Relationship satisfaction in

Argentinean couples under

economic strain: Gender
differences in a dyadic stress
model
Mariana K. Falconier
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA

Norman B. Epstein
University of Maryland, College Park, USA

ABSTRACT

This study tested a dyadic stress model that inter-partner

psychological aggression and positive behaviors mediate the
negative association between economic strain and couples
relationship satisfaction. Heterosexual couples at a large
community clinic in Argentina (N = 144 couples) completed
self-report questionnaires three years after the initiation of a
major economic crisis. Path analytic results indicated that
gender differences greater male and female psychological
aggression, and lower female positive behaviors mediated
the link between male economic strain and female relationship satisfaction. No significant paths were found from female
economic strain to male relationship satisfaction. Implications
for research, clinical practice, and the advancement of a dyadic
model of economic strain are discussed.
KEY WORDS: Couples interaction intimate relationships
marital satisfaction positive behaviors psychological
aggression stress

Authors note. This article is part of the first authors doctoral dissertation, which was directed
by the second author and was presented at the National Council on Family Relations conference,
Little Rock, AR in November 2009. The authors want to thank Centro Privado de Psicoterapias,
Buenos Aires, Argentina for providing the data for this study. All correspondence concerning
this article should be addressed to Mariana K. Falconier, Marriage and Family Therapy Program,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 7054 Haycock Rd, Suite 202, Falls Church,
VA 22043, USA [e-mail: marianak@vt.edu]. Larry Erbert was the Action Editor on this article.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 27(6): 781799.
DOI: 10.1177/0265407510373260

782

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Stress stemming from financial difficulties often generates psychological

distress (Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999; Dew & Yorgason, 2009; Kinnunen
& Feldt, 2004; Price, Choi, & Vinokur, 2002; Scaramella, Sohr-Preston,
Callhan, & Mirabile, 2008) and may contribute to poor parenting and
deteriorating couple relationships (e.g., Ayta & Rankin, 2009; Kinnunen
& Feldt, 2004; Kwon, Rueter, Lee, Koh, & Ok, 2003). Given the negative
effects of marital distress on parenting, childrens adjustment, and partners
physical and emotional well-being (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005; OLeary,
Christian, Mendell, 1994; Parke et al., 2004), understanding how economic
strain affects couple functioning is fundamental to assisting families facing
such circumstances.
Economic strain is an individuals subjective evaluation of his or her
financial circumstances and includes the perceived adequacy of financial
resources, financial concerns and worries, and expectations regarding ones
future economic situation (Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1988, p. 98). The present
study examined the association between economic strain and relationship
satisfaction in Argentinean couples three years after a major economic crisis.
At the end of 2001, the Argentinean government took drastic measures to
stabilize the countrys economy (e.g., devaluing currency and freezing and
devaluing bank deposits) that placed severe economic pressure on families.
By 2003 Argentinas gross domestic product had fallen 28%, inflation had
risen to 41%, real wages had fallen 23.7%, unemployment reached 23.6%,
and 57.3% of the population lived in poverty (US Congress, 2003).
Conger et al.s (1990, 1994) family stress model proposes that economic
strain indirectly influences a couples relationship satisfaction, mediated
by changes in partners mutual behaviors. Besides testing this model in
Argentinean couples, this study was designed to (i) increase understanding
of the factors mediating the association between economic strain and relationship satisfaction and (ii) transform Conger et al.s model into a dyadic
framework that includes the interdependence between partners. In addition,
this study should contribute to our limited knowledge about Argentinean
couples relationships.
Conger et al.s family stress model
In the early 1990s Conger and his colleagues (1990, 1994) developed a
family stress model to study the effects of the 1980s farm economic crisis
on families in the US. Previous studies linked economic strain and marital
tension and instability, but they lacked a measure of behavioral interactions
between spouses that may be influenced by economic deprivation and thus
affect evaluations of the marriage by husbands and wives (Conger et al.,
1990, p. 644). Therefore, the family stress model posited that the accumulation of stressors may overtax an individuals ability to cope and leads to
behavioral change (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pearlin, 1989). Specifically,
partners experiencing economic strain or distress will likely behave in a
hostile manner and decrease warm, supportive, behaviors. The deterioration
of couple interactions results in relationship distress and/or instability.

