RUNNING HEAD: Meaning in Romantic Relationships 1

Finding Meaning in Us: The Role of Meaning in Life in Romantic Relationships

Word Count: 7500

Corresponding Author:
Benjamin W. Hadden, Ph.D.
Department of Psychological Sciences
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Bhadden1765@[Link]
Phone: 203-470-4852

C. Raymond Knee, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204
knee@[Link]
Phone: 713-743-2616
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 2

ABSTRACT

The present research tested a model of relationship functioning that incorporates meaning

in life (MIL), proposing that MIL plays an important role in individuals' motivations and

perceived quality of romantic relationships. Study 1 employed a weekly diary methodology (N =

121 individuals in romantic relationships) and found that both within- and between-person

relationship MIL are associated with internalized motivational states (i.e., intrinsic motivation,

harmonious passion) and relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction, commitment). Study 2 was a

dyadic study that examined both members of romantic couples (N = 238 dyads). Results found

that both one’s own and one’s partner’s MIL predict motivation and relationship quality. Further,

we also found evidence of a hierarchical model of MIL, such that relationship-specific

experiences of MIL mediate associations between general MIL and relationship motivation and

quality. Taken together, this research provides consistent and compelling evidence regarding the

importance of MIL in romantic relationships.

KEYWORDS: Meaning, motivation, relationships, romantic partners, self-determination

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 3

Finding Meaning in Us: The Role of Meaning in Life in Romantic Relationships

Psychologists have increasingly recognized that MIL plays a central role in people’s

well-being. Meaning in life is the extent to which people experience a sense of purpose,

coherence, and significance in their lives (Steger, 2009), referring to both an existential sense

that one’s life matters “beyond the trivial or momentary” (King, Hicks, Krull, & Del Gaiso,

2006, p. 180) and that one’s life is comprehensible and that one’s experiences fit into a coherent

narrative (Heintzelman & King, 2014). Meaning is inextricably linked with social connections

and a sense of belonging (Baumeister, 2005). Human beings are fundamentally social creatures,

with a strong motivation to build and maintain social bonds with others (Baumeister & Leary,

1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Multiple lines of research suggest that general lack of social

belongingness—such as being ostracized or rejected by peers—undermines MIL (Twenge,

Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003; Williams, 1997, 2002). For instance, both experimental and

correlational research has found that people who lack meaningful social relationships report

lower levels of meaning (Lambert et al., 2013; Stillman et al., 2009; Van Beest & Williams,

2006; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000).

Research examining the interplay between MIL and dynamics of close relationships

(rather than a general sense of connection) is lacking. Some research has shown that close

relationships provide a sense of security and that higher quality relationships buffer against

mortality salience (Florian, Mikulincer, & Hirschberger, 2002), indirectly suggesting that better

quality relationships provide a sense of meaning. Van Tongeren et al. (2015, Study 2) tested the

connection between relationship functioning and general meaning more directly, examining

meaning and forgiveness in a 6-month longitudinal study. They found that the more people

forgave both their romantic partner’s most serious idiosyncratic offenses and a list of
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 4

standardized offenses over 6-months, the more their sense of meaning increased from baseline to

follow-up.

Although this research points to a connection between romantic relationship functioning

and MIL, important questions remain. First, although prior literature has examined the

association between MIL and both rejection and forgiveness, less is known about the

associations between meaning and broader indicators of relationship functioning, such as

relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction and commitment) and motivational states in relationships.

Further, the research discussed above has only considered a general (i.e., non-domain specific)

sense of MIL rather than meaning that people derive specifically from the relationship. It is

possible that MIL functions in a hierarchical manner, similar to models of life satisfaction

(Diener, 1984) and motivation (e.g., Vallerand, 1997, 2007; Vallerand & Lalande, 2011) such

that associations between MIL at a general level and domain-specific qualities (e.g., relationship

quality) are best explained by experiences of MIL in that particular domain (for conceptual

model, see Figure 1). In this way, the most proximal predictor of outcomes would be domain-

specific MIL rather than MIL in general. Finally, no research, to our knowledge, has examined

the dyadic implications of MIL. That is, rather than simply conceiving of meaning as an

intrapersonal experience, the present research asks how MIL relates to one's partner’s

experiences as well.

Meaning and Romantic Relationship Functioning

Given the role that MIL plays in personal well-being—both psychological and physical—

and the fundamental nature of relationships as a source of meaning, it stands to reason that the

extent to which people experience meaning in life should be intertwined with how people

perceive their relationships. Although romantic relationships are an important source of meaning,
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 5

they also vary in the degree to which they support or undermine meaning (e.g., Van Tongeren et

al., 2015). Examining the interplay between relationship-specific MIL (i.e., meaning derived

from one’s relationship) and relationship functioning is the natural extension of the existing

literature. We suggest a bidirectional association between relationship-specific MIL and

relational well-being, similar to those proposed by top-down and bottom-up process of life

satisfaction (Diener, 1984) and motivation (Vallerand, 1997, 2007; Vallerand & Lalande, 2011).

According to this model, there are two directional processes between global and relationship-

specific MIL. First, global ratings of MIL determine domain-specific assessments (top-down).

This directional model suggests that deriving MIL from one’s relationship may also be a

fundamental ingredient for relational well-being. The degree to which people derive meaning

from their relationship may have implications for people’s perceived relationship quality and

allow for greater integration of the relationship. Second, the domain specific measures determine

the global ratings (bottom-up). Relationships that are functioning well (i.e., are highly satisfying

and reliable) and are internally motivated (i.e., intrinsic and harmonious rather than extrinsic and

obsessive) provide a stronger sense of coherence and purpose, resulting in greater MIL.

Relationship Quality. We propose that MIL may be associated with relationship quality

for several reasons. First, satisfying and committed relationships may themselves be a source of

meaning. As previous research has shown, offenses that disrupt relationship functioning reduce

meaning, but this meaning is recovered if people are more forgiving (Van Tongeren et al., 2015).

