quality (beta = .12,
p < .01) and Abuse (beta = .17, p < .01). We also found interactions
between time 1 scores and same-vs.-new partner. For both Quality
(beta = .10, p < .01) and Abuse (beta = .09, p < .01), individuals with the
same partner showed higher levels of rank-order stability than
individuals with a different partner. Relationship Conflict showed a
similar pattern of gender and same-vs.-new partner differences as
Quality and Abuse, but the interactions were not statistically significant.
In summary, our analyses of two forms of stabilitymean-level
and rank-ordersuggest that personality and relationship experiences
are both moderately stable during young adulthood, although
personality shows higher levels of rank-order stability. We also found
several interaction effects. Most notably, individuals who stayed with
the same partner from age 21 to 26 showed less change in the quality
of their relationships than those who entered new relationships. In
contrast, individuals who stayed with the same partner showed greater
mean-level change in Constraint. Thus, the experience of remaining in
a stable, long-term relationship influences both the relationships
themselves and the personalities of the individuals in those relation-
ships. Despite these interaction effects, it is important to note that all
three relationship variables showed significant levels of stability for
both men and women and for individuals who remained with their
partner as well as for those who changed partners. In other words,

individuals who had relatively happy and non-abusive relationships at
age 21 tended to have happy and non-abusive relationships at age 26,
even when they had different relationship partners.
Which Personality Traits Contribute to a Happy

Relationship? Personality Correlates of
Relationship Quality, Conflict, and Abuse
In this section, we address three interrelated, but distinct, questions,
each providing insights into the developmental relation between
personality and relationships: (a) Does personality predict concurrent
and longitudinal relationship experiences? (b) Does personality predict
change in relationship experiences? and (c) Do relationship experi-
ences predict change in personality?
Does Personality Predict Relationship Experiences?

Table 5 shows correlations between personality at age 18 and 26 and
relationship experiences at age 21 and 26, separately for the total
sample and for individuals with the same vs. a new partner.6 The table
provides two sources of information about the relation between
personality and relationships. First, the correlations between age 18
personality and age 21 and 26 relationship experiences provide a
relatively strong test of the antecedent (i.e., prospective) effects of
personality on relationships. When the participants completed the
personality measures at age 18, only 15% were already involved in
their age 21 relationships and only 6% were already involved in their
age 26 relationships. Thus, for the vast majority of participants, their
personality at age 18 could not have been influenced by the
relationship they were in at age 21 or 26. Second, the correlations
between age 26 personality and age 26 relationship experiences are
concurrent relations, reflecting the contemporaneous association
between the two variables. The presence of strong concurrent relations
6. Table 5 also shows partial correlations (in parentheses) controlling for gender and
same-vs.-new partner. These partial correlations are highly similar to the zero-order
correlations. Thus, the effects to be presented are independent of gender differences as
well as differences in same-vs.-new partner.
Table 5
Does Personality Predict Relationship Outcomes? Concurrent and Longitudinal Effects
Quality Conflict Abuse

MPQ scale Age 21 Age 26 Age 21 Age 26 Age 21 Age 26
TOTAL SAMPLE
Negative Emotionality
Age 18 .25* ( .24*) .21* ( .22*) .33* (.33*) .22* (.23*) .19* (.21*) .20* (.22*)
Age 26 .23* ( .22*) .30* ( .28*) .36* (.35*) .32* (.30*) .24* (.23*) .28* (.29*)
Positive Emotionality
Age 18 .15* (.17*) .14* (.15*) .13* ( .14*) .00 ( .01) .15* ( .14*) .01 (.00)
Age 26 .12* (.13*) .22* (.22*) .11* ( .11*) .06 ( .07) .15* ( .14*) .10* ( .09*)
Constraint
Age 18 .20* (.19*) .17* (.17*) .17* ( .19*) .11* ( .11*) .13* ( .17*) .07 ( .11*)
Age 26 .17* (.13*) .18* (.19*) .14* ( .16*) .11* ( .12*) .13* ( .18*) .09 ( .12*)
SAME PARTNER
Age 18 .36* ( .36*) .28* ( .29*) .40* (.40*) .20* (.20*) .26* (.27*) .19* .21*)
Age 26 .34* ( .33*) .42* ( .41*) .40* (.40*) .38* (.35*) .22* (.20*) .26* (.28*)
Age 18 .14* (.16*) .16* (.16*) .21* ( .21*) .10 ( .11) .11 ( .10) .07 ( .04)
Age 26 .17* (.20*) .26* (.28*) .09 ( .09) .11 ( .13) .15* ( .18*) .18* ( .16*)
Constraint
Age 18 .23* (.21*) .20* (.22*) .17* ( .18*) .13 ( .12) .15* ( .18*) .13 ( .17*)
Age 26 .18* (.19*) .25* (.28*) .20* ( .24*) .12 ( .14*) .14* ( .17*) .11 ( .14*)
NEW PARTNER
Age 18 .21* ( .21*) .18* ( .18) .29* (.30*) .23* (.24*) .16* (.18*) .21* (.22*)
Age 26 .19* (.18*) .25* ( .24*) .34* (.34*) .29* (.28*) .24* (.24*) .29* (.29*)
Age 18 .17* (.17*) .13* (.15*) .10* (.12*) .04 (.03) .17* (.16*) .01 (.01)
Age 26 .12* (.11*) .21* (.20*) .12* ( .11*) .04 ( .05) .15* ( .13*) .07 ( .06)
Constraint
Age 18 .18* (.18*) .15* (.15*) .17* ( .19*) .10* ( .11*) .12* ( .16*) .05 ( .08)
Age 26 .11* (.11*) .14* (.16*) .10* ( .13*) .11* ( .13*) .12* ( .18*) .09 ( .10*)
Note. N = 712 (total), 215 (same partner), and 497 (new partner). Values in parentheses are partial correlations controlling for gender and
same-vs.-new partner (total sample) or for gender (same partner, new partner).
* p < .01 (total sample); p < .05 (same partner, new partner).
948 Robins et al.
at age 26 would suggest that the link between personality and

