Interrelations and Moderators of Longitudinal Links Between MaritalSatisfaction and Depressive Symptoms Among Couples in Established

Relationships

Chrystyna D. KourosUniversity of Notre Dame

Lauren M. PappUniversity of Wisconsin—Madison

E. Mark CummingsUniversity of Notre Dame

Extending research based on newlywed couples, this study investigated longitudinal associ-ations between marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms in a community sample of 296couples in established relationships (M � 13.25 years, SD � 5.98) with children (M age �11.05 years, SD � 2.31). Support was found for reciprocal relations between maritalsatisfaction and depressive symptoms in couples with established relationships. Furtherextending previous work, the study showed that relationship length and hostile maritalconflict were significant moderators of these linkages. Husbands in longer term relationshipswere more vulnerable to depressive symptoms in the context of marital problems comparedwith husbands in shorter term relationships. At higher levels of marital conflict, the negativerelationship between marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms was strengthened. Re-flecting an unexpected finding, increased conflict buffered spouses from marital dissatisfac-tion in the context of depressive symptoms.

Keywords: depressive symptoms, dyadic data analysis, marital conflict, marital satisfaction

Marital functioning is implicated in the development andmaintenance of depressive symptoms among married cou-ples (Joiner & Coyne, 1999; Weissman, Markowitz, &Klerman, 2000). For example, Davila, Karney, Hall, andBradbury (2003) reported that lower levels of marital satis-faction were related to increased depressive symptoms overthe first 4 years of marriage. At the same time, increaseddepressive symptoms were related to decreases in maritalsatisfaction. However, relations between marital satisfactionand depressive symptoms are mostly studied in samples ofnewlywed couples (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1997;Kurdek, 1998). Although this approach of studying samplesof newlywed couples has methodological advantages forexamining the temporal order of marital distress and depres-sive symptoms, given the recursive nature between thesetwo processes, the relations found between marital satisfac-

tion and depressive symptoms may not generalize to cou-ples in longer term relationships (Beach, Katz, Kim, &Brody, 2003; Bookwala & Jacobs, 2004; Whisman, Ue-belacker, Tolejko, Chatav, & McKelvie, 2006).

The limited work relevant to this topic concerns compar-isons of older versus younger couples. Research suggeststhat marital processes differ for younger versus older cou-ples, such that older couples report marital problems asbeing less severe and express more positivity and affection,and less negativity, compared with younger couples(Carstensen, Gottman, & Levenson, 1995; Levenson,Carstensen, & Gottman, 1993). Therefore, it is likely thatthe relationship between marital functioning and depressivesymptoms may also differ for younger versus older couples.However, little is known about these relations as a functionof length of marriage, controlling for age (Karney & Brad-bury, 1995). The present study breaks new ground by fo-cusing on the significance of relationship length as a distinctvariable.

Theory supports bidirectional causality between maritalsatisfaction and depressive symptomatology, although moreresearch is needed on these effects in established couples.With regard to marital satisfaction predicting depression,Beach, Sandeen, and O’Leary (1990) posited that maritaldissatisfaction is a risk factor for depressive symptomsbecause marital distress impairs spousal support and couplecohesion. Similarly, Coyne’s (1976) interactional model ofdepression emphasized interactions within close relation-ships as a risk factor for depressive symptoms, especially

Chrystyna D. Kouros and E. Mark Cummings, Department ofPsychology, University of Notre Dame; Lauren M. Papp, Depart-ment of Human Development and Family Studies, University ofWisconsin—Madison.

Support for this article was provided in part by Grant HD 36261from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-ment awarded to E. Mark Cummings and by a Ruth L. KirschsteinNational Research Service Award to Chrystyna D. Kouros.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toE. Mark Cummings, Department of Psychology, Haggar Hall,University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail:cummings.10@nd.edu

Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association2008, Vol. 22, No. 5, 667–677 0893-3200/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.5.667

667

excessive reassurance seeking and corresponding negativefeedback from others. With regard to depression precedingmarital dysfunction, according to stress generation theory(Hammen, 1991), depressed individuals generate stressfulconditions in their interpersonal relationships, and theseconditions are precursors to poor relationship functioning.

A common thread among these theoretical perspectiveson the marital distress–depression link is that regardless ofwhich comes first, at some point there is a cyclical relation-ship between marital dissatisfaction and symptoms of de-pression. Another commonality among these theoreticalperspectives is that the association between satisfaction andsymptoms occurs over time, suggesting the need to examinethese processes beyond the first few years of marriage. Forexample, spouses’ responses to their partner’s symptomsmay change over time, such that spouses initially respond totheir partner’s depression or distress with comfort and sup-port. Over time, however, spouses may become increasinglyfrustrated and respond in less supportive ways (Coyne,1976). Davila, Bradbury, Cohan, and Tochluk (1997) testeda stress generation model of depression in which initiallevels of marital distress and depressive symptoms pre-dicted lower levels of social support processes. In turn,impaired social support predicted more marital distress anddepressive symptoms one year later. Results supported astress generation model of depression for wives but nothusbands. At the same time, the authors theorized that astress generation mechanism may be more evident for menlater in marriage, thereby encouraging study of later coursemarriages.

However, a limitation for the examination of these ques-tions is that most studies are cross-sectional or use data withonly two occasions of measurement. These designs havelimitations for modeling how marital satisfaction and de-pressive symptoms change or how the two are related overtime. Longitudinal relations between marital satisfactionand depressive symptoms remain unclear for couples inlonger term, established relationships (Beach et al., 2003;Davila et al., 1997). Moreover, cross-spouse effects may bemore evident in studies with couples in longer term rela-tionships, as these couples may be more aware of andsensitive to their partners’ feelings of psychological distressand perceptions of marital satisfaction (Beach et al., 2003).Although theoretical models posit that spouses influenceeach other over time, few studies have examined cross-spouse effects explicitly. It is likely the case that an indi-vidual’s change in either depressive symptoms or satisfac-tion will depend on not only intrapersonal variables (e.g.,one’s own satisfaction or symptoms) but also interpersonalvariables, such as their partner’s feelings of marital orpsychological distress.