Although relationship quality was not directly assessed, having a stable relationship is likely to

confer a sense of meaning. It is plausible that the association also functions in the opposite

direction. Several lines of research suggest that creation and maintenance of meaning is a

primary motivation (Greenberg & Arndt, 2012; Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). Empirical
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 6

evidence supports this notion as well, demonstrating that people are more likely to persist at

tasks that enhance meaning (Heintzelman & King, 2013) and that people have an automatic

defensive response when meaning is threatened (Van Tongeren & Green, 2010). Further, MIL is

an essential ingredient of eudaimonia and personal well-being (Ryff & Singer, 1998). To the

extent that a relationship supports a sense of purpose and coherence, and thus satiates a central

motivation and enhances personal well-being, the relationship will be perceived as more

rewarding.

Relationship Motivation. Meaning in life may also be associated with the degree to

which people are internally motivated to be in their relationship. We focus on intrinsic

relationship motivation and passion because both highlight the distinction between autonomous

and non-autonomous integration of the relationship with one’s true self. Further, intrinsic

motivation and passion can be conceptualized in a self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan,

2000) framework, which provides a useful basis to make predictions. Intrinsic relationship

motivation reflects the degree to which a person is involved in the relationship because they

genuinely want to be and feel that it aligns with their true self (Blais, Sabourin, Boucher, &

Vallerand, 1990). Romantic passion, meanwhile, refers to the extent to which one’s relationship

is self-defining (Carbonneau & Vallerand, 2013). According to the dualistic model of passion

(Vallerand et al., 2003), passion can result from two processes. Harmonious passion results from

willing engagement and identification with one’s relationship, and a sense that the relationship is

volitional and is at harmony with other aspects of one’s life. Obsessive passion, meanwhile,

emerges from a controlling process that creates a contingent sense of self-worth associated with

one’s relationship.
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 7

Why would MIL be related to more internal motivational states? First, similarly to

relationship quality, a relationship in which one experiences integration through intrinsic

motivation and harmonious passion as opposed to extrinsic motivation and obsessive passion,

may facilitate a sense of meaning. In other words, more complete and genuine integration of the

relationship within one’s self is likely to enhance one’s sense of a coherent true self. Prior

research has shown that the degree to which one has accessible knowledge of one’s true self is

one of the ways people derive meaning (Schlegel et al., 2009; Schlegel, Hicks, King, & Arndt,

2011). Thus, to the degree that people feel that their relationship reflects their true self, they

should experience greater meaning. Meaning may also be a key ingredient in the ability to

integrate one’s relationship. In other words, feeling that one’s relationship imbues one with a

sense of purpose and coherence may facilitate integration of the relationship, allowing one to

bring it more fully in line with one’s true self, ultimately resulting in more intrinsic motivation

and harmonious passion, while simultaneously predicting less obsessive passion.

Overview of the Present Research

The present research was designed to further our understanding of the role that MIL plays

in relationship dynamics. We extend prior research by examining the associations between

relationship-specific MIL and both relationship quality and motivational states. We specifically

propose that MIL should be associated with higher relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction and

commitment) and with more integrated motivational states (i.e., more intrinsic motivation and

harmonious passion, less obsessive passion). We present two studies to test these hypotheses.

Study 1 is a weekly diary study in which we test the associations between relationship-specific

MIL and relational well-being. Study 2 is a cross-sectional dyadic study in which we obtained

reports from both partners, again providing a test of the associations between relationship-
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 8

specific MIL and relational well-being. Study 2 also provides, to our knowledge, the first test of

dyadic associations with MIL. That is, we test both intrapersonal and interpersonal associations

of MIL. Finally, Study 2 also includes an empirical test of a hierarchical model of MIL, in which

relationship-specific MIL mediates associations between general MIL and relational well-being.

Study 1

Study 1 tested of the role that MIL plays in relationship functioning. We were interested

in whether MIL derived specifically from one’s relationship predicts both internally driven

motivational states (i.e., relationship autonomy and passion) as well as relationship quality (i.e.,

satisfaction and commitment). Further, we tested the robustness of MIL, including basic

psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) as covariates. Autonomy,

competence, and relatedness are thought to be the primary ingredients of well-being and internal

motivation (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996;

Sheldon & Kasser, 1998; Uysal, Lin, & Knee, 2010; Weinstein, Legate, Kumashiro, & Ryan,

2015). Within relationships, need fulfillment has been shown to predict relationship quality and

intrinsic relationship motivation (Hadden, Øverup, & Knee, 2015; Hadden, Smith, & Knee,

2014; La Guardia et al., 2000; Patrick, Knee, Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007). As such, in testing

the association between MIL and relationship functioning, it is important to determine if an

association exists beyond the effects of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Methods

Participants and Procedure. Undergraduate students in romantic relationships of at

least three months were recruited from psychology classes at a large southwestern university in

the USA. A total of 121 undergraduates participated. Twenty-seven participants were male, 93

were female, and one did not report gender. Participants’ average age was about 23 years old
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 9

(SD = 6 years). The sample was 18% Asian/Pacific Islander, 12% African American, 29%

Caucasian, 34% Latino/a, and 7% chose other. Average relationship duration was 33 months (SD

= 37 months). Of the participants included in the analyses, 84% were in dating relationships,

16% were either engaged or married.

Participants attended an in-lab orientation during the week (Monday through Friday)

where a research assistant outlined the study procedures and participants completed several

questionnaires that were not included in these analyses. The following Sunday, participants

began completing weekly records online every Sunday for five weeks at a time and location of

the participants’ choosing. They were told that the survey had to be completed before going to

bed on Sunday night and before 4am Monday morning. Any surveys completed after 4am were

not included in the analyses. Participants were told not to go back to complete diaries if they had

forgotten. All questionnaires in this part of the diary were reworded to ask about how

participants currently feel and referred to the relationship they reported during orientation.

