Edited by: Maria Nicoleta Turliuc, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Romania
Reviewed by: Viola Sallay, University of Szeged, Hungary; Violeta Enea, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Romania
This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Previous research has demonstrated that trait self-control is related to a range of positive romantic relationship processes, suggesting that trait self-control should be positively and robustly linked to relationship satisfaction in both partners in a romantic relationship. However, the existing empirical evidence is limited and mixed, especially regarding partner effects (i.e., the effect of one’s self-control on the partner’s relationship satisfaction). With three datasets of heterosexual couples (S1:
Trait Self-control, defined as the ability to inhibit unwanted impulses and to respond in a goal-directed manner (
Given these positive romantic relationship outcomes, it seems reasonable to assume that the higher one’s trait self-control, the higher romantic relationship satisfaction will be, in both the individual and the partner, and that the current level of trait self-control is predictive of future relationship satisfaction. There is evidence suggesting that couples are happier when there is more overall self-control in the relationship (
How would trait self-control be associated with relationship satisfaction? It has been argued that self-control is a driving force directing gut-level destructive impulses towards constructive responses that are aligned with long-term relationship goals (
However, the empirical support is mixed. There is some evidence for both positive cross-sectional and longitudinal
What may explain these mixed findings? Although there may be various reasons (we return to this issue more extensively in the General Discussion), one plausible reason may be that the effects of self-control are relatively small as compared to the effects of broader relationship motives, specifically, relationship commitment. Relationship commitment is defined as the motivation to stay in a relationship and having a long-term orientation (
The goal of the current research was to test whether trait self-control has a robust and replicable association with own and the partner’s relationship satisfaction, concurrently and longitudinally, and whether any such associations would hold when a broader macro-motive (i.e., relationship commitment) is taken into account. We explored the actor and partner effects across the three datasets (see pre-registration,
The original sample consisted of 199 heterosexual newlywed couples (five waves with annual assessments; for a description of the first two waves of the study, see
All the measures were in Dutch.
The 11-item version of the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS; used in
An 8-item commitment scale (revised from the Investment Model Scale;
The 10-item Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (
Descriptive analyses were carried out in SPSS 25.0. To test the main hypotheses, we used the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM;
Descriptive statistics are presented in
Correlations between variables in Study 1 (
1. T1 Trait self-control | 195 | 3.30 (0.47) | ||||||||
2. T1 Relationship commitment | 195 | 4.59 (0.45) | 0.15* | |||||||
3. T1 Relationship satisfaction | 195 | 4.27 (0.38) | 0.36*** | 0.59*** | ||||||
4. T2 Relationship satisfaction | 138 | 4.16 (0.42) | 0.31*** | 0.46*** | 0.68*** | |||||
5. T1 Trait self-control | 195 | 3.18 (0.43) | -0.09 | 0.08 | 0.06 | -0.06 | ||||
6. T1 Relationship commitment | 194 | 4.65 (0.41) | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.18* | 0.11 | 0.12 | |||
7. T1 Relationship satisfaction | 195 | 4.16 (0.43) | 0.15* | 0.31*** | 0.36*** | 0.24** | 0.14# | 0.42*** | ||
8. T2 Relationship satisfaction | 141 | 4.10 (0.42) | 0.11 | 0.30*** | 0.36*** | 0.41*** | 0.17* | 0.31*** | 0.52*** |
Cross-sectional APIM statistics are summarized in
Correlations between variables in Study 2 (
1. T1 Trait self-control | 236 | 3.23 (0.55) | ||||||||
2. T1 Relationship commitment | 233 | 4.82 (0.32) | 0.23*** | |||||||
3. T1 Relationship satisfaction | 233 | 4.49 (0.52) | 0.29*** | 0.62*** | ||||||
4. T2 Relationship satisfaction | 119 | 4.41 (0.65) | 0.20* | 0.37*** | 0.59*** | |||||
5. T1 Trait self-control | 247 | 3.15 (0.52) | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.15* | 0.20* | ||||
6. T1 Relationship commitment | 247 | 4.89 (0.22) | 0.07 | 0.15* | 0.18** | 0.27** | 0.14* | |||
7. T1 Relationship satisfaction | 247 | 4.52 (0.51) | 0.06 | 0.28*** | 0.39*** | 0.46*** | 0.24*** | 0.54*** | ||
8. T2 Relationship satisfaction | 136 | 4.53 (0.55) | 0.02 | 0.26** | 0.24** | 0.60*** | 0.31*** | 0.31*** | 0.53*** |
Correlations between variables in Study 3 (
1. Trait self-control | 929 | 4.85 (1.24) | ||||||
2. Relationship commitment | 929 | 6.31 (0.91) | 0.29*** | |||||
3. Relationship satisfaction | 929 | 5.83 (0.96) | 0.33*** | 0.73*** | ||||
4. Trait self-control | 929 | 4.88 (1.21) | 0.17*** | 0.17*** | 0.22*** | |||
5. Relationship commitment | 929 | 6.32 (0.94) | 0.24*** | 0.51*** | 0.54*** | 0.22*** | ||
6. Relationship satisfaction | 929 | 5.74 (1.04) | 0.28*** | 0.51*** | 0.66*** | 0.23*** | 0.76*** |
Statistic summary on the actor and partner effects of trait self-control on relationship satisfaction across the three studies.