Recently, using a cross-sectional study of older couplesmarried on average for 41 years, Whisman, Uebelacker,Tolejko, Chatav, and McKelvie (2006) found that depres-sion predicted greater marital discord, with no differencesbetween husbands and wives in the strength of this relation-ship, suggesting that the inverse relationship between mar-ital satisfaction and depressive symptoms found amongnewlyweds may be the same for couples in long-term mar-

riages. Additionally, using a two-wave study design, Beachet al. (2003) examined a sample of couples in establishedrelationships with an adolescent child and found thatspouses’ marital distress predicted their own and their part-ners’ depressive symptoms one year later.

There is a need for further research on factors that am-plify or reduce these associations, including identifyingcouples for whom the association between marital satisfac-tion and depression is particularly strong (Whisman, 2001).Extending previous work that has investigated individual-level moderators, such as self-esteem (Culp & Beach, 1998)and neuroticism (Davila et al., 2003; Karney & Bradbury,1997), the present study investigated couple- and family-level variables as moderators. Specifically, between-persondifferences in the association between marital satisfactionand depressive symptoms were examined as a function ofthe length of the relationship and overt, hostile maritalconflict.

Whereas Beach et al.’s (2003) study and age cohortstudies (e.g., Whisman et al., 2006) suggest that maritalsatisfaction and depressive symptoms are also negativelyrelated among couples in established relationships, therehave been no direct tests of whether the strength of thisassociation changes as a function of the length of the rela-tionship. It may be the case that couples who have beentogether longer are more invested in the relationship (e.g.,Carstensen, 1991) or are more in tune with their partner’sfeelings (e.g., Beach et al., 2003) and therefore may be at ahigher risk for depressive symptoms in the context of poormarital functioning. Similarly, both the interactional modelof depression and stress generation theory imply that inter-personal difficulties among spouses with at least one de-pressed partner become compounded over time. Therefore,couples who have been together longer may be at an in-creased risk for marital problems in the context of higherlevels of depressive symptoms.

Hostile marital conflict is associated with both decreasedmarital satisfaction (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson,1998) and depressive symptomatology (e.g., Du RocherSchudlich, Papp, & Cummings, 2004). Couples with a de-pressed spouse show greater hostility and negativity duringmarital interactions (Gotlib & Whiffen, 1989; Johnson &Jacob, 2000) and lower positive verbal behavior (Du RocherSchudlich et al., 2004). Although marital conflict and mar-ital satisfaction have each separately been related to depres-sive symptoms, these marital processes do not occur inisolation. The current study examines the interplay betweenmarital conflict and satisfaction in predicting depressivesymptoms over time. The marital satisfaction–depressivesymptoms link may be particularly strong among coupleswho engage in destructive, hostile marital conflict tactics.Marital conflict may also interact with depressive symptomsto predict marital satisfaction. Depressed individuals maywithdraw during marital conflict interactions or use moredestructive tactics (Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2004), suchthat the effect of depressive symptoms on marital satisfac-tion may be exacerbated in the context of high maritalconflict.

Building on previous work in this area, this study inves-

668 KOUROS, PAPP, AND CUMMINGS

tigated longitudinal associations between marital satisfac-tion and depressive symptoms in a community sample ofcouples in established relationships with at least one child.Three research goals were addressed. The first was to ex-amine how husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction, re-spectively, changed over time. Marital satisfaction was ex-pected to linearly decline over time, consistent withprevious studies reporting that changes in marital satisfac-tion can be reliably captured in data collection intervals ofone year or less (e.g., Davila et al., 2003; Kurdek, 1998). Bycontrast, given that measurements were spaced one yearapart, we did not expect levels of depressive symptoms tolinearly decline or rise, but we did expect that there wouldbe significant variability in symptoms over time (Davila etal., 2003; Karney, 2001).

Second, we examined whether within-person change inmarital satisfaction predicted depressive symptoms overtime and whether there was a gender difference in thisassociation. Given that this study included couples in estab-lished relationships, we were not able to assume that maritalproblems would necessarily precede depressive symptoms;therefore, we also tested alternative pathways of effects.That is, we examined whether within-person change indepressive symptoms predicted marital satisfaction overtime. We hypothesized that increased levels of marital sat-isfaction would relate to decreased symptoms over timeamong both husbands and wives. Further, increased levelsof depressive symptoms would predict decreased levels ofmarital satisfaction. Findings from previous work on genderdifferences have been inconsistent, with some studies show-ing that depression is a stronger predictor of marital satis-faction for husbands (e.g., Fincham, Beach, Harold, & Os-borne, 1997) and others suggesting that the effect is strongerfor wives (e.g., Davila et al., 2003); as such, no specifichypotheses about gender differences were made.

Third, we explored between-person differences in thestrength of the relationship between marital satisfaction anddepressive symptoms based on the length of the relationshipand hostile marital conflict. We hypothesized that the asso-ciation between symptoms and satisfaction would be stron-ger in the contexts of longer term relationships and higherlevels of hostile marital conflict. Given the paucity of re-search on the association between marital satisfaction anddepressive symptoms in couples beyond the first few yearsof marriage, predictions regarding the moderating role ofthe length of the relationship were tentative.

Method

Participants

Participants were 296 heterosexual couples drawn from alarger 3-year longitudinal study on family relationships andchild development, which was conducted between 1999 and2003. Families were recruited from the community throughnewspaper and radio advertisements, flyers, and local publicschools. An inclusion criterion was that couples had beenliving together for a minimum of 2 years; most couples hadbeen living together for longer (M � 13.25 years, SD �

5.98).Thus, we refer to these couples as couples in estab-lished relationships to distinguish this sample from newly-wed couples. Moreover, another distinguishing characteris-tic from most newlywed samples was that these coupleswere living together as families. To be eligible to partici-pate, couples also had to have a child between the ages of 8and 18 (M � 11.05 years, SD � 2.31). Approximately 97%of couples were married (n � 286), and the remaining 3.4%(n � 10) were cohabiting. At Time 1, wives’ and husbands’mean ages were 37.89 (SD � 5.95) and 40.24 (SD � 6.69),respectively. Ninety percent of wives and 83% of husbandshad at least a college degree. The median household incomewas between $40,000 and $65,000. The ethnic compositionof the sample was as follows: 88.4% of wives and 86.1% ofhusbands were European American, 8.2% of wives and9.5% of husbands were African American, 0.6% of wivesand 1% of husbands were biracial, 2.4% of wives and 3.4%of husbands were Hispanic, and the remaining 0.3% ofwives were Native American.

