Post on 28-Mar-2023
INT’L. J. AGING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 75(2) 115-139, 2012
HOPES AND CONCERNS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS
ACROSS ADULTHOOD AND THEIR ASSOCIATION
WITH RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION
FELICIANO VILLAR
University of Barcelona, Spain
DIANA JANETH VILLAMIZAR
University of Pamplona, Colombia
ABSTRACT
The study explored goals in couple relationships, and determined their asso-
ciation with age and the level of satisfaction expressed with the relationship.
The participants were made up of 355 volunteers, aged between 20 and
78, who had been in a relationship for more than 6 months. The sample
was gathered to ensure an age and gender balance. Participants’ goals were
ascertained by means of three sentence stems that they completed by
expressing a general expectation, a hope, and a concern as regards their
relationship. Satisfaction with the relationship was measured by means of
Hendrick’s Relationship Assessment Scale. Responses to the open-ended
sentences were content analyzed and categorized. The frequency of these
categories was associated with age, which indicated that an orientation
toward growth was less frequent and an orientation toward maintenance
was more common in older groups. Except in the youngest group, satisfac-
tion with the relationship was negatively correlated to gains, and positively
to maintenance. The study emphasizes the changes experienced in couple-
related goals across adulthood and their relevance to satisfaction with the
relationship, issues which have received little research attention to date.
115
� 2012, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/AG.75.2.b
http://baywood.com
The ability to anticipate the future, set goals and make plans to either attain or
avoid certain future states is a fundamental factor for understanding human
behavior and its development across the life span.
In recent decades, research on goals and how these goals change and influence
development has increased markedly. Thus, goals have been conceptualized
as possible selves (Cross & Markus, 1991; Hooker, 1999; Markus & Nurius,
1986), personal projects (Little, 1983, 1999), personal strivings (Emmons, 1996;
Sheldon & Kasser, 2001), and life tasks (Meegan & Berg, 2001; Meegan &
Goedereis, 2006). Although each of these concepts has its own specific traits
and nuances, including differences in the type of methodological approach used
in assessing goals, all of them conceptualize goals as conscious objectives
that represent the future-oriented domain of the self, and consider that the moti-
vational value of goals can be positive (e.g., hopes and aspirations) or negative
(e.g., fears and concerns). It is this common definition of goals that we adopt in
the present study.
Research has shown the importance of goals for development and for well-
being in specific life contexts across adulthood, such as occupation (Chalk,
Meara, & Day, 1994; Robinson, Davis, & Meara, 2003), paternity (Bloom,
Delmore-Ko, Masataka, & Carli, 1999; Hooker, Fiese, Jenkins, Morfei, &
Schwagler, 1996), and health-related experiences (Black, Stein, & Loveland-
Cherry, 2001; Hooker, 1992). However, other developmental contexts of rele-
vance have received little research interest from this perspective. For instance,
to the best of our knowledge, no studies have explicitly assessed goals asso-
ciated with couple relationships.
This absence of studies on couple-related goals is surprising, since couple
relationships are arguably the most intimate bond people establish in adult life.
If a couple’s relationship is successful, it could last for decades and define the
life trajectory of the partners involved (Gottman, 1998; Mikulincer, Florian,
Cowan, & Cowan, 2002). Though there are large differences between couples,
the intimate, shared bond provides benefits in terms of love, emotional support
and companionship, as well as security and material rewards (Cultrona, 1996).
For instance, there is evidence that, on average, married people experience
more happiness and life satisfaction and less psychological distress than single
people (Coombs, 1991; Haring-Hidore, Stock, Okun, & Witter, 1985; Stack &
Eshleman, 1998). The importance of such relationships is also shown by the
painful consequences of losing the bond, for example when partners get divorced
(e.g., Amato, 2004), or are widowed (e.g., Onrusta & Cuijpers, 2006).
If a couple relationship is defined as an intimate, romantic relationship in
which two people are committed regardless of their status (dating, cohabiting, or
married), such a commitment should necessarily imply the presence of some
kind of future representation of the relationship, that is, of some kind of goals
in terms of expectations, hopes, or future concerns. These goals are the moti-
vational force that direct and organize the efforts of each member of the couple
116 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
to pursue or avoid outcomes, becoming the means by which they bring about
the development of their relationship.
DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGE IN COUPLE
RELATIONSHIP GOALS
This developmental function of the goals set in a couple relationship empha-
sizes their dynamic nature and the readjustments that occur as life circumstances
change. As well as ongoing concerns and personal experiences (Frazier, Johnson,
Gema, & Kafka, 2002), goals at least partly reflect age-graded developmental
challenges and transitions that individuals face at different stages in life. In
this sense, stage developmental approaches to adulthood, such as Erikson’s (1982)
theory, which regard life span development as a sequence of age-graded psycho-
social tasks or goals, shed some light on the kind of goals associated with couple
relationships. For Erikson, young adults are faced with constructing a sense of
intimacy with another person, and the main concern in this stage is being isolated.
In middle adulthood, generativity becomes the main goal and stagnation the
main concern, which in many cases implies an interest in expanding the couple
relationship with a desire to raise and care for children. However, in older age the
typical psychosocial task is focused on attaining integrity, which has little to do
with couple relationships, since it means examining one’s life and accepting the
personal past as something meaningful and satisfying. If personal goals are at least
in part a reflection of social expectations and life experiences, hopes and concerns
in relation to couple relationships should bear the stamp of such developmental
tasks. If this framework were applied to couple relationships, we would expect
a hope (and concern) to be expressed for the consolidation of the couple in
young adulthood, followed by an investment in the expansion of the couple and
interest in external goals (children, improvement in quality of life, etc.) in middle
adulthood. In older age, concerns about the preservation of what has been already
achieved would become increasingly salient.
However, as well as specific content, one of the keys to understanding the
adjustment of goals across a life span lies in their changing motivational orien-
tation. In this sense, life span psychology defines three types of relevant develop-
mental goals: growth, maintenance, and regulation (or prevention) of losses
(Baltes, 1997; Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 2006; Baltes & Smith, 2004).
A central hypothesis of this theory is that the salience of each type of goal changes
across adulthood, reflecting a change in resources and constraints as people grow
older. Typically, young adults have plenty of biological and social resources,
which favor an orientation toward maximizing growth. However, as people grow
older, the resources required to make new gains become scarcer, and the threat
of losses increases. In response to this situation, the focus of developmental goals
in middle and older adulthood changes to maintenance and prevention of losses.
