Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interpersonal Coping Styles
Interpersonal Coping Styles
Interpersonal Coping Styles
Research article
Interpersonal coping styles and couple relationship quality: Similarity versus
complementarity hypotheses
CHONG MAN CHOW1*, DUANE BUHRMESTER2 AND CIN CIN TAN1
1
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, USA; 2University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA
Abstract
This study employs a dyadic approach and examines how two partners interpersonal coping styles may independently and
jointly predict their relationship quality. Hypotheses were derived on the basis of dyadic coping theory focusing on how similar
versus complementary styles of interpersonal coping may be useful in explaining couples relationship quality. On the basis of
attachment theory and self-determination theory, three interpersonal coping styles were included: dismissive, adaptive, and
anxious/expressive. Data were collected from 123 romantic couples. Actorpartner interdependence models revealed that
interpersonal coping styles were related to self-perceived (actor effect) and partner-perceived (partner effect) relationship
quality. Furthermore, results also showed that relationship quality was predicted by the interactions between selfs and partners
interpersonal coping styles. Findings suggest that future research should focus on understanding interpersonal coping behaviors
of both partners in a relationship, especially the complex interactions between two partners characteristics and their effects on
relationship outcomes. Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
*Correspondence to: Chong Man Chow, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd., CF 8, Oshkosh WI 54901, USA.
E-mail: chowc@uwosh.edu
Deceased.
176
Interpersonal coping
demand of stressful situations realistically and utilize their
partner effectively as a safe haven when needed. This interpersonal orientation bears similarities with existing conceptualizations of instrumental and emotional support-seeking
(Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) and positive dyadic coping (Bodenmann, 2005). The interpersonal coping framework
that emphasizes individuals appraisal of their coping efcacy
and capability, however, is unique compared with past theories. This behavioral prole is similar to attachment theorys
secure type and self-determination theorys emotional
integration. Past research showed that couples who engaged
in greater communication of problems and discussion of
possible coping strategies have better marital adjustment
(Bodenmann, 2005; Coyne & Smith, 1991). Thus, we hypothesize that the adaptive stylewhich is represented by a good
balance of effective emotion regulation, autonomy, and partner
relianceis related to individuals perceptions of greater
closeness (Hypothesis 1) and lower discord with their romantic
partner (Hypothesis 2).
Second, the dismissive style involves individuals tendencies to suppress their attachment needs and be compulsively
self-reliant, even though they may acknowledge the importance of their partners involvement in high stress situations.
Extending previous research, this form of interpersonal orientation reects not only a lower level of support-seeking
(Carver et al., 1989) or positive dyadic coping (Bodenmann,
2005) but also individuals extreme sense of self-sufciency
and defensive efforts to minimize their partners involvement.
This behavioral prole is similar to attachment theorys
avoidant type and self-determination theorys suppressive
regulation. Because the dismissive style is characterized by
individuals tendencies to conceal negative emotions and to
be compulsively self-reliant, these individuals downplay the
importance of their partners involvement in their coping processes. The lack of intimate exchanges between these partners
may hinder the development of an intimate and interdependent
relationship. Thus, we hypothesize that the dismissive style is
related to lower relationship closeness (Hypothesis 3). No
hypothesis was made regarding the association between dismissive style and relationship discord.
Finally, the anxious/expressive orientation involves
individuals tendencies to use emotion-focused coping (e.g.,
rumination), inabilities to discriminate the demands of the
situations, and tendencies to seek reassurance from their partner excessively. These individuals are characterized as high
attachment need and demonstrate low coping efcacy and
incompetence in emotion regulation. This interpersonal
orientation is not considered in the dyadic coping literature.
This behavioral prole, however, is similar to attachment
theorys anxious type and self-determination theorys
emotional dysregulation. Because the anxious/expressive style
is characterized by individuals tendencies to become overly
dependent on their partner, anxious/expressive individuals
may experience greater closeness with their partner because
of the intimate exchanges. At the same time, their negative
emotionality may spill over to their partner, creating more
conict and discord in the relationship. Thus, we hypothesize
that the anxious/expressive style is related to greater relationship closeness (Hypothesis 4) and also greater relationship
discord (Hypothesis 5).
