This study aimed to investigate the predictive power of aspects of the romantic relationship on subjective well-being, beyond what is explained by sociodemographic and personality variables. Participants were 490 heterosexual adults (68.8% women), all involved in a monogamous romantic relationship. Romantic relationship variables were substantial predictors of the three components of subjective well-being, explaining 21% of the variance in life satisfaction, 19% of the variance in positive affect, and 15% of the variance in negative affect, in addition to sociodemographic variables and personality factors. Still, relationship satisfaction was one of the main predictors of subjective well-being. The results highlight the importance of romantic relationships over subjective well-being, suggesting that cultivating satisfying romantic relationships contributes to a happier life.
Subjective well-being (SWB) generally refers to “the extent to which a person believes or feels that his or her life is doing well” (
Numerous studies has been conducted in all parts of the world to investigate possible predictors of SWB (for a review see
Among the demographic variables associated with SWB, gender, age, financial status, and religion are frequently studied. However, for some of these (e.g., gender and age), the results are often divergent from one another. Even in researches with large representative population samples or in meta-analyses, findings on gender differences in SWB are inconsistent (for a review, see
Having children is another demographic variable that seems to impact subjective well-being; however, findings are often conflicting.
With respect to other demographic variables (e.g., economic resources and religiosity), the results have been more uniform. Economic resources are consistently positively associated with SWB (e.g.,
Although the relationship between demographic variables and SWB has been widely investigated, they explain only a small amount of SWB variance (
Romantic relationship variables have also been associated with SWB, especially relationship status. For example, studies have found that married people have higher levels of subjective well-being than other marital statuses (e.g.,
Faced with the frequency of consensual unions (without marriage) in western cultures, researchers have investigated differences in well-being between people married and those in a consensual union.
The length of the romantic relationship can also be a factor that impacts subjective well-being. However, few studies investigated the impact of relationship length and SWB, and there is no consensus on the relationship between these variables. While
People who are in happy relationships report high levels of subjective well-being (
A possible explanation for the observed relationships between relationship satisfaction and SWB may be given by theories using bottom-up processing models (see
Thus, the greater the accessibility and intensity of attitudes of specific aspects of life, the more these aspects will be used to assess satisfaction with one’s own life (
Many variables explain variations in well-being levels, and there is no consensus on all those that best predict SWB. Besides, culture plays a critical role in SWB (see
Participants were 490 heterosexual adults, with a mean age of 33.9 years (
Most participants lived in the southern (41.4%) and southeast (37.1%) regions of Brazil, the others were from the northeast (11.6%), central west (6.1%), northern (1.0%), and the others were outside Brazil when they responded the questionnaire (2.7%). Regarding education, 42% participants reported having completed graduate studies (in particular, 17.3% higher education specialization, 17.6% master degree, and 7.1% doctoral degree). Other 22.8% of participants were attending or attended (without having completed) graduate studies; 20.0% of the participants reported having just completed higher education; 14.1% said they had incomplete higher education, and 1.1% reported having just completed high school. The mean of monthly per capita income of the participants was R$ 4,098.17 (
Data were collected through an online questionnaire available on the internet containing sociodemographic questions (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, education, relationship length, religiosity, family income, cohabitation of partner with participant). The questionnaire also contained scales to measure relationship satisfaction, personality and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect, and life satisfaction).
Relationship satisfaction was measured using the RRLS-R (
PDS-R (
PANAS (
Life Satisfaction Scale (
The questionnaire had different versions so that words, when necessary, were flexed according to the gender of the participant and his/her respective partner, in order to avoid bias in the answer (
Participants were recruited through email invitations and social networking sites. The invitation emails were sent to a list of individuals who had previously agreed to participate in our laboratory research. Concerning social networks, invitations were posted on the researchers’ websites, research authors’ laboratory websites, and social scientific research-related-websites. Those who accepted to participate had to click on the address link provided in the invitation and were directed to the questionnaire. This research was sent to the Ethics Committee on Human Research and obtained a favorable agreement.
