Dyadic coping and inflammation in the context of chronic stress.

Gouin, Jean‐Philippe; Scarcello, Sabrina; Estrela, Chelsea da; Paquin, Chantal; Barker, Erin T.

doi:10.1037/hea0000395

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, studies on relational outcomes have consistently suggested benefits of DC. In Western couples DC has been associated with increased relationship satisfaction in parents raising Autistic children (Gouin et al, 2016) and better partner acceptance and relationship satisfaction in women with breast cancer (Zimmermann et al, 2010). When a partner is diagnosed with PTSD, low discrepancies between partners' DC also predict better relationship satisfaction regardless of the severity level of the PTSD (Witkovsky and Braakmann, 2015).…”

Section: Overall DC (Stm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present review on dyadic coping (DC) aims at providing a critical integration of both the conceptual and empirical DC literature and overcoming the limitations of past reviews by (a) describing, comparing, and integrating all the DC models, (b) presenting and integrating findings from studies based on DC models, and (c) suggesting directions for further research. The DC models identified and compared include: The congruence model (Revenson, 1994 ), the relationship-focused model (Coyne and Smith, 1991 ; O'Brien and DeLongis, 1996 ), the communal coping model (Lyons et al., 1998 ), the systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 1995 , 1997 ), the relational-cultural model (Kayser et al., 2007 ), and the developmental-contextual coping model (Berg and Upchurch, 2007 ). After discussing each DC model, we advance a conceptual integration of all models, which serves as the framework to organize the review of the empirical literature. This integration includes the following DC dimensions: (a) Stress Communication, (b) Positive DC by One Partner (supportive DC, empathic responding, delegated DC, active engagement), (c) Positive Conjoint DC (common, collaborative, communal, mutual responsiveness); (d) Negative DC by One Partner (protective buffering, overprotection, and hostility/ambivalence), and (e) Negative Conjoint DC (common negative DC, disengaged avoidance). Developmental, relational, and contextual variables are included as factors shaping DC. To be included in the empirical review, articles had to be published in or a peer-reviewed journal in English and/or German before 2017 and include an original empirical study guided by one of the DC models. The review included 139 studies and, with the exception of the congruence model whose findings were discussed separately, findings were presented for overall DC and each of the dimensions identified in the conceptual integration. Findings were grouped also according to whether the stressor related or not to a medical or mental health condition. Demographic and cultural factors affecting DC were discussed. Overall, the empirical review suggests that in Western couples, positive individual, and conjoint DC forms, taken together or separately, have individual and relational benefits for couples coping with stress in general and/or mental health or medical stressors. Research on DC can be expanded to include other populations and stressors and use improved designs.

show abstract

Section: Overall DC (Stm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A considerable amount of studies investigating dyadic coping and relationship outcomes have been published in the past two decades. Dyadic coping has been linked to higher levels of relationship satisfaction [4], relationship stability [10], and partners individual well-being [3,5,11] better psychological adjustment to chronic stress (e.g., medical illness) [12,13] and PLOS ONE better physiological stress responses, such as cortisol recovery and increased immune reactivity [14][15][16].…”

Section: Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction: Between-and Witmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 withinperson (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.

show abstract

“…We also tested whether personal-project-related dyadic coping strategies can be broadly described as positive and negative dyadic coping. Conceptualizations of the Systemic Transactional Model and empirical studies regularly differentiate between positive and negative dyadic coping (Bodenmann et al 2006(Bodenmann et al , 2009Papp and Witt 2010), while recent models have primarily referred to summed scores of the full scale (e.g., Gouin et al 2016;Meier et al 2011;Vaske et al 2015; for a review of prior findings using summed dyadic coping, see Falconier et al 2015). In the present study, based on factor analysis explorations we calculated the overall scores for positive and negative dyadic coping experiences of the partners' merging of self-and partner evaluations.…”

Section: Analytical Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dyadic coping in personal projects of romantic partners: assessment and associations with relationship satisfaction

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study we describe a context-sensitive, personal-projects-based approach to dyadic coping with stress which adapted the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) for the assessment of dyadic coping strategies in stressful personal projects. In a crosssectional study, 149 heterosexual Hungarian couples provided evaluations pertaining to their dyadic coping experiences in a stressful everyday project. Explorative factor analyses of personal project-related DCI items provided theoretically meaningful factor structures and the resulting subscales showed excellent reliability. The subscales' predictive validity was tested in two dyadic analyses using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) whereby positive and negative dyadic coping experiences served as predictors of satisfaction with the dyadic coping process in particular, and with the relationship in general as outcomes. Our results showed that satisfaction with dyadic coping in personal projects is predicted only by the dyadic coping experiences of the respondents (the actor effect), while actor and partner effects proved to be predictive of relationship satisfaction. Negative partner experiences related to dyadic coping predicted lower relationship satisfaction of the female partner, while for males the positive experiences of the partner were found to be more predictive. These results confirm that the contextualized assessment of dyadic coping experiences in specific stressful personal projects is a reliable and valid method. Further methodological and theoretical conclusions are discussed.

show abstract

Dyadic coping and inflammation in the context of chronic stress.

Abstract: Positive dyadic coping is a specific interpersonal process that may modulate systemic inflammation among individuals exposed to chronic stress. (PsycINFO Database Record

Cited by 25 publications

References 14 publications

Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature

Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature

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

Dyadic coping in personal projects of romantic partners: assessment and associations with relationship satisfaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About