Maintaining a satisfying romantic relationship is vital to overall health and well-being, yet relationship quality might be hampered by stressors brought on by the recent Covid-19 pandemic. In the Love in the Time of Covid study, we examine whether Covid-related stressors (i.e., social isolation, financial strain, and stress) are associated with lower relationship quality and greater conflict in relationships, and test whether perceived partner responsiveness—the extent to which people believe their partner understands, validates, and cares for them—buffers these effects. In the current study (N = 3,593 participants from 57 countries), when people reported more Covid-related stressors, they also reported poorer relationship quality and more conflict with their partner. However, these associations were mitigated when people perceived their partner as more responsive to their needs.

External stressors can erode relationship quality, though little is known about what can mitigate these effects. We examined whether COVID-related stressors were associated with lower relationship quality, and whether perceived partner responsiveness—the extent to which people believe their partner understands, validates, and cares for them—buffers these effects. When people in relationships reported more COVID-related stressors they reported poorer relationship quality at the onset of the pandemic ( N = 3,593 from 57 countries) and over the subsequent 3 months ( N = 1,125). At the onset of the pandemic, most associations were buffered by perceived partner responsiveness, such that people who perceived their partners to be low in responsiveness reported poorer relationship quality when they experienced COVID-related stressors, but these associations were reduced among people who perceived their partners to be highly responsive. In some cases, these associations were buffered over the ensuing weeks of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic’s wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon—an event that hinges on human-to-human contact—we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger—not weaker—in its wake.

Past work has shown that perceived responsiveness is a key predictor of relational outcomes. However, this work has focused solely on average levels of responsiveness and never studied the role of responsiveness variability (consistency of responsiveness) in intimate relationships. The present study addressed this gap by investigating the long-held but scarcely tested tenet that responsiveness variability and average responsiveness play differential roles in romantic attachment. New romantic couples ( N = 151) reported partner-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance in six sessions. Every evening during the 3-week period in between the first two sessions, participants reported perceived partner responsiveness, allowing us to assess both average responsiveness and responsiveness variability. Our findings provided the first empirical evidence that responsiveness variability uniquely predicted increases in partner-specific attachment anxiety, whereas average responsiveness uniquely predicted decreases in partner-specific attachment avoidance. Average responsiveness and responsiveness variability continued to predict attachment orientations assessed about half a year later.

The wear and tear of adapting to chronic stressors such as racism and discrimination can have detrimental effects on mental and physical health. Here, we investigated the wider implications of everyday racism for relationship quality in an adult sample of 98 heterosexual African American couples. Participants reported on their experiences of racial discrimination and positive and negative affect for 21 consecutive evenings. Using dyadic analyses, we found that independently of age, gender, marital status, income, racial-discrimination frequency, neuroticism, and mean levels of affect, participants’ relationship quality was inversely associated with their partner’s negative affective reactivity to racial discrimination. Associations did not vary by gender, suggesting that the effects of affective reactivity were similar for men and women. These findings highlight the importance of a dyadic approach and call for further research examining the role of everyday racism as a key source of stress in the lives of African American couples.