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 117
Other factors might also play a role in the age-related change in goals. As
members of the couple grow older and reach later life, they may start to anticipate
the end of the couple and future states of widowhood. This shortened future
perspective makes older people focus on short-term goals and present states
(Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). In addition, couples have completed
many shared life projects by older adulthood. Therefore, it makes sense that
the orientation toward maintaining the status quo, while emphasizing the impor-
tance of goals that have already been accomplished, plays a more important
role in older age than striving for new gains and perspectives for the couple
(Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Maier, 1999).
Goals and Satisfaction with the Relationship
As well as directing the development of the relationship, couple-related goals
provide an evaluative and interpretive context for the current view of the rela-
tionship. Thus, satisfaction with the relationship may depend, at least partially,
on the perceived distance and attainability of goals that each member of the
couple has set for that relationship. As the pursuit and achievement of goals is a
predictor of life satisfaction (e.g., Schmuck & Sheldon, 1999) and goals can
turn into sources of dissatisfaction if they become unattainable or exceed indi-
vidual resources (Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003), discrepancies between
couple-related goals and the present state of the relationship could be a predictor
of satisfaction with couple relationships.
However, developmental theories of adulthood propose that goals only
contribute to satisfaction if they are in keeping with the expectations for each
life stage. For instance, Erikson (1982) proposed that those showing the concerns
and pursuing the tasks related to their life stage should be happier because
they have more successfully resolved important earlier tasks and are better inte-
grated into society. This association between Erikson’s adult life tasks and satis-
faction has been confirmed in various studies. For instance, An and Cooney
(2006) found an association between generativity in mid-life and well-being,
and Sheldon and Kasser (2001) found that the most “mature” concerns in the
Eriksonian perspective, generativity and ego integrity, were more frequent
among middle-aged and older adults, and both predicted their well-being. If
these findings are translated into terms of couple relationships, a concern about
intimacy and generativity in young and middle adulthood, and a concern
about integrity-related goals in older age will be associated with satisfaction
with the relationship.
Furthermore, the life span theory also explicitly identifies a bond between
goals and satisfaction. As goal-related resources and constraints change as
people age, the adjustment of goals is key to maintaining positive well-being and
a source of resilience across the life span. Specifically, the shift in goals toward
maintenance and loss prevention that occurs as people grow older pays off in terms
118 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
of well-being in older age, while in young adulthood well-being is more
closely related to attaining new gains (Ebner, Freund, & Baltes, 2006). If this
scheme is applied to couple-related goals, the satisfaction with the relationship
may depend on the motivational orientation of these specific goals: in younger
members of couples satisfaction will be associated with gain-oriented goals,
whereas in older couples satisfaction will be more closely related to maintenance
or avoiding-loss goals.
OBJECTIVES
Our study explored future expectations, hopes, and concerns related to couple
relationships. These representations of the future were examined in different
cohorts, from 20 to 60 years of age and over. The study had two objectives. The
first was to ascertain if goals change across adulthood. In this respect, two
dimensions of goals were taken into account: the specific content of the couple-
related goal and their motivational orientation (gains, maintenance, and pre-
vention of losses). We expected both dimensions to reflect age-related differences,
and hypothesized that:
• The content of goals would be affected by the developmental tasks that
individuals typically deal with in different life stages. In younger samples, the
content of goals would be related to the consolidation of the partnership.
For middle-aged adults, family issues (especially children) and generative
goals were expected to be the main concerns. In older adults, the focus of
goals would turn to the preservation of the couple in the context of increasing
health threats.
• The motivational orientation of goals would reflect the pattern of changing
resources and constraints as people grow older. In younger samples, gains
would outnumber maintenance or prevention of losses, whereas in older
samples, goals referring to maintenance and prevention of losses would
be particularly frequent.
The second objective was to examine the association between couple-related
goals and satisfaction with the relationship. In this respect, our hypotheses
were the following:
• Among young and middle-aged participants, focusing on gains and showing
concern for issues of generativity would have a positive impact on their
satisfaction with the relationship, as these are the stages when couple rela-
tionships are consolidated and expanded.
• In older age, as the future time perspective shortens and the probability of
losses increases, the abandonment of gain expectations and the readjust-
ment of goals in terms of stability could boost satisfaction with the rela-
tionship. In a similar way, concern for issues of generativity would no longer
be associated with satisfaction with the relationship.
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 119
METHOD
Participants
A sample of 355 individuals aged between 20 and 78 (M = 43.5 yr, SD = 18.2)
participated in the study. All participants were living in Barcelona or its metro-
politan area, and had had a partner for at least 6 months before commencement
of the study. The average length of the relationship was 19.9 years (SD = 17.8),
ranging from 6 months to 70 years. This broad range of ages and lengths of
relationship ensured the inclusion of a great variety of life and relationship
issues that participants had had to face, and which was necessary for the attain-
ment of the objectives of this study.
The sample included 179 men (50.4%) and 176 women (49.6%). Ninety-eight
participants (24.6%) were dating (not living with their partner), 52 were
cohabiting (14.6%), and 205 were married (57.7%). One hundred and fifty
participants (42.3%) did not have children. As for the education of the sample,
23.7% of the participants had only completed primary studies, 6.5% had not
completed any formal education, 32.4% had attended high school or had voca-
tional studies, and the rest (35.6%) had university qualifications.
Measures
A questionnaire specifically developed for the purpose of this study was
administered to the participants. It comprised two sections. Section one solicited
socio-demographic information, including age, sex, relationship status (dating,
cohabiting, married), whether the participant had children with his/her partner,
the length of the relationship (including years spent dating if the couple lived
together), the amount of formal education (no studies, primary, secondary, or
university studies), and the subjective health, to be reported on a 5-point scale
from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good).
Section two included two instruments: a sentence completion questionnaire
and a measure of satisfaction with the relationship. The first instrument was
designed to elicit conceptions about couple relationships in a non-directive
manner. It was made up of 12 sentence stems relating to different aspects of
couple relationships, including aspects of the past (The best thing of my couple
relationship has been . . .), the present (Thanks to my couple relationship I can . . .)
and the future of the relationship. Sentence completion permitted the participants
to express their responses in their own words and in accordance with their
personal concerns. Instruments similar to the one used in this study, such as
Nuttin’s MIM (Nuttin, 1985) or Dittmann-Kohli’s SELE (Dittmann-Kohli &
Westerhof, 1997), have been found to be highly valid with respect to the personal
relevance of themes and have good test-retest stability.
