19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Associations of Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction Vary between and within Nations: A 35-Nation Study

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 4 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 8 , 12 , 20 , 21 , 4 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 8 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 7 , 13 , 32 , 33 , 4 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 4 , 42 , 15 , 43 , 26 , 44 , 45 ,   46 , 47 , 48 , 26 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 52 , 53 , 2 , 54 , 13 , 55
      Frontiers in Psychology
      Frontiers Media S.A.
      dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction, culture, multilevel modeling, gender differences

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective: Theories about how couples help each other to cope with stress, such as the systemic transactional model of dyadic coping, suggest that the cultural context in which couples live influences how their coping behavior affects their relationship satisfaction. In contrast to the theoretical assumptions, a recent meta-analysis provides evidence that neither culture, nor gender, influences the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction, at least based on their samples of couples living in North America and West Europe. Thus, it is an open questions whether the theoretical assumptions of cultural influences are false or whether cultural influences on couple behavior just occur in cultures outside of the Western world.

          Method: In order to examine the cultural influence, using a sample of married individuals ( N = 7973) from 35 nations, we used multilevel modeling to test whether the positive association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies across nations and whether gender might moderate the association.

          Results: Results reveal that the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies between nations. In addition, results show that in some nations the association is higher for men and in other nations it is higher for women.

          Conclusions: Cultural and gender differences across the globe influence how couples' coping behavior affects relationship outcomes. This crucial finding indicates that couple relationship education programs and interventions need to be culturally adapted, as skill trainings such as dyadic coping lead to differential effects on relationship satisfaction based on the culture in which couples live.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.

            Are Americans more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other groups? The authors summarize plausible psychological implications of individualism-collectivism (IND-COL), meta-analyze cross-national and within-United States IND-COL differences, and review evidence for effects of IND-COL on self-concept, well-being, cognition, and relationality. European Americans were found to be both more individualistic-valuing personal independence more-and less collectivistic-feeling duty to in-groups less-than others. However, European Americans were not more individualistic than African Americans, or Latinos, and not less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic. Moderate IND-COL effects were found on self-concept and relationality, and large effects were found on attribution and cognitive style.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory, method, and research.