Of the 296 families who came in for a first visit at Time1, there were 31 families that dropped from the study.Eleven of these families indicated they were too busy, ninefamilies either moved away or could not be contacted, fivefamilies divorced or separated, and six families were nolonger interested in participating. Of the 265 families thatparticipated at Time 2, there were 17 that did not return fortheir Time 3 visit. Ten indicated they were too busy toparticipate, three were no longer in a relationship with theirpartner, one had moved, and three were no longer interestedin participating. All available data from all couples wereused in analyses.

Procedures

Each year for 3 years, couples completed measures andtasks during laboratory visits that were approximately 2.5 hrlong. Husbands and wives independently completed ques-tionnaires about themselves and their marriage. They alsocompleted additional measures that are not included in thepresent study. The study was conducted with the approval ofthe institutional review board for the protection of humansubjects, and participants provided informed consent. Fam-ilies were monetarily compensated for their participation.

Measures

Marital satisfaction. Each year, the Marital AdjustmentTest (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959), which discriminatesbetween nondistressed couples and those with marital prob-lems, was used to assess couples’ marital satisfaction. TheMAT contains 15 items regarding marital disagreements,relationship cohesion and communication, and overall sat-isfaction with the relationship. Possible scores range from 2to 158, with higher scores reflecting greater satisfaction anda more well-adjusted marital relationship and scores below100 reflecting marital distress. The MAT has demonstratedgood psychometric properties, including good concurrentand predictive validity.

669MARITAL SATISFACTION AND DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS

Depressive symptoms. Each year, depressive symptomswere measured with the Center for Epidemiological Studieson Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The CES-D isa 20-item self-report questionnaire that assesses depressivesymptomatology and is appropriate for community samples.Participants reported how frequently they experienced a listof depressive symptomatology in the past week on a scaleranging from 0 (less than a day) to 3 (5–7 days). Items weresummed to create an overall depressive symptoms score,and scores of 16 and above reflect serious depression (My-ers & Weissman, 1980). Studies show that clinically de-pressed individuals score higher on the CES-D than donondepressed individuals (Weissman et al., 1996). In thissample, reliability of husbands’ (Cronbach’s � � .87, .83,.85) and wives’ (Cronbach’s � � .91, .90, .87) reports werehigh at all three occasions of measurement.

Moderators

Relationship length. Both partners reported on a demo-graphic questionnaire how long they and their partner havebeen living together. There was no significant differencebetween wives’ and husbands’ reports; therefore, wives’reports of relationship length were used for analyses.

Marital conflict. Marital conflict was measured with theO’Leary–Porter Scale (Porter & O’Leary, 1980), whichconsists of nine items that assess overt, hostile maritalconflict that has occurred in front of children. Participantsrated the frequency of occurrence of conflict scenarios on ascale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Items weresummed to create a conflict score, with higher scores re-flecting greater hostility. Reliability of husbands’ andwives’ reports at all three time points were high (husbands:Cronbach’s � � .76, .77, .75; wives: Cronbach’s � � .77,.74, .75). Husbands’ and wives’ reports of marital conflictwere highly correlated at each time point (rs ranged from.57 to .80, all ps � .01), and there was no significantdifference between their reports. Each spouse’s reports at

the three time points were averaged to create a mean conflictscore for husbands’ and wives’ reports, respectively.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations, and ranges of the studyvariables at all three time points are presented in Table 1. AtTime 1, 26.7% and 28.7% of wives and husbands, respec-tively, reported marital distress. No significant differencesin spouses’ reports of marital satisfaction were found at anyof the three time points. At Time 1, 20.6% of wives and16% of husbands reported potentially serious levels of de-pression (CES-D scores � 16). Wives had higher levels ofdepressive symptoms at Time 1, t(268) � 1.97, p � .05, andTime 2, t(242) � 2.41, p � .05, compared with theirhusbands; however, there was no difference in levels ofdepressive symptoms at Time 3, t(233) � 1.59, p � .11.Relatively low hostility was reported by husbands andwives; scores were slightly lower than what is typicallyreported in community samples (e.g., Kaczynski, Lindahl,Malik, & Laurenceau, 2006).

Dyadic Data Analysis Plan

Multivariate hierarchical linear modeling (MHLM; Rau-denbush, Brennan, & Barnett, 1995) was employed to si-multaneously model husbands’ and wives’ trajectories ofmarital satisfaction and depressive symptoms. Specifically,the Level 1 model estimates the within-individual change ina particular outcome variable simultaneously for both hus-bands and wives. The Level 2 model aggregates theseperson-level estimates and provides parameter estimates forthe average growth trajectory for the entire sample of hus-bands and wives, respectively. Time was coded such that 0represents the midpoint of the study and intercept parame-ters represent the average level of a particular variable at themidpoint of the study. Predictors added to Level 2 test for

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Study Variables at Each Time Point

Variable

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range

Marital satisfactionHusbands 109.60 22.78 28–156 110.80 23.50 33.09–156 108.38 24.73 22.72–148Wives 112.09 25.31 18–154.49 108.29 26.59 27.24–156 104.61 29.85 3–154

Depressive symptomsHusbands 8.79 7.61 0–44 8.41 6.39 0–43 8.01 6.82 0–48Wives 10.13 9.19 0–53 9.84 8.63 0–56 9.03 7.75 0–37

ModeratorsRelationship length 13.25 5.98 1–40a

Hostile marital conflictb

Husbands 9.82 4.76 1–31 9.08 4.70 0–27 9.03 4.81 0–26Wives 9.73 5.27 0–26 8.90 5.06 0–25 9.15 5.12 0–25

Note. N � 296 couples.a Five families indicated that they were in a stable, committed relationship; however, they had been living together for slightly less than2 years. b Average of all three time points used in analyses.

