1

Happily (N)ever After? Codevelopment of romantic partners in continuing and

dissolving unions

Supplement 1: Participants, Methods, Analytic Strategy, Results

Overview:

1. Participants and Design

2. Measures

3. Attrition

4. Analysis Strategy

4.1. General Strategy

4.2. Statistical Models

4.3. Model Specification

4.4. Multiple Group Comparison

5. Additional Results

6. References

1. Participants and Design

The seven waves of data from the pairfam study were collected between 2008 and

2015 with assessments taking place every twelve months. In the computer-assisted personal

interviews, survey data are gathered from focal participants while a subsample of the focal

participants’ intimate partners are assessed with paper-and-pencil self-report questionnaires.

Compliance with ethical standards for German social research and data protection laws was

secured throughout data collection and preparation by the pairfam project team. Informed

consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. At Wave 1,

12,402 focal participants from three age groups (adolescents born between 1991-93, young

adults born between 1981-83, and middle adults born between 1971-73) and 3,743 of their

2

romantic partners were recruited. The retention rate in the overall pairfam sample declined to

41.38% for focal participants and 47.88% for partners in Wave 7.

The demographics that serve as covariates are presented in Table S1.

3

Table S1

Sample Descriptives and Distribution of Marital and Cohabitation Status at the First Measurement Occasion (Ncontinuing = 1,646, Ndissolving = 319)Descriptives Marital and cohabitation status

Group Continuing Dissolving Continuing DissolvingVariable M SD Range M SD Range Levels N % N %Age females (years) 31.93 5.20 18-52 29.34 5.77 18-56 Married1 1,116 67.80 121 37.93Age males (years) 35.04 6.23 20-69 32.64 6.83 21-65 Unmarried2 530 32.20 198 62.07Relationship duration (years)

9.65 5.79 0-32.42 5.75 4.86 0-21.08 Cohabiting 1,476 89.67 223 69.91

Number of children 1.29 1.13 0-10 .95 1.15 0-5 Non-cohabiting 170 10.33 95 29.78Note. 1 Fifty-five (4.5%) of currently married focal participants are remarried. 2 70 (9.6%) of currently unmarried focal participants had been married before.

4

2. Measures

The complete list of items, their answer formats, and original measures are presented

in Table S2.

5

Table S2

Item List for All Measures Used in the Study and Their Answer FormatsScale Items Answer format Original measureConnectedness

1. How often do you tell your partner what you're thinking?a

2. How often do you share your secrets and private feelings with your partner?a

3. How often does your partner express recognition for what you've done?b

4. How often does your partner show that he/she appreciates you?b

five-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always)

German version of the Network of Relationships Inventory (Wittmann, Helm, Buhl, & Noack, 2000)

Conflict 1. How often are you and your partner annoyed or angry with each other?

German version of the Network of Relationships Inventory (Wittmann et al., 2000)2. How often do you and your partner

disagree and quarrel?Autonomy 1. My partner finds it quite all right if I

stand up for my own interests in our partnership.

five-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (absolutely)

Partnership Climate Scales (Schneewind & Kruse, 2002)

2. In our partnership, I can usually do what I want.3. In our partnership, I can follow my own interests without my partner getting upset.4. I can settle my personal matters by myself without causing conflicts with my partner.

Commitment 1. I would like our partnership to last for a long time.

Grau, Mikula, and Engel (2001)

2. I'm counting on a long-term future together with my partner.

Satisfaction 1. Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship?

11-point Likert scale from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very

German version of the Relationship Assessment Scale (Sander & Böcker,

6

satisfied). 1993).Note. a items stem from the subscale intimacy. b items stem from the subscale esteem. Following Walper, Friedrich, Gschwendtner, and Wendt (2014) both subscales were aggregated into an overall factor called connectedness.

7

3. Attrition

Attrition analyses were conducted with regard to the comparison of the retention and

the attritions groups of the pairfam sample (see Table S3). The retention rate in the overall

pairfam sample declined from 73.13% for focal participants and 71.81% for partners in Wave

2 to 41.38% for focal participants and 47.88% for partners in Wave 7. With regard to the

study sample, the design of the current study required continuing participation from all

couples to classify them as continuing or dissolving. As we were unable to accurately

determine whether attriting couples from the study sample remained partnered or broke up,

they were filtered from our sample. Nevertheless, in order provide a classification of the

current sample, we compared couples who broke up right after Wave 1 (N = 66) and who

were, thus, not considered in the longitudinal analyses with couples in continuing

relationships (see Table S4).