The results of the present study were extracted from the three future-oriented
sentence stems included in the questionnaire: one neutral (In the future, my couple
120 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
relationship . . .), one positive concerning future aspirations (When we are older,
I hope . . .), and one negative related to future concerns (What’s worrying me
about our future is . . .). The rationale for including three types of stem was
to guarantee that participants would generate a wide variety of goals and, in
particular, to ensure the presence of positive (hopes) and negative (concerns)
goals, which some authors have identified as being the compounds of the future-
oriented self (e.g., Cross & Markus, 1991; Hooker, 1999). The neutral sentence
stem, which was presented before the positive and negatives stems, did not
bias a participant’s responses toward any particular type of goal.
Answers tended to be quite short. The average length of the stems was 4.7
words for the neutral stem (SD = 3.4, ranging from 1 to 21 words), 5.2 words for
the positive stem (SD = 4.1, ranging from 1 to 31), and 5.8 words for the negative
stem (SD = 4.0, ranging from 1 to 24 words).
The second instrument was Hendrick’s Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS),
a brief measure consisting of seven items aimed at testing the level of overall
satisfaction with romantic relationships of marital and non-marital nature (e.g.,
“In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship with your partner?”).
The alpha coefficient reported for the scale is .86 (Hendrick, 1988). Respondents
were asked to indicate whether or not each statement described their couple
relationship accurately on a 5-point scale. The specific labels of each point
depended on the item, ranging from very unsatisfied to very satisfied in one case,
from almost nothing to completely in two cases, and from none to many on four
items. Instructions for completing the questionnaire were included before the
first item to facilitate self-administration. We used the Spanish version of the
scale, translated by Contreras, Hendrick, and Hendrick (1996). The mean score
was 21.8 (SD = 3.9, ranging from 3 to 28), a high value given that the scale
ranges from 0 to 28, where higher values express a greater level of satisfaction
with the relationship. The alpha coefficient was .83.
Procedure
The study was advertised in six intergenerational civic centers in Barcelona
and its metropolitan area. Civic centers are sponsored by city councils or foun-
dations and their aim is to provide leisure, social, or educational activities for
the community. Participation in these activities is generally free.
Once the study had been advertised, a member of the research team went to the
civic center and, with the director’s help, organized meetings with users to explain
the research aims and to obtain their consent to participate. Once their consent
had been obtained, a questionnaire and instructions were given to each volunteer
who met the inclusion criteria (i.e., participants had to be in a couple relation-
ship that had lasted for at least 6 months and be aged 20 or over). Participants
completed the instruments individually or in groups of five or six people. Par-
ticipants completed the questionnaire by themselves (including the completion of
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 121
the sentence stems) with few needing help. Questionnaire completion generally
took about 15 minutes. If both members of a couple wished to participate in
the study only one was permitted to do so, since the presence of the other member
might have influenced his/her responses, resulting in the potential non-
independence of data.
A total of 377 people volunteered to participate in the study. However, 12
questionnaires had to be discarded because they were incomplete. We endeavored
to include approximately the same number of men and women and the same
number of participants in each decade of life (from 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49,
50 to 59, and 60 and older). Middle-aged participants were especially difficult
to obtain, since the profile of activities organized by civic centers tends to
attract, in the main, non-married young adults, young parents, and older people.
Thus, the eventual sample included fewer participants aged between 40 and 49
(54 participants, 15.2%) and between 50 and 59 (36 participants, 10.1%) than
participants aged between 20 and 29 (89, 25.1%), 30 and 39 (90 participants,
25.4%), and 60 and over (86, 24.2%).
Data Analysis
Once all the participants’ responses had been transcribed and entered into a
database, the answers to each stem (neutral, positive and negative) were content-
analyzed separately. The researchers first read all the responses to the same
question to become acquainted with the data. Afterwards, ideas (or units of
meaning) were identified in each response. Responses might contain one or
several ideas. For instance, the response When we are older, I hope . . . to stay
together and have our own house contained two ideas. The next step involved
grouping these “ideas” by theme or category based on repetition or the similarity
of threads of meaning or key words in the unit (Luborsky, 1994; Owen, 1984).
A hierarchically structured category system was established for each stem
(neutral, positive, negative). At the specific level, categories were inductively
differentiated according to the meanings expressed in the responses. Afterwards,
at the more general level, specific, first-order categories were grouped into
broader, second-order categories (e.g., in the case of the neutral stem, first-order
categories such as Travelling or Housing were grouped in the same second-order
category, Gains). In the case of categories belonging to the neutral and positive
stems, such second-order categories were deductively derived from relevant
theoretical concepts of life span psychology, such as gain, stability, or avoiding
loss. In the case of the negative stem, such concepts did not account for first-order
categories, and so second-order categories were created inductively, based on
similarities between the first-order categories.
This hierarchical structure of categories permitted both fine differentiation
and the combination of categories, depending on the number of variables that
the researcher wished to examine. To increase the reliability of the results, the
122 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
process of categorization was conducted independently by two researchers.
The first- and second-order categories obtained by each researcher were com-
pared and any differences were negotiated until a consensus on the category
system was reached.
Once the categories had been obtained and defined, the researchers indepen-
dently read the full list of units of meaning for each stem again and assigned them
to a category in the system specifically created for that stem. Any disagreements
were identified and used to correct the limits of the categories and to modify their
definitions until the researchers agreed on a final version of the categorization.
The last step involved an independent judge who had not participated in the
initial process and was not informed of the study or of its aims. The judge
was provided with a copy of the original units of meaning and the final version
of the category system (including category definitions) and asked to assign the
responses to the categories. This independent categorization was then compared
with that completed by the researchers. The two categorizations were entered
in a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) and the comparison was
used to obtain the Kappa index of reliability for the system. This process was
then repeated separately for the categorization of responses given to each of
the three stems (neutral, positive, and negative stems).
After obtaining the final version of categories, chi-square tests were run cross-
ing categories with age. Subsequently, to discard variables that might have had
a spurious relationship with age, logistic regressions were run for second-order
categories in a multivariate analysis, including age, gender, length of the relation-
ship, subjective health, having children, and satisfaction with the relationship
as predictive variables. This analysis was not conducted to infer causality, but
rather to determine characteristics that were uniquely associated with the likeli-
hood of mentioning different types of goal. Both analyses, chi-square tests, and
logistic regressions were used to address the hypotheses related to the first
objective. Finally, point-biserial correlations were obtained to determine the
relationship between the motivational orientations of goals and satisfaction with
the relationship in different age groups, enabling us to address the hypotheses
related to the second objective.