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
177
178
METHOD
Participants and Procedures
Participants were 123 heterosexual romantic couples. Participants were recruited from a large city located in the
Southwestern region of the United States through yers posted
at a local university, emails, and Internet postings (e.g.,
Craigslist). Only couples involved in a relationship longer than
6 months were eligible for the study. Both members of the
couples came to the laboratory and completed a series of questionnaires assessing their demographic information, interpersonal coping styles, and relationship quality. Participants
ranged in age from 18 to 60 years (Mage = 26.91, SD = 8.46).
The couples relationship duration ranged from 6 months to
more than 27 years (Myears = 4.77, SD = 5.58), with 68% dating
and 32% married couples. In the current sample, about 53.9%
was White, 14.3% was Hispanic, 1.2% was Black, 13.1% was
Asian, and 8.5% was other. Of the current sample, 71 couples
received monetary compensation of $50 upon completion of
the study, and 52 couples received research credits for
psychology classes in which one partner was enrolled.
Measures
Interpersonal Coping Styles
On the basis of the framework described earlier, a 15-item
questionnaire was developed and used to assess the three
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Interpersonal coping
179
(W)
Dismissive
I handle my problems independently.
I want to deal with things on my own rather than depending on
my partner for help.
I dislike it when I need to depend on my partner for support.
I avoid getting my partner involved in my problems.
I deal with problems alone.
I rely on my partner for help without becoming overly dependent.
I try to solve my own problems but will also go to my partner for advice.
I am happy to accept help from my partner, but I am usually able
to handle things on my own.
I am often able to deal with problem by myself, but also comfortable
sharing my feelings with my partner.
I am willing to seek support from their partner, but not needy.
I need assurance from my partner that I am doing OK.
I want my partner to know how miserable I feel.
I talk to my partner over and over to nd relief.
I tell my partner about the problem and hope that he/she will show sympathy.
I express my feelings to my partner hoping that he/she will care more about me.
(M)
(W)
Adaptive
(M)
(W)
Anxious/expressive
0.79
0.88
0.75
0.67
0.10
0.07
0.29
0.06
0.08
0.20
0.07
0.14
0.50
0.67
0.81
0.32
0.05
0.33
0.58
0.74
0.82
0.42
0.10
0.23
0.38
0.21
0.15
0.51
0.70
0.66
0.19
0.01
0.15
0.46
0.75
0.63
0.01
0.13
0.03
0.20
0.23
0.20
0.14
0.11
0.15
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.10
0.78
0.81
0.01
0.18
0.04
0.13
0.18
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.35
0.14
0.22
0.02
0.15
0.66
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.14
0.72
0.09
0.19
0.14
0.27
0.09
0.22
0.66
0.76
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.07
0.43
0.73
0.56
0.80
0.75
Note: Factor loadings were based on promax rotation, pattern matrix. Factor loadings were bolded to reect corresponding subscales.
(M), men ratings; (W), women ratings.
Relationship Quality
Couples perceptions of relationship support and discord with
their current romantic partner were assessed with the 30-item
Network of Relationships InventoryRelationship Quality
Version (NRI-RQV; Buhrmester, 1992). This 30-item
questionnaire measured ve features of relationship support
(companionship, intimate disclosure, emotional support,
approval, and satisfaction) and ve features of relational discord (conict, criticism, dominance, pressure, and exclusion).
For example, a support item was How happy are you with
your relationship with your partner? and a discord item was
How often you and this person argue with each other?
Because the intimate disclosure and emotional support items
that dene relationship support resemble the adaptive items
from the interpersonal coping questionnaire, they were not
included in the current study. Composite indices for support
and discord dimensions were computed by averaging across
the respective items. For both men and women, the internal
consistency reliability coefcients for the closeness and discord subscales ranged from .89 to .91.
