Journal of Family Psychology

2012, Vol. 26, No. 1, 165170

2012 American Psychological Association

0893-3200/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0026759

BRIEF REPORT

Examining Changes in Relationship Adjustment and

Life Satisfaction in Marriage
Scott M. Stanley, Erica P. Ragan, Galena K. Rhoades, and Howard J. Markman
University of Denver
The current study examined the association between relationship adjustment and life satisfaction before
marriage to 6 years into marriage in a sample of 126 couples. Results showed that both premarital
relationship adjustment and premarital life satisfaction uniquely predicted marital adjustment 6 years into
marriage. Premarital life satisfaction, but not premarital relationship adjustment, predicted life satisfaction 6 years into marriage. While premarital relationship adjustment scores were not uniquely associated
with future life satisfaction scores, changes in relationship adjustment were positively associated with
future life satisfaction. These findings are supportive of the idea that helping people to improve their
relationships may increase overall life satisfaction. The findings also suggest that, while an individuals
base level of life satisfaction may set some parameters for the course of relationship adjustment, changes
in life satisfaction over time impact marital adjustment. Starting marriage with higher life satisfaction
may increase chances for a happier marriage. Overall, the findings suggest that life satisfaction plays a
role in marital adjustment over time, and that it is important to consider life satisfaction as not only an
outcome associated with relationship adjustment but also as a predictor of relationship adjustment.
Keywords: couples, marriage, life satisfaction, marital adjustment, longitudinal

global happiness. In one study using a large, longitudinal and

representative sample, Hawkins and Booth (2005) examined the
long-term outcomes of chronic marital unhappiness. Among their
findings, they showed that those who remained in unhappy marriages were less happy overall than those who divorced and remarried.
Hawkins and Booths findings are consistent with the interpretation that long-term unhappiness in marriage produces negative
outcomes on other dimensions of well-being. However, this is not
the only direction of effect that is interesting. Lyubomirsky, King
et al. (2005) noted the pervasiveness of the assumption among
well-being investigators that successful outcomes foster happiness (p. 803). They argued that global happiness should also be
studied as a cause of happiness in other domains, such as marriage.
Specifically, they believe that characteristics related to positive
emotions such as confidence, optimism, positive construals of
others, and tendencies to approach rather than avoid involvement
should generate successful outcomes and happiness in various
domains. Conceptualized in this manner, life satisfaction could, in
part, generate future marital quality.
Using the same longitudinal sample used in the Hawkins and
Booth study, but with a longer follow-up point, Kamp Dush,
Taylor, and Kroeger (2008) used latent class analyses to categorize
people into low, middle, and high happiness marital trajectories
based on up to 20 years of data. They found that those who began
the study with higher levels of life happiness were more likely to
end up in the high marital happiness group. They also found that
those in the high marital happiness group declined the least over
time on life happiness.

There are strong associations between life satisfaction and romantic relationship status (Reis & Gable, 2003; Ryff, 1995). For
example, people who are married are more satisfied with life than
never-married, separated, divorced, or widowed people (Gove,
Hughes, & Style, 1983). In addition, people who are more satisfied
with life are more likely to eventually marry (Stutzer & Frey,
2006). Hence, while life satisfaction may be viewed as something
affected by romantic relationships, it may also substantially influence the course of romantic relationships.
Studies have examined the associations between variants of
marital satisfaction/happiness and life satisfaction or global happiness (see Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). For example,
Glenn and Weaver (1981) used data from the General Social
Survey in the 1970s to show that marital happiness had a stronger
impact on global happiness than happiness in any other domain
(e.g., work, friendships). Some studies have examined the overtime associations between constructs such as marital happiness and

Scott M. Stanley, Erica P. Ragan, Galena K. Rhoades, & Howard J.

