Extant literature suggests not only that social relationships are one context in which individuals may pursue personal strivings (Rusbult, Finkel & Kumashiro, 2009a), but also that individuals may assess their marital satisfaction based on their goal-striving successes (Li & Fung, 2011). Indeed, the degree to which partners appear to be responsive to one another's goals and ideals, termed partner responsiveness, has been linked with personal and relational well-being (Reis, Clark & Holmes, 2004; Rusbult et al., 2009a). Virtues such as commitment, trust, and compassion have been theoretically and empirically associated with upward cycles of partner responsiveness and personal and relational well-being (Canavello & Crocker, 2010; Reis & Gable, 2015). Partner responsiveness has also been consistently linked with goal attainment and well-being in the context of social relationships (Drigotas, 2002). The present study sought to bridge these two literatures by examining the potential mediating role of partner responsiveness between virtues and goal attainment. Data for the present study came from a cross-sectional survey of 840 heterosexual married couples living across the United States. Hypotheses were analyzed using an actor-partner interdependencemodel (Kenny, Kashy & Cook, 2006). Results suggested that partner responsiveness partially mediated actor effects of virtue on goal attainment, but fully mediated the partner effects of virtue on goal attainment. Gender effects emerged such that the direct effects of virtues on goal attainment were stronger for husbands than for wives. These results indicate that within-dyads (Kenny et al., 2006) gender difference variables (e.g. percent of family income earned) are likely to account for these differences. Study limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Although research has begun to examine the factors which facilitate forgiveness in romantic relationships, there is currently limited empirical research examining the partner behaviours which promote or alternatively thwart forgiveness in romantic relationships. I examined the role of perceived partner responsiveness (showing understanding and validation) in mediating the link between offers of amends and forgiveness for real-life hurtful events. Results showed that perceived partner responsiveness emerged as a key predictor of forgiveness and as an important mediator of the relationship between amends and forgiveness. This meditational model was further moderated by event severity and relationship satisfaction, such that at high levels of event severity and low levels of relationship satisfaction, both amends and responsiveness showed unique, positive direct effects on forgiveness. Finally, exploratory analyses indicated that not all forgiveness-seeking behaviours are “created equal”—verbal behaviours that directly address the hurtful event appear to convey sincere amends and responsiveness while those behaviours (verbal and non-verbal) which do not directly address the hurtful event undermine forgiveness.

Although research has begun to examine the factors which facilitate forgiveness in romantic relationships, there is currently limited empirical research examining the partner behaviours which promote or alternatively thwart forgiveness in romantic relationships. I examined the role of perceived partner responsiveness (showing understanding and validation) in mediating the link between offers of amends and forgiveness for real-life hurtful events. Results showed that perceived partner responsiveness emerged as a key predictor of forgiveness and as an important mediator of the relationship between amends and forgiveness. This meditational model was further moderated by event severity and relationship satisfaction, such that at high levels of event severity and low levels of relationship satisfaction, both amends and responsiveness showed unique, positive direct effects on forgiveness. Finally, exploratory analyses indicated that not all forgiveness-seeking behaviours are “created equal”—verbal behaviours that directly address the hurtful event appear to convey sincere amends and responsiveness while those behaviours (verbal and non-verbal) which do not directly address the hurtful event undermine forgiveness.

Feeling that a partner is responsive to one’s needs is crucial to intimacy (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Just as the well-known expression, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” suggests that people who voice the most complaints elicit the most support from others, existing theory and research suggest that the more one expresses one’s emotions, the more one’s partners should behave responsively—with caring, understanding, and validation (Reis et al., 2004; Reis & Shaver, 1988). However, I suspected that when a person frequently expresses negativity, individual negative disclosures seem less diagnostic of true distress, and thus elicit less responsiveness from partners. Building on Biernat, Manis, and Nelson’s (1991) shifting standards model, I predicted that people use person-specific standards—taking into account the expresser’s typical (baseline) level of negative expressivity—when interpreting a close other’s negative disclosures. Results of six studies employing both correlational and experimental methods supported the hypothesis that people who frequently express negativity may have the severity of their distress underestimated and elicit less concern and responsiveness from their partners when they make negative disclosures. These findings provide insight into why even close relationship partners may fail to behave responsively to each other’s negative disclosures.

Feeling that a partner is responsive to one’s needs is crucial to intimacy (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Just as the well-known expression, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” suggests that people who voice the most complaints elicit the most support from others, existing theory and research suggest that the more one expresses one’s emotions, the more one’s partners should behave responsively—with caring, understanding, and validation (Reis et al., 2004; Reis & Shaver, 1988). However, I suspected that when a person frequently expresses negativity, individual negative disclosures seem less diagnostic of true distress, and thus elicit less responsiveness from partners. Building on Biernat, Manis, and Nelson’s (1991) shifting standards model, I predicted that people use person-specific standards—taking into account the expresser’s typical (baseline) level of negative expressivity—when interpreting a close other’s negative disclosures. Results of six studies employing both correlational and experimental methods supported the hypothesis that people who frequently express negativity may have the severity of their distress underestimated and elicit less concern and responsiveness from their partners when they make negative disclosures. These findings provide insight into why even close relationship partners may fail to behave responsively to each other’s negative disclosures.