Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 227–230

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ j rp

Brief Report

Self-esteem is a shared relationship resource: Additive effects of datingpartners’ self-esteem levels predict relationship quality

Kelley J. Robinson ⇑, Jessica J. CameronDepartment of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 13 December 2011

Keywords:Self-esteemCommitmentSatisfactionDyadic data analysisInterdependenceActor–partner interdependence modelRomantic relationships

0092-6566/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.002

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail address: umrobi97@cc.umanitoba.ca (K.J. R

a b s t r a c t

Though self-esteem is known to positively impact individuals’ romantic relationship outcomes and thoseof their partners, the interactive nature of both partners’ self-esteem levels has not been systematicallyinvestigated. Using actor–partner interdependence model analyses we estimated actor, partner, and fourtypes of dyadic effects of self-esteem on relationship quality in a sample of over 500 heterosexual datingcouples. Lower self-esteem individuals and their partners reported lower satisfaction and commitment totheir relationships than did higher self-esteem individuals and their partners. An additive effect wherebyboth partners’ self-esteem levels combine to predict relationship quality best described the dyadiceffects. Results highlight the importance of considering the interactive nature of individual characteristicsin dyadic research.

� 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The fairytale hallmark of finding love and living happily everafter is a defining Western cultural ideal. Moreover, the importanceof these valued bonds extends beyond the warm feelings associ-ated with romantic notions from childhood stories. In fact, individ-uals in stable, satisfying intimate relationships experience a wealthof associated benefits to their physical and psychological well-being (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Given the importance of socialbonds, researchers have produced a sizable literature in theirattempts to understand what contributes to satisfying, lasting inti-mate relationships. A particularly fruitful avenue stems from schol-ars’ acknowledgment that social relationships are formed byindividuals whose personality characteristics contribute to dyadicprocesses. Indeed, personality research suggests that relatively sta-ble individual differences account for people’s experiences acrossmany different relationships (Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002).

Among these individual differences, self-esteem has been ofparticular interest to those who study intimate bonds. People withlower self-esteem (LSEs) report feeling less satisfied in their rela-tionships than those with higher self-esteem (HSEs; Hendrick,Hendrick, & Adler, 1988). Their own tainted relationship experi-ences are due, in part, to perceptual biases and self-protectivemotivations characteristic of LSE (Murray, Derrick, Leder, &Holmes, 2008). What is more, these characteristics of LSEs candrive negative interpersonal behavior, damaging their partners’outcomes too (e.g., Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003). In

ll rights reserved.

obinson).

contrast, HSEs, perceive their partners and their relationshipsthrough rose-colored glasses and are motivated to behave in waysthat promote the success of their valued bonds, to the delight oftheir loved ones (e.g., Murray et al., 2008). All things considered,both partners’ self-esteem levels are clearly relevant to the successof their intimate relationships.

Despite previous research demonstrating the impact of individ-uals’ self-esteem levels on their own and their partners’ relation-ship outcomes, researchers have not investigated the nature ofthe interactive effects between partners’ self-esteem levels. Yet,the interactive effect of two individuals’ characteristics is animportant component of a dyadic model (e.g., Kenny & Ledermann,2010). Dyadic interactions are most often statistically character-ized as the product of two individuals’ scores, but other numericalrepresentations of dyadic effects are possible, each of which pres-ent conceptually distinct interpretations and associated implica-tions (Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny & Ledermann, 2010). Forexample, a dyadic effect might be best represented as the sum ofpartners’ scores, implying that the more (or less) of a trait a couplehas between partners, the better (or worse) off they are. Or, thediscrepancy between partners’ scores could indicate whether sim-ilarity or difference between partners best predicts outcomes.Alternatively, if the highest or lowest score within the dyad pre-dicts outcomes above and beyond either partner’s individual score,we can infer that the mere presence of a negative (or positive) traitin one partner can bring a couple down (or raise them up). In sum,whether couples experience relationship bliss or anguish may haveless to do with either person’s personality, and more to do with theparticular way in which the partners’ personalities mesh. Thus, theprimary goal of the present research was to investigate various

228 K.J. Robinson, J.J. Cameron / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 227–230

dyadic effects of self-esteem on relationship quality. We used theActor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, &Cook, 2006) to test for individuals’ effects on their own relationshipquality (actor effects), their partners’ relationship quality (partnereffects), and various conceptualizations of the dyadic interaction.

We used two indices of relationship quality identified byresearchers and laypeople alike (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas,2000): Satisfaction and commitment. Relationship satisfactionrefers to experiencing rewards of a relationship that outweigh itscosts, whereas commitment, reflects one’s attachment and intentionto remain in a relationship (e.g., Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).

