Neuroticism and Relationships: What Research Shows
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism is one of the most consistent personality correlates of romantic relationship quality. Across studies, people who score higher on neuroticism tend to report somewhat lower relationship satisfaction and quality on average, and their partners sometimes report lower satisfaction as well. The association is real enough to reproduce across many samples, but it is not a verdict on any individual relationship. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait, relationship quality is a separate outcome, and a correlation between them does not mean that a person who scores high on neuroticism is destined to have an unhappy relationship.
The strongest quantitative summary is a 2025 meta-analysis of 148 published studies. It found an overall correlation of r = −.238 between neuroticism and relationship quality, with broadly similar male and female actor and partner correlations. The same review found meaningful variation by world region, measurement tool, participant age, and relationship length, while race, sexual orientation, and whether an effect came from cross-sectional or longitudinal data did not significantly moderate the association in the meta-analytic tests (Esplin et al., 2025). That effect is substantial enough to matter scientifically and modest enough that it cannot identify the quality, stability, or future of a particular couple.
This article explains what the neuroticism–relationship association actually means, how actor and partner effects work, which emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and stress processes may help account for it, what longitudinal research can and cannot establish about causality, why personality matching is a weak shortcut, and why neuroticism should not be confused with attachment anxiety, momentary negative affect, psychiatric symptoms, or a clinical diagnosis. For the broader Big Five construct, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model.
Neuroticism and relationships: the short answer
Higher neuroticism is associated with lower average relationship quality, especially lower relationship satisfaction, but the association is probabilistic. A score on a personality inventory does not tell you whether a relationship is healthy, whether two people are compatible, whether a partner is caring or trustworthy, or whether a couple will stay together. Relationship outcomes arise from two people, their histories, behavior, communication, external stress, resources, expectations, health, culture, and changing circumstances.
The best-supported picture is transactional. Neuroticism can shape how strongly negative emotion is experienced, how ambiguous partner behavior is interpreted, what happens during conflict, and how stressful circumstances are processed. Those processes can affect relationship satisfaction. At the same time, relationship experiences can accompany changes in cognition, self-evaluation, and personality over time. Longitudinal evidence therefore supports pathways and coupled change, while falling short of a universal one-way causal rule.
Older meta-analytic evidence already showed that lower neuroticism, higher agreeableness, higher conscientiousness, and higher extraversion were associated with greater satisfaction among intimate partners (Malouff et al., 2010). A recent review of personality in intimate relationships reaches a similar broad conclusion while emphasizing that romantic partners show only weak personality similarity and that personality associations with satisfaction and dissolution need to be understood alongside the diversity of modern relationships (Visser & Bedard, 2025).
What neuroticism means in relationship research
In contemporary personality science, neuroticism is a broad dimension describing relatively enduring individual differences in negative emotionality, sensitivity to threat and frustration, emotional reactivity, and proneness to distress. It is usually treated as a continuum rather than a category. Emotional stability is commonly the lower pole of the same broad dimension. In the BFI-2, the corresponding Big Five domain is named Negative Emotionality rather than Neuroticism and is organized into Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets (Soto & John, 2017).
Measurement matters. The NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI, the BFI and BFI-2, IPIP-based scales, and Eysenck instruments do not use identical items, facet structures, score ranges, norms, or scoring procedures. A raw score of 30, a percentile of 80, or a label such as “high” has no universal meaning outside the instrument, normative sample, scoring method, and population in which it was obtained. Relationship studies also vary in whether they assess a broad neuroticism domain, emotional stability, negative emotionality, or narrower components.
Neuroticism is also distinct from momentary negative affect. Negative affect is a state or tendency to experience unpleasant emotions and may fluctuate over hours or days. Trait anxiety is narrower than neuroticism and focuses on a relatively stable tendency toward anxiety. Current anxiety, depressed mood, irritability, and stress can be symptoms or states. A screening score summarizes responses on a particular instrument. A psychiatric diagnosis requires disorder-specific criteria, duration, severity, impairment, context, and clinical judgment. High neuroticism by itself is not a psychiatric diagnosis.
How strong is the relationship between neuroticism and relationship quality?
The 2025 meta-analysis by Esplin and colleagues provides the clearest answer currently available. Across 148 published studies, the aggregate association was r = −.238 (Esplin et al., 2025). In practical terms, people higher in neuroticism tended to report lower relationship quality, but there was extensive overlap between people at different trait levels. Many people high in neuroticism report satisfying relationships, and many people low in neuroticism report dissatisfied relationships. The correlation describes a population-level pattern; it is not an individual prediction.
