ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 08 August 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106
Edited by:
Keiko Ishii,
Kobe University, Japan
Reviewed by:
John L. Perry,
University of Hull, UK
Taraneh Mojaverian,
University of California, Santa Barbara,
USA
*Correspondence:
Peter Hilpert
hilpert@uw.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Cultural Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 25 April 2016
Accepted: 11 July 2016
Published: 08 August 2016
Citation:
Hilpert P, Randall AK, Sorokowski P,
Atkins DC, Sorokowska A, Ahmadi K,
Aghraibeh AM, Aryeetey R, Bertoni A,
Bettache K, Błażejewska M,
Bodenmann G, Borders J,
Bortolini TS, Butovskaya M,
Castro FN, Cetinkaya H, Cunha D,
David OA, DeLongis A, Dileym FA,
Domínguez Espinosa ADC, Donato S,
Dronova D, Dural S, Fisher M,
Frackowiak T, Gulbetekin E,
Hamamcıoğlu Akkaya A, Hansen K,
Hattori WT, Hromatko I, Iafrate R,
James BO, Jiang F, Kimamo CO,
King DB, Koç F, Laar A, Lopes FDA,
Martinez R, Mesko N,
Molodovskaya N, Moradi K,
Motahari Z, Natividade JC, Ntayi J,
Ojedokun O, Omar-Fauzee MSB,
Onyishi IE, Özener B, Paluszak A,
Portugal A, Relvas AP, Rizwan M,
Salkičević S, Sarmány-Schuller I,
Stamkou E, Stoyanova S, Šukolová D,
Sutresna N, Tadinac M, Teras A,
Tinoco Ponciano EL, Tripathi R,
Tripathi N, Tripathi M, Vilchinsky N,
Xu F, Yamamoto ME and Yoo G (2016)
The Associations of Dyadic Coping
and Relationship Satisfaction Vary
between and within Nations: A
35-Nation Study.
Front. Psychol. 7:1106.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
The Associations of Dyadic Coping
and Relationship Satisfaction Vary
between and within Nations: A
35-Nation Study
Peter Hilpert 1, 2* , Ashley K. Randall 3 , Piotr Sorokowski 4 , David C. Atkins 1 ,
Agnieszka Sorokowska 4 , Khodabakhsh Ahmadi 5 , Ahmad M. Aghraibeh 6 ,
Richmond Aryeetey 7 , Anna Bertoni 8 , Karim Bettache 9 , Marta Błażejewska 4 ,
Guy Bodenmann 2 , Jessica Borders 3 , Tiago S. Bortolini 10, 11 , Marina Butovskaya 12 ,
Felipe N. Castro 13 , Hakan Cetinkaya 14 , Diana Cunha 15 , Oana A. David 16 , Anita DeLongis 17 ,
Fahd A. Dileym 18 , Alejandra D. C. Domínguez Espinosa 19 , Silvia Donato 8 , Daria Dronova 12 ,
Seda Dural 20 , Maryanne Fisher 21 , Tomasz Frackowiak 4 , Evrim Gulbetekin 22 ,
Aslıhan Hamamcıoğlu Akkaya 23 , Karolina Hansen 24 , Wallisen T. Hattori 25 ,
Ivana Hromatko 26 , Raffaella Iafrate 8 , Bawo O. James 27 , Feng Jiang 28 ,
Charles O. Kimamo 29 , David B. King 30 , Fırat Koç 31 , Amos Laar 7 , Fívia De Araújo Lopes 13 ,
Rocio Martinez 32 , Norbert Mesko 33 , Natalya Molodovskaya 4 , Khadijeh Moradi 34 ,
Zahrasadat Motahari 35 , Jean C. Natividade 36 , Joseph Ntayi 37 , Oluyinka Ojedokun 38 ,
Mohd S. B. Omar-Fauzee 39 , Ike E. Onyishi 40 , Barış Özener 41 , Anna Paluszak 4 ,
Alda Portugal 42 , Ana P. Relvas 15 , Muhammad Rizwan 43 , Svjetlana Salkičević 26 ,
Ivan Sarmány-Schuller 44 , Eftychia Stamkou 45 , Stanislava Stoyanova 46 , Denisa Šukolová 47 ,
Nina Sutresna 48 , Meri Tadinac 26 , Andero Teras 49 , Edna L. Tinoco Ponciano 50 ,
Ritu Tripathi 51 , Nachiketa Tripathi 52 , Mamta Tripathi 52 , Noa Vilchinsky 53 , Feng Xu 2, 54 ,
Maria E. Yamamoto 13 and Gyesook Yoo 55
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, DC, USA, 2 Department of
Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 3 Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ, USA, 4 Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland, 5 Behavioral Sciences Research Center,
Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, 6 Department of Psychology, College of Education, King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 7 School of Public Health, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana, 8 Department of Psychology,
Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy, 9 Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
China, 10 Graduate Program in Morphological Sciences, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
11
Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience Unit, D’Or Institute for Research and Education, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 12 Institute of
Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, 13 Laboratory of Evolution of Human Behavior,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil, 14 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Languages History and
Geography, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, 15 Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Portugal, 16 Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 17 Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 18 Department
of Psychology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 19 Department of Psychology, Universidad Iberoamericana,
Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, 20 Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey, 21 Department of
Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 22 Department of Psychology, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey,
23
Department of Anthropology, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey, 24 Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw,
Poland, 25 Department of Public Health, Medical School, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil, 26 Department of
Psychology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 27 Department of Clinical Services, Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital,
Benin-City, Nigeria, 28 Department of Organization and Human Resources Management, Central University of Finance and
Economics, Beijing, China, 29 Department of Psychology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 30 Department of Psychology,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, 31 Department of Anatomy, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey, 32 Department
of Social Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain, 33 Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary,
34
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran, 35 Institute of Psychology, University
of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran, 36 Department of Psychology, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 37 Faculty of Computing and Management Science, Makerere University Business School, Kampala, Uganda,
38
Department of Pure & Applied Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria, 39 School of Education and
Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia, 40 Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka,
1
1
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
Nigeria, 41 Department of Anthropology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey, 42 Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of
Madeira, Funchal, Portugal, 43 Institute of Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan, 44 Department of
Psychological Sciences, Constantine The Philosopher University in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia, 45 Department of Social Psychology,
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 46 Department of Psychology, South-West University “Neofit Rilski”,
Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, 47 Department of Psychology, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia,
48
Faculty of Sports and Health Education, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung, Indonesia, 49 Institute of Psychology,
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia, 50 Institute of Psychology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
51
Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bangalore, India,
52
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India, 53 Department of
Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel, 54 Department of Education for Students, Guangdong Construction
Polytechnic, Guangdong, China, 55 Department of Child & Family Studies, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea
Objective: Theories about how couples help each other to cope with stress, such as the
systemic transactional model of dyadic coping, suggest that the cultural context in which
couples live influences how their coping behavior affects their relationship satisfaction.
In contrast to the theoretical assumptions, a recent meta-analysis provides evidence
that neither culture, nor gender, influences the association between dyadic coping and
relationship satisfaction, at least based on their samples of couples living in North America
and West Europe. Thus, it is an open questions whether the theoretical assumptions of
cultural influences are false or whether cultural influences on couple behavior just occur
in cultures outside of the Western world.
Method: In order to examine the cultural influence, using a sample of married individuals
(N = 7973) from 35 nations, we used multilevel modeling to test whether the positive
association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies across nations
and whether gender might moderate the association.
Results: Results reveal that the association between dyadic coping and relationship
satisfaction varies between nations. In addition, results show that in some
nations the association is higher for men and in other nations it is higher for
women.
Conclusions: Cultural and gender differences across the globe influence how couples’
coping behavior affects relationship outcomes. This crucial finding indicates that couple
relationship education programs and interventions need to be culturally adapted, as skill
trainings such as dyadic coping lead to differential effects on relationship satisfaction
based on the culture in which couples live.
Keywords: dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction, culture, multilevel modeling, gender differences
INTRODUCTION
coping behavior and relationship satisfaction is determined
by cultural influences (e.g., gender roles), findings from a
recent meta-analysis shows that this association is stable
across nations and gender (Falconier et al., 2015). Despite
the significant findings, the samples used in the metaanalysis nearly exclusively relied on couples living in Western
culture (Falconier et al., 2015), which leaves an unanswered
question about how culture may affect the association between
dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction. The goal of the
current paper was to examine the cultural influence in dyadic
coping processes based on 7973 married individuals across 35
nations.
Stress that spills over into one’s intimate relationship (Repetti,
1989) can increase negative behavior between partners (Repetti,
1989; Schulz et al., 2004), which in turn can negatively
affect relationship outcomes, such as satisfaction (Karney
and Bradbury, 1995; Randall and Bodenmann, 2016). This
negative stress spillover process may, however, be mitigated
if couples help each other cope with the experienced stress
(i.e., dyadic coping). Although theoretical assumptions, such
as the systematic-transactional model of stress and dyadic
coping (Bodenmann, 2005), suggest that the association between
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
2
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
STRESS AND STRESS-SPILL-OVER
PROCESSES
coping behaviors. For example, showing empathic understanding
and expressing solidarity when the partner is stressed (e.g.,
work stress) is defined as supportive dyadic coping. If both
partners experience a common stressor (e.g., parenting, financial
problems), the role of support seeking and providing is more
symmetrical as both are stressed and can try to help each other,
which is specified as common dyadic coping. In the current study,
the two subscales supportive and common dyadic coping were
aggregated (Bodenmann, 2008).