Couples also completed the relationship satisfaction (ve
items) and commitment (seven items) subscales from the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). The satisfaction subscale measured the degree to which the relationship
fullled individuals needs for intimacy, companionship, security, and emotional involvement. One satisfaction item reads,
I feel satised with our relationship. The commitment
subscale measured individuals commitment to the current relationship. One commitment item reads, I want our relationship
to last forever. The respondents rated how descriptive each item
was of their current relationship from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5
(completely agree). For both men and women, the internal
consistency reliability coefcients for the satisfaction and
commitment subscales ranged from .86 to .93.
Finally, the couples completed the Inclusion of Other in
Self (IOS) scale, a single-item pictorial measure that captured
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and paired-sample
t-tests (examining gender differences) of study variables are
presented in Table 2. In terms of gender differences, results
revealed that men reported greater dismissive style than women.
In contrast, men reported lower anxious/expressive style than
women. Men and women were not signicantly different in their
adaptive style scores. In terms of relationship quality, men
reported higher relationship discord than women. For men,
results showed that dismissive style was correlated with lower
adaptive style and anxious/expressive style. However, mens
adaptive style was not signicantly related to their anxious/
expressive style. For women, results showed that dismissive style
was not signicantly correlated with adaptive style but was
related to lower anxious/expressive style. Again, womens adaptive style was not signicantly related to their anxious/expressive
style. Correlations between two partners scores for interpersonal
coping and relationship quality indicated modest but signicant
similarity in adaptive style and high levels of similarity in
their relationship quality ratings (rs ranged from .41 to .60).
Surprisingly, results showed that partners exhibited low levels
of similarity in their maladaptive styles (dismissive and anxious/
expressive). Finally, interpersonal coping styles and relationship
quality dimensions were correlated in expected directions.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 175186 (2014)
.09
.31**
.17
.21*
.21*
.29**
.08
.20*
.08
.09
.03
.07
.00
.02
3.86
0.60
1.12
.22*
.42**
.16
.23*
.16
.25**
.08
.01
.09
.08
.18*
.22*
.22*
.23*
.15
3.06
0.77
5.43**
1. M dismissive
2. M adaptive
3. M anxious/expressive
4. M support
5. M commitment
6. M satisfaction
7. M intimacy
8. M discord
9. W dismissive
10. W adaptive
11. W anxious/expressive
12. W support
13. W commitment
14. W satisfaction
15. W intimacy
16. W discord
Mean
SD
Paired t-test
.07
.07
.07
.05
.25**
.07
.12
.00
.02
.02
.02
.04
.13
2.86
0.79
4.03**
.46**
.86**
.60**
.48**
.22*
.41**
.02
.60**
.39**
.53**
.44**
.37**
3.95
0.69
1.30
.54**
.52**
.22*
.24**
.15
.03
.22*
.41**
.28**
.31**
.18*
6.98
1.38
1.32
.64**
.43**
.29**
.40**
.06
.58**
.51**
.59**
.56**
.40**
6.34
1.74
.41
.31**
.28**
.20*
.10
.37**
.47**
.38**
.50**
.20*
5.37
1.45
.38
.19*
.18*
.02
.39**
.29**
.44**
.21*
.50**
2.42
0.65
4.00**
.06
.23*
.27**
.35**
.35**
.39**
.38**
2.52
0.78
.13
.44**
.41**
.45**
.38**
.30**
3.93
0.63
10
.12
.10
.10
.04
.25**
3.28
0.81
11
.54**
.86**
.60**
.60**
4.02
0.69
12
.62**
.62**
.32**
7.16
1.33
13
.66**
.66**
6.40
1.68
14
.42**
5.32
1.42
15
2.19
0.65
16
180
Chong Man Chow et al.
Interpersonal coping
181
We ran alternative models in which relationship duration was removed from the
equation when predicting relationship closeness and discord. Inspection of
the beta weights in these models (without relationship duration) suggested
that the patterns of ndings remained similar to those presented in Table 3.
2
The actor effects of interpersonal coping on relationship closeness were similar for both men and women when they were left unconstrained. Also, when
the actor effects were left unconstrained, the results for partner effects and interaction effects remained similar to those presented in the current study.
