Cited by 392Attachment and Relationship DynamicsFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsMarriage and Sexual Relationships

Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: a meta-analysis

Open access
Mitnick, Danielle M., Heyman, Richard E., Smith Slep, Amy M.·2009·Journal of Family Psychology

Abstract

The U.S. government has recently spent several hundred million dollars to promote healthy relationships in new parents. The influx of money implies that relationships of new parents are at elevated risk for declining satisfaction and dissolution. This meta-analysis aggregates data from 37 studies that track couples from pregnancy to after the birth of the first child and 4 studies that track childless newlywed couples over time and compare couples who do and do not become parents. Results indicate significant, small declines in relationship satisfaction for both men and women from pregnancy to 11 months postbirth; 5 studies that followed couples for 12-14 months found moderate-sized declines. Seven variables moderated the decrease in relationship satisfaction from pregnancy to early parenthood. However, the decrease in satisfaction may not indicate anything unique about the transition to parenthood; the 4 studies following newlyweds indicated that those who do not become parents experience a decrease in relationship satisfaction similar to that of parents across a comparable span of time. Implications for prevention and future directions are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017004

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mitnick, D. M., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • State University of New York (US)
Venue
Journal of Family Psychology
Published
2009
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
848-852
ISSN
  • 0893-3200 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1293
OpenAlex
W2024115764
Cited by
391
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 22
FWCI
14.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Family Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD046901-01)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1U49CE001246-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
Keywords
relationship satisfaction, transition to parenthood, couples, pregnancy, postpartum period, newlyweds, childless couples, prevention
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Parents, Personal Satisfaction, Pregnancy, Parenting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review