The interpersonal benefits of goal adjustment capacities: the sample case of coping with poor sleep in couples

The study investigates how individual goal adjustment capacities—goal disengagement (withdrawing from unattainable or less relevant goals) and goal reengagement (identifying and pursuing alternative goals)—shape the association between sleep problems and relationship satisfaction within romantic couples. Sleep is an inherently interpersonal phenomenon, and both own and partner sleep difficulties can undermine relationship functioning. Prior work links goal adjustment to wellbeing but has largely focused on individuals rather than dyads, leaving a gap regarding interpersonal effects. The authors hypothesized that poor own and spousal sleep would predict decreases in relationship satisfaction over time, particularly among individuals low in goal disengagement capacity. Given mixed evidence on goal reengagement (potentially adaptive or maladaptive), no directional hypothesis was specified for reengagement. They further explored whether relationship-specific coping responses (for both partners) mediate any effects of goal adjustment on the sleep–relationship satisfaction link, without prespecifying which coping strategies would be implicated.

The paper reviews evidence that goal adjustment capacities are distinct, adaptive self-regulatory tendencies. Goal disengagement helps reduce commitment/effort toward unattainable goals, reallocating resources to manage pressing demands; meta-analyses and longitudinal studies link it to better wellbeing. Goal reengagement facilitates pursuit of new goals; its effects can be beneficial (e.g., when new goals assist in overcoming stressors) or detrimental (e.g., when additional goals overtax resources and hinder addressing key stressors). Prior interpersonal research shows goal adjustment relates to coping strategies and social outcomes (e.g., caregivers’ coping, older adults’ social support satisfaction), suggesting potential dyadic benefits of disengagement. The authors also summarize dyadic sleep literature: sleep problems are prevalent (~50%), often operationalized via sleep efficiency, and are linked to poorer performance and wellbeing. Sleep in couples is interdependent; poor sleep predicts next-day conflict and lower relationship satisfaction. Much prior research focuses on the sleep-disordered individual and clinical samples; community-based, dyadic, longitudinal studies identifying protective personal resources are limited. Together, this literature suggests goal disengagement may help partners abandon peripheral goals and focus resources on addressing sleep-related stressors, whereas goal reengagement could either help redirect resources or, alternatively, overextend individuals and compromise coping and relationship outcomes.

Design and sample: Longitudinal dyadic study with two waves approximately one year apart (M interval = 1.11 years, SD = 0.24). Community-dwelling, cohabiting heterosexual couples from the Greater Montreal area were recruited via newspaper advertisements between June 2011 and December 2012. Inclusion required both partners be ≥18 years and cohabiting. Participants: Initial sample: 153 couples (n=306). Final analytic sample: 113 couples (n=226; Mage = 48.08, SD = 16.24; age range 21–82). Exclusions: couples without wave-2 participation (n=70 individuals), missing outcome (n=4), or missing goal adjustment (n=6). Item-level missing data within scales were replaced by the mean of available items; other missing scores were replaced with sample means (sleep n=5, coping n=2). Attrition analyses indicated excluded participants were younger, had lower SES, and reported higher humor, substance use, and self-blame coping; no differences in sleep efficiency, goal adjustment, or relationship satisfaction. Procedure: At each lab visit, participants completed questionnaires assessing relationship satisfaction, sleep efficiency, goal adjustment capacities, relationship-specific coping, and covariates. Participants received $30 per assessment. Informed consent obtained; ethics approved by Concordia University REB. Materials and data/syntax are available on OSF. Measures: - Goal adjustment capacities (T1): 10-item Goal Adjustment Scale (GAS; 5-point Likert 1–5). Subscales: Goal Disengagement (4 items; α=0.75) and Goal Reengagement (6 items; α=0.87). - Sleep efficiency (T1): Brief Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index components; time in bed (A) from usual bed and rise times; sleep loss (B) from minutes awake before sleep, during night, and before rising. Sleep efficiency = (A−B)/A. - Relationship satisfaction (T1, T2): 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; 0–4 Likert; αT1=0.88; αT2=0.90). Change operationalized as residualized change in T2 controlling T1. - Relationship-specific coping (T1, T2): 28-item Brief COPE (14 two-item subscales; 0–3 Likert). Changes computed as residualized change at T2 controlling T1. Item pairs were positively correlated (rs 0.24–0.91, ps<0.01). - Covariates (T1): Age, sex, education, annual family income; SES computed as the average of standardized education and income (r=0.23, p<0.01). Data analysis: Variables screened; outliers winsorized; distributions acceptable (skewness <1.38, kurtosis <1.68). Actor–Partner Interdependence Model with moderation (APIMoM) estimated via hierarchical linear modeling (SPSS MIXED), nesting individuals within couples. Sex was excluded due to indistinguishability by sex (χ²(9)=9.84, p=0.36); effects pooled across men and women. Partner goal adjustment did not improve model fit (χ²(6)=2.28, p=0.89) and was omitted for parsimony. Predictors were grand-mean centered. Level-1 included main effects of actor and partner sleep efficiency and actor goal disengagement and reengagement; Level-1 interactions included sleep (actor or partner) × actor goal disengagement and sleep (actor or partner) × actor goal reengagement. Level-2 estimated fixed effects for Level-1 predictors; only the intercept varied. Significant interactions were probed with simple slopes at ±1 SD. Exploratory dyadic mediation used Monte Carlo bootstrapping to obtain CIs for indirect effects, following a two-step approach: (1) identify coping subscales correlated with outcome; (2) conduct separate mediation models per coping strategy including both actor and partner changes.

- Model fit and variance explained: The specified models fit better than an empty model (χ²(10)=26.17, p<0.01) and explained 7.17% of variability in changes in relationship satisfaction (pseudo R²). No significant main effects of actor or partner sleep efficiency or actor goal adjustment on change in relationship satisfaction were observed. - Moderation by goal disengagement (GD): The interaction between actor GD and partner sleep efficiency significantly predicted change in actor relationship satisfaction [95% CI for interaction B: −1.17, −0.12]. Poor partner sleep predicted greater declines in relationship satisfaction for actors low in GD (simple slope coefficient = 0.76, SE=0.34, p=0.02) compared to those high in GD (coefficient = −0.33, SE=0.30, p=0.28), indicating a buffering effect of higher GD. - Moderation by goal reengagement (GR): The interaction between actor GR and actor sleep efficiency significantly predicted change in relationship satisfaction [95% CI for interaction B: 0.59, 1.79]. Poorer own sleep predicted greater declines for actors high in GR (simple slope coefficient = 0.79, SE=0.34, p=0.01) versus low in GR (coefficient = −0.99, SE=0.34, p<0.01), indicating that higher GR exacerbated the adverse effect of poor own sleep. - Mediation via coping (exploratory): • For the GD × partner sleep interaction, indirect effects on relationship satisfaction operated through increases in actor active coping [95% CI for indirect effect: −0.32, −0.02] and decreases in partner self-blame [95% CI: −0.28, −0.01]. The interaction predicted changes in actor active coping (B = −1.10, SE=0.39, p<0.01) and partner self-blame (B = 0.93, SE=0.41, p=0.02). In turn, increases in actor active coping related to higher relationship satisfaction (B = 0.13, SE=0.05, p<0.01), whereas increases in partner self-blame related to lower satisfaction (B = −0.13, SE=0.04, p<0.01). Both indirect effects remained significant when modeled together. • For the GR × actor sleep interaction, an indirect effect operated through actor behavioral disengagement [95% CI for indirect effect: 0.05, 0.41]. The interaction predicted change in actor behavioral disengagement (B = −1.15, SE=0.39, p<0.01); poorer sleep was more strongly associated with increased behavioral disengagement among those high in GR (B = −0.70, SE=0.39, p=0.07) vs. low in GR (B = 1.03, SE=0.43, p=0.02). Increases in behavioral disengagement predicted decreases in relationship satisfaction (B = −0.18, SE=0.05, p<0.01). - Descriptive context: Participants’ mean sleep efficiency was ~0.86 (86%), and relationship satisfaction was moderately high and stable on average across the year; sex differences were not detected, and partner goal adjustment did not add to model prediction.

Findings support the interpersonal nature of stress and coping in romantic relationships. Higher goal disengagement capacities protected individuals from declines in relationship satisfaction when their partner slept poorly, likely by enabling resource reallocation toward addressing relationship stressors. This buffering was linked to more actor active coping and less partner self-blame. In contrast, higher goal reengagement capacities amplified the negative association between poor own sleep and relationship satisfaction, with effects mediated by increases in actor behavioral disengagement, consistent with the idea that adopting additional goals can overtax self-regulatory resources and impede effective coping with sleep-related dyadic stressors. The results extend goal adjustment research into dyadic contexts and contribute to dyadic sleep literature by highlighting personal self-regulatory tendencies and relationship-specific coping as mechanisms shaping relationship satisfaction over time in community-dwelling couples.

This longitudinal dyadic study shows that goal disengagement capacities are an interpersonal resource that can preserve relationship satisfaction when a partner experiences poor sleep, partly by fostering adaptive coping (more actor active coping, less partner self-blame). Conversely, goal reengagement capacities can be less adaptive when individuals themselves sleep poorly, partly due to increased behavioral disengagement from relationship issues. These insights underscore the importance of individual differences in self-regulation and coping patterns for managing dyadic stressors. Future work should test causal pathways via interventions that enhance strategic disengagement from peripheral goals, assess specific goal content, and examine long-term trajectories and broader wellbeing and health outcomes in larger, more diverse samples.

- Sample and design: Relatively small community sample of cohabiting heterosexual couples with a one-year follow-up limits generalizability; recruitment via newspaper ads may bias toward higher education. - Causality and temporal ordering: Observational design precludes causal inference; coping changes and relationship satisfaction changes overlapped temporally, making directionality difficult to disentangle. - Measurement scope: Lack of assessment of specific goals precluded identification of concrete goals relinquished or adopted; sleep efficiency and coping were self-reported. - Generalizability: Community (non-clinical) sample; replication in larger, population-based, and longer-term designs is needed, including testing interventions that target goal disengagement and coping patterns.