Markman, Department of Psychology, University of Denver.
This article and the project described were supported by Award Number
R01HD053314 (awarded to Howard J. Markman, Scott M. Stanley, &
Elizabeth Allen) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of
Child Health & Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of
the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human
Development or the National Institutes of Health.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott
Stanley, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2155 S Race
St., Denver, CO 80208. E-mail: sstanley@du.edu
165

166

STANLEY, RAGAN, RHOADES, AND MARKMAN

Ruvolo (1998) directly examined how a measure of marital

well-being (happiness, satisfaction, and estimated stability) and a
global, one-item life happiness variable were associated from the
first to the second year of marriage among 317 newlyweds. They
found that marital well-being in the first year of marriage was
associated with life happiness in the second year of marriage. They
also found that life happiness in the first year of marriage was
associated with marital well-being in the second year of marriage,
but only for men. Finally, Headey, Veenhoven, and Wearing
(1991) use data from a 1980s, longitudinal data set of Australians,
and found evidence of bidirectional effects over time between
marital satisfaction and life satisfaction. However, the effects were
not bidirectional for other domains tested such as work and leisure.
As Headey et al. noted, these other associations were top down,
with the findings suggesting that global life satisfaction appeared
to influence domain specific satisfaction rather than the other way
around. In all these studies, there is evidence that marriage influences global satisfaction or happiness. Further, findings such as
those obtained by Glenn and Weaver (1981) and Headey et al.
(1991) suggest that marriage, compared to other life domains, has
a relatively potent influence on individual well-being.
In the study presented here, we examined how well life satisfaction and relationship adjustment each predict the other over the
course of 6 years, within a sample of couples first assessed before
marriage. This research adds to this literature in a number of ways.
First, consistent with Lyubomirsky et al.s (2005) notion of life
happiness causing success in other domains, we used a measure
of overall relationship adjustment rather than a measure focused on
narrower constructs such as marital happiness and/or satisfaction.
The construct we measured appears similar to how marital quality
was measured by Hawkins and Booth (2005), though, as noted
above, they focused only on marital quality predicting global
happiness, not the bidirectional effects as we assess here.
Second, to our knowledge, all of the studies examining overtime
associations between life and marital happiness began with already
married respondents (e.g., Headey et al., 1991), with some married
for years at the time of the initial assessment. Specifically, participants in the sample used in Hawkins and Booth (2005) and Kamp
Dush et al. (2008) were recruited as already married and under the
age of 55. Hence, for many in that sample, the first time point
occurs years into marriage. Kamp Dush et al. noted the need for
studies with assessment beginning earlier, prior to marriage, if
possible. Although the sample used here is comprised of those who
already had plans for marriage, the first time point is before
marriage and the latter time point is 6 years later, well into
marriage. Third, while the existing studies use many sophisticated
analyses and present important results, we do not know of any that
have examined not only how life satisfaction predicts marital
quality and vice versa, but also how changes over time in each
construct are associated with future levels of the other.
As suggested by others (e.g., Headey et al., 1991; Lyubomirsky,
King, et al., 2005), evidence that life satisfaction predicts future
marital satisfaction can be taken as evidence that life satisfaction
may play a causal role in marital satisfaction (or quality). It is also
possible that the purported stability of life satisfaction could partly
determine the boundaries of marital quality. Life satisfaction is a
component of the broader construct of subjective well-being (Diener, 1984). Research has established that much of ones subjective
well-being is stable across time, thanks in part to genetics and

adaptation (Brickman & Campbell, 1971; Lykken & Tellegen,

1996), with scholars accepting an estimate that 50% of subjective
well-being is inherited (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999).
Research suggests that while people might experience changes in
their level of life satisfaction, they will inevitably adapt back to
their set-point with time (Brickman & Campbell, 1971; Kahneman, 1999). As an example of this, Brickman, Coates, and JanoffBulman (1978) showed that lottery winners were not significantly
more satisfied with life than nonlottery winners just 1 year after
receiving their winnings. The potential stability of subjective wellbeing has implications for relationship quality over time. Specifically, the part of global life satisfaction that is dispositional and
stable could affect the expression of relationship quality over time
in marriage, suggesting that life satisfaction could provide some
type of anchor on relationship quality, for good or ill.
Based on research reviewed above, as well the fact that lower
life satisfaction predicts divorce (Stutzer & Frey, 2006), we hypothesized that higher premarital life satisfaction would be predictive of higher relationship adjustment 6 years into marriage, even
when controlling for premarital relationship adjustment (Hypothesis One). In addition, based on work demonstrating that life
satisfaction tends to be relatively stable (Lucas & Clark, 2006), we
hypothesized that premarital life satisfaction would predict life
satisfaction 6 years into marriage, controlling for premarital relationship adjustment (Hypothesis Two). We also hypothesized that
changes in relationship adjustment would predict future life satisfaction (Hypothesis Three). This hypothesis was based on work
indicating that intentional activity can change life satisfaction
(Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005) as well as evidence that
marital interventions affect individual well-being (Beach & Whisman, in press; Baucom, Shoham, Mueser, Daiuto, & Stickle,
1998). Evidence in favor of the hypothesis would be supportive of
the idea that individuals who work to improve their relationships
can also increase their overall satisfaction with life, despite the
stability of life satisfaction. We also examine if changes in life
satisfaction predict future relationship adjustment, but we did not
make a hypothesis about this association.

