See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257045512

Emotional intelligence (EI), conflict resolution patterns, and

relationship satisfaction: Actor and partner effects revisited

ARTICLE in PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES · JANUARY 2013

Impact Factor: 1.95 · DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.013

CITATIONS READS
7 290

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Moshe Zeidner
University of Haifa
134 PUBLICATIONS 3,844 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Moshe Zeidner
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 13 December 2015
 Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 278–283

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Emotional intelligence (EI), conflict resolution patterns, and relationship

satisfaction: Actor and partner effects revisited
Moshe Zeidner ⇑, Iris Kloda
University of Haifa, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study tested for actor and partner effects in the relationship between ability-based EI and adaptive
Received 21 June 2012 marital relationships and satisfaction employing a standard dyadic design involving 100 young hetero-
Received in revised form 13 September 2012 sexual couples. Participants were assessed on the MSCEIT along with measures of conflict resolution pat-
Accepted 16 September 2012
terns and perceived marital satisfaction. A series of path analyses provided support for actor effects—but
Available online 24 October 2012
not partner effects—in the association of EI, assessed as ability, and marital variables. Overall, the data
provide only partial support for the common claim and some prior research suggesting that EI plays a
Keywords:
pivotal role in marital relationships.
Emotional intelligence
Close personal relationship
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Marital satisfaction
Conflict resolution pattern

1. Introduction 1.1. Marital conflict and marital satisfaction

In many ways, emotional intelligence (EI) has been heralded as
a promising new construct in psychological science that is directed
towards improving the human condition, including close personal
relationships (Fitness, 2001; Zeidner, Matthews, & Robert, 2009).
Popular definitions of EI are varied and inconsistent, with EI
assessed in the literature both as a trait (e.g., Pérez, Petrides, &
Furnham, 2005) and as ability (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999).
Following Salovey and Mayer, we loosely define EI as a set of
inter-related abilities for identifying, understanding, applying,
and regulating emotions.
Emotional intelligence and related emotional and social compe-
tencies often help convey important information about people’s
thoughts and intentions, and may help considerably in coordinat-
ing social encounters, particularly close personal relationships
(Lopes et al., 2004). In fact, in emotional transmission, one
partner’s competencies and behaviors can increase positive (and
negative!) effects in the other partner (Hatfield, Cacioppo, &
Rapson, 1994). Although there are multiple factors determining
marital satisfaction and quality of personal relationships (Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996), this study focuses on one putatively
important predictor of marital relations and satisfaction—EI.
We begin our review of the literature by briefly discussing the
link between marital conflict and satisfaction and then move onto
discuss the role of EI in marital life.
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, 31905 Haifa,
Israel. Tel.: +972 4 8240897; fax: +972 4 8240911.
E-mail address: zeidner@research.haifa.ac.il (M. Zeidner).
Marital conflict arises because of disagreement or conflict over
personal goals, intentions, values, interests, or behavioral priori-
ties. Most married couples find themselves engaged in some kind
of conflict throughout their marriage. In young couples, as is the
case in this study, issues relating to mutual adjustment (managing
money, relating to in-laws, etc.) bring to the couple new problems
and this in turn portends exacting demands on their capacities to
communicate (Navran, 1967).
Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data reviewed show that
conflictual interactions predict marital satisfaction and stability
(Karney & Bradbury, 1995). The use of mutually constructive dis-
cussion and direct conflict resolution strategies may enhance inti-
macy among partners (Christensen & Shenk, 1991). By contrast,
less adaptive strategies (e.g., mutual avoidance of problem discus-
sions, demand-withdrawal communication) can lead to marital
unhappiness and dissolution (Noller & Feeney, 2002). Furthermore,
perceived relationship quality (or satisfaction) is one of the stron-
gest predictors of marriage stability and duration, as well as a ro-
bust predictor of psychological and physical health (Horowitz,
McLaughlin, & White, 1998).
1.2. EI and marital life
EI has been claimed to be an important factor contributing to
relationship stability and happiness (Fitness, 2001). In order for
partners to cope successfully with ongoing stresses and emotional
fissures, their skill in identifying, understanding, and regulating
their own emotions and those of their partners becomes critical