RESULTS
Types of Goals in Couple Relationships
Neutral Stem
Table 1 shows that two main categories that emerged from the analysis. The
first referred to gains, and involved goals that implied further enrichment of the
relationship or the attainment of a new stage or developmental task. It included
three first order categories: (a) Comments on improvements that would make
the relationship better or help to attain a good state (e.g., In the future, my couple
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 123
relationship . . . will be even stronger); (b) Comments on expectations of living
together, cohabiting or marrying (e.g., In the future, my couple relationship . . .
must plan how to have a house as soon as possible); (c) Comments on the
creation or expansion of their family, and particularly on having children or
grandchildren (e.g., In the future, my couple relationship . . . will be a relationship
of three, counting our baby).
The second category was made up of ideas related to maintaining the status
quo and expectations of the continuance of a current state in the future. This
category included four first-order ideas: (a) Comments on some specific positive
quality that describes the relationship in the present and which the participant
expects to maintain in the future (e.g., In the future, my couple relationship . . .
will have the same level of complicity); (b) Comments on remaining together
as a couple, not splitting up or not experiencing divorce (e.g., In the future,
my couple relationship… will last all life long); (c) Generic comments on no
changes (e.g., In the future, my couple relationship . . . I want it to be as it is now);
(d) Comments on preventing negative aspects from appearing in the future (e.g.,
In the future, my couple relationship . . . should avoid monotony).
124 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
Table 1. Percentage of Content-Based Categories for the Neutral Stem
(In the future, my couple relationship . . .) in Different Age Groups
Age Total
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ N %
Gains
Improving
Living together
Family
Maintenance
Keeping positive aspects
Being together
No change
Avoiding negative aspects
Positive quality
Losses
Change
Don’t know
59.1
42.0
9.1
12.5
26.1
10.1
6.8
7.9
0.0
4.5
1.1
4.5
11.4
55.1
46.1
1.1
6.7
34.8
10.0
10.1
14.4
2.2
1.1
3.4
2.2
4.5
34.0
26.4
1.9
0.0
52.8
7.4
11.3
27.8
3.8
5.7
3.8
7.5
5.7
25.0
19.4
0.0
0.0
55.6
13.9
11.1
30.6
0.0
13.9
2.8
0.0
5.6
2.4
2.4
0.0
0.0
66.3
10.5
12.0
40.7
0.0
20.5
6.0
0.0
4.8
130
101
10
17
157
36
35
81
4
30
12
10
23
37.2
28.5
2.9
4.9
45.0
10.1
10.0
22.8
1.1
8.6
3.4
2.9
6.6
Additionally, some participants simply responded with a quality that was
generally positive and described their relationship in the future, but without
any explicit or implicit comparison with the present state (e.g., In the future, my
couple relationship . . . will be good; In the future, my couple relationship . . . will
be normal). A small number of participants predicted losses (e.g., In the future,
my couple relationship . . . will be worse, because we can’t stand quarrelling) or
changes, without specifying their direction (e.g,. In the future, my couple relation-
ship . . . will adapt to new circumstances). Twenty-three participants said that
they did not know what their couple relationship would be like in the future.
Cohen’s Kappa index, including first- and second-order categories, was 0.87,
which indicates that the system was reliable.
Positive Stem
The category system which emerged from responses to the positive stem was
similar to that described for the neutral stem, since it consisted of the same two
second-order categories (gains and stability). However, both categories included
additional first-order ideas, as shown in Table 2.
In the case of gains, as well as comments on improving (e.g., When we are
older, I hope . . . that our complicity is even greater), living together (e.g., When
we are older, I hope . . . we have a small place to live together), and family (e.g.,
When we are older, I hope . . . we can take care of our grandchildren), respondents
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 125
Table 2. Percentage of Content-Based Categories for the Positive Stem
(When we are older, I hope . . .) in Different Age Groups
Age Total
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ N %
Gains
Improving
Solving negative aspects
Family
Travelling
Housing
Living together
Maintenance
Keeping positive aspects
Being together
No change
Health/autonomy
Avoiding negative aspects
60.5
15.1
0.0
22.1
3.5
7.0
18.6
43.0
27.0
11.2
5.6
0.0
4.7
64.0
20.2
4.5
19.1
16.9
5.6
2.2
37.1
12.2
16.7
8.9
2.2
2.2
50.0
18.5
13.0
1.9
16.7
1.9
0.0
57.4
14.8
22.2
14.8
9.3
0.0
38.9
25.0
2.8
0.0
13.9
2.8
0.0
52.8
5.6
33.3
8.3
11.1
0.0
20.5
15.7
1.2
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
73.5
5.8
26.7
25.6
14.5
1.2
167
63
13
37
33
19
14
181
50
72
46
23
7
48.0
18.1
3.7
10.6
9.5
5.5
4.0
52.0
14.1
20.1
13.0
6.6
2.0
also mentioned aspects such as solving negative issues (e.g., When we are older,
I hope . . . I can fix small things that cause problems), travelling (e.g., When we are
older, I hope . . . we can afford to travel around Europe), or buying/ changing a
flat or a house (When we are older, I hope . . . we can buy a flat in the mountains).
As for maintenance-related responses, answers related to holding onto positive
aspects (e.g., When we are older, I hope . . . to keep on sharing everything with
her), being together (e.g., When we are older, I hope . . . we still are a couple), or
preventing negative aspects (e.g., When we are older, I hope . . . that we do not
grow in different directions) also appeared, as was the case with the neutral stem.
However, a new first-order category emerged from the analysis, relating to com-
ments on health and autonomy (e.g., When we are older, I hope . . . we can still
live without anybody’s help).
Cohen’s Kappa index, including first- and second-order categories, was 0.92,
which indicates excellent agreement between raters.
Negative Stem
The category system describing the responses related to future concerns was
quite distinct (see Table 3) from those that emerged for the neutral and positive
stems. Responses could be organized into three second-order categories, as shown
in Table 3.
