UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis


Falconier, Mariana Karin; Jackson, Jeffrey B; Hilpert, Peter; Bodenmann, Guy (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42:28-46.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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.

Citations

5 citations in Web of Science®
6 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Language:English
Date:29 July 2015
Deposited On:24 Aug 2015 14:04
Last Modified:16 Oct 2016 06:49
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0272-7358
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002
PubMed ID:26295276

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations