Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing (대한간호학회지)

Korean Society of Nursing Science (한국간호과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Actor and Partner Effects of Couple's Daily Stress and Dyadic Coping on Marital Satisfaction

부부의 일상 스트레스와 공동대처가 결혼만족에 미치는 자기 효과와 상대방 효과

  • Received : 2020.07.21
  • Accepted : 2020.10.22
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the actor and partner effects of daily stress and dyadic coping on marital satisfaction using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediational Model (APIeM). Methods: Participants were 314 couples who met the study's eligibility criteria. Data were collected from March to April 2016 through apartment and cooperative company communities in Seoul. Two APIeMs of positive and negative dyadic coping were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 and Mplus 7.4. All measures were self-administered. Results: Daily stress and positive and negative dyadic coping in both spouses had direct actor effects on their marital satisfaction. Daily stress in both spouses had an indirect actor effect on marital satisfaction through their positive and negative dyadic coping. The husband's daily stress had an indirect partner effect on the wife's marital satisfaction through his positive dyadic coping, while the wife's positive dyadic coping had a direct partner effect on the husband's marital satisfaction. The husband's daily stress had an indirect partner effect on the wife's marital satisfaction through his negative dyadic coping, while the wife's negative dyadic coping had a direct partner effect on the husband's marital satisfaction. Conclusion: Dyadic coping is an effective way to deal with couple's daily hassles as it increase their satisfaction in marriage.

Keywords

References

  1. Robles TF. Marital quality and health: Implications for marriage in the 21st century. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2014;23(6):427-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414549043
  2. Bodenmann G. Systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 1995;54(1):34-49.
  3. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York (NY): Springer; 1984. p. 181-225.
  4. Herzberg PY. Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 2013;26(2):136-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.655726
  5. Papp LM, Witt NL. Romantic partners' individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010;24(5):551-559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020836
  6. Landis M, Peter-Wight M, Martin M, Bodenmann G. Dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of older spouses in long-term marriage. GeroPsych. 2013;26(1):39-47. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000077
  7. Woo H, Yoo G. Effects of dyadic coping on marital satisfaction and intention to divorce. Journal of Family Relations. 2013;18(2):51-71.
  8. Rottmann N, Hansen DG, Larsen PV, Nicolaisen A, Flyger H, Johansen C, et al. Dyadic coping within couples dealing with breast cancer: A longitudinal, population-based study. Health Psychology. 2015;34(5):486-495. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000218
  9. Falconier MK, Jackson JB, Hilpert P, Bodenmann G. Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2015;42:28-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002
  10. Randall AK, Bodenmann G. The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review. 2009;29(2):105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004
  11. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples' relationships. American Psychologist. Forthcoming 2020 Jul 23.
  12. Bodenmann G. Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In: Revenson TA, Kayser K, Bodenmann G, editors. Decade of Behavior. Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 2005. p. 33-49.
  13. Kim SY, Seo YS. The influence of maladaptive schema and daily hassle on marital satisfaction: The mediating effects of perceived marital support. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy. 2008;20(4):1243-1265.
  14. Bodenmann G. [Stress and coping in couples]. Gottingen: Hogrefe; 2000. p. 237-250. German.
  15. Ledermann T, Macho S, Kenny DA. Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling. 2011;18(4):595-612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099
  16. Bentler PM, Chou CP. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research. 1987;16(1):78-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004
  17. Wang J, Wang X. Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2019. p. 29-88.
  18. DeLongis A, Folkman S, Lazarus RS. The impact of daily stress on health and mood: Psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54(3):486-495. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.486
  19. Kim CH. Relationship of the daily hassles, stress appraisal and coping strategies with emotional experiences. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy. 1995;7(1):44-69.
  20. Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1976;38(1):15-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547
  21. Cho H, Choi SM, Oh HJ, Kwon JH. Validity of the short forms of the Korean dyadic adjustment scale. Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy. 2011;23(3):655-670.
  22. Russell DW, Kahn JH, Spoth R, Altmaier EM. Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1998;45(1):18-29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.18
  23. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York (NY): The Guilford Press; 2011. p. 91-151.
  24. Shrout PE, Bolger N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods. 2002;7(4):422-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
  25. Jung EH, Shin SH. Actor and partner effects of health status, marital satisfaction and self efficacy on retirement preparation of middle aged couples: Actor-partner interdependence model analysis. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2018;48(2):154-166. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2018.48.2.154
  26. Jackson JB, Miller RB, Oka M, Henry RG. Gender differences in marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014;76(1):105-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12077
  27. Hwang DJ, Lee JS. A study on the changing trajectory of domestic work time of married couples - applying growth mixture model -. Korean Journal of Social Welfare. 2019;71(1):101-121. https://doi.org/10.20970/kasw.2019.71.1.005
  28. Lee Y. Childbirth and change in marital satisfaction of wives: The mediating effects of changes in leisure with husbands and in their housework. Korean Journal of Family Welfare. 2019;24(4):519-538. https://doi.org/10.13049/kfwa.2019.24.4.4
  29. Choi KI. An analyzing of the effect of parenting stress on marital satisfaction of husbands and wives with early children: Using APIM. Journal of Digital Convergence. 2019;17(5):417-423. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2019.17.5.417
  30. Stronge S, Overall NC, Sibley CG. Gender differences in the associations between relationship status, social support, and wellbeing. Journal of Family Psychology. 2019;33(7):819-829. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000540