relationships persists across early adulthood.
Negative Emotionality had strong and consistent effects for all three
relationship variables. Individuals who were high in Negative Emotion-
ality at age 18 tended to report lower levels of quality and higher levels of
conflict and abuse at age 21 and 26. Interestingly, the magnitude of the
effects was almost as strong at age 26 as at age 21, despite the fact that the
time interval between assessments was 8 vs. 3 years. This suggests a high
level of stability in the influence of personality on relationship
experiences. The concurrent effects of Negative Emotionality at age 26
were even stronger (mean correlation = .30). These effect sizes are
comparable to, but slightly higher than, the mean effect sizes for
Neuroticism reported in Karney and Bradburys (1995) meta-analysis.
The effects of Positive Emotionality were weaker and less consistent
than those of Negative Emotionality. Individuals high in Positive
Emotionality at age 18 tended to be happy in their relationships at
age 21, reporting higher Relationship Quality and lower Conflict and
Abuse. At age 26, these effects held for Quality but not for Conflict or
Abuse. Thus, the effects of Positive Emotionality seem to be stronger
and more consistent for the positive aspects of relationships (i.e.,
Quality) than for the negative aspects (i.e., Conflict and Abuse).
The findings for Constraint generally paralleled those for Positive
Emotionality. High Constraint individuals reported higher levels of
Relationship Quality and lower levels of Conflict and Abuse. The
effects for Quality and Conflict were consistent across both
assessments, whereas the effects for Abuse held at age 21 but at age
26 only after gender and same-vs.-new partner were partialled out.
We used moderated multiple regression analyses to test whether
gender or same-vs.-new partner moderated any of the effects reported
in Table 5 for the total sample. Out of 72 possible interactions, we
found only one significant interaction effect.7 Thus, the extent to
7. We also searched for evidence of multiplicative interactions among the personality

characteristics. For example, an aggressive, stress-reactive individual who is also
highly impulsive (i.e., low in Constraint) seems like a recipe for abuse. To explore
such possibilities, we computed each of the three possible trait interactions (Negative
Emotionality with Constraint, Negative Emotionality with Positive Emotionality,
Positive Emotionality with Constraint) at age 21 and 26. We then entered these
interaction terms (along with their corresponding main effects) in a series of multiple
regression analyses predicting each of the three relationship outcomes at both time
points. Of the 36 possible interaction effects, one was significant at p < .05; Negative
which personality influenced an individuals perception of, and

behavior in a relationship did not depend on the individuals gender
or on whether the relationship partner was the same or different across
the two assessments.
In summary, our findings indicate that individuals with a well-
adjusted personality profiles (low Negative Emotionality and high
Positive Emotionality and Constraint) tend to have relatively happy
and non-abusive relationships in young adulthood. These relations
held for both men and women and generalized across different
relationship partners.
Does Personality Predict Intraindividual Change in

In this section, we ask whether personality forecasts the subsequent
direction a relationship will take. Table 6 shows the effects of
personality on increases (vs. decreases) in Quality, Conflict, and Abuse
from age 21 to 26, separately for the total sample and for individuals
with the same vs. a new partner. Of particular interest are the
correlations between personality at age 18 and change in relationship
experiences because changes in relationship quality during the early
20s could not have influenced personality traits in late adolescence.
As Table 6 shows, adolescents prone to Negative Emotionality
experienced progressively worse relationships during young adult-
hood, as indicated by declines in Quality and increases in Conflict and
Abuse. Both Positive Emotionality and Constraint predicted change in
Quality. Specifically, 18-year-olds who were high in Positive
Emotionality and Constraint showed improvements in the Quality of
their relationships during young adulthood. Positive Emotionality and
Constraint did not predict changes in Conflict or Abuse.
Emotionality and Constraint at age 26 had an interactive effect on Relationship