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.013
 M. Zeidner, I. Kloda / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 278–283
(Fitness, 2001). Thus, EI has been claimed to help individuals to
maintain positive emotional interactions, communicate and han-
dle conflicts more effectively, and regulate their emotions better,
thus facilitating solutions during marital conflicts and contribute
to marital well-being (Fitness, 2001).
However, the role of EI in shaping close interpersonal relation-
ships has received only scant support in the literature, with only a
handful of studies (e.g., Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, &
Salovey, 2006; Fitness, 2001; Schutte et al., 2001) systematically
examining the association between EI and close personal relation-
ships. Overall, these studies indicated significant EI ‘actor’ effects
(Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006, pp. 144–184) in predicting marital
satisfaction. However, because sound dyadic designs and analyses
were not employed in any of the foregoing studies, ‘partner’ effects
could not be tested and the tenability and the generalizability of
the reported results remain limited.
In a more recent study, employing a methodologically appropri-
ate dyadic design, Smith, Ciarrochi, and Heaven (2008) examined
the relationship between trait self-reports of EI, conflict communi-
cation patterns, and relationship satisfaction in 82 cohabiting het-
erosexual couples. The data showed that those high on EI were also
more satisfied with their relationship and handled conflicts more
adaptively, thus indicating tenable ‘actor effects’. However, no sig-
nificant ‘partner’ effects were found, suggesting that an individual’s
own level of EI has no reliable effect on the partner’s conflict reso-
lution patterns or satisfaction with the relationship.
A major concern regarding Smith et al.’s study is that all data
were based on self-report. Specifically, the trait measure of EI used
in their study does not directly tap people’s emotional abilities but
rather people’s self-reported beliefs about their emotional abilities.
Recent research indicates that self-report EI measures are highly
correlated with established measures of psychological well-being
and personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003) and may therefore con-
tain a great deal of unwanted variance. Furthermore, the signifi-
cant actor effects in the relationship between EI and marital
variables may be accounted for by common method variance in
both sets of ratings.
1.3. Goals and hypotheses
In view of the shortcomings of prior research, a major goal of
this study was to assess actor and partner effect of ability-based
EI with respect to marital communications and perceived marital
quality (satisfaction). By using an ability-based measure of EI, we
hoped to be able to rule out the possibility of common construct
variance in the event that actor effects are observed.
Following from established connections between person vari-
ables and perceptions of couples’ conflict communication patterns
(Heaven, Smith, Prabhakar, Abraham, & Mete, 2006), it was antici-
pated that EI scores will be positively associated with perceptions
of constructive conflict resolution patterns and negatively
associated with perceptions of demanding and withdrawing and
avoidance and withholding patterns. Furthermore, based on the
assumption that EI is an enduring resource for adaptive marital rela-
tionships, along with some prior research, EI was hypothesized to be
significantly related to the perceived quality of marital satisfaction.
Based on the assumption that a defining feature of an intimate rela-
tionship is that one partner’s psychological competencies, states,
and actions have the capacity to influence those of the other partner
(Rushbult & van Lange, 1996), significant ‘actor’ as well as ‘partner’
effects were examined in the nexus of EI and marital variables.
In addition, we tested for the potential mediating role of conflict
resolution patterns in the relationship between EI and perceived
quality of marriage. Finally, we examined the relationship between
EI similarity and satisfaction, as few studies have taken the profile
similarity approach in the examination of the association between
279
similarity on personal traits and marital satisfaction (Luo et al.,
2008).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 100 newlywed heterosexual couples, married
within one year of assessment, on average (M = 11 months,
SD = 7.23). Participants were solicited from among the wider stu-
dent population and graduates of a major Israeli research univer-
sity. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 32 years (M = 25.87,
SD = 2.71). Husbands were significantly older, on average, than
their spouses, 27.52 (2.62) > 25.87 (2.72), t (97) = 7.30, p < .001,
with dyadic partners strongly similar in age, r (98) = .67, p < .001.
Over 92% of the women and 81% of the men had completed at least
one academic degree (B.A., Engineering, etc.) at the time of
assessment.
2.2. Variables and measures
1. Emotional intelligence, as ability, was assessed via the 141 item
MSCEIT V 2.0 (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). The original
English version was translated into Hebrew by two bilingual
psychologists and then back-translated to English by a third
bilingual psychologist, to insure correspondence between the
English and Hebrew renditions. This measure was designed to
measure the following four skills of EI: emotion perception;
using emotion to facilitate thought; understanding emotion;
and regulation (management) of emotion. All items have either
a multiple-choice format or 5-point rating scale format. Items
were scored via consensus-based scores based on the present
Israeli sample. The consensus scores reflect the proportion of
adults in the sample who endorse each MSCEIT test item. Partic-
ipants were given credit for responses to the extent that their
answers matched those provided by the sample. The alpha reli-
ability of the total scale which was employed in the various
analyses was .78 for both males and females. Because the
MSCEIT is a relatively new instrument, which has not been pub-
lished in Hebrew yet, no national Hebrew norms are presently
available. Details on the validity of the MSCEIT can be found
in the technical manual (Mayer et al., 2002).
2. Patterns of marital conflict resolution were assessed via a Hebrew
rendition of the 35 item Communication Patterns Questionnaire
(CPQ; Christensen & Sullaway, 1984). The CPQ was designed to
gauge the extent to which couples employ various types of inter-
action strategies when dealing with a relationship problem dur-
ing three phases of conflict. Each partner indicates what typically
occurs in this relationship on a 9-point scale according to which
pattern would be very unlikely (1) to very likely (9) to occur
when attempting to deal with the problem. Three subscales were
employed in the analyses: constructive communication patterns
(k = 5; alphas = .72, .73 for males and females, respectively);
mutual avoidance (k = 3; alphas = .77, .79, for males and females,
respectively); and total demand/withdraw (k = 6; alphas = .76,
.82, for males and females, respectively). The CPQ has shown ade-
quate reliability and validity as a measure of conflictual interac-
tion patterns (Eldridge & Christiansen, 2002).
3. Perceived quality of marital relations (marital satisfaction) was
assessed via a modified Hebrew adaptation of Norton’s Quality
of Marriage Index (QMI, Norton, 1983). The QMI is a 6 item scale
asking spouses to rate, on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree,
9 = strongly agree), the extent to which they agree with general
statements about their marriage (e.g., ‘‘We have a good mar-
riage’’). Both members of each couple indicated how much they
280 M. Zeidner, I. Kloda / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 278–283