Study 1 ( |
0.30*** | 0.16* | 0.23*** | 0.09 |
Study 2 ( |
0.28*** | 0.24*** | 0.15** | 0.16** |
Study 3 ( |
0.23*** | 0.16*** | 0.08*** | 0.04∗ |
Study 1 | 0.08 | 0.15* | 0.03 | 0.10 |
Study 2 | 0.14* | 0.04 | 0.11* | -0.03 |
Study 3 | 0.14*** | 0.21*** | 0.05** | 0.06** |
Study 1 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.11 |
Study 2 | 0.05 | 0.19* | 0.05 | 0.21* |
Study 1 | -0.06 | -0.05 | -0.06 | -0.06 |
Study 2 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
Cross-sectional Actor and Partner Effects of Trait Self-control on Relationship Satisfaction across Studies. Statistics illustrate the effects (unstandardized regression coefficients) in Studies 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Statistics in parentheses illustrate the effects when controlling for relationship commitment at T1. ∗
When adding partners’ relationship commitment to the model, the association between men’s own trait self-control and own concurrent relationship satisfaction remained significant (
Longitudinal APIM statistics are presented in
Longitudinal Actor and Partner Effects of Trait Self-control on Relationship Satisfaction in Studies 1 and 2. Statistics illustrate the effects (unstandardized regression coefficients) of trait self-control on the change of relationship satisfaction between T1 and T2 (i.e., the slope) in Studies 1 and 2 respectively. Statistics in parentheses illustrate the effects when controlling for relationship commitment and relationship satisfaction at T1. ∗
In sum, Study 1 found some support for both positive actor and partner effects of trait self-control on relationship satisfaction. However, these effects only emerged cross-sectionally, with no evidence for any longitudinal effect. We found some gender differences, such that cross-sectionally men’s levels of trait self-control were associated with their female partner’s relationship satisfaction, but women’s levels of trait self-control were not associated with their male partner’s relationship satisfaction. Importantly, when both partners’ relationship commitment was taken into account, both cross-sectional actor and partner effects diminished.
We used another existing couple data set (Study 2) to test the replicability and robustness of both the cross-sectional and longitudinal effects we found in Study 1.
The original dataset consisted of 440 Dutch men and women who were going through the transition to parenthood (
All the measures were in Dutch.
The 11-item version BSCS (used in
In this study, a 5-item
A 5-item Satisfaction Subscale of the Investment Model Scale (
Descriptive statistics are presented in
As shown in
Additionally, and similar to the findings in Study 1, there was a significant actor effect of commitment on concurrent relationship satisfaction for both genders (men,
Longitudinal APIM statistics are presented in
In replication of Study 1, Study 2 obtained positive cross-sectional actor effects of trait self-control for both genders, and some support for a partner effect. In contrast to Study 1, the partner effect now occurred for men (and not for women, as in Study 1), meaning that women’s levels of trait self-control were associated with their male partner’s relationship satisfaction. Different from Study 1, the cross-sectional actor effect still emerged for women when taking commitment into account, as well as a partner effect for men. Other than in Study 1, we also found support for a longitudinal actor effect for women, even when controlling for commitment.
Study 3 was a large-scale study that we used to provide a well-powered validation for the cross-sectional effects that were found in Studies 1 and 2.
We used data from a study among 1233 romantic couples who were invited to participate in a two-week couple intervention (
All the measures were in Dutch.
We used the 4-item self-restraint subscale of Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale (adults and short version;
The 7-item commitment subscale of the Investment Model Scale (
A 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (
Descriptive statistics are presented in
Cross-sectional APIM statistics are summarized in
Similar to the findings in Studies 1 and 2, both partners’ own commitment were significant predictors of their own concurrent relationship satisfaction (i.e., actor effect; men,
Thus, the findings of Study 3 provided cross-sectional support for both actor and partner effects regarding the association between trait self-control and relationship satisfaction, and again, the effects diminished when controlling for relationship commitment. We did not find gender differences that were consistent with the gender differences obtained in Study 1 or Study 2.