The comparison of the attrition and the retention groups did not reveal substantial

differences with regard to demographic and study variables. The comparison of couples who

broke up early, and couples who stayed together revealed that early breaking-up couples were

younger (dfemales = -0.58; dmales = -1.13), had a shorter relationship duration (d = -1.19), a lower

number of children (d = -0.60), and were married (Chi2(1) = 53.72, p < .001) and cohabiting

(Chi2(1) = 132.63, p < .001) less often compared to couples in continuing relationships. In

addition, they showed lower levels of connectedness (dfemales = 0.55) and commitment (dfemales =

0.58; dmales = 0.52), and higher levels of autonomy (dmales = -0.41) and conflict (dfemales = -0.58;

dmales = -0.53). In addition, couples who broke up early differed from those who broke up later

in a way that males from the early-group were younger (d = -0.65), couples had a shorter

mean relationship duration (d = -0.46), tended to have a smaller number of children (d = -

0.28), and were less often married (Chi2(df) = 4.46 (1), p = .04) and cohabiting (Chi2(df) =

18.17 (1), p < .001). In addition, females from the early-break up group reported lower levels

of connectedness (d = -0.46) and commitment (d = -0.50) but slightly higher levels of

8

autonomy (d = 0.25) and conflict (d = 0.38). Males from the early-break up group tended to

report higher levels of connectedness (d = 0.24) and satisfaction (d = 0.25) but lower levels of

commitment (d = -0.27) compared to males from the dissolving group.

9

Table S3

Mean and Standard Deviations of Descriptive and Study Variables in the Retention (N = 5,119) and Attrition (N = 7,283) Groups in the Pairfam Sample at the First Measurement Occasion, and their ComparisonVariable Retention Attrition Comparison

M SD M SD Cohen’s dAge (years) 25.84 8.55 25.88 8.19 -0.01Relationship duration (years)

7.31 6.10 7.07 6.09 0.04

Number of children 0.61 1.00 0.62 1.01 -0.01Connectedness 3.87 0.61 3.91 0.64 0.06Autonomy 3.73 0.79 3.68 0.82 -0.06Commitment 4.71 0.62 4.69 0.66 0.03Conflict 2.55 0.67 2.55 0.70 0.00Satisfaction 8.26 2.15 8.26 2.22 0.00

H H Chi2(df) pMarital status 1475 married

3636 unmarried2081 married5192 unmarried

0.08 (1) .78

Cohabitation status 2058 cohabiting3036 non-cohabiting

2925 cohabiting4320 non-cohabiting

0.00 (1) .99

10

Table S4

Means and Standard Deviations from Immediately Breaking-up Couples (N = 66) and Comparison with Continuing Couples (N = 1,646) and Dissolving Couples (N = 319) at the First Measurement OccasionVariable Immediate break up Comparison with continuing couples Comparison with dissolving couples

Mean SD Cohen’s d Cohen’s dAge females (years) 29.06 4.72 -0.58 -0.05Age males (years) 28.82 4.70 -1.13 -0.65Relationship duration (years)

3.70 4.11 1.19 -0.46

Number of children 0.64 1.05 -0.60 -0.28Autonomy females 4.03 0.78 0.10 -0.04Connectedness females 3.82 0.62 0.55 -0.46Satisfaction females 8.38 2.72 -0.02 0.25Commitment females 4.29 1.09 0.58 -0.50Conflict females 2.91 0.62 -0.58 0.38Autonomy males 3.88 0.79 -0.41 0.24Connectedness males 3.82 0.11 0.07 0.00Satisfaction males 8.29 2.64 0.07 0.25Commitment males 4.56 0.73 0.52 -0.27Conflict males 2.76 0.66 -0.53 0.12

H Chi2(df) p Chi2(df) pMarital status 16 married 53.72 (1) < .001 4.46 (1) .035

50 unmarriedCohabitation status 28 cohabiting 132.63 (1) < .001 18.17 (1) < .001

38 non-cohabiting

11

4. Analysis Strategy

4.1. General strategy. Data were analyzed using a latent variable modeling approach,

and all models were computed in R using the structural equation modelling package lavaan (R

Core Team, 2016; Rosseel, 2012). Missing values among indicator variables ranged from

0.01% to 32.16% and were handled with the full information maximum likelihood procedure

that estimates population parameters using all data present in the variance/covariance matrix

(Enders, 2010). Standard errors were calculated using robust maximum likelihood estimation

to account for potential non-normality of the data. Evaluations of model fit were based on the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),

Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the model chi-square (χ2) fit statistic.

