The roles of self‐regulation and partner regulation on romantic relationship quality

Abstract

Research into self‐regulation and partner regulation strategies has largely involved parallel lines of research, thus, it is difficult to determine the relative contribution of both forms of regulation when it comes to relationship outcomes. Therefore, the question remains as to which form of regulation is more strongly associated with relationship quality; is it more important to focus on adaptive self‐regulation or adaptive strategies to regulate one's partner? The current research addresses this important gap by comparing the relative associations of adaptive self‐regulation and adaptive partner regulation strategies on romantic relationship quality. A community sample of mixed gender couples (N = 114) who were predominantly satisfied with their current relationships – but nonetheless still experienced relationship conflict – were administered self‐report assessments of various self‐regulation and partner regulation strategies as well as a measure of relationship quality. Couples also participated in a videotaped discussion of an unresolved relationship issue that was scored by trained coders for verbal and nonverbal indicators of self‐regulation and partner regulation strategies. Actor–partner interdependence modeling revealed that for both men and women, adaptive self‐regulation strategies were positively associated with their own evaluations of relationship quality as well as their partner's relationship quality. In contrast, engaging in adaptive partner regulation strategies was not significantly associated with men's or women's own, or their partner's relationship quality. Findings highlight the importance of focusing on self‐regulation in relationships, as it is these strategies, over partner regulation strategies, that have more positive implications for the relationship quality experienced by typically satisfied couples.

The associations between relationship self‐regulation, partner regulation, and relationship outcomes: A meta‐analysis

“…However, it is also acknowledged that this may not always be the case, and it is also possible the targeted partner may perceive even positive partner regulation as an indication that their partner is dissatisfied (Overall et al, 2006). Even if positive partner regulation strategies are enacted in a way that protects the partner's feelings (e.g., proposing constructive solutions or encouragement), the act of partner regulation likely communicates to some extent that the targeted partner is falling short of their partner's expectations in some way (Ferguson & Karantzas, 2022). In sum, to truly understand the role of positive partner regulation, the perspective of the person being targeted by the regulation is clearly important, and further research is required to assess this association.…”

“…This approach would allow researchers to not only compare the magnitude of effects, but to examine the interactive effects of both regulation approaches on relationship quality and regulation success. To date, two studies have compared associations between self‐regulation and partner regulation on relationship quality (Ferguson & Karantzas, 2022; Hira & Overall, 2011). Yet, these studies examined self‐regulation more broadly (rather than a focus on relationship self‐regulation) and did not examine interactions between these two regulation approaches.…”

“…However, only two studies examined associations between positive relationship quality and the relationship quality of the targeted partner, and these findings were inconsistent and non-significant. One study (Ferguson & Karantzas, 2022) found that a person's positive partner regulation was not significantly associated with their partner's reports of relationship quality. In contrast, Overall and Fletcher (2010) found that people who perceived their partner to be engaging in positive partner regulation reported greater relationship quality.…”

“…i i One study (Ferguson & Karantzas, 2022) was unpublished at the time of the search in December 2021 but has since been published. This paper was considered unpublished literature for the purpose of the analysis. …”