How might self-esteem influence these outcomes? LSEs’ ten-dencies toward pessimism (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, &Vohs, 2003), self-protective biases (Murray et al., 2008), and read-iness to feel hurt by their partners’ ambiguous or undesirable ac-tions (Murray et al., 2003) should lead them to experiencelowered relationship satisfaction. Moreover, in response to feelingsof relational devaluation, LSEs are apt to self-protectively engage inrelationship-destructive behaviors (Murray et al., 2003), contribut-ing to the perpetuation of relationship conflict and negativity. Insum, the tendencies of LSEs are apt to undermine their own happi-ness and that of their partners. Thus, we expected to replicate bothactor and partner effects for self-esteem shown in previous re-search (e.g., Murray et al., 2003) such that LSEs and their partnerswould report lower satisfaction relative to HSEs and their partners.

Because people who are happy in their relationships tend to bemore committed to them (Le & Agnew, 2003), we expected to findthe same pattern of actor and partner effects for commitment as wedid for satisfaction. Still, we opted to treat them as separate indica-tors of relationship quality in our analyses to allow for the plausiblealternative prediction that LSEs might be more committed to theirpartners. Commitment is inversely related to the quality of per-ceived alternatives to a relationship (e.g., Rusbult et al., 1998) andLSEs presumably perceive alternatives to their current relationshipsas limited and undesirable (Anthony, Holmes, & Wood, 2007).Therefore, we allowed for the possibility that negative views ofalternatives might motivate high commitment to current relation-ships for LSEs, despite their lower levels of satisfaction. In sum, wepredicted that both actors’ and partners’ self-esteem levels wouldimpact individuals’ commitment to each other, though we re-mained tentative about the direction of the actor effect.

Of course our primary interest was in exploring the nature ofthe dyadic effects between partners’ self-esteem levels. Therefore,in addition to testing the hypothesized actor and partner effects ofself-esteem on relationship quality, we tested four conceptuallydistinct dyadic patterns between partners’ self-esteem levels.Would the effect of individuals’ self-esteem on their own experi-ences be moderated by their partners’ self-esteem, such that cou-ples comprised of two HSE partners, two LSE partners, or oneHSE and one LSE partner might experience different relationshipoutcomes (moderation hypothesis)? Or, would self-esteem be bestconceptualized as a pooled resource between partners, wherebyhigh sums of self-esteem benefit the couple without regard tothe extent to which each partner contributes (shared resourcehypothesis)? Alternatively, would self-esteem similarity forecastromantic misery or joy (similarity hypothesis)? Finally, could justthe mere presence of one LSE impact partners’ outcomes (weakestlink hypothesis)? Related research suggests that any of these inter-actions could be theoretically tenable. For example, similarityproves advantageous when it comes to attachment characteristics(Luo & Klohnen, 2005) whereas the weakest link hypothesis bestdescribes the effects of commitment on relationship stability(Attridge, Bersheid, & Simpson, 1995). However, we hedged ourbets on finding support for the shared resource hypothesis. Other’shave likened self-esteem to a resource before (Murray, Holmes, &Collins, 2006; Steele, Spencer, & Lynch, 1993), and we surmised

that individuals might draw benefits as easily from their own bankof self-esteem as from their partners’. Therefore, we suspected thatcouples with the highest pooled level of self-esteem from bothpartners would fare best on our indices of relationship quality.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Five-hundred-and-four heterosexual couples participatedwherein at least one partner received partial course credit and theother received $10. The mean age for participants was 19.96 years(SD = 2.95; range 16–47 years) and the average relationship lengthwas 18.63 months (SD = 21.12; range 1–244 months). Most couples(76%) indicated that they were exclusively dating (7% long distance,7% living together, 6% casually dating, 2% engaged, and 2% married).

2.2. Procedure and measures

We compiled our dataset from samples collected in seven stud-ies. In each study, participants completed the measures of interestfor the present analyses before completing any other measures ormanipulations. All studies took place in the laboratory, where part-ners were separated to privately complete their surveys.

Participants first completed the 10-item Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem Inventory using a 9-point scale (1 = very strongly disagree;9 = very strongly agree). The internal consistency of the scale washigh, awomen (504) = .85, amen (504) = .85. Then, participants com-pleted items assessing relationship satisfaction and commitment(adapted from Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007). Three items eachtapped relationship satisfaction (e.g., ‘‘I am extremely happy withour relationship’’) and relationship commitment (e.g., ‘‘I would neverconsider leaving my partner’’). Participants responded to all itemsusing a 9-point scale (1 = not true at all, 9 = extremely true). The inter-nal consistency was high for satisfaction, awomen (504) = .85, amen

(504) = .78, and commitment, awomen (504) = .77, amen (504) = .80.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Preliminary analyses

Correlations, means, and standard deviations for all variables arepresented for men and women in Table 1. Paired t-tests revealedmean differences for men and women on self-esteem and relation-ship satisfaction. We thus included gender in all subsequent analy-ses to control for these differences and to explore any possibleinteractions between gender and other variables. The correlationbetween partners’ self-esteem scores was low, supporting previousresearch demonstrating that people do not select partners based onself-esteem similarity (e.g., Hendrick et al., 1988). Satisfaction andcommitment were strongly correlated but we analyzed each sepa-rately to allow for our alternative prediction for commitment.