Quality at age 26 (beta = .08, p < .05). However, as McClelland and Judd (1993)
pointed out, it is difficult to detect interaction effects in naturalistic research, in part
because most studies do not have sufficient statistical power (see also Chaplin, 1991).
For example, although the present study had sufficient power to detect a moderate-
sized interaction effect (Aiken & West, 1991), our sample size of 712 was not large
enough to detect weak but reliable interactions among the personality traits.
Moreover, one partners entire configuration of traits may interact with the other
partners configuration of traits, but current statistical procedures do not provide an
efficient way to test such complex interactions.
950 Robins et al.
Table 6
Does Personality Predict Change in Relationships From Age 21 to 26?
Increase from age 21 to 26 in:

MPQ scale Quality Conflict Abuse
TOTAL SAMPLE
Age 18 .15* ( .15*) .13* (.13*) .15* (.16*)
Age 26 .24* ( .23*) .22* (.20*) .21* (.23*)
Increase 18 to 26 .17* ( .18*) .16* (.15*) .16* (.16*)
Age 18 .10* (.11*) .05 (.04) .04 (.04)
Age 26 .20* (.19*) .03 ( .04) .06 ( .04)
Increase 18 to 26 .16* (.16*) .07 ( .07) .08 ( .08)
Constraint
Age 18 .11* (.12*) .05 ( .06) .04 ( .06)
Age 26 .14* (.16*) .07 ( .07) .05 ( .06)
Increase 18 to 26 .10* (.10*) .05 ( .05) .02 ( .03)
SAME PARTNER
Age 18 .20* ( .21*) .09 (.08) .13* (.14*)
Age 26 .35* ( .35*) .28* (.24*) .21* (.24*)
Increase 18 to 26 .26* ( .27*) .24* (.23*) .19* (.19*)
Age 18 .14* (.13*) .04 ( .05) .03 ( .01)
Age 26 .24* (.25*) .09 ( .11) .14* ( .12)
Increase 18 to 26 .21* (.20*) .10 ( .10) .14* ( .13*)
Constraint
Age 18 .15* (.18*) .08 ( .07) .10 ( .13*)
Age 26 .22* (.25*) .07 ( .07) .07 ( .10)
Increase 18 to 26 .15* (.17*) .02 ( .03) .00 ( .01)
NEW PARTNER
Age 18 .13* ( .12*) .15* (.15*) .17* (.17*)
Age 26 .20* ( .19*) .20* (.19*) .22* (.22*)
Increase 18 to 26 .14* ( .15*) .14* (.12*) .16* (.16*)
Age 18 .09* (.10*) .08 (.07) .07 (.07)
Age 26 .19* (.17*) .01 ( .01) .02 ( .02)
Increase 18 to 26 .15* (.14*) .06 ( .06) .08 ( .06)
Constraint
Age 18 .10* (.10*) .05 ( .05) .02 ( .02)
Age 26 .11* (.12*) .08 ( .09) .05 ( .04)
Increase 18 to 26 .08 (.07) .06 ( .07) .03 ( .04)
Note. N = 712 (total), 215 (same partner), and 497 (new partner). Values in parentheses are
partial correlations controlling for gender and same-vs.-new partner (total sample) or for
gender (same partner, new partner).
Also of interest in Table 6 are the correlations between personality

change and relationship change. Individuals who increased in
Negative Emotionality from age 18 to 26 showed a corresponding
worsening of their relationships from age 21 to 26. In contrast,
individuals who increased in Positive Emotionality and Constraint
tended to have progressively better relationships during their early 20s.
To test whether these findings hold for both men and women, we
conducted moderated multiple regression analyses and did not find any
significant interactions with gender for any of the effects reported in
Table 6. A strong test of the power of personality to predict relationship
experiences is whether personality traits can predict change in a
persons perception of, and behavior within, a relationship, even when
the change is across different relationships. To test this, we examined
whether the personality effects generalize across same-vs.-new partner.
We conducted moderated multiple regression analyses and did not find
any significant interactions with same-vs.-new partner. Thus, as the
correlations in Table 6 show, personality predicts improvements (or
declines) in the quality of a relationship, regardless of whether the
individual is in the same relationship or in a different relationship.
In summary, the same personality profile that concurrently and
longitudinally predicts successful relationships (low Negative Emo-
tionality and high Positive Emotionality and Constraint) also predicts
improvements in relationships over time.8 Moreover, we found that
personality and relationships changed in tandem increases in
Negative Emotionality and declines in Positive Emotionality and
8. We also tested whether the personality effects are independent of each other.
Specifically, we conducted a series of multiple regression analyses in which we
predicted relationship outcomes at age 26 from: (a) relationship outcomes at age 21
and (b) Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality, and Constraint at age 18. All of
the effects that were significant for the zero-order correlations (see Table 6) remained
significant in the multiple regression analyses. Thus, none of the effects of antecedent
personality traits on intraindividual change in relationship outcomes were due to
correlations with other personality predictors. We also tested whether the concurrent
(age 26) and longitudinal (age 18 personality with age 21 relationship outcomes; age
18 personality with age 26 relationship outcomes) effects reported in Table 5 held
when all three predictors were entered simultaneously. All of the effects of Negative
Emotionality held. All of the effects of Positive Emotionality held, except its
concurrent effect on abuse at age 26. The effects of Constraint on relationship quality
held in all cases, but not the effects of Constraint on conflict and abuse. Overall, then,
most of the effects remained significant when the intercorrelations among the
personality predictors were controlled for.
952 Robins et al.
Constraint were associated with deteriorating relationship quality.

Again, these effects held for men and women and generalized across
relationship partners.
Do Relationship Experiences Change Personality?

In the previous section, we looked at whether antecedent personality
traits predict change in relationships. In this section, we turn this
relation around and ask whether the experiences and events that occur
within the context of a romantic relationship influence how personality
develops. Table 7 shows correlations between relationship experiences
assessed at age 21 and increases in personality traits from age 18 to 26.
These correlations test whether being in a good (vs. bad) relationship
during the early 20s had a positive (vs. negative) impact on personality
development. The findings show that individuals in relationships
characterized by low Quality and high Conflict and Abuse tended
to increase in Negative Emotionality. In contrast, relationship
experiences were not associated with changes in Positive Emotionality
Table 7
Do Relationship Experiences at Age 21 Predict Change in Personality
From Age 18 to 26?
Age 21
Increase from 18 to 26 Quality Conflict Abuse
TOTAL SAMPLE
Negative Emotionality .10* ( .09) .20* (.20*) .13* (.13*)
Positive Emotionality .04 (.05) .04 ( .04) .09 ( .08)
Constraint .04 (.01) .05 ( .04) .06 ( .09)
SAME PARTNER
Negative Emotionality .14* ( .13*) .19* (.19*) .04 (.04)
Positive Emotionality .12 (.12) .02 (.03) .14* ( .14*)
Constraint .06 (.05) .13 ( .15*) .06 ( .06)
NEW PARTNER
Negative Emotionality .07 ( .08) .20* (.20*) .17* (.16*)
Positive Emotionality .03 (.03) .07 ( .07) .08 ( .05)
Constraint .01 ( .01) .01 ( .01) .07 ( .09)
Note. N = 712 (total), 215 (same partner), and 497 (new partner). Values in
parentheses are partial correlations controlling for gender and same-vs.-new partner
(total sample) or for gender (same partner, new partner).
and Constraint. Moderated multiple regression analyses did not yield

any significant interactions with gender or same-vs.-new partner.
In summary, individuals who were in maladaptive relationships
during their early 20s tended to become more hostile, irritable, and
alienated. These effects, although modest in magnitude, suggest that
relationship experiences play an important role in personality
development. Note, however, that the relationship experiences were
not assessed prior to the personality changes, and it is possible that
personality development that was already occurring from age 18 to 21
influenced relationship experiences at age 21.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present study examined the effects of stable personality traits on
romantic relationships. The data come from a longitudinal study of a
large, representative sample of young adults. Participants completed a
comprehensive personality questionnaire at ages 18 and 26 and were
interviewed about the positive and negative aspects of their relation-
ships at ages 21 and 26. Importantly, some participants had remained
with the same partner from age 21 to 26, whereas others had entered
relationships with new partners.
These data allowed us to address four goals concerning the
developmental course of personality and relationships during young
adulthood. Our first goal was to examine stability and change in
relationship experiences. All three relationship variables showed
significant levels of rank-order stability, even across different
relationship partners. Individuals who were happy and non-abusive
in their relationships at age 21 tended to be happy and non-abusive in
their relationships at age 26, despite the fact that, in some cases, they
were not even in the same relationship. We also examined mean-level
change and found that relationships generally improved over time
during young adulthood, with increases in Quality and declines in
Conflict and Abuse.9
9. In contrast to some previous studies (e.g., Kurdek, 1999), we did not find a decline
over time in relationship quality, even for individuals who remained with the same
partner. This may be due to the particular developmental period we are studying. It is
possible that at this stage of life, when life transitions occur frequently and rapidly,
and it is not yet normative to be in a long-term, committed relationship, relationships
that decline in quality are quickly abandoned.
954 Robins et al.
Our second goal was to understand the effects of personality on