Data cleaning was performed, excluding incorrect answers to control questions. Then, data scatter plots were constructed in order to check the distribution of variables visually. As they had substantial negative asymmetry, the variables per capita income and relationship length were transformed into logarithms. The dichotomous variables gender, having children, relationship status (consensual union, married, cohabitation) were transformed into dummy variables of 0 (being male; having no children; no living in a consensual union, no married, no cohabitation with a romantic partner) and 1 (being female; having children; living in a consensual union, married, cohabitation with a romantic partner). The religious practice variable was coded as 0 =
Initially, we calculated Pearson’s correlation coefficients, as can be seen in
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Life satisfaction | (.87) | ||||||||||||||||
2. Positive affect | .59*** | (.89) | |||||||||||||||
3. Negative affect | -.46*** | -.51*** | (.90) | ||||||||||||||
4. Gender | -.07 | -.02 | .01 | ||||||||||||||
5. Age | -.01 | -.03 | .01 | .13** | |||||||||||||
6. Per capita income (log) | .18*** | -.001 | -.02 | .05 | .25*** | ||||||||||||
7. Religious practice | .11* | .15** | -.10* | -.15** | .12** | -.04 | |||||||||||
8. Having children | -.04 | .04 | .01 | -.01 | .57*** | -.02 | .18*** | ||||||||||
9. Extroversion | .09* | .25*** | -.08 | -.14** | .05 | .01 | .15** | .12** | (.84) | ||||||||
10. Agreeableness | .13** | .24*** | -.12** | -.06 | -.03 | -.06 | .11* | .02 | .45*** | (.78) | |||||||
11. Neuroticism | -.30*** | -.24*** | .46*** | -.22*** | -.16*** | -.02 | .001 | -.06 | .10* | -.16*** | (.68) | ||||||
12. Conscientiousness | .17*** | .25*** | -.14** | -.24*** | -.02 | -.01 | .14** | -.01 | .10* | .21*** | -.12** | (.72) | |||||
13. Openness | .10* | .22*** | -.07 | .02 | .07 | -.05 | -.12** | .03 | .32*** | .32*** | -.09 | .09* | (.60) | ||||
14. Relat satisfaction | .51*** | .47*** | -.45*** | .01 | -.03 | .09 | .04 | -.09* | .02 | .004 | -.15** | .04 | -.03 | (.91) | |||
15. Relat length (log) | -.02 | -.06 | .04 | -.002 | .59*** | .10* | .11* | .49*** | -.01 | -.09 | -.03 | .00 | -.04 | -.07 | |||
16. Consensual union | -.11* | -.09* | .12* | -.07 | .03 | .04 | -.09* | -.05 | .03 | -.06 | .12** | -.08 | .10* | -.18*** | .003 | ||
17. Married | .12** | .08 | -.06 | -.02 | .33*** | .12** | .15*** | .39*** | .003 | -.02 | -.09* | .05 | -.05 | .13** | .50*** | -.56*** | |
18. Cohabitation | .04 | -.002 | .03 | -.08 | .40*** | .18*** | .05 | .39*** | .03 | -.11* | .01 | -.03 | .05 | -.02 | .56*** | .33*** | .54*** |
*
Variable | 95% CI for |
β | Adjusted |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.05 | .04 | .05*** | ||||||
Constant | 2.57*** | 1.52 | 3.63 | 0.54 | ||||
Per capita income (log) | 0.63*** | 0.33 | 0.92 | 0.15 | .18*** | |||
Religious practice | 0.18** | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.07 | .12** | |||
.16 | .15 | .12*** | ||||||
Constant | 2.30** | 0.86 | 3.74 | 0.73 | ||||
Per capita income (log) | 0.62*** | 0.34 | 0.90 | 0.14 | .18*** | |||
Religious practice | 0.15* | 0.02 | 0.28 | 0.07 | .10* | |||
Extroversion | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.15 | 0.04 | .06 | |||
Agreeableness | 0.02 | -0.11 | 0.15 | 0.07 | .02 | |||
Neuroticism | -0.31*** | -0.41 | -0.22 | 0.05 | -.29*** | |||
Conscientiousness | 0.13* | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.05 | .11* | |||
Openness | 0.08 | -0.04 | 0.20 | 0.06 | .06 | |||
.37 | .36 | .21*** | ||||||
Constant | 0.79 | -0.49 | 2.07 | 0.65 | ||||
Per capita income (log) | 0.49*** | 0.24 | 0.74 | 0.13 | .14*** | |||
Religious practice | 0.13* | 0.01 | 0.24 | 0.06 | .08* | |||
Extroversion | 0.03 | -0.05 | 0.11 | 0.04 | .03 | |||