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

783

Studies from across the globe with samples facing significant economic
difficulties have supported Conger et al.s mediational stress model (e.g.,
Ayta & Rankin, 2009; Conger, Ge, & Lorenz, 1994; Hraba, Lorenz, &
Pechacova, 2000; Kinnunen & Feldt, 2004; Kwon et al., 2003). There is a
need, however, for greater specificity in the factors mediating the economic
strainrelationship satisfaction association, as well as incorporating the
interdependence between partners.
Psychological aggression as a mediator
Several studies have found empirical support for increases in partners
hostility as a mediating mechanism between the couples economic strain
and their relationship satisfaction (e.g., Conger et al., 1994; Hraba et al., 2000;
Kwon et al., 2003). In those studies, hostility has included, for example,
explosiveness, irritability, criticism, arguing, and hitting. Such a practice
combined psychological and physical aggression, making it impossible to
determine whether psychological aggression alone (without physical aggression) mediates the economic strainrelationship satisfaction association.
This is important because life stressors are common precursors of psychological aggression (e.g., Margolin, John, & Foo, 1998). Psychological aggression, including verbal attacks on the partners self-esteem, intimidating acts
not directed at the partners body, and punishment/coercion through hostile
withdrawal (Murphy & Hoover, 2001), is more prevalent than physical
aggression (e.g., Katz, Arias, & Beach, 2000) and often occurs when physical
aggression is absent (Barling, OLeary, Jouriles, & Vivian, 1987). Psychological aggression is a predictor of subsequent physical and sexual aggression (e.g., Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby, 2003) and decreased relationship
satisfaction (e.g., Ro & Lawrence, 2007; Taft et al., 2006). Further, psychological aggression correlates with psychological distress and physical health
symptoms above and beyond that caused by physical aggression (Coker et
al., 2002; Taft et al., 2006). Given that there are compelling reasons to study
whether psychological aggression alone can mediate between economic
strain and relationship satisfaction, the present study examined this notion.
Reexamining positive behaviors as a mediator
Unlike negative interactions, research does not fully support the claim that
a decrease in positive behaviors mediates the relation between economic
strain and relationship satisfaction. When investigators assessed positive
behaviors through observational coding of warm and supportive exchanges
in a laboratory setting, these behaviors did not mediate economic strain and
relationship distress (Conger et al., 1990; Conger et al., 1999). Self-report
measures of a wide range of partner support, however, did mediate between
financial strain and lower relationship satisfaction (Vinokur, Price, & Caplan,
1996). The couples joint financial strain led to more depressive symptoms
in the job seekers partner, which in turn reduced positive support of the

784

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

job seeker, ultimately reducing the job seekers relationship satisfaction.

Given considerable research indicating a positive association between
positive partner behaviors and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Broderick &
OLeary, 1986; Johnson & OLeary, 1996), it is important to reexamine
positive behaviors as mediators in the economic strainrelationship satisfaction association. Positive behaviors should be assessed in both communication and other behaviors such as intimacy, instrumental acts, and
companionship (Johnson & OLeary, 1996). This is precisely the approach
that this study has taken to reexamine positive behaviors as a mediating
factor in the economic strainrelationship satisfaction link.
A stress model at the dyadic level
Despite wide use, Conger et al.s stress model has two important limitations
when applied to couples. First, although defined as an individual factor
(Conger et al., 1990), economic strain has been treated as a couples experience by summing husband and wife responses (e.g., Conger et al., 1999;
Hraba et al., 2000; Kwon et al., 2003) or by considering them indicators of
the same latent construct (Vinokur et al., 1996). In the present study,
partners levels of subjective economic strain were included in the same
model (see also Falconier & Epstein, 2004; Kinnunen & Feldt, 2004). This
is necessary to separate the independent effect of each partners economic
strain on the other partners strain, as well as on each partners psychological aggression and positive behaviors.
The second limitation is the failure to consider the interdependence of
partners emotions, cognitions, and behaviors. As a result, associations between economic strain, relational behaviors, and relationship satisfaction
have typically been analyzed separately for men and women (e.g., Conger
et al., 1990; Dew & Yorgason, 2009; Kinnunen & Pulkkinen, 1998). Given this
approach, researchers cannot identify and control for non-independence
between partners due to mutual influence, similarity of background, and/or
shared context (Kenny, 1996). Therefore, we use a dyadic model to discriminate between partners responses, but also include them in the same model
to capture partner interdependence.
In sum, the proposed couple stress model (figure 1) follows Conger et
al.s mediation hypothesis in which partners economic strain indirectly
and negatively influences relationship satisfaction through (i) increases in
negative partner interactions and (ii) decreases in positive partner interactions. However, our dyadic stress model discriminates between partners
economic strain and incorporates partners mutual influences. The dyadic
stress model, presented in Figure 1, includes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Each individuals economic strain will have a negative,
indirect effect on the partners relationship satisfaction through an increase
in his or her own psychologically aggressive behavior toward the partner.
Hypothesis 2: Each individuals economic strain will have a negative,
indirect effect on the partners relationship satisfaction through a decrease
in his or her own positive behavior toward the partner.

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

785

FIGURE 1
Path analysis model: Standardized results
Fem ale psychological
aggression toward
partner
+

Fem ale econom ic

strain

m ale relationship
satisfaction
+

Fem ale positive

behaviors toward
partner

+
+

M ale positive
behaviors toward
p artner
Female
relationship
satisfaction

M ale econom ic
strain

M ale psychological
aggression toward
partner

D ire ct e ff e c t
Covariance

Hypothesis 3: There will be positive associations between the two partners degrees of (i) economic strain, (ii) psychologically aggressive behaviors
toward the other partner, (iii) positive behaviors toward the other partner,
and (iv) relationship satisfaction.
Method
Sample
Financial difficulties are among the primary concerns couples bring to
therapy (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). Therefore, we used a clinical
sample to increase the likelihood of finding couples experiencing economic
strain. The sample included both members from 144 heterosexual couples
recruited from those who completed a routine standardized assessment at an
outpatient mental health clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina between July 2003
and June 2004. Both partners were at least 18 years of age, were a couple for
at least one year, and were married or cohabiting. Couples with at least one
member diagnosed with an untreated psychotic disorder (through the clinics
structured psychosocial intake interview) or substance abuse issue (Michigan
Alcohol Screening Test; Selzer, 1971) did not receive the assessment.