670 KOUROS, PAPP, AND CUMMINGS

either between-person differences in the growth parametersor moderation. A benefit of using MHLM for couples-leveldata is that husbands’ and wives’ data can be modeledsimultaneously, accounting for the dependency betweenspouses’ data, instead of assessing husbands and wives inseparate models. By modeling husbands’ and wives’ within-person change simultaneously, we allow for the possibilityof testing differences between husbands’ and wives’ growthparameters.

Within-Person Change in Marital Satisfaction andDepressive Symptoms Over Time

A linear analysis was used to model change in husbands’and wives’ marital satisfaction over time. Specifically, theLevel 1 model was:

Marital satisfaction � husband[�0H

� �1H(time)] � wife[�0W � �1W(time)] � R

The Level 2 model was:

�0H � �00H � U0H

�1H � �10H � U1H

�0W � �00W � U0W

�1W � �10W � U1W

where �00H and �00W are the average level of maritalsatisfaction scores at the midpoint of the study amonghusbands and wives, respectively, and �10H and �10W rep-resent the average linear change in marital satisfaction forhusbands and wives, respectively, over time. Husband andwife in Level 1 are dummy variables that allow for hus-bands’ and wives’ outcomes to be measured simulta-neously.

Both husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction decreasedover time: husbands’ coefficient � –1.65, SE � 0.57,t(295) � 2.82, p � .05; wives’ coefficient � –4.23, SE �0.69, t(295) � 6.12, p � .01. Hypothesis tests in MHLMshow that wives’ satisfaction scores decreased at a fasterrate compared with husbands’, �2(1, N � 296) � 12.20, p �.01. There was significant individual variability in wives’trajectories of marital satisfaction over time, �2(258, N �296) � 392.34, p � .01. Individual variability in husbands’trajectories of marital satisfaction was significant at thetrend level, �2(258, N � 296) � 290.94, p � .10.

Based on previous research (e.g., Davila et al., 2003;Karney, 2001), a mean and variance approach was used toexamine depressive symptoms over time. That is, an inter-cept parameter was used to model husbands’ and wives’depressive symptoms. Given that depressive symptomswere measured at yearly intervals, this may not have beenfrequent enough for us to detect nonlinear changes in de-pressive symptoms. As expected, results indicated there wassignificant individual variability around the mean score of

depressive symptoms at the midpoint of the study for hus-bands, �2(285, N � 296) � 1,009.75, p � .01, and wives,�2(285, N � 296) � 1,638.84, p � .01.

Change in Marital Satisfaction PredictingDepressive Symptoms Over Time

Husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction scores wereentered at Level 1 (within-person model) as predictors oftheir own depressive symptoms scores, controlling for theirspouses’ marital satisfaction. As per guidelines in Rauden-bush et al. (1995), husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfactionscores, as well as their spouse’s satisfaction scores, wereperson-centered in Level 1, and husbands’ and wives’ meanlevel of marital satisfaction across the three time pointswere added as predictors of their respective intercepts inLevel 2. Analyses examined how change from one’s ownmean level of marital satisfaction (i.e., within-person devi-ations) over time predicted change in depressive symptoms,controlling for the person’s own mean level of satisfactionas well as change in the spouse’s level of marital satisfac-tion. The MHLM model was:

Level 1:

Depressive symptoms � husband[�0H

� �1H(satisfaction) � �2H(wife’s satisfaction)]

� wife[�0W � �1W(satisfaction)

� �2W(husband’s satisfaction)] � R

Level 2:

�0H � �00H � �01H(satisfactionaverage) � U0H

�1H � �10H � U1H

�2H � �20H

�0W � �00W � �01W(satisfactionaverage) � U0W

�1W � �10W � U1W

�2W � �20W

where �10H represents the average linear association be-tween within-person change in husbands’ marital satisfac-tion and depressive symptoms, controlling for their meanlevel of marital satisfaction and change in their spouse’smarital satisfaction over time, and �10W represents the av-erage linear association between within-person change inwives’ marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms, con-trolling for their mean level of marital satisfaction andchange in their spouse’s marital satisfaction over time. Thecoefficients �20H and �20W represent cross-spouse effects;that is, the linear association between change in one’s owndepressive symptoms and change in one’s spouse’s maritalsatisfaction. Given the number of parameters estimated inLevel 1 compared with the number of available data points

671MARITAL SATISFACTION AND DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS

per couple (six), a total of five parameters are allowed tohave a random error component (representing individualdifferences in this parameter) at Level 2. For this reason,�20H and �20W, which are not the primary parameters ofinterest, were modeled as fixed effects.

Results of this model are presented in the left-hand sideof Table 2. As expected, change in marital satisfaction wasnegatively related to depressive symptoms over time, evenafter controlling for one’s mean level of marital satisfactionand one’s spouse’s level of satisfaction. Hypothesis testsrevealed no significant difference between husbands andwives in the strength of this effect, �2(1, N � 296) � 0.07,p � .50. Cross-spouse effects indicated that controlling forchange in one’s own marital satisfaction, change in one’sspouse’s marital satisfaction was also negatively related tohusbands’ and wives’ depressive symptoms over time.

Moderators of Relations Between MaritalSatisfaction and Depressive Symptoms Over Time

Next, we examined between-person differences by test-ing relationship length and hostile marital conflict as mod-erators of the effect of change in marital satisfaction ondepressive symptoms. We tested both moderators simulta-neously by adding them as Level 2 predictors of the slopepredicting depressive symptoms from marital satisfaction.We controlled for the main effect of relationship length andmarital conflict by including them as predictors of hus-bands’ and wives’ intercepts. Because relationship length islikely confounded with age, we controlled for participants’age. In order to avoid having single reporters of all con-structs in the model, which may result in monoreporter biasin the results, we examined spouses’ reports of overt maritalconflict expressions as a moderator of the link betweenself-reported marital satisfaction and self-reported depres-sive symptoms.

