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.

Morris, KL、McDowell, CN、Tawfiq, D.、Outler, C. 和 Kimmes, JG (2023)。关系正念、消极关系质量和身体健康。婚姻和家庭治疗杂志，50 (1), 136−149。 https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12677

作者发现关系正念变量的数据中存在一个相对较小的编码错误，其中报告的男性关系正念数据实际上对应于女性关系正念，反之亦然。编码错误不会改变手稿的主要内容，但它确实需要对表 1 和表 2 以及图 2 两段中报告的值进行一些细微的更改。此外，讨论部分中简要讨论的性别差异（段落第 10 页的第 2 段和第 3 段以及第 11 页的第 2 段）已更新以反映这一更改。

第 8 页第 2 和第 3 段应解读如下：

该模型的直接效应表明，男性关系正念与男性消极关系质量之间存在负相关（β = -0.29，p  = 0.01），男性关系正念与女性负性关系质量之间也存在负相关（β = -0.28，p  = 0.02）。对于男性和女性而言，女性关系正念与男性和女性的消极关系质量之间的关联均不显着（分别为β = -0.07，p  = 0.46，β = -0.13，p  = 0.19）。然而，男性的消极关系质量与健康之间存在负相关（β = -0.33，p  = 0.002），而女性的消极关系质量与健康之间也存在显着的负相关（β = -0.25，p  = 0.01） ）。关于协变量，收入与男性和女性健康显着相关（分别为 β = 0.28，p  = 0.002 和 β = 0.23，p  = 0.01）。

此外，年龄和女性消极关系质量显着相关（β = -0.21，p  = 0.01），但年龄与男性消极关系质量没有显着相关（β = -0.11，p  = 0.13）（图2）。

表 2 描述了关于关系正念与男性和女性身体健康之间的间接影响的模型结果。该模型产生了两个显着的间接影响。首先，男性健康状况的改善与较高的男性关系正念有关，因为它更早地与消极的男性关系质量相关（β = 0.10）。其次，发现女性负性关系质量对男性关系正念与女性健康之间的路径有显着的间接影响（β = 0.07）。换句话说，女性关系正念的 1-SD 单位增加与女性健康状况的 0.07-SD 单位增加相关，因为它与女性负性关系质量先前存在关联。所有其他间接影响均不显着。间接影响结果见表 2。

第 10 页第 2 和第 3 段应解读如下：

结果表明，男性关系正念与男性消极关系质量之间呈负相关。这一发现强调了关系正念增加与关系质量下降之间的联系，与之前的文献一致（Kimmes 等人，2020）。此外，男性关系正念与女性消极关系质量也呈负相关。这一发现与我们的理论模型一致，因为不能单独考察一个伴侣的经历（Sullivan，1947）。关系正念之前被认为与减少关系冲突有关（Morris 等人，2022）。鉴于冲突增加会降低关系质量（Feeney & Fitzgerald，2019），一方对关系正念的增强可能与另一方关系质量的提高有关，这似乎是合理的。

尽管整个结果中存在一些性别差异，但值得注意的是，这些差异均不具有统计显着性。因此，任何有关性别差异的主张都必须谨慎提出。然而，这些结果与其他研究一致，这些研究也发现男性正念比女性正念更能预测关系结果（例如，Harvey 等人，2019）。正如 Harvey 及其同事（2019）所讨论的那样，性别角色期望可能会为这种效应提供一些见解。

第 11 页第 2 段应解读如下：

就间接影响而言，女性健康通过早期与负面男性关系质量的联系而与男性关系正念相关。与其他发现类似，这一结果与之前关于男性正念和女性关系结果的文献一致（例如，Harvey 等人，2019）。男性关系正念通过男性负性关系质量对男性健康也产生了显着的间接影响。由于正念和健康之前已被联系起来（Kimmes 等人，2018 年；Loucks 等人，2015 年），这一发现与已知的研究保持一致。

第 7 页、表 1和第 9 页、表 2：表 1 和表 2 中的一些值出现错误。正确的表格如下：

第 9 页，图 2 ：该图包括男性和女性关系正念路径的变化。新的图2如下所示：

对于这个错误，我们深表歉意。