FRANK D. FINCHAM Florida State University

STEVEN R. H. BEACH University of Georgia*

Of Memes and : Toward a Positive Relationship Science

Marital and research has tended to focus Selfish Gene, when he offered the concept of on distressed relationships. Reasons for this the meme:Ameme is the conceptual analogue focus are documented before keys to establishing to the gene in that it is the core element of an a positive relationship science are outlined. idea that is transmitted and replicated over time. Increased study of positive affect is needed to Instead of DNA replicating within a physical better understand relationships, and the best milieu, however, the meme replicates within way to accomplish this goal is to embrace a given cultural and conceptual context. Just the construct of ‘‘relationship flourishing.’’ as genes may have multiple alleles, with the The behavioral approach system and the frequency of the alleles being determined by behavioral inhibition system are described and environmental selection pressures, memes may their potential role in understanding positive also have positive and negative forms, and they relationship processes is described using, as may also be subject to selection pressures. examples, commitment and forgiveness. A link If we use this metaphor to examine the liter- to positive is made, and it is ature on marriage and family, we immediately proposed that the study of positive relationships notice that there are many important memes, but constitutes the fourth pillar of this subdiscipline. most concern their negative form in that they Finally, the potential for focus on positive focus on deficits and dysfunction. For instance, relationship processes to integrate multiple the idea that explanations guide responses to literatures is noted. partner behavior gave rise to a substantial lit- erature on attributions in . In itself, the ‘‘The time has come,’’ the Walrus said, attribution meme could easily focus on either ‘‘To talk of many things.’’ positive or negative explanations and either pos- —Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass itive or negative outcomes (i.e., it could have multiple ‘‘alleles’’). In practice, however, the The biologist Richard Dawkins (2006) provided variant that has thrived is the variant focused a metaphor for thinking about the flow and on the negative, that is, how conflict-promoting transmission of ideas in his classic text The attributions play a role in the generation of mar- ital distress and, to a lesser degree, on conflict in parent-child relationships. The literature on pos- Florida State University (ffi[email protected]). itive attributions is sparse in comparison. The *510 Boyd GSRC, University of Georgia, Athens, GA value of the meme metaphor is that it directs us 30602. to consider the selection pressures in our field Key Words: family relationships, marital relationships, that may promote the proliferation of negative positive psychology. conceptual ‘‘alleles.’’ 4 Journal of Family Theory & Review 2 (March 2010): 4–24 DOI:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x Of Memes and Marriage 5

Of course, we do not wish to overtax the Social Science Citation Index yielded 42 the meme metaphor. Rather, we use it to articles with ‘‘family strengths’’ in the title that highlight the reasons the field has allowed average 4.41 citations per year. In contrast, 375 the proliferation of alleles that focus on the articles include ‘‘family conflict’’ in the title negative, and we explore these reasons in the first that average 224.44 citations per year. In 2008 section of this article. We begin by examining the former were cited 17 times, whereas the the ‘‘negative is interesting, important, and latter were cited 1,256 times. Such data strongly substantial’’ meme that permeates the field support DeFrain and Asay’s, 2007, observation as well as methodological considerations and that ‘‘Most of the research in the 20th Century in attentional biases that reinforce this focus. We America focused on why families fail’’ [p. 302].) then turn to consider ‘‘relationship flourishing,’’ This is especially the case when it is noted that a topic that may help counterbalance the many studies that ostensibly examine the bright field by promoting greater attention to positive side of relationships (e.g., marital satisfaction) relationship process. The second half of the really seek to understand their ‘‘dark side’’ (e.g, paper discusses some key distinctions for a marital distress). positive relationship science and, in doing so, In seeking to understand the focus on deficit briefly discusses two memes, commitment and and dysfunction (the ‘‘negative’’), it is worth forgiveness. The link to positive psychology and noting that marital and family researchers are its rich ‘‘meme pool’’ is made before concluding certainly not alone in this regard. For example, the article. ‘‘Sociologists of mental health and illness have generally assumed that the only conditions worth studying are those that are problematic Why Has Marital and Family Research and preventable’’ (Horwitz, 2002, p. 148), a Focused on the Negative? sentiment that has been echoed repeatedly Before addressing the question posed in this about psychologists by those advocating a section, it is worth noting that a cursory review new positive psychology (e.g., Gable & Haidt, of publications in the Journal of Marriage and 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This Family from 2000 to 2008 yielded findings suggests that a widely distributed meme in the consistent with our initial premise. Specifically, source disciplines for relationship research is reference to the negative in article titles and the view that ‘‘the negative is inherently more abstracts were plentiful (e.g., ‘‘conflict’’ yielded interesting and more deserving of attention than 76 hits; ‘‘divorce’’ yielded 110). In contrast, the positive.’’ positive constructs were mentioned far less There are at least three good reasons for a frequently, and seldom were they the focus pervasive emphasis on the negative in research, of the article. For example ‘‘’’ yielded and the first alone may help account for 16 hits and was only truly central to one the power of this meme to influence the article, a historical analysis of mate preferences distribution of positive versus negative alleles (Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, of other relationship-oriented memes. From an 2004). Other constructs associated with healthy evolutionary perspective, it appears that our relationships fared no better (e.g., appreciation attention to and processing of negative events yielded 5 hits; commitment, 22; forgiveness, 1; is more thorough than that of positive events, fun, 1) and again were predominantly mentioned possibly because it is more adaptive to recognize in the context of understanding deficits (e.g., and respond to them. After all, the costs of not marital instability). A similar pattern was doing so may have immediate and irreversible obtained from an examination of titles in the effects (e.g., ignoring the grizzly bear on our Journal of Family Psychology, suggesting that path), and so it is not surprising that brain the bias is not limited to a single discipline. wave activity (evoked response potentials) is Although it is no doubt possible to derive stronger for negative than equally extreme and somewhat different counts by using different likely positive events (Ito, Larsen, Smith, & terms, searching key words rather than titles, Cacioppo, 1998). It is perhaps not surprising or expanding the range of journals examined, that negative events tend to influence cognition, the relative abundance of attention to negative emotion, and behavior more strongly than outcomes is likely to be apparent across a wide positive ones (see Rozin & Royzman, 2001). In range of alternative searches. (Examination of fact, Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and 6 Journal of Family Theory & Review