The MHLM for the between-spouses analyses was:

Level 1:

Depressive symptoms � husband[�0H

� �1H(satisfaction) � �2H(wife’s satisfaction)]

� wife[�0W � �1W(satisfaction)

� �2W(husband’s satisfaction)] � R

Level 2:

�0H � �00H � �01H(satisfactionaverage)

� �02H(relationship length)

� �03H(spouse-reported marital conflict)

� �04H(husband’s age) � U0H

�1H � �10H � �11H(relationship length)

� �12H(spouse-reported marital conflict) � U1H

�2H � �20H

�0W � �00W � �01W(satisfactionaverage)

� �02W(relationship length)

� �03W(spouse-reported marital conflict)

� �04W(wife’s age) � U0W

�1W � �10W � �11W(relationship length)

� �12W(spouse-reported marital conflict) � U1W

�2W � �20W

where �11H and �11W represent the moderating effect ofrelationship length on the association between change inmarital satisfaction and depressive symptoms for husbandsand wives, respectively, and �12H and �12W represent themoderating effect of spouse-reported marital conflict on theassociation between change in marital satisfaction and de-pressive symptoms.

The moderator results are presented in the top portion ofTable 3. There was a significant interaction between maritalsatisfaction and relationship length in predicting depressivesymptoms for husbands only. Specifically, for couples whohave been together longer, the negative relationship be-tween husbands’ symptoms and marital satisfaction wasstronger, or in other words, the association became more

Table 2Dyadic Analyses Examining Within-Person Associations Between Depressive Symptoms and Marital Satisfaction

Variable

Marital satisfaction 3 symptoms Symptoms 3 marital satisfaction

Coefficient SE ta Effect size r Coefficient SE tb Effect size r

Within-person effectsHusbands �0.06 0.02 3.08�� .18 �0.37 0.13 2.19� .13Wives �0.06 0.02 3.91�� .22 �0.44 0.13 3.52�� .20

Cross-spouse effectsHusbands �0.06 0.02 3.60� .09 �0.51 0.10 4.87�� .13Wives �0.04 0.02 2.38� .06 �0.40 0.12 3.24�� .08

Note. Effect size r was calculated with the following equation: r � sqrt t2 /(t2 � df).a For marital satisfaction3 symptoms models, df for within-person analyses � 295 and df for cross-spouse analyses � 1495 due to theseparameters being fixed effects in Level 2. bFor symptoms3 marital satisfaction models, df for within-person analyses � 285 and df forcross-spouse analyses � 1479 due to parameters being fixed effects in Level 2.� p � .05. ��p � .01.

672 KOUROS, PAPP, AND CUMMINGS

negative. This suggests that for couples in longer termrelationships, husbands may be particularly more vulnerablefor depressive symptoms in the context of marital dysfunc-tion as compared with couples who have been together forless time. Hostile marital conflict moderated the effect ofchange in marital satisfaction on depressive symptoms, andthese interactions were in the expected direction. For bothhusbands and wives, higher levels of marital conflictstrengthened the negative association between marital sat-isfaction and depressive symptoms. That is, the slope be-tween marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms wassteeper (i.e., more negative) for couples with higher levelsof marital conflict, suggesting that high levels of maritalconflict may exacerbate the effect of low marital satisfactionon depressive symptoms.

Testing Alternative Pathways: Change in DepressiveSymptoms Predicting Marital Satisfaction Over Time

Given the reported bidirectional relationship betweenmarital satisfaction and depressive symptoms (e.g., Davilaet al., 2003) as well as theoretical perspectives suggestingthat depressive symptomatology may predict difficulties ininterpersonal relationships, we examined alternative path-ways of effects in which within-person change in husbands’and wives’ depressive symptoms were examined as predic-tors of marital satisfaction. The MHLM model was:

Level 1:

Marital satisfaction � husband[�0H � �1H(time)

� �2H(CES-D) � �3H(wife’s CES-D)] � wife[�0W

� �1W(time) � �2W(CES-D)

� �3W(husband’s CES-D)] � R

Level 2:

�0H � �00H � �01H(CES-Daverage) � U0H

�1H � �10H

�2H � �20H � U2H

�3H � �30H

�0W � �00W � �01W(CES-Daverage) � U0W

�1W � �10W � U1W

�2W � �20W � U2W

�3W � �30W

where �20H represents the average linear association be-tween within-person deviations in husbands’ depressivesymptoms and change in marital satisfaction, controlling forthe linear change in husbands’ marital satisfaction overtime, husbands’ average level of depressive symptoms, andchange in their spouses’ depressive symptoms; �20W repre-sents the average linear association between within-persondeviations in wives’ depressive symptoms and change inmarital satisfaction, controlling for the linear change inwives’ marital satisfaction over time, wives’ average level

Table 3Moderators of the Association Between Depressive Symptoms and Marital Satisfaction

Depressive symptoms intercept Marital satisfaction 3 depressive symptoms slope

Variable Coefficient SE t (df � 278) Coefficient SE t (df � 280) Effect size r

Relationship lengthHusbands 0.35 0.20 1.76† �0.009 0.003 3.11�� .18Wives �0.46 0.20 2.64� �0.002 0.002 0.86 .05

Marital conflict (OPS)Husbands 0.29 0.16 1.81† �0.006 0.002 2.88�� .17Wives 0.14 0.18 0.77 �0.003 0.002 1.96� .12

Average satisfactionHusbands �0.08 0.02 3.94��

Wives �0.04 0.02 1.68†

Marital satisfaction intercept Depressive symptoms 3 marital satisfaction slope

Relationship lengthHusbands 0.03 0.24 0.13 �0.024 0.018 1.27 .08Wives 0.31 0.28 1.13 �0.015 0.017 0.89 .05

Marital conflict (OPS)Husbands �1.21 0.263 4.58�� 0.076 0.023 3.37�� .20Wives �1.57 0.31 5.11�� 0.062 0.024 2.61� .15

Average symptomsHusbands �0.96 0.19 5.02��

Wives �0.60 0.18 3.40��

Note. Analyses controlled for participants’ age. Effect size r was calculated with the following equation: r � sqrt t2/(t2 � df). OPS �O’Leary–Porter Scale.†p � .10. �p � .05. ��p � .01.