Conceptually, it is predicted that engaging in positive
dyadic coping has a positive impact on relationship satisfaction
(Cutrona, 1996). Dyadic coping not only prevents an increase
in negative behavior between partners but rather, supporting
one’s partner during times of distress can have a positive
effect on relationship functioning. Specifically, partners may feel
understood and cared for, which has been found to be associated
with greater intimacy, trust, and relationship satisfaction (Cohen
and Wills, 1985; Hilpert et al., 2013, 2015).
It is reasonable to assume that the association between dyadic
coping and relationship satisfaction varies between men and
women. According to evolutionary perspective and attachment
theory, women have a higher investment in parenting and tend
to be the primary caregiver, which provides an advantage to
providing support (Bolby, 1969). Eagly and Wood (1999) suggest
that gender difference in behavior within a romantic relationship
can occur based on evolved predispositions or based on role
models men and women have within in the social system.
Cutrona (1996) argues that the quality of support is higher
in women than in men, indicating that men benefit more in
comparison with women.
People all over the globe experience a variety of stressors, which
can have negative effects on their everyday life and well-being
(Thoits, 2010). Most people experience stress stemming from
work, finances, children, illness, and disagreements with others
(Randall and Bodenmann, 2016), whereas some people face
additional stressors such as poverty, high crime rates, epidemics,
hunger crises, and wars (Hilpert and Kimamo, 2016). Research
shows that stress can have detrimental effects on an individual’s
mental (Thoits, 2010) and physical well-being (Larzelere and
Jones, 2008).
Importantly, stress does not just affect the individual;
rather, it can be considered a dyadic construct wherein it
impacts both members of a dyad (Randall and Bodenmann,
2009, 2016). There is ample evidence to suggest that stress
spills over into one’s intimate relationship (Repetti, 1989;
Neff and Karney, 2009; Hilpert et al., 2015). In more detail,
experiencing a stressful situation may increase an individual’s
stress experience, which in turn may increase how they interact
with their partner (e.g., more conflict behavior; Bodenmann
et al., 2007). Findings on stress spillover show that on days
when individual’s experience higher levels of work stress, women
express more anger and men withdraw more (Schulz et al.,
2004).
Evidence shows that one-third of all stable couples are
unhappy with their relationship (Whisman et al., 2008), and 30–
50% of marriages in North America and Europe end in divorce
(Bramlett and Mosher, 2002; Eurostat, 2007). Most theories
suggest that the cause of relationship problems lies within
the interdependent interactions between partners (Thibaut and
Kelley, 1959), based on their problematic personality traits
(e.g., neuroticism; Story and Bradbury, 2004), or lack of
communication skills (Burleson and Denton, 1997). However,
the stress spillover phenomenon in couples provides an
explanation for why even “happy” and “functional” relationships
may eventually fail over time as living in stressful environments
may erode communication skills and functional behaviors
(Bodenmann, 2005).
HOW CULTURE INFLUENCES THE
COPING PROCESSES IN COUPLES
Generally speaking, culture influences people’s behavior (Markus
and Kitayama, 1991). According to several conceptual models
of how couples cope with stress (Revenson, 1990, 2003;
Bodenmann, 1995; Berg and Upchurch, 2007; Falconier et al.,
2016), culture is seen as a contextual factor that influences how
couples help each other to cope (Falconier et al., 2016), but little
is known about how culture affects couples’ coping behaviors.
We summarize four cultural constructs that may affect partner’s
coping behavior: individualism/collectivism, family situation
(nuclear/extended), gender roles, and communication (Falconier
et al., 2016).
COPING PROCESSES IN COUPLES: A
BRIEF THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
According to the Systemic-Transactional Model (STM;
Bodenmann, 1995, 1997, 2005), the stress-coping process is
an interdependent process between two members of a dyad.
The STM suggests that stress experienced by one partner affects
the other partner as well because stress is communicated either
verbally or non-verbally (Bodenmann, 1995). Most importantly,
the STM suggests that the negative impact of stress on intimate
relationships can be buffered if partners help each other to
positively cope with stress (hereafter dyadic coping; Randall and
Bodenmann, 2009, 2016).
Partners can engage in a number of dyadic coping behaviors,
such as supportive, common, delegated, and even negative dyadic
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Individualism-Collectivism
People in individualistic cultures strive to achieve their individual
goals, whereas people in collectivistic cultures work toward the
goals of their family or larger social group (Triandis, 2001;
Oyserman et al., 2002; Shek, 2006). Nations and continents
such as North America, Europe, Australia, and South Africa
represent individualistic cultures, whereas Asia, Africa, and
South America represent collectivist cultures (Hofstede, 1980;
Triandis, 1988). Prior research has shown that Asians and Asian
Americans seek less support from close others in comparison
3
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
Despite the strong theoretical assumptions that the coping
process for men and women should differ (Revenson, 2003;
Bodenmann, 2005; Berg and Upchurch, 2007), this claim has
hardly been empirically supported. For example, no difference
could be found between women’s and men’s coping processes
(Zwicker and DeLongis, 2010; Hilpert et al., 2013) and in daily
diary studies men are equally skilled in providing support as
are women (Neff and Karney, 2005; Iida et al., 2008). Finally,
the results of the meta-analysis (Falconier et al., 2015) did not
provide evidence for gender differences in couples’ dyadic coping
behavior.
However, all these findings are based on Western couples.
With the exception of one study from Indonesia (k = 1), all
other studies (k = 71) from the meta-analysis were based on
couples living in a Western culture. As noted above, grounded
in cross-cultural research on family situation, gender roles,
and communication, it could be suggested that cultural aspects
related to these domains may influence the coping processes
in couples between nations and across the globe, but there
is no empirical evidence to support this to date. This is a
critical question, as couple’s relationship education programs and
interventions depend on the assumption that the knowledge
gained, for example in regards to stress communication, will lead
to a reliable increase in relationship satisfaction. However, if we
find that effects of dyadic coping depend on the couples’ culture,
the results of this study could have important implications for
cultural adaptations in relationship education programs.
with Americas when undergoing stressful experiences because
they are concerned that mobilizing support might disturb the
harmony with close others (Taylor et al., 2004; Kim et al.,
2006). Thus, we propose that when partners who identify with
a collectivistic culture experience stress, they might provide less
explicit support and the provided support might be less effective
(Kuo, 2013).
Family Situation
Cultures differ in the extent to which couples live in nuclear
families (i.e., spouses and children only) or in extended families
(i.e., together with grandparents and other relatives; Georgas
et al., 2001). Living in nuclear families is more common in
Western, individualistic, nations, which means that the partner
may be, for most, the primary support provider (Bodenmann,
2000). The coping dynamics in couples in extended families
might be very different as their family network is larger and more
people can provide support (Hilpert and Kimamo, 2016).
Gender Roles
Gender roles reflect cultural norms that which behaviors are
appropriate for men and women in a relationship. Gender roles
for women are different for women in Western, individualistic,
cultures where they can participate more freely in the society,
whereas the gender roles might be very different if a woman lives
in Africa or the Middle East (Giuliano and Nunn, 2013). In a
society where men and women share egalitarian gender roles,
the coping process can be congruent and consistent as men and
women can equally seek and provide support to maintain their
relationship (Bodenmann, 2005). However, in a society where
the perception of men and women’ roles are asymmetric, the
process is more one-sided. An example of this can be seen in
China, where women are in a submissive role and are seen
more as support providers, whereas men are support receivers.
Nevertheless, these roles are changing in China, as most women
are employed and demand the equal sharing of both family and
work affairs (Shek, 2006; Xu et al., 2016).
CURRENT STUDY
Dyadic coping has been shown to have important implications
for individual well-being and relationship outcomes
(Bodenmann et al., 2011). However, nearly all studies examining
the associations between dyadic coping and relational outcomes
have been conducted with Western samples, which leaves gaps
in understanding how culture may influence couples’ coping
processes across the globe. This study addresses this gap and
examines the association between dyadic coping and relationship
satisfaction in 35 nations, representing nations from North
America (U.S., Canada), Europe (Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Spain, Switzerland, U.K.), former Soviet republic (Kazakhstan,
Russia, Estonia), Asia (China, Hong-Kong, Indonesia, India,
Malaysia, Pakistan, South Korea), Middle East (Iran, Israel,
Saudi-Arabia, Turkey), South America (Brazil, Mexico), and
Africa (Ghana, Kenia, Nigeria, Uganda).
Communication
People in individualistic culture are thought to be more explicit
in their communication and depend less on contextual cues,
such as gestures (Shibusawa, 2005), whereas collectivist cultures
rely more on indirect communication and contextual cues (Gao
et al., 1998). The main explanation for this phenomenon is that
harmony in Eastern countries is highly favored which may make
them suppress their ways of communication (Gao et al., 1998).
