Received: 24 February 2017 Revised: 15 November 2017 Accepted: 16 November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/smi.2794

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Economic strain and support in couple: The mediating role of

positive emotions
Petruta P. Rusu1,2 | Peter Hilpert3 | Mariana Falconier4 | Guy Bodenmann1

1
Department of Psychology, University of
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Abstract
2
Department of Educational Sciences, This study examined positive emotions as mediating mechanisms in the association between eco-
University “Ștefan cel Mare” of Suceava, nomic strain and spouses' supportive behaviour. Data were collected from 295 married couples
Suceava, Romania living in Romania. Results from the Actor–Partner Mediator Model indicated that economic strain
3
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral had a negative indirect effect on spouses' supportive dyadic coping due to its negative association
Science, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, USA
with partners' positive emotions (joy, contentment, and pride). For both partners, positive emo-
4 tions decreased when they experienced economic strain, which in turn reduced supportive dyadic
Department of Human Development,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State coping in couples. These findings have theoretical implications in explaining the association of
University, Falls Church, Virginia, USA economic strain with partners' positive emotions and behaviours and also clinical implications
Correspondence for practitioners working with couples experiencing economic strain.
Petruta P. Rusu, Department of Educational
Sciences, University “Ștefan cel Mare” of
KEY W ORDS
Suceava, Romania.
Email: petruta.rusu@usm.ro dyadic coping, economic strain, married couples, positive emotions, support
Funding information
Swiss Agency for Development and Coopera-
tion (SDC‐CRUS), Grant/Award Number:
SCIEX Project12.237

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N Horne, & Galovan, 2016). Moreover, there is longitudinal research indi-

Economic strain has been found to negatively affect both individual
well‐being and couples' functioning. At an individual level, economic
strain has been linked to depression (Dew & Yorgason, 2010) and anx-
iety (Falconier, 2010), whereas at the couple level, it has been associ-
ated with relationship dissatisfaction, instability (e.g., Archuleta, Britt,
Tonn, & Grable, 2011), negative interactions such as conflict (Kwon,
Rueter, Lee, Koh, & Ok, 2003), psychological aggression (Falconier &
Epstein, 2010), hostility (Ponnet, Wouters, Goedemé, & Mortelmans,
2013), and demand–withdraw patterns (Falconier & Epstein, 2011).
Thus far, there is limited research on the explanatory mechanisms
between economic strain and partners' interactions, and previous
studies focused more on changes in negative emotional states such
as depression or anxiety as mediators (Falconier, 2010; Helms et al.,
2014).
However, stressful contexts affect relationship well‐being not only
by creating additional problems and negative changes but also by
depleting spouses' positive resources to cope with external stressors
and to engage in positive relationship behaviours (Neff & Karney,
2017). Supporting this model, recent studies showed that economic
strain was associated with a decrease in supportive dyadic coping
(SDC) in couples over time (Clavél, Cutrona, & Russell, 2017; Johnson,
cating that lack of employment was more strongly related to a
decrease in positive emotions than to an increase in negative emotions
and psychological symptoms such as depression and anxiety (Huppert
& Whittington, 2003).
On the basis of previous studies showing that stress depletes
spouses' personal and relational resources, we suggest that marital
economic strain is linked to a decrease in wives' and husbands' positive
emotions, which, in turn, might be related to a decrease in the level of
support provided to the partner. The rationale for the association
between positive emotions and supportive behaviour in couples stems
from the broaden‐and‐build theory indicating that positive emotions
build social resources (Fredrickson, 2001) and from research showing
specific evidence of the association between positive emotions and
positive interpersonal outcomes in romantic relationships (see, for
review, Ramsey & Gentzler, 2015). Additional studies suggest that
the presence of positive emotions is not just the absence of negative
emotions (Huppert & Whittington, 2003; Karademas, 2007) and posi-
tive emotions have distinct implications on close relationships, above
and beyond the absence of negative emotions (see for review Yee,
Gonzaga, & Gable, 2014). A better understanding of the mechanisms
relating economic strain to positive constructs may improve the inter-
vention strategies of clinicians working with low‐income couples, by