agreed with each statement. Raw scores were rescaled to T
scores (M = 50, SD = 10) – across participants. Satisfactory alpha
scale reliability coefficients were found in this study for both
husbands (alpha = .92) and wives (alpha = .97). The QMI has
demonstrated high validity relating to satisfaction with mar-
riage in past research (Karney & Bradbury, 1997).
2.3. Procedure
Both dyadic partners were present in the lab during assessment.
After signing of consent forms, each of the participants was seated
in separate rooms and asked to complete an assessment battery
which included personal information and an ability-based measure
of EI (MSCEIT). After a break, participants completed the second
part of the test battery, (comprised of ways of handling marital
conflict and marital quality). The couples were compensated 100
Israeli shekels (about 25 US dollars) for their participation.
3. Results
We first assessed the degree of homogeneity in perceived qual-
ity of marital relations among dyadic partners by testing the
unconditional means model for perceived marital well-being – as
dependent variable. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of
RI = .34 attested to a fair bit of nonindependence and clustering
of perceived marital well-being within dyads. Over a third of the
variance in marital well being is accounted for by between-dyadic
variance, supporting our decision to use analytic procedures that
consider the dependence among dyadic pairs in this study.
As shown in Table 1, wives scored about .4 standard deviation
above their partners on EI, as assessed by total mean MSCEIT scores.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 2, EI was significantly related to
marital satisfaction mainly among men, but not among women.
However, a test for dependent correlations using Steiger’s (1980)
formula showed nonsignificant differences (z = 1.13, p = .26) among
gender group correlations, also, in both husbands and wives, EI was
positively related to constructive communication and was nega-
tively related to dysfunctional strategies (demand/withdraw,
avoidance), although EI was more consistently correlated with
interactional variables among men than among women.

3.1. Preliminary analysis

3.2. Similarity analysis
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the husbands and wives
on all key variables of interest. Tables 2 and 3 present within- Adapting a couple-centered approach, we conducted an analysis
partner and cross-partner correlations on key variables, respectively. of spousal profile similarity on EI by computing the Pearson

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for key individual level variables in the study, by gender⁄.

Key variables Husbands Wives

M SD M SD ta db
*
MSCEIT total .42 .04 .44 .03 3.77 .38
Conflict resolution
Constructive 7.22 1.08 7.23 1.23 .05 .01
Mutual avoidance 2.85 1.59 2.71 1.59 .75 .07
Demand/withdraw 4.72 1.79 4.04 1.67 3.26* .33
Global marital quality 50.39 8.36 49.61 10.59 .65 .07
a
Calculated as t-tests for dependent measures.
b
d Scores for dependent measures were calculated by dividing the difference score by the standard deviation of the difference score.
*
p < .05.

Table 2
Intercorrelations among key variables in this study, by gender (men above diagonal, women below diagonal).

Key variables 1 2 3 4 5
1. Total MSCEIT == .24* .39** .31** .30**
2. Constructive conflict resolution .14 == .65** .53** .63**
3. Mutual avoidance .14 .62** == .43** .57**
4. Demand/withdraw .06 .58** .50** == .31**
5. Marital well-being .15 .61** .48** .28** ==

Note: Correlations for husbands and wives appear above and below the main diagonal, respectively.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Table 3
Between-dyad intercorrelations on key variables.

Husband’s a scores
1 2 3 4 5
Wives’ scores
1. EI .07 .05 .13 .05 . 01
2. Constructive conflict resolution . 03 .51** .26** .35** .37**
3. Mutual avoidance .09 .27** .29** .20* .33**
4 Total demand/withdraw .10 .33** .15 .32** .17
5. Perceived quality of marital well-being .03 .26** .14* .23* .32**

Note: Dyadic correlations on identical variables appear on the diagonal.

*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
 M. Zeidner, I. Kloda / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 278–283
product-moment correlations between husband’s and wife’s scores
on the 141 items comprising the MSCEIT, separately by dyad. These
correlations, ranging from .13 to .64 (M = .44, SD = .13) purport-
edly capture the degree of profile similarity between each husband
and wife pair on EI (Kenny et al., 2006). Overall, linear as well as
nonlinear attempts to model the relationship between spousal
similarity on EI and marital well-being were unsuccessful. The neg-
ligible correlations observed failed to vindicate the assumption
that couples with similar EI profile scores also enjoy greater mari-
tal satisfaction.
3.3. Modeling actor and partner effects
In this section we test the validity of a number of models testing
for actor and partner effects in the relationship between ability-
based EI, on one hand, and conflict resolution patterns and per-
ceived marital satisfaction, on the other. Paths for within-spouse
(actor) effects and cross-spouse (partner) effects were modeled
via AMOS 17. As suggested by Kenny et al. (2006), the general
strategy in specifying path models with a dyadic design is that
the model is drawn twice, once for each member of the dyad. We
correlated all exogenous variables across dyad members, and we
also correlated the disturbances across dyad members, which al-
lows for the nonindependence of the data.
3.3.1. EI and conflict resolution strategies
We first tested for actor and partner effects in the relationship
between EI and conflict resolution strategies. EI was represented
in the model as an observed variable, whereas conflict resolution
was represented as a latent variable, indexed by three CPQ scales
(i.e., constructive conflict resolution, total demand/withdraw, and
mutual avoidance). When paths for actor and partner effects were
Fig. 1. Empirical path analysis testing for actor and partner effects in the relationship between ei and conflict resolution strategies, controlling for verbal ability.
281
unconstrained, the model showed a reasonable fit, v2 (13) = 20.39,
p = .09. When actor and partner paths for husbands and wives were
constrained to be equal, the model fit was v2 (15) = 20.97, p = .148,
and did not worsen the fit significantly, v2diff ð2Þ ¼ :61 ns. The model
fit indices were satisfactory, CFI = .97, NFI = .92, RMSEA = .06. How-
ever, when all actor and partner effects were constrained to be
equal, this yielded a poor fit, 2 (16) = 28.6, p = .03, significantly
worsening the model, v2diff ð1Þ ¼ 7:63, p < .01. As shown in Fig. 1,
depicting the empirical model, actor effects were significant (.33
and .20 for husband and wife respectively) whereas the partner ef-
fects for both dyad partners (.03) were nonsignificant.
3.3.2. EI and marital quality
An unconditional path model testing for actor and partner ef-
fects in the relation between ability-based EI and marital quality
(represented as an observed variable) yielded a ‘just identified’
model, with 0 degrees of freedom. When both actor and partner ef-
fects, in turn, were constrained to be equal for husbands and wives,
the conditional model showed a reasonable fit, 2 (2) = .37, p = .83.
The constrained model yielded acceptable values for all indices,
CFI = 1.0, NFI = .99, and RMSEA = 0. However, when all actor and
partner effects were constrained to be equal, this yielded a poor
fit, 2 (3) = 10.75, p = .01, significantly worsening the model,
v2diff ð1Þ ¼ 9:28, p < .01. The parsimonious empirical model is de-
picted in Fig. 2. Inspection of the path coefficients in Fig. 2 show
that whereas the actor effects for both husbands (p = .28) and wi-
ves (p = .19) were significant, the partner effects (.03 and .02
for husbands and wives, respectively) were nonsignificant.
3.3.3. Mediating effects
We also tested for the mediating effects of conflict resolution in
the relationship between EI and marital quality (EI ? Marital
282 M. Zeidner, I. Kloda / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 278–283
Fig. 2. Empirical path analysis testing for actor and partner effects in the relationship between ei and quality of marital relations.
conflict ? Marital Quality), with EI and marital quality represented
in the dyadic model as observed variables and marital conflict
represented as a latent variable. Only actor effects were included
in the model. The fit of the model to the data was not satisfactory,
2 (31) = 85.55, p < .001, and the fit indices were poor, CFI = .83,
NFI = .77, RMSEA = .14. Despite the poor fit of this model, the total
and indirect paths from EI to marital quality are suggestive of
mediating effects. Thus, when comparing the total effects of EI