673MARITAL SATISFACTION AND DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS

of depressive symptoms, and change in their spouses’ de-pressive symptoms. Similar to previous models, �30H and�30W, which were not the primary parameters of interest,were modeled as fixed effects. Additionally, �10H was fixed,since previous models indicated there were no individualdifferences in husbands’ change in satisfaction over time.

For both husbands and wives, depressive symptoms werenegatively related to marital satisfaction (see right-hand sideof Table 2). That is, controlling for the systematic linearchange in marital satisfaction over time, change in one’sspouse’s symptoms, and mean levels of one’s own symp-toms, increased levels of depressive symptoms were relatedto decreased marital satisfaction over time. Further testsindicated no significant difference between husbands andwives in the strength of this effect, �2(1, N � 296) � 0.96,p � .50. Cross-spouse effects indicated that controlling forone’s own change in depressive symptoms, change in one’sspouse’s depressive symptoms were also negatively relatedto marital satisfaction over time.

Moderators of Relations Between DepressiveSymptoms and Marital Satisfaction Over Time

Relationship length and hostile marital conflict were ex-amined as moderators of the association between depressivesymptoms and marital satisfaction. Again, analyses con-trolled for the main effects of relationship length, hostilemarital conflict, and participants’ age, and spouses’ reportsof marital conflict were used. The MHLM model for thesebetween-spouses analyses was:

Level 1:

Marital satisfaction � husband[�0H � �1H(time)

� �2H(CES-D) � �3H(wife’s CES-D)]

� wife[�0W � �1W(time) � �2W(CES-D)

� �3W(husband’s CES-D)] � R

Level 2:

�0H � �00H � �01H(CES-Daverage)

� �02H (relationship length)

� �03H(spouse-reported marital conflict)

� �04H(husband’s age) � U0H

�1H � �10H

�2H � �20H � �21H(relationship length)

� �22H(spouse-reported marital conflict) � U2H

�3H � �30H

�0W � �00W � �01W(CES-Daverage)

� �02W(relationship length)

� �03W(spouse-reported marital conflict)

� �04W(wife’s age) � U0W

�1W � �10W � U1W

�2W � �20W � �21W(relationship length)

� �22W(spouse-reported marital conflict) � U2W

�3W � �30W

where �21H and �21W represent the moderating effect ofrelationship length on the association between within-person change in depressive symptoms and marital satisfac-tion for husbands and wives, respectively, and �22H and�22W represent the moderating effect of spouse-reportedmarital conflict on the association between within-personchange in depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction forhusbands and wives, respectively.

The results of these analyses are presented in the bottomportion of Table 3. No significant interactions were foundbetween relationship length and depressive symptoms inpredicting change in marital satisfaction for husbands orwives. For husbands and wives, hostile marital conflictmoderated the effect of within-person change in depressivesymptoms on change in marital satisfaction; this interactionwas not in the expected direction. Specifically, higher levelsof marital conflict weakened the negative association be-tween depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction. Inother words, the slope between depressive symptoms andmarital satisfaction was less steep (i.e., less negative) forcouples with higher levels of marital conflict. This suggeststhat hostile marital conflict may buffer spouses from thenegative impact of depressive symptoms on their maritalsatisfaction, whereas, conversely, low levels of marital con-flict may exacerbate the effect of depressive symptoms onmarital satisfaction.

Discussion

Extending research based on newlywed couples, wefound support for reciprocal relations between marital sat-isfaction and depressive symptoms in the context of estab-lished marital relationships. Specifically, changes in maritalsatisfaction predicted depressive symptoms, such that de-creased marital satisfaction over time predicted increasedlevels of depressive symptoms. At the same time, changesin depressive symptoms were negatively associated withmarital satisfaction, such that increased symptoms over timepredicted lower levels of marital satisfaction.

Further extending previous work, we examined couple-and family-level variables as moderators of effects. Resultsindicated that among couples who have been togetherlonger, husbands may be particularly vulnerable to depres-sive symptoms in the context of marital problems comparedwith couples who have been together for less time. Tests ofthe longitudinal association between marital satisfaction anddepressive symptoms revealed no differences for husbandscompared with wives. Notably, gender differences havebeen inconsistent in this literature. For example, whereasWhisman (2001) found that there was a stronger negativecorrelation between marital quality and depressive symp-

674 KOUROS, PAPP, AND CUMMINGS

toms for wives compared with husbands, Fincham et al.(1997) found that marital dissatisfaction was a strongerpredictor of subsequent depressive symptoms 18 monthslater for husbands compared with wives. Moreover, manystudies have reported no gender differences (e.g., Beach etal., 2003).

Although we hypothesized higher levels of hostile maritalconflict would exacerbate the link between marital dissatis-faction and depressive symptoms, this hypothesis was onlypartially supported. There was a significant interaction be-tween marital conflict and marital satisfaction in predictingdepressive symptoms, such that at higher levels of maritalconflict the negative relationship between marital satisfac-tion and depressive symptoms was strengthened, whereas atlower levels of marital conflict, the negative relationshipbetween satisfaction and symptoms was weakened. There-fore, couples who are dissatisfied are at an even higher riskfor depressive symptoms when they engage in destructivemarital conflict. Thus, multiple dimensions of marital dys-function may be related to risk for mental health problems.The findings underscore the need to examine the interplayamong multiple marital processes to fully account for rela-tionships between marital functioning and depressive symp-toms.

Among marital processes, marital conflict may be partic-ularly important to further investigate because it has impli-cations not only for spouses’ relationship functioning andmental health, but also for familywide functioning, includ-ing children’s adjustment. For example, marital conflict is abetter predictor of children’s maladjustment than are mea-sures of global marital dissatisfaction (Jouriles, Murphy, &O’Leary, 1989) and predicts both internalizing and exter-nalizing problems among children (e.g., Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004; Harold & Conger, 1997). Futureresearch should examine multiple marital processes whenexamining depressive symptoms as predictors of mentalhealth outcomes among family members (Cummings &Davies, 1994).