Because the chi-square is over-powered to detect even trivial misspecification in large

samples, a model was considered to adequately fit the data if its CFI value was close to or

greater than .90 and both its RMSEA and SRMR values were close to or smaller than .08

(Marsh, Hau, & Grayson, 2005).

Wave 7 served as the final time point for grouping our sample into continuing and

dissolving couples. Therefore, data provided in Waves 1 through 6 were considered for

analysis. Due to variation in the timing of separation in dissolving couples, the time interval

between the T1 and T_last differs within the dissolving couples and also between dissolving

and continuing couples whose data from Wave 6 were used as the last point of data provision

for the analyses. To control for the resulting differences in the length of the change interval,

we included each couple’s relationship duration at T1 and T_last as a covariate for the

intercepts and slopes of the change models, respectively (see Figure S1).

4.2. Statistical models. We chose a multiple group Actor-Partner correlated change

model as the means of analysis because it allows the simultaneous estimation of T1 levels and

changes in females and males in addition to partners’ correlation at T1 and correlated changes

12

across in the two groups of continuing and dissolving couples. For the sake of completeness

of the Actor-Partner model, which accounts for the dependency of couple data, the model also

included an estimation of cross-lagged partner effects (Kenny et al., 2006) which indicate, for

example, whether the level of the female partner’s relationship functioning at T1 affected her

partner’s changes in relationship functioning across time. However, as we did not have

explicit hypotheses about partner effects, we report them as additional findings. In addition,

the T1 variables were controlled for the covariates at T1, and the change variables were

controlled for the covariates at T_last.

4.3. Model specification. We included indicator-specific factors (IS; see Figure S1)

that account for method effects of the same manifest indicators across time in the models

estimating change in autonomy and connectedness because they have been shown to be

statistically and theoretically more favorable than error term correlations across time (Geiser

& Lockhart, 2012). For conflicts and commitment, error term correlations between respective

indicators across time were used because the IS resulted in a deterioration of model fit. In

addition, we implemented strong measurement invariance to allow for the interpretation of

mean-level changes across time based on a stepwise comparison of the nested models with

configural (factor loadings and intercepts freely estimated), weak (factor loadings constrained

to equivalence across time), and strong measurement invariance (factor loadings and

intercepts constrained to equivalence across time; see Little 2013). We considered

nonsubstantive decreases in model fit between each step as a change in CFI ≤ .01 and in

RMSEA ≤ .015 (Rogge, Koglin, & Petermann, 2018) because the chi-square difference test is

overpowered when testing measurement invariance (Little, 2013). We first established

measurement invariance across time, then across time and gender, and finally, across time,

gender, and groups. Results of the measurement invariance testing are contained in Table S5.

All constructs demonstrated at least partial strong invariance, allowing us to proceed in

13

computing our longitudinal analyses. Model fits of the multiple group models can be found in

the caption of Figure 1 in the main document.

Figure S1. Measurement model for the multiple group dyadic latent correlated change model.

T1 = first measurement occasion. T_last = last measurement occasion. IS = indicator-specific

factor. Y = manifest variable indicator for latent variable. λ = factor loading. Single-headed

arrows denote regressions, double-headed arrows denote correlations. A = baseline within-

couple correlation. B = correlated change. C = partner effects.

14

Table S5

Model Fit Indices for the Tests of Measurement Invariance Across Time, Stable and Unstable Couples, and Between Partners for Latent Constructs

Invariance Model Fit Indices Model Comparison

Trait Model χ2 (df) CFI RMSEA SRMR ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

Autonomy Configural 208.209 (130) 0.985 .026 .026

Weak 232.717 (151) 0.984 .025 .030 .001 .001

Stronga 402.121 (160) 0.956 .038 .051 .028 .013

Connectedness Configural 478.103

(160) 0.966 .047 .046

Weak 512.328 (181) 0.963 .046 .050 .003 .004

Stronga 792.884 (195) 0.936 .056 .073 .027 .010

Satisfaction Configural N/A

Weak N/A

Strong 4.485 (2) 0.996 .036 .012

Commitment Configural 21.955 (20) 0.999 .011 .015

Weak 33.948 (27) 0.995 .019 .024 .004 .008

Strong 57.828 (34) 0.991 .027 .031 .004 .008

Conflicts Configural 24.831 (20) 0.999 .016 .010

Weak 40.668 (27) 0.997 .023 .016 .002 .007

Strong 75.918 (34) 0.992 .035 .030 .005 .012

Note. a partial strong invariance established by two freely estimated intercepts. Relationship satisfaction is a 1-item measure and modelled as a pseudo-latent variable, so the models of configural and weak invariance are not identified and do not provide model fit statistics.

4.4. Multiple group comparison. Apart from the restrictions based on measurement

invariance, no further constraints across groups were included. The multiple group model

allows all effects to be compared across groups. In particular, the standardized differences

(Cohen’s d) between the latent means at T1 and the change scores were used to compare

changes in continuing and dissolving couples across time. To compare codevelopment effects

15

between groups, differences in correlations at T1 and correlated changes were tested using the

difference between the Fisher’s Z-transformed correlation coefficients divided by the standard

deviation of the sampling distribution (see Eid, Gollwitzer & Schmitt, 2011, pp. 577f. for

formulae and reference to an online calculator tool). Differences in partner effects were tested

using the difference between the standardized regression coefficients divided by the square

root of the sum of squared standard errors (see Clogg, Petkova, & Haritou, 1995). In addition,

we considered the effect of the original focal participants’ age group by running separate

multiple group models for each age group across the relationship variables to check whether

patterns of codevelopment equally apply to couples in young and middle adulthood (see

Supplementary File 2).

5. Additional Results

Intercorrelations between the study variables and within couples for both study groups

are presented in Table S6. Results indicated that the study variables were at least moderately

correlated with each other. Thereby, autonomy, connectedness, satisfaction, and commitment

showed positive associations with each, whereas conflicts were negatively correlated with all

other variables in both groups. Within-couple correlations were lowest for commitment and

highest for conflict in the continuing, and lowest for autonomy and highest for conflict in the

dissolving group.

16

Table S6

Intercorrelations of Latent Study Variables at the First Measurement Occasion for Females and Males from Continuing and Dissolving Couples

Study VariablesGroup Variable 1

Autonomy2

Connectedness3

Satisfaction4

Commitment5

ConflictsContinuing couples

1 .273*** .400*** .236*** .289*** -.266***

2 .356*** .505*** .393*** .323*** -.431***

3 .217*** .448*** .201*** .302*** -.392***

4 .222*** .283*** .448*** .188*** -.294***

5 -.372*** -.452*** -.408*** -.370*** .634***

Dissolving couples

1 .056 .433*** .345*** .340*** -.430***

2 .218* .452*** .554*** .434*** -.503***

3 .187* .571*** .264*** .634*** -.529***

4 .104 .425*** .557*** .320** -.383***

5 -.345** -.399*** -.416*** -.358*** .697***

Note. Females above, males below diagonal, within-dyad correlations in italics on the diagonal. * p < .05. ** p < .01. * p < .001, two-tailed.

17

Associations of the study variables with the covariates at T1 are displayed in Table S7 (age,

relationship duration, number of children) and S8 (marital and cohabitation status),

respectively.

Scales ranges of all measures, as well as means, standard deviations at T1 and T_last

females and males from continuing and dissolving relationships, and the comparison of

estimates between both groups are presented in Table S9.

Findings on differences in partner effects are shown in Table S10. Partner effects did

not differ between both groups.