Stress and Health. 2017;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smi Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 RUSU
focusing on cultivating partners' positive emotions in everyday life and
enhancing partners' supportive behaviours. The current study used
data from couples living in Romania, a country with a high proportion
of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion (Randall & Corp, 2014).
1.1 | Economic context in Romania
The communist period (1948–1989) and the postcommunist transition
to capitalism have left persistent negative economic implications on
people's lives in Romania. The global economic crisis of 2008, followed
by the government austerity programme in 2010 negatively affected
Romanians' everyday life once again. The average household income
was the lowest from all the European Union countries in 2012 (Randall
& Corp, 2014). However, there is a lack of empirical studies examining
the influence of economic strain on couples' interactions. Thus far,
research has found that financial problems predict conflict and depres-
sion in Romanian families (Robila & Krishnakumar, 2005). Further
investigations are still needed, using a dyadic approach (collecting data
from both partners) and explaining the mechanisms involved in the
association between economic strain and relational behaviours.
1.2 | Economic strain and supportive dyadic coping
in couples
Economic strain is experienced when an individual perceives that he or
she does not have enough or adequate resources to face the economic
demands of a situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), creating concerns
and worries (Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1988). According to the sys-
temic–transactional model (STM; Bodenmann, 1997), one partner's
stress cannot be understood without considering the other partner's
stress. STM is an extension of Lazarus and Folkman's stress transac-
tional theory to the context of couples' relationships and provides a
framework for understanding stress, such as economic strain, and cop-
ing processes in couples. STM argues that stress influences a partner's
relational behaviours through its harmful effect on a partner's individ-
ual well‐being. Stress occurring outside of the relationship (external
stress) spills over into the couple's relationship; decreases the amount
of time that partners spend together, the quality of communication,
and marital satisfaction (Bodenmann, 2005); and increases negative
interactions between partners (Neff & Karney, 2009). On the basis of
STM, one partner's stress always becomes the other partner's stress
as a result of crossover effects and/or because both partners are
affected by common stressors (e.g., reduced family income or savings).
The association between both partners' economic strain levels has
actually received empirical support in past research (e.g., Falconier &
Epstein, 2011; Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002).
In addition to linking stress processes between partners, STM also
focuses on what partners do to support each other to cope with stress.
STM has defined SDC as the support or assistance that one partner
provides to the other to cope with stress (Bodenmann, 1997). SDC
may involve emotion‐focused (e.g., being understanding and empathic)
and problem‐focused (e.g., providing solutions) responses. Research
has found that SDC was positively associated with relationship satis-
faction (e.g., Fife, Weaver, Cook, & Stump, 2013; Rusu, 2016).
ET AL.
However, particular contextual factors (such as economic strain)
might negatively affect couples' interactions, which would have detri-
mental effects on the relationship in the long term. Contextual influ-
ences on marriage (demands and resources present in the
environment of a marriage) have been negatively related to spouses'
coping skills and effective interactions (Clavél et al., 2017; Johnson
et al., 2016; Karney & Bradbury, 2005; Neff & Karney, 2017). High
levels of chronic stress (such as financial strain) are in general associ-
ated with more challenges for couples (e.g., more working hours and
lack of money for child care) and negatively affect couples' ability to
cope effectively with these additional stressors. Moreover,
Bodenmann et al. (2015) found that stress negatively influenced par-
ticularly social support provided by men in couples, and this was
explained by the fact that stressful environments deplete the emo-
tional resources of partners to remain connected and not by the insuf-
ficient skills of men to be supportive. Similarly, McNulty (2016)
emphasizes the role of contextual factors in interpersonal relationships
and suggests that external and stressful circumstances limit partners'
self‐regulatory resources.
Economic strain, in particular, has been found to decrease people's
ability to provide social and emotional support to their partners (e.g.,
providing help, expressing care, giving encouragement, showing affec-
tion, and positive dyadic coping [DC]) and to increase undermining
behaviours (e.g., criticizing, insulting, and negative DC; Karademas &
Roussi, 2016; Simons, Lorenz, Wu, & Conger, 1993; Vinokur, Price, &
Caplan, 1996). A daily diary study indicated that individuals experienc-
ing negative daily financial events reported more negative interper-
sonal events on the same day (with family members and with a
romantic partner; Sturgeon, Zautra, & Okun, 2014). In a Romanian
National Survey (Barometrul de Opinie Publica, 2007), both men and
women reported economic strain as being the most important variable
in generating family conflicts and the financial situation was found to
be one of the main explanatory variables of marital satisfaction. More-
over, Karademas and Roussi (2016) found that DC mediated the asso-
ciation between economic strain and marital satisfaction in a sample of
Greek couples. Consistent with these findings, the present study
sought to further examine if economic strain could influence positive
behaviours in couples, comprising partners' willingness to provide sup-
port to each other during times of stress (SDC).
1.3 | Economic strain and positive emotions
Empirical evidence suggests that poverty is negatively related to hap-
piness and life satisfaction both within and across countries (see for
review Haushofer & Fehr, 2014). In the last two decades, researchers
have started to analyse the role of positive emotions in addition to
those of negative emotions in the stress process. Folkman (2008) pro-
posed a revision of the original stress and coping model (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984) by incorporating positive emotions. Several studies
showed that stress negatively affected positive emotions (Gloria,
Faulk, & Steinhardt, 2013; Schiffrin & Nelson, 2010), whereas others
found that stress increased negative affect but did not decrease posi-
tive affect (Hamama, Ronen, Shachar, & Rosenbaum, 2013). However,
few studies examined explicitly the influence of economic strain on
positive emotions. Gallo and Matthews (2003) developed the Reserve
RUSU ET AL.
Capacity Model for explaining the dynamic associations of socio‐eco-
nomic status with positive and negative emotions, social and personal
resources, and health outcomes. According to this model, a low socio‐
economic status leads to more negative and less positive emotions and
depletes individual personal and psychosocial resources (such as dispo-
sitional optimism, self‐esteem, and social support). Gallo and Matthews
(2003) suggested that people from low‐socio‐economic‐status envi-
ronments are less likely to experience positive emotions and studies
concerning socio‐economic status and emotions should include mea-
sures of positive emotions. Studies based on the Reserve Capacity
Model have found that positive and negative emotions are differen-
tially affected by socio‐economic status. Specifically, socio‐economic
status was associated with lower levels of positive emotions in daily
life, but not higher levels of negative affect (Gallo, Bogart, Vranceanu,
& Matthews, 2005). Similarly, previous research found that unemploy-
ment was strongly associated with a decrease in positive affectivity
and well‐being but had less influence on negative emotions and psy-
chological symptoms (Huppert & Whittington, 2003). In the family psy-
chology context, economic strain was negatively related to parental
positivity (including positive emotions, self‐esteem, and mastery; Jeon
& Neppl, 2016). Consistent with the Reserve Capacity Model and on
the basis of previous studies concerning economic strain and positive
emotions, the present study attempts to extend existing findings by
investigating the associations between family economic strain, positive
emotions, and support in couples.
1.4 | Positive emotions as mediators between
economic strain and supportive dyadic coping
To date, several studies have found that individual variables explained
the negative influence of stress in general on couples' relationship
quality. Neff and Karney (2004, 2009) showed that stress decreases