126 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
Table 3. Percentage of Content-Based Categories for the Negative Stem
(What’s worrying me about our future is . . .) in Different Age Groups
Age Total
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ N %
Focus on the relationship
Ending
Deterioration
Focus on external issues
Problems
Family
Job/money
Aging and health
Older age
Health/illness
Dependency
Death
Nothing
42.7
12.4
30.3
40.4
7.9
1.1
31.5
4.5
1.1
3.4
0.0
0.0
11.2
28.1
7.9
20.2
47.2
7.9
18.0
24.7
19.1
1.1
15.7
0.0
2.2
7.9
22.6
3.8
18.9
39.6
7.5
20.8
13.2
39.6
3.8
26.4
0.0
9.4
5.7
13.9
5.6
8.3
22.2
2.8
8.3
11.1
58.3
11.1
36.1
2.8
8.3
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.1
2.4
8.2
3.5
81.2
7.1
43.5
9.4
28.2
5.9
80
22
58
119
21
38
64
132
14
81
9
34
29
22.7
6.3
16.5
33.8
6.0
10.8
18.2
37.5
4.0
23.0
2.6
9.7
8.2
The first included ideas related to the relationship as a bond between two
people. It included two first-order categories: (a) Comments about a fear of the
relationship ending or disappearing because of the lack of commitment of the
partner, infidelity, or divorce (e.g., What’s worrying me about our future is . . . that
we might split up); (b) Comments on the deterioration of the relationship,
sometimes mentioning the loss of valued qualities such as intimacy, love or
support (e.g., What’s worrying me about our future is . . . that we might stop
loving each other).
The second main category referred to ideas expressing concerns about
issues involving the couple. It included three first-order categories: (a) Generic
comments about external problems or events that might destabilize the couple
(e.g., What’s worrying me about our future is . . . unexpected things that are
uncontrollable); (b) Comments about issues raised by family members or diffi-
culties posed by family roles, with concerns about children being particularly
frequent (What’s worrying me about our future is . . . coping with my children’s
adolescence); (c) Concerns related to financial problems, including direct
references to difficulties created by not having sufficient money to meet basic
needs or attain desired goals, or mention of lost sources of financial support,
such as a job (What’s worrying me about our future is . . . making ends meet).
The third second-order category was related to concerns about aging and
health and included four first-order categories: (a) Comments about growing
old or age-related problems as a source of concern (e.g., What’s worrying me
about our future is . . . having a decent old age); (b) Comments about illnesses and
deterioration in health (e.g., What’s worrying me about our future is . . . that one
of us might become too ill); (c) Comments about dependency and loss of autonomy
(e.g., What’s worrying me about our future is . . . becoming dependent on my
children); (d) Comments about partner’s death, widowhood or feelings of loneli-
ness caused by the disappearance of the partner (e.g., What’s worrying me about
our future is . . . that death will finally break us apart).
Finally, there was a small group of participants (8.2%) who stated that they
had no concerns about the future.
Cohen’s Kappa reliability index of the category system, including first- and
second-order categories, was 0.85, which indicates that the system was reliable.
Relationship between Goals, Age,
and Background Factors
Table 1 shows that the distribution of gains and maintenance was closely
related to age in the responses reported for the neutral stem. Chi-square tests
were performed to determine the significance of this particular relationship.
Thus, whereas mentions of gains tended to decrease among the three oldest
groups (�2(4) = 75.7, p < 0.0001), the trend was reversed for maintenance,
with such comments being more frequent in these three age groups (�2(4) = 34.5,
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 127
p < 0.0001). Comments about the positive quality of the relationship were also
more frequent in the two oldest groups (�2(4) = 24.9; p < 0.0001). As for the
actual content of goals, references to improving some aspect of the relationship
were the main source of age differences in gains (�2(4) = 50.2; p < 0.0001).
Although comments about living together and family were also more frequent
in the youngest age group, in these cases, �2 values could not be calculated as
more than 50% of the cells had an expected count less than 5. As for main-
tenance, statistically significant differences appeared for the category “No
change” (�2(4) = 32.4; p < 0.0001), which was more frequent in older groups,
particularly among 40 to 60+ participants.
The distribution of gains and maintenance in the responses to the positive stem
followed a similar trend: a decrease in gains (�2(4) = 40.9; p < 0.0001) and an
increase in maintenance (�2(4) = 26.7; p < 0.0001) in participants aged 40 and
over (see Table 2). Differences in gains were found in comments about the
family, housing, and living together, which were practically absent among par-
ticipants aged 40 and over. Comments about travelling and solving negative
aspects of relationships were particularly infrequent among the youngest
(20-29) and oldest (60+) participants. As for maintenance, age-related differ-
ences were mainly found in three categories: in participants aged 20 to 49
comments about maintaining positive qualities of the relationship were more
frequent (�2(4) = 19.5; p < 0.001), while the opposite trend was the case for
references to no change (�2(4) = 18.5; p < 0.001). Participants aged 40 and over
made more frequent comments within the category ‘health/autonomy’ (�2(4) =
18.9; p < 0.001). Differences between the age groups for the rest of the categories
were not statistically significant.
Responses to the last incomplete sentence, which referred to concerns, were
also age-related. Table 3 shows that concerns about the relationship (�2(4) = 48.3;
p < 0.0001) and concerns about external issues (�2(4) = 26.6; p < 0.0001) tended
to decline in older cohorts (particularly among participants aged 50 and over),
although the rate of decline was lower for external issues, which were still quite
frequent among middle-aged participants. Family concerns were more frequent
among 30- to 49-year-old participants, while 20- to 39-year-olds were particularly
concerned by job and money issues. In older samples, the number of comments
about health (and death among participants older than 60) increased dramatically
(�2(4) = 130.2; p < 0.001).
However, there might be other variables with a relation to the motivational
orientation and content of couple relationship goals, and some of these might be
confounded with age. To estimate these effects, a logistic regression was per-
formed for each second-order category in the three systems (neutral, positive,
and negative stems, see Table 4). Thus, the presence/absence of each specific
second-order goal acted as the dependent variable, and the same six predictive
variables were entered in each analysis: age, length of the relationship, gender,
level of education, subjective health, having children (or not), and satisfaction
128 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
with the relationship. As can be seen in Table 4, age decreased the probability
of mentioning gains both in the neutral and positive stems. In these stems, age
also increased the probability of mentioning maintenance. Satisfaction with the
relationship seems to function in a similar direction: it predicted a greater prob-
ability of mentioning maintenance in the neutral and positive stems, but it
predicted a lower probability of mentioning gains in the positive stem and of
mentioning losses in the neutral stem. As for the negative stem, greater satisfaction
with the relationship, membership of an older cohort, and being male were
associated with fewer specific concerns regarding the relationship. Membership
of an older cohort also increased the probability of comments related to aging
and health. Remarkable here is that one of the variables which we would expect
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 129
Table 4. Odds Ratios in Binary Logistic Regressions for
Second-Order Categories Extracted in Each Stem
Dependent variable
Predictive
variable
Odds
ratios p 95% CI
Neutral stem
Gains
Maintenance
Positive quality
Losses
Change
Positive stem
Gains
Maintenance
Negative stem
Focus on the relationship
Focus on external issues
Aging and health
Nothing
Age
Satisfaction
Subjective health
—
Satisfaction
—
Age
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Age
Satisfaction
Age
Gender
—
Age
—
0.92
1.10
0.70
0.75
0.94
0.92
1.08
1.05
0.86
0.92
0.54
1.11
< 0.001
0.003
0.039
< 0.001
0.005
0.011
0.009
0.048
< 0.001
0.004
0.043
< 0.001
[0.88, 0.96]
[1.03, 1.18]
[0.49, 0.98]
[0.65, 0.84]
[0.91, 0.98]
[0.86, 0.98]
[1.02, 1.15]
[1.02, 1.09]
[0.79, 0.94]
[0.88, 0.98]
[0.30, 0.98]
[1.06, 1.17]
Note: Six predictive variables entered into the logistic regressions: age, gender (refer-
ence value, female), length of the relationship, subjective health, having (or not) children
(reference value, no children), and satisfaction with the relationship. Only variables with
statistically significant odd ratios are included in the table.