At the same time, the moderating role of marital conflict wasnot in the expected direction in tests of relations in whichdepressive symptoms predicted marital satisfaction. Significantinteractions between depressive symptoms and marital conflictindicated that increased hostile marital conflict may actuallybuffer spouses from marital dissatisfaction in the context ofdepressive symptoms. One potential explanation for this is thatmarital conflict may be a sign of engagement in, and commit-ment to, the relationship, as opposed to withdrawing (Karney& Bradbury, 1997). Notably, depressed spouses may have adisposition to withdraw during marital interactions (e.g., DuRocher Schudlich et al., 2004; Johnson & Jacob, 2000), andwithdrawal can have more negative implications for familyprocesses than does overt marital conflict (Sturge-Apple, Da-vies, & Cummings, 2006). Levels of hostility were limited inthis community sample, and in this context hostility may bepreferable to withdrawal in the presence of depressive symp-tomatology. In addition, moderate levels of hostile conflictexpression may also be accompanied by constructive conflictbehaviors that have beneficial effects (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2003). Therefore, spouses may perceive their

depressed partner as engaged and committed to the relationshipduring marital interactions that include overt conflict expres-sions. This explanation, however, is speculative at this time,and there is a clear need for replicating these findings. More-over, in the current study the average level of marital conflictacross the three time points was used; however, it may also beimportant to examine how marital conflict changes over timeand how within-person changes in marital conflict moderatethe satisfaction–depression link.

The finding that the moderating effect of marital conflictmay depend on whether marital satisfaction or depressivesymptoms is the outcome variable is consistent with previ-ous research. Davila et al. (2003) examined neuroticism asa moderator of the marital satisfaction–depressive symp-toms link and found that whereas neuroticism strengthenedthe effect of marital dissatisfaction on depressive symptomsfor husbands, it weakened the effect of symptoms on maritalsatisfaction. Taken together, this suggests that the bidirec-tional relationship between marital functioning and depres-sion may not be as simple as they predict each other overtime. Rather, there may be distinct processes at work, suchthat the processes by which couples develop marital prob-lems as a result of depressive symptoms may differ from theprocesses by which couples develop depressive symptomsas a result of marital problems. Further research is needed toexamine the mechanisms by which marital functioning anddepressive symptoms predict each other over time and forwhich couples these linkages are especially intertwined.

Several limitations merit mention. First, consistent withthe surrounding community, the sample was predominantlyEuropean American and well educated, limiting the gener-alizability of the findings. Second, only the linear change inmarital satisfaction was examined, consistent with the factof only three occasions of measurement, leaving the possi-bility of quadratic or other nonlinear forms of change. Forexample, Kurdek (1999) examined changes in marital sat-isfaction over the first 10 years of marriage in a sample ofnewlywed couples and found that a cubic model best de-scribed couples’ trajectories, such that husbands’ andwives’ marital satisfaction decreased rapidly over the first 4years of marriage, stabilized, and then declined again at the8th year of marriage. Third, questionnaire measures wereused to assess all constructs. For a complete assessment ofmarital processes, multiple methodologies are required. Ob-servational measures of marital conflict and diary ratings ofdaily interactions may capture more subtle forms of destruc-tive conflict tactics than are assessed by retrospective ques-tionnaires on conflict. Fourth, questionnaire measures ofdepressive symptoms are not necessarily a proxy for clinicaldepression. Therefore, the same pattern of findings may notnecessarily hold for couples with a spouse with clinicaldepression. Similarly, patterns of effects may differ whenconsidering clinical levels of marital aggression. Fifth, thecurrent study made efforts to recruit broadly in the commu-nity, and therefore, families frequently indicated they heardabout our study from multiple sources (e.g., newspaper adand letter sent home from school). Consequently, we wereunable to determine a single recruitment source for each

675MARITAL SATISFACTION AND DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS

family in order to test for differential findings based onrecruitment strategy.

An applied implication of this study is that greater atten-tion must be given to understanding the association betweenmarital functioning and depressive symptoms beyond thefirst few years of marriage. The results support the use ofmarital therapy with couples with a depressed spouse andhighlight that this may be particularly effective for husbandsin long-term relationships, as the marital distress–satisfaction link appears to be stronger for them. Moreover,the significant cross-spouse effects found in the study sup-port the use of dyadic treatment programs (e.g., couplestherapy) for the treatment of depression and marital distress.Additionally, marital education programs aimed at teachingcouples how to constructively handle everyday disagree-ments may buffer maritally dissatisfied couples from de-pressive symptoms.

Despite the fact that the results suggest that marital con-flict was associated with higher levels of marital satisfactionin the context of high depressive symptoms, educating cou-ples on constructive conflict tactics may serve as a muchmore effective protective mechanism by teaching coupleshow to be engaged in more positive ways. Although sub-stantial research has highlighted the use of targeting cou-ples’ marital interaction skills and using couples therapy forthe treatment of depression (e.g., Beach, Whisman, &O’Leary, 1994), these treatments were based primarily onresearch with younger couples, and questions remained onwhether treatment effects would generalize to older couples(Whisman et al., 2006). The current study supports theutility of these treatments for couples in longer term rela-tionships. Given the strong links between marital function-ing and depression, greater understanding of how theseprocesses are related over time and in the context of longerterm relationships is clearly warranted.

References

Beach, S. R. H., Katz, J., Kim, S., & Brody, G. H. (2003).Prospective effects of marital satisfaction on depressive symp-toms in established marriages: A dyadic model. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 20, 355–371.

Beach, S. R. H., Sandeen, E. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1990).Depression in marriage: A model for etiology and treatment.New York: Guilford Press.

Beach, S. R. H., Whisman, M. A., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994).Marital therapy for depression: Theoretical foundation, currentstatus, and future directions. Behavior Therapy, 25, 345–371.

