The developmental course of supportive dyadic coping in couples.

Abstract

Drawing from a relational developmental systems (RDS) perspective (Lerner, Agans, DeSouza, & Gasca, 2013) and data from 1,427 continuously partnered young adult and midlife mixed-sex couples over the first 5 years of the German Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (pairfam), this study examined the developmental course of supportive dyadic coping, or the frequency with which one provides practical and emotional support when his or her partner encounters stress. Latent change score (LCS) modeling results revealed that supportive dyadic coping gradually declined for both male and female partners, but there was significant diversity underlying these trajectories. Higher levels of supportive dyadic coping were associated with a more gradual decline in support provided by a partner. Among young adults, a more rapid decline in male partner supportive dyadic coping predicted a slower rate of decline in support from female partners. Finally, we considered possible bidirectional relations between contextual stressors and supportive dyadic coping trajectories. Providing higher levels of support predicted a more gradual decline in self-rated health for male partners. Having more children and experiencing economic pressure predicted steeper declines in supportive dyadic coping over time for both male and female partners. (PsycINFO Database Record

Role of clarity of other's feelings for dyadic coping

“…In sum, men's CoF seems to be one factor that affects the long‐term development of a couple's supportive dyadic coping in a positive way. Given that supportive dyadic coping, on average, erodes across time (Johnson et al, ) men's CoF might be one factor that helps couples to maintain high relationship functioning in the long run. The current results therefore expand on previous results and suggest that interpersonal differences in men's CoF are not only associated with concurrent supportive dyadic coping but seem to be also a crucial resource for maintaining adequate supportive dyadic coping across a longer period of time.…”

“…Past research has shown that dyadic coping is a characteristic of well‐functioning intimate relationships (Bodenmann & Cina, ). Given that relationship functioning tends to erode over time (Johnson, Horne, & Galovan, ; Kamp Dush, Taylor, & Kroeger, ) it is crucial to understand how couples can sustain good relationship functioning in the long run (e.g., maintaining high levels of dyadic coping). This study targets this question by investigating clarity of other's feelings (hereafter referred as “CoF”) as one potential key predictor for long‐term support provision in intimate relationships.…”

“…However, less is known about skills that enable a partner to provide supportive dyadic coping, that is, support that the stressed partner perceives as helpful. Given that supportive dyadic coping erodes across time (Johnson et al, ), it seems to be crucial to investigate what enables couples to maintain high levels of supportive dyadic coping in the long run.…”

“…As investigations of interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects can lead to different conclusions (Hamaker, Kuiper, & Grasman, ), the untangling of the two different sources of variance (within and between person) is crucially important (Curran & Bauer, ). When focusing on long‐term development (over several years), CoF is theoretically conceptualized as a trait‐like behavioral tendency (Lischetzke et al, ; Salovey et al, ), whereas supportive dyadic coping is a relationship behavior that decreases over time, as longitudinal couple research suggests (Johnson et al, ). Hence, an intriguing question is whether interpersonal differences in CoF are a long‐term predictor of intrapersonal changes in supportive dyadic coping.…”

Between Individual and Family Coping: A Decade of Theory and Research on Couples Coping With Health‐Related Stress

“…We do this for several reasons. As Revenson and DeLongis () suggested, dyadic coping occurs in response to “a specific stressor.” Particularly since the development of measures such as the Dyadic Coping Inventory (Bodenmann, ), many studies have explored dyadic coping in what we might call a “generic” way, that is, outside of the context of a specific stressor (e.g., Johnson, Horne, & Galovan, ). When a specific stressor or stress appraisal is not part of the conceptualization, assessment of dyadic coping runs the risk of becoming a stand‐in for other well‐researched constructs, such as conflict management and couple intimacy.…”