to be confounded with age, the length of the relationship, was not a significant
predictor of any second-order category.
Relationship between Goals and
Satisfaction with the Relationship
As for satisfaction with the relationship, we found age-related point-biserial
correlations between this variable and the motivational orientation of goals as
defined by life span theory, and expressed in second-order categories for neutral
and positive stems. Point-biserial correlation informs us whether a continuous
(satisfaction) and a dichotomous (presence/absence of the goal) variable are
associated. In general, correlations were low or very low, although they followed
the expected trends. Thus, as shown in Figure 1, for responses to the neutral stem
(expectations for the future), in the youngest age groups very low correlations
were found between satisfaction with the relationship and both gains (r = 0.051;
n.s.) and maintenance (r = 0.146; n.s.), but in the positive direction in both cases.
As expected, the direction of these correlations differed in the oldest groups
130 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
Figure 1. Age-differential pattern of the associations between motivational
orientation of goals for the neutral stem and satisfaction with the relationship.
depending on the motivational orientation of goals: positive for maintenance
(r = 0.313; p < 0.01 in the 50-59 group and r = 0.191; p < 0.05 in the 60+ group),
negative for gains (r = –0.149; n.s. in the 50-59 group and r = –0.139; n.s. in the
60+ group). Results were similar for responses to the positive stem (aspirations),
as can be observed in Figure 2. However, in the youngest group, the correlation
between satisfaction with the relationship and gains was positive (r = 0.09; n.s.),
whereas the correlation between marital satisfaction and maintenance was nega-
tive (r = –0.126; n.s.), as expected.
As for the negative stem (see Figure 3), concerns related to the relationship
were negatively associated with satisfaction with the relationship in the younger
groups (r = –0.264, p < 0.01 in the 20-29 group and r = –0.294, p < 0.01 in the
30-39 group). Conversely, in these groups concerns focused on external issues
were associated with higher levels of satisfaction with the relationship (r = 0.265,
p < 0.01 in both groups). However, in older groups concerns focused on the
relationship and on external issues are no longer associated with satisfaction, and
this association is only present in the case of concerns related to aging and health.
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 131
Figure 2. Age-differential pattern of the associations between motivational
orientation of goals for the positive stem and satisfaction with the relationship.
DISCUSSION
Our study has examined goals related to couple relationships across adult-
hood. Specifically, it has had two objectives. The first was to explore the content
and motivational orientation of these goals, and the differences in these two
dimensions across age cohorts. The second was to ascertain whether the moti-
vational orientation of goals was related to satisfaction with the relationship.
Goals in Couple Relationships in Different Age Groups
As expected, the content of goals, aspirations, and concerns are associated with
age and these age-related changes roughly follow the path proposed by Erikson.
Thus, hopes in the youngest groups were related to consolidating relationships,
making sure that the normative features of an adult couple (living together,
132 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
Figure 3. Age-differential pattern of the associations between future
concerns and satisfaction with the relationship.
Note: Point-biserial correlation between “Focus on the relationship” and
“Satisfaction with the relationship” could not be calculated for the older group,
as nobody in that group mentioned such type of concern.
housing, having children) are acquired, and that the couple is strong enough to
survive (holding onto the positive aspects that the couple currently enjoy). In a
similar vein, the most frequently mentioned concerns in young adulthood were
related to the relationship ending or deteriorating and to the provision of the
resources (money, a job) necessary to ensure the viability of the couple. Such goals
are similar to the challenges in the intimacy vs. isolation conflict associated by
Erikson with young adulthood.
The aspirations of the middle-aged members of couples are, in part, similar to
the challenges that emerge in the generativity vs. stagnation stage identified by
Erikson (1982). For this cohort, being able to care for future generations is the
main mid-life challenge in the family arena. Thus, coping with the multiple
challenges involved in raising children and obtaining the necessary resources
to support the family (the generativity stage) reaches a peak between 30 and 50
years. Family, which is an expectation in earlier stages of a relationship, becomes
a source of concern in middle adulthood. However, according to our results,
participants in middle adulthood also seemed to be more conservative than
expansive, and mentioned stability and keeping the bond fresh. These concerns
would appear to be more closely related to the intimacy crisis and were more
prevalent than we would have expected. This result suggests that Erikson’s task
of couple intimacy remains a relevant issue across adulthood, rather than being a
challenge that is dealt with in young adulthood and solved in the early stages of
a couple’s relationship.
Finally, for older adults, external quests no longer seem to be attractive and
maintaining the affective quality of the bond is no longer particularly important.
For these individuals, aspirations and concerns are more basic: the relationship
must continue as it is, and threats posed by illness or death need to be kept at bay.
As in young adulthood, the concern for older adults is the permanence of the
relationship. However, unlike young adults, older cohorts seem not to perceive
the danger in the dissolution of the intimate bond or in the disappearance of
love, but rather in threats to the physical health of the two members. This result
confirms previous findings about the importance that health may have for the
aspirations of older adults (e.g., Cross & Markus, 1991; Hooker, 1992; Smith &
Freund, 2002). This issue is of such importance at this stage of life that it makes
itself manifest in the couple-related goals.