Measures.

Relationship specific meaning in life. We adapted the 5-item Presence of Meaning

subscale (α =.87 ) of the MLQ (Steger et al., 2006) by adding the following stem to the beginning

of each item: “When I am with [romantic partner’s name]….” For instance, a sample item

included “When I am with [romantic partner’s name], I understand my life’s meaning.” Ratings

were made on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true).

Basic Psychological Need Fulfillment. Basic psychological needs were assessed with the

9-item Basic Psychological Needs Scale (La Guardia et al., 2000). Three subscales (3-items

each) all followed the stem, “When I am with my romantic partner…” and measured relatedness

(e.g., “I feel loved and cared about”) (α =.78), competence (e.g., “I feel like a competent
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 10

person”) (α =.75), and autonomy (e.g., “I have a say in what happens and can voice my

opinion”) (α =.76 ) on a 7-point rating scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Relationship Autonomy. Motivations to be in one’s relationship were assessed using the

Couples Motivation Questionnaire (CMQ) (Blais et al., 1990). The scale consists of 18 items and

has six subscales with three questions each that represent the six different levels of

internalization: Intrinsic, integrated, identified, introjected, external, and amotivated. The

questionnaire begins with the stem, “Why are you in this relationship?” Each of the 18 items

then provides a reason for being in the relationship that varies along a continuum from reasons

that are less self-determined (e.g., “There is nothing motivating me to stay in my relationship

with my partner”) to more self-determined (e.g., “Because I value the way my relationship with

my partner allows me to improve myself as a person”). The scale was scored to weight each type

of motivation based on its relative location on the self-determination continuum: (Intrinsic*3)+

(Integrated*2)+(Identified*1)+(Introjected*-1)+(External*-2)+(Amotivation*-3). Participants

rated how much each statement represents a reason they are currently in their relationship on a 7-

point scale from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly) (α =.72).

Romantic Passion. Passion was measured with the Romantic Passion Scale (Ratelle et

al., 2013). Both harmonious passion (e.g., “My relationship with my partner reflects the qualities

I like about myself”; α =.89) and obsessive passion (e.g., “I have almost obsessive feelings for

my partner”; α =.91) were measured with 7 items rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (do not agree at

all) to 7 (strongly agree).

Satisfaction and commitment. Participants completed the 5-item satisfaction (e.g., “My

relationship is close to ideal”;α =.94 ) and the 7-item commitment (e.g., “I want our relationship

to last forever”; α =.87 ) subscales of the Rusbult Investment Model (RIM) (Rusbult, Martz, &
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 11

Agnew, 1998). Participants rated how much each statement accurately reflected their relationship

on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 9 (agree completely).

Results

Preliminary Analyses. Participants completed 513 diaries. The average participant

completed approximately 4 of 5 weekly diary entries. Means, standard deviations, and

correlations (aggregate scores across each participants’ weekly observations) can be found in

Table 1. As expected, relationship-specific MIL was positively associated with all three basic

psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) as well as with harmonious passion,

satisfaction, and commitment. However, relationship-specific MIL was not associated with

obsessive passion.

Plan of Analysis. Our hypotheses were tested using multilevel modeling (SAS 9.4 PROC

MIXED). These models accounted for the non-independence inherent in repeated observations

from the same person across weeks by estimating random person-level intercepts, which reflect

person-level averages across days. Meaning in life, autonomy, competence, and relatedness were

within-person-centered. These associations represent within-person associations, relative to

individuals’ own means. We also aggregated and grand-mean centered individuals’ responses

across the 5-week period, creating ‘chronic’ between-person predictors.

Main Analyses. To test whether MIL is associated with relationship functioning, we

computed a series of multilevel models that simultaneously included weekly and chronic

measures of meaning in life, autonomy, competence, and relatedness as covariates1. Thus, all

associations reflect the unique variance in relationship functioning beyond the other predictors.

Functioningij =γ 00 + γ 10 Weekly Meaning+γ 20 Weekly Autonomy+ γ 30 Weekly Competence+ γ 40 Weekly Relate

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 12

Results of these models, which include both unstandardized and standardized

associations2, can be found in Tables 2 (motivational states as outcomes) and 3 (relationship

quality as outcomes). Both weekly and chronic MIL were positively associated with relationship

autonomy and harmonious passion, but not with obsessive passion ( p' s> .104). Further, both

weekly and chronic MIL were associated with greater experience of satisfaction and

commitment. Importantly, these associations held while controlling for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness, indicating the unique and robust role of MIL.

Discussion

These findings provide evidence that MIL is a robust predictor of concurrent relationship

functioning. Specifically, we found that relationship-specific MIL predicts both more internally

driven motivational states as well as higher perceptions of relationship quality. These

associations were found at both the within- and between-person levels, suggesting that people

receive different overall levels of MIL from their relationship and that these differences have

implications for motivation and quality.

Study 2

Study 1 provided an important initial test of the unique role of MIL in relationships.

Specifically, Study 1 provided evidence that MIL derived specifically from the relationship is

associated with motivation and relationship quality. However, part of the model being put forth

is that MIL is structured hierarchically, such that people experience global MIL as well as

meaning derived specifically from their relationship. Although we expect that global MIL is

associated with relationship functioning, relationship-specific MIL should predict relationship

functioning beyond global levels because it is a more proximal predictor in a hierarchical model.

Further, because relationships are inherently a dyadic process, it is possible that an individual’s
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 13

experience of MIL may have implications for the relationship as a whole, and thus, may also

predict a partner’s relationship functioning.