18

Table S7

Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Effect of Age, Relationship Duration, and Number of Children at T1 on Levels at T1 and Changes of Relationship Aspects for Females and Males from Continuing and Dissolving Couples

Age Relationship duration Number of children

T1 Diff T_last-T1 T1 Diff T_last-T1 T1 Diff T_last-T1

continuing dissolving continuing dissolving continuing dissolving continuing dissolving continuing dissolving continuing dissolving

Variables β p β p β p β p β p β p β p β p β p β p β p β p

Females

Autonomy .133 .001 -.009 .915 .027 .460 -.061 .529 -.074 .073 .061 .490 .018 .629 .067 .423 -.169 .000 -.250 .001 -.131 .000 -.145 .126

Connectedness -.059 .109 .056 .449 .002 .943 -.037 .613 -.080 .033 -.207 .017 .013 .704 .014 .859 -.190 .000 -.237 .020 -.094 .001 -.181 .031

Satisfaction -.044 .134 -.044 .229 -.032 .170 -.102 .066 -.019 .566 -.055 .486 -.006 .808 .096 .144 -.026 .359 -.180 .025 -.088 .000 -.098 .165

Commitment -.055 .259 -.023 .805 -.079 .011 -.093 .205 .018 .669 -.116 .243 .027 .427 .060 .441 -.069 .065 -.192 .024 -.080 .018 .006 .939

Conflicts -.046 .166 -.072 .282 -.015 .633 .074 .365 .077 .037 .091 .322 -.082 .018 -.140 .084 .104 .002 .074 .374 .076 .004 .263 .002

Males

Autonomy .026 .525 -.152 .189 -.086 .031 -.316 .006 .050 .261 .086 .523 .064 .085 .189 .144 -.174 .000 -.106 .339 -.147 .000 -.044 .692

Connectedness -.034 .432 -.226 .024 .064 .111 -.123 .303 -.150 .001 -.070 .540 .043 .323 .306 .033 -.098 .024 .025 .797 -.156 .000 -.176 .153

Satisfaction -.069 .043 -.119 .017 .037 .161 -.211 .000 .008 .834 -.092 .406 .000 .997 .232 .004 -.083 .020 -.027 .741 -.035 .148 -.022 .813

Commitment -.034 .463 -.213 .185 -.061 .105 -.157 .216 .011 .777 .015 .911 -.057 .121 .128 .262 -.069 .095 .083 .355 -.040 .204 .093 .288

Conflicts -.106 .004 -.001 .995 .014 .730 .201 .182 .011 .776 .078 .489 -.064 .112 -.279 .076 .126 .001 .116 .209 .030 .416 .030 .814

Note. T1 = first measurement. Tlast = last available measurement. DiffT_last-T1 = latent change score between first and last available measurement.

19

Table S8

Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Effect of Cohabitation and Marital Status on Levels at T1 and Changes of Relationship Aspects for Females and Males from Continuing and Dissolving Couples

Cohabitation status Marital statusT1 Diff T_last-T1 T1 Diff T_last-T1

continuing dissolving continuing dissolving continuing dissolving continuing dissolvingVariables β p β p β p β p β p β p β p β p

FemalesAutonomy -.05

0.116 -.105 .16

1.032 .462 -.084 .23

3-.050 .117 -.05

3.547 -.037 .24

1.008 .929

Connectedness -.064

.022 .033 .632

.043 .326 .005 .938

.077 .039 -.058

.519 .015 .623

.008 .921

Satisfaction -.011

.691 -.028 .610

.046 .037 -.032 .650

.058 .073 -.065

.412 .028 .202

-.037 .603

Commitment -.002

.953 .174 .036

.050 .110 -.012 .846

.068 .127 .171 .102 .020 .541

.015 .866

Conflicts .086 .005 .128 .088

.062 .060 -.065 .332

-.045 .211 .078 .399 -.051 .078

-.024 .776

MalesAutonomy -.08

0.068 -.270 .01

6-.010 .801 -.010 .92

6-.037 .391 -.12

8.272 -.054 .15

1-.195 .108

Connectedness -.056

.153 -.243 .003

.090 .054 .079 .436

.086 .052 -.064

.557 .043 .263

-.023 .878

Satisfaction -.013

.703 -.057 .488

.032 .295 -.016 .808

.092 .011 .153 .079 -.013 .649

-.124 .115

Commitment .091 .070 -.003 .972

.014 .752 .022 .788

.126 .009 .098 .330 .071 .123

-.061 .598

Conflicts .126 .001 .029 .750

.060 .137 -.108 .311

-.015 .709 -.028

.766 .010 .795

.252 .050

Note. T1 = first measurement. Tlast = last available measurement. DiffT_last-T1 = latent change score between first and last available measurement.