partners' willingness to express affection and support, consumes
partners' resources, and in consequence reduces their ability to engage
in positive relationship behaviour. However, only a few studies have
examined potential mechanisms by which economic strain, in particu-
lar, is associated with partners' behaviours. Conger, Rueter, and
Conger (2000) found that negative emotions determined by economic
stress have been associated with negative marital interactions, as
depressed and frustrated partners will engage more in conflicts and
will offer less emotional support to their spouse.
The association between positive and negative emotions in times
of stress might be affected by the level of stress (Zautra, Affleck,
Tennen, Reich, & Davis, 2005). Research showed that in times of low
stress, positive and negative emotions are relatively uncorrelated, but
positive emotions are especially beneficial for coping on days when
people experience higher levels of stress, daily positive emotions being
associated with the regulation of negative emotions (Zautra et al.,
2005). Similarly, there is support from other studies on the role of pos-
itive emotions in enhancing resilience and well‐being in stressful situa-
tions (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009;
Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003; Gloria et al., 2013). In
addition, the influence of stress on emotions might be dependent not
only on the level of stress but also on the type of stress. One recent
longitudinal study examined how stressors differentially influence
3
social support in couples and found that participants who experienced
financial strain were perceived as being less supportive to their part-
ners (Clavél et al., 2017). However, there remains a need for further
understanding of the effect of economic strain on positive outcomes
in couples, and the current study will examine the influence of eco-
nomic strain on SDC through positive emotions.
According to the broaden‐and‐build theory (Fredrickson, 2001),
the experience of positive emotions broadens people's thoughts and
actions (e.g., to play, to be creative, to savour current life circum-
stances, and to share achievements with others), which in turn builds
intrapersonal and social benefits, such as social support and positive
relations with others (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel,
2008). Positive emotions and emotion regulation have been found to
predict disclosure, greater enjoyment of social activities, interpersonal
sensitivity, prosocial tendencies, greater feelings of self–other overlap,
and complex understanding of others (Lopes, Salovey, Côté, Beers, &
Petty, 2005; Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006). Similarly, exchanging posi-
tive emotions in close relationships (as a result of positive events that
happened to one's partner) has been found to be positively associated
with commitment, relationship satisfaction, and relationship stability
(Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000; Gable, Gonzaga, &
Strachman, 2006). Furthermore, existing studies found that positive
emotions have important and distinctive consequences on psycholog-
ical health. For example, positive emotions but not negative emotions
have been found to be related to resilience (Cohn et al., 2009; Tugade
& Fredrickson, 2004), self–other overlap (Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006),
and life satisfaction (Cohn et al., 2009). In addition, experimental stud-
ies showed that positive emotions have an “undoing” function on the
negative consequences of stress, by being associated with downregu-
lation of negative emotions, which is relevant to coping (Tugade &
Fredrickson, 2004).
In examining economic strain in association with positive emo-
tions, previous studies showed negative associations of economic
strain with daily feelings of happiness and excitement (Gallo et al.,
2005); joy, optimism, and self‐esteem (Jeon & Neppl, 2016); and feel-
ings of satisfaction, hopefulness, and confidence (Huppert &
Whittington, 2003). Consistent with these studies, our study focused
on three positive emotions, joy, contentment, and pride, as they have
been shown to relate to stress and socio‐economic status and have
been defined in relationship to environmental resources (Shiota,
Keltner, & John, 2006). Joy is defined as a reward‐oriented emotion,
which arises in safe contexts and reflects an improvement of environ-
mental resources (Fredrickson, 1998; Shiota et al., 2006). Joy has an
important role in both formation and development of close relation-
ships. Displays of joy contribute to mate selection, attachment, self‐
expansion (see Shiota, Campos, Keltner, & Hertenstein, 2004), and
commitment in romantic relationships (Aron et al., 2000). Contentment
is defined by the satisfaction of one's needs (Shiota et al., 2006), arises
in situations perceived as safe, and “prompts individuals to savor their
current life circumstances and recent successes” (Fredrickson, 1998, p.
8). Both joy and contentment have been related to a better stress reg-
ulation (Fredrickson, 2001). Pride is a positive emotion arising from
achievements attributed to one's abilities or efforts and reflects a
social evaluation of self compared with others (Shiota et al., 2006; Wil-
liams & DeSteno, 2008). As in the case of joy and contentment, pride
4 RUSU
has not only intrapersonal but also interpersonal consequences, being
related to stronger interpersonal connections, by increasing the disclo-
sure about an achievement (Lewis & Sullivan, 2005).
On the basis of prior studies and consistent with the Reserve
Capacity Model, we hypothesized that financial strain would be associ-
ated with less joy, contentment, and pride. We further predicted that
these positive emotions would be associated with SDC in couples.
Positive emotions have been found to broaden coping resources
(Tugade, 2011) and have been conceptualized as self‐resources, facili-
tating self‐regulation (Tice, Baumeister, & Zhang, 2004). However,
considering that stress may impair individual and couple resources,
we assume that a decrease in partners' positive behaviours (such as
SDC) during economic strain might be explained by a decrease in pos-
itive emotions.
1.5 | Hypotheses
On the basis of the aforementioned negative associations of economic
strain with positive emotions (Gallo et al., 2005; Jeon & Neppl, 2016)
and positive coping behaviours in couple (Clavél et al., 2017;
Karademas & Roussi, 2016), we first hypothesized that economic
strain at the dyadic level will be negatively related to male and female
positive emotions (joy, contentment, and pride; H1a) and to male and
female SDC behaviours (H1b). Further, according to the broaden‐
and‐build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001) and given
prior empirical research regarding the interpersonal benefits of positive
emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Gable et al., 2006), we predicted
that positive emotions experienced by each partner (joy, contentment,
and pride) would be positively associated with own and partner SDC
(H2). The prediction of both actor and partner effects is based on the
STM (Bodenmann, 2005) and studies that have used this model and
indicated that individual resources of one partner influence both own
and partner dyadic behaviours (Herzberg, 2013; Papp & Witt, 2010).
Finally, given the STM assumption that individual resources mediate
the link between external stress and relationship outcomes, we
assumed that each partner's positive emotions (joy, contentment, and
pride) would mediate the association of economic strain with own
SDC (actor–actor mediation) and with partner SDC (actor–partner
mediation; H3).
2 | METHOD
2.1 | Sample
The data from the present study were collected from a community
sample of 295 Romanian married couples, approximately half from an
urban area (50.2%) and half from a rural area (49.8%). Men's mean
age was 39.30 (SD = 9.34, range = 21–66), and women's mean age
was 36.14 years (SD = 9.37, range = 20–64). On average, the marriage
duration was 13.05 years (SD = 9.30; range = 0.25–40 years), and part-
ners had been in the relationship on average for 15 years (SD = 8.64).
Couples had on average 1.43 children (SD = 1.14, range = 0–8 chil-
dren). Regarding their educational level, 5.46% of women and 6.96%
of men had finished middle school; 29.35% of women and 41.11% of
men had a high school diploma; 11.85% of women and 12.63% of
ET AL.
men had completed some post‐high‐school education; 43.69% of
women and 30.66% of men had a bachelor's degree; and 8.87% of
women and 9.40% of men had a postgraduate education. According
to occupational status, 79.3% of the men and 79% of the women were
employed; 14.2% of the men and 14.6% of the women were unem-
ployed; 0.3% of the men and 2.7% of the women were still students;
and 2.7% of the men and 2.4% of the women were retired. The
socio‐economic status of the sample, defined by family income, was
representative of Romania; 2% had a very low family income, 43.4%
had a low family income, 44% had a moderate family income, and
8.6% had a high family income. The majority of participants were
Christian‐Orthodox (89.25%), and the rest were Pentecostal (4.69%),
Evangelist (2.73%), Catholic (1.87%), Adventist (0.85%), and Baptist
(0.34%).
2.2 | Procedure
Couples were recruited by students attending an educational science
programme from a public Romanian university. Students were
instructed about the study's purpose and were asked to distribute
the questionnaires to married couples (every student received ques-
tionnaires for two couples). For data collection, students received aca-
demic course credits. To ensure the independency and privacy of the
reports, students were instructed to deliver the envelopes separately
to each spouse. Students received questionnaires for 390 couples,
and 331 of them were returned. We excluded the questionnaires filled
out by only one partner (21 couples) and the questionnaires with iden-
tical answers for both spouses on all measures (15 couples). Overall,
295 couples (N = 590 individuals) with complete data were included
in the study. Couples agreed to participate in the study on a voluntary
basis. In the final sample, we had couples from eight different counties
in Romania. All participants signed a consent form to participate in the
study. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires without
consulting the partner and to return them in enclosed envelopes. Cou-
ples were not reimbursed for their participation.
2.3 | Measures
Participants completed a demographic information form that
requested information on age, gender, marriage duration, number of
children, and education.
2.3.1 | Economic strain
The Family Economic Strain Scale (FESS; Hilton & Devall, 1997) was
used to assess economic strain. The FESS is a 13‐item questionnaire
that measures each partner's individual subjective experience of finan-
cial strain by asking respondents to rate the frequency with which they
experience various situations indicative of financial strain (e.g., “In gen-
eral, it is hard for me and my family to live on our present income”) on a
5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). The final
item is different from the rest of the scale because it asks participants
to evaluate family income in comparison to other families from the
same country also on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (far below
average) to 5 (far above average). We excluded two items referring to
financial stress in relation to children, because 22% of the couples in
RUSU ET AL.
this sample did not have children. The total score of the scale was cal-
culated by averaging the values for the other 10 items. The final com-
parison item was kept. Hilton and Devall (1997) reported internal
consistency for FESS ranging from .92 to .95. Internal consistency in
this study was α = .92 for males and α = .94 for females.
2.3.2 | Supportive dyadic coping
The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI, Romanian version; Rusu, Hilpert,
Turliuc, & Bodenmann, 2016) was used to measure SDC by oneself.
The DCI measures the frequency with which partners engage in vari-
ous aspects of DC (i.e., stress communication, delegated, supportive,
and negative DC) on a 5‐point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (very
rarely) to 5 (very often). The DCI factorial structure has been confirmed
in the Romanian population (Rusu et al., 2016). The SDC by Oneself
Scale used in the current study includes four items, two of them mea-
suring emotion‐focused SDC (e.g., “I show empathy and understanding
to my partner”) and the other two measuring problem‐focused SDC (e.
g., “I try to analyze the situation together with my partner in an objec-
tive manner and help him/her to understand and change the problem”).
In the current study, the internal consistency of the SDC scale was
α = .74 for men's SDC by oneself and α = .72 for women's SDC by
oneself.
2.3.3 | Positive emotions (joy, contentment, and pride)
In the current study, we used joy, contentment, and pride subscales of
the Dispositional Positive Emotions Scale (DPES; Shiota et al., 2006).
Respondents reported their level of agreement with each item on a
7‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The internal consistency of the Dispositional Positive Emotions
Scale subscales reported by Shiota et al. (2006) was α = .82 for joy,
α = .92 for contentment, and α = .80 for pride. The joy subscale is a
six‐item questionnaire that measures a dispositional tendency to feel
joy in life (e.g., “I often feel bursts of joy”). In our sample, Cronbach's
alpha was α = .84 for men's joy and α = .85 for women's joy. The con-
tentment subscale is a five‐item questionnaire that measures a dispo-
sitional tendency to feel contentment in general (e.g., “When I think
about my life I experience a deep feeling of contentment”). In our
study, Cronbach's alpha was α = .90 for men's contentment and
α = .83 for women's contentment. The pride subscale is a five‐item
questionnaire that measures a dispositional tendency to feel pride (e.
g., “I am proud of myself and my accomplishments”). In our study,
Cronbach's alpha was α = .82 for both men's pride and women's pride.
All measures were completed in the Romanian language. The
English versions of FESS and DPES were first translated into Romanian
and then back translated into English by two independent translators
(one English teacher and one researcher), following the recommenda-
tions of Sireci, Yang, Harter, and Ehrlich (2006). Both the original
English version and the English version resulting from the back transla-
tion were compared, and the discrepancies were analysed by the trans-
lators and solved by mutual agreement.
2.4 | Analytic strategy
In order to test our hypotheses, we computed a dyadic mediation
model. This approach allowed us to control for the interdependence
5
of dyadic data and to specify the effects within person (actor effects)
and across partners (partners effects), as well as to include mediation
variables in the model (see Figure 1). Considering that economic strain
is a common stressor shared by wives and husbands, we followed the
conceptual framework of Westman, Vinokur, Hamilton, and Roziner
(2004) and we computed economic strain as a latent factor indicated
by wives' and husbands' scores on this measure. For positive emotions
and SDC, we included in the model individual scores of both partners,
resulting in this way a hybrid model (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012). First,
we estimated a partial mediation model for distinguishable dyads
(Model 1). Second, considering that the direct paths from economic
strain to SDC were statistically not significant in the structural model,
we tested the more parsimonious full mediation model, without the
direct paths from economic strain to SDC (Model 2). Third, we tested
for gender differences by constraining corresponding paths to be equal
(Model 3, Model 4, and Model 5).
2.4.1 | Control variables
Past research suggested that economic strain, positive emotions, and
SDC are influenced by demographic variables such as duration of mar-
riage, education, or the number of children (Karney & Bradbury, 1995,
2005). Considering that from our main variables, only economic strain
was affected by marriage duration in the structural model, we statisti-
cally controlled for the influence of marriage duration on economic
strain.
We relied on common fit indices: chi‐square, comparative fit index
(CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root
mean square residual of approximation (RMSEA; Schermelleh‐Engel,
Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003). We used SPSS 22 for descriptive statis-
tics and MPlus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2014) for the structural
model. We used full information maximum likelihood estimator and
bootstrap option in MPlus to compute model parameters and standard
errors.
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, and the results of the t tests for paired
samples for each of the study variables are presented in Table 1. Over-
all, participants reported moderate levels of economic strain
(MWomen = 2.64; MMen = 2.49; range = 1–5), relatively high levels of
positive emotions (for joy MWomen = 4.67, MMen = 4.48; for content-
ment MWomen = 5.06, MMen = 4.95; for pride MWomen = 5.29,
MMen = 5.35, range = 1–7), and coping behaviours (for SDC by oneself
MWomen = 3.83, MMen = 3.78; range = 1–5). In addition, women
reported higher levels of economic strain and joy than men, but the
effect size of these differences was small.
Table 2 provides information about the intercorrelations among
the study variables. Economic strain was significantly negatively corre-
lated with positive emotions and SDC in both husbands and wives
(supporting H1a and H1b). As expected (H2), all three positive emo-
tions (joy, contentment, and pride) were significantly positively corre-
lated with SDC. Results also show significant positive associations
6 RUSU ET AL.

