Implications of we-talk for relationships and health among patients with type 1 diabetes and their spouses

Abstract

We-talk (first-person plural pronoun usage) is frequently used to represent the degree to which a person views an illness as shared within a couple. There is evidence that we-talk is related to good relationship and health. However, research has failed to examine the implications of we-talk for spouses and the interpersonal mechanisms that underlie relational and health benefits. To address these limitations, we investigated the association of we-talk to relationship and health among 199 couples in which one person had type 1 diabetes. We-talk was assessed in the context of a brief coping interview with patients and spouses separately. Patients reported their perceptions of their spouse’s behavior over the past month. Actor–partner interdependence, regression, and bootstrap models showed that patient we-talk was unrelated to patient and spouse well-being, but greater spouse we-talk was associated with higher patient relationship satisfaction, higher patient self-efficacy, and better patient self-care behavior. For spouses, greater spouse we-talk also was associated with higher relationship satisfaction, lower stress, and fewer depressive symptoms. Mediational analyses showed that patients’ perceptions of spouses’ greater emotional support and fewer critical behaviors partially accounted for these associations. Spouse we-talk may be more important than patient we-talk because it signifies that spouses are involved in helping with diabetes management, namely by providing emotional support and refraining from criticizing the patient.

An experimental approach to communal coping

“…Shared appraisal was also calculated from the proportion of pronouns that were first-person plural (e.g., we) using the LIWC software. The proportion of pronouns rather than the proportion of language captures the emphasis on whether patients and partners are talking about joint endeavors (we) rather than individual actions (I and he/she) consistent with previous research on communal coping (Helgeson et al, 2017, Lee et al, 2020). 2 The proportion of pronouns that were first-person plural ranged from 0 to 39% for speakers ( M = 8%; SD = 10%) and 0% to 59% for partners ( M = 11%; SD = 13%).…”

Couples managing chronic illness: A test of the extended theoretical model of communal coping

“…Existing communal coping research has uncovered a similar pattern of benefits for spouses of individuals with health issues. For instance, for spouses of people with diabetes, communal coping was related to less distress (Helgeson et al, 2017), higher relationship satisfaction, lower stress, and lower depressive symptoms (Lee, Helgeson, Van Vleet, Tracy et al, 2020). More curious is that the remaining relationships between communal coping and resilience were non-significant.…”

“…In particular, previous work shows a clear and consistent pattern of spouse effects on patient (panelist) outcomes. For example, partners’ communal coping was positively related to patients’ self-care (Helgeson et al, 2017), relationship satisfaction and self-efficacy (Lee, Helgeson, Van Vleet, Tracy et al., 2020), receptivity to support (Van Vleet et al, 2019), and successful treatment outcomes (Rentscher et al, 2017). Lee, Helgeson, Van Vleet, Tracy et al.…”

“…For example, partners’ communal coping was positively related to patients’ self-care (Helgeson et al, 2017), relationship satisfaction and self-efficacy (Lee, Helgeson, Van Vleet, Tracy et al., 2020), receptivity to support (Van Vleet et al, 2019), and successful treatment outcomes (Rentscher et al, 2017). Lee, Helgeson, Van Vleet, Tracy et al. (2020) argued that spouses’ communal coping may be particularly important because it shows that spouses are involved, even when they do not reap direct physical or mental benefits.…”

Stability of shared appraisal: The role of attachment and implications for relationships and health

“…Shared appraisal was measured using a daily diary for each couple member over 14 days, and attachment insecurity, relationship satisfaction, general well-being, diabetes-specific well-being, and diabetes health were measured once in a background survey. The data set used in the article has been used in four prior publications (Helgeson et al, 2019; Lee et al, 2020; Tracy et al, 2019; Van Vleet et al, 2019). However, none of the prior papers contain any data on the stability of appraisal over time.…”