              Although much has been learned from cross-sectional research on marriage, an understanding of how marriages develop, succeed, and fail is best achieved with longitudinal data. In view of growing interest in longitudinal research on marriage, the authors reviewed and evaluated the literature on how the quality and stability of marriages change over time. First, prevailing theoretical perspectives are examined for their ability to explain change in marital quality and stability. Second, the methods and findings of 115 longitudinal studies--representing over 45,000 marriages--are summarized and evaluated, yielding specific suggestions for improving this research, Finally, a model is outlined that integrates the strengths of previous theories of marriage, accounts for established findings, and indicates new directions for research on how marriages change.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/344603/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/344794/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/242422/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/199736/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/344839/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/65303/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/361051/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/352207/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/357525/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/300020/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/352992/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/352272/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/241862/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/268225/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/344683/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/346387/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/344710/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/299159/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/358078/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/89846/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/356397/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/357770/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/347734/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/335326/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/352273/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/359684/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/360796/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/358480/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/360732/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/148513/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/358115/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/265377/overview
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                08 August 2016
                2016
                : 7
                : 1106
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington Seattle, DC, USA
                [2] 2Department of Psychology, University of Zurich Zurich, Switzerland
                [3] 3Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA
                [4] 4Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw Wroclaw, Poland
                [5] 5Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran
                [6] 6Department of Psychology, College of Education, King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [7] 7School of Public Health, University of Ghana Legon, Ghana
                [8] 8Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan Milan, Italy
                [9] 9Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China
                [10] 10Graduate Program in Morphological Sciences, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [11] 11Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience Unit, D'Or Institute for Research and Education Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [12] 12Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia
                [13] 13Laboratory of Evolution of Human Behavior, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte Natal, Brazil
                [14] 14Department of Psychology, Faculty of Languages History and Geography, Ankara University Ankara, Turkey
                [15] 15Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra Coimbra, Portugal
                [16] 16Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca Cluj-Napoca, Romania
                [17] 17Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
                [18] 18Department of Psychology, King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [19] 19Department of Psychology, Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico
                [20] 20Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Izmir University of Economics Izmir, Turkey
                [21] 21Department of Psychology, Saint Mary's University Halifax, NS, Canada
                [22] 22Department of Psychology, Akdeniz University Antalya, Turkey
                [23] 23Department of Anthropology, Cumhuriyet University Sivas, Turkey
                [24] 24Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw Warsaw, Poland
                [25] 25Department of Public Health, Medical School, Federal University of Uberlândia Uberlândia, Brazil
                [26] 26Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia
                [27] 27Department of Clinical Services, Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital Benin-City, Nigeria
                [28] 28Department of Organization and Human Resources Management, Central University of Finance and Economics Beijing, China
                [29] 29Department of Psychology, University of Nairobi Nairobi, Kenya
                [30] 30Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada
                [31] 31Department of Anatomy, Baskent University Ankara, Turkey
                [32] 32Department of Social Psychology, University of Granada Granada, Spain
                [33] 33Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs Pécs, Hungary
                [34] 34Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Razi University Kermanshah, Iran
                [35] 35Institute of Psychology, University of Science and Culture Tehran, Iran
                [36] 36Department of Psychology, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [37] 37Faculty of Computing and Management Science, Makerere University Business School Kampala, Uganda
                [38] 38Department of Pure & Applied Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin University Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria
                [39] 39School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok, Malaysia
                [40] 40Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria
                [41] 41Department of Anthropology, Istanbul University Istanbul, Turkey
                [42] 42Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Madeira Funchal, Portugal
                [43] 43Institute of Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi Karachi, Pakistan
                [44] 44Department of Psychological Sciences, Constantine The Philosopher University in Nitra Nitra, Slovakia
                [45] 45Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [46] 46Department of Psychology, South-West University “Neofit Rilski” Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria
                [47] 47Department of Psychology, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
                [48] 48Faculty of Sports and Health Education, Indonesia University of Education Bandung, Indonesia
                [49] 49Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia
                [50] 50Institute of Psychology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [51] 51Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Bangalore, India
                [52] 52Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Guwahati, India
                [53] 53Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel
                [54] 54Department of Education for Students, Guangdong Construction Polytechnic Guangdong, China
                [55] 55Department of Child & Family Studies, Kyung Hee University Seoul, South Korea
                Author notes

                Edited by: Keiko Ishii, Kobe University, Japan

                Reviewed by: John L. Perry, University of Hull, UK; Taraneh Mojaverian, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

                *Correspondence: Peter Hilpert hilpert@ 123456uw.edu

                This article was submitted to Cultural Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106
                4976670
                27551269
                61ccb507-db58-40bc-8248-c7016217b6c7
                Copyright © 2016 Hilpert, Randall, Sorokowski, Atkins, Sorokowska, Ahmadi, Aghraibeh, Aryeetey, Bertoni, Bettache, Błażejewska, Bodenmann, Borders, Bortolini, Butovskaya, Castro, Cetinkaya, Cunha, David, DeLongis, Dileym, Domínguez Espinosa, Donato, Dronova, Dural, Fisher, Frackowiak, Gulbetekin, Hamamcıoğlu Akkaya, Hansen, Hattori, Hromatko, Iafrate, James, Jiang, Kimamo, King, Koç, Laar, Lopes, Martinez, Mesko, Molodovskaya, Moradi, Motahari, Natividade, Ntayi, Ojedokun, Omar-Fauzee, Onyishi, Özener, Paluszak, Portugal, Relvas, Rizwan, Salkičević, Sarmány-Schuller, Stamkou, Stoyanova, Šukolová, Sutresna, Tadinac, Teras, Tinoco Ponciano, Tripathi, Tripathi, Tripathi, Vilchinsky, Xu, Yamamoto and Yoo.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 25 April 2016
                : 11 July 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Equations: 1, References: 70, Pages: 16, Words: 12145
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                dyadic coping,relationship satisfaction,culture,multilevel modeling,gender differences

                Comments

                Comment on this article