Vohs (2001, p. 362) argued that research across Methodologically Reinforced? a broad range of human functioning shows that The negative focus also appears to have been ‘‘bad is stronger than good in a disappointingly reinforced by our research methods. First, relentless pattern.’’ Happily, negative events there has been little attempt to equate the tend to be the exception rather than the rule extremity of positive and negative events in everyday life (Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000), studied in marital and family literatures, a task another possible reason for why we attend that is extraordinarily difficult. As a result, more to them and see negative behavior as more the negative behaviors studied are typically diagnostic of a person’s character than positive more extreme than positive ones, which may behavior (Vonk, 1994). account for their greater demonstrated impact The second reason for the focus on family (Rook, 1998). Second, as already noted, positive distress involves helping those in need. Who can behaviors are more common than negative ones. argue against the notion that those experiencing This means that their power likely lies not so pain and suffering should be helped before much in each occurrence but in their cumulative those who seem to be doing OK and who effect over time. Gottman’s (1994) contention are not showing visible signs of suffering? It that positive behaviors must outnumber negative is this compassionate viewpoint that prompted ones by at least five to one for a relationship scientific study of families at the turn of the to be successful is consistent with this view. 20th century, when changing economic and social conditions presented serious challenges Thus, comparisons based on single-event impact to them. With the family being observed to may inherently bias us toward the negative. An be ‘‘in transition from an institution to a implication is that one-shot laboratory studies companionship’’ (Burgess, 1926, p. 104), it is of and families will inevitably yield not surprising that attention focused on marital an incomplete picture of a positive relationship quality and on divorce. This focus continued process because they require investigation over throughout the century and was, according to longer time frames. Finally, asking about Glenn (1990), justified on practical grounds. The recent relationship events lends itself to the ‘‘meme’’ in this case is the view that ‘‘alleviating identification of salient, discrete (and therefore harm is inherently more ethically compelling likely negative) events to study rather than less than is promoting well-being.’’ salient events whose impact is more cumulative The third, perhaps most compelling reason for (see also Reis & Gable, 2003). the focus on the negative is that this focus has As a consequence, negative relationship pro- been very productive and helpful. For instance, cesses (i.e., the negative alleles of relation- research on marital conflict shows it to be a clear ship relevant memes) tend to be viewed by risk factor for marital distress/divorce and child researchers as more interesting, more important, problems, with evidence supplied from both and more likely to yield replicable results. As a cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (e.g., consequence, any new meme introduced in the Buehler, Lange, & Franck, 2007; Christensen relationship area will tend to come under selec- & Walcynski, 1997; Clements, Stanley, & tion pressure. If the new meme can show its Markman, 2004). The earlier idea that positive relevance for negative outcomes and negatively reciprocity was critical for marriage (Lederer valenced processes, its likelihood of survival is & Jackson, 1968) proved incorrect because enhanced. As we outline below, however, this negative reciprocity accounted for substantially selection pressure may be limiting the long-term more variance in marital outcomes (see Fincham, development of the field in important ways, even 2003) and predicted poorer (see Erel from the perspective of understanding negative & Burman, 1995) and poorer child adjustment outcomes. (see Fincham, 1998; Grych & Fincham, 2001). Because of these associations, conflict enjoys TOWARD UNDERSTANDING RELATIONSHIP particular attention as a construct of import HEALTH in marital interventions and in public policy discussions on marriage (e.g., Stanley, 2004). For the reasons we have outlined above, the The central idea reflected in this view is that ‘‘it intellectual milieu has provided strong selection is more scientifically fruitful to study negative pressure in favor of negatively valenced variants processes than to study positive processes.’’ of key memes, and they have proliferated. This Of Memes and Marriage 7 very success, however, prompts the question that Presaging the recent emphasis on marital we now address. health in public policy, attempts were made a decade ago to identify and promote marital health (see Kelly & Fincham, 1998; Stanley & Do We Really Need to Change Course? Markman, 1998). Although the promotion of Although the need to help families is compelling, marital health took root in public policy and has our best efforts will necessarily be limited by contributed to a thriving literature on preventing focusing only, or primarily, on the negative. It is marital distress, a disturbing disconnect persists: axiomatic that the impact of negative events Preventing relationship suffering does not imply on couples and families will likely depend relationship health. It may just as well lead on strengths that they possess that buffer the to a devitalized, ‘‘numbed’’ marriage, that is, impact (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Indeed, a a marriage that is relatively free of pain but literature is beginning to emerge suggesting that is also relatively free of the positive benefits understanding ‘‘resilience’’ to stress requires of relationships that would be captured by assessment of positive relationship context (e.g., ‘‘relationship thriving.’’ Such a relationship Janicki, Kamarck, Shiffman, & Gwaltney, 2006) may be described as ‘‘languishing’’ and is not as well as positive factors outside the relationship likely to be resilient to external stressors or (e.g., Lichter & Carmalt, 2009). This literature difficulties that may arise within the relationship. shows that understanding resilience to negative At a minimum, we need to focus on positive processes and stress requires assessment of aspects of relationships to ensure that we have positive contextual factors. These observations not settled for palliative ‘‘cures’’ that do not suggest that it behooves us to understand reflect the deeper aspirations of couples, that relationship strengths and how they might be is, their aspirations for connection, engagement, harnessed in the face of stressors and life and meaning. We argue below that the best challenges. Because this still reflects the bias way to ensure the development of a more that constructs are only valuable to the extent balanced treatment of positive and negative that they help us better understand the negative, relationship processes is to explicitly investigate however, we would argue it does not represent ‘‘relationship flourishing.’’ sufficient change to provide the field with increased balance between attention to positive Relationship Flourishing and negative relationship processes. Relationship health is not merely the absence What is relationship flourishing? We suggest that of relationship dysfunction, just as the absence flourishing is not merely relationship happiness, of a physical illness is not sufficient to satisfaction, adjustment, or well-being. Instead, define physical health. That is, just as the it describes a relationship that is emotionally absence of diagnosable disease does not imply vital; is characterized by intimacy, growth, freedom from a range of borderline conditions and resilience (e.g., rising to challenges and that may compromise functioning or create making the most of adversities or setbacks); and health-related vulnerabilities (e.g., low levels allows a dynamic balance between relationship of good cholesterol, low levels of essential focus, focus on other family subsystems, nutrients, limited exercise, chronically increased focus on other social network involvement, stress hormones), freedom from relationship and engagement in the broader community dysfunction does not imply freedom from a within which the relationship exists. Many range of conditions that affect relationship memes may be relevant to the description of functioning such as relationship insecurity, lack relationship flourishing, including commitment, of support, or lack of emotional engagement. sacrifice, spirituality, emotional connection, Indeed, freedom from these conditions is not partner support, forgiveness, acceptance, trust, well captured by assessments that focus only on respect, positive affect, relationship satisfaction, the negative, despite their potential significance love, and shared fun. A science of relationship for long-term outcomes and resilience as well as flourishing would seek to examine the way these their importance to families. It is for this reason various processes combine to give the partners in that positive constructs have begun to push their a flourishing relationship a sense of meaning and way into a literature dominated by a focus on purpose in life, a sense that their life as a couple the negative. is a life well lived. Figure 1 places flourishing 8 Journal of Family Theory & Review

FIGURE 1. A TYPOLOGY OF RELATIONSHIPS DEFINED BY RELATIONSHIP HEALTH AND RELATIONSHIP DISTRESS.

High Relationship Health

FLOURISHING VOLATILE/DISTRESSED

Low High Relationship Distress Relationship Distress

LANGUISHING DISTRESSED

Low Relationship Health

in context by showing where it fits in the space 2002; Shadish & Baldwin, 2003), there is little defined by relationship health and relationship in current models of couples therapy to suggest distress. that they flourish, which might help account for Imagine having a solid empirical literature why relapse is such a problem. that mapped the domain of optimal relationship We believe that marital and family scholars functioning. How much more potent could our have the potential to offer much more to families. contribution be if we understood relationship This potential will be realized to the extent flourishing and how to facilitate it (and not that we learn about what makes a relationship just prevent suffering)? For example, we have fulfilling as well as how to identify and facilitate evidence that positive behavior during conflict is flourishing, positive relationships. important for predicting changes in satisfaction attributable to negative behavior (M. D. Johnson How do we get there? The path to relationship et al., 2005), but we do not have a solid literature flourishing. It would be a mistake to infer from on ways to promote positive behavior during the observations made thus far that we are conflict. Likewise, we have evidence that social pessimistic. On the contrary, we are optimistic, support buffers the effects of chronic stress and our optimism rests on a solid foundation. on marital satisfaction for wives (Brock & Marital and family researchers have already Lawrence, 2008), but we do not have good begun moving toward a positive relationship models of the way this resilience is created. science, albeit not always one identified as Indeed, when examining the marriage and family such. In this section we briefly identify and literature, one is hard pressed to find systematic describe some memes that are fellow travelers research on what makes a relationship flourish with ‘‘relationship flourishing’’ before turning or even on what a flourishing relationship looks to outlining initial keys to developing a positive like. It shows in our treatment outcome data. relationship science. Although efficacious interventions have been developed for relationship problems, ‘‘a sizable Family resilience. Longitudinal research on portion of the couples remain distressed at the resilience in children and adolescence (e.g., end of treatment’’ (Baucom, Shoham, Mueser, Garmezy, 1991; Luthar, 1991; Rutter, 1987; Daiuto, & Stickle, 1998, p. 62), and a persistent Werner & Smith, 1982) inevitably identified problem in the treatment outcome literature is positive family factors as important for resilience the problem of relapse (D. K. Snyder, Castellani, (e.g., Baldwin, Baldwin, & Cole, 1990) and & Whisman, 2006). Even when couples therapy fostered relevant studies under the rubric moves spouses into the maritally satisfied range of family stress and coping research (H. I. (something it does not do reliably even using McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson, Han, & established approaches; see Gurman & Fraenkel, Allen, 1997). An influential model soon emerged Of Memes and Marriage 9 that outlined how resilient families utilize and colleagues identifies six major qualities of individual, family, and community resources strong marriages and families, namely, appreci- in adjusting and adapting to both normative ation and affection, commitment, positive com- (e.g., birth of a child) and nonnormative events munication, enjoyable time together, spiritual (e.g., military deployment of a parent). Although well-being, and effective management of stress family protective factors vary in their importance and crisis. by life cycle stage and by ethnicity, common This work provides a welcome antidote to protective factors across the family life cycle the earlier mentioned focus on the negative, include family celebrations, family hardiness, and it is helpful in identifying what may be family time and routines, family traditions, universal family strengths. Application of this family communication, financial management, work and its policy implications have been and personality compatibility (McCubbin et al., central concerns to those who work in this area. 1997). In addition to protective factors, studies Not surprisingly, it has had a profound impact of families in crisis identified several recovery in family life education that has embraced a factors that facilitate adaptation. preventive, family strengths approach. Perhaps This meme of ‘‘resilience is interesting and because the work is largely descriptive, however, important’’ reflects a strength-based approach it has had a limited impact in the empirical that starts us on the path toward a positive research literature, as noted above. Development relationship science. In this literature, stress and of systematic empirical research informed by crisis are not viewed as inherently negative the family strengths model would be a welcome but rather as containing opportunities for addition to the literature. fostering healing and growth (H. L. McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988; M. A. McCubbin & Social support and affectional expression. The McCubbin, 1996; Walsh, 2003) as well as robust literature on marital behavior found in the potential for less-favorable outcomes. This psychology has begun to undergo a welcome is indeed valuable insofar as it goes, but it change. Whereas observation of spouse behav- does not go far enough. Specifically, strengths ior was previously almost exclusively limited to are not examined as an end in themselves, conflict and problem solving, recent research as integral to the realization of a flourishing has begun to focus on spousal support and relationship. Instead, the positive tends to be on affectional expression (Cutrona, 1996). The valued because of its potential to buffer the importance of this development is emphasized negative or to facilitate recovery from a crisis. by the finding that, although behavior exhib- This is no doubt valuable, but it would be a ited during conflict and support tasks tended to logical error to assume that what buffers the covary, their shared variance is small (<20%; negative or facilitates recovery, or both, is Pasch & Bradbury, 1998). This suggests that the same as that which initiates or promotes somewhat independent systems may exist for health and flourishing. Nonetheless, as we positive and negative behaviors in relationships, shall later see, family resilience has played a point to which we return later. As might be an important role in helping give birth to the expected, attention to the positive has increased multidisciplinary positive relationship literature understanding of conflict. For example, compro- we seek to facilitate in this article. mised conflict skills lead to greater risk of marital deterioration in the context of poorer support Family Strengths Model. A small but dedicated communication (Pasch & Bradbury, 1998; see group of scholars have continued the pioneer- also Carels & Baucom, 1999; Saitzyk, Floyd, & ing work of Woodhouse (1930) and Otto (1962) Kroll, 1997). in elaborating a model of family strengths (see Research on affectional expression also sup- DeFrain & Asay, 2007; DeFrain & Stinnett, ports the importance of attending to the positive. 2002; Mberengwa & Johnson, 2003; Stinnett Specifically, high levels of affection between & DeFrain, 1985). This work has a strong spouses significantly decrease the relationship international element that shows remarkable between negative spouse behavior and marital similarity in family strengths across cultures satisfaction (Huston & Chorost, 1994). High lev- (see the special issue of Marriage and Fam- els of positivity in problem-solving discussions ily Review, 2007). The International Family also moderate the negative effect of disengage- Strengths Model developed by Stinnett, DeFrain, ment on marital satisfaction 30 months later 10 Journal of Family Theory & Review