0.6
Relationship Closeness
182
0.5
0.4
0.3
Low Partner
Adaptive
0.2
Mean Partner
Adaptive
0.1
0
-0.1
Low Actor
Adaptive
Mean Actor
Adaptive
High Actor
Adaptive
High Partner
Adaptive
-0.2
-0.3
Figure 3. Actorpartner interaction demonstrating the effect of actors adaptive style on relationship closeness moderated by partners
adaptive style. High versus low levels of the predictor and moderator
are dened by one standard deviation above and below the mean,
respectively
Table 3. Path coefcients from the APIMs regressing relationship closeness and discord on interpersonal coping styles
Relationship quality
Interpersonal coping
Closeness
Discord
Actor effects
Dismissive
Adaptive
Anxious/expressive
.22 (0.05)**
.24 (0.05)**
.10 (0.05)*
Dismissive
Adaptive
Anxious/expressive
.20 (0.05)**
.12 (0.05)*
.00 (0.05)
.14 (0.07)*
.09 (0.06)
.00 (0.07)
.13 (0.06)*
.02 (05)
.17 (0.06)**
.09 (0.05)
.07 (0.06)
.05 (0.06)
Note: Unstandardized path coefcients (standard error in the parentheses) were estimated with the APIM. Because there were no signicant gender differences in
the actor, partner, and actorpartner interaction effects, only one set of parameters was reported to represent both genders (except for the actor effect of dismissive
on relationship discord, with mens coefcients on the left).
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.1
0
-0.1
Low Actor
Dismissive
Mean Actor
Dismissive
High Actor
Dismissive
-0.2
Low Partner
Adaptive
Mean Partner
Adaptive
High Partner
Adaptive
-0.3
-0.4
0.2
Low Partner
Dismissive
0.1
Mean Partner
Dismissive
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.6
-0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Low Actor
Adaptive
Mean Actor
Adaptive
-0.3
-0.4
High Actor
Adaptive
Low Partner
Dismissive
Mean Partner
Dismissive
High Partner
Dismissive
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
Relationship Discord
For relationship discord, we rst tted a baseline model
(with all actor, partner, and actorpartner effects), and it
was a saturated model. Constraining the actor effects to be
equivalent for men and women reduced the model t signicantly, 2(3) = 8.16, p = .04, suggesting that there were
signicant gender differences in the actor effects. Subsequent
tests revealed that such a gender difference emerged from the
effect of dismissive style on relationship discord. Thus, the
effect of dismissive style on relationship discord was allowed
to vary across men and women, whereas the effects of adaptive and anxious/expressive styles on relationship discord
were constrained to be equivalent across men and women.
Following this, the partner effects were constrained to be
equivalent across men and women, and this step did not yield
a signicant reduction in model t, 2(3) = 4.24, p = .24.
Therefore, the partner effects were constrained to be
equivalent across men and women. Finally, the actorpartner
interaction effects were constrained to be equivalent for
men and women, and this step did not yield a signicant
reduction in model t, 2(9) = 9.44, p = .40. Therefore, the
actorpartner interaction effects were constrained to be
equivalent across men and women. The nal model tted
the data well, 2(14, N = 123) = 18.77, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00,
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
183
0.3
-0.5
Relationship Closeness
Relationship Discord
Relationship Closeness
Interpersonal coping
Low Actor
Anxious
Mean Actor
Anxious
High Actor
Anxious
High Partner
Dismissive
Figure 6. Actorpartner interaction demonstrating the effect of actors anxious/expressive style on relationship discord moderated by
partners dismissive style. High versus low levels of the predictor
and moderator are dened by one standard deviation above and below
the mean, respectively
DISCUSSION
The current study has two major contributions. First, it extends
previous work on dyadic coping (Bodenmann, 2005) by
considering both adaptive and maladaptive ways in which
individuals involve their partner in the coping process:
adaptive, dismissive, and anxious/expressive. Second, the
dyadic data and analyses support interdependence theory
(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and suggest that the linkages
between interpersonal coping styles and relationship quality
are not limited to the actor and partner effects, but to the
complex interactions between two partners.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 175186 (2014)
184
We thank an anonymous reviewer and the editor for suggesting the second
and third explanations.