Method
Participants
Participants were drawn from a larger study on premarital
education and the transition to marriage (see Markman et al., 2004;
Stanley et al., 2001). Type of premarital education did not change
the results in a meaningful way. Of the original 306 couples, 53
were excluded from the current study because they never got
married, one spouse died, or because they separated or divorced.
Participants also needed to have provided data both before marriage (Time 1) and at the eighth wave of the larger study (Time 2);
125 women and 126 men met these criteria.
Women were 18 to 53 years old (M 25.64, SD 5.22) and
men were 18 to 53 years old (M 27.01, SD 5.15) at Time 1.
The annual median personal income was between $20,000 and
$39,999. Women had 15.3 years of education on average (SD
1.89, Range 11 to 20 years) and men had 15.4 years of education
on average (SD 1.99, Range 11 to 20 years). Women were
84.8% White, 9.6% Hispanic, 1.6% African American, 3.2%
Asian, and .8% did not specify their race or ethnicity. Men were

EXAMINING CHANGES IN RELATIONSHIP ADJUSTMENT

89.7% White, 6.3% Hispanic, 2.4% African American, .8% Asian,

and .8% Native American. The average relationship length at Time
1 was 36.37 months (SD 26.47) and 62% of couples cohabited
before marrying.

Procedures
For the larger study, participants completed an assessment before taking part in premarital education and completed another
assessment after receiving premarital education, but before marrying. So that scores in the current study encompassed pre and post
premarital education levels, scores from these two assessments
were averaged to create the Time 1 scores in this study. For Time
2 in the current study, we used the eighth wave of data collection
because that was the next assessment in which the Satisfaction
with Life Scale was given. At Time 2, individuals were, on
average, in their sixth year of marriage. Each couple was paid $40
to $100, depending on the time point. All procedures were approved by a universitys Institutional Review Board and each
participant provided informed consent.

Measures
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a 5-item scale that measures global life
satisfaction. We used the mean of these five items in analyses, with
higher scores reflecting higher levels of life satisfaction. The
SWLS shows good internal reliability and testretest reliability
and it is a well-validated measure (Pavot & Diener, 2009). Cronbachs alpha () was .84 at Time 1 and .91 at Time 2.
Relationship adjustment was assessed using the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959).1 The MAT contains 15
items; it is a widely used measure of marital adjustment and has
the ability to discriminate between distressed and nondistressed
couples (Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977). A slightly modified version of the MAT was used premaritally (e.g., changing
words like mate to partner). Participants are asked to rate their
current relationship satisfaction, frequency with which they agree
or disagree on eight subjects including finances and recreation, and
how they handle disagreements. Cronbachs alpha () was .75 at
Time 1 and .66 at Time 2.

Results
The data were screened for outliers, normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity, and 11 outliers were removed because they were
significantly different from Mahalanobis distance. Means, standard deviations, and correlations can be found in Table 1. Hierarchical Linear Modeling 6.0 (HLM; Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004) was used to test hypotheses. For example, we used
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to test if Time 1 life satisfaction predicted relationship adjustment at Time 2 when controlling
for Time 1 relationship adjustment. The benefit of using HLM over
multiple regression for these analyses is that data from both
partners in a relationship can be modeled simultaneously, rather
than running separate models for men and women (see Atkins,
2005 for an overview). For all analyses, we tested for differences
based on gender and found that gender did not moderate any of the
findings.

