Do Mindful Partners Make a Difference? A Meta-Analytic Test of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model in Romantic Couples
PsyArXiv Preprints March 9, 2026 preprint DOI: 10.1037/cps0000382 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Model-testing meta-analysis |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 12,396 |
| Population | Romantic couples in 37 independent quantitative dyadic studies |
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Actor-partner interdependence model Model-testing meta-analysis Partner effects Romantic dyads Clinical psychology Health psychology Social health |
| Key findings | Partner effects of mindfulness on a romantic partner's relationship outcomes were near zero and nonsignificant (beta = -.01), indicating no reliable crossover, even though cross-partner correlations were small and significant (r* = .16 each direction). Actor effects were significant (beta = .22 for men, .21 for women), and interdependence effects were significant for mindfulness (r* = .27) and outcomes (r* = .42). The authors argue that partner associations may reflect shared couple-level influences rather than direct crossover. |
Abstract
Objectives: Mindfulness is consistently linked with individual well-being and relationship functioning, yet it remains unclear systemically whether mindfulness reliably “crosses over” within romantic couples — such that one partner’s mindfulness is associated with other partner’s outcomes after accounting for dyadic interdependence. We conducted a model-testing meta-analysis (MTMA) based on the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) to estimate actor (self-self), partner (self-partner), and interdependence (partner similarity) effects of mindfulness on couples’ relationship outcomes.
Methods: We searched six databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Trials) for quantitative dyadic studies linking one partner’s mindfulness to the other partner’s outcomes across relational domains. Thirty-seven independent studies (12,396 couples) met inclusion criteria. We conducted a multivariate meta-analysis to estimate APIM-implied correlations (r*) and derived path coefficients, with 95% CIs from 1,000 bootstrap samples.
Results: Cross-partner correlations were small but significant (rs* = .16 and .16 for male-to-female and female-to-male associations, respectively). However, corresponding APIM partner effects were close to zero and nonsignificant (βs = –.01), indicating no reliable crossover. Actor effects were significant (βs =.22 and .21 for male and female partners, respectively). Interdependence effects were also significant for partners’ mindfulness (r* = .27) and outcomes (r* = .42), indicating meaningful within-couple covariation.
Discussion: Findings suggest that mindfulness is reliably associated with individuals’ own relationship functioning and shared dyadic processes, but not with a robust direct partner effect. These results indicated that partner associations may reflect shared couple-level influences rather than direct crossover, highlighting the implications of dyadic modeling and couple-level interventions.
Comparable studies
Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meditation, most cited first.
| Study | Year | Design | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being Diverse adult clinical populations | 2014 | Meta-analysis | n = 3,515 |
| Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management in Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis Healthy subjects | 2009 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | |
| The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Nonclinical groups of adult meditators | 2012 | Meta-analysis | n = 163 |
| Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Prevention of Depressive Relapse Adults with recurrent depression in full or partial remission | 2016 | Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials | n = 1,258 |
| Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy – a systematic review of randomized controlled trials | 2011 | Systematic review |