The phrase relationship quality is itself broad. Studies may measure global satisfaction, adjustment, happiness, intimacy, commitment, conflict, or composite quality. Different instruments can produce different effect sizes, and the Esplin meta-analysis found that the measurement tool significantly moderated the neuroticism–quality association. This is one reason it is misleading to translate a personality score into a fixed statement about a person’s romantic life.
The association also has a long research history. A 2010 meta-analysis based on 19 samples and 3,848 participants found that low neuroticism was one of four Big Five characteristics associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Malouff et al., 2010). The newer Esplin meta-analysis substantially expands the evidence base and is especially useful because it directly separates actor and partner effects and examines moderators.
Actor effects and partner effects are different
Relationship data are dyadic: two people contribute information, and their outcomes are statistically interdependent. An actor effect asks whether a person’s own neuroticism is associated with that person’s own relationship satisfaction. A partner effect asks whether one partner’s neuroticism is associated with the other partner’s satisfaction. These are different questions. A strong actor effect does not automatically imply a strong partner effect.
In three large, nationally representative married samples from Australia, the United Kingdom, and Germany, actor personality effects accounted for about 6% of the variance in relationship satisfaction, while partner effects accounted for about 1% to 3%; partner effects were largest for agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Personality similarity added less than 0.5% after actor and partner traits were considered (Dyrenforth et al., 2010). These percentages refer to the combined personality models in those samples, not to neuroticism alone.
A recent nine-year study of 972 partners likewise found substantial actor effects of Big Five traits on relationship satisfaction but negligible partner effects in that particular dataset; lower neuroticism and higher conscientiousness were especially associated with long-term satisfaction (Bach et al., 2025). This does not erase partner effects found elsewhere. It shows that their size depends on sample, design, measurement, and analytic model.
Method can also change apparent actor and partner effects. In a study of 186 couples, estimates differed depending on whether personality and satisfaction were measured using self-report or partner report. When shared method variance was addressed by combining information sources, actor and partner effects were more similar than some single-method analyses suggested (Orth, 2013). In relationship science, who reports what is therefore part of the substantive question, not merely a technical detail.
Why might neuroticism be associated with lower relationship satisfaction?
The strongest contemporary explanation is not that neuroticism produces one fixed relationship behavior. The Esplin meta-analysis organizes the evidence around a sequence in which neuroticism can influence emotions, interpretations, and behaviors, which then shape relationship experience (Esplin et al., 2025). Each link in that sequence is probabilistic and context-sensitive.
Emotional reactivity and stress
People higher in neuroticism tend, on average, to experience more frequent or intense negative emotion and to react more strongly to stressors. In a relationship, this may amplify the emotional impact of criticism, uncertainty, disappointment, conflict, or external pressure. The relevant process is not simply “being emotional.” Emotional responses arise from the interaction between trait tendencies and actual events. The same person can react very differently across safe, supportive, chaotic, or highly stressful contexts.
Stress is especially important because personality and relationship behavior do not operate in a vacuum. A pooled analysis of 10 longitudinal studies involving 1,104 married couples found that both partners’ enduring qualities, including neuroticism, attachment anxiety, and attachment avoidance, predicted changes in marital satisfaction through observed behavior, and that the effects of behavior depended on both partners’ stress (McNulty et al., 2021). For a broader treatment of personality and stress processes, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery.
Interpretation of ambiguous partner behavior
A partner is late, quiet, distracted, brief in a message, or less affectionate than usual. Such cues are often ambiguous. Research suggests that relationship-specific interpretation can help connect neuroticism with satisfaction. In a dyadic study of 210 couples, a tendency to interpret ambiguous partner and relationship scenarios negatively statistically mediated the association between neuroticism and relationship satisfaction, even when general interpretation bias and attachment styles were controlled (Finn et al., 2013).
This finding is more precise than saying that people high in neuroticism “think negatively.” The study measured a relationship-specific interpretation bias and tested it within a particular dyadic model. It therefore supports one cognitive pathway, not a universal claim about every person high in neuroticism or every ambiguous interaction.
Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes can operate together
A large longitudinal analysis of 2,090 heterosexual couples from the German Family Panel examined cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes simultaneously. Both partners’ neuroticism predicted process variables that in turn predicted their own and each other’s relationship satisfaction, with cognitive processes playing a particularly important role (Kreuzer & Gollwitzer, 2022). The value of this study is its dyadic design: relationship satisfaction is treated as something shaped within a two-person system rather than as a property of one personality alone.