Based on these styles of communication, one could infer that
the coping process between partners would look very different
depending on cultural context.
A recent meta-analysis by Falconier and colleagues (Falconier
et al., 2015) examining all articles published on dyadic coping
until 2013 showed that dyadic coping behavior is strongly
associated with relationship satisfaction (r = 0.45; p < 0.001),
using a sample of 17,856 participants across 13 Western cultures.
Furthermore, these results show that the effect between dyadic
coping and relationship satisfaction is stable across Western
nations.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
HYPOTHESES
Based on the above-mentioned empirical findings, we
hypothesize that dyadic coping will be significantly associated
with relationship satisfaction across all nations (H1a). Based
on theoretical assumptions that culture affects the coping
process in couples (Bodenmann, 1995; Revenson, 2003; Berg
and Upchurch, 2007), we further hypothesize that there will be
significant variability between nations in the association between
4
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
a standardized back-translation procedure (Sireci, 2006). The
collaborators translated the measures into the native language
of the participants, and bilingual persons back-translated the
measures into English. Differences between the original English
version and the back-translation were discussed, and consensus
agreements were made on the most appropriate translation.
Problems with the translation were discussed with the primary
research team, but no problems were reported. This approach
allowed us to avoid biases commonly found in cross-cultural
research (Van de Vijver and Leung, 1997).
dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction (H1b). Additionally,
we hypothesize that gender will significantly moderate the
association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction
across all nations (H2a). Based on the variability of gender role
difference across the globe (egalitarian, asymmetric), we further
hypothesize that the association will be higher for women in
some nations but not in others (H2b).
METHOD
Sample
Data for this study were collected from 35 nations with a total of
7973 participants (3584 men; 4349 women). The average sample
size per nation was 228 participants, and only one sample was
smaller than 90 participants (Romania, n = 56). Participants had
to be at least 18 years of age and had to be married in order to
participate.
Participants age ranged from 18 to 88 years old (men:
M = 40.8, SD = 11.8, range: 18–88; women: M = 40.5, SD = 11.5,
range: 18–86). Average length of marriage was 14.7 years (men:
M = 14.2, SD = 11.6, range: 0–70; women: M = 15.0, SD = 11.9,
range: 0–65), and participants had, on average, 1.8 children
(SD = 1.4, range: 1–9). Overall, our sample was educated with
53% reporting having a bachelor’s degree or higher, 14% had a
high school or technical college, 5% completed secondary school,
and 1% had finished primary schooling.
MEASURES
Socio-Demographics
Participants reported basic demographic factors such as gender,
age, marriage duration, number of children, and education.
We included individualism-collectivism dimension of Hofstede
(Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010) and capita nominal gross
domestic product (GDP) per country as a control variables.
Dyadic Coping
A short four-item version of the English translated Dyadic
Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008; Randall et al.,
2015) was used to assess perceived partners’ positive dyadic
coping behaviors with two subscales, each with two items:
supportive and common dyadic coping. Respondents were asked
to evaluate how often their partner provides supportive dyadic
coping during stressful times (“My partner shows empathy and
understanding when I need it;” “When I am stressed, my partner
listens to me and gives me the opportunity to communicate what
really bothers me.”) and how often they provide common dyadic
coping when both are stressed (“When we are stressed, we help one
another to put the problem in perspective and see it in a new light;”
“When we are stressed, we do something together, are affectionate
to each other and cope jointly”) on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5
= very often). In this study, α was 0.86 or higher across all samples
and across both genders.
Design
Researchers across the globe were invited to collect data
in their nation for a study on how demographic variables
predict relationship satisfaction (see authors, under review). In
total, researchers from 35 nations agreed to contribute to the
study and collected 46 samples (i.e., in some countries more
than one sample was collected). Recruitment methods were
chosen by the research team in each country, but contributors
were requested to assess a heterogeneous sample according
to age, relationship duration, education, and income. Fortythree samples were collected using an in-person, paper-pencil
approach, and three samples were collected online (Canada,
Israel, and USA). Collaborators using the paper-pencil approach
assessed participant’s data in the presence of the investigator
in order to limit external influences. Note that only married
individuals were recruited. Thus, data came from married
individuals but not from both partners in the dyad. All
participants were notified that their data would be anonymized
and kept confidential and that they could discontinue the study
at any time without facing any problem. Informed consent was
obtained for all participants in the current study. The crosscultural study was approved by the ethical commission at the
University of Wroclaw. If the general ethical approval was not
enough in a specific nation, collaborator got ethical approval
from their University (i.e., University of British Columbia,
University of Arizona, and Bar-Ilan University). Participants did
not get any incentive for their participation.
All measures were administered in English. In all nonEnglish speaking countries, the questionnaire was translated
to native languages by research teams fluent in English using
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Marital Satisfaction
We used the love style subscale of the Marriage and Relationships
Questionnaire (Russel and Wells, 1993) to assess relationship
satisfaction. Participants evaluated their relationship satisfaction
with nine items (“Do you love your husband/wife?;” “Do you enjoy
your husband’s/wife’s company?”) on a five-point scale (1 = no;
2 = rather no; 3 = neither yes nor no; 4 = rather yes; 5 = yes).
This subscale has been tested for cross-cultural use and showed
good psychometric characteristics in many cross-cultural studies
(Lucas et al., 2004, 2008; Weisfeld et al., 2011). In the current
study, internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) was 0.91 across all
samples and both genders.
Statistical Analyses
Hypothesis 1
Our hypotheses focus on the overall associations of dyadic
coping and relationship satisfaction (i.e., average association
across all nations) as well as nation-to-nation variability in these
associations. As such, in the current sample, individuals are
5
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
for these two parameters (β 1 and β 2 ) would support our first
hypothesis (H1a).
Furthermore, Hypothesis 1 predicts that the association
between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction is
significantly different between nations. An omnibus test of
nation-to-nation variability is provided by the variance term
for the slope of within-nation dyadic coping (u1j ). Findings
showing significant variance term for the slope u1j (DCij –DCj )
would support H1b. Beyond this, we did not have nation-specific
hypotheses (e.g., nation A should have a stronger association
than nation B). Moreover, pair-wise comparisons involving 35
nations could yield a total of 595 comparisons. To overcome
this problem, Goldstein and Healy (1995) present a method to
compare a group of means graphically, via specially constructed
confidence intervals. Specifically, the confidence intervals are
adjusted to be 83.5% intervals (±1.39σ ), and non-overlap of the
confidence intervals suggests significant differences in the mean
between nations.
nested within nations. People from a specific nation share a
common, cultural environment, and the shared environment
within a country can be separated from the contribution
of each individual. Using multilevel between-within models
(Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002) allowed us to model: (i) the effect
of dyadic coping across nations (between-nation variability), and
(ii) the association of dyadic coping with relationship satisfaction
between-persons within a nation (within-nation variability; Eid
and Lischetzke, 2013).
In order to analyze between- and within-nation associations,
we separated the dyadic coping values of each person into two
components: (1) a nation-level mean of dyadic coping (DCj ),
and (2) the difference between each individual’s dyadic coping
from their nation-level mean (DCij –DCj ), where i indexes
individuals and j indexes countries. Because samples could vary
between nations for a variety of reasons (e.g., beyond cultural
differences in dyadic coping or marital satisfaction), we aimed
to include a set of control variables in the analyses, specifically
gender, age, marriage duration, number of children, education,
individualism-collectivism, and GDP. In order to find the best
fitting model, we followed Zuur et al. (2009) suggestion to use
a top-down approach to identify the optimal random and fixed
structure. To find the optimal random structure, we included
all fixed effects and sequentially compared models included one
random effect at the time. Likelihood ratio test showed that
a model including random intercepts and a random slope for
DCij –DCj (p < 0.001) provided the best model fit. To find
the optimal fixed structure, we included all fixed effects and
sequentially compared models excluding non-significant effects
using deviance tests. Model comparison showed that marital
duration, number of children, and individualism-collectivism
did not contribut significantly to the model and were therefore
excluded from the final model.
To examine how dyadic coping predicts relationship
satisfaction across all nations (H1a) and within each nation
(H1b), we used the following baseline model:
Hypothesis 2
We hypothesize that the association between dyadic coping and
relationship satisfaction differs for husbands and wives across all
nations (H2a). In addition and based on the cultural differences
in gender roles, we hypothesize that the association between
dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction might vary across
nations and could be higher for women in some cultures in
comparison with the effect for men in their culture (H2b).
These hypotheses were tested by using the baseline model
(see hypothesis 1), but including two interaction terms: (i)
interaction between gender and nation-level mean DCI (DCj )
and (ii) interaction between gender and the difference between
each individual’s DCI from nation-level mean (DCij –DCj ). In
order to test whether the interactions were significant, we used
again the Goldstein and Healy (Goldstein and Healy, 1995)
method to compare a group of means graphically, via specially
constructed confidence intervals. In this case, the confidence
intervals are adjusted to be 95% intervals (±1.96σ ), and nonoverlap of the confidence intervals with zero suggests significant
interaction.
