UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Financial and Social Capital in Marriage A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology by Grace Louise Jackson 2016 ! ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Financial and Social Capital in Marriage by Grace Louise Jackson Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology University of California, Los Angeles 2016 Professor Benjamin R. Karney, Chair Popular culture is rife with messages telling couples that they alone have the power to improve their relationship. But couples are embedded in a physical and social context that can also exert both subtle and direct influence. This dissertation serves to enhance our understanding of how two external forces influence marital functioning. The first two papers examine financial resources, and the second two examine social resources. The first paper describes the challenges low-income couples face, highlighting that even when asked to report about problems within their marriage, lower-income couples describe salient problems external to their marriage (i.e., finances, children). The second paper examines differences between lower and higher income couples’ marital satisfaction trajectories, indicating that, on average, lower income couples are not less satisfied in their marriages initially, nor do they decline more quickly over time. Rather, lower income couples’ marital satisfaction fluctuates more between assessments, and there are greater differences between lower-income spouses than higher-income spouses. These two studies highlight that efforts to improve lower-income couples’ relationships should address both relational and contextual stressors targeted to specific couples at specific points in time. The third paper is a theoretical and quantitative review of the literature on social networks and ii relationship quality and stability. Findings from the 118 peer-reviewed studies indicate that supportive and approving social networks containing high-quality relationships are associated with better and longer-lasting relationships. However, much remains to be examined with respect to the structure of couple’s networks, longitudinal associations that clarify directionality, and moderators of these processes. The final paper examines how four-year marital satisfaction trajectories and divorce rates gathered in four independent samples of newlywed couples were predicted by the shape of couple’s courtships: 1) where couples met, 2) the length of their courtship, 3) whether spouses were friends before dating, and 4) whether partners cohabited before marriage. Across all four studies, these courtship experiences did not account for divorce, initial marital satisfaction, or slopes of satisfaction. Together, these studies offer a nuanced look at how couples’ physical and social contexts can exacerbate and buffer them from relational distress to inform theory and practice. iii The dissertation of Grace Louise Jackson is approved. Thomas Bradbury Christine Dunkel Schetter Megan Mc Donnell Sweeney Benjamin R. Karney, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2016 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I. General Introduction A. Introduction 1 B. References 9 PART ONE: Financial Capital II. The Salience and Severity of Relationship Problems among Low-Income Couples A. Title Page 13 B. Abstract 14 C. Introduction 15 D. Method 22 E. Results 28 F. Discussion 33 G. Figure 39 H. References 40 III. Household Income and Trajectories of Marital Satisfaction in Early Marriage A. Title Page 47 B. Abstract 48 C. Introduction 49 D. Method 56 E. Results 61 F. Discussion 64 G. Tables 72 H. Figure 74 I. References 75 PART TWO: Social Capital IV. The Ties that Bond or Break: The Effects of Social Networks on the Development of Relationships A. Title Page 83 B. Abstract 84 v C. Introduction 85 D. Defining social networks 87 E. Review of Theory 91 F. Integrative Framework 98 G. Review of Empirical Methods and Findings 103 H. General Conclusions 124 I. Tables 128 J. Figures 136 K. References 145 V. Effects of Premarital Courtship Experiences on Newlywed’s Subsequent Marital Outcomes A. Title Page 169 B. Abstract 170 C. Introduction 171 D. Method 180 E. Results 191 F. Discussion 201 G. Tables 209 H. Figures 223 I. References 227 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Descriptive statistics and tests of differences by income group 72 Table 2.2. Fixed and random effects of income on marital satisfaction trajectory 73 Table 3.1. Networks as a burden or boon for relationships 128 Table 3.2. Studies of social networks and intimate relationships (N=125 studies) 129 Table 4.1. Demographics by sample 209 Table 4.2. Intraclass correlations and percent agreement between spouses’ reports 210 of their premarital experiences Table 4.3. Correlations