(PS4-22) Is Relationship Satisfaction a Personal Trait?

In couples research, relationship satisfaction has traditionally been viewed as a dyadic construct—an appraisal of the quality of the interaction of two interdependent individuals. As such, measures assess satisfaction through connection, communication, and sexual intimacy between partners. However, assuming relationship satisfaction is purely dyadic overlooks meaningful individual differences including how identity and structural factors (e.g., discrimination, cultural expectations) shape relationship perceptions and interventions.

Following the vulnerability-stress adaptation model, this paper highlights enduring vulnerabilities’ impact on relationship satisfaction and tests whether a proportion of the variance in relationship satisfaction occurs at the individual level. In study 1 (N = 942), multilevel modeling showed that 31% of the variance in relationship satisfaction was due to the individual rather than the relationship.

In study 2 (N = 643), we use confirmatory factor analysis to explore which dispositional factors (e.g., Big Five traits, attachment style, optimism, life satisfaction) account for this variance across identify attributions (gender, race, income, age). Results will clarify how enduring vulnerabilities interact with structural and identity-based stressors to shape relationships.

Given that nearly one third of relationship satisfaction is rooted in individual differences and the broader societal context, couples’ therapies that focus almost exclusively on dyadic interactions (e.g., IBCT, CBCT) may limit their potential impact, especially for those from minoritized backgrounds. These therapies could be improved by incorporating identity-related and structural factors that shape relationship perception, particularly for clients facing systemic barriers. Our findings can potentially guide clinicians toward the critical individual factors that will help provide more identity-affirming and inclusive care.

Our two studies challenge traditional assumptions about relationship satisfaction and suggest that therapies must integrate individual traits and contextual stressors—not just relationship dynamics—for a more holistic, identity-affirming approach. Our findings extend the vulnerability-stress adaptation model to diverse populations, bridging the divide between rigorous psychological science and more inclusive, structurally informed interventions to address the needs of traditionally underserved populations.