We used R Version 3.0.2 (The R Project for Statistical
Computing)1 to compute descriptive statistics and the lme4
package in R for multilevel modeling (Bates et al., 2015).
Relationship
= β0 + β1 (DCj ) + β2 (DCij − DCj )
Satisfactionij
+β3 (genderij ) + β4 (ageij )
+β5 (educationij )
+β6 GDPj + u0j + u1j (DCij − DCj ) + rij (1)
RESULTS
In Equation 1 the β 1 coefficient captures the between-nations
association of dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction,
whereas β 2 captures the average within-nations association,
controlling for mean differences in nations as well as the other
included covariates. We predicted relationship satisfaction for
an individual in a given nation by the intercept β 0 (i.e., the
predicted value of relationship satisfaction, if all predictors are
zero), by the slope of DCj (β 1 ), the slope of DCij –DCj (β 2 ),
the slope of all control variables (β 3 to β 6 ), u0j represents the
random intercepts, u1j indicates the random slope for dyadic
coping (DCij –DCj ), and the residuum rij represents the residual
for person i in nation j (i.e., the individual deviation of the
observed value from the predicted value). Significant effects
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 shows means and standard deviations for all study
variables between and within nations. On average, the frequency
of positive dyadic coping behavior (M Average = 3.69, range 1–5)
and the level of relationship satisfaction (M Average = 4.50, range
1–5) were relatively high. Results of random intercept model
for dyadic coping and marital satisfaction model2 indicated
significant differences in how often dyadic coping behavior is
1 Retrieved
September 16, 2015, from https://www.r-project.org/
computed a random intercept model and found significant variance for the
random intercepts across nations in dyadic coping (95% CI [0.13, 0.23]) and for
marital satisfaction (95% CI [0.17, 0.27]).
2 We
6
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
TABLE 1 | Mean and standard deviation for all study variables across all nations and for each nation.
NMen
Average across all nations
3582
NWomen
4347
Dyadic coping
Marital satisfaction
M (SD)
α
M (SD)
7973
3.69 (0.95)
0.86
NTotal
Age
Marriage
Duration
α
M (SD)
M (SD)
4.50 (0.64)
0.92
40.7 (11.6)
Number of
Children
Education
GDP
M (SD)
M (SD)
$
14.7 (11.8)
1.8 (1.4)
4.3 (0.9)
22,282
50,169
NORTH AMERICA AND WEST EUROPE
Canada
68
212
280
3.78 (0.89)
0.88
4.54 (0.68)
0.94
40.1 (13.0)
13.8 (13.0)
1.5 (1.6)
4.6 (0.5)
Germany
44
60
104
3.79 (0.78)
0.83
4.59 (0.61)
0.94
47.5 (12.5)
17.6 (15.2)
1.7 (1.0)
4.2 (1.0)
47,966
Italy
127
195
322
3.67 (0.87)
0.84
4.64 (0.42)
0.85
48.4 (11.1)
24.6 (11.6)
1.7 (0.9)
4.0 (0.9)
35,812
Portugal
102
183
298
3.70 (0.89)
0.84
4.56 (0.74)
0.96
46.2 (11.2)
21.1 (12.4)
1.6 (0.8)
3.8 (1.0)
22,122
Spain
94
108
202
3.67 (0.94)
0.89
4.57 (0.56)
0.91
47.1 (9.4)
19.4 (10.2)
1.7 (0.9)
3.8 (1.1)
29,861
Switzerland
112
76
188
3.66 (0.81)
0.87
4.59 (0.53)
0.91
48.7 (12.9)
21.1 (13.2)
2.0 (1.2)
4.4 (0.6)
85,374
U.K.
42
58
100
3.89 (0.84)
0.86
4.63 (0.47)
0.92
45.0 (11.6)
19.4 (13.1)
1.7 (1.4)
4.3 (0.7)
46,461
United States of America
86
153
239
3.96 (0.95)
0.90
4.68 (0.54)
0.93
36.8 (12.3)
9.3 (10.4)
1.6 (1.5)
4.6 (0.6)
54,306
EAST EUROPE
Bulgaria
63
39
102
3.92 (0.42)
0.61
3.96 (0.62)
0.92
38.4 (9.0)
8.8 (96.6)
1.1 (0.5)
4.7 (0.8)
7876
Croatia
306
315
621
3.63 (0.89)
0.89
4.44 (0.57)
0.90
44.8 (11.7)
18.2 (11.9)
1.7 (1.1)
4.0 (1.0)
13,425
Greece
44
50
97
3.96 (0.91)
0.85
4.51 (0.66)
0.93
38.7 (9.0)
11.5 (9.8)
1.5 (1.0)
4.2 (0.8)
43,430
Hungary
76
161
237
3.45 (0.80)
0.68
4.43 (0.65)
0.93
37.8 (19.6)
12.6 (9.5)
1.6 (1.0)
4.1 (0.9)
13,989
Poland
14,111
166
278
447
3.67 (0.99)
0.90
4.46 (0.69)
0.94
40.6 (11.7)
16.4 (12.0)
1.8 (1.2)
4.4 (0.7)
Romania
8
48
56
3.72 (1.06)
0.88
4.30 (0.95)
0.95
35.0 (6.7)
8.0 (6.6)
0.9 (0.8)
4.9 (0.5)
10,129
Slovakia
77
157
234
3.58 (0.93)
0.86
4.28 (0.78)
0.93
42.8 (11.8)
18.3 (11.9)
1.8 (1.0)
4.5 (0.6)
23,954
FORMER SOVIET COUNTRIES
Estonia
50
98
151
3.68 (0.87)
0.90
4.51 (0.58)
0.92
42.9 (12.3)
17.1 (12.6)
2.0 (1.1)
4.5 (0.8)
20,122
Kazakhstan
60
60
120
4.00 (0.76)
0.84
4.77 (0.30)
0.76
37.0 (8.2)
13.0 (7.4)
1.9 (0.6)
4.3 (1.0)
12,436
Russia
121
104
225
3.75 (0.60)
0.83
4.50 (0.56)
0.88
38.6 (13.9)
13.8 (13.2)
1.0 (0.8)
4.5 (0.9)
12,972
ASIA
China
47
72
119
3.54 (0.78)
0.84
4.51 (0.59)
0.88
33.1 (6.4)
7.6 (6.7)
1.0 (0.5)
4.5 (1.0)
7617
Hong Kong
54
40
100
3.29 (0.92)
0.91
4.03 (0.91)
0.95
47.1 (10.0)
20.4 (10.5)
1.5 (1.1)
3.9 (1.0)
40,252
India
135
164
299
4.10 (0.97)
0.89
4.77 (0.38)
0.87
34.1 (8.0)
7.6 (7.4)
1.0 (0.8)
4.9 (0.3)
1586
Indonesia
26
67
93
3.74 (0.88)
0.83
4.61 (0.63)
0.92
41.7 (9.9)
15.7 (11.2)
2.0 (1.0)
4.5 (0.9)
3492
Iran
263
345
609
3.34 (1.19)
0.91
4.11 (0.80)
0.88
38.8 (10.9)
15.3 (11.1)
2.1 (2.2)
3.7 (1.1)
5443
Malaysia
49
50
99
4.12 (0.71)
0.83
4.86 (0.35)
0.93
40.0 (8.9)
13.5 (9.2)
2.9 (2.0)
4.5 (0.7)
10,933
Pakistan
58
71
133
3.65 (1.05)
0.90
4.53 (0.63)
0.93
35.9 (10.2)
10.4 (9.7)
1.9 (1.4)
4.8 (0.6)
1561
South Korea
50
50
100
3.52 (0.83)
0.89
4.39 (0.55)
0.91
41.8 (7.7)
15.1 (8.2)
1.7 (0.8)
4.4 (0.6)
28,166
Israel
75
165
240
3.81 (0.78)
0.81
4.45 (0.69)
0.92
43.0 (12.3)
16.0 (13.5)
2.4 (1.4)
4.9 (0.4)
38,261
Saudi Arabia
87
112
199
3.43 (0.86)
0.72
3.93 (0.63)
0.79
36.2 (8.3)
12.3 (8.5)
2.8 (1.7)
4.6 (0.8)
24,362
Turkey
239
154
393
3.62 (0.95)
0.85
4.59 (0.54)
0.94
42.8 (13.6)
16.7 (13.8)
1.8 (1.2)
4.1 (1.1)
10,299
1388
MIDDLE EAST
AFRICA
Ghana
53
51
104
3.81 (0.93)
0.86
4.70 (0.48)
0.90
40.4 (9.5)
12.0 (9.6)
2.5 (1.6)
4.3 (1.1)
Kenya
47
47
94
3.78 (1.07)
0.85
4.67 (0.55)
0.93
32.3 (7.3)
7.6 (6.1)
1.8 (1.2)
4.4 (1.0)
1358
Nigeria
304
298
610
3.86 (1.04)
0.88
4.72 (0.45)
0.88
39.0 (9.1)
10.3 (8.7)
2.5 (1.8)
4.3 (0.9)
3203
Uganda
62
36
100
3.59 (0.47)
0.87
4.47 (0.59)
0.89
34.9 (10.3)
8.2 (8.2)
2.9 (2.1)
4.8 (1.0)
727
MIDDLE AND SOUTH AMERICA
Brazil
304
181
485
3.64 (0.89)
0.84
4.66 (0.50)
0.88
36.5 (10.3)
10.6 (9.9)
1.1 (1.0)
4.6 (0.7)
11,387
Mexico
83
89
173
3.71 (0.98)
0.87
4.65 (0.65)
0.91
39.0 (11.4)
11.7 (10.0)
1.6 (1.2)
4.2 (1.1)
10,326
GDP = gross domestic product in 2015. Because a few people did not report their gender, the total number of participants differs from the sum of male and female participants in some
nations.
bachelor degree; SD = 0.9), and an average GDP of $22,282 per
annum3 .
provided and in how satisfied people are with their marriage
between nations. Means of the control variables show that our
participants were on average 40.7 years old (SD = 11.6), were
married for 14.7 years (SD = 11.8), had 1.8 children (SD =
1.4), had an education level of 4.3 (4 = high school, 5 =
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
3 We also tested control variables for significant differences across countries (oneway ANOVA). Because even small differences will be significant based on the
large sample size, we computed effects sizes across all nations and average effect
7
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
TABLE 2 | Parameter estimates for multilevel model.