786

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Men (M age = 38.0, SD = 9.0) were somewhat less educated than the
women (M age = 35.9, SD = 8.6), as 62.1% of women but only 37.9% of
men had some post high school education. The entire sample was Argentinean and white, and the majority of women (81.3%) and men (75.5%)
self-identified as Roman Catholic. Most couples (n = 114, 80.4%) were
married, the rest were cohabitating, and the total sample had been living
together for a mean of 10.3 years (SD = 7.5 years). Most couples (81%) had
children living in the household (M = 1.5 children, SD = 1.0). Women were
homemakers (37%), employed full-time (29%), or worked part-time (25%).
Most men (74.3%) worked full-time and 13.9% worked part-time. Half of
women (50.7%) and a majority of men (72.2%) reported a monthly personal
gross income between 500 Argentinean pesos (US$125) and 1999 Argentinean pesos (US$400). Mens mean monthly gross income was significantly
higher than womens; t (143) = 5.21, p < .001. When combined, the majority
of couples were middle-class (Instituto Nacional de Estadsticas y Censos
[INDEC], September, 2004). Unclear wording on the questionnaire may
have led participants to include both partners incomes.
Measurement
Each instrument was translated into Spanish by a native speaker and revised
by a professional translator. To insure the accuracy, all measures were
back-translated to English and compared with the original. Modifications
in wording were made when necessary.
Demographic information. A self-report questionnaire asked for gender,
race, age, income, occupation, education, employment status, relationship
status, years the couple had been living together, number of children living
in the household, and religious preference.
Economic strain. The Family Economic Strain Scale (FESS; Hilton &
Devall, 1997) was used to measure the individuals subjective perception of
economic strain. It is a 13-item instrument with internal consistency ranging
from .92 to .95 (Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Strauss, 1990). The first 12 items
ask the respondent to rate the frequency with which he or she experiences
a particular type of strain on a five point scale (never to almost always). Two
items were not analyzed because they refer to children, and not all couples
had children living in the household. Five items focused on the individuals
subjective perception of financial inadequacy (e.g., In general, it is hard for
me and my family to live on our present income), whereas remaining
items ask about financial worries and concerns (e.g., I worry about financial matters) and about how often the financial problems interfere with
the respondents life (e.g., Financial problems interfere with my work and
daily routine). On the final item, individuals evaluate their income relative
to other families in their country on a five-point scale (far below average to
far above average). Given economic circumstances in Argentina at the time
of this study, an additional item was added to assess the respondents fear
regarding his or her future financial situation (I am afraid that my income

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

787

will decrease). The added item correlated strongly with other items and
increased the scales internal consistency (females = .86; males = .85).
Higher scores represented greater strain.
Psychological aggression toward the partner. Psychologically aggressive
behaviors toward ones partner were measured with the Denigration,
Hostile Withdrawal, and Domination/Intimidation subscales (seven items
each) of the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA;
Murphy & Hoover, 2001). Respondents indicated how many times they
(and their partner) engaged in specific behaviors during the past four
months (0 = this has never happened, 1 = not in the past four months, but it
did happen before, 2 = once, 3 = twice, 4 = 35 times, 5 = 610 times, 6 =
1120 times, and 7 = more than 20 times). Denigration items describe acts
such as calling the other person worthless or ugly in front of other people.
Hostile Withdrawal items describe behaviors such as refusal to talk or
discuss a problem with the partner. Intimidation items describe behaviors
such as threatening to hit the other person. The fourth MMEA subscale,
Restrictive Engulfment, was not included in the present study as it does not
measure verbal or non-verbal behaviors that constitute directly aggressive
acts but rather involves constraining the other persons freedom.
For each behavior, an individuals frequency was determined by the higher
of the frequencies reported by the self or partner (see, e.g., Fals-Stewart,
Birchler, & Kelley, 2003; Healey & Smith, 1998). This scoring counteracts
the tendency to underreport socially undesirable acts. Item sums for the
three MMEA subscales served as the index of psychological aggression.
Internal consistency in this study was .87 for males and .90 for females.
Positive behaviors toward the partner. Positive behaviors directed at the
partner were assessed through the partners ratings on the positive behavior
subscale of the Daily Checklist of Marital Activities (DCMA; Broderick &
OLeary, 1986), a short version of the Spouse Observation Checklist (Weiss,
Hops, & Patterson, 1973). Each participant indicated which of 54 positive
behaviors the partner exhibited during the previous week (happened = 1;
did not happen = 0) and rated each enacted behavior for how pleasant or
unpleasant it was on a 9-point scale. Items focus on affection expressions
(e.g., Partner cuddled close to me in bed), instrumental behaviors (e.g.,
Partner cleaned up after making a mess), positive interactions (e.g.,Partner
expressed understanding or support of my feelings or mood), and attempts
to spend time together or plan recreational activities (e.g., Partner made
arrangements for us to go out together or have company). Only 42 items
were used because 12 items do not identify who initiated the behaviors (e.g.,
We cooked or worked together on a project, hobby, etc). Level of positive
behavior was calculated by summing the responses for the 42 behaviors
(high scores represent more positive relationship behavior). Internal consistency was .84 for females and .88 for males.