(Smith, Vivian, & O’Leary, 1990). As regards self-regulation and supports the importance of communication patterns, in the context of high felt relationship efficacy, open communication affectional expression the demand-withdraw with responsive listening, disclosure, and vali- pattern and marital satisfaction are unrelated, dation (S. M. Johnson, 2002, 2008). but they are inversely related in the context of average or low affectional expression (Caughlin Transformative processes. Recognition of some & Huston, 2002). of the developments described thus far led Fin- This work highlights the fact that our cham, Stanley, and Beach (2007) to offer focus understanding of dysfunction and distress is on ‘‘transformative processes’’ in marriage. enhanced by consideration of that which can This was useful in drawing attention to remis- be seen as promoting health. Again, however, sion of relationship distress that occurs in the an important limitation arises. Successfully absence of professional intervention, to nonlin- enacted support averts or resolves a negative ear changes in relationships, and to empirically situation (an avoidance motivation that likely determined, nonarbitrary definitions of marital leads to relief). This cannot tell us much about discord. Although it is a recent addition to the approach motivation in relationships, the kind of literature, it is not too soon to note an important motivation likely to be necessary for flourishing, limitation of this approach in that it falls far short and the experience of emotions such as joy, fun, of helping us understand relationship flourish- hope, and so on. ing. But in identifying and reviewing several positively focused memes, it pointed us in the Secure attachment. Another welcome change in right direction. the marital literature has been the increasing In sum, five areas have been briefly noted emphasis on secure attachment in romantic rela- that point us toward the pool of positive tionships and its value as an organizing positive memes. But all have a common limitation: construct. This construct has been highlighted Directing attention to positive relationship explicitly by some writers (e.g., S. M. John- characteristics tends to be done in the service son, 2008) as well as indirectly by others in the of contextualizing negative events that occur marital area who have increasingly focused on within relationships or the broader environment relationship safety (PREP; Markman, Stanley, in which they are situated. This has resulted Blumberg, Jenkins, & Whiteley, 2004), friend- in a far richer understanding of when and ship (Gottman, 1999), and positive reframing of how such events influence relationships, and it conflict (Jacobson & Christensen, 1996). These constitutes a valuable contribution. Nonetheless, separate streams in the treatment literature all in the remainder of this article we make reflect a profound movement toward a greater the case for reaching even higher in seeking focus on the development of positive connection to draw attention to the underlying approach in relationships. and avoidance systems in relationships without Building on Bowlby’s (1969) conceptualiza- which, we argue, neither relationship flourishing tion of attachment processes over the life span, nor health can be understood. Shaver and Mikulincer (2002, 2008) developed a model of attachment system activation and deac- KEYS TO A OSITIVE ELATIONSHIP CIENCE tivation that has the potential to be very useful to P R S researchers developing a positive psychology of In this section we identify memes that are likely relationships. In particular, they highlight three to be pivotal in the development of a positive key stages that should unfold for all attachment relationship science. Lest it appear otherwise, related events. That is, (a) events may activate our goal is not to offer a theory of positive the attachment system, (b) perceptions of part- relationships, nor even the beginnings of such a ner availability and responsivity may influence theory. It is, instead, to draw attention to some continuation of felt security, and (c) efficacy constructs and distinctions that that are likely to to engage the partner when necessary may be important in developing such a theory. determine the continuation of security in the relationship versus emergence of hypervigi- lance or deactivating strategies. The picture of a Positive and Negative Affect Systems secure relationship that emerges underscores the There has been a resurgence in the study of value of relationships in promoting emotional affect over the past two decades in which the Of Memes and Marriage 11 structure of affect has been conceptualized in in Cacioppo and Berntson’s (1994) Evaluative different ways ‘‘each with its own measurement Space Model. This model comprises a surface model, conceptual framework, and accumulating (the net affective predisposition) in three literature’’ (Feldman Barrett, & Russell, 1999, dimensions arising from an affective component p. 10). Common to these conceptualizations, attuned to appetition (i.e., positivity) and one however, is a two-dimensional space in which attuned to aversion (i.e., negativity). Positing emotions fall in a circular order around activation functions for each component allows the perimeter of this two-dimensional space. for both reciprocity and coactivity between Variability arises in these circumplex models positive and negative affect. in defining exactly what constitutes each dimension. This immediately puts to rest any Understanding Relationship Flourishing notion that affect can simply be viewed as a bipolar dimension with endpoints defined Requires Study of Positive Affect as positive and negative. But some scholars An important implication of relatively inde- combine such a bipolar dimension with an pendent positive and negative affect systems arousal dimension to define the two-dimensional is the need to better understand positive affect in space (e.g., R. J. Larsen & Diener, 1992; relationships. But why does positive affect mat- Russell & Carroll, 1999). Within such systems, ter? There is considerable evidence that positive ‘‘bipolarity says that when you are happy, you affect helps one live a better, more productive life are not sad and that when you are sad, you are (for a review, see Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, not happy’’ (Russell & Carroll, p. 25). That is, 2005) with several longitudinal studies show- happiness precludes sadness and vice versa. ing a link between frequent positive affect and A challenge to this valenced bipolar view longevity (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001; is offered by Watson and Tellegen (1985), Levy, Slade, Kunkel, & Kasl, 2002; Moskowitz, who proposed a model with positive and 2003). Moreover, there is evidence that positive negative activation dimensions. As assessed by affect reflected in women’s college yearbook their Positive and Negative Affect Schedule photographs at age 22 years predicted their (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), marital satisfaction some 30 years later (Harker the two dimensions are consistently found to be & Keltner, 2001) and that a spouse’s happiness only weakly correlated. This has been viewed as can potentially influence the partner’s marital evidence against a valenced bipolar dimension of well-being a year later (Ruvolo, 1998). Finally, affect. There is some controversy as to whether and not inconsequentially, it is inconceivable this really constitutes contrary evidence (e.g., that flourishing relationships can be understood J. T. Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001) without considering positive affect. and whether positive and negative activation So where do we begin? We already know dimensions are independent by definition (e.g., that people’s most common emotional state is Feldman et al., 1999). mildly positive (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, For our purposes it is enough to note 1999), and the intercept for the positivity that positive and negative affect have been function must therefore be higher than for conceptualized as different dimensions and that the negativity function (the so-called positivity each appears to have distinct neural processes offset). This positivity offset is what allows us to (e.g., the amygdala in negative affect, Irwin face each day and encounter novel situations et al., 1996; the dopamineric pathways in with curiosity rather than fear. It may also positive affect, Hoebel, Rada, Mark, & Pothos, account for why relationship (Gottman, 1994) 1999). This raises the question of whether they and individual (Schwartz et al., 2002) well-being can be coactivated: Can people be happy and are characterized by a higher ratio of positives sad at the same time? J. T. Larsen et al. (2001) to negatives. From this we see that flourishing in addressed this question in a series of three relationships requires something that produces studies and found that people can indeed feel ratios that exceed the positivity offset. both happy and sad concurrently. They argued Unfortunately, we know little about how this that even though typical affective experience is occurs, and we therefore turn to two theories more likely to be bipolar (one either feels happy that might help advance understanding of pos- or sad) coactivation needs to be accommodated, itive affect and relationship well-being. The and they therefore showed how it can be done first is the self-expansion model in which each 12 Journal of Family Theory & Review partner in a relationship includes attributes of the positive affect can be seen as critical to individ- other in the view of the self (see Aron & Aron, ual and relationship flourishing (Fredrickson and 1986), a process that is associated with feeling Losada identified positivity ratios above about 3 pleasure, arousal, and excitement (Aron, Aron, to 1 and below about 11 to 1 as ones that humans & Norman, 2001). As such, there is a desire need to flourish). to continue experiencing self-expansion. Rapid Although speculative, Fredrickson (2009) self-expansion is hypothesized to be associated suggested several ways to increase positivity with highly positive affect, which, in turn, leads ratios and thereby promote flourishing. The first to greater relationship quality (Strong & Aron, is to reframe bad circumstances or events to 2006). One way to do this is via shared partic- find positive meaning, thereby increasing the ipation in novel, challenging activities. There is likelihood of positive emotions like gratitude or correlational evidence that shared participation hope. Second, she argued that increased open- in exciting activities is, indeed, associated with ness can promote the experience of positive reports of greater relationship quality (Aron, emotion, especially in light of the positivity off- Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000, set noted earlier. All else being equal, being Studies 1 and 2), and experimental studies have present in the moment and open to the expe- established the direction of effects (e.g., Aron rience it offers (mindfulness) is likely to result et al., 2000, Studies 3–5) and ruled out coop- in positive experiences. Finally, she offered two eration (Aron & Norman, 2005) and arousal interpersonal strategies: helping others, which as responsible for the effect (Lewandowski & is known to generate and reinforce positive Aron, 2005). Finally, Strong and Aron argued affect, and spending time with others, that is, convincingly that it is increased positive affect being social. This last suggestion requires mod- that mediates the relationship between these ification in light of the earlier described work activities and relationship quality. on self-expansion. Simply engaging in shared The second theoretical perspective is the activities with a romantic partner is unlikely ‘‘broaden and build’’ theory of positive emo- by itself to enhance relationship well-being; it tions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). According to is only when these activities activate positive this theory, positive emotions widen attention, emotions (are novel and challenging) that they broaden the array of thoughts and actions evoked are likely to do so. Reis and Gable (2003) sug- (e.g., play, exploration), facilitate generativ- gested that intrinsically motivated activities may ity and behavioral flexibility, and dismantle also engender positive affect and that, when they (‘‘undo’’) physiological processes induced by are shared with a partner, this might enhance negative emotion. There is a growing empirical relationship well-being. These last two obser- database to support the broaden and build theory. vations remind us that caution is needed in In contrast to negative emotions, whose impact extrapolating from scholarship regarding indi- tends to be immediate, the impact of broadened vidual functioning to relationships. But whatever thought-action repertoires occasioned by posi- the fate of Fredrickson’s speculations, her work tive emotions are posited to emerge over time. is important and provides a useful platform Importantly from our perspective, the view that from which to conduct much needed research effects of positive affect accumulate over time on fun, elation, contentment, serenity, and other provides a mechanism that might account for positive emotions experienced in intimate rela- increased positivity ratios. Indeed, Fredrickson tionships. Indeed, there is already exposition of has already shown that initial positive affect pre- a broaden and build cycle of attachment secu- dicts increased well-being weeks later through rity, a ‘‘cascade of mental and behavioral events widened mindsets (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002) that enhances emotional stability, person and and through increased psychological resources social adjustment, satisfying close relationships, (see Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Finally, and and autonomous personal growth’’ (Shaver & importantly, these accumulated effects ‘‘func- Mikulincer, 2008, p. 58). tion as reserves that can be drawn on to manage Fincham and colleagues argued that marital future threats and increase odds of survival. So well-being can be conceptualized and measured experiences of positive affect, although fleet- as separate, although related, positive and ing, can spark dynamic processes with down- negative dimensions (Fincham, Beach, & Kemp- stream repercussions for growth and resilience’’ Fincham, 1997). Data obtained with a simple (Fredrickson & Losada, p. 679). As a result, measure used to capture this two-dimensional Of Memes and Marriage 13 conception of marital quality, the Positive and differ in important ways from one where there Negative Quality in Marriage Scale (PANQIMS; is simply a decline in positive evaluations over Fincham & Linfield, 1997), indicate that the time. Documenting the existence of different dimensions have different correlates and account avenues of change, examining their determi- for unique variance in reported marital behaviors nants, and exploring their consequences suggest and attributions. Moreover, using the two a program of research that may do much to dimensions allowed identification of those who advance our understanding of relationships over were high in positivity and high in negativity time. (ambivalent partners) versus those who were low Needless to say, relationship research capi- in positivity and low in negativity (indifferent talizing on the distinction between positive and partners), both of which had previously been negative affect systems has barely begun. We ignored in marital research. Although both types turn now to another meme that has hardly been are indistinguishable on traditional measures of noticed in marriage and family literature, but it marital satisfaction (scoring in the midrange), is one with substantial influence in other litera- Fincham and Linfield were able to show that they tures, and it has the potential to further under- differ in attributions and reported interactional score the value of attention to ‘‘relationship behavior. In an extension of this work, Mattson, flourishing.’’ Paldino, and Johnson (2007) showed that the PANQIMS captured well the relationship quality of engaged couples and accounted for unique Avoidance and Appetitive Systems variability in observed behavior and attributions. Two different functional systems have been rec- For example, the negative dimension predicted ognized across a diverse range of research, men’s observed negative affect and women’s including personality, social cognition, moti- observed positive affect while holding constant vation, and affect: They concern approach or variance associated with the positive well-being appetition associated with desired, rewarding dimension and a unidimensional measure of outcomes and avoidance of undesired, negative relationship quality. In a similar vein, Huston outcomes. Their manifestation differs across and Melz (2004) used the idea of independent domains, and it is unlikely that a single mech- positive and negative affect systems to define anism underlies their operation across domains. a two-dimensional space that described the Because evidence for the utility of this distinc- affectional climate of a marriage. Again those tion is perhaps best in the area of motivation and high in positivity and high in negativity were emotion, we focus on these domains. identified and labeled ‘‘tempestuous,’’ with the There has been a great deal of attention given label ‘‘bland’’ being used to describe those low to the separate neurobiological systems that may on both dimensions. underlie approach and avoidance motivation and This work is noteworthy because it draws emotion (e.g., Gray, 1990, 1994a, 1994b). It is attention to the important but largely overlooked hypothesized that there is a behavioral approach distinction between positive and negative dimen- system (BAS) that is responsible for reactivity to sions of intimate relationships made in prior incentives and rewards. In neuropsychological research that incorporated reports of behavior terms, this system is commonly thought to in assessments of marital quality (cf. Braiker & be related to circuitry that includes the left Kelley, 1979; D. R. Johnson, White, Edwards, prefrontal cortex (e.g., Davidson, Jackson, & Booth, 1986; Orden & Bradburn, 1968). & Kalin, 2000). Conversely, the behavioral Moreover, the measure derived from this view, inhibition system (BIS) is thought to be activated the PANQIMS, enables more detailed descrip- by threat and result in inhibition or withdrawal. tions of change in marital satisfaction and the This system is thought to be related to circuitry factors that might account for these changes. in the right prefrontal cortex (Davidson, 1992). For example, it would be theoretically impor- It would be natural to assume that, in tant if happily married spouses first increased developing a positive or healthy relationship in negativity only (became ambivalent) before science, we would be primarily concerned then decreasing in positivity and becoming dis- with incorporating couple patterns reflective of tressed, as compared to a progression in which the behavioral approach system. A focus on negativity increased and positivity decreased at the behavioral approach system is presumably the same time. Such progressions may, in turn, important if we are to understand such affects 14 Journal of Family Theory & Review in relationships as joy, zest, and fun. This outcomes as well, it may be useful to assume would be a welcome complement to our that both will be implicated in the elaboration extensive knowledge of what dysfunctional of a positive relationship science. Rather than relationships look like. We are not alone assume that the foci of such a science will be in making this observation; Gable and Reis just one of the two systems (i.e., the BAS), (2001) discussed these two systems, positing it may be more fruitful to assume that the that if they are functionally independent in constructs of interest to a positive relationship relationships they ‘‘are likely to affect different science will prove to be understandable in relationship outcomes’’ (p. 181). In a subsequent terms of both systems. That is, for each meme chapter, and the only extant scholarship devoted integral to positive relationships (e.g., resilience, to developing a ‘‘positive psychology of forgiveness, relational security) there may be relationships’’ (Reis & Gable, 2003), they two distinct motivational systems to consider incorporated these systems as a central feature that contribute to its realization. of their analysis of positive relationships. To illustrate the importance of both avoidance Understandably, these authors offered a two- and appetitive systems in understanding memes dimensional model of appetitive and aversive central to healthy relationships, we offer a processes in relationships. The appetitive dimen- brief analysis of two of them, commitment and sion is anchored by ‘‘flourishing’’ at the high end forgiveness. and ‘‘stagnant’’ at the low end (Gable & Reis, 2001, p. 182), and the endpoints for the aversive The case of commitment. Since the importance dimension are ‘‘insecure’’ (high end) and ‘‘sanc- of understanding healthy relationships, and not tuary’’ (low end). Although they changed these simply nondistressed relationships, was first labels in their later analysis (‘‘growth promoting, noted (M. P. Johnson, 1973; Kelly & Fincham, passionate,’’ ‘‘unfulfilling, stagnant,’’ ‘‘danger, 1998; Stanley & Markman, 1998), commitment threat’’ and ‘‘safety, security,’’ respectively) the has invariably been identified as a central feature equating of high appetition with relationship of healthy relationships (Adams & Jones, 1997; health remained. Gable (2006) provided some M. P. Johnson, 1991). It is generally treated as a general support for this view in three studies central, positive aspect of relationships and one that showed approach motivation and goals are that may be essential for effective relationship linked to positive social outcomes (e.g., satisfac- functioning over time. Commitment has been tion with social bonds) and avoidance motivation defined in several different ways, however and goals are linked to negative social outcomes (e.g., Adams & Jones; Levinger, 1976; Rusbult, (e.g., loneliness). Wieselquist, Foster, & Withcer, 1999), using a We should not presume, however, that the range of terminology, and this has hampered linkage of the appetitive system to relationship empirical progress. health or to particular positive emotions is so Partially addressing the long-standing prob- simple or straightforward. That is, we should not lem of terminological heterogeneity, Strachman assume that the BAS yields only positive affects and Gable (2006) provided a conceptualiza- or healthy relationship outcomes. Conversely, tion of commitment in terms of the approach we should not assume that the BIS yields only and avoidance systems (BIS and BAS). Their negative relationship outcomes and negative approach provides an interesting example of the affects. In particular, as noted by Carver (2004), way that consideration of underlying approach the BAS system contributes unique variance to and avoidance systems may be helpful for under- some negative emotional experiences such as standing and describing positive constructs such frustration and anger, whereas the BIS system as commitment. This approach also illustrates appears to contribute no unique variance to these some of the potential complexity in fully expli- emotions, contributing instead to anxiety and cating ‘‘positive’’ constructs. Accordingly, we fear. Interestingly, the experiences of frustration review their framework below and suggest some and anger may be particularly pathonomonic elaboration. of relationship discord, suggesting that the BAS Strachman and Gable (2006) suggested system may have much to offer in accounting for that two types of commitment goals exist: what is positive and negative in relationships. approach commitment (i.e., the desire to main- Given the complex relationship of the BAS tain and continue the relationship) and avoid- and BIS to emotions, and likely relationship ance commitment (i.e., the desire to avoid Of Memes and Marriage 15 relationship dissolution). In addition to helping Rather than assume that the BAS system organize much of the prior theoretical litera- is associated with sensitivity to all types of ture and creating the potential for a common approach commitment and the BIS system language to describe types of commitment, this is associated with sensitivity to all types of approach highlights the importance of both BIS- avoidance commitment, it may be more fruitful and BAS-related patterns in understanding pos- to examine whether the BAS is particularly itive aspects of close relationships. associated with a commitment goal structure One advantage of conceptualizing commit- that emphasizes relationship activities and ment in terms of BIS and BAS processes is that pleasures as a goal but also contains the it allows us to consider the goal of long-term antigoal of boredom. Conversely, it may be commitment within a goal theoretic framework. fruitful to examine whether activity in the We can consider the goal of commitment to be BIS system is particularly associated with an ‘‘internal representation of desired states’’ avoidance of the antigoals of conflict and (Austin & Vancouver, 1998) and highlight rejection but is also associated with the goal the important role of ‘‘intentions’’ (Gollwitzer, of security and dependability. This underlying 1993). As a consequence, a goal theory per- structure would allow both systems to contribute spective leads us to view commitment in new to the experience of long-term relationship ways and to envision new possibilities for its commitment as well as relevant positive and enhancement, suggesting avenues for a positive negative affects associated with commitment, relationship science to have an impact on public giving both the BIS and BAS systems (with each policy discussions of how to best enhance long- reflecting their own goal and antigoal structure) term commitment in relationships. As a specific a place in a positive relationship science. example from a positive relationship science, it Superimposed on this structure would be both also illustrates the unique contribution a focus the internal dynamics of the goal systems and the dynamics of the couple’s goal systems. Carver on positive constructs may provide. and Scheier’s (1990) analysis suggests that If we apply this framework to commitment, there are both discrepancy-reducing feedback there immediately emerge the two types loops (related to goals) as well as discrepancy- of commitment goals posited by Strachman enlarging feedback loops (related to antigoals) and Gabel (2006): approach and avoidance that add an additional level of complexity. commitment. As these authors noted, the two Carver and Scheier’s analysis suggests that there goals do not fully account for all the distinctions will be increased effort expended by those who in the commitment literature (e.g., the role are slipping away from a desired goal or toward of barriers or constraint), but they do help an antigoal but reduced effort for those who establish commonalities across many previous perceive that they are moving quickly toward treatments of commitment and a common their desired goal or away from their antigoal. language for discussing these commonalities. That is, a goal framework also presumes Likewise, this approach suggests the likely iterative, dynamic processes that can push presence of individual differences in the types of individuals more rapidly toward particular goals commitment goals that most strongly motivate or away from antigoals. This creates conditions different individuals, opening the door to that sometimes result in discontinuous change, sensitive intervention and prevention efforts. as new goals capture or entrain the individual’s Specifically, some individuals may be more behavior. If the new goal structure is sufficiently responsive to intervention rationales linked to powerful, it could lead to a discontinuous change approach commitment, whereas others may in behavior reflecting orientation to a new goal be more responsive to intervention rationales (or away from a new antigoal; Fincham, Beach, linked to avoidance commitment. This should & Davila, 2007). Transformative change would result in couples who report equal levels of lead a couple to function in an entirely different commitment but are driven by fundamentally manner than they did before, with a qualitatively different motives. If so, consideration of these different level of commitment. On the negative individual differences should help to maximize side, for example, transformative change would positive outcomes by helping interventions to be captured by a couple moving from a relatively focus on addressing the appropriate goals in high level of relationship commitment to a each case. strong focus on separate interests and individual 16 Journal of Family Theory & Review goals. On the positive side, transformative or benevolent motivational state toward the harm change might be captured by a couple who, doer that is not achieved simply by overcoming confronted with a relationship difficulty, find that the negative motivational state occasioned by they each emerge more focused on joint goals the hurt. Again the BAS is activated but in a way and relationship maintenance than they were that is quite different from the anger experienced before. We turn now to our second example, in the immediate aftermath of a transgression. forgiveness. Specifically, appetition is now prosocial rather than directed toward the pleasure derived from The case of forgiveness. At first blush, the satisfaction of a retaliatory impulse. Thus case for forgiveness being central to positive forgiveness (an intrapersonal process) gives relationships is not obvious. But it becomes rise to a positive response (e.g., compassion, so when one recalls that it is a rare person empathy, affection, approach behavior) that who is not wronged, let down, betrayed, or sets the stage for possible reconciliation (an hurt by a relationship partner. Although various interpersonal process). alternatives exist for dealing with such hurt (e.g., There is accumulating evidence to support withdrawal, denial, condoning, reframing the the above analysis. An initial longitudinal study transgressions), over the course of a long-term showed that, in the first few weeks following a such as marriage, they are transgression, avoidance and revenge motivation unlikely to suffice. Little surprise, then, that the decreased, whereas benevolence motivation did well-known journalist/humorist Robert Quillen not change (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, (1887–1948, the Garrison Keillor of his day; see 2003). Fincham and Beach (2002) formally Moore, 2008) wrote that ‘‘a happy marriage is examined the structure of forgiveness in married the union of two good forgivers.’’ This quip is couples and showed that a two-dimensional substantiated by open-ended data collected from model comprising benevolence (forgiveness) highly satisfied couples married for 20 or more and unforgiveness fit the data better than a years who reported that the capacity to seek and unidimensional model, a finding also obtained grant forgiveness is one of the most important in the recent development of an offense- factors contributing to marital longevity and specfic measure of forgiveness for couples marital satisfaction (Fenell, 1993). (Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2009). Further, In the face of injury by the partner, victims both cross-sectional and longitudinal data show commonly respond with immediate fear (of that the two dimensions function differently being hurt again) and avoidance of the partner. in marital relationships; spouses’ retaliatory Commonly, coactivation of the BAS may motivation following a transgression is related to also occur if anger is experienced, and a partner reports of psychological aggression and, desire to retaliate or seek revenge may be for husbands, to ineffective arguing, whereas evident. In short, partner transgressions lead benevolence motivation correlates with partner to a negative motivational state toward the reports of constructive communication and, for transgressor. Researchers define forgiveness as wives, partners’ concurrent reports of ineffective overcoming this negative motivational state. arguing as well as their reports 12 months later Most of the literature on the topic therefore (Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2004, Fincham, focuses on ‘‘unforgiveness’’ (and yet another Beach, et al., 2007). instance of inferential error occurs: forgiveness Although speculative, we believe that, after is inferred from the absence of unforgiveness). the initial impact of a partner transgression, Fincham (2000, 2009), however, argued that coactivation of BIS and BAS systems or study of unforgiveness is inadequate for alternating activation of the systems, or both, understanding forgiveness in ongoing intimate is common. For example, a spouse may be relations where multiple hurts can occur over reminded of the harm resulting from a specific time. Drawing on philosophical analysis, he partner act (e.g., an adulterous one-night stand) noted that fundamental to forgiveness is ‘‘an by the partner’s behavior (e.g., his or her attitude of real goodwill toward the offender comment on the appearance of an opposite- as a person’’ (Holmgren, 1993, p. 34) or sex friend or stranger). In this event the ‘‘the attitude of respect which should always pain of the transgression may be experienced characterize interpersonal behavior’’ (Downie, afresh, resulting in, for example, coactivation 1971, p. 149) Forgiveness thus entails a positive of the two systems in a manner similar to Of Memes and Marriage 17 that immediately following the transgression least developed in positive psychology. There (leadings to reexperiencing of anger and are two reasons why this is the case, one desire for retaliation accompanied by desire to general and one specific. At a general level, withdraw from the partner), activation of the psychology (especially in North America) has BIS with reciprocal deactivation of the BAS that historically focused largely on individual func- had given rise to the decision to forgive (leading tioning, and relationship research is a relative to avoidance/withdrawal from the partner), or latecomer to this discipline. In fact, the self- perhaps activation of the BIS in addition to the proclaimed emergence of positive psychology preexisting prosocially activated BAS (leading occurred almost simultaneously with the com- to an approach avoidance conflict vis-a-vis` the ing of age or what Berscheid (1999) called the partner). Other scenarios are also possible. This ‘‘greening’’ of relationship science (research on admittedly brief and rather simple analysis close relationships). At a more specific level, suffices to illustrate the potentially complex positive psychology has not emphasized rela- relation between the appetitive and avoidance tionships per se but has instead, as seen in the systems in understanding memes central to a above definition, incorporated them under insti- positive relationship science. tutions that facilitate understanding of positive It is possible to identify and discuss a experiences and individual traits. Thus, it seems number of further memes that are keys to that institutions are important for their enabling understanding human flourishing and therefore powers, their ability to facilitate the development also a successful positive relationship science. of positive traits and thereby positive subjective To do so, however, would likely replicate a experiences (Peterson, 2006). Even in a some- decade’s worth of work that has mushroomed what broader view of institutions, it is noted that in psychology. We therefore turn to considering ‘‘understanding positive institutions entails the this work. study of the strengths that foster better com- munities, such as justice, responsibility, civility, parenting, nurturance, work ethic, leadership, POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP SCIENCE:THE teamwork, purpose, and tolerance’’ (Positive FOURTH PILLAR OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY Psychology Center, 2008). The peripheral men- In the late 1980s the zeitgeist in psychology tion of relationships (cf. parenting, teamwork) began to change to accommodate the study of is surprising, given that psychologists recognize human strengths and virtues. This ultimately the centrality of relationships in human func- culminated in the formal naming of a field tioning and even posit a basic need to belong, of positive psychology in 1998 by the then in which people are motivated to make close APA President Martin Seligman. This field has relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). grown spectacularly in the past decade with The upshot is that, even though there is cov- the appearance of special journal issues (e.g., erage of intimate relationships in positive psy- American Psychologist, 2000; Psychological chology textbooks (e.g., Carr, 2004; Peterson, Inquiry, 2003), handbooks (e.g., Linley & 2006), the material reviewed seldom amounts Joseph, 2004; Ong & van Dulmen, 2006; C. R. to more than standard coverage of research on Snyder & Lopez, 2006), textbooks (e.g., Carr, topics such as attachment and love that has 2004; Compton, 2005; Peterson, 2006), and a been conducted outside of the context of posi- new journal in 2006, The Journal of Positive tive psychology (and often outside the context Psychology. of established family relationships; en passant, All of this activity is geared toward address- it is worth noting that integration of marriage ing what has become known as the three pillars and family literatures into the newly greened of positive psychology, positive experiences, relationship science is also still much needed, positive individual traits, and positive institu- as barriers to inter-subdisciplinary and inter- tions, as captured in the definition of the field: disciplinary work remain substantial). The one ‘‘Positive psychology is the scientific study exception appears to be Gable’s work men- of positive experiences and positive individ- tioned earlier (Reis & Gable, 2003; Strachman ual traits, and the institutions that facilitate their & Gable, 2006). In her empirical work, Gable has development’’ (Duckworth, Steen, & Seligman, not only sought to examine approach and avoid- 2005, p. 630). Marriage and family fall under ance motivation in social relationships but has the rubric of the third pillar, which is by far the also initiated research that is clearly informed by 18 Journal of Family Theory & Review positive psychology. For example, she examined p. 70), this does not preclude the interpersonal. a new meme, capitalization, which refers to the Indeed, Csikszentmihalyi suggests ways in intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of which a group could function to promote flow seeking out others to communicate the occur- in each member, but the application to family rence of positive events. Communicating these relationships has yet to be made, even though events is associated with positive well-being and activities between intimates (e.g., sexual inter- affect that goes beyond the impact of the event, course) are recognized as ones in which flow and, in close relationships where the partner might occur. Flow experiences have the poten- responds to capitalization enthusiastically, it is tial to make relationships richer and more intense associated with higher relationship well-being and meaningful and thereby help advance under- (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). standing of optimal, flourishing relationships. It is no exaggeration to characterize rela- The potential value of positive psychology to tionship science and positive psychology as the marriage and family scholars is not limited to proverbial ships passing in the night. We believe the flow meme. As noted, positive psychology that the current mutual isolation of one from is rife with rich conceptual analyses of the other is a detriment to both and have subse- memes relevant to relationships; these include quently called for a ‘‘marriage’’ between them such memes as meaningfulness in life (e.g., (Fincham, 2009). We have pursued this match- Baumeister & Vohs, 2002), authentic happiness maker role and have extended it to include family (Seligman, 2002), gratitude (e.g., Emmons & studies in the current article for two very impor- McCullough, 2003), and wisdom (Kunzmann tant reasons. First, we believe that marital and & Stange, 2007). This list is necessarily family scholars have much to contribute to this incomplete because there has been a concerted emerging field in psychology and, in view of effort to develop a taxonomy of human the limited attention given close relationships, strengths analogous to the Diagnostic and this contribution may be necessary for positive Statistical Manual that documents psychological psychology to realize its potential. Indeed, an dysfunctions. The authors of this taxometric infusion of research and theory from marriage exercise introduce this impressive work as a and family scholars who approach issues of ‘‘manual of the sanities’’ (Peterson & Seligman, flourishing and optimal human functioning from 2004, p. 3). Finally, there are also helpful the perspective of relationships is likely to facil- methodological advances in positive psychology itate what we consider to be a necessary fourth such as the clear specification of the role pillar of positive psychology. That is, we propose of introspection and retrospection in assessing that a complete positive psychology requires well-being (Kahneman & Riis, 2005) and use of positive relationships as a fourth pillar of equal dynamic factor analysis to affective processes in importance to its existing three pillars. dyads (Ferrer, 2006). Second, lest it appear to be a one-way street In closing, we note that relationship research in which only positive psychology benefits, we and positive psychology some time ago, hasten to point out that the literature in positive without fanfare or explicit recognition, began psychology is teeming with positively valenced a courtship. There is a thriving literature on memes likely to be of interest to marriage and forgiveness in marriage, though the positive family researchers. For example, flow has been psychology connection has not been openly extensively analyzed in positive psychology, and acknowledged (see Fincham, Hall, & Beach, the identification of this experience in the rela- 2005). As noted earlier, similar statements could tionship context is intriguing. Flow is Csikszent- be made about attachment and commitment. mihalyi’s (1990) term for the experience that With the courtship well underway, it remains occurs during highly engaging activities where, to recognize the union formally. Declaring among other things, there is a merging of action and consummating the marriage with positive and awareness, transformation in time perspec- psychology is long overdue. tive, and a loss of self-awareness. Analogous lay It is hard to conceive of a fully actualized terms for flow are ‘‘on the ball’’ and ‘‘in the positive psychology that does include a central zone.’’ Although flow is conceived in terms of focus on intimate relationships like marriage. skills being optimally challenged and is viewed Human kind is nothing if not a social animal. as ‘‘good because it increases the strengths It therefore appears that, in advancing marriage and complexity of the self’’ (Csikszentmihalyi, and family scholarship, researchers also have Of Memes and Marriage 19 the opportunity to contribute to an exciting new Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., area of psychology that has remained largely & Heyman, R. (2000). Couple’s shared partic- untouched by such scholarship. ipation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Per- sonality and , 78, 273–283. CONCLUSION doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273 Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). A great deal of ground has been covered Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant chil- in this article, and the journey has taken us dren. In J. Rolf, A. Masten, D. Cicchetti, into territory that may be unfamiliar to many K. Neuchterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk marriage and family scholars. The purpose and protective factors in the development of of the journey was to identify and describe psychopathology (pp. 257–280). Cambridge, UK: positively valenced memes that might invigorate Cambridge University Press. the study of close relationships and at the Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. same time help improve primary and secondary Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. interventions with families. It was argued that doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 without understanding of optimal relationship Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need functioning, flourishing, our understanding of to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments marriage and family will remain incomplete. We as a fundamental human motivation. Psycholog- have attempted to extend the foundations that are ical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033- already in place for this enterprise, such as the 2909.117.3.497 literatures on family resilience and on family Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit strengths. It is our sincere hope that we have of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & chartered territory that can now be fruitfully S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). New York: Oxford University ploughed not only to increase understanding Press. of marriage and family but also to further Baucom, D. H., Shoham, V., Mueser, K. T., Daiuto, interdisciplinary scholarship. Absent integration A. D., & Stickle, T. R. (1998). Empirically sup- of several somewhat disparate literatures (e.g., ported couple and family interventions for marital close relationships research, family studies, distress and adult mental health problems. Journal of the family, family psychology), of Consulting and , 66, 53–88. we fail not only ourselves as scholars but also doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.53 more importantly, the couples and families we Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship seek to serve. The emergence of a strong positive science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266. doi: relationship science has the potential to integrate 10.1037/0003-066X.54.4.260 relevant scholarship across several disciplines. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. REFERENCES Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The concep- in developing relationships (pp. 135–168). New tualization of marital commitment: An integra- York: Academic Press. tive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2008). A longitudinal Psychology, 72, 1177–1196. doi:10.1037/0022- investigation of stress spillover in marriage: Does 3514.72.5.1177 spousal support adequacy buffer the effects? Aron, A., & Aron, E. (1986). Love and the expansion Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 11–20. doi: of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.11 New York: Hemisphere. Buehler, C., Lange, G., & Franck, L. (2007). Ado- Aron, A., Aron, E., & Norman, C. C. (2001). Self- lescents’ cognitive and emotional responses to expansion model of motivation and cogni- marital hostility. Child Development, 78, 775–789. tion in close relationships and beyond. In doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01032.x G. J. O. Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell Burgess, E. W. (1926). The family as a unity of handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal pro- interacting personalities. Family, 7, 3–9. cesses (pp. 478–501). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Aron, A., & Norman, C. (2005). Couple participa- & Larsen, R. J. (2004). A half century of mate tion in self-expanding activities and relationship preferences: The cultural evolution of values. quality: Is shared participation necessary? Unpub- Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503. lished manuscript. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x 20 Journal of Family Theory & Review

Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relation- Davidson, R. J., Jackson, D. C., & Kalin, N. H. (2000). ship between attitudes and evaluative space: A Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: Per- critical review, with emphasis on the separability spectives from affective neuroscience. Psycholog- of positive and negative substrates. Psycholog- ical Bulletin, 126, 890–909. doi:10.1037/0033- ical Bulletin, 115, 401–423. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.126.6.890 2909.115.3.401 Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene (30th anniver- Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. sary edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University (1999). The affect system has parallel and inte- Press. grative processing components: Form follows DeFrain, J., & Asay, S. M. (2007). Family strengths function. Journal of Personality and Social and challenges in the USA. Marriage and Family Psychology, 76, 839–855. doi:10.1037/0022- Review, 41, 281–307. doi:10.1300/J002v41n03 04 3514.76.5.839 DeFrain, J., & Stinnett, N. (2002). Family strengths. Carels, R. A., & Baucom, D. H. (1999). Support in In J. J. Ponzetti (Ed.), International encyclopedia marriage: Factors associated with on-line percep- of marriage and family (2nd ed., pp. 637–642). tions of support helpfulness. Journal of Fam- New York: Macmillan. ily Psychology, 13, 131–144. doi:10.1037/0893- Downie, R. S. (1971). Roles and values. London, UK: 3200.13.2.131 Methuen. Carr, A. (2004). Positive psychology.NewYork: Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. Brunner-Routledge. (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice. Carver, C. S. (2004). Negative affects deriving from Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 629–651. the behavioral approach system. Emotion, 4, 3–22. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144154 doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.3 Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Count- Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and ing blessings versus burdens: An experimental functions of positive and negative affect: A control- investigation of gratitude and subjective well- being in daily life. Journal of Personality and process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35. Social Psychology, 84, 377–389. doi:10.1037/ doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19 0022-3514.84.2.377 Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2002). A Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of contextual analysis of the association between marital relations and parent-child relations: A demand/withdraw and marital satisfaction. Per- meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, sonal Relationships, 9, 95–119. doi:10.1111/1475- 108–132. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108 6811.00007 Feldman Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. (1999) The Christensen, A., & Walczynski, P. T. (1997). Con- structure of current affect: Controversies and flict and satisfaction in couples. In R. J. Sternberg emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psy- & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close rela- chological Science, 8, 10–14. doi:10.1111/1467- tionships (pp. 249–274). New York: Guilford 8721.00003 Press. Fenell, D. (1993). Characteristics of long-term first Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. marriages. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, (2004). Before they said ‘‘I do’’: Discriminating 15, 446–460. among marital outcomes over 13 years. Journal Ferrer, E. (2006). Application of dynamic factor of Marriage and Family, 66, 613–626. doi: analysis to affective processes in dyads. In 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00041.x A. D. Ong & M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook Compton, W. C. (2005). An introduction to positive of methods in positive psychology (pp. 41–58). psychology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology Fincham, F. D. (1998). Child development and of optimal experience. New York: Harper & marital relations. Child Development, 69, 543–574. Row. Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples. From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Per- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. sonal Relationships, 7, 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1475- Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. 6811.2000.tb00001.x (2001). Positive emotions in early life and Fincham, F. D. (2003). Marital conflict: Correlates, longevity: Findings from the Nun Study. Journal of structure and context. Current Directions in Psy- Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 804–813. chological Science, 12, 23–27. doi:10.1111/1467- doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804 8721.01215 Davidson, R. J. (1992). Emotion and affective style: Fincham, F. D. (2009). Forgiveness: Integral to close Hemispheric substrates. Psychological Science, 3, relationships and inimical to justice? Virginia 39–43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00254.x Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 16, 357–384. Of Memes and Marriage 21