Agreeableness | 0.05 | -0.07 | 0.16 | 0.06 | .03 | |||
Neuroticism | -0.23*** | -0.32 | -0.15 | 0.04 | -.21*** | |||
Conscientiousness | 0.11* | 0.03 | 0.20 | 0.04 | .10* | |||
Openness | 0.10* | <0.01 | 0.21 | 0.05 | .08* | |||
Consensual union | 0.04 | -0.21 | 0.30 | 0.13 | .02 | |||
Married | 0.05 | -0.17 | 0.28 | 0.12 | .02 | |||
Relationship satisfaction | 0.31*** | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.02 | .46*** |
*
Variable | 95% CI for |
β | Adjusted |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.02 | .02 | .02** | ||||||
Constant | 3.18*** | 3.08 | 3.28 | 0.05 | ||||
Religious practice | 0.13** | 0.05 | 0.20 | 0.04 | .15** | |||
.19 | .18 | .17*** | ||||||
Constant | 2.05*** | 1.51 | 2.60 | 0.28 | ||||
Religious practice | 0.10** | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.04 | .11** | |||
Extroversion | 0.09*** | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.02 | .18*** | |||
Agreeableness | 0.02 | -0.05 | 0.10 | 0.04 | .03 | |||
Neuroticism | -0.14*** | -0.19 | -0.08 | 0.03 | -.22*** | |||
Conscientiousness | 0.11*** | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.03 | .17*** | |||
Openness | 0.10** | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.03 | .14** | |||
.38 | .37 | .19*** | ||||||
Constant | 0.99*** | 0.48 | 1.50 | 0.26 | ||||
Religious practice | 0.09** | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.03 | .10** | |||
Extroversion | 0.07*** | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.02 | .15*** | |||
Agreeableness | 0.04 | -0.03 | 0.10 | 0.03 | .05 | |||
Neuroticism | -0.09*** | -0.14 | -0.05 | 0.02 | -.15*** | |||
Conscientiousness | 0.10*** | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.02 | .16*** | |||
Openness | 0.11*** | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.03 | .16*** | |||
Consensual union | 0.02 | -0.10 | 0.13 | 0.06 | .01 | |||
Relationship satisfaction | 0.16*** | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.01 | .44*** |
**
Variable | 95% CI for |
β | Adjusted |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.10 | .008 | .10* | ||||||
Constant | 2.21*** | 2.11 | 2.32 | 0.05 | ||||
Religious practice | -0.09* | -0.18 | -0.01 | 0.04 | -.10* | |||
.23 | .22 | .22*** | ||||||
Constant | 1.47*** | 0.94 | 2.01 | 0.27 | ||||
Religious practice | -0.08* | -0.16 | -0.01 | 0.04 | -.09* | |||
Agreeableness | -0.02 | -0.09 | 0.04 | 0.03 | -.03 | |||
Neuroticism | 0.30*** | 0.25 | 0.36 | 0.03 | .45*** | |||
Conscientiousness | -0.05 | -0.11 | 0.01 | 0.03 | -.06 | |||
.38 | .37 | .15*** | ||||||
Constant | 2.46*** | 1.94 | 2.98 | 0.26 | ||||
Religious practice | -0.07* | -0.14 | 0.00 | 0.03 | -.08* | |||
Agreeableness | -0.03 | -0.09 | 0.03 | 0.03 | -.04 | |||
Neuroticism | 0.26*** | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.02 | .39*** | |||
Conscientiousness | -0.04 | -0.09 | 0.01 | 0.03 | -.06 | |||
Consensual union | -0.03 | -0.16 | 0.10 | 0.07 | -.02 | |||
Relationship satisfaction | -0.16*** | -0.19 | -0.13 | 0.01 | -.39*** |
*
Logarithm of per capita income and religious practice were entered at Step 1, explaining 4.52% of the variance in life satisfaction,
Religious practice, at Step 1, significantly accounted for 2.19% of the variance in positive affect,
Religious practice, at Step 1, significantly accounted for 10.1% of the variance in positive affect,
This study aimed to investigate the predictive power of variables concerning romantic relationship, such as length of the relationship, relationship status (consensual union, married, cohabitation with a partner), and satisfaction with the romantic relationship, on subjective well-being, beyond what is explained by sociodemographic (gender, age, per capita income, religious practice and having children) and personality (extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness to experience) variables. The results revealed that the romantic relationship variables are important predictors of SWB, adding explanation beyond the sociodemographic and personality variables.