The most interesting results of the current study are the actorpartner interaction effects. First, results showed that individuals experienced higher levels of relationship closeness
when both partners were higher in adaptive coping style. In
contrast, the benecial effect of individuals adaptive coping
on relationship closeness was weaker when their partner was
lower in adaptive coping. These ndings are consistent with
the idea that similarity in couples adaptive coping styles
may reect coordination and mutual reinforcement in a relationship that is assumed to lead to better relationship adjustment (Badr, 2004).
Furthermore, results showed that the effect of individuals
dismissive coping style on relationship closeness was stronger
when their partner was also lower in adaptive coping style. In
contrast, the effect of individuals dismissive coping on relationship closeness was weaker when their partner was higher
in adaptive coping style (Figure 4). Consistent with the complementarity hypothesis (Badr, 2004), these results suggest
that having an adaptive partner may buffer against the negative
impact of dismissive coping style on relationship closeness.
Furthermore, although it was hypothesized that the positive effect of adaptive coping style on relationship closeness would
be impeded by having a high dismissive partner, the hypothesis was not supported. Instead, results showed that individuals
who were high in adaptive coping style experienced higher relationship closeness, regardless of their partners dismissive
coping levels (Figure 5). In contrast, individuals lower in
adaptive coping style were more vulnerable to lower relationship closeness when their partner was higher in dismissive
coping style. When considering these two interaction patterns
simultaneously (Figures 4 and 5), it appears that both individuals would experience lower relationship closeness when one
partner was low in adaptive style and the other partner was
high in dismissive style. Interestingly, results also showed that
the negative effect of dismissive style on relationship closeness was buffered by having a partner who was high in
adaptive style.
Relationship Discord as a Function of Interpersonal
Coping Styles
As expected, individuals high in adaptive coping style also experienced lower levels of relationship discord. In contrast,
ndings demonstrated that individuals who exhibited greater
dismissive and anxious/expressive styles reported experiencing
greater relationship discord. More importantly, partner effect
showed that dismissive interpersonal coping was associated
with partners perceptions of greater relationship conict.
Conrming the emotion transmission perspective (Thompson
& Bolger, 1999), it is reasonable to speculate that emotional
distress of one partnerin this case, resulting from the
maladaptive dismissive stylemay increase the emotional
distress of the other partner. These negative emotions, in turn,
may be generalized to the domain of relationship functioning,
leading the other partner to perceive his or her relationship as
more conictual.
An interesting actorpartner interaction effect emerged
when predicting relationship discord. Consistent with the complementarity hypothesis, the effect of individuals anxious/
expressive style on their own relationship discord was
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 175186 (2014)
Interpersonal coping
relatively weak when their partner was low in dismissive style.
In contrast, the negative effect of individuals anxious/
expressive on relationship discord was much stronger when
they have a high dismissive partner. Similar ndings have
been demonstrated in research on demand-withdrawn patterns
of relationship conict communication, suggesting that
couples who adopted asymmetrical approaches to solving relationship issues (e.g., one person approaches a problem when
the partner responds by avoiding) experienced greater relationship distress (Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995).
Limitations and Future Directions
Although the conceptualization of interpersonal coping
emphasizes the different ways in which individuals involve
their partner in their coping process, one major limitation of
the current research is that we did not examine the role of
the partner as a support-giver. Indeed, it is possible that the
ways individuals cope with stress are partially explained by
their partners ways of providing support. Previous research
on friend dyads suggests that there are distinctive patterns of
associations between friends coping and support-giving
behaviors (Chow & Buhrmester, 2011). It is possible that
individuals seek more support from their partner when he or
she is more sensitive and responsive. In contrast, individuals
who engage in dismissive and anxious/expressive styles may
have a partner who is either uncaring or intrusive when
offering support. Thus, future research should examine whether
individuals interpersonal coping styles are systematically
associated with their romantic partners support-giving behaviors.
Furthermore, it is important to examine how a partners supportgiving plays a role in mediating and moderating the links
between interpersonal coping styles and relationship quality.