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2002). Forgiveness Gable, S. L., & Reis, J. H. (2001). Appetitive and in marriage: Implications for psychological agg- aversive social interaction. In J. H. Harvey & ression and constructive communication. Personal A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Relationships, 9, 239–251. doi:10.1111/1475-6811. Maintenance and enhancement. London: Erlbaum. 00016 Gable, S., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. (2000). Behav- Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Davila, J. (2004). ioral activation and inhibition in everyday life. Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 72–81. doi: 1135–1149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1135 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72 Gable, S. L., & Reis, J. H., Impett, E. A., & Asher, Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2007). E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go Longitudinal relations between forgiveness and right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Fam- of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality ily Psychology, 21, 542–545. doi:10.1037/0893- and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245. doi:10.1037/ 3200.21.3.542 0022-3514.87.2.228 Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Kemp-Fincham, S. I. Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children’s adapta- (1997). Marital quality: A new theoretical per- tion to negative life events and stressed environ- spective. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), ments. Pediatric Annals, 20(9), 462–466. Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 275–304). Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital New York: Guilford. quality in the 1980s: A critical review. Journal Fincham, F. D., Hall, J. H., & Beach, S. R. H. (2005). of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818–831. doi: ‘Til lack of forgiveness doth us part: Forgiveness 10.2307/353304 in marriage. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Hand- Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The book of forgiveness (pp. 207–226). New York: role of intentions. In M. Hewstone & W. Stroebe Routledge. (Eds.), European review of social psychology Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look (pp. 141–185). Chichester, UK: Wiley. at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital process and marital negative about their marriage? Journal of Fam- outcomes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ily Psychology, 11, 489–502. doi:10.1037/0893- Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic. New 3200.11.4.489-502 York: W. W. Norton. Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both Transformative processes in marriage: An anal- emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, ysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage 269–288. doi:10.1080/02699939008410799 and Family, 69, 275–292. doi:10.1111/j.1741- Gray, J. A. (1994a). Personality dimensions and 3737.2007.00362.x emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, questions (pp 329–331). New York: Oxford 300–319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 University Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive Gray, J. A. (1994b). Three fundamental emotion emotions in positive psychology: The broaden- systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), and-build theory of positive emotions. American The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions Psychologist, 56, 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003- (pp. 243–247). New York: Oxford University 066X.56.3.218 Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity.NewYork: Grych, H., & Fincham, F. D. (Eds.). (2001). Inter- Crown. parental conflict and child development: Theory, Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive research, and applications. New York: Cambridge emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional University Press. well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175. Gurman, A. S., & Fraenkel, P. (2002) The history doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00431 of couple therapy: A millennial review. Fam- Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive ily Process, 41, 199–260. doi:10.1111/j.1545- affect and the complex dynamics of human 5300.2002.41204.x flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686. Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678 positive emotion in women’s college yearbook Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social pictures and their relationship to personality motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74, and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of 175–222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00373.x Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124. Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.112 positive psychology? Review of General Psychol- Hoebel, B. G., Rada, P. V., Mark, G. P., & Pothos, ogy, 9, 103–110. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103 E. N. (1999). Neural systems for reinforcement 22 Journal of Family Theory & Review