20

21

Table S9

Means and Standard Deviations for the Latent Study Variables at First Measurement and Latent Changes Scores for Females and Males from Continuing and Dissolving Couples Estimated from Multiple Group Models, and Standardized Mean Differences Between Groups

T1 Diff T_last-T1

Continuing Dissolving Scale Comparison Continuing Dissolving ComparisonVariables M SD M SD Rang

ed p M SD M SD d p

FemalesAutonomy 4.098 0.621 4.06

30.669 1-5 0.053 .359 -0.109 0.517 -0.205 0.63

0-0.167 .003

Connectedness

4.133 0.525 4.104

0.592 1-5 0.052 .373 -0.134 0.486 -0.348 0.595

-0.394 .000

Satisfaction 8.328 2.040 7.787

2.007 0-10 0.267 .000 -0.571 1.874 -1.571 2.387

-0.466 .000

Commitment 4.886 0.959 4.705

0.455 1-5 0.241 .001 -0.090 0.434 -0.472 0.877

-0.552 .000

Conflicts 2.561 0.575 2.668

0.626 1-5 -0.178 .003 0.014 0.456 0.238 0.460

-0.489 .000

MalesAutonomy 3.583 0.661 3.72

00.539 1-5 -0.227 .001 -0.053 0.487 -0.103 0.41

7-0.110 .085

Connectedness

3.845 0.522 3.819

0.544 1-5 0.049 .415 -0.112 0.464 -0.311 0.420

-0.450 .000

Satisfaction 8.440 1.843 7.703

2.046 0-10 0.379 .000 -0.536 1.842 -1.051 2.095

-0.261 .000

Commitment 4.889 0.300 4.728

0.544 1-5 0.274 .000 -0.077 0.355 -0.349 0.631

-0.531 .000

Conflicts 2.441 0.517 2.675

0.649 1-5 -0.399 .000 0.033 0.424 0.126 0.369

-0.234 .000

Note. T1 = first measurement. Tlast = last available measurement. DiffT_last-T1 = latent change score between first and last available measurement. The ranges of the scales at T_last was identical to the scale range at T1.

22

23

Table S10

Cross-lagged Partner Effects from Multiple Group Models with Covariates Controlled Variable FT1 → MDiff MT1 → FDiff

continuing dissolving comparison continuing dissolving comparisonβ SE p β SE p Z p β SE p β SE p Z p

Autonomy .132 .043 .004 .248 .090 .074 -1.163 .122 .030

.040 .521 -.009 .142 .942 .264 .604

Connectedness -.029

.049 .582 -.101

.089 .429 .709 .761 .079

.047 .085 .040 .109 .683 .329 .629

Satisfaction .118 .031 .000 .197 .084 .006 -.882 .189 .111

.036 .000 .026 .090 .719 .877 .810

Commitment .173 .095 .017 .098 .165 .414 .394 .653 .132

.087 .023 .142 .184 .212 -.049 .480

Conflicts .154 .051 .017 -.011

.173 .968 .915 .820 .120

.056 .035 -.042 .139 .814 1.081 .860

Note. Age, relationship duration, marital status, and number of children were controlled. N = 1,646 stable and 319 unstable couples. FT1 = Initial level of female partners at first measurement. MT1 = Initial level of male partners at first measurement. FDiff = change in female partners between the first and the last available measurement. MDiff = change in male partners between the first and the last available measurement.

CODEVELOPMENT OF ROMANTIC PARTNERS 24

6. References

Grau, I., Mikula, G., & Engel, S. (2001). Skalen zum Investitionsmodell von Rusbult.

Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32, 29-44. doi: 10.1024//0044-3514.32.1.29

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved

from https://www.R-project.org/

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of

Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02

Sander, J., & Böcker, S. (1993). The German version of the relationship assessment scale

(RAS): A short scale for measuring satisfaction in a dyadic relationship. Diagnostica, 39,

55-62.

Schneewind, K. A. & Kruse, J. (2002). Die Paarklimaskalen (PKS) [The partnership climate

scales]. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.

Wittmann, S., Helm, B., Buhl, H. M., & Noack, P. (2000). Dokumentation der

Erhebungsinstrumente des Projektes ‚Erwachsene und ihre Eltern‘ [Documention of

assessment materials for the project ‘adults and their parents’]. Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-

Universität, Institut für Psychologie, Abteilung Pädagogische Psychologie.