Life span theory proposes that aspirations can take three basic motivational
orientations: growth/gain, maintenance and prevention of loss (Baltes, 1997;
Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 2006; Baltes & Smith, 2004). However, the
participants in our study did not differentiate between these orientations when
asked to report neutral or positive expectations. In both cases, goals related to
gains and maintenance were clearly present in their responses, whilst comments
about losses or prevention of losses were virtually absent, only appearing when
participants were asked about concerns, but not when questioned about expec-
tations or hopes. As Ebner, Freund, and Baltes (2006) suggest, when people
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 133
consider their positive goals (e.g., hopes, things to achieve in the future),
maintenance and prevention of loss may represent just one dimension. As the
probability of losses increases (as is the case among the older cohorts), a way of
preventing such losses is to set and to try to attain maintenance goals. Thus,
maintenance could include upholding the stability of positive aspects in the
current situation or even continuing positive changes (e.g., Timmer, Steverink,
Stevens, & Dittman-Kohli, 2003), but it also subsumes goals aimed at prevent-
ing negative changes. Whatever the case, they both result in the maintenance of
the status quo.
The results obtained in response to the neutral and positive sentence stems
confirm the predictions of life span theory regarding age-related differences in
goal orientations. Younger adults showed, on average, a stronger orientation
toward gains than toward maintenance. As age increases, an orientation toward
further gains is less frequent and references to maintenance are more common.
In middle-aged groups (people in their 40s and 50s), the primary focus of
goals is no longer gains, but maintenance. Confirming these predictions, older
adults’ references to maintenance clearly outnumbered those related to further
gains. In the same vein, when asked to report concerns, most of them were
related with aging and health, foreseeing a future risk for the relationship in
this arena. Therefore, our results regarding couple-related goals seem to be a
particular case of a general, age-related trend of readjusting goals so that efforts
are increasingly directed not to gain, but rather to loss avoidance.
However, unlike other studies focused on goals from a life span perspective,
which report that growth can still be an important motivational orientation in
the second half of life (Smith & Freund, 2002; Heckhausen, Dixon, & Baltes,
1989) and that older adults tend to rate their goals as being similarly oriented
toward growth and maintenance (Ebner, Freund, & Baltes, 2006), our results
also suggest that the preference for maintenance, at least in couple-oriented
goals, may well begin in earlier stages of the life span, since comments about
gains were only more frequent than those about maintenance in the two
youngest age groups (from 20 to 39 years of age). The positive relationship
between an orientation toward maintenance and satisfaction with the rela-
tionship also suggests that being conservative in couple relationships is of
particular relevance.
Although our study did not provide any specific evidence to account for
this difference, the context to which the goals refer (i.e., the couple relation-
ship) may account in part for these results. For many people, the couple
relationship is likely to be a basic tenet of life, the fundamental bond on
which many other life priorities (and goals) hinge. If that bond were to dis-
appear or weaken, it would seriously disrupt their emotions, but also their
family, social ties, finances or life styles. Thus, it seems plausible that, once
consolidated, people become conservative and seek no changes in their
couple relationship.
134 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
Goals and Satisfaction with the Relationship
As for the second objective of the study, which sought to determine whether
the motivational orientation of goals was related to satisfaction with the relation-
ship, the results partially confirm our hypotheses concerning the age-related
associations between both factors. As expected, there were age-related differences
in the associations between the motivational orientation of goals and satisfaction
with the relationship. Specifically, with the exception of the youngest groups,
satisfaction with the relationship was negatively related to orientation toward
gains, and positively related to maintenance. The reverse tendency was expected
for the youngest cohorts, but it only appeared in the responses of the 20- to
29-year-old group for the positive stem. In the case of the neutral stem, satisfaction
with the relationship and a motivational orientation were not significantly related
in the youngest groups. As for concerns, our results were also coherent with
these trends: between the ages of 20 and 39, focusing on external issues (family
or finances, among others) seemed to be more beneficial for satisfaction than
expressing concerns limited to the relationship and its survival. However, after
the age of 40, focusing on external concerns was no longer associated with
satisfaction, while concerns about aging and health seemed to be more beneficial.
These results suggest that in middle and older adulthood individuals actually
benefitted from a maintenance orientation in their couple-related goals, a finding
that confirms our expectations. However, our results differ from those reported
elsewhere (e.g., Ebner, Freund, & Baltes, 2006) in two ways: firstly, the benefits
of focusing on maintenance began in earlier stages, were pervasive among age
cohorts of 40 and over, and did not increase with age. Secondly, satisfaction
with the relationship among the younger group did not benefit in any clear way
from focusing on gains, but among older groups it benefitted from focusing
on maintenance. These discrepancies are open to alternative interpretations.
For instance, motivational orientations in couple relationships might function
differently from those in other life contexts, favoring maintenance over change.
As previously discussed, couple relationships might be so fundamental that, once
the couple is formed, no further improvement in marital satisfaction can be
expected from aspiring to developmental-graded gains. However, emphasizing
maintenance and seeking to keep the bond safe (including concerns about health
and aging) may boost this kind of satisfaction.
Limitations and Future Perspectives
The study has several limitations which need to be taken into account in any
interpretation of the results. Firstly, this is a cross-sectional study, so develop-
mental and cohort effects are confused. For instance, age differences could have
been related to a generational change as regards people’s thinking as to what
makes a couple work and what is important in a couple relationship. Secondly, the
study was conducted with a sample gathered using a non-probabilistic procedure.
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 135
The sample only included people that attended civic centers and who volunteered
to participate in the study. Given the objectives and nature of the activities that
civic centers offer, they are likely to attract a certain profile of people, with a
particularly high level of social involvement and health (especially among
older people). This could have had an impact on the results and so they may not
be generalized to other populations. However, as we have shown, the association
of goals with age and satisfaction seems to remain stable even when other
potentially confounding variables, such as subjective health, having children
(or not) or the length of the relationship, were taken into account, which suggests
that the associations are relatively solid. Thirdly, in general, only one goal per
stem was reported. This suggests that the participant probably had to select
one goal from a range of goals that people may have for their future. Thus, we
were not able to study how wide the goal repertoire was or to examine alternative
expectations. However, the inclusion of three different stems, and the fact that
it would seem that individuals select the most salient response in sentence-
completion methods (e.g., Nuttin, 1985), suggests that the couple-related goals
analyzed were sufficiently relevant.