relationships. We found that aggressive, stress-reactive, and alienated
people have maladaptive intimate relationships, and their relationships
get progressively worse over time during their early 20s. In contrast,
people high in Positive Emotionality and Constraint have relatively
happy and non-abusive relationships and tend to show improvements
in some aspects of their relationships. Thus, adolescent personality
traits forecast the nature and direction that intimate relationships take
during young adulthood.
Our third goal was to examine whether relationship experiences
predict intraindividual change in personality. We found two instances
of this. First, the experience of being in a dissatisfying and abusive
relationship can make a person more anxious, angry, and alienated.
Second, the experience of remaining in the same relationship for an
extended period of time can make a person more cautious and
restrained in his or her thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Thus,
relationship experiences during young adulthood can serve as a
catalyst for personality change.10
Our fourth goal was to examine the generalizability of personality
influences on relationship experiences, particularly across different
relationships. The findings held across four different facets of
generalizability. First, the findings held for both men and women.
Our results add to growing evidence that the effect of personality on
relationships is similar for men and women (Watson et al., 2000).
Second, the findings held across different aspects of relationship
functioning, including general impressions of relationship quality
(e.g., We support each other during difficult times) as well as
reports of specific abusive acts (e.g., Did you push, grab, or shove
your partner?). Despite weak to moderate relations among the three
relationship variables, the personality influences on these variables
were generally quite similar. Third, the findings held over time. Our
longitudinal analyses documented prospective effects spanning
38 years from late adolescence to early adulthood. In addition,
10. Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) conducted a longitudinal study of personality and
relationships and failed to find any evidence that relationship experiences changed
personality. However, personality change was assessed across an 18-month period,
and it is possible that this is not sufficient time for relationship experiences to produce
systematic personality change.
analyses of intraindividual change showed that personality predicted

whether a relationship improved or worsened over time.11
Fourth, and most significantly, the personality effects held across
different relationship partners. The influence of personality did not
depend on whether or not individuals remained with the same partner,
but generalized across two relationships that were separated by five
years. This is a strong test of the generalizability of the personality
effects because one might assume that changes across relationships
reflect differences between the old and new relationship partners. In a
sense, cross-partner effects are akin to cross-situation effects because,
in many ways, a new partner constitutes a new social environment. In
summary, our findings show that, over time and across multiple
partners, personality dispositions predict the experiences and
behaviors of both men and women in their intimate relationships.
The Mutual Influence of Personality

and Relationships: Implications for
Theory and Research
These findings have implications for both personality and relationship
researchers. For relationship researchers, the findings point to several
reasons why stable personality traits need to be considered when
studying and theorizing about the causes and consequences of relation-
ship dysfunction. Our longitudinal and cross-partner analyses suggest
that relationship-specific dynamics are, in part, manifestations of
enduring individual differences in personality. Thus, some individuals
may not be satisfied with any relationship partner, whereas others may
be satisfied with every partner. Likewise, we saw that some individuals
recreated the same conflictual dynamics with different relationship
partners, whereas others continually achieved harmony. Thus, person-
ality traits should be central to any analysis of why relationships thrive
or falter, and they appear to be appropriate targets for intervention.
11. Kurdek (1999) did not find correlations between personality and subsequent
changes in relationship experiences. Based on these findings, he concluded the
inability of individual-differences variables to predict change in marital quality is
sobering (p. 1295). One reason why his findings might be discrepant from ours is that
the extreme attrition in Kurdeks study may have produced a restriction of range in the
personality and relationship variables. In Kurdeks study, 7,899 couples were initially
recruited, but only 522 couples participated in the study.
956 Robins et al.
For personality researchers, the findings underscore the fact that

dispositional traits can change, given the right set of circumstances
(Roberts, Robins, Caspi, & Trzesniewski, in press). For example, the
finding that individuals who stayed with their partners tended to
increase in Constraint provides a plausible causal account of a
particular intraindividual developmental pathway. Impulse control
tends to increase in young adulthood, but the reason for this change is
not fully understood (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2001). Our findings
suggest that settling down in an intimate relationship may be a
contributory cause. It may be that the norms, expectations, and sex-
role stereotypes associated with intimate relationships create an
environmental press for a more controlled, cautious, and traditional
approach to life. Likewise, the finding that individuals in unhappy
relationships tend to become more hostile, anxious, and alienated over
time dovetails with recent research on depression. Negative relation-
ship experiencesincluding dissatisfaction (Whisman & Bruce,
1999) and dissolution (Monroe, Rohde, Seeley, & Lewinsohn,
1999)increase the risk of depression. However, the mediating
mechanism remains to be understood. Repeated acts of aggression,
recurrent negative emotional states, and other aversive experiences
that chronically occur in maladaptive intimate relationships may
increase an individuals disposition toward Negative Emotionality,
which is a risk factor for depression (Krueger, 1999).
Although relationship experiences produced relatively small
changes in personality, the cumulative impact of a lifetime of
relationship experiences might be quite powerful. If being in a
maladaptive relationship for several years produces modest increases
in Negative Emotionality, then being in a maladaptive relationship for
decades might produce substantial changes in this trait (assuming such
changes are linear). Thus, personality researchers need to attend to an
individuals relationship experiences when theorizing about the causes
and consequences of personality development.
The present study, together with previous investigations (e.g.,
Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001), provides compelling evidence that
personality is consequential for the developmental course of
relationships, and, in turn, that relationship experiences are
consequential for the developmental course of personality. This
evidence for the co-development of personality and relationships
points to a person-environment transaction that unfolds over time:
Relationship processes and outcomes are best seen as emerging out of
an ongoing transaction between stable individual differences and the

