Research on satisfaction

Satisfaction has been regarded as the relationship quality that judged by individuals in the relationship, and satisfaction has been described as relationship adjustment, relationship quality, relationship happiness, and “lack of distress”

(Fitzpatrick, 1988, p. 32). Comparing with the importance of obligations in old times for the continuation of a relationship, satisfaction had more weight for a stable relationship nowadays (Levinger, 1997).

According to the psychoanalytic perspective, marital distress relates to personality and it emerges when one cannot deal with the difference between one’s ideal characteristics of the spouse, which match one’s needs, and the spouse’s real characteristics; according to the behavioural perspective, marital satisfaction relates to interaction outcomes (reward and cost; exchange theories) and the skills to solve relationship issues (Doherty & Jacobson, 1982). Research has been carried out on each of these three aspects, namely, personality, interdependence, and interaction skill (e.g. communication).

Personality has been found associated with satisfaction. Buss (1991) did a research on 107 young married couples, and he found that high levels of surgency (dominate-submissive, extraverted-introverted), and low levels of agreeableness (warm- cold, trust-suspicious), conscientiousness (reliable-undependable, well-organised- disorganised), emotional stability (secure-nervous, even-tempered-temperamental), and intellect-openness (perceptive-imperceptive, curious-uncurious) significantly associated with spouse’s dissatisfaction. Blum and Mehrabian (1999) found that the personality of greater pleasantness and having more control over life and relationships strongly

167

associated with greater marital satisfaction. Lester, Haig, and Monello (1989) found that neuroticism and spouse’s extraversion negatively associated with marital satisfaction. However, Patrick, Sells, Giordano, and Tollerud’s (2007) factor analysis on 124 married couples’ personality characteristics, marital satisfaction (measured by Spanier’s (1976) adjustment scale), and intimacy, and they found that marital satisfaction was not in the same factor as personality characteristics. Richard, Wakefield and Lewak (1990) found that similarity of personality traits between husband and wife associated with marital satisfaction. However, Shiota and Levenson (2007) found that greater similarity of personality did not associate with marital satisfaction at the beginning of the marriage but associated with greater martial dissatisfaction over the following 12 years.

Interdependence theory looked at satisfaction through comparison level (CL) -- individuals will be satisfied if the outcomes are above CL and individuals will be unsatisfied if the outcomes are below CL (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). CL means what people think they deserve and expect in a relationship (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult et al., 1994). However Sternberg and Barnes (1985) found that both CL and actual levels (outcomes) significantly associated with satisfaction, and each significantly predicted satisfaction. From an evolutionary point of view, marital satisfaction was explained as the evaluation of reward and cost in a marriage, that is, satisfaction would be enhanced when couples’ behaviours encourage reproductive rewards, such as guarding spouse positively (e.g. showing care, showing love), whereas dissatisfaction would be encountered when couples’ behaviours encourage reproductive costs, such as guarding spouse excessively/no guarding and guarding spouse negatively (e.g.

manipulate spouse) (Shackelford & Buss, 1997).

Communication has been found associated with satisfaction. Pike and Sillars’s (1985) research showed that satisfied couples had less reciprocity of negative

communication and more reciprocity of neutral communication on important issues than unsatisfied couples. Hendrick and Hendrick (2006) found that respect had strong

positive correlations with satisfaction for both dating and married individuals. Meeks, Hendrick and Hendrick (1998) found that not only one’s own communication variables (i.e. self-disclosure, understanding of the partner, and positive and negative ways to solve conflicts) but also the perceived partner’s communication variables (i.e. perceived partner’s self disclosure, perceived partner’s understanding of oneself, perceived

partner’s positive and negative ways to solve conflicts, and perceived partner’s ability in communication) associated with one’s satisfaction. Emmers-Sommer (2004) did a

168

research on the quality and quantity of communication and relationship satisfaction, and found that quality of communication (i.e. “depth”, “smoothness”, satisfaction,

orientating towards task, orientating towards “social functions”, helping the relationship, and doing/not doing other things during communication (p. 405)) significantly predicted relationship satisfaction but quantity of communication (i.e. frequency and length of face to face and phone communication) did not.

Besides, Cramer (2002) found that satisfaction had significant negative correlations with conflict, no matter the conflict were on important or less important issues. Cramer (2006) found that greater satisfaction significantly associated with greater support from the partner and less conflicts in the relationship, and among all the types of support from the partner, care was found the significance in associating with satisfaction. Less conflict in the relationship and greater care from the spouse may reflect greater satisfaction and love.

Cross-cultural studies have found the similar factors that associated with satisfaction. Kamo (1993) found that spending time together, having similar social circles, and benefit from housework sharing strongly related to satisfaction for both the Western married individuals (i.e. Americans) and the Eastern married individuals (i.e. Japanese). Epstein, Chen, and Beyder-Kamjou (2005) found that the “degree of

togetherness” (p. 60), “time and energy” (p. 60) that have been put into the relationship, decision making strategies (share or one dominate the decision making), and the

consensus between husband and wife of all these aspects were all possible factors that could strongly predict marital satisfaction, measured by Spanier’s (1976) dyadic adjustment scale, for both Western and Chinese couples.

In the cultural model that the current research has proposed, satisfaction was one of the factors and predictors of personal commitment. The significant association between satisfaction and commitment, and satisfaction as a significant predictor of commitment have been found in many studies (e.g. Rusbult et al., 1998; Fitzpatrick & Badzinski, 1994; Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988; Broderick & O’Leary, 1986; Fletcher et al., 2000).

Another factor that correlates with and predicts commitment along with satisfaction in the cultural model is love. But does satisfaction associate with love? Hendrick (1988) included love into her measurement of satisfaction, but satisfaction has been found different from love in some other researches.

169

Vangelisti and Huston (1994) reviewed psychological, communicational, and sociological literatures on satisfaction, reasons for divorce and how couples negotiate their time together, and they developed eight aspects that were likely to associate with satisfaction and love, which were communication, influence over decision making, sex, how one pursue one’s leisure, housework allocation, time with partner, time with other people, and financial situation. They tested these eight aspects along with overall satisfaction and love on 168 working class newlywed couples, and the interviews (face- to-face and interviews and phone interviews) took place at the beginning of their marriage, at their first anniversary, and at their second anniversary. They found that both the overall satisfaction and love and the majority of the eight aspects decreased in the first two years of their marriages, and some of the eight aspects, such as

communication and influence over decision making, significantly associated with satisfaction, but others, such as sex and how one pursue one’s leisure, significantly associated with love. These findings showed that satisfaction was distinguished from satisfaction, as satisfaction was the pleasure of the relationship, but love was an attitude and was related to the partner’s intrinsic characteristics, so one can be in a

dissatisfactory marriage but deeply in love with the partner (ibid).

According to Aron and Henkemeyer (1995), marital satisfaction, measured by Spanier’s (1976) whole dyadic adjustment scale, was found no significant association with passionate love for husbands and only a little association for wives among 100 married individuals; for both husbands and wives, satisfaction was significantly associated with marital happiness, excitement with the relationship, boredom with the relationship, “frequency of sex minus arguments” (p. 143), time together, and

“frequency of kissing” (p. 143), however husbands’ passionate love did not associated with any of these variables although wives’ passionate love significantly associated with these variables to some extent.

Besides, O’Leary, Fincham, and Turkewitz (1983) pointed out that “caring for a spouse” (i.e. love) (p. 950) is not the same as marital satisfaction. In the interview study of the current research, satisfaction was also shown different from love (e.g. love the spouse but was not satisfied with the marriage).

170