Attributions and conflict behavior
Other work points to attribution and behavior. In 268 Chinese couples followed across three annual waves, researchers tested pathways from neuroticism to later marital attribution and aggression and then to later marital satisfaction. Several indirect paths were identified, illustrating how interpretation and interaction can connect personality with couple outcomes in a specific cultural and marital context (Cao et al., 2019). These pathways should be read as model-based longitudinal evidence, not as proof that high neuroticism inevitably produces aggression.
Facets can matter more than a broad label
Broad neuroticism scores combine distinguishable tendencies. In 301 couples, depression and angry-hostility facets showed similarly negative actor effects on marital satisfaction, but only angry hostility showed a significant negative partner effect when the facets were considered together (Renshaw et al., 2010). That pattern helps explain why a single broad score cannot tell you what will happen interpersonally. Two people with similar domain scores can have different facet profiles and different relationship behavior.
Does neuroticism cause relationship problems?
The evidence supports association, temporal ordering in some studies, plausible mechanisms, and reciprocal change. It does not establish a simple universal causal statement such as “neuroticism causes bad relationships.” Causal inference is difficult because neuroticism correlates with current distress, stress exposure, attachment-related tendencies, self-esteem, health, and other variables that can also influence relationship reports and behavior. Partners also influence each other over time.
Classic longitudinal work followed 60 newlywed couples for four years. Neuroticism was associated with the initial level of marital satisfaction but did not add unique prediction of the rate of satisfaction change once initial differences were distinguished from trajectories (Karney & Bradbury, 1997). This is an important reminder that predicting who begins a study less satisfied is different from predicting whose satisfaction will decline faster.
A different developmental result came from a longitudinal study in which adolescent neuroticism measured at age 15 was not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction in midlife, while concurrent neuroticism measured at age 37 was associated with it (Möller, 2004). The measures, developmental periods, and historical sample differ from many modern studies, but the finding illustrates why researchers should not treat a trait score taken decades earlier as a fixed forecast of adult relationship outcomes.
At the population level, the 2025 meta-analysis found that cross-sectional versus longitudinal design did not significantly moderate the overall neuroticism–relationship quality association (Esplin et al., 2025). Longitudinal data are valuable because they establish time order and change, but longitudinal association by itself is still not equivalent to experimental causal evidence.
Relationships and personality can change together
Personality traits have substantial rank-order stability, yet they are not frozen. Relationship experiences can occur alongside personality development. In the MIDUS study, 1,965 adults contributed data used to model Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction over time. Neuroticism and relationship satisfaction showed linked patterns of change, consistent with the possibility of ongoing reciprocal influence rather than a one-way path from trait to relationship outcome (O’Meara & South, 2019).
A more process-specific study followed 245 young adult couples across four assessments over nine months. Within-person decreases in negative relationship-specific interpretation bias predicted declines in the individual’s own neuroticism, with a trend toward a partner effect (Finn et al., 2015). This result is compatible with personality–relationship transactions. It does not mean that a satisfying partnership “cures” neuroticism, and it does not establish that changing one interpretation pattern will produce the same trait change for every person.
It is also essential to separate trait change from state fluctuation. Feeling calmer for several weeks, reporting fewer anxiety symptoms, or experiencing a period of relationship security is not automatically evidence of durable change in neuroticism. Stable trait change is evaluated across repeated personality assessments and time. Symptom improvement, relationship improvement, and personality change are related but distinct outcomes.
Does personality matching make a relationship better?
The appealing idea that couples thrive because their personalities match receives much weaker support than actor effects and some partner effects. In the large three-country study by Dyrenforth and colleagues, similarity explained less than 0.5% of the variance in relationship and life satisfaction after actor and partner personality were considered (Dyrenforth et al., 2010).
A longitudinal study of 4,464 romantic couples similarly examined actor, partner, and similarity effects using response-surface methods. Actor personality effects were the most consistent; similarity effects were small and did not support a simple “more alike is always better” rule (van Scheppingen et al., 2019). The nine-year study by Bach and colleagues also found little evidence that partner effects or trait congruence rivaled the importance of one’s own personality in long-term satisfaction (Bach et al., 2025).
This means there is no evidence-based compatibility formula in which two neuroticism scores can be compared to decide whether a couple is a good match. Similarity is only one possible feature of a relationship, and the relevant outcomes depend much more broadly on each person’s characteristics, behavior, goals, stress, and the relationship context.
