Advertisement

Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 42–51 | Cite as

Understanding Couple Shared Reality: The Case of Combined Couple Versus Discrepancy Assessments in Understanding Couple Forgiveness

  • Dean M. BusbyEmail author
  • Randal D. Day
  • Joseph Olsen
Original Paper
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

In this methodological study we use the concept of couple forgiveness to explore how to utilize couple data to assess and analyze the systemic idea of a shared reality and other constructs. That is, when couples have a shared reality about a given topic (forgiveness) does that shared view enhance marital outcomes? Shared reality theory, would predict that if forgiveness is scored using a discrepancy calculation, net of previous marital quality and other standard controls, there will be significant and positive increases in relationship quality as discrepancy decreases. Data to evaluate these ideas were collected over three-years from interviews of a community sample of 324 couples. The initial ideas about a shared reality were confirmed in only a few instances. However, individual and combined ratings were significantly associated with couple outcomes but the amount of shared reality was generally not. These findings imply that couple data continues to be crucial for predicting relationship outcomes but combining scores may be more helpful than evaluating discrepancy, at least with a relational construct like forgiveness. Additionally, we found that women’s assessment of personal or partner forgiveness was more statistically powerful in predicting positive marital outcomes than men’s assessments.

Keywords

Dyadic data analysis Forgiveness Interpersonal perceptions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the Family Studies Center, School of Family Life, and the College of Family Home and Social Science at Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Author Contributions

First author, D.M.B.: codesigned and executed the study, assisted with the data analyses interpretations, and collaborated with writing all sections of the study. Second author, R.D.D.: designed and executed the data collection, codesigned and executed the study, assisted with the data interpretations and collaborated with writing all sections of the study. Third author, J.O.: analyzed the data, compiled the tables, and collaborated with writing the results of the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All data collection procedures were approved by the institutional review board at Brigham Young University and were in accordance with established ethical standards for institutional and national boards.

Informed Consent

All participants completed an appropriate consent form prior to the completion of any data collection.

References

  1. Baucom, B. R., & Atkins, D. C. (2013). Understanding marital distress: polarization processes. In M. A. Fine & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories (pp. 145–166). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, C. R., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of social reality. Diogenes, 46, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard, J. (1982). The future of marriage. New York, NY: World.Google Scholar
  4. Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Burr, W. R., Marks, L. D., & Day, R. D. (2011). Sacred matters: religion and spirituality in families.. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009). The association between partner enhancement and self-enhancement and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71(3), 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busby, D. M., & Poulsen, F. O. (2014). Measurement issues with couple- and family-level data. In R. B. Miller & L. N. Johnson (Eds.), Advanced Methods in Family Therapy Research: A Focus on Validity and Change. New York, NY: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  8. Eaton, J., & Struthers, C. W. (2006). The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 32(3), 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenell, D. L. (1993). Characteristics of long-term first marriages. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15(4), 446–460.Google Scholar
  10. Fincham, F. D. (2009). Forgiveness: integral to a science of close relationships. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  11. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: a decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(2), 630–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 72–81.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fincham, F. D., Hall, J. H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Forgiveness in marriage: current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55(3), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: does commitment promote forgivess? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 956–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and marriage: preliminary support for a measure based on a model of recovery from a marital betrayal. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon, K. C., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon, L. J., & Litzinger, S. C. (2009). Widening spheres of impact: the role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(1), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoyt, W. T., Fincham, F. D., McCullough, M. E., Maio, G., & Davila, J. (2005). Responses to interpersonal transgressions in families: forgivingness, forgivability, and relationship-specific effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 439–448.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 442–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malcom, W., Belicki, K., & DeCourville, N. (2008). Women’s relfections on the complexities of forgiveness. In W. Malcom, N. DeCourville & K. Belicki (Eds.), Women’s reflections on the complexities of forgiveness (pp. 19–28). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  22. McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGinn, M. M., McFarland, P. T., & Christensen, A. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of demand/withdraw. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(5), 749–757.  https://doi.org/10.1037/A0016185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, A. J., Worthington, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). Gender and forgiveness: a meta-analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(8), 843–876.  https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muthen, B., & Muthen, L. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. 6th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
  28. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know - and sometimes misjudge - what others know: imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: a critical look at the dependence variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Padilla-Walker, L. M., Harper, J. M., & Bean, R. A. (2011). Pathways to parental knowledge: the role of family process and family structure. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 604–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: a longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 368–378.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in close relationships: within and cross partner effects. Universitas Psychologica, 9(1), 35–56.Google Scholar
  33. Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., Overbeek, G., Vermulst, A. A., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). What it takes to forgive: when and why executive functioning facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 119–131.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sillars, A. L., Folwell, A. L., Hill, K. C., Maki, B. K., Hurst, A. P., & Casan, R. A. (1994). Marital communication and the persistence of misunderstanding. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 611–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaffnuser, K., Mathias, M., Werner, C. S., & Martin, M. (2016). Discrepancy in personality perceptions is related to relationship satisfaction: Findings from dyadic latent discrepancy analyses. Journal of Personality, 84, 658–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sillars, A. L., & Scott, M. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: an integrative review. Human Communication Research, 10(1), 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trobst, K. K., Collins, R. L., & Embree, J. M. (1994). The role of emotion in social support provision: gender, empathy, and expressions of distress. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 11, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Collani, G., & Werner, R. (2005). Self–related and motivational constructs as determinants of aggression. An analysis and validation of a German version of the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1631–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wade, S. H. (1989). The development of a scale to measure forgiveness. Unpublished doctoral disseration, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and mental health. American Sociological Review, 55, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Worthington, E. L. (2005). Initial questions about the art and science of forgiving. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of Forgiveness (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routlege.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Family LifeBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.College of Family, Home, and Social ScienceBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations