Correction to “Relationship mindfulness, negative relationship quality, and physical health”

Morris, K. L., McDowell, C. N., Tawfiq, D., Outler, C., & Kimmes, J. G. (2023). Relationship mindfulness, negative relationship quality, and physical health. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 50(1), 136−149. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12677

The authors discovered a relatively minor coding mistake in the data for the relationship mindfulness variable, where the reported male relationship mindfulness data actually corresponds to female relationship mindfulness, and vice versa. The coding mistake does not change the main takeaways of the manuscript, but it does require some minor changes in the values reported in two paragraphs, Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 2. Additionally, the gender differences discussed briefly in the Discussion section (paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 10 and paragraph 2 on page 11) have been updated to reflect this change.

Page 8, Paragraphs 2 and 3 should be read as follows:

The model's direct effects indicated a negative association between male relationship mindfulness and male negative relationship quality (β = −0.29, p = 0.01) and also between male relationship mindfulness and female negative relationship quality (β = −0.28, p = 0.02). For both men and women, the associations between female relationship mindfulness and negative relationship quality for both men and women were insignificant (β = −0.07, p = 0.46, and β = −0.13, p = 0.19, respectively). However, there was a negative association between negative relationship quality and health for men (β = −0.33, p = 0.002), as well as a significant negative association for women between negative relationship quality and health (β = −0.25, p = 0.01). Regarding covariates, income and both male and female health were significantly associated (β = 0.28, p = 0.002 and β = 0.23, p = 0.01, respectively).

Additionally, age and female negative relationship quality were significantly associated (β = −0.21, p = 0.01), but age was not significantly associated with male negative relationship quality (β = −0.11, p = 0.13) (Figure 2).

Table 2 depicts the results from the model regarding the indirect effects between relationship mindfulness and physical health for men and women. The model produced two significant indirect effects. First, increased male health was linked to higher male relationship mindfulness through its earlier link to negative male relationship quality (β = 0.10). Second, a significant indirect effect was found for the path between male relationship mindfulness and female health via female negative relationship quality (β = 0.07). In other words, a 1-S D unit increase in female relationship mindfulness was associated with a 0.07-S D unit increase in female health via its prior association with female negative relationship quality. All other indirect effects did not approach significance. Results from the indirect effects can be found in Table 2.

Page 10, Paragraphs 2 and 3 should be read as follows:

The results illustrated a negative association between male relationship mindfulness and male negative relationship quality. This finding highlights a link between increased relationship mindfulness and decreased relationship quality, consistent with previous literature (Kimmes et al., 2020). Additionally, male relationship mindfulness and female negative relationship quality also had a negative association. This finding is consistent with our theoretical model in that the experiences of one partner cannot be examined alone (Sullivan, 1947). Relationship mindfulness has been previously associated with decreased relationship conflict (Morris et al., 2022). Given that increased conflict can decrease relationship quality (Feeney & Fitzgerald, 2019), it seems reasonable that one partner's increased relationship mindfulness may be associated with increased relationship quality for the other partner.

Although some gender differences were present throughout the results, it is important to note that none of these differences were statistically significant. As such, any claims about gender differences must be made cautiously. However, these results are consistent with other studies that also found that male mindfulness was a stronger predictor of relationship outcomes than female mindfulness (e.g., Harvey et al., 2019). It could be that gender role expectations may provide some insight into this effect, as discussed by Harvey and colleagues (2019).

Page 11, Paragraph 2 should be read as follows:

In terms of indirect effects, female health was linked to male relationship mindfulness through its earlier link to negative male relationship quality. Similar to other findings, this result was consistent with previous literature regarding male mindfulness and female relational outcomes (e.g., Harvey et al., 2019). Male relationship mindfulness to male health via male negative relationship quality also resulted in a significant indirect effect. As mindfulness and health have previously been associated (Kimmes et al., 2018; Loucks et al., 2015), this finding remained consistent with known studies.

Page 7, Table 1 and Page 9, Table 2: Some of the values in Tables 1 and 2 appeared in error. The correct tables are given below:

Page 9, Figure 2: This figure includes changes in the paths from both male and female relationship mindfulness. The new Figure 2 is given below:

We apologize for this error.