788

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Relationship satisfaction. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier,

1976) was used to assess relationship satisfaction. However, only the Dyadic
Satisfaction subscale was used as it has been argued that items from the
other three subscales (Cohesion, Consensus, and Affectional Expression)
confound the assessment of relationship satisfaction with forms of behavior
(e.g., communication behavior) that contribute to satisfaction (Kurdek,
1992). The Dyadic Satisfaction subscale includes ten Likert-type items that
measure the degree to which partners are satisfied with their relationship
(e.g., How often do you think that things between you and your partner
are going well?) In this sample the scales internal consistency was .78 for
females and .83 for males.
Procedure
In this study we used secondary data provided by couples in which at least
one individual was seeking therapy at an outpatient mental health clinic in
Buenos Aires, Argentina. During the first therapy session, couples meeting
inclusion criteria were informed that they would receive a standardized
assessment used for clinical and research purposes. After providing consent,
clients completed instruments at home without consulting each other. If
one partner was absent from that session, the partner who was present took
materials to the other partner. Each couple member sealed their completed
questionnaires in an envelope, and both envelopes were returned at the
next therapy session.
Results
Missing data did not exceed 6.25% for demographic factors or 2.72% for
the FESS, DCMA, MMEA, and DAS. Mean substitution replaced missing
values unless the partner provided the information (e.g., time living together
or MMEA items). According to Mardias normalized estimate (z = 2.66),
the sample was multivariate normal.
Sex differences in variable characteristics
Both men and women exhibited moderate levels of economic strain and
psychological aggression toward the partner, as well as relatively high levels
of relationship satisfaction and positive behaviors toward their partners
(see Table 1). Females reported significantly greater economic strain than
did males, but males levels of psychologically aggressive behaviors and
relationship satisfaction were significantly higher than females. The sex
difference in positive behaviors was not statistically significant. In addition,
females reports of female-to-male psychological aggression (M = 16.16,
SD = 13.46) were significantly higher than for males, (M = 13.34, SD =
13.81); t(139) = 2.45, p = .016). Reports of male-to-female psychological
aggression did not differ significantly.

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

789

TABLE 1
Path model variable characteristics for females and males
Women

Men

Variable

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Economic strain
Psychological aggression
Positive behaviors
Relationship satisfaction

28.75
22.05
24.94
35.96

7.74
16.75
6.96
5.95

27.44
24.51
26.15
37.02

7.70
19.12
7.44
6.08

2.10*
3.43*
1.83
2.51*

*p < .05 (two-tailed)

Control variables
In this study the main variables correlated with education level, length of
cohabitation, the presence of children in the household, and relationship
status (married or unmarried) (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Waite & Lillard,
1991). Therefore, these demographic variables were statistically controlled
for by partialing them out from the path model variables before proceeding with the multivariate analysis. Initially partialing out the effects of
control variables is a strategy that has been used in other studies (e.g.,
Newcomb & Bentler, 1988) and is particularly useful for limited sample
sizes. Each of the path model variables (economic strain, psychologically
aggressive behaviors, positive behaviors, and relationship satisfaction) was
regressed on each of these four control variables, and unstandardized
residuals were obtained. Females path variables were regressed only on
the females level of education but not on the males education, and the
males path variables were regressed on the males level of education but
not on that of the females. The unstandardized residuals became the data
for the observed variables in the path analyses. Table 2 reports the correlations among model variables after partialing out the control variables.

TABLE 2
Partial correlations among unstandardized residuals of path model variables
Variables
1. Female economic strain
2. Male economic strain
3. Female psychological aggression
4. Male psychological aggression
5. Female positive behaviors
6. Male positive behaviors
7. Female relationship satisfaction
8. Male relationship satisfaction

.53**
.24**
.22**
.01
.02
.25**
.26**

.25**
.29**
.13
.11
.28**
.27**

.84**
.16
.08
.69**
.56**

*p < .05 (two-tailed); **p < .01 (two-tailed)

.10

.01
.44**

.63** .28** .22**

.59** .19* .15

.66**

790

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Multivariate analysis
In addition to the 2 test that compares the difference between the covariance matrix of the observed variables and the matrix implied by the specified model, the three criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1995) were also
used to assess the fit of the model: the Standardized Root Mean-Square
Residual (SRMR), Bentlers Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Table 3 indicates that
there was a poor fit of the original model (Model 1) with the data, as the
2 difference test reached statistical significance and the three indices did
not reach the commonly accepted values for good fit (CFI > .96; SRMR <
.09; RMSEA < .06). The Lagrange Multiplier (LM) Test suggested that
added paths would improve model fit. Paths suggested were examined
and considered based on theoretical grounds (Byrne, 1994). Model respecification involved adding no more than one path at a time. After four
theoretically-based paths were added, Model 2 exhibited a good fit, and
adding only one remaining path could improve model fit (Model 3). Table
3 includes fit indices for all models. Model 3 exhibited significantly better
fit than Model 2 (see Figure 2), 2 (1) = 4.65, p < .05. The first two added
paths were from each partners psychological aggression to his or her own
relationship satisfaction. The third added path was from the males economic strain to the females psychological aggression. The fourth added path
was from the females positive behavior to her own relationship satisfaction. Finally, the final added path was from the males economic strain to
his female partners reduced positive behavior.
Data are consistent with only part of the original model. Direct paths
between economic strain and relationship satisfaction were not significant.
Hypothesis 1 was only supported for the indirect association between the
male economic strain and the female relationship satisfaction through
increases in the male psychological aggression toward his partner (.19).
Hypothesis 1 was not supported as there was no indirect association between the female economic strain and the male relationship satisfaction, as
the predicted paths were not statistically significant.