Methods

Participants and Procedure. The final dataset consisted of 238 complete dating or

married couples (476 individuals). Couples (minimum relationship duration of 3 months) were

recruited from a large, metropolitan southwestern university in the USA. At least one member of

the dyad was an undergraduate student and was offered course credit for participation. The

student who signed up for the study online was redirected to an online survey where they

provided an email address for their romantic partner and completed the survey. Romantic

partners of students were emailed a link to an identical survey that included a question at the end

to determine whether the person completing out the survey was in fact the student’s partner

(“NOTE: This will NOT affect your eligibility for credit. We simply need to know if the survey

was completed by the correct member of the couple. Was this survey filled out by the romantic

partner of the student who signed up to receive credit?). Any responses other than ‘yes’ were

excluded from the analyses (N = 37). All participants were asked not to discuss their responses

with their partner.

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 56 years old (M = 22.93, SD = 4.70). The sample

was racially/ethnically diverse with 41% Latino/a, 23% Caucasian, 22% Asian/Pacific Islander,

6% African American, and 8% other. Average relationship duration was 33.25 months (SD =

28.52 months).

Due to a glitch in the programming we did not receive gender information from 126

individuals who are included in the final dataset. In total, 161 participants reported being male,

189 reported being female, and 126 did not provide a response. We received complete gender
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 14

data from 146 couples (292 individuals). Of the couples with complete gender data, there were

142 males and 150 females. Six couples were homosexual male, 10 were homosexual female,

and 130 were heterosexual. We received partial gender data from 58 couples (i.e., one partner

completed gender information, one did not). Of the couples with partial gender data 19

individuals were male and 39 were female. We received no gender information from 34 couples

(68 individuals).

Measures.

General meaning in life. Meaning in life was assessed with the 5-item Presence of

Meaning subscale (α =.91) of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006),

which assesses the extent to which people experience meaning (e.g., I understand my life’s

meaning) on a 7-point scale from 1 (absolutely untrue) to 7 (absolutely true).

Relationship specific meaning in life was measured using the same adapted measure as

in Study 1 (α =.89).

Relationship Autonomy was assessed with the same measure as Study 1 (α =.77 ).

Romantic Passion. Harmonious (α =.90) and obsessive passion (α =.90) were measured

with the same measure as Study 1.

Satisfaction and commitment. Satisfaction (α =.94 ) and commitment (α =.81) were

measured with the same measure as Study 1.

Results

Preliminary Analyses. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among all study

variables are presented in Table 4. As expected, general and relationship-specific MIL were

strongly correlated. Both general and relationship-specific MIL were positively associated with

autonomous relationship motivation, harmonious passion, satisfaction, and commitment.

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 15

Somewhat surprisingly, although obsessive passion was not correlated with general MIL, it was

positively correlated with relationship-specific MIL.

Plan of Analysis. To account for the non-independence resulting from reports obtained

from both members of a couple, we employed the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM;

Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). APIM is a dyadic data analytic approach that allows for the

examination of reciprocity unique to partners in relationships. Non-independence was estimated

by the correlation between partner reports, specified with a REPEATED statement in SAS 9.4

PROC MIXED. Primary analyses simultaneously examined actor and partner effects. Actor

effects represent associations between an individual’s own predictor and the outcome of interest.

Partner effects represent associations between one's partner’s predictor and an individual’s

outcome of interest.

Main Analyses. We computed a series of APIM mediation models to test whether

meaning in life functions hierarchically. Figure 2 shows a conceptual APIM that we expanded to

include mediation paths. Thick lines show actor effects, thin lines show partner effects. Dashed

lines show a simple APIM (one without mediation) that tests direct effects. Solid lines show an

expanded APIM (one that incorporates mediation) that tests indirect effects. This conceptual

model was tested by conducting a series of hierarchical models described below. Results of these

models, including both unstandardized and standardized associations, can be found in Figures 3-

7. Some pathways are redundant (e.g., actor predicting actor is the same equation as partner

predicting partner) but for completeness we present the coefficients for each of the associations

displayed in the given figure.

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 16

In Step 1, we computed the actor and partner effects of general MIL predicting

relationship-specific MIL. Both actor and partner general MIL were positively and uniquely

associated with relationship-specific MIL.

In Step 2, we simultaneously examined the actor and partner effects of general MIL

predicting relationship functioning outcomes. As expected, actor general MIL was associated

with more relationship autonomy, harmonious passion, satisfaction, and commitment. Further,

partner general MIL was also associated with more harmonious passion, satisfaction, and

commitment, but not with relationship autonomy. Neither actor nor partner general MIL was

associated with obsessive passion.

In Step 3, we added the actor and partner effects of relationship-specific MIL,

simultaneously estimating the associations of both general and relationship-specific MIL with

relationship functioning. Actor relationship-specific MIL was associated with higher levels of

relationship autonomy, harmonious passion, satisfaction, and commitment. Unexpectedly, actor

relationship-specific MIL was also positively associated with obsessive passion. Partner

relationship-specific MIL was also associated with (marginally) higher relationship autonomy,

harmonious passion, and satisfaction. Partner relationship-specific MIL was not, however,

associated with commitment or obsessive passion. Further, both actor and partner general MIL

were no longer significantly associated with any relationship functioning indicator that they had

previously predicted, but actor general MIL now negatively predicted obsessive passion.

Finally, mediation was tested by computing the ab product term using RMediation

(Tofighi, & MacKinnon, 2011) according to mediation guidelines for APIM (Ledermann,

Macho, & Kenny, 2011). Note that both actor and partner effects of general MIL can be

mediated by either actor and partner relationship MIL (e.g., one’s own general MIL may predict
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 17

higher partner relationship MIL, which in turn predicts one’s own outcome). As such, we

computed indirect tests for all possible pathways (see Table 5). In line with a hierarchical model

of MIL, actor relationship-specific MIL significantly mediated the associations between general

MIL and relationship autonomy, harmonious passion, satisfaction, and commitment (relationship

MIL suppressed the association between general MIL and obsessive passion).

