Examining the correlates of psychological flexibility in romantic relationship and family dynamics: A meta-analysis

A growing body of research supports the importance of ACT's therapeutic targets (i.e., dimensions of psychological flexibility and inflexibility) for promoting individual wellbeing. The current systematic review and meta-analysis extended that work by examining how specific dimensions of psychological flexibility and inflexibility are linked to family and romantic relationship functioning. Drawing from the ACT, mindfulness, and emotion regulation literatures, 5006 records were initially identified via PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar searches, resulting in a final set of 174 papers representing 203 distinct samples (95 romantic relationship samples, 101 family samples, and 7 samples evaluating both romantic relationship and family functioning), yielding a combined sample of 43,952 total subjects. Although the review was unable to identify sufficient numbers of studies to meta-analyze the relationship and family correlates of a subset of flexibility dimensions (contact with values, committed action, experiential avoidance, fusion, lack of contact with values, inaction), the review identified sufficient studies to meta-analyze the correlates of: acceptance, present moment awareness/mindfulness, cognitive defusion, self-as-context, global flexibility, lack of present moment awareness, self-as-content, and global inflexibility. Correspondingly, a total of 840 effects were extracted from the original studies, ultimately yielding 137 meta-analytic effects (using random effects models) that show a range of effect sizes (−0.51 to 0.61). Within families, higher levels of various forms of parental flexibility were linked to: (1) greater use of adaptive parenting strategies, (2) lower use of lax, (3) harsh, and (4) negative parenting strategies, (5) lower parenting stress/burden, (6) greater corresponding family cohesion, and (7) lower child internalizing and (8) externalizing symptoms. Within romantic relationships, higher levels of various forms of psychological inflexibility were linked to: (1) lower relationship satisfaction for themselves and (2) their partners, (3) lower sexual satisfaction and (4) emotional supportiveness, as well as (5) higher negative conflict, (6) physical aggression, (7) attachment anxiety, and (8) attachment avoidance. Taken as a set, these results suggest that psychological flexibility and inflexibility may play key roles both in couples and families to shape how individuals interact with the people closest to them.

To find the full text version of this article and others (as well as download a full text .pdf.), ACBS members can visit the ScienceDirect homepage here.