relationship environment.
Limitations
The present findings need to be considered in light of several
limitations. First, the findings are based entirely on data from a single
informant, and it is possible that response biases influenced the
results. Several factors ameliorate this concern. First, the construct
validity of the MPQ scales is well established (Patrick et al., 2002;
Tellegen, 1982; Tellegen & Waller, in press). Second, Watson et al.
(2000) found that the effects of personality on relationship
experiences generally held for both self and partner measures of
personality; for example, individuals who rated themselves as high in
Negative Emotionality, as well as those rated by their partner as high
in Negative Emotionality, tended to be dissatisfied with their
relationships. Third, several studies have shown that the effects of
personality on relationships often hold for both self- and partner-
reports of relationship experiences. For example, high Negative
Emotionality individuals report that their relationships are generally
dissatisfying and abusive, and their partners tend to agree (Moffitt et
al., 2001; Robins et al., 2000). Nonetheless, in some previous studies,
the personality effects did not hold for both partners reports of the
relationship, and caution is thus warranted in generalizing the present
findings. Fourth, the fact that personality predicts intraindividual
change in relationship experiences is difficult to reconcile with the
interpretation that response style is driving the findings. This would
imply that personality at age 18 predicts increases in socially desirable
responding from age 21 to 26, which seems implausible. Finally, it is
worth noting that peoples beliefs about the quality of their
relationship are consequential, regardless of whether those beliefs
are distorted or accurate.
Second, the way we measured change in personality and relation-
ship experiences was not optimal. We used residual scores, computed
across two waves of data, whereas, ideally, change should be assessed
using growth curve modeling across multiple waves of data (e.g.,
Kurdek, 1999). However, one of the problems associated with residual
scoreslow reliabilitywould simply attenuate the effects, not
create them. Moreover, when change is linear, the limitations of two-
wave change scores are reduced. Longitudinal studies suggest that
958 Robins et al.
change in relationship experiences is essentially linear across the first

5 years of a relationship (Kurdek, 1999, Figure 1), and most of
the participants in our study had been in a relationship for 5 years
or less.
Third, the present study is correlational, and it is not possible to
conclusively determine whether personality traits cause relationship
experiences, whether relationship experiences cause personality
change, or both. Some third variable (e.g., early family environment,
peer relations, stressful life events) may determine both personality
and relationship experiences, as well as changes in each. One could
argue for the causal precedence of personality over relationship
characteristics on logical grounds; that is, (a) more stable variables,
such as personality traits, are typically thought to cause less stable
ones, and (b) phenomena that emerge earlier in a known develop-
mental sequence, such as personality traits, are more likely to cause
phenomena that occur later. Moreover, at least three aspects of our
longitudinal design and findings meet necessary, but not sufficient,
criteria for establishing causality (Rutter, 2000). First, by using
prospective data we were able to establish temporal order. When the
original sample members completed the MPQ at age 18, only a small
subsample were already involved in their age 21 relationships and
even fewer were involved in their age 26 relationships. Thus, for the
vast majority of participants, it was not possible that their personality
was altered by their relationship experiences at age 21 and 26.
Nonetheless, our findings do not exclude the possibility that, for
example, a series of distressing and maladaptive relationships during
early adolescence led to an increase in Negative Emotionality by age
18. Second, we were able to predict intraindividual change. For
example, being in an unhealthy relationship predicted who increased
in Negative Emotionality relative to their initial level, and being in the
same relationship from age 21 to 26 predicted who increased in
Constraint relative to their initial level. Third, we found evidence for a
dose-response relation: Changes in personality were associated with
changes in relationship experiences; as personality traits become more
maladaptive, so too do relationships. This is akin to research findings
showing that changes in experiential factors produce corresponding
intraindividual behavioral changes; for example, Dishion, Andrews,
Kavanagh, and Soberman (1996) found that as families became less
coercive over time, their children engage in less antisocial behavior.
Rutter (2000) labels this type of association a dose-response relation-
ship, echoing medical terminology for the relation between drug

