13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal study disentangling timely stable from yearly fluctuations

      research-article

      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

          The aims of the present study are to analyze the associations of different forms of dyadic coping (i.e., own supportive dyadic coping = OSDC; perceived supportive dyadic coping provided by the partner = PSDC; common dyadic coping = CDC) with relationship satisfaction, and to investigate whether these effects differ depending on the amount of perceived stress. In 240 couples, the different forms of dyadic coping and stress of both partners were assessed annually across 5 measurement points. Data was analyzed by dyadic multilevel models, which allow for disentangling between-person (overall, timely stable) from within-person (yearly, time specific) variations. The results revealed that all different forms of dyadic coping enhanced overall and yearly relationship satisfaction. At the same time, relationship satisfaction depends on the amount of overall and yearly stress. Interestingly, for PSDC, we found that the more a member of the couple was supported by the partner yearly (time-specific PSDC) and the more the member was stressed overall (timely stable), the higher the member scored on relationship satisfaction. For CDC, we found that yearly CDC beyond the overall level of CDC interacted with the timely stable amount of stress. Dealing together with stress and perceiving the partner as helpful were especially beneficial for relationship satisfaction. Findings highlight the importance of addressing specific forms of dyadic coping in intervention and prevention programs for couples.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

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

          A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction

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

            Spending money on others promotes happiness.

            Although much research has examined the effect of income on happiness, we suggest that how people spend their money may be at least as important as how much money they earn. Specifically, we hypothesized that spending money on other people may have a more positive impact on happiness than spending money on oneself. Providing converging evidence for this hypothesis, we found that spending more of one's income on others predicted greater happiness both cross-sectionally (in a nationally representative survey study) and longitudinally (in a field study of windfall spending). Finally, participants who were randomly assigned to spend money on others experienced greater happiness than those assigned to spend money on themselves.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis.

              Meta-analytic methods were used to empirically determine the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction. Dyadic coping is a systemic conceptualization of the processes partners use to cope with stressors, such as stress communication, individual strategies to assist the other partner cope with stress, and partners' strategies to cope together. A total of 72 independent samples from 57 reports with a combined sum of 17,856 participants were included. The aggregated standardized zero-order correlation (r) for total dyadic coping with relationship satisfaction was .45 (p=.000). Total dyadic coping strongly predicted relationship satisfaction regardless of gender, age, relationship length, education level, and nationality. Perceptions of overall dyadic coping by partner and by both partners together were stronger predictors of relationship satisfaction than perceptions of overall dyadic coping by self. Aggregated positive forms of dyadic coping were a stronger predictor of relationship satisfaction than aggregated negative forms of dyadic coping. Comparisons among dyadic coping dimensions indicated that collaborative common coping, supportive coping, and hostile/ambivalent coping were stronger predictors of relationship satisfaction than stress communication, delegated coping, protective buffering coping, and overprotection coping. Clinical implications and recommendations for future research are provided.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                9 April 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 4
                : e0231133
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Educational Sciences, University “Stefan cel Mare” of Suceava, Suceava, Romania
                [2 ] Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
                [3 ] Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
                University of California Los Angeles, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0868-6054
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4002-8916
                Article
                PONE-D-19-07872
                10.1371/journal.pone.0231133
                7145192
                32271854
                f2b5f7d3-434e-421a-b992-864e8e64d691
                © 2020 Rusu et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 19 March 2019
                : 17 March 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 7, Pages: 23
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001711, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung;
                Award ID: CRSI11_133004/1, CRSI11_147634/1
                Award Recipient :
                This research has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF: CRSI11_133004/1, CRSI11_147634/1) to Guy Bodenmann, Veronika Brandstätter, Mike Martin, Fridtjof W. Nussbeck, & Tom Bradbury.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Psychological Stress
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Stress
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Stress
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Longitudinal Studies
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Collective Human Behavior
                Interpersonal Relationships
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Collective Human Behavior
                Interpersonal Relationships
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Sexuality Groupings
                Heterosexuals
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Children
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Families
                Children
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Questionnaires
                Custom metadata
                Data are publicly available in OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/B95YM).

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article