on marital quality for husbands (p = .31) and (p = .10) with the
indirect paths (p = .31 for husbands and p = .10 for wives), this
suggests that EI works entirely through conflict resolution in
impacting marital quality. Furthermore, when the path model
was run with a direct path from EI to marital satisfaction, the
model, the direct effects were negligible, further supporting the
notion of mediation. However, further research is needed to shed
light on this issue.
4. Discussion
This study investigated the relation of EI to quality of marital
communication and perceived marital quality employing a stan-
dard matched-pairs dyadic design.
4.1. EI and adaptive conflict resolution
Under the assumption that EI is an enduring resource for adap-
tive marital relationships, EI was hypothesized to be significantly
related to conflict resolution patterns. Overall, the data supported
the first hypothesis, with both correlational and path-analytic
analyses of the data showing that EI was positively related to con-
structive conflict resolution strategies and negatively related to
dysfunctional strategies. Thus, a person’s EI was positively related
to a perception of more constructive communication, less demand/
withdrawal pattern, and less avoidance and withholding during
various phases of conflict resolution. However, no partner effects
were found. Overall, these data are consistent with common claims
in the literature that when people can perceive and understand
their partner’s thoughts and feelings, they may also be more be-
nign or positive in their communication patterns, particularly in
times of conflict (Schutte et al., 2001).
Also, these data showing that EI was positively associated with
perception of constructive communication patterns and negatively
associated with perceptions of dysfunctional conflict communica-
tion patterns were consistent with those reported by Smith et al.
(2008) employing a self-report trait measure of EI. This lends con-
siderable validity and generalizability for the actor effects of EI in
relation to marital conflict. Furthermore, these data showing that
marital partners are moderately to strongly correlated on conflict
resolution strategies are congenial to much of prior research on
this topic (Christensen & Shenk, 1991; Smith et al., 2008).
4.2. EI and marital satisfaction
The dyadic analyses reported above supported the hypothesis
stating that EI is significantly related to perceived quality of mari-
tal relations. Specifically, significant actor effects-but no partner ef-
fects – were found for ability-based EI in its association with
marital quality, with dyadic partners higher on EI also rating their
own levels of marital satisfaction more favorably. Thus, these data
are consistent with prior research employing trait measures of EI
reporting significant actor – but no partner – effects in the relation-
ship between EI and marital outcome factors (Brackett, Warner, &
Bosco, 2005; Smith et al., 2008).
A modeling of the relationship between spousal similarity on EI
and marital satisfaction, as dependent variable, failed to vindicate
the assumption that couples with similar EI profile scores also en-
joy greater marital well-being. Although similarity in personality
has been shown to be correlated moderately to strongly in per-
ceived quality of relationship (Neyer &Voigt, 2004), our data, using
an ability-based measure, failed to vindicate this.
Dyadic partners who are high on EI may experience less conflict
and more satisfaction in their marriage for a number of reasons.
First, they may react to and interpret behaviors of their partners
in a positive light and be primed to minimize relationship difficul-
ties. In addition, high EI may evoke positive behaviors from their
partner that contribute to their own satisfaction. This may also re-
flect a rose-colored glass effect of high EI on marital communica-
tion patterns and marital satisfaction.
With respect to gender differences, our study was consistent
with much of prior research using the MSCEIT indicating signifi-
cant, though modest, gender differences on EI (e.g., Bracket et al.,
2005). Consistent with prior research, only a negligible correlation
between dyadic partners on ability-based EI was found (cf. Smith
et al., 2008). Also, these data did not find significant mean gender
differences in marital satisfaction. These findings are in contrast to
some research (Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000) reporting that men
were more satisfied in their relationship outcomes than women.
 M. Zeidner, I. Kloda / Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 278–283
The current study has a number of limitations. First, this
research is entirely cross-sectional and therefore it is difficult to
untangle cause and effect relationships here. Second, couples
partaking in this research were newly married and dyadic partners
may simply not have been together long enough for ‘partner’
effects to manifest themselves. Third, we do not provide data based
on in situ observations of marital transactions and have relied on
self-reports of marital transactions and satisfaction. Future
research would profit from gathering such data using observa-
tional techniques and micro-analytical procedures.
Keeping the above constraints in mind, the data provide evi-
dence in favor of the important role of EI in the capacity of actor
effects – but not partner effects. Although marital partners are
intertwined in a close personal relationship with another person,
it is their own level of EI that shapes their view of the relationship
and that drives much of their subjective experience of the relation-
ship. Overall, these findings are consistent with prior studies show-