However, neither relationship length nor relationship status (consensual union, marriage, cohabitation) impacted SWB, although previous studies have shown an association between relationship status (e.g., married) and life satisfaction (e.g.,
This study’s findings of the impact of relationship satisfaction on SWB are consistent with other researches (e.g.,
These results suggest that to evaluate their own life, individuals rely on assessments of specific aspects of life, in this case, the romantic relationship. This provides additional evidence for theories based on bottom-up processing models, which assume that life situations and events influence subjective well-being (see
In addition to relationship satisfaction, sociodemographic and personality variables also predict subjective well-being. The results suggest that sociodemographic variables predict life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect from the tested models. Per capita income was a positive predictor of life satisfaction. This result is in line with previous studies (e.g.,
Religious practice was also a positive predictor of life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect. The more involved with religion, the higher the subjective well-being levels of the participants. This result supports other studies that found a positive relationship between religiosity and subjective well-being (e.g.,
Regarding personality traits, life satisfaction was predicted negatively by neuroticism and positively by conscientiousness and openness. Positive affect was predicted positively by extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness, and negatively by neuroticism. Finally, negative affect was predicted positively by neuroticism. Among personality factors, neuroticism was the main explanatory variable for life satisfaction and negative affect, consistent with that found in the meta-analysis of
Extroversion was an important predictor of positive affect, which is convergent with many other research results (e.g.,
The results of this study also showed the importance of the factors conscientiousness and openness in the prediction of life satisfaction and positive affect. These two factors are rarely studied as predictors of SWB (
In addition, in this research, only linear relationships between the study variables were investigated. Variables that did not show a statistically significant correlation with the predicted variable were not included in the regression analysis. These variables may have a non-linear relationship with the variables of SWB. Studies have found a positive quadratic relationship between age and well-being (for a review, see
Given the above, our results showed important predictors of SWB, especially personality factors and relationship satisfaction. It can be concluded that, from the results of this study, being satisfied with one’s own romantic relationship proved beneficial for the subjective well-being of the individual. Still, SWB seems to reflect the assessment of important aspects of life, such as romantic relationships. Therefore, it is important to cultivate healthy and happy romantic relationships to live a happier and more fulfilling life. These findings may support public policy and clinical practice, as they suggest that helping people improve their romantic relationships can positively impact subjective well-being.
The authors have no funding to report.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report.