167

Our first hypothesis was that premarital life satisfaction would

be predictive of relationship adjustment 6 years into marriage
when controlling for premarital relationship adjustment. Level 1 of
the model below represents individual characteristics (i.e., life
satisfaction and marital adjustment scores at Time 1). Level 2
represents the couple.
Level 1: Yij 0ij 1 (Time 1 Relationship Adjustment)ij
2 (Time 1 Life Satisfaction)ij rij
Level 2: 0ij G00 u00j
1ij G10
2ij G20
In this equation, i represents partners within a dyad and j
represents each dyad. There are two separate error terms, which
are assumed to be distributed normally. The random error term at
the individual level is rij and the random error term at the dyad
level is u00j. The outcome, Yij, is Time 2 relationship adjustment.
The results for the first hypothesis can be found in the first
analysis presented in Table 2. In support of the hypothesis, both
higher levels of premarital relationship adjustment and higher
levels of life satisfaction at Time 1 predicted higher levels of
marital adjustment at Time 2. That is, each of these premarital
variables contributed unique variance in predicting marital adjustment approximately 6 years into marriage.
The results for hypothesis two, in which we predicted that
premarital life satisfaction would predict life satisfaction 6 years
into marriage, can be found in the third analysis presented in Table
2. The results supported the hypothesis. Time 1 life satisfaction
was a significant predictor of Time 2 life satisfaction controlling
for Time 1 relationship adjustment. In contrast to finding that both
constructs predicted Time 2 marital adjustment in testing hypothesis one, only Time 1 life satisfaction uniquely predicted Time 2
life satisfaction. Premarital relationship adjustment was not a significant predictor of life satisfaction at Time 2 when controlling for
Time 1 life satisfaction. Time 1 relationship adjustment not only
was not a significant predictor of Time 2 life satisfaction, the
coefficient was essentially zero, suggesting that the lack of prediction cannot be attributed to any problem with power.
In Hypothesis Three, we predicted that changes in relationship
adjustment would predict future life satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, we subtracted the Time 1 relationship adjustment score
from the Time 2 relationship adjustment score to create a change
1
There is some conceptual overlap between the SWLS and the MAT. To
test if our results were sensitive to whether or not this variance was
included in the analyses, we created a second marital adjustment variable
by deleting items from the MAT that overlapped with the SWLS (e.g., If
you had your life to live over again, do you think you would marry the
same partner, marry a different person, or not marry at all and Please
check the dot that best describes the degree of happiness, everything
considered, of your present relationship). We then re-ran our analyses.
Our results remained largely the same as those presented using the full
MAT. We also note that our main analyses should be less affected by this
issue of measurement overlap than analyses in prior studies where both the
measures of well-being and relationship quality were couched solely or
mostly in terms of happiness or satisfaction.

STANLEY, RAGAN, RHOADES, AND MARKMAN

168

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Male and Female Time 1 and Time 2 Variables

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Time
Time
Time
Time
Time
Time
Time
Time

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

p .05.

Female Relationship Adjustment

Male Relationship Adjustment
Female Life Satisfaction
Male Life Satisfaction
Female Relationship Adjustment
Male Relationship Adjustment
Female Life Satisfaction
Male Life Satisfaction

.50
.28
.26
.36
.32
.16
.27

.05
.36
.31
.39
.16
.22

.15
.30
.10
.53
.24

.16
.36
.20
.59

.49
.58
.32

.32
.55

SD

.37

128.78
127.85
5.91
5.68
117.24
120.33
5.70
5.47

13.05
13.67
.72
.84
16.47
16.33
1.04
1.10

p .01.

score. We then added this change score to Level 1 of the equation

above to predict Time 2 life satisfaction. The fourth analysis
presented in Table 2 presents the findings for the test of the third
hypothesis. In support of the hypothesis, changes in relationship
adjustment were predictive of Time 2 life satisfaction when controlling for Time 1 relationship adjustment and life satisfaction.
Interestingly, the association between Time 1 relationship adjustment and Time 2 life satisfaction became significant when adding
the change score. We do not have an explanation for this. However, it is noteworthy that the effect size (R2) for the change in
relationship adjustment is quite a bit larger than that for Time 1
relationships adjustment (.23 vs. .06), suggesting the relative potency of the change in relationship adjustment over time as a
predictor of future life satisfaction.
Lastly, we tested if changes in life satisfaction predicted Time 2
marital adjustment while controlling for Time 1 relationship adjustment and life satisfaction, using the same procedure just above.
The second analysis of Table 2 shows that changes in life satisfaction predicted future marital adjustment, even when controlling
for premarital relationship adjustment and life satisfaction.

Discussion
Both premarital relationship adjustment and premarital life satisfaction were predictive of relationship adjustment 6 years into
marriage. The findings suggest that individual life satisfaction may

play a role in determining future relationship quality. In other

words, global life satisfaction levels before marriage may play a
role in how relationship quality unfolds. While the association was
not large, it is possible that life satisfaction levels within individuals may set some parameters around changes over time in relationship quality. It may further suggest that, when getting married,
higher life satisfaction is a protective factor that contributes to
future marital adjustment.
While premarital life satisfaction had some influence on
future marital adjustment, premarital relationship adjustment
contributed nothing to the prediction of future life satisfaction
once premarital life satisfaction was accounted for in the analysis. In fact, even without controlling for premarital life satisfaction, premarital relationship adjustment was not a significant
predictor of future life satisfaction for women and only a
modest predictor for men (see Table 1). Yet, by examining the
correlations in Table 1, it is clear that premarital life satisfaction was equally associated with both concurrent relationship
adjustment and future relationship adjustment. These findings
provide some support for arguments made by Lyubomirsky,
King et al. (2005) and others that constructs like life satisfaction
could play a causal role in future happiness in various life
domains. Indeed, the finding that changes in life satisfaction
were associated with future marital adjustment lends further
support to the possibility that life satisfaction plays a causal role

Table 2
Time 1 Relationship Adjustment and Life Satisfaction Predicting Time 2 Relationship Adjustment and Life Satisfaction
Outcome: T2 relationship
adjustment

Outcome: T2 relationship
adjustment

Fixed effects

SE

Intercept
T1 Rel. Adj.
T1 Life Sat.
Life Sat.
Rel. Adj.

54.82
0.30
4.30

Var. comp.

10.23
0.08
1.20

SD

.06
.05

133.45
95.88

11.55
9.79

308.45

rij
u00j

SE

39.92
0.34
6.38
7.74

Var. comp.

9.13
0.07
1.12
0.94

SD

.09
.12
.22

127.44
44.82

11.29
6.69

222.95

Outcome: T2 life satisfaction

B

SE

1.46
0.001
0.74

Var. comp.

0.61
0.005
0.07

SD

0.56
0.23

0.75
0.48

.00
.29

235.33

Outcome: T2 life satisfaction

B

SE

r2

0.17
0.02
0.63

0.03
Var. comp.

.56
.005
.07

.003
SD

.06
.26

.23
2

0.52
0.09

Note. B unstandardized regression coefficient; SE standard error of regression coefficient; r2 effect size t2/(t2 df).
p .05. p .01. p .001.