Despite these limitations, our study shows that there are specific goals asso-
ciated with couple relationships and, in turn, it emphasizes the importance of
these goals for understanding such relationships, an issue that has received little
attention in the literature. Our results contribute to research findings on goals
in couple relationships showing how these goals change as people grow older,
suggesting a shift in orientation from gain toward maintenance at an earlier age
than is typically reported for goals in other life contexts. Our results also stress
the changing link between these goals and satisfaction with the relationship
across different stages of the life span. This link has obvious implications for
practical interventions involving couples, which need to take expectations,
aspirations and concerns into consideration and reflect on how they might be
best adjusted to different life stages.
Finally, the study opens up new lines of future research. For instance, it
would be interesting to see if the age-related trends identified by the study
continue in the latter stages of life, a period in which the resources available
decrease dramatically and illness and dependency are no longer future concerns,
but often daily-life problems (Baltes & Smith, 2003). Additionally, taking
into account the goals of both members in the couple relationship, focusing
above all on areas of agreement and disagreement, could help to shed further
light on the association between goals and satisfaction with the relationship
identified in our study, since such satisfaction might not only be related to the
content and orientation of these goals, but also to the degree of agreement between
the partners’ goals.
In any case, understanding couples as dynamic, goal-oriented systems should
help us understand the changes they undergo and the degree of satisfaction
they provide their respective members.
136 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (2004). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 1269-1287.
An, J. S., & Cooney, T. S. (2006). Psychological well-being in mid to late life: The role
of generativity development and parent–child relationships across the lifespan.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 410-421.
Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection,
optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American
Psychologist, 52, 366-380.
Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (2006). Life span theory in develop-
mental psychology. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed.,
pp. 569-664). New York: Wiley.
Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2003). New frontiers in the future of aging: From successful
aging of the young old to the dilemmas of the fourth age. Gerontology, 49, 123-135.
Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2004). Lifespan psychology: From developmental contextualism
to developmental biocultural co-constructivism. Research in Human Development, 1,
123-143.
Black, M. E. A., Stein, K. F., & Loveland-Cherry, C. J. (2001). Older women and
mammography screening behavior: Do possible selves contribute? Health Education
& Behavior, 28, 200-216.
Bloom, K., Delmore-Ko, P., Masataka, N., & Carli, L. (1999). Possible self as parent
in Canadian, Italian, and Japanese young adults. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 31, 198-207.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Maier, G. W. (1999). The pursuit of personal goals:
A motivational approach to well-being and life adjustment. In J. Brandtstädter, &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Action and self development: Theory and research through the
life span (pp. 169-196). London: Sage.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously:
A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-187.
Chalk, L. M., Meara, N. M., & Day, J. D. (1994). Possible selves and occupational choices.
Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 364-383.
Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love
and satisfaction in Mexican-American and Anglo-American couples. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 74, 408-415.
Coombs, R. H. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family
Relations, 40, 97-102.
Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the lifespan. Human Develop-
ment, 34, 230-255.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of
stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dittmann-Kohli, F., & Westerhof, G. J. (1997). The SELE-sentence completion ques-
tionnaire: A new instrument for the assessment of personal meaning in research on
aging. Anuario de Psicologia, 73, 7-18.
Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. C., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal
goal orientation from young to late adulthood: From striving for gains to maintenance
and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21, 664-678.
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 137
Emmons, R. A. (1996). Striving and feeling: Personal goals and subjective well-being.
In P. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 313-337). New
York: Guilford.
Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton.
Frazier, L. D., Johnson, P. M. G., Gema, K., & Kafka, C. L. (2002). Psychosocial influences
on possible selves: A comparison of three cohorts of older adults. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 308-317.
Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review
of Psychology, 49, 169-197.
Haring-Hidore, M., Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Witter, R. A. (1985). Marital status and
subjective well-being: A research synthesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47,
947-953.
Heckhausen, J., Dixon, R. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1989). Gains and losses in develop-
ment throughout adulthood as perceived by different age groups. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 109-121.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988) A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 50, 93-88.
Hooker, K. (1992). Possible selves and perceived health in older adults and college
students. Journals of Gerontology, 47, P85-P95.
Hooker, K. (1999). Possible selves in adulthood: Incorporating teleonomic relevance
into studies of the self. In F. Blanchard-Fields & T. Hess (Eds.), Social cognition and
aging (pp. 97-122). New York: Academic Press.
Hooker, K., Fiese, B. H., Jenkins, L., Morfei, M. Z., & Schwagler, J. (1996). Possible
selves among parents of infants and preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 32,
542-550.
Little, B. R. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and method for investigation. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 15, 273-309.
Little, B. R. (1999). Personal projects and social ecology: Themes and variations across
the life span. In J. Brandtstädter & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Action and self-development:
Theory and research through the lifespan (pp. 197-221). London: Sage.
Luborsky, M. R. (1994). The identification and analysis of themes and patterns. In J. F.
Gubrium & A. Sankar (Eds.), Qualitative methods in aging research (pp. 189-210).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Meegan, S. P., & Berg, C. A. (2001). Whose life task is it anyway? Social appraisal and
life task pursuit. Journal of Personality, 61, 363-389.
Meegan, S. P., & Goedereis, E. A. (2006). Life task appraisals, spouse involvement in
strategies, and daily affect among short- and long-term married couples. Journal of
Family Psychology, 20, 319-327.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security
in couple relationships: A systemic model and its implications for family dynamics.
Family Process, 41, 405-434.
Nuttin, J. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Onrusta, S. A., & Cuijpers, P. (2006). Mood and anxiety disorders in widowhood:
A systematic review. Aging and Mental Health, 10, 327-334
Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 70, 274-287.
138 / VILLAR AND VILLAMIZAR
Robinson, B. S., Davis, K. L., & Meara, N. M. (2003). Motivational attributes of occupa-
tional possible selves for low-income rural women. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
50, 156-164.
Rothermund, K., & Brandstadter, J. (2003). Depression in later life: Cross-sequential
patterns and possible determinants. Psychology and Aging, 18, 80-90.
Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). To the frontiers of life goal research. In P. Schmuck
& K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 1-17).
Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivings
and personality development across the life-course. Developmental Psychology, 37,
491-501.
Smith, J., & Freund, A. F. (2002). The dynamics of possible selves in old age. Journal of
Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P492-P500.
Stack, S., & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 527-536.
Timmer, E., Steverink, N., Stevens, N., & Dittmann-Kohli, F. (2003). Personal concepts
of stability in the second half of life. Journal of Aging Studies,17, 427-443.
Direct reprint requests to:
Feliciano Villar
Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology
University of Barcelona
Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron 171
Barcelona 08035, Spain
e-mail: fvillar@ub.edu
GOALS IN COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS / 139