between couples who met via work, school or church (vs. not) 211 and covariates Table 4.4. Correlations between couples who met via their social network (vs. not) 212 and covariates Table 4.5. Correlations between couples who met by chance (vs. not) and covariates 213 Table 4.6. Correlations between total length of time known (in months) and covariates 214 Table 4.7. Correlations between length of time known prior to dating (in months) and 215 and covariates Table 4.8. Correlations between length of time between dating and engagement 216 (in months) and covariates Table 4.9. Correlations between length of time engaged (in months) and covariates 217 Table 4.10. Correlations between prior friendship and covariates 218 Table 4.11. Correlations between prior cohabitation and covariates 219 Table 4.12. Correlations between premarital experiences and divorce 220 Table 4.13. Associations between premarital experiences and marital satisfaction 221 intercepts on two satisfaction measures Table 4.14. Associations between premarital experiences and marital satisfaction 222 slopes on two satisfaction measures vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Standardized salience scores (A) and RPI ratings (B) for husbands and wives 39 Figure 2.1. Predicted random effects of income on marital satisfaction trajectories 74 Figure 3.1 Frequency of peer-reviewed publications about social networks and 136 relationships over time Figure 3.2. Sample duo-centered social network 137 Figure 3.3. Balance theory example (Kearns & Leonard, 2004) 138 Figure 3.4. Social network and marital outcome process model 139 Figure 3.5. % frequency of each error made in prior studies 140 Figure 3.6. # of egos across social network studies 141 Figure 3.7. % frequency of relationship statuses represented in prior studies 142 Figure 3.8. # of alters across social network studies 143 Figure 3.9. Categorizing research on social networks and relationships by topic 144 Figure 4.1. How couples met 223 Figure 4.2. Spouse’s premarital relationship history 224 Figure 4.3. % of spouses who were friends before dating 225 Figure 4.4. % of spouses who cohabited before marriage 226 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The data used in these studies were funded by research grants HD053825 and HD061366 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to Benjamin R. Karney (Chapters 1 and 2), and research grants from the Fetzer Institute "Memory bias in early marriage" and "Compassionate love and social support in early marriage" and the National Institute of Mental Health MH59712 awarded to Benjamin R. Karney in 2000, 2003, and 2004 respectively (Chapter 4), as well as a National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH48674 awarded to Thomas N. Bradbury (Chapter 4). Chapter 1 has been published in the Journal of Family Psychology. Copyright © 2016 by the American Psychological Association. The official citation that should be used in referencing this material is: Jackson, G. L., Trail, T.E., Kennedy, D.P., Williamson, H.C., Bradbury, T.N., & Karney, B.R. (2016). The salience and severity of relationship problems among low-income couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 2-11. DOI: 10.1037/fam0000158 The use of this information does not imply endorsement by the publisher. Thomas E. Trail, David P. Kennedy, Hannah C. Williamson, Thomas N. Bradbury and Benjamin R. Karney were co-authors. Thomas E. Trail and David P. Kennedy conducted the preliminary coding and salience analyses. Hannah C. Williamson and Thomas N. Bradbury provided feedback on the manuscript, Benjamin R. Karney supervised the manuscript preparation, and was the PI on the grant that the study was based on. Chapter 2 was submitted to the Journal of Marriage and Family in 2016, and following a favorable revise-and-resubmit decision, is now undergoing revision for resubmission. Jennifer L. Krull, Thomas N. Bradbury, and Benjamin R. Karney were co-authors. Jennifer L. Krull ix supervised the data analysis. Thomas N. Bradbury provided feedback on the manuscript. Benjamin R. Karney supervised the manuscript preparation, and was the PI on the grant that the study was based on. Chapters 3 and 4 have not yet been submitted for publication, but Thomas N. Bradbury and Benjamin R. Karney are co-authors on each of these papers. In both papers, Thomas N. Bradbury provided feedback on the manuscript, and Benjamin R. Karney supervised the manuscript preparation. In Chapter 4, Thomas N. Bradbury was the PI on the grants that funded Samples 1 and 2, and Benjamin R. Karney was the PI on the grants that funded Samples 3 and 4. I gratefully acknowledge the invaluable support and mentorship of my advisor and committee chair, Benjamin Karney, as I completed this dissertation. Special thanks as well to Thomas Bradbury, who played