and inhibition of eating: Relevance to eating, Advances in : A research addiction, and depression. In D. Kahneman, annual (Vol. 3, pp. 117–143). London, UK: Jessica E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The Kingsley. foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 558–572). Johnson, S. M. (2002). : A guide New York: Cambridge University Press. for couple therapy. In S. M. Johnson & V. E. Holmgren, M. R. (1993). Forgiveness and the intrin- Whiffen (Eds.), Attachment processes in couple sic value of persons. American Philosophical and family relationships. New York: Guilford. Quarterly, 30, 342–352. Johnson, S. M. (2008). Hold me tight.NewYork: Horwitz, A. V. (2002). Outcomes in the sociology of Little-Brown. mental health and illness: Where have we been and Kahneman, D., & Riis, J. (2005). Living, and where are we going? Journal of Health and Social thinking about it: Two perspectives on life. In Behavior, 43, 143–151. doi:10.2307/3090193 F. A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), Huston, T. L., & Chorost, A. F. (1994). Behavioral The science of well-being (pp. 285–304). Oxford, buffers on the effect of negativity on mari- UK: Oxford University Press. tal satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Personal Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The lon- Relationships, 1, 223–239. doi:10.1111/j.1475- gitudinal course of marital quality and stability: 6811.1994.tb00063.x A review of theory, method, and research. Psy- Huston, T., & Melz, H. (2004). The case for chological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033- (promoting) marriage: The devil is in the details. 2909.118.1.3 Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 943–958. Kelly, A. B., & Fincham, F. D. (1998). Marital health: doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00064.x Towards a more complete account of functional Irwin, W., Davidson, R. J., Lowe, M. J., Mock, B. J., and satisfying couple relationships. In Fried- Sorenson, J. A., & Turski, P. A. (1996). Human man, H. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health amygdala activation detected with echoplanar (Vol. 2, pp. 605–619). New York: Academic Press. functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neu- Kunzmann, U., & Stange, A. (2007). Wisdom as a roReport, 7, 1765–1769. doi:10.1097/00001756- classical human strength: Psychological concep- 199607290-00014 tualizations and empirical inquiry. In A. D. Ong Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, &M.H.MvanDulmen(Eds.),Oxford handbook J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more of methods in positive psychology (pp. 669–708). heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in New York: Oxford University Press. evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. and Social Psychology, 75, 887–900. doi:10.1037/ (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the 0022-3514.75.4.887 Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1996). Integra- same time? Journal of Personality and Social tive couple therapy.NewYork:W.W.Norton Psychology, 81, 684–696. doi:10.1037/0022- Janicki, D. L., Kamarck, T. W., Shiffman, S., & 3514.81.4.684 Gwaltney, C. J. (2006). Application of ecologi- Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and cal momentary assessment to the study of marital problems with the circumplex model of emotion. adjustment and social interactions during daily In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and life. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 168–172. social psychology: Emotion (Vol. 13, pp. 25–59). doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.168 Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Johnson, D. R., White, L. K., Edwards, J. N., & Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages Booth, A. (1986). Dimensions of marital quality: of marriage. New York: Norton. Toward methodological and conceptual refine- Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological per- ment. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 31–49. doi: spective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social 10.1177/019251386007001003 Issues, 32, 21–47. Johnson, M. D., Cohan, C. L., Davila, J., Lawrence, E., Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D., Kunkel, S. R., & Kasl, Rogge, R. D., Karney, B. R., Sullivan, K. T., & S. V. (2002). Longevity increased by positive Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Problem-solving skills self-perceptions of aging. Journal of Personality and affective expressions as predictors of change and Social Psychology, 83, 261–270. doi:10.1037/ in marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting 0022-3514.83.2.261 and Clinical Psychology, 73, 15–27. doi:10.1037/ Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., & Aron, A. (2005). 0022-006X.73.1.15 The effects of novel/challenging versus arousing Johnson, M. P. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual activities on couples’ experienced relationship structure and empirical application. Sociologi- quality. Unpublished manuscript. cal Quarterly, 14, 395–406. doi:10.1111/j.1533- Lichter, D. T., & Carmalt, J. H. (2009). Religion 8525.1973.tb00868.x and marital quality among low-income cou- Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment to personal ples. Social Science Research, 38, 168–187. relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.07.003 Of Memes and Marriage 23