3.2. Testing actor, partner, and dyadic effects

We conducted three separate mixed model analyses on eachindicator of relationship quality: satisfaction and commitment.Gender and its interactions were included in all models. In accor-dance with Kenny et al. (2006), we used the compound heteroge-neous structure for distinguishable dyads and self-esteem wascentered around its grand mean (M = 7.32). Each model is detailedbelow with reference to the hypotheses they tested, followed bytheir respective results.

First, we ran an APIM model with main effects of both partners’self-esteem levels and their product to test our actor, partner, and

Table 1Correlations and mean differences for men and women on all variables.

Correlations Mean differences

Self-esteem Satisfaction Commitment

Women Men Women Men Women Men M (SD) t(504)

Self-esteemWomen – 7.18 (7.18) �4.10**

Men .14** – 7.45 (7.45)

SatisfactionWomen .27*** .13** – 8.15 (8.15) 2.70*

Men .11* .22*** .39*** – 7.99 (7.99)

CommitmentWomen .12** .12** .62*** .24*** – 7.55 (7.55) 1.30Men .04 .11* .30*** .64*** .21*** – 7.43 (7.43)

* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

Table 2Actor–partner interdependence model analyses of self-esteem and relationship quality variables.

Satisfaction Commitment

b (SE) F (df) p b (SE) F (df) p

Intercept 8.07 (.04) 34578.52 (1, 504.00) <.001 7.48 (.06) 18315.59 (1, 504.00) <.001ASE .24 (.03) 57.61 (1, 954.47) <.001 .15 (.04) 11.49 (1, 993.57) .001PSE .09 (.03) 8.89 (1, 957.03) .003 .09 (.04) 3.94 (1, 1005.28) .05Gender .10 (.03) 11.39 (1, 504.00) .001 .06 (.05) 1.92 (1, 504.00) .17ASE � PSE .00 (.03) .01 (1, 504.00) .92 .02 (.04) .19 (1, 504.00) .67ASE � gender .02 (.03) .34 (1, 809.91) .56 �.01 (.04) .07 (1, 504.00) .79PSE � gender .01 (.03) .09 (1, 811.23) .77 .06 (.04) 1.64 (1, 902.36) .20ASE � PSE � gender �.01 (.02) .10 (1, 504.00) .75 .02 (.03) .31 (1, 504.00) .58

Note: ASE = actor self-esteem; PSE = partner self-esteem; ASE � PSE represents the test of the synergistic interaction.

K.J. Robinson, J.J. Cameron / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 227–230 229

moderation hypotheses. These results are presented in Table 2. Aspredicted, analyses revealed a main effect for actor self-esteem onsatisfaction, whereby HSEs reported greater satisfaction in theirromantic relationships, bSAT = .24 (SE = .03), F(1,954.47) = 57.61,p < .001. We proposed competing hypotheses regarding the direc-tion of the relationship between self-esteem and commitment. Con-sistent with our first hypothesis and mirroring results obtained onsatisfaction, analyses revealed a main effects for actor self-esteemon commitment such that HSEs reported greater commitment totheir romantic relationships, bCOM = .15 (SE = .04),F(1,993.57) = 11.49, p = .001. Furthermore, our analyses revealedsignificant partner effects on both outcomes. Individuals with HSEpartners reported greater satisfaction, bSAT = .09 (SE = .03),F(1,957.03) = 8.89, p = .003, and higher commitment, bCOM = .09(SE = .04), F(1,1005.28) = 3.93, p = .05. The product of partners’self-esteem levels was not a significant predictor of satisfaction,bSAT = .00 (SE = .03), F(1,504.00) = .01, p = .921, nor commitment,bCOM = .02 (SE = .04), F(1,504.00) = .187, p = .67. Thus, the modera-tion hypothesis was not supported.

Next, we tested the shared resource and similarity hypotheses.Following Kenny et al.’s (2006) recommendations, we calculatedsum scores and absolute difference scores of actor and partnerself-esteem and conducted mixed model analyses with these vari-ables as predictors.1 The sum effect provides a test of the relativestrength of actor and partner effects required to uphold the sharedresource hypothesis. Specifically, a significant sum effect means thatthe effects of actor and partner self-esteem levels on relationshipquality are equal, implying that the extent to which each partner

1 Typically, main effects must be controlled in any test of an interaction (Kenny &Cook, 1999). However, though the sum and difference scores in this model representunique conceptualizations of dyadic effects, they are just reparameterizations of theactor and partner effects, statistically speaking. Therefore, including actor and partnermain effects in this model would be redundant.

individually contributes self-esteem is irrelevant, so long as theirnet total is sufficient to promote benefits. The difference score, onthe other hand, provides a test of the similarity hypothesis. A signif-icant negative effect would suggest that couples are benefitted byminimizing the discrepancy between their self-esteem levels, imply-ing that self-esteem similarity is advantageous.

The sum score effects were significant for both satisfactionbSAT = .16 (SE = .02), F(1,504.00) = 45.09, p < .001, and commitment,bCOM = .11 (SE = .03), F(1,504.00) = 13.47, p < .001 whereas the dif-ference score effects were not, bSAT = .03 (SE = .14), F(1,504.00)= .05, p = .83;bCOM = �.01 (SE = .22), F(1,504.00) = .001, p = .98. Thus,the similarity hypothesis was not supported. Instead, our results sup-ported the shared resource hypothesis whereby self-esteem can beconceptualized as a pooled resource that benefits both partners’relationship quality when it tends toward plentiful, and hamperstheir relationship quality when self-esteem resources are scarce.

How can we be sure that self-esteem is truly a shared resourcethat does not depend on equal contributions from both partners?In our final model, we used the score of the lowest self-esteempartner in each couple, controlling for the main effects of actorand partner self-esteem, to test the weakest link hypothesis. A sig-nificant effect for the lowest self-esteem partner’s score wouldsuggest poor outcomes if a couple is comprised of at least oneLSE partner, regardless of the other partner’s score. However, thiseffect was not significant for satisfaction bSAT = �.08 (SE = .10),F(1,488.33) = .70, p = .40 nor commitment, bCOM = �.13 (SE = .12),F(1,488.69) = 1.12, p = .29, bolstering our confidence in the concep-tualization of self-esteem as a shared relationship resource.

4. Conclusion

Previous work recognizes the importance of considering the ef-fects of both partner’s characteristics on relationship outcomes.

230 K.J. Robinson, J.J. Cameron / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 227–230

The current investigation extends upon this tenet by highlightingthe relevance of different conceptualizations of dyadic effects withconsideration to the unique implications each presents. In the firstsystematic investigation of the dyadic interplay between partners’self-esteem levels, our analyses supported a conceptualization ofself-esteem as a shared resource from which both partners canbenefit to the extent that it is present. This brings to light an alter-native spin on the seemingly hopeless state of LSEs’ relationships(e.g., Murray et al., 2003). Perhaps LSEs are not doomed to sourtheir own and their partners’ outcomes, as simple actor and part-ner effects would suggest. Instead, we might more aptly character-ize LSEs as contributing less to a shared bank storing a currencymarked for happiness and stability. Therefore, as long as one’s part-ner can contribute enough self-esteem to ‘‘balance the budget’’,couples should experience positive outcomes. The pooled level ofself-esteem required to draw relationship benefits remains anempirical question for future research. However, from the currentinvestigation we can surmise that when it comes to self-esteemand relationship quality, the more the merrier, the less the wearier.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada Joseph Armand Bombardier CanadaGraduate Scholarship to the first author and a grant from the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) tothe second author. We collectively thank the many students andresearch assistants who assisted with collecting and preparing datafrom the studies that comprised the sample for the current paper,with special gratitude to Natasha Stecy-Hildebrant for compilingthe data from all the studies presented here.

References

Anthony, D. B., Holmes, J. G., & Wood, J. V. (2007). Social acceptance and self-esteem: Tuning the sociometer to interpersonal value. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 92, 1024–1039.

Attridge, M., Bersheid, E., & Simpson, J. A. (1995). Predicting relationship stabilityfrom both partners versus one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,254–258.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthierlifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert,S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.,pp. 193–281). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceivedrelationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354.

Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love,satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,980–988.

Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptualissues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 443–448.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York:Guilford Press.

Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadicpatterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 24, 359–366.

Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57.

Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality innewlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 88, 304–326.

Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words: Reframingcompliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteemindividuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 232–248.

Murray, S. L., Bellavia, G., Rose, R., & Griffin, D. (2003). Once hurt, twice hurtful: Howperceived regard regulates daily marital interaction. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 84, 126–147.

Murray, S. L., Derrick, J. L., Leder, S., & Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing connectednessand self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-of-processingperspective on risk regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,429–459.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. C. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The riskregulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666.

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). It’s not just who you’re with, it’s whoyou are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships.Journal of Personality, 70, 925–964.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale:Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, andinvestment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387.

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Lynch, M. (1993). Self-image resilience and dissonance:The role of affirmational resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64(6), 885–896.