TABLE 3
Summary of the fit statistics for each model*
Model 1
(Original model)

Fit Indices
Chi-Square

2 = 65.31
df = 16
p < .001
.892
.134

CFI
SRMR
RMSEA
(90% confidence interval)

.147 (.110, .183)

Model 2
(4 paths added)
18.48
12
.10
.986
.081
.061 (.000, .113)

Model 3
(5 paths added)
13.83
11
.24
.994
.063
.042 (.000, .102)

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

791

FIGURE 2
Conceptual model
E (R = . 0 7 )

F emale ps ychol ogi cal

aggression toward
partner

E (R = . 3 7 )
.19

.06

Male relationship
satisfaction

Female economic
strain

.12

.15

Female positive
behaviors toward
partner

.39* (1)

.22* (3)
.25*

.8.833*

E (R = . 0 3 )

.42 *
.16*(4)

E (R = . 0 1 )
.20* (5)

.11

.43* (2)

..4466**

Mal e pos iti ve

behaviors toward
partner

Fem ale relat ions hip

satisfaction

.09

Ma le econ omi c str ain

.29*

()
*

original paths w ith statistical significance

original paths w ith no sta tistical significance
added paths w ith statistical significance
order in which path has been added
statistical significance at the .05 level

.30*

M ale p sych ologi cal

aggression toward
partner

E (R = . 4 8 )
E (R = . 0 8 )

Hypothesis 2 was not supported as positive behavior toward the partner

did not mediate between each individuals economic strain and the partners
relationship satisfaction (neither path was statistically significant). However,
Hypothesis 3 was fully supported, as significant positive associations were
found between the two partners levels of economic strain (.25), psychologically aggressive behavior (.83), positive behavior (.46), and relationship
satisfaction (.42) above and beyond the influence of other variables in the
model.
The final model explained a substantial amount of variation in partners
relationship satisfaction (R2 for females = .48; R2 for males = .37) but much
less variation in partners psychological aggression (R2 for females= .07; R2
for males = .08), and very little variation in partners positive behavior (R2
for females = .03; R2 for males = .01). Taken together, the male economic
strain indirectly influences (i) his partners relationship satisfaction through
increases in both his own and his partners psychological aggression and
decreases in his partners positive behavior. Moreover, his economic strain
indirectly influences (ii) his relationship satisfaction through increases in
his own psychological aggression. The female economic strain has no effect
(direct or indirect) on either partners relationship satisfaction.
Discussion
Our path analytic results did not fully support the original model. The
revised model indicated that only the male (and not the female) economic

792

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

strain indirectly affects both partners relationship satisfaction. When a man

is under economic strain, both partners tend to be more psychologically
aggressive toward each other, and women display fewer positive behaviors
toward their partners. In turn, all these behaviors are associated with lower
relationship satisfaction for women, whereas only the male psychological
aggression contributes to his own relationship dissatisfaction.
These results are consistent with Conger et al.s (1994) mediational stress
model in which economic strain reduces relationship satisfaction through
changes in the partners relational behaviors. This indicates that the stress
model is valid in an Argentinean sample and is also consistent with prior
studies that reported an indirect link between economic strain and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Hraba et al., 2000; Kinnunen & Feldt, 2004;
Kwon et al., 2003). The present findings are also important because they (i)
improve understanding of mechanisms mediating the economic strain
relationship satisfaction association, (ii) advance a dyadic stress model,
and (iii) suggest important gender differences in economic strain and relationship satisfaction.
Mediating mechanisms in the economic strainrelationship
satisfaction association
One of the goals of the present study was to examine if inter-partner
psychological aggression (and not general hostility or aggression) could
mediate between economic strain and relationship satisfaction. The present
data support this notion. Part of both partners increased psychological
aggression can be explained by the mans economic strain. In turn, each
partners psychological aggression is negatively related to the females relationship satisfaction. This finding is important because partners psychological aggression is a response to the males experience of economic strain,
and it likely reduces both partners relationship satisfaction. This is particularly worrisome because psychological aggression may lead to physical
and sexual violence, physical illness symptoms, and psychological distress
(Capaldi et al., 2003; Coker et al., 2002; Taft et al., 2006).
In addition to psychological aggression, we reexamined partners positive
behavior as a mediator of the economic strainrelationship satisfaction
association. To overcome previous studies limitations (Conger et al., 1990,
Elder, Conger, Foster, & Ardelt, 1992; Vinokur et al., 1996), we included
positive behaviors that extended beyond verbal communication, relied on
self- (as opposed to outside observers) reports, and included both partners
behaviors. Positive interactions, however, did not vary as a function of
experiencing economic strain, eliminating the possibility of a mediating role.
Previous studies either failed to find, or found for one partner, that positive
behavior mediated the relation between economic stress and relationship
satisfaction (Conger et al., 1990; Elder et al., 1992). Respondents were only
asked, however, to report their positive behaviors during the previous week.
A longer timeframe, as used for psychological aggression, may have generated greater variation.
Even though positive behavior did not covary with economic strain, results
suggested that the females positive behavior mediates the relation between

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

793

males economic strain and females relationship satisfaction. This result

could be an artifact of common method variance, as females reported both
positive behaviors and own relationship satisfaction. On the other hand,
females responded to their partners economic strain rather than their
own, and their relationship satisfaction is more dependent on relational
behaviors than is true for their partners.
A dyadic stress model
The present study was also designed to advance a couple stress model that
(i) differentiates between partners levels of economic strain (rather than
assuming they are the same), and (ii) incorporates interdependence between
two partners levels of strain, relational behaviors, and relationship satisfaction. Results indicated that females reported greater economic strain than
males. Partners responses on each variable were significantly and positively
related. Unfortunately, we do not know whether these between-partner
associations are due to mutual influence, background similarity, or common
exposure to causal forces (Kenny, 1996). Nonetheless, a couple stress model
must differentiate partners experiences of economic strain and include
scores for both partners in the same model. Such a model controls for
partner interdependence when examining the role of economic strain in
relationship satisfaction.
Moreover, including variables from both partners in the same model
allowed us to identify relationships not initially hypothesized but that significantly enriched the resulting model. Consistent with the ActorPartner
Interdependence Model (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006), the mens economic strain influences both his own (actor effect) and his partners (partner
effect) relational behavior. Conger et al.s stress model included neither
the partner effects of economic strain on the others relational behaviors,
nor the actor effects for a partners relational behaviors on his or her own
relationship satisfaction. A stress model that includes such relations is
appropriate for understanding the effects of economic strain on couples
relationships because one individuals thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are
likely to affect, and be affected by, their partners (Kenny, 1996). Future
research should consider these issues further.
Gender differences
The dyadic stress model uncovered important gender differences in effects
of economic strain on couples. Despite women experiencing higher economic strain than do men, only the males economic strain influences the
couples relational behaviors, and these changes, in turn, influence the
females (rather than the males) relationship satisfaction. Both feminist
and evolutionary perspectives help explain these findings.
The first interesting aspect of our findings is that females in our sample
reported significantly more economic strain even though the breadwinners
role has, historically, been the males. This result is reminiscent of Fox and
Chanceys (1998) finding that women view their husbands job instability
as more threatening than their own. From a feminist perspective, womens
greater economic strain may reflect mens dominance in couples financial

794

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

decision making, and womens reduced possibilities for generating more

income due to child care constraints (sexual division of labor) and their
disadvantaged position in a male-dominated job market. Womens limited
ability to resolve a couples financial difficulties might explain their tendency
to report higher economic strain. This is likely especially true in more patriarchal societies, such as the Argentinean one, where couples espouse more
traditional gender role orientations (Perez-Rubio, 2003). Such traditional
relationships further restrict womens access to financial resources and
solutions, generating greater economic concern and anxiety.
From an evolutionary perspective, gender differences appear in those
domains in which men and women have faced different types of adaptive
problems (Buss, 1989). To maximize returns for their greater reproduction
and parenting investment, women evolved a preference for mates who
provide resources to support them and their children (Buss, 1989; Schwartz
& Rubel, 2005). Thus, economic problems pose a greater threat to women
than to men, who do not typically rely on partners for resources.
Although females experience greater economic strain than do males,
only the male economic strain influences interpersonal exchanges. This
suggests another important gender difference: women are better than men
at preventing strain from affecting their own behavior and keeping it from
partners. This could be due to womens nurturance orientation, an evolutionary adaptation from direct experiences with caring for others (Schwartz
& Rubel, 2005) or being socialized to be more attentive and attuned to
others needs (Gilligan, 1982). Womens concern with caring may create
feelings of responsibility for maintaining family stability and cohesiveness
when experiencing financial stresses. Females may also feel responsible for
protecting the family from distress and may believe that their own stress
responses may prevent them from taking care of family members (Almeida
& Kessler, 1998). For example, women try to prevent work stress from
negatively influencing family relationships (Repetti & Wood, 1997).
These care orientations can also explain why womens relationship satisfaction was dependent on couple interactions (see also Acitelli & Antonucci,
1994; Julien & Markman, 1991). Females relationship satisfaction was
negatively related to both partners psychological aggression and positively
related to her own positive behaviors. Males relationship satisfaction was
related (negatively) only to his own psychologically aggressive behaviors.
Assuming a greater concern with others needs, females are more likely than
male partners to focus on partner interactions. This is in line with findings
that interpersonal issues are more upsetting for women than for men (e.g.,
Almeida & Kessler, 1998).
The female relationship satisfaction depended indirectly on the male
economic strain, whereas the male relationship satisfaction did not depend
on her economic strain. Either because women financially depend on men
in a patriarchal society (feminist view) or because they choose mates who
are good providers (evolutionary view), relationship satisfaction will likely
suffer if male partners have difficulties in providing for the family. In
contrast, mens relationship satisfaction seems independent from either

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

795

womens economic strain or the couples relational behaviors. Previous

research indicated that mens relationship satisfaction depends on factors
such as partner physical attractiveness and his relational dominance (e.g.,
Lucas et al., 2004). The data from the present study do not allow a conclusion regarding the specific factors on which the male relationship satisfaction depends, but our results do indicate that their satisfaction does not
depend on the female economic strain or the quality of the couples interactions.
Limitations
The present studys findings and conclusions should be considered with
caution, as the data have several limitations. First, regarding the suggested
direction of influences in the path model, the cross-sectional nature of the
data prevents us from ruling out other models with different causal relations among the variables that might also fit the data. Second, participants
completed self-report measures in their homes without supervision. This
potentially decreases the datas validity. Self-report measures typically
increase socially desirable responses, particularly on sensitive topics. This
may be particularly true for our Argentinean sample that may have little
experience disclosing this type of information. If partners consulted with
each other, or were concerned that the other partner might view their
responses, it may have influenced responses. Third, common method variance may inflate the relation between female psychological aggression and
her relationship satisfaction. Each individuals psychological aggression
was coded as the higher score given by either of the partner on that
persons aggression. Because females reports of female-to-male psychological aggression were significantly higher than males reports of it, assessment of females psychological aggression was typically based on her own
reports. Using the higher report of aggression for each item was appropriate because of mens tendency to underreport aggressive acts (e.g., FalsStewart et al., 2003; Jouriles & OLeary, 1985). Finally, data were obtained
from an urban clinical population of Argentinean couples, which limits
our ability to generalize to couples with other demographic and cultural
characteristics, as well as non-clinical status. On the other hand, this
Argentinean sample was selected because most prior studies focused on
white, middle-class, American couples.
Conclusion and implications
When Argentinean men face concerns about financial issues, it has indirect
negative effects on their partners relationship satisfaction by increasing
both partners psychological aggression and decreasing the females positive
behaviors. To extend these findings, the final model could be tested longitudinally, with both Argentinean and non-Argentinean populations, and
with rural and non-clinical couples. Combining self-report and observational measures would also provide valuable data. Future research on other
stressors should test a dyadic stress model that includes both partners
strain and behaviors within the same model so interdependence can be