Fixed Effects
(intercept, slope)
Estimate
SE
t
p
Intercept
2.37
0.45
5.4
Dyadic Coping (DCj )
0.59
0.12
5.0
< 0.000
< 0.000
Dyadic Coping (DCij − DCj )
0.35
0.03
13.5
< 0.000
CONTROL VARIABLES
Gender
−0.04
0.01
−3.0
0.002
Age
−0.01
0.01
−5.6
< 0.000
Education
0.02
0.01
3.8
< 0.000
GDP
0.01
0.01
2.3
0.033
Slopes
Intercepts
Random Effects
([co-]variances)
p
NORTH AMERICA AND WEST EUROPE
FIGURE 1 | Scatterplot between dyadic coping and relationship
satisfaction across all individuals including an average linear fitting
line.
Canada
0.54
2.25
0.000
Germany
0.43
2.37
0.000
Great Britain
0.29
2.37
0.000
Italy
0.25
2.54
0.000
Portugal
0.23
2.38
0.000
Spain
0.35
2.48
0.000
Switzerland
0.31
2.37
0.000
United States of America
0.36
2.31
0.000
EAST EUROPE
Hypothesis 1a
We hypothesized significant associations between dyadic coping
and marital satisfaction across all nations (H1a). The association
between dyadic coping and marital satisfaction across all nations
is depicted in a scatterplot for all participants with an average
linear fitting line (Figure 1). Visual inspection supports a positive
association. Fixed effects (i.e., average effect across all nations) of
the multilevel analysis are displayed in the upper panel of Table 2.
Results show that dyadic coping (DCj ) significantly predicted
marital satisfaction (β = 0.59; p < 0.000), indicating that in
nations with higher average dyadic coping scores, couples are
on average more satisfied with their marriage in comparison
with nations where individuals report less coping behavior
from their partner. We further tested for the average withinnation variability of dyadic coping. Results show that couples
who perceive more support from their partner in comparison
with other couples in the same nation were generally more
satisfied with their marriage (β = 0.35; p < 0.000). Finally,
gender, age, education, and GDP significantly predict marital
satisfaction, whereas marriage duration and number of children
were excluded from the final model as they did not predict marital
satisfaction.
0.78
1.76
0.000
Croatia
0.40
2.40
0.000
Greece
0.47
2.21
0.000
Hungary
0.44
2.46
0.000
Poland
0.43
2.38
0.000
Romania
0.56
2.17
0.000
Slovakia
0.55
2.23
0.000
FORMER SOVIET COUNTRIES
Estonia
0.38
2.41
0.000
Kazakhstan
0.25
2.47
0.000
Russia
0.37
2.35
0.000
ASIA
China
0.33
2.46
0.000
Hong Kong
0.56
2.13
0.000
India
0.14
2.42
0.001
Indonesia
0.30
2.50
0.000
Malaysia
0.25
2.49
0.001
Pakistan
0.25
2.45
0.000
South Korea
0.37
2.35
0.000
MIDDLE EAST
Hypothesis 1b
Iran
0.22
2.25
0.000
Israel
0.46
2.27
0.000
Saudi Arabia
0.45
1.96
0.000
Turkey
0.36
2.38
0.000
AFRICA
We hypothesized that the association between dyadic coping
(DCij –DCj ) and marital satisfaction were significant in each
nation as well as that there was significant variability in the
size across all nations for age (daverage = 0.51), marital duration (daverage =
0.51), amount of children (daverage = 0.45), and education level (daverage = 0.46)
indicating some variabilities across nations.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Bulgaria
Ghana
0.16
2.55
0.013
Kenya
0.24
2.50
0.000
Nigeria
0.11
2.54
0.000
Uganda
0.26
2.41
0.000
(Continued)
8
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
for most other nations. For the former Soviet nations, we
found slopes that were close to the sample average. For the
nations in Asia we found relatively large variabilities. The effect
of dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction was significantly
higher in Hong Kong than in any other Asian nations. Most
slopes were in the range of the population average, expect
for India where the slope was significantly lower than for
the other Asian nations. In nations from the Middle East,
we found relatively high effects for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and
Turkey, but a significantly lower slope for Iran. The African
nations differed significantly in their slopes. However, the African
nations were below the average slope of β = 0.35 suggesting
the dyadic coping has a less strong effect on relationship
satisfaction in African couples. Finally, slopes for Brazil and
Mexico for similar to the average slope of β = 0.35 across all
nations.
TABLE 2 | Continued
Fixed Effects
(intercept, slope)
Estimate
SE
t
p
MIDDLE AND SOUTH AMERICA
Brazil
0.27
2.56
0.000
Mexico
0.29
2.51
0.000
N = 7973; All p-values are two-tailed. GDP in $1000; ( DCj ) = nation-level mean of dyadic
coping; (DCij − DCj ) = difference between each individual’s dyadic coping from their
nation-level mean.
slopes between the individual nations (i.e., random effects).
Figure 2 shows the association for participants within each
nation with an average linear fitting line. The visual inspection
supports the overall assumption of positive associations between
dyadic coping and marital satisfaction across nations, but it also
highlights variably across nations.
Random effects are presented in the lower panel of Table 2.
Results show that the associations between dyadic coping
and relationship satisfaction vary across nations. The highest
association was found in Bulgaria (β = 0.78; p < 0.001) and
the lowest in Nigeria (β = 0.11; p < 0.001). In addition, we
computed a post-hoc analysis (LR chi-square test) to examine
whether the variability in the random effects was significant by
comparing a model with the random effects to a model without
random effects. Results show that the model with random effects
fits the data better [chi-square (2) = 404, p < 0.001], indicating
significant variability across countries.
Furthermore, we tested whether the associations between
dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction differed between
nations using a graphical approach. In Figure 3, the random
slopes are depicted, ranked according to the strength of
predicting marital satisfaction. In line with our hypotheses, the
visual inspection shows that the confidence intervals do not
overlap for all nations, which suggests significant differences
(Goldstein and Healy, 1995).
Although we have no specific hypotheses about nations in
which the slope (i.e., the association between dyadic coping
and relationship satisfaction) would be higher or lower, we use
an exploratory approach to compare slopes between some of
the nations. Table 2 shows all random slopes for each nation
clustered in larger geographical areas. Figure 3 shows random
slope estimates with confidence intervals, where intervals that
do not overlap across nations indicate statistically significant
differences at p < 0.05 between them (Goldstein and Healy,
1995). As nearly all previous studies about dyadic coping were
examined in North America and West Europe (Falconier et al.,
2015), we use these nations as a reference group. Results show
the slope for Canada and Germany are significantly higher
than for Italy and Portugal, indicating significant difference
between these nations. Comparing East European nations, result
shows that the slope for Bulgaria was significantly higher than
all other nations. Although this might be an outlier, all other
slopes for the East European nations were clearly above the
average slope of β = 0.35, indicating that for all these nations
dyadic coping has a stronger effect on marital satisfaction than
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Hypothesis 2
Finally, we hypothesized that the association between dyadic
coping and relationship satisfaction to be different for husbands
and wives (fixed effect) and within nations (random effects). In
line with our hypotheses, results showed that gender moderated
the association of dyadic coping with relationship satisfaction
significantly (fixed effect; β = 0.07; p < 0.001), which indicates
that, on average, the association between dyadic coping and
relationship satisfaction is stronger for women. We used a
graphical representation to test whether the moderation effect
of gender is different for specific nations (Figure 4). If the
confidence interval is crossing zero, there is no significant gender
effect (Goldstein and Healy, 1995). The results of the moderation
effect of gender show that men benefit more from dyadic coping
in 4 nations, whereas the effect of dyadic coping was stronger
for women in 17 nations, and no gender effect was found in the
remaining 14 nations.
DISCUSSION
A plethora of research suggests that culture can influence human
behavior in general (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis,
2001); but less is known about how culture affects behavior in
intimate relationships. According to the STM (Bodenmann, 1995,
2005), one’s cultural contextual environment—family structure,
gender roles, and communication—may influence how couples
cope with stress in their relationship (Falconier et al., 2016).