Neuroticism is not the same as attachment anxiety
Neuroticism and attachment anxiety can correlate because both involve sensitivity to threat and negative emotion, but they belong to different conceptual systems. Neuroticism is a broad personality trait that applies across many situations. Attachment anxiety concerns expectations, worries, and behavior in close attachment relationships, especially fear of rejection or abandonment and heightened concern about a partner’s availability. Attachment avoidance concerns discomfort with closeness or dependence.
The constructs remain distinguishable in research. Finn and colleagues found that relationship-specific interpretation bias mediated the neuroticism–satisfaction association even after attachment styles were controlled (Finn et al., 2013). McNulty and colleagues modeled neuroticism, attachment anxiety, and attachment avoidance as separate enduring qualities and found distinct patterns within a broader stress-and-behavior system (McNulty et al., 2021). For the attachment construct and its relationship implications, see Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication.
Likewise, anxious attachment should not be inferred from a high neuroticism score. A person may score high in neuroticism without showing a strongly anxious attachment pattern, and a person may show attachment anxiety without being globally high in neuroticism. If the question is specifically about attachment anxiety, the relevant construct is covered in Anxious Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and What Research Shows.
Neuroticism, mental health, and relationship distress
Neuroticism is associated with many forms of psychopathology at the group level, and psychiatric symptoms can themselves affect relationships. This creates an important interpretive problem: a study linking neuroticism with relationship dissatisfaction may partly reflect overlapping distress, current symptoms, or shared risk processes. Researchers attempt to separate these factors in different ways, but no single study can remove every source of overlap.
High neuroticism does not mean that a person has an anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, PTSD, ADHD, autism, a personality disorder, or any other clinical condition. It is a broad personality risk factor and correlate, not a diagnosis. For the clinical-risk boundary, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor. Relationship distress likewise is not itself proof of a psychiatric disorder.
This distinction matters in everyday interpretation. If a couple is struggling because one partner is experiencing a depressive episode, panic attacks, trauma symptoms, substance problems, severe sleep disruption, or another clinical issue, the relationship may be affected through mechanisms that a broad neuroticism score cannot explain. Disorder-specific assessment and care belong to the relevant clinical domain.
Does neuroticism predict breakup or divorce?
Higher neuroticism has been associated with relationship dissolution in parts of the literature, and a recent review lists high neuroticism among personality characteristics linked with relationship dissatisfaction and dissolution (Visser & Bedard, 2025). But “associated with dissolution” is not the same as being able to predict a particular breakup or divorce.
One frequently cited longitudinal study followed 85 newlywed couples and found that premarital hostility and neuroticism helped discriminate couples who later separated or divorced from those who remained married over five years (Rogge et al., 2006). The study is useful historically but small by current standards. Relationship dissolution is influenced by many variables, including commitment, conflict patterns, life events, financial strain, health, violence, infidelity, social context, and alternatives to the relationship. A personality score should never be used as a stand-alone divorce forecast.
Are gender differences established?
The broad meta-analytic answer is that male and female actor and partner correlations were similar in the 2025 Esplin review (Esplin et al., 2025). Earlier meta-analytic work also did not find that the association between an individual’s personality and a partner’s satisfaction differed significantly between men and women (Malouff et al., 2010).
At the same time, individual contemporary studies can identify moderation in particular samples. A 2025 study of 3,780 adults in Australia, Denmark, and Sweden found that the negative association between neuroticism and romantic satisfaction was stronger for men in that dataset (Fors Connolly & Goossen, 2025). The appropriate conclusion is that gender moderation may occur under some conditions, while current aggregate evidence does not justify a simple rule that neuroticism matters for relationships only, or uniformly more, for one gender.
What high neuroticism does not tell you about a partner
A high neuroticism score does not establish that someone is a “bad partner,” manipulative, abusive, jealous, unfaithful, controlling, clingy, selfish, emotionally unsafe, or incompatible. Those labels refer to behaviors, relationship patterns, motives, or separate constructs that require their own evidence. Neuroticism can correlate with some interpersonal tendencies at the group level, but the trait does not contain a hidden diagnosis of character.
This is especially important because popular discussions often turn a dimensional trait into a person-label. Relationship science is more precise. It asks what was measured, by whom, over what period, in which population, and whether an association concerns the actor’s own satisfaction, the partner’s satisfaction, observed behavior, conflict, dissolution, or another outcome. Everyday questions about being a “neurotic person” or having a “neurotic partner” are broader labeling questions and should not be treated as interchangeable with Big Five neuroticism.