In three studies, actor-partner interdependence models yielded some support for the prediction that both men and women were currently more satisfied with their relationship to the extent that they reported higher levels of trait self-control. This actor effect remained significant after controlling for relationship commitment in Studies 2 and 3 (except for women in Study 1). Importantly, the data showed little consistent support for partner effects, especially in Studies 1 and 2. These studies also showed some gender differences, but not consistent across studies. However, in the high-powered Study 3, both men and women were currently more satisfied with their relationship when their romantic partner reported higher levels of trait self-control, even when commitment was considered. Longitudinally, we found a positive actor (but not partner) effect among women in Study 2 only, independent of commitment. There were no other longitudinal partner effects for trait self-control. Across the three studies, we found a consistent positive actor effect of relationship commitment on concurrent relationship satisfaction for both genders, and a consistent positive partner effect of relationship commitment on concurrent relationship satisfaction for women (but not for men). In sum, the present findings suggest that trait self-control has a positive association with one’s own relationship satisfaction that is small to medium in magnitude, a less robust association with the partner’s relationship satisfaction, and all associations diminished when considering the role of relationship commitment, except for a longitudinal actor effect among pregnant women in Study 2.
In light of the large literature on the role of self-control in promoting relationship-beneficial processes, the current findings may seem surprising at first sight. Self-control has been associated with a variety of pro-relationship responses (e.g., forgiveness, sacrifice, and resisting tempting alternatives) that can be expected to contribute to both one’s own
Although we do not want to suggest that ability factors like trait self-control do not play any role in determining relationship satisfaction, the current findings do suggest that when motivated – being highly committed to the relationship – partners may come a long way in maintaining a relatively satisfying relationship, irrespective of one’s own or the partner’s level of trait self-control. Interestingly, the current findings echo the results of a recent large-scale study (using machine learning), showing that relationship satisfaction is mainly explained by relationship-specific variables (like commitment), and that a range of individual difference variables does not add much predictive power in explaining relationship satisfaction or quality (
Another possible and theoretically interesting reason for the relatively weak association between trait self-control and relationship satisfaction is that opposing forces may be at work. That is, whereas high self-control generally leads to positive relationship outcomes as previous research has indicated, there may be ‘hidden’ relationship costs to high self-control, and ‘hidden’ benefits of low self-control, that have received little theoretical and empirical attention so far.
Consistent with previous findings (
As can be read in Footnote 2 (and
The present research has some practical implications. Based on previous findings on the benefits of self-control in relationship outcomes, it has been suggested that promoting self-control in partners may be an effective way to increase relationship functioning and wellbeing (e.g.,
Before closing, we should discuss several limitations. First, the samples mainly consisted of relatively happy heterosexual couples and the lack of variability in relationship satisfaction might underestimate the strength of the associations between trait self-control and relationship satisfaction (
In spite of these limitations, the current findings contribute to our understanding of the concurrent and longitudinal effects of trait self-control on relationship satisfaction. Is trait self-control the key to relationship success? With three independent datasets, the findings seem to provide a relatively reliable estimation of the association between trait self-control and relationship satisfaction, which was weaker and less robust than the extant literature on the role of self-control in romantic relationships would suggest.
The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, if the original owner of the dataset agrees. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to P-YZ,
The studies involving human participants were conducted in compliance with the approved research and consent protocols of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Free University of Amsterdam (Study 1), the Faculty of Social Sciences of Utrecht University (Study 2). Being more recently conducted, study 3 has received formal approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Radboud University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
P-YZ, JK, AS, and EK developed the initial research question, designed the study, revised the manuscript altogether, and approved the final version of the manuscript. HK and EK collected the data used in Study 2. GK and JK collected the data used in Study 3. P-YZ conducted the analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. WB contributed to the data analysis and the improvement of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We thank Prof. Catrin Finkenauer (Utrecht University, the Netherlands) for sharing the data used in Study 1. We thank Prof. David A. Kenny (University of Connecticut, United States) and Dr. Thomas Ledermann (Florida State University, United States) for providing help on the actor-partner interdependence moderation model.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at:
It is important to mention that there is an ongoing debate about the nature of self-control and its underlying fundamental processes. For example, dual-process models of self-control regard inhibition as a fundamental aspect of self-control, allowing more controlled processes to override automatic responses (e.g.,
Notably, we also explored interactions between self-control and relationship commitment on relationship satisfaction (both cross-sectionally and longitudinally). As indicated in previous literature, low levels of self-control could perhaps be compensated intra-personally by own high levels of commitment (cf.
The original scale consists of 12 items. However, Cronbach’s alpha for the original 12-item scale was 0.67 for men and 0.47 for women, respectively. For an acceptable reliability, the final scale consists of 5 items.