However, a recent meta-analysis shows that the association
between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction does not
vary significantly by nationality or gender (for a meta-analysis
see Falconier et al., 2015). Dyadic coping and subsequent
effects on individual and relational well-being have been almost
exclusively examined in Western couples living in North America
and West Europe. The goal of the present study was to
address this gap in the literature by testing the theoretical
assumption of cultural influence on intimate relationship
processes by examining the associations between dyadic coping
and relationship satisfaction for married individual across 35
nations.
9
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
FIGURE 2 | Scatterplot matrix between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction for all participants across all nations with nation specific average
linear fitting line.
Mean Differences across Nations
support conceptual models predicting that the coping process
in couples is influenced by culture (Revenson, 1990, 2003;
Bodenmann, 1995; Berg and Upchurch, 2007). In addition,
results not only highlight difference between nations but also
large variability of coping behavior and relationship satisfaction
within nations. In summary, these findings indicate that there
is variability in the frequency of dyadic coping behavior and
marital satisfaction across nations but also within nations.
In the following we examine if the associations between
Descriptive statistics showed that there are mean differences
in how much partners report received dyadic coping and
in how satisfied couples are with their marriage across
nations. For example, couples in Africa seem to perceive more
dyadic coping from their partner and are more satisfied with
their relationship, whereas couples in Hong Kong and South
Korea report to exchange less dyadic coping behavior and
are less satisfied with the marriage. Overall, these findings
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
10
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
FIGURE 3 | Random slopes for all nations, ranked according to their strength.
on average in nations where those participants report to receive
more dyadic coping in comparison with participants from
nations reporting to receive less dyadic coping. Furthermore, we
computed the association between dyadic coping behavior and
relationship satisfaction for each nation (i.e., couples share the
same cultural environment within a specific nation). The result
of the average within-nation association indicates that partners
who perceive more dyadic coping by their partner reported
more marital satisfaction in comparison with partners who
perceive less dyadic coping, which is supported by prior research
(Revenson, 1990, 2003; Bodenmann, 1995; Berg and Upchurch,
dyadic coping and marital satisfaction varies between- and
within-nations.
Dyadic Coping between Nations and the
Within-Nations Average (H1a)
Our hypotheses are built around the assumption that partner’s
coping behavior predicts marital satisfaction. The association
of dyadic coping between nations was a significant predictor
of relationship satisfaction across all 35 nations (β = 0.59),
suggesting that participants are more satisfied with their marriage
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
11
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
FIGURE 4 | Random interaction slopes between gender and dyadic coping predicting relationship satisfaction. Random interaction slopes are significant if
the confidence interval does not cross the zero line. If the random interaction slopes are on the left side, the effect is stronger for men whereas when the random
interaction slope is on the right side the effect is stronger for women.
between nations. This finding not only confirms the conceptual
assumption that cultural influences the coping process in couples
(Revenson, 1990, 2003; Bodenmann, 1995; Berg and Upchurch,
2007) but it provides evidence that the same amount of coping
behavior affects couples across nations differently. For example,
coping provision in couples from Hong Kong is associated
with a strong increase in marital satisfaction, whereas the same
coping provision in couples from Ghana or Kenya has only
a small positive impact on the relationship. Notably, we find
nations where the frequency of provided coping behavior is
high and the coping behavior has a strong impact on the
relationship (e.g., Bulgaria, Canada, Greek); but we also find
nations where coping behavior is frequently provided but the
2007). However, it is noteworthy that the average within-nation
effect was smaller than what was found in the recent metaanalysis Falconier and colleagues (β = 0.45; Falconier et al.,
2015), which was based almost exclusively on Western samples.
Thus, our results provide an initial indication that the association
between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction may vary
across nations if examined globally.
Dyadic Coping within Nations (H1b)
We hypothesized that the effect of dyadic coping on marital
satisfaction (i.e., within-nations slopes) would vary between
nations. Results show that the within-nation associations
between coping and marital satisfaction vary significantly
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
12
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
effect of dyadic coping varies across cultural similar nations more
than expected.
Finally, we found that nations from Eastern Europe and Africa
were different than our comparison region of North America and
Western Europe. On average, the slopes from Eastern Europe
were significantly higher than the average slope of β = 0.35.
Specifically, we found the highest slope for Bulgaria, but because
the data from Bulgaria was unique in other ways (low Cronbach
alpha for dyadic coping; lowest level of relationship satisfaction)
this should be interpreted with caution (i.e., outlier). But even if
we do not take Bulgaria into consideration, the random slopes in
all these Eastern European nations were much higher than the
average in any other region. Although all the slopes were high in
the nations in this region, we still found significant differences
between nations in this region (e.g., higher values for Romania
and Slovakia; lower values for Poland and Croatia). For the
African nations in our sample, we found that their slopes were
lower than in any other larger region such as North America and
Western Europe, indicating that dyadic coping seems to be less
related to relationship satisfaction for couples living in Africa.
However, comparing between nations we found higher random
slopes in Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda in comparisons with the
slope in Nigeria.
effect on the relationship is small (e.g., Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria);
or where coping behavior is relatively rare but the impact on
the relationship is (e.g., Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia). This is a
crucial finding as it provides new insights into the coping process
in couples. Thus far, we assumed that partners benefit when
providing more coping behavior to each other, which is also a
basic idea of relationship education programs such as Couples
Coping Enhancement Training (Bodenmann and Shantinath,
2004; Bodenmann et al., 2014) and Couple CARE (Halford
et al., 2004). However, our findings indicate that the impact of
dyadic coping is influenced by the culture couples live in. This
highlights that couple relationship education programs need to
be tested and potentially adapted before implementing them in
non-Western cultures, as the effect of a specific skill training (e.g.,
training of dyadic coping) might not lead to the same effect on
relationship outcomes across cultures in comparison with the
effect found for programs with Western couples (Bodenmann
and Shantinath, 2004; Halford et al., 2004; Bodenmann et al.,
2014).
Although we did not have specific hypotheses for individual
countries, we did an exploratory examination of countries by
region. We first examined whether the random slopes differed
across nations. This allowed us to use the findings as a baseline
and compare them to findings in other regions. Nations in
North American and West Europe showed significant differences
between their within-nation slopes. We found higher random
slopes for Canada and Germany in comparison with U.K., Italy,
and Portugal. This suggests that cultural differences seem to
affect the association between dyadic coping and relationship
satisfaction even in this relatively homogeneous Western
cultures. These also stands in sharp contrast to the findings of
the meta-analysis by Falconier et al. (2015), which found no
differences in the effect of dyadic coping on relationships across
Western nations.
Notably, we found hardly any difference in the association
between dyadic coping and marital satisfaction across larger
regions in comparison with the average association in North
America and West Europe, but we found significant variability
between nations clustered in a larger region. In more detail,
the slopes in regions such as the former Soviet nations, Middle
East, Asia, and Middle- and South America fluctuate around the
average slope (β = 0.35)—and the association of dyadic coping
on marital satisfaction is comparable with the average effect in
North America and Western Europe. Surprisingly, however, we
also found significant differences between nations in most of
the larger regions, which could indicate that the associations
between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction in areas such
as North American, West European, former Soviet, Middle East,
Asian, and Middle- and South American nations are similar. This
is notable, as one could expect differences across these regions
based on cultural differences. In addition, we found that nations
differ significantly between each other within specific areas.
This means that in regions where we expect that cultures are
relatively similar we find significant differences between specific
nations (e.g., Canada and U.S., Spain and Portugal, Slovakia
and Hungary, Hong Kong and China, Pakistan and India, Saudi
Arabia and Iran). Future research should examine causes why the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Control Variables
In order to make the non-stratified sample more comparable,
we included a variety of control variables. Results show
no association between individualism-collectivism and marital
satisfaction. Inspecting the slopes in Figure 3, we could not
find any specific pattern based on individualism-collectivism.
Rather, the strongest and the weakest slopes were found in
collectivistic cultures, indicating that the association between
dyadic coping and marital satisfaction cannot be predicted by
individualism-collectivism. Results further revealed that women,
younger participants and more educated participants are more
satisfied with their marriage in comparison with men, older
participants and less educated participants respectively. Finally,
results also indicate that couples are more satisfied in nations
with higher GDPs in comparison with couples living in nations
with lower GDPs, which might indicate that couples in more
wealthy nations face less stressors.
GENDER AS MODERATOR
H2a
Results provide evidence for our hypothesis that the association
between dyadic coping and relationship is different for husbands
and wives across all nations, which is in sharp contrast to the
meta-analysis findings (Falconier et al., 2015). This contrast
indicates that culture is a crucial factor to predict gender
differences in coping processes in couples. These processes can
be better examined if we study these effects for each individual
nation individually.