796

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

considered. Models of the economic strainrelationship satisfaction association should include psychological aggression as a negative relational
behavior, as this study demonstrated that it is related to both economic
strain and relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, research should consider
factors (e.g., anxiety, depression, and helplessness) that mediate the economic strainpsychological aggression link. In addition, research should
explore factors (e.g., dyadic coping or social support) that might buffer
couples experiencing economic strain from experiencing psychological
aggression. Also, given our gender differences, future research should
consider gender issues in relationship functioning.
The present studys findings have important clinical implications for
clients facing financial difficulties. Clinicians should remember that when
one member of the couple experiences economic strain, the other member
is also likely to be concerned about financial issues. They should assess how
partners cope with this strain, given its potential to elicit mutual psychological aggression. Reciprocal psychological aggression can eventually
lead not only to decreased relationship satisfaction, but also to physical
abuse and psychological distress (Capaldi et al., 2003; Coker et al., 2002).
Therefore, clinicians should help couples find effective ways of coping with
economic stressors that short-circuit psychological aggression. For example,
teaching partners constructive communication and problem-solving skills
from cognitive-behavioral couple therapy, as well as interventions for selfsoothing and anger management (Epstein & Baucom, 2002), could help
partners interact more positively despite economic strain. Partners then
can develop effective ways of communicating when experiencing financial
stress and respond to each others stress in a supportive way, both emotionally and by providing practical solutions. In addition, interventions to modify
unrealistic gender role standards (e.g., male responsibility for family economic support or females as nurturers who hide economic strain) and to
introduce gender role flexibility (Epstein & Baucom, 2002) may reduce
conflict. Clinicians should also encourage couples to seek financial consultations when the couple needs practical advice.
Prevention and intervention programs should be developed for populations likely to experience significant economic strain. These programs could
teach couples to deal with, and reduce the negative impact of, economic
stressors. Such programs should include a financial component to provide
couples with tools to better handle their finances.
Findings from this study revealed important gender differences in the
relations among economic strain, partners relational behaviors, and relationship satisfaction. They also suggest the value of a dyadic stress model
that includes psychological aggression as a mediating mechanism, discriminates between partners degrees of economic strain, and considers partner
interdependence. Future research should consider these issues and develop
prevention programs and clinical interventions for couples experiencing
economic strain.

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

797

REFERENCES
Acitelli, L. K., & Antonucci, T. C. (1994). Gender differences in the link between marital
support and satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
688698.
Almeida, D. M., & Kessler, R. C. (1998). Everyday stressors and gender differences in daily
distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 670680.
Ayta, I. A., & Rankin, B. H. (2009). Economic crisis and marital problems in Turkey: Testing
the Family Stress Model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 756767.
Barling, J., OLeary, K. D., Jouriles, E. N., & Vivian, D. (1987). Factor similarity of the Conflict
Tactics Scale across samples, spouses, and sites: Issues and implications. Journal of Family
Violence, 2, 3754.
Broderick, J. W., & OLeary, K. D. (1986). Contributions of affect, attitudes, and behavior to
marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 514517.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 149.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Capaldi, D., Shortt, J., & Crosby, L. (2003). Physical and psychological aggression in at-risk
young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 127.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H.
(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260268.
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Huck,
S., & Melby, J. N. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 643656.
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., & Lorenz, F. O. (1994). Economic stress and marital relations. In R. D.
Conger, & G. H. Elder (Eds.), Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America
(pp. 187203). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 5471.
Dew, J. P., & Yorgason, J. (2009). Economic pressure and marital conflict in retirement-aged
couples. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 164188.
Elder, G. H., Conger, R. D., Foster, E. M., & Ardelt, M. (1992). Family under economic
pressure. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 537.
Epstein, N.B., & Baucom, D.H. (2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A
contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Falconier, M. K., & Epstein, N. B. (2004, November). The role of spousal psychological aggression and positive behaviors in the relation between economic strain and marital distress in
Argentinean couples. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for
Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New Orleans, LA.
Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G. R., & Kelley, M. L. (2003). The Timeline Followback Spousal
Violence Interview to assess physical aggression between intimate partners: Reliability and
validity. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 131142.
Fox, G. L., & Chancey, D. (1998). Sources of economic distress. Individual and family outcomes.
Journal of Family Issues, 19, 725749.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Healey, K.M., & Smith, C. (1998). Batterer programs: What criminal justice agencies need to
know: Research in action (NCJ 171683). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hilton, J. M., & Devall, E. L. (1997). The Family Economic Strain Scale: Development and
evaluation of the instrument with single- and two-parent families. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 18, 247271.