Further, the benefits of partner general MIL appear to act as a function of actor

relationship MIL. That is, actor relationship MIL mediated the associations between partner

general MIL and relationship autonomy, harmonious passion, satisfaction, and commitment.

These results suggest that, even though partner’s general MIL is associated with greater actor

internal motivation and relationship quality, it is because the actor experiences higher

relationship MIL. Finally, there was less consistent evidence that partner relationship MIL

mediates the association between either actor or partner general MIL and relationship outcomes,

only emerging as significant regarding harmonious passion and satisfaction.

Ancillary analyses: Gender Differences. We tested models in which we included the

main effect of actor gender, as well as the interactions between gender and both actor and partner

general MIL and relationship-specific MIL. Of the 40 possible interactions, only 5 emerged as at

least marginally significant. Given the lack of consistency across outcomes and the mixed

direction of the moderation (three associations were stronger for women, two were stronger for

men) we are hesitant to draw definitive conclusions but present the findings for interested

readers.

The association between actor relationship-specific MIL and satisfaction was moderated

by gender (b=.34 , CI [ .06 , .62 ] , p=.019 ), and the association between actor relationship-specific

MIL and commitment was marginally moderated by gender (b=.23 , CI [ ¿ .02 , .48 ] , p=.070). The
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 18

association between partner relationship-specific MIL and harmonious passion was significantly

moderated by gender (b=.29 , CI [−.39 ,−.04 ] , p=.017 ). The association between partner

relationship-specific MIL and satisfaction was marginally moderated by gender (

b=−.25 , CI [ −.51, .01 ] , p=.064). Finally, the association between actor general MIL and

relationship autonomy was marginally moderated by gender (b=−1.47 , CI [ −3.18 ,.25 ] , p=.095

). However, no other interactions with gender emerged ( p' s> .112).

Discussion

These findings build on those of Study 1, providing further evidence that MIL plays an

important role in explaining romantic relationship functioning. Specifically, we replicated the

finding that relationship-specific MIL predicts both motivational and relationship quality.

Moreover, we also found some support for the dyadic importance of MIL. Partners' experiences

of MIL (both general and relationship) demonstrated associations with both more internalized

motivational states and higher relationship quality. Finally, these findings point to the

hierarchical structure of MIL, revealing that MIL can arise from specific domains and that such

domain-specific experiences are more strongly predictive of outcomes in that domain.

Specifically, we found that although both actor and partner general MIL predicted various

indicators of relationship functioning, they were both consistently mediated by actor relationship

MIL.

General Discussion

Finding a sense of meaning in one's relationship has measurable implications for one's

motivation to be in the relationship, the degree of harmonious passion one experiences, as well

as how satisfied and committed one is to the relationship. In Study 1, these associations emerged

at both between-person and as within-person fluctuations over time. Study 2 found support for a
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 19

dyadic model of MIL, such that both one’s own and one’s partner’s MIL predict motivational

states and relationship quality. Importantly, Study 2 also found that relationship MIL mediates

associations between one's general level of MIL and relationship outcomes. Further, these

associations go beyond other known predictors of relationship outcomes, specifically, the degree

to which basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled in

one's relationship.

These findings extend our knowledge of MIL in several ways. First, and perhaps most

importantly, we provided novel evidence that relationship-specific MIL is structured

hierarchically such that relationship-specific experiences are an important factor in

understanding relationship quality and motivation. Consistent with hierarchical models of other

constructs such as life satisfaction (Diener, 1984) and motivation (Vallerand, 1997), we found

evidence that associations between general MIL and relational outcomes are mediated by

relationship-specific MIL. Further, the idea that deriving a sense of meaning from one's

relationship can be an important predictor of one's relationship motivation, passion, satisfaction,

and commitment places MIL at the center of models that suggest that optimal relationships are

those that support fulfillment of basic psychological needs and true self-expression (e.g., Knee et

al., 2013; Knee, Hadden, & Baker, 2016; Patrick et al., 2007). Finding meaning in one's

relationship and feeling that the relationship fulfills basic psychological needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness likely stem from a similar positive interpersonal dynamic.

Second, Study 2 provides novel insight into the dyadic nature of MIL. Specifically, we

found that having a partner who experiences higher MIL is associated with one’s own

experiences of relationship autonomy (marginally), harmonious passion, satisfaction, and

commitment in the relationship. As such, meaning in life has implications beyond one’s own
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 20

experiences in relationships. Although these analyses were largely exploratory, based on similar

findings regarding basic psychological need fulfillment (Patrick et al., 2007), meaning in life

may be associated with one’s partner’s relationship experiences because it allows for more

natural, authentic, and less demanding and controlling interactions with partners, which in turn

results in greater internalized motivation and relationship quality.

We also found several surprising associations with obsessive passion. For instance, in

Study 1, weekly autonomy positively predicted weekly fluctuations in obsessive passion,

whereas chronic autonomy predicted less overall obsessive passion. Further, in Study 2,

relationship-specific MIL is positively associated with obsessive passion when controlling for

general MIL. In hindsight, weekly fluctuations in autonomy and obsessive passion could reflect

relationship-contingent self-esteem (Knee, Canevello, Bush, & Cook, 2008), which is an

unhealthy reliance on one's relationship for self-validation. Fluctuations in autonomy and

obsessive passion from week to week could be capturing the ups and downs that people

experience when their self-regard is heavily invested in their relationship. Similarly, when

parsing out general MIL, relationship-specific MIL might reflect a sense of contingent meaning

that increases the extent to which one can’t stop thinking about the relationship. Such

contingencies are strongly correlated with obsessive love, attachment anxiety, and predict the

degree to which one's self-esteem rises and falls on a daily basis with the valence of relationship

events.