H2b
Based on theoretical assumptions (e.g., evolutionary perspective,
attachment theory; Bolby, 1969) and cultural differences (e.g.,
13
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
the variability in our findings. However, the current approach
to test for measurement invariance (multi-group confirmatory
factor analysis) is suitable in cases when just few groups
are compared—but should not use testing for measurement
invariance across 35 nations (Muthen and Asparouhov, 2013);
furthermore the maximum-likelihood approach assumes fully
invariant parameters, which is too restrict for a heterogeneous
sample such as ours (Muthen and Asparouhov, 2013). Third,
data was collected from individuals, rather than data from both
partners within the relationship, which does not allow us to
examine processes between bother members of a couple. As the
data was collected from married heterosexuals, the results may
not be generalizable to unmarried individuals (cohabitating or
not) in opposite- or same-sex relationships. Fourth, the analysis
relies on cross-sectional data, which limits conclusions about
causality in the data. Finally, we have limited data from South
America and do not have data from all countries, which limits
our generalizations for all nations. Despite these limitations, our
data is based on 7973 married participants from 35 nations living
in 4 continents, which gives insight into the variability of the
associations between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction
in couples.
gender role; Eagly and Wood, 1999), we further hypothesized
that the association between dyadic coping and relationship
satisfaction is higher for women than for men, at least in some
nations. The results of the random effects show significant
gender interactions for 60% of all nations. In contrast to our
assumption, we found four nations where the associations were
stronger for men (Brazil, Bulgaria, Nigeria, Turkey). These results
contradict our theoretical assumption that the effect of dyadic
coping is either stronger for women or there should be no
difference between genders, but findings this effect just in 4
of 35 nations indicates that he in general the association is in
general stronger for women or equal across genders. In line
with our assumption, we found that in 17 nations the effect
of dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction was stronger for
women and in 14 nations we found no interaction with gender.
Thus, finding a stronger association for some but not all nations
provides some support for cultural specific causes. Based on the
findings of the meta-analysis (Falconier et al., 2015), we did not
expect to find significant interactions with gender for nations
in North America or West Europe. However, the association
between dyadic coping and marital satisfaction was higher for
women in several Western nations (Greece, Germany, Poland,
U.K., Croatia, Slovakia, Portugal, and USA). Future studies
should examine why we find gender differences in some Western
cultures but not in others.
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Culture, undoubtedly, impacts the association between dyadic
coping behavior and relationship satisfaction (Revenson, 1990,
2003; Bodenmann, 1995; Berg and Upchurch, 2007). This might
be even more important as standardized couple programs train
skills like dyadic coping behavior (CCET, Bodenmann et al., 2014,
p. 2014; Bodenmann and Shantinath, 2004), but our findings
provide evidence that the impact of such behavioral skills varies
across nations. While there are couple interventions that can
help couples in troubled relationships (Halford et al., 2010;
Bodenmann et al., 2014), their effectiveness across cultures has
yet to be determined. Theoretically, while couple’s prevention and
intervention programs could be beneficial for all couples, it is
crucial to examine whether a skill, such as dyadic coping which
has shown to have cross-cultural benefits (Falconier et al., 2016),
can be taught to all couples. Finally, the current study focuses
mainly on between-person differences—those people are more
satisfied with their marriage who perceive more support from
their partner. But it is reasonable to assume that coping processes
fluctuate within-persons over time. Therefore, future research
should use daily diary methods to examine how situation-specific
processes affect coping process in couples.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
The confidence in our results is supported by several strengths.
First, this study is based on a large sample of married individuals
(N = 7973) from 35 different nations. Gathering such a
large sample allowed us to address the gap in the literature
about the associations between culture and couples’ coping
processes, which affords researchers greater specificity on the
influence of culture in the coping process of couples. Second,
our analysis account for nested data (i.e., individuals nested
in specific nations) which is important because if nested data
are not modeled accordingly it violates statistical assumption of
independence between individuals (Eid and Lischetzke, 2013).
Third, our analysis differentiated between and within nation
components of dyadic coping, which allowed us to examine
between- and within-nation effects. Finally, it is in general
difficult to test within nation effects for 35 nations against each
other, as this yields 595 comparisons. The graphical approach
allows the reader to visually inspect whether the association
between dyadic coping and relationship is significantly different
between any nations.
Despite these strengths, several limitations should be
noted. First, the data collected are based on convenience
samples, which limits the generalizability. Furthermore, the
recruitment strategies may have differed across nations; however,
we controlled for several important aspects (e.g., education,
marital duration, number of children) to allow us to make the
results more comparable across nations. Nevertheless, future
research should look at stratified samples to make findings
between nations more comparable. Second, different cultural
groups might interpret items differently based on cultural
characteristic (Schwartz et al., 2014) which might contribute to
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
PH contribution: Initial research design, data collection
and analysis, manuscript drafting, and final approval. AR
contribution: Data collection and analysis, manuscript drafting,
and final approval. PS contribution: Initial research design, data
collection and analysis, manuscript drafting, and final approval.
DA contribution: Initial research design, data collection,
manuscript drafting, and final approval. AS contribution:
Initial research design, data collection, and final approval. All
14
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
other co-authors’ contribution: Data collection, manuscript
corrections, and final approval.
We would like to thank Adrienn Bálint, Barbara Baranyai,
Regina Cejudo de la Sierra, Daniel David, Takeshi Hamamura,
Chinwe Frances Inogbo, Tímea Kiss, Emese Kozma, Gabriella
Kuch, Zsófia Magyar, Maria Fernanda Morales Perez, Margaréta
Nagy, Anu Realo, Patricia R. Verdugo, and Éva Virág for
collecting data and supporting this study. We would also
like to thank the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher
Education and the Public Welfare Foundation Propondis for
funding the data collection in Greece, which was awarded
to ES.
FUNDING
PS and AS were supported by funds of Polish Ministry of Science
and Higher Education (scholarships to PS for years 2012–2017,
and scholarship to AS for years 2013–2016). ES applied for
funding for data collection, which was awarded by the Public
Welfare Foundation Propondis. All other studies were based on
individual contributions.
REFERENCES
Ringeisen, and F. T. L. Leong (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
GmbH), 189–206.
Eurostat (2007). Annuaire Eurostat 2006. Office Statistique des Communautés
Européennes. [Eurostat yearbook 2006. Statistical Office of the European
Communities]. Luxembourg: Office des Publications Officielles des
Communautés Européennes.
Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. B., Hilpert, P., and Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic
coping and relationship satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 42,
28–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002
Falconier, M. K., Randall, A. K., and Bodenmann, G. (2016). Couples Coping with
Stress: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gao, G., Kao, K., and Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Communicating Effectively with the
Chinese. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Georgas, J., Mylonas, K., Bafiti, T., Poortinga, Y. H., Christakopoulou, S.,
Kagitcibasi, C., et al. (2001). Functional relationships in the nuclear and
extended family: a 16-culture study. Int. J. Psychol. 36, 289–300. doi:
10.1080/00207590143000045
Giuliano, P., and Nunn, N. (2013). The transmission of democracy: from the
village to the nation-state. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 86–92. doi: 10.1257/aer.
103.3.86
Goldstein, H., and Healy, M. J. R. (1995). The graphical presentation of a
collection of means. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series A 158, 175–177. doi: 10.2307/
2983411
Halford, W. K., Moore, E., Wilson, K. L., Farrugia, C., and Dyer, C. (2004). Benefits
of flexible delivery relationship education: an evaluation of the couple CARE
program. Family Relat. 53, 469–476. doi: 10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00055.x
Halford, K., Wilson, K., Watson, B., Verner, T., Larson, J., Busby, D., et al. (2010).
Couple relationship education at home: does skill training enhance relationship
assessment and feedback? J. Family Psychol. 24, 188–196. doi: 10.1037/a0018786
Hilpert, P., Bodenmann, G., Nussbeck, F. W., and Bradbury, T. N. (2013).
Predicting relationship satisfaction in distressed and non-distressed couples
based on a stratified sample: a matter of conflict, positivity, or support? Family
Sci. 4, 110–120. doi: 10.1080/19424620.2013.830633
Hilpert, P., and Kimamo, C. (2016). “Dyadic coping in African couples,” in Couples
Coping with Stress: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, eds M. K. Falconier, A. K.
Randall, and G. Bodenmann (New York, NY: Routledge), 256–268.
Hilpert, P., Kuhn, R., Anderegg, V., and Bodenmann, G. (2015).
Comparing simultaneously the effects of extra-dyadic and intra-dyadic
experiences on relationship outcomes. Family Science 6, 129–142. doi:
10.1080/19424620.2015.1082018
Hofstede, G. (1980). International studies of management and organization.
Organ. Soc. 10, 15–41.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publ.
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and
Organizations: Software of the Mind ; Intercultural Cooperation and Its
Importance for Survival (Rev. and expanded 3rd Edn.). New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Iida, M., Seidman, G., Shrout, P. E., Fujita, K., and Bolger, N. (2008). Modeling
support provision in intimate relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 460–478.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.460
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Models using lme4. J.
Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Berg, C. A., and Upchurch, R. (2007). A developmental-contextual model of
couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychol. Bull. 133,
920–954. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920
Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and
coping in couples. Swiss J. Psychol. 54, 34–49.
Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping: a systemic-transactional view of stress and
coping among couples: theory and empirical findings. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol.
47, 137–141.
Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren. Bern: Hogrefe.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). “Dyadic coping and its significance for marital
functioning,” in Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic
Coping, eds T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, and G. Bodenmann (Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association), 33–49.
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual [Dyadic coping
inventory: Test manual]. Bern: Huber.
Bodenmann, G., Hilpert, P., Nussbeck, F. W., and Bradbury, T. N. (2014).
Enhancement of couples’ communication and dyadic coping by a self-directed
approach: a randomized controlled trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 82, 580–591.
doi: 10.1037/a0036356
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., and Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex,
and satisfaction in marriage. Pers. Relat. 14, 551–569. doi: 10.1111/j.14756811.2007.00171.x
Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., and Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations
of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality
and individual well-being: a comparison. Eur. Psychol. 16, 255–266. doi:
10.1027/1016-9040/a000068
Bodenmann, G., and Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The Couples Coping Enhancement
Training (CCET): a new approach to prevention of marital distress based
upon stress and coping∗ . Family Relat. 53, 477–484. doi: 10.1111/j.01976664.2004.00056.x
Bolby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bramlett, M. D., and Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and
Remarriage in the United States. Vital Health Statistics 23(22). National Center
for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 1–87.
Burleson, B. R., and Denton, W. H. (1997). The relationship between
communication skill and marital satisfaction: some moderating effects. J.
Marriage Family 59, 884–902. doi: 10.2307/353790
Cohen, S., and Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the
buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 98, 310–357. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.
98.2.310
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social Support in Couples: Marriage as a Resource in Times
of Stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Eagly, A. H., and Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human
behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am. Psychol. 54, 408–423. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Eid, P. D. M., and Lischetzke, P. D. T. (2013). “Statistische Methoden
der Auswertung kulturvergleichender Studien [statistical methods for
cross-cultural studies],” in Handbuch Stress und Kultur, eds P. Genkova, T.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
15
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106
Hilpert et al.
Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction in 35 Nations
Shibusawa, N. (2005). A date which will live: pearl harbor in american memory.
By Emily S. Rosenberg. (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. x, 236 pp.
$24.95, ISBN 0-8223-3206-X.). J. Am. History 91, 1519–1519. doi: 10.2307/36
60294
Sireci, S. G. (2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: a methodological
analysis of translation quality. J. Cross Cultural Psychol. 37, 557–567. doi:
10.1177/0022022106290478
Story, L. B., and Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding marriage and stress:
essential questions and challenges. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 23, 1139–1162. doi:
10.1016/j.cpr.2003.10.002
Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., and
Dunagan, M. S. (2004). Culture and social support: who seeks it
and why? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 354–362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.
87.3.354
Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Thoits, P. A. (2010). Stress and health: major findings and policy implications.
J. Health Soc. Behav. 51(1 Suppl.), S41–S53. doi: 10.1177/00221465103
83499
Triandis, H. (1988). “Collectivism vs. individualism: a reconceptualization of
a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology,” in Cross-Cultural Studies of
Personality, Attitude, and Cognition, eds G. K. Verna and C. Bagely (London:
Macmillan), 60–95.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. J. Pers. 69,
907–924. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Van de Vijver, F., and Leung, K. (1997). “Methods and data analysis of comparative
research,” in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 1: Theory and Method,
2nd Edn., eds J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, and J. Pandey (Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon), 257–300.
Weisfeld, C. C., Dillon, L. M., Nowak, N. T., Mims, K. R., Weisfeld, G. E.,
Imamoğlu, E. O., et al. (2011). Sex differences and similarities in married
couples: patterns across and within cultures. Archiv. Sexual Behav. 40,
1165–1172. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9790-9
Whisman, M. A., Beach, S. R. H., and Snyder, D. K. (2008). Is
marital discord taxonic and can taxonic status be assessed reliably?
Results from a national, representative sample of married couples.
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 76, 745–755. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.
76.5.745
Xu, F., Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Li, Q., and Bodenmann, G. (2016). Validation
of the dyadic coping inventory with chinese couples: factorial structure,
measurement invariance, and construct validity. Psychol. Assess. doi: 10.1037/
pas0000329. [Epub ahead of print].
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A., and Smith, G. M. (2009). Mixed
Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. New York, NY: Springer New
York.
Zwicker, A., and DeLongis, A. (2010). “Gender differences in stress and coping,” in
Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology: Vol. 2. Gender Research in Social
and Applied Psychology, eds J. C. Chrisler and D. R. McCreary (New York, NY:
Springer Press), 495–512.
Karney, B. R., and Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital
quality and stability: a review of theory, methods, and research. Psychol. Bull.
118, 3–34. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Ko, D., and Taylor, S. E. (2006). Pursuit of comfort and
pursuit of harmony: culture, relationships, and social support seeking. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 32, 1595–1607. doi: 10.1177/0146167206291991
Kuo, B. C. H. (2013). Collectivism and coping: current theories, evidence,
and measurements of collective coping. Int. J. Psychol. 48, 374–388. doi:
10.1080/00207594.2011.640681
Larzelere, M. M., and Jones, G. N. (2008). Stress and health. Primary Care Clin.
Office Pract. 35, 839–856. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2008.07.011
Lucas, T., Parkhill, M. R., Wendorf, C. A., Olcay Imamoglu, E., Weisfeld, C. C.,
Weisfeld, G. E., et al. (2008). Cultural and evolutionary components of marital
satisfaction: a multidimensional assessment of measurement invariance. J.
Cross Cultural Psychol. 39, 109–123. doi: 10.1177/0022022107311969
Lucas, T. W., Wendorf, C. A., Imamoglu, E. O., Shen, J., Parkhill, M. R., Weisfeld,
C. C., et al. (2004). Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of
homogamy, male dominance and female attractiveness. Sexualities Evol. Gender
6, 97–130. doi: 10.1080/14616660412331327518
Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98:224. doi: 10.1037/0033295x.98.2.224
Muthen, B., and Asparouhov, T. (2013). BSEM Measurement Invariance
Analysis. Available online at: https://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/
webnote17.pdf
Neff, L. A., and Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: the implications
of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 88, 480–497. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.480
Neff, L. A., and Karney, B. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship
experiences: how stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 97, 435–450. doi: 10.1037/a0015663
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and
meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 128, 3–72. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
Randall, A. K., and Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close
relationships and marital satisfaction. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 29, 105–115. doi:
10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004
Randall, A. K., and Bodenmann, G. (2016). Stress and its associations
with relationship satisfaction. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 13, 96–106. doi:
10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010
Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Walsh, K. J., and Bodenmann,
G. (2015). Dyadic Coping in the U.S.: psychometric properties and validity for
use of the english version of the dyadic coping inventory. Curr. Psychol. doi:
10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0. [Epub ahead of print].
Raudenbush, S. W., and Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications
and Data Analysis Methods, Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during
marital interaction: the roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 57, 651–659. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.651
Revenson, T. A. (1990). “All other things are not equal: an ecological perspective
on the relation between personality and disease,” in Personality and Disease, ed
H. S. Friedman (New York, NY: Wiley), 65–94.
Revenson, T. A. (2003). “Scenes from a marriage: examining support, coping, and
gender within the context of chronic illness,” in Social Psychological Foundations
of Health and Illness, eds J. Suls and K. A. Wallston (Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing), 530–559.
Russel, R., and Wells, P. (1993). Marriage and Relationship Questionnaire: MARQ
Handbook. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton.
Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Pape Cowan, C., and Brennan, R. T. (2004).
Coming home upset: gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of
workday experience into couple interactions. J. Family Psychol. 18, 250–263.
doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.250
Schwartz, S. J., Benet-MartÃ-nez, V., Knight, G. P., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B.
L., Des Rosiers, S. E., et al. (2014). Effects of language of assessment on the
measurement of acculturation: measurement equivalence and cultural frame
switching. Psychol. Assess. 26, 100–114. doi: 10.1037/a0034717
Shek, D. T. L. (2006). Chinese family research: puzzles, progress,
paradigms, and policy implications. J. Family Issues 27, 275–284. doi:
10.1177/0192513X05283508
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2016 Hilpert, Randall, Sorokowski, Atkins, Sorokowska, Ahmadi,
Aghraibeh, Aryeetey, Bertoni, Bettache, Błażejewska, Bodenmann, Borders,
Bortolini, Butovskaya, Castro, Cetinkaya, Cunha, David, DeLongis, Dileym,
Domínguez Espinosa, Donato, Dronova, Dural, Fisher, Frackowiak, Gulbetekin,
Hamamcıoğlu Akkaya, Hansen, Hattori, Hromatko, Iafrate, James, Jiang, Kimamo,
King, Koç, Laar, Lopes, Martinez, Mesko, Molodovskaya, Moradi, Motahari,
Natividade, Ntayi, Ojedokun, Omar-Fauzee, Onyishi, Özener, Paluszak, Portugal,
Relvas, Rizwan, Salkičević, Sarmány-Schuller, Stamkou, Stoyanova, Šukolová,
Sutresna, Tadinac, Teras, Tinoco Ponciano, Tripathi, Tripathi, Tripathi, Vilchinsky,
Xu, Yamamoto and Yoo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor
are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance
with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
16
August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1106