Safety is also a separate domain. If there is coercion, threats, stalking, physical violence, sexual violence, financial control, or other abusive behavior, the behavior itself is the relevant fact. A personality score neither excuses it nor determines whether it occurred.
What the evidence suggests for couples
The research points toward processes that are more actionable than a trait label. Couples can pay attention to how ambiguous events are interpreted, how quickly negative assumptions become certainties, what happens during conflict, whether each partner can recover after stress, and how outside pressures alter communication. These are observable relationship processes. They can change even when a broad personality trait remains relatively stable.
A useful starting point is to separate the event from the interpretation. “My partner did not answer for two hours” is an event; “they are losing interest” is one interpretation. The Finn studies suggest that relationship-specific interpretation bias is one plausible pathway linking neuroticism with satisfaction (Finn et al., 2013; Finn et al., 2015). That evidence does not require treating every concern as a cognitive distortion. Sometimes a negative interpretation is accurate. The task is to test interpretations against context and evidence rather than assuming either optimism or pessimism is always correct.
Stress should be treated as part of the couple system as well. The McNulty analysis shows that behavior can have different implications depending on the level of stress experienced by both partners (McNulty et al., 2021). A conflict pattern that seems inexplicable when personality is considered alone may make more sense when work pressure, caregiving, financial strain, sleep loss, illness, or other chronic demands are included.
Professional help can be appropriate when a couple experiences persistent distress, recurrent destructive conflict, impairment, or a specific mental-health problem. The goal is not to “cure neuroticism.” Evidence-based work may instead target symptoms, emotion regulation, communication, interpretations, coping, conflict patterns, or relationship goals. Personality traits can also change over time, but trait change is a different outcome from reducing symptoms or improving a relationship.
How to interpret a neuroticism score in a relationship context
First identify the instrument. A NEO PI-R neuroticism score, a NEO-FFI score, a BFI-2 Negative Emotionality score, an IPIP scale, and an Eysenck neuroticism score are not interchangeable. Second identify the reference frame: raw score, standardized score, percentile, and the normative population. Third remember that a personality inventory estimates a trait; it does not measure relationship quality unless it contains a separate relationship scale.
A percentile can answer a relative question such as where someone scored compared with the relevant norm group. It cannot answer whether that person is a supportive partner, whether a particular relationship is satisfying, or whether a couple should stay together. Those questions require relationship-specific evidence. Even when two partners both complete the same personality inventory, research on similarity does not support a simple compatibility cutoff.
Frequently asked questions
Does high neuroticism ruin relationships?
No. Higher neuroticism is associated with lower relationship quality on average, but the meta-analytic correlation is far from deterministic. Many people high in neuroticism have satisfying, stable relationships, and many people low in neuroticism experience serious relationship problems. The trait changes probabilities at the population level; it does not write the outcome of an individual relationship.
Can someone high in neuroticism have a healthy relationship?
Yes. Healthy relationships depend on many processes that are not reducible to one Big Five score, including responsiveness, respect, communication, repair after conflict, shared goals, boundaries, safety, and the management of stress. Neuroticism can influence some of these processes, but it does not determine them.
Does high neuroticism make someone a bad partner?
No. “Bad partner” is an evaluative label, not a personality construct. Neuroticism describes a broad tendency toward negative emotionality and reactivity. It does not by itself establish kindness, commitment, honesty, empathy, aggression, abuse, or compatibility.
Is neuroticism the same as anxious attachment?
No. Neuroticism is a broad personality dimension across situations. Anxious attachment is a relationship-focused pattern involving concerns about rejection, abandonment, and a partner’s availability. The constructs can correlate, but studies can distinguish them statistically and conceptually.
Does a neuroticism score predict relationship success?
Only in a limited group-level sense. Neuroticism is one statistical correlate of relationship quality and sometimes of dissolution, but an individual score is not a validated stand-alone forecast of whether a relationship will succeed. Instrument, norms, partner characteristics, relationship processes, stress, and context all matter.
Is emotional stability always better for relationships?
Lower neuroticism, often described as higher emotional stability, is associated with higher relationship satisfaction on average. “Always better” goes beyond the evidence. Personality traits are dimensional, their effects depend on context, and relationship quality includes much more than one trait.
Do two partners with similar neuroticism scores have better relationships?
Not reliably. Large dyadic studies find that personality similarity adds little predictive information once each partner’s own traits and partner effects are considered. Similarity is not a dependable compatibility formula.
Can a relationship change someone’s neuroticism?