0.72
0.30

175.10

EXAMINING CHANGES IN RELATIONSHIP ADJUSTMENT

in marital adjustment. It also suggests that interventions that

increase life satisfaction may have a derivative, positive impact
on romantic relationship adjustment. Much more research is
needed, but life satisfaction could be a positive construct that
plays a potentially transformative role in marital adjustment
(see Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007). The integration of
strategies that increase individual well-being into couple interventions may bolster the effectiveness of such efforts.
While premarital relationship adjustment did not predict future
life satisfaction, changes in relationship adjustment were predictive of future life satisfaction, even when controlling for premarital
life satisfaction. Along with the literature demonstrating the ties
between overall mental health and marital quality (e.g., Whisman
& Uebelacker, 2006), these findings are consistent with the notion
that efforts to improve overall relationship quality may be valuable
in improving or protecting overall well-being (see Beach & Whisman, in press; Baucom et al., 1998).
There were several limitations in the current study. First,
while the couples in this study were first assessed before
marriage, this occurred after intentions for marriage had developed. The participants might have been experiencing levels of
life satisfaction that were higher than their baseline levels. They
were certainly at a developmental point associated with high
relationship adjustment. These factors could limit generalizability, though it is also possible that associations found here could
be even stronger with these same methods in a sample with a
greater range of scores on these variables. It would be valuable
to assess these and related types of associations over time in
samples where respondents are first assessed before a relationship starts or, at least, early in relationship development. Second, the sample is not large and representative like those used
in other works (e.g., Hawkins & Booth, 2005). Third, the
sample was comprised of couples who received premarital
education, which, along with other factors, may limit generalizability. Fourth, while over time analyses such as those presented here provide some evidence suggestive of causality, the
data are essentially correlational. Fortunately, science in this
area will continue to build insights about causality from ongoing studies in both basic science and in tests of intervention
impacts, with the latter providing further windows on causality.
Despite limitations, the findings of this study add to the literature on how romantic relationship quality and life satisfaction are
related over time. Baseline levels of life satisfaction may play an
important role in determining future romantic relationship quality
even as changes in romantic relationship quality will have significant impacts on future life satisfaction.

References
Atkins, D. (2005). Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family
treatment data: Basic and advanced issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 98 110. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.98
Baucom, D. H., Shoham, V., Mueser, K. T., Daiuto, A. D., & Stickle, T. R.
(1998). Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 66, 53 88. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.53
Beach, S. R. H. & Whisman, M. A. (in press). Affective disorders. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00243.x
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning

169

the good society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A

symposium (pp. 287302). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners
and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 917927. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,
7175. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective
well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
276 302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542
575. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative
processes in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 69, 275292. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737
.2007.00362.x
Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1981). The contribution of marital
happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage & The Family, 43,
161168. doi:10.2307/351426
Gottman, J. M., Markman, H. J., & Notarius, C. I. (1977). The topography
of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 461 478. doi:10.2307/
350902
Gove, W. R., Hughes, M. M., & Style, C. B. (1983). Does marriage have
positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 122131. doi:10.2307/2136639
Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of
long-term, low-quality marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84,
451 471. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0103
Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus
bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research,
24, 81100. doi:10.1007/BF00292652
Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, &
N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology
(pp. 325). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kamp Dush, C., Taylor, M. G., & Kroeger, R. A. (2008). Marital happiness
and psychological well-being across the life course. Family Relations,
57, 211226. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00495.x
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and
prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family
Living, 21, 251255. doi:10.2307/348022
Lucas, R. E., & Clark, A. E. (2006). Do people really adapt to marriage?
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 405 426. doi:10.1007/s10902-0069001-x
Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon.
Psychological Science, 7, 186 189. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280
.1996.tb00355.x
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent
positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin,
131, 803 855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.80
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
Markman, H. J., Whitton, S. W., Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Thompson,
H., St. Peters, M., . . . Cordova, A. (2004). Use of an empirically based
marriage education program by religious organizations: Results of a
dissemination trial. Family Relations, 53, 504 512. doi.10.1111/j.01976664.2004.00059.x
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale.
In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed.
Diener (pp. 101117). New York, NY: Springer Science Business
Media. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_5
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6: Hierar-

170

STANLEY, RAGAN, RHOADES, AND MARKMAN

chical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2003). Toward a positive psychology of
relationships. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive
psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 129 159). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10594-006
Ruvolo, A. P. (1998). Marital well-being and general happiness of newlywed couples: Relationships across time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 470 489. doi:10.1177/0265407598154002
Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32, 119 128. doi:10.1111/14678721.ep10772395
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Prado, L. M., Olmos Gallo, P. A., Tonelli,
L., St. Peters, M., . . . Whitton, S. (2001). Community based premarital

prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations,
50, 6776. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00067.x
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do
happy people get married? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 326
347. doi:0.1016/j.socec.2005.11.043
Whisman, M. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2006). Impairment and distress
associated with relationship discord in a national sample of married or
cohabiting adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 369 377. doi:
10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.369

Received September 1, 2010

Revision received September 23, 2011
Accepted October 6, 2011