798

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Hraba, J., Lorenz, F. O., & Pechacova, Z. (2000). Family stress during the Czech transformation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 520531.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling (pp. 7699). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Instituto Nacional de Estadsticas y Censos (September, 2004). Incidencia de la pobreza y de
la indigencia en 28 aglomerados urbanos [Incidence of poverty and indigence in 28 urban
settlements]. Retrieved July 1st, 2008, from http://www.indec.gov.ar/.
Johnson, P. L., & OLeary, K. D. (1996). Behavioral components of marital satisfaction: An
individualized assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 417423.
Jouriles, E. N., & OLeary, K. D. (1985). Interspousal reliability of reports of marital violence.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 419421.
Julien, D., & Markman, H. J. (1991). Social support and social networks as determinants of
individual and marital outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 549568.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability:
A review of method, theory, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 334.
Katz, J., Arias, I., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Psychological abuse, self-esteem, and womens
dating relationship outcomes. A comparison of the self-verification and self-enhancement
perspectives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 349357.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford
Press.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 13, 279294.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. B., Lemeshow, S., Dickinson, S. L.,
& Glaser, R. (2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and
wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 13771384.
Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2004). Economic stress and marital adjustment among couples:
Analysis at the dyadic level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 519532.
Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (1998). Linking economic stress to marital quality among Finnish
marital couples: Mediator effects. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 705724.
Kurdek, L. A. (1992). Dimensionality of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Evidence from heterosexual and homosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 2235.
Kwon, H., Rueter, M. A., Lee, M., Koh, S., & Ok, S. (2003). Marital relationships following the
Korean economic crisis: Applying the family stress model. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
65, 316325.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lucas, T. W., Wendorf, C. A., Imamoglu, E. O., Shen, J., Parkhill, M. R., Weisfeld, C. C., &
Weisfeld, C. G. (2004). Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of homogamy,male
dominance and female attractiveness. Sexualities, Evolution, & Gender, 6, 97130.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Foo, L. (1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for husbands
emotional and physical abuse of their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 315344.
Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Murphy, C. M., & Hoover, S. A. (2001) Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as
a multifactorial construct. In K. D. OLeary & R. D. Maiuro (Eds.), Psychological abuse in
violent domestic relationships (pp. 328). New York: Springer.
Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Impact of adolescent drug use and social support
on problems of young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97,
6475.
OLeary, K. D., Christian, J. L., & Mendell, N. R. (1994). A closer look at the link between
marital discord and depressive symptomatology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
41, 1333.
Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J., French, S., & Widaman,
K. F. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in Mexican-American and
European families. Child Development, 75, 16321656.
Pearlin, J. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30,
241256.

Falconier & Epstein: Economic strain and relationship satisfaction

799

Prez Rubio, A. M. (2003). Prcticas y discursos: El cambio de las representaciones de gnero

[Practices and discourses: The change in gender representations]. In A. M. Prez Rubio, F.
Butti, P. Barbetti, M. G. Saavedra, & T. Domnguez (Eds.), Rupturas y permanencias en los
roles de gnero: Cuando las mujeres trabajan (pp. 98111). Corrientes, Argentina: Eudenne.
Price, R. H., Choi, J. N., & Vinokur, A. D. (2002). Links in the chain of adversity following job
loss: How financial strain and loss of personal control impaired functioning and poor health.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 7, 302312.
Repetti, R. L., & Wood, J. (1997). Families accommodating to chronic stress and unnoticed
processes. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress (pp. 190220). New York:
Plenum Press.
Ro, E., & Lawrence, E. (2007). Comparing three measures of psychological aggression: Psychometric properties and differentiation from negative communication. Journal of Family
Violence, 22, 575586.
Robila, M., & Krishnakumar, A. (2005). Effects of economic pressure on marital conflict in
Romania. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 246251.
Scaramella, L. V., Sohr-Preston, S. L., Callhan, K. L., & Mirabile, S. P. (2008). A test of the
Family Stress Model on toddler-aged childrens adjustment among Hurricane Katrina
impacted and nonimpacted low-income families. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 37, 530541.
Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 10101028.
Selzer, M.L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST): The quest for a new
diagnostic instrument, American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 16531658.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 1528.
Spotts, E. L., Neiderhizer, J. M., Towers, H., Hanson, K., Lichtenstein, P., Cederland, M.,
Pedersen, N. L., & Reiss, D. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on marital relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 107119.
Taft, C. T., OFarrell, T. J., Torres, S. E., Panuzio, J., Monson, C. M., Murphy, M., & Murphy,
C. M. (2006). Examining the correlates of psychological aggression among a community
sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 581588.
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee (2003). Argentinas economic crisis: Causes and
cures. Washington, DC.
Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Caplan, R. D. (1996). Hard times and hurtful partners: How
financial strain affects depression and relationship satisfaction of unemployed persons and
their spouses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 166179.
Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1988). Economic distress, family coping, and quality of family
life. In P. Voydanoff & L. C. Majka (Eds.), Families and economic distress: Coping strategies
and social policy. New perspectives on family (pp. 97115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waite, L. J., & Lillard, L. A. (1991). Children and marital disruption. American Journal of
Sociology, 96, 930953.
Weiss, R. L., & Heyman, R. E. (1997). A clinical-research overview of couples interactions. In
W. K. Halford, & H. J, Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions (pp. 1341). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital
conflict, a technology for altering it, some data for evaluating it. In L. A. Hamerlynck &
L. C. Handy (Eds.), Behavioral change: Methodology, concepts, and practice (pp. 309342).
Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists perspectives of couple
problems and treatment issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 361366.