(In)Congruence of Implicit and Explicit Communal Motives Predicts the Quality and Stability of Couple Relationships

Abstract

Objective: Previous research has shown that motive congruence, as observed in convergingly high or low scores on implicit and explicit motive measures, promotes well-being and health. Extending this individual perspective to the realm of couple relationships, the present investigation examined intra-and interpersonal effects of communal motive (in)congruence on relationship satisfaction and stability. Method: The implicit partner-related need for communion, the explicit desire for closeness, and relationship satisfaction were assessed in a sample of 547 heterosexual couples aged 18 to 73 years. In a one-year follow-up study, information on relationship stability was obtained, and relationship satisfaction was reassessed. The researchers tested cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of motive (in)congruence by dyadic moderation analyses. Results: Individuals scoring congruently high on both motives reported the highest relationship satisfaction in concurrence with motive assessment and 1 year later. In addition, motive incongruence predicted an increased risk of relationship breakup over 1 year. Conclusions:The results highlight the significance of both implicit and explicit motives for couple relationships. Motive incongruence was confirmed as a dispositional risk factor that so far has not been considered in couple research. Future research directions addressing potential mediators of the observed effects and potential moderators of motive (in)congruence are discussed.

Enjoying influence on others: Congruently high implicit and explicit power motives are related to teachers’ well-being

“…The first case may lead to frustration of an implicit need, while the second case may lead to missing out systematically on rewarding experiences (Hagemeyer, Neberich, Asendorpf, & Neyer, 2013). Langens and McClelland (1997) argue that the context determines which direction of discrepancy will have the most detrimental effect.…”

A dyadic typology of social desires in couples

“…Second, closeness could be emotional or physical, and third, meanings or the expressions of closeness could be differentiated. In this study, we focused on the desire for closeness as a relationship‐specific personality disposition that can be conceptualized as a recurrent concern for physical or emotional closeness with one's partner (Hagemeyer, Neyer, et al, ). Strong desires for closeness in couples are associated with various indicators of good relationship functioning, such as high relationship satisfaction, secure attachment to one's partner, and perceived availability of support from one's partner (e.g., Hagemeyer, Neyer, et al, ).…”

“…Recently, a three‐dimensional model of social motivation in couples was proposed by Hagemeyer, Neyer, et al (): the ABC model of social desires. The three desires are the communal desire to affiliate with friends (A), the agentic desire to be alone (B), and the communal desire to be close to one's partner (C).…”

“…The three desires are deemed to capture individual differences in the motivations underlying the main directions that closeness and distance behaviors in couples can take. Construct validity of the ABC desires, in terms of factor structure, substantial rank‐order stabilities, and parts of the nomological network, has been established utilizing individual and dyadic data as well as cross‐sectional and longitudinal designs (Hagemeyer, Neyer, et al, ). However, the role of the interplay between intimate partners' ABC desires has not been examined in prior studies.…”

“…To our knowledge, such a couple‐centered analysis of motivational constellations in couples is missing in the literature. Thus, we aimed to complement previous variable‐centered research on the ABC model of social desires (Hagemeyer, Neyer, et al, ) with a couple‐centered typological approach.…”