dosage and symptom levels, and argues that it provides one form of
evidence for a causal relationship. Finally, we would like to make a
point that is obvious, but, nonetheless, easy to forget. It is very
difficult to conduct a truly naturalistic (and ethical) experiment in this
area; that is, we cannot randomly assign people to good and bad
relationships or create good and bad personalities.12
Finally, we did not obtain information about the relationship
partners at ages 21 and 26. Thus, for those individuals who changed
relationship partners between age 21 and 26, we do not know the
degree to which their new partners were similar to their old partners.
We assumed that individuals who changed partners experienced a
greater shift in their relationship environment than those who stayed
with the same partner. This seems likely because partner selection
does not show much evidence of assortative mating on the personality
traits measured by the MPQ, or most other personality measures, for
that matter; that is, people do not choose relationship partners who are
similar to themselves in terms of their personality traits (Krueger,
Moffitt, Caspi, Bleske, & Silva, 1998; Lykken & Tellegen, 1993). It is
possible, however, that individuals consistently select relationship
partners with a particular set of qualities (i.e., a type), and therefore
the old and new relationship partners might in some cases have been
highly similar to each other. Yet, even if relationship partners are
similar in some ways, this might still reflect a personality effect:
people do not pick the same type of relationship partner simply by
chance; rather this may be seen as an active person-environment
selection effect (Buss, 1987; Caspi, 1998).
CONCLUSIONS
For many people, attaining a satisfying intimate relationship is the
most important goal in their life (Roberts & Robins, 2000). An
important question, then, is what makes a relationship satisfying.
12. One avenue for future research would be to explore whether individuals
undergoing couples therapy show changes in their personality traits that correspond to
changes in their relationship experiences. However, such a study would be
complicated by the fact that many relationship interventions also entail direct
attempts to change the personalities of couple members.
960 Robins et al.
Traditionally, researchers have focused on interpersonal dynamics,

such as how people resolve conflicts and express emotions toward
each other. Essentially, this research tests the commonsense notion
that some couples get along well with each other, whereas other
couples just seem to clash. Our findings in no way contradict this
perspective, but they do add a complementary account of what
makes an intimate relationship successful. Rather than focusing on
interpersonal interactions, we focused on intrapsychic factors,
namely the enduring tendencies to think, feel, and act in particular
ways that each couple member brings to a relationship. In short, we
tested another commonsense notion: Some people seem to be happy
in all of their relationships, whereas others seem to be chronically
unhappy. Our findings support this notion and point to the following
conclusion: People tend to be generally satisfied or dissatisfied
across relationships, and this tendency is due, in part, to stable
individual differences in personality. Thus, when considering why
relationships thrive or falter, it not only matters who people are with,
but who they are.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469480.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 15311544.
Beier, E. G., & Sternberg, D. P. (1987). Beier-Sternberg Discord Questionnaire (DQ).
In K. Corcoran & J. Fischer (Eds.), Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook
(pp. 419420). New York: Free Press.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology,
Vol. 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 193281). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Blum, J. S., & Mehrabian, A. (1999). Personality and temperament correlates of
marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 67, 93125.
Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 12141221.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and
upset. Journal of Personality, 59, 663688.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol 3:
Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 311388). New York:
Wiley.
Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality matter in
marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326336.
Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality
psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143178.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality
assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 64, 2150.
Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., Kavanagh, K., & Soberman, L. H. (1996). Preventive
interventions for high-risk youth: The adolescent transitions program. In R. D.
Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse,
and delinquency (pp. 184214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, B. J. (1998). The partner-specific investment inventory: An evolutionary approach
to individual differences in investment. Journal of Personality, 66, 383442.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Giordano, P. C., Millhollin, T. J., Cernkovich, S. A., Pugh, M. D., & Rudolph, J. L.
(1999). Delinquency, identity, and womens involvement in relationship violence.
Criminology, 37, 1740.
Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of the marital processes. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 169197.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1986). Assessing the role of emotion in marriage.
Behavioral Assessment, 8, 3148.
Greenfield, L., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C.,
Warchol, G., Maston, C., & Fox, J. A. (1998). Violence by intimates: Analysis of
data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, J. (1985). Equity and
intimate relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relation-
ships. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hudson, W. W. (1987). Index of marital satisfaction. In K. Corcoran & J. Fischer
(Eds.), Measures for clinical practice (pp. 443444). New York: Free Press.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of
aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20, 11201134.
Huston, T. L., & Chorost, A. F. (1994). Behavioral buffers on the effect of negativity
on marital satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 1, 223239.
Jockin, V., McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1996). Personality and divorce: A genetic
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 288299.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.; pp. 102138). New York:
Guilford Press.
Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
334.
Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the
trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
10751092.
962 Robins et al.
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective

analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 2740.
Kenny, D. A. (1998). Couples, gender, and time: Comments on method. In T. N.
Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 410422).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krueger, R. F. (1999). Personality traits in late adolescence predict mental disorders in
early adulthood: A prospective-epidemiological study. Journal of Personality, 67,
3965.
Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Epidemiological personology: The
unifying role of personality in population-based research on problem behaviors.
Journal of Personality, 68, 967998.
Krueger, R. F., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bleske, A., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Assortative
mating for antisocial behavior: Developmental and methodological implications.
Behavior Genetics, 28, 173186.
Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital
quality for husbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 12831296.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward
understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 42, 595604.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1987). Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. In
K. Corcoran & J. Fischer (Eds.), Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook
(pp. 451453). New York: Free Press.
Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of
lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 5668.
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & OBrien, M. (1990). The Domestic
Conflict Index. Unpublished instrument. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California.
Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760762.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting
interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376390.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Krueger, R. F., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P. A., &
Sydney, R. (1997). Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A
psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychological Assessment, 9,
4756.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in
antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin
Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and
general crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology,
38, 201235.
Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner
abuse with implications for abuse prevention. Criminology and Public Policy, 1,
536.
Monroe, S. M., Rohde, P., Seeley, J. R., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1999). Life events and
depression in adolescence: Relationship loss as a prospective risk factor for first
onset of major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 606614.
Neyer, F. J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Personality-relationship transaction in young
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 11901204.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982). FACES II: Couples version. St. Paul, MN:
University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.
Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a
brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 150163.
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2001). The kids are alright: Growth and
stability in personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 670683.
Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The
intersection of personality and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 12841296.
Roberts, B. W., Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (in press).
Personality and its consequences across the life course. In J. T. Mortimer &
M. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Plenum.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, W., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship:
Both partners personality traits shape the quality of a relationship. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251259.
Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). A
longitudinal study of personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality,
69, 617640.
Rutter, M. (2000). Psychosocial influences: Critiques, findings, and research needs.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 375405.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of
Personality, 66, 495524.
Silva, P. A. & Stanton, W. (Eds.) (1996). The Dunedin Study: From child to adult.
Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of
origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60, 467478.
Spanier, G. B. (1986). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the
quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38,
1528.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict
Tactics (CT) Scales. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families
(pp. 2947). New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Question-
naire. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. (in press). Exploring personality through test construction:
Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs &
J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and evaluation. Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press.
964 Robins et al.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and
affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self
and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68, 413449.
Weiss, R. L., & Heyman, R. E. (1990). Observation of marital interaction. In F. D.
Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage: Basic issues and
applications (pp. 87117). New York: Guilford Press.
Whisman, M. A., & Bruce, M. L. (1999). Marital dissatisfaction and incidence of
major depressive episode in a community sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
108, 674678.
White, R. W. (1966). Lives in progress (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.

It's Not Just Who You'Re With, It's Who You Are Personality and Relationship Experiences Across Multiple Relationships

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

It's Not Just Who You'Re With, It's Who You Are Personality and Relationship Experiences Across Multiple Relationships

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Its Not Just Who Youre With, Its Who You

Are: Personality and Relationship

ABSTRACT The present study examined the influence of stable person-

change in personality. Importantly, these findings generally held across

You interrupted me at least three times this morning, asserts Tracy.

personality is consistent over time and across relationship partners. We

relationships might reasonably be assumed to reflect differences

Previous Research on Personality and

researchers have used more sophisticated research designs and

Extending Previous Research

between personality and relationship experiences in a large birth

remained with the same partner at both assessments, whereas others

individual differences and the relationship environment (e.g., Neyer &

and Constraint (Tellegen & Waller, in press). The Negative Emotionality

Measurement of Relationship Functioning:

Individual Differences in Change

Same -vs.-New Relationship Partner

3. In the age 21 assessment, the partners of a subset of study members (N = 360)

assessments, and 497 (69.8%) had a different partner. In subsequent sections,

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4. To test whether this relation was moderated by initial relationship functioning, we

the relationship experiences and gender differences on both sets of

Intercorrelations and Gender Differences

Personality Negative Positive Sex

(below the diagonal) and women (above the diagonal). Relationship

Quality Conflict Abuse Sex differencea

Stability of Personality and

significant interaction between time and same-vs.-new partner for

Total Women Men Same Partner New Partner

To test whether these correlations varied by gender or by same-vs.-new

partner as well as for those who changed partners. In other words,

Which Personality Traits Contribute to a Happy

Does Personality Predict Relationship Experiences?

Quality Conflict Abuse

at age 26 would suggest that the link between personality and

7. We also searched for evidence of multiplicative interactions among the personality

which personality influenced an individuals perception of, and

Does Personality Predict Intraindividual Change in

Emotionality and Constraint at age 26 had an interactive effect on Relationship

Increase from age 21 to 26 in:

Also of interest in Table 6 are the correlations between personality

Constraint were associated with deteriorating relationship quality.

Do Relationship Experiences Change Personality?

and Constraint. Moderated multiple regression analyses did not yield

Our second goal was to understand the effects of personality on

analyses of intraindividual change showed that personality predicted

The Mutual Influence of Personality

For personality researchers, the findings underscore the fact that

an ongoing transaction between stable individual differences and the

change in relationship experiences is essentially linear across the first

ship, echoing medical terminology for the relation between drug

Traditionally, researchers have focused on interpersonal dynamics,

Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective

Вам также может понравиться