For instance, although the current study demonstrated that the
anxious/expressive style was associated with greater levels of
relationship discord, it is unclear whether such a link might
be mediated by another partners unsupportive behaviors.
Furthermore, it is also important to examine how having a
supportive partner may buffer against the negative effects of
anxious/expressive style on relationship outcomes.
The second limitation of the current study is that the interpersonal coping measure was mainly derived from a trait
approach and captures only the typical ways in which individuals communicate their stress. The current research, therefore,
provides limited information about temporal and contextual
variations in interpersonal coping behaviors. Although we
concur with some theorists that coping can be trait-like behavioral tendencies (e.g., Endler & Parker, 1994) or highly driven
by underlying traits (e.g., attachment styles), we also recognize the importance of conceptualizing coping from a transactional perspective (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). That is,
individuals may constantly modify their coping strategies
depending on the nature of the stressors and circumstances.
For example, individuals may choose to seek support from a
supportive partner but choose to conceal their negative feelings
from an uncaring partner. Thus, it is important for future
research to modify the interpersonal coping measure so that it
can be utilized to capture both trait- and state-based coping.
Nevertheless, the interpersonal coping styles may be a useful
way to represent the fundamental behavioral efforts individuals
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
185
186
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by the Timberlawn Psychiatric
Research Foundation Inc. (GA-2009-013).
REFERENCES
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the Self
Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 596612.
Badr, H. (2004). Coping in marital dyads: A contextual perspective on the role
of gender and health. Personal Relationships, 11, 197211.
Badr, H., Carmack, C. L., Kashy, D. A., Cristofanilli, M., & Revenson, T. A.
(2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychology, 29,
169180.
Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Age and gender differences in
adults descriptions of emotional reactions to interpersonal problems.
Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58, 237245.
Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress
and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 3439.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its signicant for marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping
with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33 50).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of
dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and
individual well-being: A comparison. European Psychologist, 16, 255266.
Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between
dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Family Psychology, 20, 485493.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York: Basic
Books.
Buhrmester, D. (1992). Network of relationship questionnaire-relationship
quality version. Unpublished questionnaire. Richardson TX: University of
Texas at Dallas.
Carbery, J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Friendship and need fulllment during
three phases of young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 393409.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocols too
long: Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 4, 9299.
Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies:
A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267283.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Inuences of attachment relationships.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228283.
Chow, C., & Buhrmester, D. (2011). Interdependent patterns of coping and
support among close friends. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
28, 684706.
Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. (1991). Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: A contextual perspective on wives distress. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 404412.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples; Marriage as a resource in
times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Derogatis, L., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An
introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595605.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task, emotion and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6,
5056.
Hateld, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 9699.
Heavey, C. L., Christensen, A., & Malamuth, N. M. (1995). The longitudinal
impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conict. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 797801.
Huston, T. L., & Robins, E. (1982). Conceptual and methodological issues in
studying close relationships. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 44, 901925.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of
interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis.
New York: Guilford Press.
Kramer, U., Ceschi, G., Van der Linden, M., & Bodenmann, G. (2005). Individual and dyadic coping strategies in the aftermath of a traumatic experience. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 241248.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. (1986). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 711772.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stressor, appraisal, and coping.
New York: Springer.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (2010). Mplus users guide (6th edn.),
Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal
of Family Psychology, 24, 551559.
Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 105115.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S.
Duck (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367389). Chichester,
England: Wiley & Sons.
Revenson, T. A. (2003). Scenes from a marriage: Examining support, coping,
and gender within the context of chronic illness. In J. Suls, & K. Wallston
(Eds.), Social psychological foundations of health and illness (pp. 530559).
Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model
Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357391.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2006). The
signicance of autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and methods (2nd edn, pp. 295849).
New York: Wiley.
Thompson, A., & Bolger, N. (1999). Emotional transmission in couples under
stress. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61, 3848.
Wunderer, E., & Schneewind, K. A. (2008). The relationship between marital
standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 38, 462476.
Copyright of European Journal of Social Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.