ing that an individual’s level of relationship is primarily a function
of his or her own personal characteristics (i.e., EI) rather than the
characteristics of the partner (Neyer & Voigt, 2004).This pattern
is also consistent with a review by Luo and Klohnen (2005) report-
ing that while both self and partner effects are substantial, self
characteristics contribute more to marital communication and sat-
isfaction than partner characteristics.
In Conclusion when assessing the hypothesis focusing on the
predicted relationship between EI and marital communication pat-
terns and satisfaction in dyadic couples, the non-significant part-
ner effects should probably be weighted more heavily than the
significant actor effects observed. Indeed, current conceptualiza-
tions suggest that one’s EI should impact mainly on one’s partner’s
affective relations rather than one’s own – and this was not found.
Because the critical effects from a theoretical perspective are part-
ner rather than actor effects, these data offer only limited and par-
tial support for the commonly held claim that EI is a significant
predictor of close personal relationships.
References
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating
emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and
performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91, 780–795.
Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and
relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 197–212.
Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991). Communication, conflict and psychological
distance in nondistressed, clinic and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 59, 458–463.
Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication patterns questionnaire.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Department of Psychology,
Los Angeles.
Eldrige, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication during
couple conflict. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage:
Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 289–322). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
283
Fitness, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence and intimate relationships. In J. Ciarrochi, J.
P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life (pp. 98–112).
PA: Psychology Press.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Heaven, P. C. L., Smith, L., Prabhakar, S. M., Abraham, J., & Mete, M. E. (2006).
Personality and conflict communication patterns in cohabiting couples. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 829–840.
Horowitz, A. V., McLaughlin, J., & White, H. R. (1998). How the negative and positive
aspects of partner relationships affect the mental health of young married
people. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 124–136.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality
and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 3–34.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction and the
trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
1075–1092.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York:
Guilford Press.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J., Schutz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004).
Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 1018–1034.
Luo, S., Chen, H., Yue, G., Zhang, G., Zhaoyang, R., & Xu, D. (2008). Predicting marital
satisfaction from self, partner, and couple characteristics: Is it me, you, or us?
Journal of Personality, 76, 1231–1265.
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in
newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 304–326.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. C., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of
positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180.
Navran, L. (1967). Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family Process, 6,
173–180.
Neyer, F. J., & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic
relationships: A dyadic approach. European Journal of Personality, 18,
279–299.
Noller, P., Feeney, J. A. (2002). Communication, relationship concerns, and
satisfaction in early marriage. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, M. A. Fitzpatrick
(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships. Stability and change in relationships (pp.
129–155). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent
variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.
Perez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring trait emotional
intelligence. In R. Schulze & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence. An
international handbook (pp. 181–201). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber
Publishers.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship:
Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251–259.
Rushbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T.
Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles
(pp. 564–596). New York: Guilford.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., et al.
(2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. Journal of Social
Psychology, 141, 523–536.
Smith, L., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2008). The stability and change of trait
emotional intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship
satisfaction: A one-year longitudinal study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 738–743.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Robert, R. (2009). What we know about emotional
intelligence. How it affects learning, work, relationships, and our mental health.
Cambridge: MIT Press.