Personality can change, and longitudinal studies show that changes in relationship satisfaction and relationship-specific interpretation can accompany changes in neuroticism. The evidence is consistent with transactional influence, but it does not support a universal rule that entering a good relationship will reduce neuroticism or that relationship problems will necessarily increase it.
Does neuroticism cause divorce?
Research finds associations between higher neuroticism and relationship dissatisfaction or dissolution in some samples, but divorce has multiple causes and correlates. Neuroticism alone cannot establish why a marriage ended or predict with confidence whether a particular marriage will end.
Does high neuroticism mean someone has anxiety or depression?
No. Neuroticism is a personality trait. Anxiety and depressive disorders are clinical conditions with specific diagnostic criteria. Neuroticism is a transdiagnostic risk factor and correlate, so higher scores are associated with greater average risk and symptom burden, but the trait is not a diagnosis.
What is the strongest research finding about neuroticism and relationships?
The strongest broad finding is a replicated negative association between neuroticism and relationship quality. The 2025 meta-analysis of 148 published studies estimated an overall correlation of r = −.238. The next important finding is that this association is heterogeneous: measurement, age, relationship length, region, actor-versus-partner perspective, stress, cognition, behavior, and study method all affect how the pattern is expressed.
Loneliness is one specific social-connection outcome related to neuroticism. For the dedicated evidence on perceived isolation, social perception, and well-being, see Neuroticism and Loneliness: Social Perception, Isolation, and Well-Being.
For narrower relationship-specific evidence, see Neuroticism and Jealousy: Threat Sensitivity, Insecurity, and Relationship Context, and Neuroticism and Social Support: Seeking, Perceiving, and Using Support.
Related Articles
Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model — the core definition of neuroticism as a modern dimensional Big Five personality construct.
Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery — evidence on perceived stress, stressor exposure, emotional reactivity, recovery, coping, and physiology.
Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor — how neuroticism relates to psychiatric risk without becoming a diagnosis.
Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication — the separate attachment framework for understanding relationship expectations and behavior.
References
Bach, K., Koch, M., & Spinath, F. M. (2025). Relationship satisfaction and The Big Five – Utilizing longitudinal data covering 9 years. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, 112887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112887
Cao, H., Yuan, X., Fine, M., Zhou, N., & Fang, X. (2019). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction during the early years of Chinese marriage: The mediating roles of marital attribution and aggression. Family Process, 58(2), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12356
Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020385
Esplin, C. R., Rasmussen, B. D., Hatch, S. G., Hawkins, A. J., & Braithwaite, S. R. (2025). Neuroticism and relationship quality: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(3), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000463
Finn, C., Mitte, K., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). The relationship-specific interpretation bias mediates the link between neuroticism and satisfaction in couples. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1862
Finn, C., Mitte, K., & Neyer, F. J. (2015). Recent decreases in specific interpretation biases predict decreases in neuroticism: Evidence from a longitudinal study with young adult couples. Journal of Personality, 83(3), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12102
Fors Connolly, F., & Goossen, M. (2025). The interplay between gender and personality in relationship outcomes: Satisfaction across domains and partnership status. Journal of Research in Personality, 119, 104674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104674
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075
Kreuzer, M., & Gollwitzer, M. (2022). Neuroticism and satisfaction in romantic relationships: A systematic investigation of intra- and interpersonal processes with a longitudinal approach. European Journal of Personality, 36(2), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211001258
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004
McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2021). How both partners’ individual differences, stress, and behavior predict change in relationship satisfaction: Extending the VSA model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(27), e2101402118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101402118
Möller, K. (2004). The longitudinal and concurrent role of neuroticism for partner relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00381.x
O’Meara, M. S., & South, S. C. (2019). Big Five personality domains and relationship satisfaction: Direct effects and correlated change over time. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12468
Orth, U. (2013). How large are actor and partner effects of personality on relationship satisfaction? The importance of controlling for shared method variance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1359–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213492429
Renshaw, K. D., Blais, R. K., & Smith, T. W. (2010). Components of negative affectivity and marital satisfaction: The importance of actor and partner anger. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.005
Rogge, R. D., Bradbury, T. N., Hahlweg, K., Engl, J., & Thurmaier, F. (2006). Predicting marital distress and dissolution: Refining the two-factor hypothesis. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.156
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
van Scheppingen, M. A., Chopik, W. J., Bleidorn, W., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2019). Longitudinal actor, partner, and similarity effects of personality on well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), e51–e70. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000211
Visser, B. A., & Bedard, T. (2025). Traits and mates: The role of personality in intimate relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102053