This research is not without limitations. Our designs are nonexperimental and we are

unable to provide causal evidence regarding top-down or bottom-up procceses. As discussed

above, it is also possible that the observed associations are bi-directional. However, these data do

provide novel evidence that MIL is hierarchically structured such that it exists both globally and
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 21

at domain-specific levels. Further, such domain-specific experiences of MIL provide value

beyond global MIL as evidenced by relationship-specific MIL playing a mediational role. We

also assessed MIL and relationship outcomes over time in Study 1, finding that relationship-

specific MIL was associated with relationship passion, motivation, and quality at both between-

person (aggregated) and within-person (fluctuations over weeks) levels of analysis. While

finding similar results at multiple levels of analysis does not replace a true experimental design,

it does encourage us in believing that the associations observed are robust. Additionally, as

previously mentioned, due to a programming glitch in the Study 2 materials, gender was not

reported for 26% of the sample, making interpretation of gender effects difficult.

Conclusion

The present research provides one of the first examinations of MIL in romantic

relationship processes, placing MIL as a central factor of optimal relationship functioning such

that experiences of meaning derived from one’s relationship is a robust predictor of more

internalized motivational states and perceived relationship quality. Study 1 found that

relationship MIL predicts such outcomes at both within- and between-person levels. Study 2

provided a dyadic examination of MIL in relationships, finding that both one’s own and one’s

partner’s MIL predict motivation and relationship quality. Further, Study 2 found evidence of a

hierarchical model of MIL, such that the association between general MIL (both one’s own and

one’s partner) and relationship outcomes is mediated by one’s own relationship-specific

experiences of MIL. Taken together, this research provides consistent and compelling evidence

regarding the importance of MIL in romantic relationships.

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 22

References

Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. New

York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. (1990). Toward a motivational model of

couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021-1031.

Carbonneau, N., & Vallerand, R. J. (2013). On the role of harmonious and obsessive romantic

passion in conflict behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 743-757. doi:10.1007/s11031-

013-9354-5

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the

self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Hirschberger, G. (2002). The anxiety-buffering function of close

relationships: Evidence that relationship commitment acts as a terror management

mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 527-542.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.527

Greenberg, J., & Arndt, J. (2012). Terror management theory. In A.W. Kruglanski & E.T.

Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 398-415).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hadden, B. W., Øverup, C. S., & Knee, C. R. (2014). Removing the ego: Need fulfillment, self-

image goals, and self-presentation. Self and Identity, 13, 274-293.

doi:10.1080/15298868.2013.815398
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 23

Hadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Knee, C. R. (2014). The way I make you feel: How relatedness

and compassionate goals promote partner’s relationship satisfaction. The Journal of

Positive Psychology, 9, 155-162. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.858272

Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the

coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88–110.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_1

Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2013). On knowing more than we can tell: Intuitive processes

and the experience of meaning. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 471-482. doi:

10.1080/17439760.2013.830758

Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69,

561-574. doi: 10.1037/a0035049

King, L.A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006). Positive affect and the

experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179-

196. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.179

Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., Bush, A. L., & Cook, A. (2008). Relationship-contingent self-esteem

and the ups and downs of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 95, 608-627. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.608

Knee, C. R., Hadden, B. W., Porter, B., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2013). Self-determination theory

and romantic relationship processes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(4),

307-324. doi: 10.2288/1088868313498000.

Knee, C. R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005). Self-determination and conflict

in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 997-1009.

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 24

Knee, C. R., Hadden, B. W., & Baker, Z. (2016). Optimal relationships as mutual fulfillment of

self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs. In C.R. Knee & H.T. Reis (Eds.),

Positive approaches to optimal relationship development (pp. 30-55). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation

in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need

fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367

Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Hicks, J. A., Kamble, S., Baumeister, R. F., & Fincham, F. D.

(2013). To belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1418-1427. doi:10.1177/0146167213499186

Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of need fulfillment in

relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434-457. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434

Ratelle, C. F., Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Mageau, G. (2013). Passion in the romantic

sphere: A look at relational outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 106-120. doi:

10.1007/s11031-012-9286-5

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being:

The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26, 419-435. doi:10.1177/0146167200266002

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. A. (1998). The Investment Model scale: Measuring

commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.

Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 25

Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created equal:

An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P. M.

Gollwitzer, J. A. Bargh, P. M. Gollwitzer, J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action:

Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 7-26). New York, NY, US: Guilford

Press.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The role of purpose in life and personal growth in positive

human health. In P. P. Wong, P. S. Fry, P. P. Wong, P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest

for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 213-

235). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Arndt, J., & King, L. A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-concept

accessibility and meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 473-

490. doi: 10.1037/a0014060

Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., King, L. A., & Arndt, J. (2011). Feeling like you know who you are:

Perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 37, 745–756. doi:10.1177/0146167211400424

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all

progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319-1331.

doi:10.1177/01461672982412006

Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of

positive psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 679-687). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire:

Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 53, 80–93. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 26

Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, A. W., Dewall, C. N., & Fincham,

F. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social

exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 686–694.

doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.03.007

Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social Exclusion and the

Deconstructed State: Time Perception, Meaninglessness, Lethargy, Lack of Emotion, and

Self-Awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409-423.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.409

Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., & Knee, C. R. (2010). The role of need satisfaction in self-concealment

and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 187-199.

doi:10.1177/0146167209354518

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M.

P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271-360). San Diego:

Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J. (2007). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for sport and

physical activity. In Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp.

255–363). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., & ...

Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l'âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 756-767. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.85.4.756

Vallerand, R. J., & Lalande, D. (2011). The MPIC: The perspective of the
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 27

Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 45-

51.

van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still

hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918-928. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.91.5.918

Van Tongeren, D. R., & Green, J. D. (2010). Combating meaninglessness: On the automatic

defense of meaning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1372-1384. doi:

10.1177/0146167210383043

Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Davis, J. L. & Ramos, M. (2015).

Forgiveness increases meaning in life. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6,

47-55. doi: 10.1177/1948550614541298

Weinstein, N., Legate, N., Kumashiro, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Autonomy support and

diastolic blood pressure: Long term effects and conflict navigation in romantic

relationships. Motivation And Emotion, doi:10.1007/s11031-015-9526-6

Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133-170).

Springer US.

Williams, K. D. (2002). Ostracism: The power of silence. Guilford Press.

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored

over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 28

Footnotes

1. Although these models treat relationship quality and motivation as outcomes, according

to the hierarchical model presented they can also be conceived of as predictors. They are

treated as outcomes in these models largely for convenience. Additionally, theoretical

and empirical work has established that other basic needs such as autonomy, competence,

and relatedness (assessed in Study 1) are fundamental ingredients in relationship

functioning and motivation. As such, we framed our analyses around these theoretical

principles rather than the reverse.

2. Standardized coefficients in multilevel modeling are controversial due to the nested

nature of the data and different sources of variance. Level 1 (within-person) predictors

can only explain level 1 variance and level 2 (between-person) predictors can only

explain level 2 variance. In the present analyses, level 1 and level 2 predictors were

standardized for their respective levels. Outcomes were standardized across all

observations, predictors were standardized across all observations at their respective

levels. Thus, standardized coefficients reflect the amount of total variance explained.
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 29

Table 1. Correlations between all study variables (Study 1)

Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(SD)
1 Relationship 5.60
. Meaning
(.93)
2 Relational 6.12 .45***
. Autonomy
(.77)
3 Relational 6.04 .57*** .78***
. Competence
(.78)
4 Relational 5.98 .46*** .67*** .65**
. Relatedness *
(.86)
5 Relationship 23.41 .50*** .63*** .59** .68***
. Autonomy *
(7.58)
6 Harmonious 5.78 .61*** .59*** .56** .74*** .70***
. Passion *
(.82)
7 Obsessive 3.06 .01 -.24** -.23* -.02 -.16† .12
. Passion
(1.21)
8 Satisfaction 7.50 .52*** .51*** .50** .77*** .69*** .85*** .11
. *
(1.21)
9 Commitment 8.06 .45*** .43*** .48** .58*** .69*** .59*** .10 .69***
. *
(.94)
†
p ≤ .10, * p ≤ .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Note. Variables were created by aggregating each participant’s weekly scores. Thus the
correlations reflect between-person correlations.
RUNNING HEAD: Meaning in Romantic Relationships 30

Table 2. Associations Between Meaning in Life and Motivational States (Study 1)

Relationship Motivation Harmonious Passion Obsessive Passion
b CI β p b CI β p b CI β p
Daily
Predictors
Meaning 1.00 [.16, .07 .020 .09 [.003, .06 .043 -.07 [-.23, -.04 .336
1.84] .19] .08]
Autonomy 2.72 [1.79, .21 <.001 .18 [.08, . .12 <.001 .16 [-.01, .08 .069
3.65] 28] .33]
Competence -.23 [- -.02 .663 .12 [.01, . .08 .034 -.13 [-.31, -.06 .175
1.25, . 23] .06]
80]
Relatedness 2.68 [1.81, .22 <.001 .34 [.24, . .25 <.001 .09 [-.06, .05 .235
3.55] 43] .25]
Chronic
Predictors
Meaning 1.60 [.40, .15 .010 .27 [.16, . .24 <.001 .22 [-.05, .14 .104
2.81] 39] .49]
Autonomy 2.72 [.65, .21 .010 .18 [-.01, .13 .060 -.40 [-.85, -.21 .082
4.79] .37] .05]
Competence -.40 [- -.03 .714 -.10 [-.30, -.08 .297 -.47 [-.94, -.25 .047
2.53, .09] -.01]
1.74]
Relatedness 4.00 [2.48, .34 <.001 .54 [.40, . .42 <.001 .42 [.09, . .24 .013
5.52] 68] 75]
Note. Significant and marginally significant findings are in bold.
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 31

Table 3. Associations Between Meaning in Life and Relationship Quality (Study 1)

Satisfaction Commitment
b CI β p b CI β p
Daily
Predictors
Meaning .21 [.06, . .09 .005 .14 [.02, . .08 .019
35] 25]
Autonomy .17 [.01, . .08 .039 .11 [-.02, . .07 .099
33] 24]
Competence -.09 [-.26, . -.04 .323 .04 [-.10, . .02 .563
09] 18]
Relatedness .79 [.65, . .39 <.001 .39 [.27, . .25 <.001
94] 51]
Chronic
Predictors
Meaning .31 [.13, . .17 <.001 .24 [.08, . .18 .004
48] 41]
Autonomy -.003 [-.30, . -.001 .984 -.12 [-.40, . -.07 .424
29] 17]
Competence -.15 [-.46, . -.07 .319 .11 [-.19, . .07 .472
15] 40]
Relatedness 1.06 [.84, .54 <.001 .56 [.35, . .38 <.001
1.27] 77]
Note. Significant and marginally significant findings are in bold.
RUNNING HEAD: Meaning in Romantic Relationships 32

Table 4. Correlations between all study variables (Study 2)

Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(SD)
1. General 5.16 .28***
Meaning (1.29)
2. Relationship 5.59 .53*** .41***
Meaning (1.24)
3. Relationship 22.42 .34*** .56*** .29***
Autonomy (1.30)
4. Harmonious 5.71 .38*** .68*** .65*** .42***
Passion (1.14)
5. Obsessive 3.52 -.06 .16*** .00 .25*** .28***
Passion (1.49)
6. Satisfaction 7.62 .36*** .62*** .62*** .76*** .11* .53***
(1.65)
7. Commitment 7.93 .35*** .58*** .71*** .59*** .11* .62*** .24***
(1.36)

* p ≤ .05, *** p < .001

Note. Correlations between partners (ICCs) are in bold along the diagonal.
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 33

Table 5. Indirect paths of APIM models (Study 2).

Outcome a-Path a SEa b-Path b SEb a*b 95% CI

RA
G-MILA .48 .037 R-MILA 4.24 .381 2.04 [1.58, 2.53]
G-MILA .11 .037 R-MILP .72 .381 .08 [-.003, .20]
G-MILP .11 .037 R-MILA 4.24 .381 .47 [.16, .80]
G-MILP .48 .037 R-MILP .72 .381 .35 [-.01, .72]
Harm
G-MILA .48 .037 R-MILA .58 .037 .28 [.23, .34]
G-MILA .11 .037 R-MILP .10 .037 .01 [.002, .02]
G-MILP .11 .037 R-MILA .58 .037 .06 [.02, .10]
G-MILP .48 .037 R-MILP .10 .037 .05 [.01, .08]
Obs
G-MILA .48 .037 R-MILA .32 .064 .15 [.09, .22]
G-MILA .11 .037 R-MILP .03 .064 .00 [-.01, .02]
G-MILP .11 .037 R-MILA .32 .064 .04 [.01, .07]
G-MILP .48 .037 R-MILP .03 .064 .01 [-.05, .08]
Satisfaction
G-MILA .48 .037 R-MILA .70 .056 .34 [.27, .41]
G-MILA .11 .037 R-MILP .26 .056 .03 [.01, .05]
G-MILP .11 .037 R-MILA .70 .056 .08 [.03, .13]
G-MILP .48 .037 R-MILP .26 .056 .13 [.07, .18]
Commitment
G-MILA .48 .037 R-MILA .58 .051 .28 [.22, .35]
G-MILA .11 .037 R-MILP .05 .051 .01 [-.01, .02]
G-MILP .11 .037 R-MILA .58 .051 .06 [.02, .11]
G-MILP .48 .037 R-MILP .05 .051 .02 [-.02, .07]
Note. Significant indirect paths between general MIL (G MIL) and relationship MIL (R
MIL) are highlighted in bold.
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 34

Figure 1. Conceptual hierarchical model of MIL.

 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 35

Actor
Relationship MIL

Actor General
Actor Outcome
MIL

Partner General
Partner Outcome
MIL

Partner
Relationship MIL

Figure 2. Conceptual model of mediation within an APIM framework. Thick lines refer to actor effects; thin lines refer to partner
effects. Dashed lines show direct effects. Solid lines show indirect effects controlling for direct effects.
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 36

Actor
Relationship MIL

.48***/.50 4.24***/.51

.11**/.11 .72†/.0
Actor General 9
Actor RA
MIL
2.39***
(.46) /.32
(.06)
.36 (-.45)
/.05 (-.06)

.36
(-.45) /.05
(-.06)
2.39***
Partner General (.46) /.32 Partner RA
MIL (.06)
.11**/.11 .72†/.0
.48***/.50 9 4.24***/.51

Partner
Relationship MIL

Figure 3. Expanded APIM showing general and relationship MIL predicting relationship autonomy. Unstandardized regression
coefficients / standardized coefficients. c-path (c’-path).
* p ≤ .05 ** p < .01 *** p ≤ .001
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 37

Actor
Relationship MIL

.48***/.50 .58***/.63

.11**/.11 .10**/.11
Actor General
Actor Harm
MIL
.30***
(.01) /.34
(.01)
.11**
(.00) /.12
(.00)
.11**
(.00) /.12
(.00)
.30***
Partner General (.01) /.34 Partner Harm
MIL (.01)
.11**/.11 .10**/.11
.48***/.50 .58***/.63

Partner
Relationship MIL

Figure 4. Expanded APIM showing general and relationship MIL predicting harmonious passion. Unstandardized regression
coefficients / standardized coefficients. c-path (c’-path).
* p ≤ .05 ** p < .01 *** p ≤ .001
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 38

Actor
Relationship MIL

.48***/.50 .32***/.27

.11**/.11 .03/.02
Actor General
Actor Obs
MIL -.07
(-.23***) /-.06
(-.20)
-.01 (-.06)
/-.01 (-.05)

-.01 (-.06)
/-.01 (-.05)

-.07
Partner General
(-.23***) /-.06 Partner Obs
MIL
(-.20)
.11**/.11 .03/.02

.48***/.50 .32***/.27

Partner
Relationship MIL

Figure 5. Expanded APIM showing general and relationship MIL predicting obsessive passion. Unstandardized regression coefficients
/ standardized coefficients. c-path (c’-path).
* p ≤ .05 ** p < .01 *** p ≤ .001
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 39

Actor
Relationship MIL

.48***/.50 .70***/.53

.11**/.11 .26***/.19
Actor General
Actor Sat
MIL .41***
(.05) /.32 (.04)

.16**
(-.04) /.12
(-.03)
.16**
(-.04) /.12
(-.03)
.41***
Partner General (.05) /.32 (.04) Partner Sat
MIL

.11**/.11 .26***/.19
.48***/.50 .70***/.53

Partner
Relationship MIL

Figure 6. Expanded APIM showing general and relationship MIL predicting satisfaction. Unstandardized regression coefficients /
standardized coefficients. c-path (c’-path).
* p ≤ .05 ** p < .01 *** p ≤ .001
 Meaning in Romantic Relationships 40

Actor
Relationship MIL

.48***/.50 .58***/.53

.11**/.11 .05/.05
Actor General
Actor Com
MIL .33***
(.05) /.32 (.04)

.12*
(.03) /.11
(.03)
.12*
(.03) /.11
(.03)
.33***
Partner General (.05) /.32 (.04) Partner Com
MIL

.11**/.11 .05/.05
.48***/.50 .58***/.53

Partner
Relationship MIL

Figure 7. Expanded APIM showing general and relationship MIL predicting commitment Unstandardized regression coefficients /
standardized coefficients. c-path (c’-path).
* p ≤ .05 ** p < .01 *** p ≤ .001