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2004). Positive Scale (MOFS). Psychological Assessment, 21, psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 194–209. doi:10.1037/a0016068 Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social sup- study of high risk adolescents. Child Development, port, conflict, and the development of marital 62, 600–616. doi:10.2307/1131134 dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clini- Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). cal Psychology, 66, 219–230. doi:10.1037/0022- The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does 006X.66.2.219 happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. 131, 803–855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 New York: Oxford University Press. Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Jenkins, N. H., & Whiteley, C. (2004). 12 hours to strengths and virtues: A handbook and classifica- a great marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. tion. New York: Oxford University Press. Mattson, R. E., Paldino, D., & Johnson, M. D. (2007). Positive Psychology Center. (2008). Positive psy- The increased construct validity and clinical utility chology executive summary. Retrieved from http:// of assessing relationship quality using separate www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/executivesummary.htm positive and negative dimensions. Psychologi- Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2003). Toward a positive cal Assessment, 19, 146–151. doi:10.1037/1040- psychology of relationships. In C. L. M. Keyes & 3590.19.1.146 J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology Mberengwa, L. R., & Johnson, J. M. (2003). Strengths and the life well-lived (pp. 129–159). Washing- of Southern African families and their cultural con- ton, DC: American Psychological Association. text. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, doi:10.1037/10594-006 95(1), 20–25. Rook, K. S. (1998). Investigating the positive and McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1988). negative sides of personal relationships: Through Typologies of resilient families: Emerging roles a lens darkly? In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach of social class and ethnicity. Family Relations, 37, (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships 247–254. doi:10.2307/584557 (pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McCubbin, M. A., & McCubbin, H. I. (1996). Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, Resiliency in families: A conceptual model of fam- negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality ily adjustment and adaptation in response to stress and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. and crises. In H. I. McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504 2 & M. A. McCubbin (Eds.), Family assessment: Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., Foster, C. A., & With- Resiliency, coping and adaptation–Inventories for cer, B. S. (1999). Commitment and trust in close research and practice (pp. 1–64). Madison: Uni- relationships: An interdependence analysis. In versity of Wisconsin System. J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. interpersonal commitment and relationship sta- (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The bility (pp. 427–449). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: temporal unfolding of transgression-related inter- Kluwer Academic. personal motivations. Journal of Personality and Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipo- Social Psychology, 84, 540–557. doi:10.1037/ larity of positive and negative affect. Psycho- 0022-3514.84.3.540 logical Bulletin, 125, 3–30. doi:10.1037/0033- Moore, H. (2008). The voice of small-town Amer- 2909.125.1.3 ica: The selected writings of Robert Quillen, Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protec- 1920–1948. Columbia: University of South Car- tive mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsy- olina Press. chiatry, 57, 316–331. Moskowitz, J. T. (2003). Positive affect predicts Ruvolo, A. P. (1998). Marital well-being and gen- lower risk of AIDS mortality. Psychosomatic eral happiness of newlywed couples: Relationships Medicine, 65, 620–626. doi:10.1097/01.PSY. across time. Journal of Social and Personal Rela- 0000073873.74829.23 tionships, 15, 470–489. doi:10.1177/02654075 Ong, A. D., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2006). Hand- 98154002 book of methods in positive psychology. New York: Saitzyk, A. R., Floyd, F. J., & Kroll, A. B. (1997). Oxford University Press. Sequential analysis of autonomy-interdependence Orden, S. R., & Bradburn, N. M. (1968). Dimensions and affiliation-disaffiliation in couples’ social of marriage happiness. American Journal of support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4, Sociology, 73, 715–731. doi:10.1086/224565 341–360. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00150.x Otto, H. A. (1962). What is a strong family? Marriage Schwartz, R. M., Reynolds, C. F., III, Thase, M. E., and Family Living, 24, 77–81. doi:10.2307/348232 Frank, E., Fasiczka, A. L., & Haaga, D. A. F. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). (2002). Optimal and normal affect balance Measuring offence-specific forgiveness in mar- in psychotherapy of major depression: Evalu- riage: The Marital Offence-specific Forgiveness ation of the balanced states of mind model. 24 Journal of Family Theory & Review

Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 30, Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1998). Acting on 439–450. doi:10.1017/S1352465802004058 what we know: The hope of prevention. In T. Ooms Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: (Ed.), Strategies to strengthen marriage: What Using the new positive psychology to realize your we know, what we need to know (pp. 37–54). potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Washington, DC: Family Impact Seminar. Press. Stinnett, N., & DeFrain, J. (1985). Secrets of strong Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). families. Boston: Little, Brown. Positive psychology: An introduction. Ameri- Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and can Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003- avoidance relationship commitment. Motivation 066X.55.1.5 and Emotion, 30, 117–126. doi:10.1007/s11031- Shadish, W. R., & Baldwin, S. A. (2003) Meta- 006-9026-9 analysis of MFT interventions. Journal of Mar- Strong, G., & Aron, A. (2006). The effect of shared ital and , 29, 547–570. doi: participation in novel and challenging activities on 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01694.x experienced relationship quality: Is it mediated by Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment- high positive affect? In K. Vohs & E. Finkel (Eds.), related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal Development, 4, 133–161. doi:10.1080/14616 and interpersonal processes (pp. 342–359). New 730210154171 York: Guilford. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2008). Augmenting Vonk, R. (1994). Trait inferences, impression forma- the sense of security in romantic, leader- tion, and person memory: Strategies in process- follower, therapeutic and group relationships: A ing inconsistent information about people. Euro- psychological model of change. In J. Forgas & pean Review of Social Psychology, 5, 111–149. J. Fitness (Eds.), Social relationships.NewYork: doi:10.1080/14792779543000039 Psychology Press. Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework Smith, D. A., Vivian, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (1990). for clinical practice. Family Process, 42, 1–18. Longitudinal prediction of marital discord from doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00001.x premarital expressions of affect. Journal of Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 790–798. Development and validation of brief measures of doi:10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.790 positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. (2006). Positive psychol- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, ogy: The scientific and practical explorations of 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consen- Snyder, D. K., Castellani, A. M., & Whisman, M. A. sual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, (2006). Current status and future directions in 219–235. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219 couple therapy. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable 317–344. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103. but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient 070154 children and youth. New York: Adams, Bannister, Stanley, S. M. (2004, May). Testimony on healthy Cox. marriage before the committee on Finance, Woodhouse, C. G. (1930). A study of 250 success- Subcommittee on Social Security and Family ful families. Social Forces, 8, 511–532. doi: Policy, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC. 10.2307/2570367