FIGURE 1 Unstandardized coefficients for the final mediation model. Actor and partner effects were constrained to equality across gender.
Marriage duration was included in the model as a control variable, but not depicted for clarity. The multigroup analysis of the model revealed
no significant differences between couples with and without children. Note: n = 295 women and 295 men, **p < .01 (two‐tailed)

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and paired‐sample t test for path model has been tested and showed acceptable fit indices, Model 2:
model variables χ2(52) = 125.36, p = .00, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.05,
Variable Mean SD Mean difference t Cohen's d 0.08], SRMR = 0.04. In order to test for gender differences, we have

Economic strain restricted the paths in the association between economic strain and
positive emotions, Model 3: χ2(53) = 128.36, p = .00, CFI = 0.96,
Women 2.64 0.96 −0.15** −3.99 0.23
RMSEA = 0.07, 90% CI [0.05, 0.08], SRMR = 0.04; the actor effects
Men 2.49 0.91
in the association between positive emotions and SDC, Model 4:
Joy
χ2(54) = 128.48, p = .00, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.05,
Women 4.67 1.00 −0.19** −3.48 0.20
0.08], SRMR = 0.04; and then the partner effects between emotions
Men 4.48 1.00
and SDC, Model 5: χ2(55) = 128.70, p = .00, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06,
Contentment
90% CI [0.05, 0.08], SRMR = 0.04. The full mediation model with
Women 5.06 1.16 −0.10 −1.57 0.08
restricted actor and partner effects across gender (Model 5) was the
Men 4.95 1.10
best fitting model. Given that χ2 is sensitive to sample size, we applied
Pride
the rule that χ2/df should be smaller than 3 (Schermelleh‐Engel et al.,
Women 5.29 0.87 0.05 0.9 0.04
2003).
Men 5.35 0.87
In order to analyse gender differences, we computed models
Supportive dyadic coping
including constraints for corresponding paths. Specifically, we imposed
Women 3.83 0.61 −0.05 −1.33 0.07
equality constraints across gender on the effect of economic strain on
Men 3.78 0.63
positive emotions (Model 3), the actor effects of positive emotions on
Note. n = 295 women and 295 men, df = 293. SDC (Model 4), and the partner effects of positive emotions on SDC
**p < .01 (two‐tailed). (Model 5). The results showed that the constraints did not significantly
worsen the models, indicating no gender differences (Table 3). The full
mediation model with restrictions across gender is depicted in Figure 1
. This is the most parsimonious model, indicating that there are no dif-
between the two partners' levels of economic strain (r = .76, p < .001), ferences across gender in the actor and partner effects and the medi-
joy (r = .56, p < .001), contentment (r = .47, p < .001), pride (r = .31, ation paths.
p < .001), emotion‐focused SDC (r = .37, p < .001), and problem‐
focused SDC (r = .33, p < .001).

3.3 | Direct effects

3.2 | Path analysis results 3.3.1 | Economic strain and positive emotions
The mediation model included economic strain, positive emotions, and As presented in Table 4, the direct paths from economic strain to
SDC as latent variables. Table 3 provides an overview of the models female and male positive emotions were statistically significant (as a
that have been tested. Model 1 (partial mediation) had acceptable fit further support of H1a). In our first hypothesis, we assumed a negative
indices: χ (50) = 124.95, p = .00, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07, 90% CI
2 association between economic strain and positive emotions. Results
[0.05, 0.08], SRMR = 0.04. Considering that the direct effect of eco- showed that economic strain was significantly negatively related to
nomic strain on SDC was statistically not significant, a full mediation both partners' positive emotions (b = −0.52, p < .001).
RUSU ET AL. 7

TABLE 2 Correlations among path model variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Male economic strain —

2. Female economic strain .76** —
3. Male joy −.37** −.34** —
4. Female joy −.38** −.46** .56** —
5. Male contentment −.42** −.39** .67** .41** —
6. Female contentment −.39** −.50** .37** .57** .47** —
7. Male pride −.31** −.25** .42** .23** .58** .27** —
8. Female pride −.18** −.27** .28** .48** .31** .53** .31** —
9. Male emotion‐focused SDC oneself −.21** −.23** .28** .19** .32** .26** .37** .23** —
10. Female emotion‐focused SDC oneself −.24** −.30** .26** .33** .37** .38** .27** .31** .37** —
11. Male problem‐focused SDC oneself −.14* −.11 .26** .23** .24** .07 .17** .06 .49** .26** —
12. Female problem‐focused SDC oneself −.15* −.20** .19** .32** .17** .28** .20** .28** .32** .52** .33** —
13. Marriage duration .30** .32** −.19** −.29** −.07 −.15** .02 −.10 −.01 −.13* −.04 −.07

Note. n = 295 men and 295 women. SDC = supportive dyadic coping.
*p < .05 (two‐tailed).
**p < .01 (two‐tailed).

TABLE 3 Goodness‐of‐fit indices for unrestricted and restricted models across gender
Models χ2 (df) p Δχ2 (df) p CFI AIC BIC RMSEA

1. Partial mediation model 124.95 (50) .00 — 0.96 7165.321 7365.868 .07
2. Full mediation model 125.36 (52) .00 0.41 (2) .81 0.96 7161.738 7345.917 .06
3. Restricted paths economic strain: positive emotions across gender 128.36 (53) .00 3 (1) .08 0.96 7162.740 7343.236 .07
4. Restricted actor effects positive emotions: SDC across gender 128.48 (54) .00 0.12 (1) .72 0.96 7160.854 7337.666 .06
5. Restricted partner effects positive emotions: SDC across gender 128.70 (55) .00 0.22 (1) .63 0.96 7159.080 7332.208 .06

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square residual of approx-
imation; SDC = supportive dyadic coping.

TABLE 4 Parameter estimates for direct and indirect paths of the mediation model

95% bootstrap confidence intervals

b SE p Lower 2.5% Upper 2.5%

Direct effects

MD → ES 0.02 0.00 .00 0.01 0.04

Actor effects

ES → PE −0.52 0.06 .00 −0.66 −0.39

PE → SDC 0.29 0.04 .00 0.19 0.38

Partner effects

PE → SDC 0.26 0.04 .00 0.17 0.35

Indirect effects
Actor–actor mediation
ES → PE → SDC −0.15 0.02 .00 −0.21 −0.10
Actor–partner mediation
ES → PE → SDC −0.13 0.02 .00 −0.19 −0.08

Note. Parameter estimates are unstandardized coefficients. ES = economic strain; MD = marriage duration; PE = positive emotions; SDC = supportive dyadic
coping.

3.3.2 | Economic strain and supportive dyadic coping emotions as mediators. Therefore, the more parsimonious model, with-
The direct paths from economic strain to SDC (H1b) were statistically out the direct path from economic strain to SDC, was preferred over
not significant in the structural model, when we included positive the less parsimonious model.
8 RUSU
3.3.3 | Positive emotions and supportive dyadic coping
The findings on the effects of positive emotions on SDC (Table 4) indi-
cated that female and male positive emotions had a significant direct
effect on their own SDC (b = 0.29, p < .001), as a further support of
H2. In addition to actor effects, partner effects were also significant;
female and male positive emotions had a direct positive effect on their
partner SDC (b = 0.26, p < .001).
3.4 | Indirect effects
For our main hypothesis (H3), we assumed that positive emotions
explained the influence of economic strain on SDC. The results
(Table 4) indicated that positive emotions (joy, contentment, and pride)
mediated both the actor and partner effects of economic strain on
SDC. Specifically, female and male economic strain had a significant
indirect effect on their own SDC through their own positive emotions
(b = −0.15, p < .001), confirming the actor–actor mediation. In addition,
we found significant actor–partner mediation. Specifically, female and
male positive emotions mediated the association between economic
strain and their partner SDC (b = −0.13, p < .001).
4 | DISCUSSION
It has been illustrated that economic strain predicts negative relation-
ship outcomes, such as poor relationship satisfaction, instability, and
conflict (e.g., Archuleta et al., 2011; Dew & Yorgason, 2010). Several
studies have looked into the spillover processes of economic strain
on relationship functioning, and they have identified negative variables
(e.g., depression and anxiety; Falconier, 2010) as explaining mecha-
nisms. However, less is known about the influence of economic strain
on positive emotions and positive relationship behaviours. Following
STM (Bodenmann, 1997), the aim of this study was to examine
whether economic strain is associated with declines in SDC in couples
directly and indirectly by negatively affecting partners' positive
emotions. Below is a discussion of the direct and indirect effects found
in this study.
The hypothesized negative direct association between economic
strain and positive emotions (H1a) was supported by both correlation
coefficients and path effects. The findings indicated that men and
women's economic strain was significantly negatively related to their
own dispositional positive emotions (i.e., joy, contentment, and pride).
These findings were in line with the Reserve Capacity Model (Gallo &
Matthews, 2003) and studies suggesting a negative influence of eco-
nomic strain on positive emotions and well‐being (Gallo et al., 2005;
Jeon & Neppl, 2016). Moreover, our results supplemented existing
findings that showed that economic strain increased the experience
of negative emotions (i.e., depression and anxiety, Falconier, 2010)
and provided support to Zautra et al.'s (2005) assumption that highly
stressful situations are associated with a decrease of positive emo-
tions. Importantly, couples coping with economic strain not only are
in the situation of having additional problems within the relationship
(such as depression, anxiety, and conflict) but also have fewer
resources (positive emotions and SDC) for a successful adaptation to
these difficulties.
ET AL.
The direct negative association between economic strain and SDC
(H1b) was supported by correlation coefficients for both husbands and
wives. These findings coincided with similar results from previous
studies on the negative association between economic strain and
partners' social and emotional support (Simons et al., 1993; Vinokur
et al., 1996) and expanded prior research that found positive associa-
tions between economic strain and relationship negative behaviours
(Falconier & Epstein, 2010). However, in the path analytical model,
the direct effect of economic strain on SDC was not significant; this
association was fully mediated by positive emotions.
In our second hypothesis, we assumed a positive association
between positive emotions and SDC. The results showed significant
actor effects; men and women's positive emotions were positively
related to their own SDC. Moreover, we found significant partner
effects; men and women's positive emotions had a positive effect on
their partner SDC. Therefore, partners scoring highly on positive emo-
tions were more likely to report providing partner support in couples.
These findings were in line with other research showing a positive
association between the ability to manage emotions and perceived
social support (Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003). In addition to previous
studies indicating a positive association between positive emotions
and better individual adjustment to stress (Gloria et al., 2013; Tugade
& Fredrickson, 2004), we found that increasing positive emotions can
also promote DC in couples. These findings highlighted the role of pos-
itive emotions in building social resources (Fredrickson, 2001) and
were consistent with past research relating positive emotions with
positive relations, social support, commitment, and relationship satis-
faction (Aron et al., 2000; Fredrickson et al., 2008; Gable et al., 2006).
The results from our study supported the mediation hypothesis
(H3), indicating that positive emotions (joy, contentment, and pride)
explained the influence of economic strain on their own SDC (actor–
actor mediation) and on their partner's SDC (actor–partner mediation).
Both wives and husbands, under economic strain, experienced a
decrease in their feelings of joy, contentment, and pride, which in turn
negatively affected provided SDC. These findings corroborated prior
theory and research underlying stress, emotions, and social outcomes
(Bodenmann, 1997; Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson et al., 2008). First,
our results provided support to STM (Bodenmann, 1997), which con-
siders that external stress has a negative influence on relational behav-
iours directly or indirectly through a negative influence on individual
variables. Accordingly, in the current study, the negative influence of
economic strain on spouses' SDC was explained by the influence of
economic strain on positive emotions. Second, our study was an exten-
sion of the broaden‐and‐build theory of positive emotions
(Fredrickson, 2001) in the context of couples' interaction. Our out-
comes suggest that a lower level of positive emotions induced by
financial strain has negative consequences on partners' social
resources affecting the support offered to the partner to cope with
stress. In addition, our results supported and extended findings
reported in a previous study on the impact of financial strain on
depression and social support. Vinokur et al. (1996) showed that
depressive symptoms of a partner confronting financial strain damp-
ened the support provided to their unemployed spouse. According to
the model proposed by Neff and Karney (2017), we may assume that
economic stress diverts spouses' resources from being connected with
RUSU ET AL.
their partners to outside stressors, being thus unable to provide emo-
tional and operational support in couples. Shah, Mullainathan, and
Shafir (2012) revealed in a series of experiments that economic strain
consumes people's attentional resources; a focus on financial difficul-
ties (such as daily basic expenses) will determine them to neglect other
important problems. By analysing positive emotions and SDC, our find-
ings offer more light on the spillover of financial strain in couple
relationships.
In the present study, we also found gender differences in
experiencing economic strain and joy, but the effect size of these dif-
ferences was small. Despite the traditional gender role orientation,
assigning breadwinning and decision‐making responsibilities to men,
wives in our study reported higher levels of economic strain than their
husbands. Even if the effect size is small, this finding is consistent with
the results reported in other studies (Falconier, 2010) and might be
explained by the fact that women are primarily responsible for family
care and for managing household expenses. Another gender difference
was related to the dispositional tendency to feel joy in everyday life.
This difference supported the literature finding women to be more
likely than men to express positive emotions related to others, such
as joy (Alexander & Wood, 2000).
4.1 | Implications
Identifying positive emotions as mediating mechanisms between
economic strain and SDC has both theoretical and clinical implica-
tions. From a theoretical point of view, our results contribute to a
better understanding of the mechanisms involving the spillover
effects of economic strain into relationships. The results of the pres-
ent study confirmed the STM (Bodenmann, 1997), showing that an
external stressor (e.g., economic strain) can influence couples' inter-
action (SDC) through its influence on the individual level (positive
emotions).
From a practical point of view, our findings have implications for
the psychotherapy of couples confronted with economic strain. The
current study indicated a link between contextual, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal variables. The subjective evaluation of the contextual
factors (such as family economic strain) had a negative influence on
individual variables (everyday positive emotions, such as joy, content-
ment, and pride), and this affected spouses' interactions with their
partners (SDC by oneself). Cultivating positive emotions in everyday
life and enhancing a partner's emotion‐focused and problem‐focused
SDC can help married couples in confronting financial strain.
Clinicians may help couples to be prepared to find more ways of
experiencing daily positive emotions and supportive behaviours for
each other, particularly during vulnerable times of economic strain.
The finding that economic strain was negatively related to positive
emotions and support in couples suggests the importance of address-
ing not only negative aspects but also positive individual and dyadic
factors within the context of working with couples under stress. Con-
sidering that both negative and positive emotions are influenced by
stressful contexts (Neff & Karney, 2017) and they have distinct effects
on relationship outcomes (Yee et al., 2014), we support the view of
Huppert and Whittington (2003) that psychological therapies should
focus not only on negative well‐being and decreasing the negative
9
psychological symptoms but also on positive well‐being and increasing
the experience of positive emotions. A specific intervention, designed
for couples experiencing economic strain, is the programme
TOGETHER (Falconier, 2015), which focuses on improving partners'
individual resources (such as individual coping and problem‐solving
strategies) and dyadic skills (such as communication and SDC). More-
over, our results support the importance of including positive emotions
in couple and family therapy. Specific interventions from Positive Fam-
ily Therapy (Conoley, Plumb, Hawley, Spaventa‐Vancil, & Hernández,
2015) could be used with couples under economic strain in order to
facilitate partners' positive emotions (e.g., joy, contentment, and pride).
The therapist may encourage partners to practise capitalization (dis-
closing positive events and expressing positive affects about those
events) and visualization of successful outcomes (see Conoley et al.,
2015). However, in addition to focusing on individual and dyadic skills
in couple therapy, Neff and Karney (2017) suggest that contextual
stressors should be addressed directly in the case of highly vulnerable
couples (such as specific governmental policies and interventions to
provide instrumental support).
4.2 | Limitations
The findings of our study should be interpreted in light of some limita-
tions. One limitation of the current study is that negative emotions
have not been measured, and thus, we could not control for them in
the structural model. In addition, the cross‐sectional data limited the
possibility to analyse the association between study variables over
time and increased the possibility of other causal associations in our
models. The self‐report measures and the procedure of completion
of the questionnaires by couples at home increased the probability of
socially desirable answers. Further research should consider a longitu-
dinal or a daily diary design to analyse the influence of economic strain
on emotions and relationship behaviours over time. Despite these lim-
itations, our study contributes to a better understanding of the mech-
anisms relating economic strain to couple behaviours. Furthermore,
this research is one of the first exploring the negative influence of eco-
nomic strain on positive individual and relationship outcomes.
ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS
This study was supported by a grant funded by the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC‐CRUS) awarded to the first
author (SCIEX Project12.237).
ORCID
Petruta P. Rusu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0868-6054
RE FE RE NC ES
Alexander, M. G., & Wood, W. (2000). Women, men, and positive emotions:
A social role interpretation. Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological
Perspectives, 189–210.
Archuleta, K. L., Britt, S. L., Tonn, T. J., & Grable, J. E. (2011). Financial sat-
isfaction and financial stressors in marital satisfaction. Psychological
Reports, 108(2), 563–576.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000).
Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and
10
experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 78(2), 273–284.
Barometrul de Opinie Publica (Barometer for Public Opinion) (2007).
Bucharest, Romania. Retrieved from http://www.fundatia.ro/
barometrul‐de‐opinie‐publica‐viata‐cuplu‐mai‐2007
Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping: A systemic–transactional view of
stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. Euro-
pean Review of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 137–141.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance in marital func-
tioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples
coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Germann, J., Nussbeck, F. W., Heinrichs, M., &
Bradbury, T. N. (2015). Effects of stress on the social support provided
by men and women in intimate relationships. Psychological Science,
26(10), 1584–1594.
Clavél, F. D., Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (2017). United and divided by
stress: How stressors differentially influence social support in African
American couples over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
43(7), 1050–1064.
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M.
(2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfac-
tion by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361–368.
Conger, K. J., Rueter, M. A., & Conger, R. D. (2000). The role of economic
pressure in the lives of parents and their adolescents: The family stress
model.
Conoley, C. W., Plumb, E. W., Hawley, K. J., Spaventa‐Vancil, K. Z., &
Hernández, R. J. (2015). Integrating positive psychology into family
therapy positive family therapy. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(5),
703–733.
Dew, J. P., & Yorgason, J. (2010). Economic pressure and marital conflict in
retirement‐aged couples. Journal of Family Issues, 31(2), 164–188.
Falconier, M. K. (2010). Female anxiety and male depression: Links
between economic strain and psychological aggression in Argentinean
couples. Family Relations, 59(4), 424–438.
Falconier, M. K. (2015). TOGETHER—A couples' program to improve
communication, coping, and financial management skills: Development
and initial pilot‐testing. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(2),
236–250.
Falconier, M. K., & Epstein, N. B. (2010). Relationship satisfaction in
Argentinian couples under economic strain: Gender differences in a
dyadic stress model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(6),
781–799.
Falconier, M. K., & Epstein, N. B. (2011). Female‐demand/male‐withdraw
communication in Argentinian couples: A mediating factor between
economic strain and relationship distress. Personal Relationships, 18(4),
586–603.
Fife, B. L., Weaver, M. T., Cook, W. L., & Stump, T. T. (2013). Partner inter-
dependence and coping with life‐threatening illness: The impact on
dyadic adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 702.
Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress process.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21(1), 3–14.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of
General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychol-
ogy: The broaden‐and‐build theory of positive emotions. American
Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008).
Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving‐
kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045–1062.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What
good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience
and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on
RUSU ET AL.
September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(2), 365–376.
Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for
me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event dis-
closures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 904–917.
Gallo, L. C., Bogart, L. M., Vranceanu, A. M., & Matthews, K. A. (2005).
Socioeconomic status, resources, psychological experiences, and emo-
tional responses: A test of the reserve capacity model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 386.
Gallo, L. C., & Matthews, K. A. (2003). Understanding the association
between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emo-
tions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 10.
Gloria, C. T., Faulk, K. E., & Steinhardt, M. A. (2013). Positive affectivity pre-
dicts successful and unsuccessful adaptation to stress. Motivation and
Emotion, 37(1), 185–193.
Hamama, L., Ronen, T., Shachar, K., & Rosenbaum, M. (2013). Links
between stress, positive and negative affect, and life satisfaction among
teachers in special education schools. Journal of Happiness Studies,
14(3), 731–751.
Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science,
344(6186), 862–867.
Helms, H. M., Supple, A. J., Su, J., Rodriguez, Y., Cavanaugh, A. M., &
Hengstebeck, N. D. (2014). Economic pressure, cultural adaptation
stress, and marital quality among Mexican‐origin couples. Journal of
Family Psychology, 28(1), 77.
Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between indi-
vidual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 26(2), 136–153.
Hilton, J. M., & Devall, E. L. (1997). The Family Economic Strain Scale:
Development and evaluation of the instrument with single‐and two‐
parent families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 18(3), 247–271.
Huppert, F. A., & Whittington, J. E. (2003). Evidence for the independence
of positive and negative well‐being: Implications for quality of life
assessment. British Journal of Health Psychology, 8(1), 107–122.
Jeon, S., & Neppl, T. K. (2016). Intergenerational continuity in economic
hardship, parental positivity, and positive parenting: The association
with child behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 22.
Johnson, M. D., Horne, R. M., & Galovan, A. M. (2016). The developmental
course of supportive dyadic coping in couples. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 52(12), 2031–2043.
Karademas, E. C. (2007). Positive and negative aspects of well‐being: Com-
mon and specific predictors. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2),
277–287.
Karademas, E. C., & Roussi, P. (2016). Financial strain, dyadic coping, rela-
tionship satisfaction, and psychological distress: A dyadic mediation
study in Greek couples. Stress and Health.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital
quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Contextual influences on marriage:
Implications for policy and intervention. Current Directions in Psycholog-
ical Science, 14(4), 171–174.
Kwon, H. K., Rueter, M. A., Lee, M. S., Koh, S., & Ok, S. W. (2003). Marital
relationships following the Korean economic crisis: Applying the family
stress model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 316–325.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York,
NY: Springer.
Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common fate model for dyadic
data: Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model.
Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 140.
Lewis, M., & Sullivan, M. W. (2005). The development of self‐conscious
emotions. Handbook of Competence and Motivation, 185–201.
RUSU ET AL.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion
regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5(1),
113.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, person-
ality, and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35(3), 641–658.
Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2002). Perceived job insecurity among dual‐
earner couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic
sector and the measure used? Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 75, 295–314.
McNulty, J. K. (2016). Chapter five—Highlighting the contextual nature of
interpersonal relationships. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
54, 247–315.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2014). Mplus user's guide (Seventh
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context affect intimate
relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within
marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 134–148.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship
experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 435.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2017). Acknowledging the elephant in the room:
How stressful environmental contexts shape relationship dynamics.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 107–110.
Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners' individual coping strat-
egies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning.
Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 551.
Ponnet, K., Wouters, E., Goedemé, T., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). Family
financial stress, parenting and problem behavior in adolescents: An
actor–partner interdependence approach. Journal of Family Issues,
37(4), 574–597.
Ramsey, M. A., & Gentzler, A. L. (2015). An upward spiral: Bidirectional
associations between positive affect and positive aspects of close rela-
tionships across the life span. Developmental Review, 36, 58–104.
Randall, C., & Corp, A. (2014). Measuring national well‐being: European
comparisons. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved from http://
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_363811.pdf
Robila, M., & Krishnakumar, A. (2005). Effects of economic pressure
on marital conflict in Romania. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2),
246–251.
Rusu, P. P. (2016). Dyadic coping in Romanian couples. In M. K. Falconier, A.
K. Randall, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: A cultural
perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rusu, P. P., Hilpert, P., Turliuc, M. N., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic cop-
ing in an Eastern European context: Validity and measurement
invariance of the Romanian version of Dyadic Coping Inventory.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49(4).
Schermelleh‐Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the
fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive
goodness‐of‐fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online,
8(2), 23–74.
Schiffrin, H. H., & Nelson, S. K. (2010). Stressed and happy? Investigating
the relationship between happiness and perceived stress. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 11(1), 33–39.
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of
having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685.
11
Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2004). Positive
emotion and the regulation of interpersonal relationships. The Regula-
tion of Emotion, 127–155.
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion disposi-
tions differentially associated with Big Five personality and
attachment style. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 61–71.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Wu, C. I., & Conger, R. D. (1993). Social network
and marital support as mediators and moderators of the impact of
stress and depression on parental behavior. Developmental Psychology,
29(2), 368.
Sireci, S. G., Yang, Y., Harter, J., & Ehrlich, E. J. (2006). Evaluating guidelines
for test adaptations a methodological analysis of translation quality.
Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 557–567.
Sturgeon, J. A., Zautra, A. J., & Okun, M. A. (2014). Associations between
financial stress and interpersonal events: A daily diary study of mid-
dle‐aged adults and their life circumstances. Psychology and Aging,
29(4), 803.
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Zhang, L. (2004). The role of emotion in
self‐regulation: Differing roles of positive and negative emotion. The
regulation of emotion, 213–226.
Tugade, M. M. (2011). Positive emotions and coping: Examining dual‐pro-
cess models of resilience. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
stress, health, and coping (pp. 186–199). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive
emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320–333.
Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Caplan, R. D. (1996). Hard times and hurtful
partners: How financial strain affects depression and relationship satis-
faction of unemployed persons and their spouses. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71(1), 166.
Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1988). Economic distress, family coping,
and quality of family life. In P. Voydanoff, & L. C. Majka (Eds.), Families
and economic distress: Coping strategies and social policy. New perspec-
tives on family (pp. 97–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know you: Positive emo-
tions, self–other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation
of a new relationship. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 93–106.
Westman, M., Vinokur, A. D., Hamilton, V. L., & Roziner, I. (2004). Cross-
over of marital dissatisfaction during military downsizing among
Russian army officers and their spouses. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(5), 769.
Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motiva-
tional role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6),
1007–1017.
Yee, C. I., Gonzaga, G. C., & Gable, S. L. (2014). Positive emotions in close
relationships. Handbook of Positive Emotions, 215–228.
Zautra, A. J., Affleck, G. G., Tennen, H., Reich, J. W., & Davis, M. C. (2005).
Dynamic approaches to emotions and stress in everyday life: Bolger
and Zuckerman reloaded with positive as well as negative affects. Jour-
nal of Personality, 73(6), 1511–1538.
How to cite this article: Rusu PP, Hilpert P, Falconier M,
Bodenmann G. Economic strain and support in couple: The
mediating role of positive emotions. Stress and Health.
2017;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2794