Bookwala, J., & Jacobs, J. (2004). Age, marital processes, anddepressed affect. Gerontologist, 44, 328–338.

Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Social and emotional patterns in adult-hood: Support for socioemotional theory. Psychology and Aging,7, 331–338.

Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995).Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Ag-ing, 10, 140–149.

Coyne, J. C. (1976). Toward an interactional description of de-pression. Psychiatry, 39, 28–40.

Culp, L. N., & Beach, S. R. H. (1998). Marriage and depressivesymptoms: The role and bases of self-esteem differ by gender.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 647–663.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depressionand child development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-chiatry, 35, 73–112.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2003).Children’s responses to everyday marital conflict tactics in thehome. Child Development, 74, 1918–1929.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2004).Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of Ab-normal Child Psychology, 32, 191–202.

Davila, J., Bradbury, T. N., Cohan, C. L., & Tochluk, S. (1997).Marital functioning and depressive symptoms: Evidence for astress generation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 4, 849–861.

Davila, J., Karney, B. R., Hall, T. W., & Bradbury, T. N. (2003).Depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction: Within-subjectassociations and the moderating effects of gender and neuroti-cism. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 557–570.

Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D., Papp, L. M., & Cummings, E. M.(2004). Relations of husbands’ and wives’ dysphoria to maritalconflict resolution strategies. Journal of Family Psychology, 18,171–183.

Fincham, F., Beach, S. R. H., Harold, G. T., & Osborne, L. N.(1997). Marital satisfaction and depression: Different causal re-lationships for men and women? Psychological Science, 8, 351–357.

Gotlib, I. H., & Whiffen, V. E. (1989). Depression and maritalfunctioning: An examination of specificity and gender differ-ences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 9, 231–240.

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998).Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed inter-actions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22.

Hammen, C. L. (1991). The generation of stress in the course ofunipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 555–561.

Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict andadolescent distress: The role of adolescent awareness. ChildDevelopment, 68, 330–350.

Johnson, S. L., & Jacob, T. (2000). Sequential interactions in themarital communication of depressed men and women. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 4–12.

Joiner, T. E., & Coyne, J. (Eds.) (1999). The interactional natureof depression: Advances in interpersonal approaches. Washing-ton, DC: American Psychological Association.

Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Inter-spousal aggression, marital discord, and child problems. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 453–455.

Kaczynski, K. J., Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M., & Laurenceau,J. P. (2006). Marital conflict, maternal and paternal parenting,and child adjustment: A test of mediation and moderation. Jour-nal of Family Psychology, 20, 199–208.

Karney, B. R. (2001). Depressive symptoms and marital satisfac-tion in the early years of marriage: Narrowing the gap betweentheory and research. In S. R. H. Beach (Ed.), Marital and familyprocesses in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical prac-tice (pp. 45–68). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-sociation.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal courseof marriage and stability: A review of theory, methods, andresearch. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, maritalinteraction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.

Kurdek, L. A. (1998). The nature and predictors of the trajectoryof change in marital quality over the first 4 years of marriage for

676 KOUROS, PAPP, AND CUMMINGS

first-married husbands and wives. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 12, 494–510.

Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of thetrajectory of change in marital quality for husbands andwives over the first 10 years of marriage. Developmen-tal Psychology, 35, 1283–1296.

Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M.(1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satis-faction. Psychology and Aging, 8, 301–313.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability andvalidity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.

Myers, J., & Weissman, M. (1980). Use of a self-reportsymptom scale to detect depression in a communitysample. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1081–1084.

Porter, B., & O’Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord andchildhood behavior problems. Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 8, 287–295.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-reportdepression scale for research in the general population.Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., & Barnett, R. C.(1995). A multivariate hierarchical model for studyingpsychological change within married couples. Journalof Family Psychology, 2, 161–174.

Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2006).Impact of hostility and withdrawal in interparental conflict onparental emotional unavailability and children’s adjustment dif-ficulties. Child Development, 77, 1623–1641.

Weissman, M. M., Bland, R. C., Canino, G. F., Faravelli, C.,Greenwald, S., Hwu, H. G., et al. (1996). Cross-national epide-miology of major depression and bipolar disorder. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 276, 293–299.

Weissman, M. M., Markowitz, J., & Klerman, G. (2000). Com-prehensive guide to interpersonal psychotherapy. New York:Basic Books.

Whisman, M. A. (2001). The association between depression andmarital dissatisfaction. In S. R. H. Beach (Ed.), Marital andfamily processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clin-ical practice (pp. 3–24). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-ical Association.

Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., Tolejko, N., Chatav, Y., &McKelvie, M. (2006). Marital discord and well-being in olderadults: Is the association confounded by personality? Psychologyand Aging, 3, 626–631.

Received July 23, 2007Revision received March 25, 2008

Accepted March 26, 2008 �

Call for Nominations

The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board of the American Psychological Associationhas opened nominations for the editorships of Developmental Psychology, Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, and Psychological Review for the years 2011–2016. Cynthia Garcı́aColl, PhD, Annette M. La Greca, PhD, and Keith Rayner, PhD, respectively, are the incumbenteditors.

Candidates should be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts inearly 2010 to prepare for issues published in 2011. Please note that the P&C Board encouragesparticipation by members of underrepresented groups in the publication process and would partic-ularly welcome such nominees. Self-nominations are also encouraged.

Search chairs have been appointed as follows:

● Developmental Psychology, Peter A. Ornstein, PhD, andValerie Reyna, PhD

● Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Norman Abeles, PhD● Psychological Review, David C. Funder, PhD, and Leah L. Light, PhD

Candidates should be nominated by accessing APA’s EditorQuest site on the Web. Using yourWeb browser, go to http://editorquest.apa.org. On the Home menu on the left, find “Guests.” Next,click on the link “Submit a Nomination,” enter your nominee’s information, and click “Submit.”

Prepared statements of one page or less in support of a nominee can also be submitted by e-mailto Emnet Tesfaye, P&C Board Search Liaison, at etesfaye@apa.org.

Deadline for accepting nominations is January 10, 2009, when reviews will begin.

677MARITAL SATISFACTION AND DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS