Journal of Family Psychology

2006, Vol. 20, No. 3, 485 493

Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

0893-3200/06/$12.00
DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485

The Relationship Between Dyadic Coping and Marital Quality:

A 2-Year Longitudinal Study
Guy Bodenmann and Sandrine Pihet

Karen Kayser

University of Fribourg

Boston College

Previous studies have revealed that the ways couples deal with stress in their lives are
significantly associated with their marital quality and overall marital functioning. However,
there has been little empirical evidence linking dyadic coping with marital quality over time.
This study addresses the relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality among 90
couples over a period of 2 years. The results reveal that dyadic coping was significantly
associated with marital quality over 2 years. For women, both their own dyadic coping and
that of their partner were significant predictors, whereas for men only their own dyadic coping
was predictive. The results are discussed with regard to prevention of marital distress.
Keywords: dyadic coping, marital quality, prevention

Stress and coping in couples are emerging topics that

have attracted a growing number of theoretical contributions and empirical studies since the nineties (Bodenmann,
2000; Revenson, Kayser, & Bodenmann, 2005; Story &
Bradbury, 2004). During the entire life span, various developmental tasks, critical life events, and, just as important,
daily hassles are stressors to be coped with individually as
well as by a couple or family. More recently, studies have
provided empirical evidence that stress also significantly
influences marital communication, marital satisfaction, and
the development of close relationships (Bodenmann, 2000;
Neff & Karney, 2004; Repetti, 1989; Story & Bradbury,
2004). Furthermore, marriages subjected to an overwhelming host of chronic stresses have a higher probability of
ending in divorce (Bodenmann, 2000; Karney, Story, &
Bradbury, 2005). Thus, it is critical to investigate how
couples cope with stressful encounters and identify which
strategies and coping styles are effective in managing stress
or which ones prove to have a negative impact on close
relationships. Understanding how stress, coping, and marriage interact is important because marital quality is significantly associated with life satisfaction (e.g., Ruvolo, 1998),
physical health (e.g., Schmaling & Sher, 2000), and emotional well-being and resistance to depression (e.g., Tesser

& Beach, 1998). Recent studies also indicate that marital

distress exerts significant and deleterious effects on immune
functions and health outcomes (Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser,
2003).

Theoretical Approaches of Coping in Couples

In the stress literature, the transactional concept of stress
and coping proposed by Lazarus and coworkers (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) represents the most generally recognized and applied stress paradigm in theory and research.
This stress approach is the basis of several theories and
models of dyadic coping that have been proposed in the last
decades (cf. Barbarin, Hughes, & Chesler, 1985; Bodenmann, 2005; Coyne & Smith, 1991; DeLongis & OBrien,
1990; Revenson, 1994). Within these approaches, two different lines may be distinguished. The first approach, developed by Barbarin et al. (1985) and further expanded by
Revenson (1994), focuses on the individual coping strategies of each partner and the degree to which these problemfocused and emotion-focused coping strategies are congruent or discrepant between partners. According to these
researchers, congruency and discrepancy of individual coping strategies are associated both with marital satisfaction
and with personal well-being. Although the researchers
assume that each partners coping is related to the other
partners coping, it is still considered as an individual phenomenon and thus measured as an individual variable in
both partners separately. Dyadic analyses are then made by
comparing the individual coping scores of each partner
within the couple, and either a congruency or discrepancy
score is computed or the scores are summed (Pakenham,
1998; Revenson, 1994).
The second approach views coping as a genuine dyadic
phenomenon. Examples of this dyadic coping concept include relationship-focused coping (Coyne & Smith, 1991),
empathic coping (DeLongis & OBrien, 1990), and

Guy Bodenmann and Sandrine Pihet, Institute for Family Research and Counseling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland; Karen Kayser, Graduate School of Social Work, Boston
College.
This study was supported by Research Grant SNF 11-46820.96
from the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Guy Bodenmann, Institute for Family Research and Counseling,
University of Fribourg, Avenue de la Gare 1, Fribourg CH-1700,
Switzerland, or to Karen Kayser, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. E-mail: joseguy
.bodenmann@unifr.ch or kayserk@bc.edu

485

486

BODENMANN, PIHET, AND KAYSER

systemictransactional dyadic coping (Bodenmann, 2005).

All three approaches define dyadic coping as a process on
the dyadic level in which the coping reactions of one partner
take into account the stress signals of the other partner.
These approaches expand on the individually oriented transactional view of stress and coping proposed by the Berkeley
research group (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Whereas the
focus of empathic coping is on how this form of coping may
improve or maintain marital satisfaction, the theories developed by Bodenmann and by Coyne and Smith further address the question of how dyadic coping helps to alleviate
individual or dyadic stress in everyday life.
Coyne and Smith (1991) defined two forms of dyadic
coping: active engagement and protective buffering. Active
engagement means that one partner tries to involve the other
one in a discussion, exploring his or her emotions in order
to initiate constructive attempts to solve problems. Protective buffering, on the other hand, encompasses efforts of
relieving the partner emotionally by negating and minimizing worries, suppressing anger, or giving in.
The systemictransactional perspective of dyadic coping
(Bodenmann, 2005) differentiates between positive and
negative dyadic coping and problem- and emotion-focused
dyadic coping. Positive forms of dyadic coping include
supportive dyadic coping (helping with daily tasks or providing practical advice, offering empathic understanding,
helping the partner to reframe the situation, communicating
a belief in the partners capabilities, or expressing solidarity
with the partner), common dyadic coping (joint problem
solving, joint information seeking, sharing of feelings, mutual commitment, or relaxing together), and delegated dyadic coping (one partner is explicitly asked by the other to
give support, and as a result, a new division of tasks is
established). Negative dyadic coping can take the form of
hostile dyadic coping when support is accompanied by
disparagement, distancing, mocking, sarcasm, open disinterest, or minimizing the seriousness of the partners stress.
A second form of negative coping is ambivalent dyadic
coping when one partner supports the other unwillingly or
with the attitude that his or her contribution should be
unnecessary. Superficial dyadic coping is a form of negative
dyadic coping that involves support that is hypocritical, for
example, asking questions about the partners feelings without listening, or support that lacks empathy.
In all of these theoretical approaches, dyadic coping is
defined as a novel construct that is clearly distinguished
from social support. The main differences between social
support and dyadic coping can be summarized as follows:
First, the support that occurs as part of dyadic coping is
spousal support, which differs from the kind of support
provided by other persons (friends, kin, neighbors, etc.).
Because the spouse is often the primary and most important
source of support in stressful situations, the spousal support
carries a different meaning to the partners and the relationship than does social support from others. Second, unlike
social support, dyadic coping involves a commitment of
both partners to ensure each partners satisfaction and wellbeing, which in turn ensures ones own marital satisfaction
and well-being and guarantees the smooth functioning of

the couple as a whole. Finally, the concept of dyadic coping

encompasses more than support from the partner but can
also include many other types of stress management behaviors in which both partners engage when faced with common stressors.

Empirical Studies on Dyadic Coping

In the last decade, a number of cross-sectional studies
have addressed the question of how dyadic coping or social
support in couples covaries with marital functioning and
well-being in community samples. In general, these studies
indicated that dyadic coping or social support provided by
the partner was significantly associated with higher marital
quality, lower stress experience, and a better psychological
and physical well-being in self-report measures (e.g., Badr,
2004; Bodenmann, 2000; Burke & Weir, 1975; Dehle,
Larsen, & Landers, 2001; Walen, & Lachman, 2000) as well
as observational coding data (e.g., Bodenmann, 2000; Cutrona & Suhr, 1992; Pasch & Bradbury, 1998). Dyadic
coping has been shown to be positively associated with
marital quality by two mechanisms: first by alleviating the
negative impact of stress on marriage (moderator function
of dyadic coping) and second by strengthening the feeling
of weness, mutual trust and intimacy, and the cognitive
representation of the relationship as helpful and supportive
(Bodenmann, 2005). Although the first function of dyadic
coping is stress related (dyadic coping as a supplementary
resource for coping with stress in addition to each partners
own personal coping efforts), the second function is relationship related (investment in the close relationship; see
also Cutrona, 1996). Although this positive association between dyadic coping and marital functioning and well-being
has been well established in general, some studies have
revealed gender differences, indicating a more beneficial
association for women than for men (e.g., Goodman, 1999).
Dyadic coping has also been explored intensively in
recent studies in the context of chronic illness, such as
cancer. Consistent with the findings in community samples,
the studies of couples coping with illness show that dyadic
coping is significantly associated with a higher level of
marital and psychosocial adjustment (e.g., Acitelli & Badr,
2005; Coyne & Smith, 1991; Kayser, 2005; Kayser, Sormanti, & Strainchamps, 1999; Kuijer, Ybema, Buunk,
Thijs-Boer, & Sanderman, 2000; Manne et al., 2003; Rohrbaugh et al., 2002; Suls, Green, Rose, Lounsbury, & Gordon, 1997; Wright & Aquilino, 1998). However, all these
studies are cross-sectional and do not assess the development of marital quality over time including the impact of
dyadic coping at one time on marital quality at a later time.
A recently published study by Cranford (2004) was among
the first longitudinal studies in which the role of dyadic
coping in couples was evaluated by looking at the buffering
effect of social support by the partner on depressive symptoms in married couples. However, only 6 weeks elapsed
between the first and the second measurement, and no direct
link between dyadic coping and marital satisfaction was
investigated in this study. Only Pasch and Bradbury (1998)

DYADIC COPING AND MARITAL QUALITY

have explored the association between social support in

marriage and marital outcomes (i.e., divorce) 2 years later.
The present study addresses the question of how dyadic
coping and marital quality are associated with each other
over a 2-year period. It is hypothesized that the wifes and
the husbands dyadic coping predict their own as well as
their partners assessment of marital quality over time. We
expected that the more couples displayed positive dyadic
coping and the less they demonstrated negative dyadic
coping in their everyday life, the higher the reported quality
of their relationship would be over time.

Method
Sample
Initially, 110 Swiss couples were recruited by means of
community-wide advertisements in newspapers. Inclusion criterion required that the couples had been in a stable relationship for
at least 1 year. Being married was not required because in Switzerland, many couples form long-lasting relationships without
being married. After 2 years, 90 couples (82% of the initial
sample) remained in the study and had completed all of the
questionnaires. There were no significant differences on the variables of interest between dropouts and those who remained in the
study. Most of the couples who dropped out of the study had
moved away, no longer wanted to participate, or had separated.
Participants in the study were middle-aged, with the mean age of
42.2 years (SD 9.6) for women and 44.2 (SD 10.3) for men.
At Time 1, 82% of the couples were married, and 2 years later,
89% were married. More than 90% lived together in a common
household at Time 1 and Time 4 (2 years later). Eighty percent had
children. At Time 1, the mean duration of marriage was 16.5 years
(SD 10.2). Participants indicated a moderate level of marital
quality (M 60.5, SD 14.7 for women and M 57.3, SD
13.6 for men) as measured by the Partnership Questionnaire (Hahlweg, 1996). In regard to their level of education, 9% of women and
5% of men had finished elementary school, 72% of women and
53% of men had earned a terminal high school degree, 6% of
women and 5% of men had an associates degree, and 13% of
women and 38% of men were college graduates. Annual income
was less than $50,000 in 15% of the couples, between $50,000 and
$90,000 in 63% of them, and more than $90,000 in 22% of the
couples. Eighty-five percent of the couples were in middle to upper
income range, with an annual income of more than $50,000.

Procedure
Questionnaires were mailed to each couple enrolled in the study.
The importance of completing the questionnaire independently
was stressed in a letter accompanying the mailed questionnaires.
Couples were requested to return the questionnaires within 2
weeks. Questionnaires were sent to the couples four times: Time 1
(first measurement), Time 2 (6 months later), Time 3 (after 1 year),
and Time 4 (after 2 years).

Measures
Demographic variables. Participants provided information on
their age, sex, marital status, relationship duration, relationship
quality, type of residence, number of children, religion, education,
profession, and employment.

487

Dyadic Coping Questionnaire (Fragebogen zur Erfassung des

Dyadischen Copings [FDCT-N]; Bodenmann, 2000). The
FDCT-N is a 55-item questionnaire that assesses dyadic coping
and communication under conditions of stress on six subscales.
Respondents answer questions such as What you do when you are
feeling stress?(Stress Communication: I ask my partner to do
things for me when I have too much to do; I tell my partner
openly how I feel and that I would appreciate his or her support;
5 items; .80); What you do when your partner is feeling
stress? (Supportive Dyadic Coping by Oneself: I communicate
understanding to my partner; I express to my partner that I am on
his or her side; I provide practical advice; 13 items; .85);
What your partner does when you are feeling stress? (Supportive
Dyadic Coping of the Partner: Same items as for oneself but with
partner as actor; 13 items; .91); and What you and your
partner do when you both feel stress? (Common Dyadic Coping:
We help one another to put the problem in perspective and see it
in a different light; We help each other relax with such things
like massage, taking a bath together, or listening to music; 10
items; .83). Furthermore, the Negative Dyadic Coping subscale (I make fun of my partners stress; When my partner is
stressed, I tend to withdraw; 4 items for oneself, .75, and
another 4 items for the partner, .78, was administered to the
participants. In this subscale, the different forms of negative dyadic coping as described in the introduction (hostile, ambivalent,
superficial) were not specifically distinguished but were all together considered in the subscale of Negative Dyadic Coping.
Persons rated frequency of dyadic coping on a scale ranging from
0 (never) to 5 (always ), with the sum of the items of the three
positive subscales measuring positive dyadic coping ( .95) and
the sum of items of the negative subscale measuring negative
dyadic coping ( .80). The criterion validity and construct
validity of the FDCT-N have been previously shown (Bodenmann,
2000).
Partnership Questionnaire ( Partnerschaftsfragebogen
[PFB]; Hahlweg, 1996). The PFB is a 30-item instrument
used to measure marital quality and consists of three subscales:
Quarreling ( .93),1 Tenderness ( .91), and Togetherness/
Communication ( .88). These can be combined to create a total
score of marital quality ( .95), with scores of 54 and below
designating low levels of satisfaction, scores between 55 and 72
corresponding to medium levels of satisfaction, and scores of 73
and above corresponding to high levels of martial satisfaction. The
PFB discriminates reliably between distressed and nondistressed
couples, is sensitive to changes in marital therapy, and has adequate reliability and validity (Hahlweg, 1996).

Data Analysis
A two-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) approach was
applied to analyze the longitudinal data using the HLM/2L computer program (Bryk, Raudenbush, & Congdon, 1994). Data analyses were conducted as one of the approaches proposed by Raudenbush, Brennan, and Barnett (1995) in considering dyadic data.
At Level 1, within-couple variation in marital quality was predicted using a regression model for each couple. This strategy
allowed us to model the intraindividual variations in marital qual1
When summing scores of the items of all the subscales, we
reversed the scores of the items on the Quarreling subscale to
produce a positive score on marital quality. To be consistent with
the other positive subscales of marital quality, we refer to this
subscale as Nonquarreling when reporting results.

488

BODENMANN, PIHET, AND KAYSER

ity, taking into account each partner and the quality of their dyadic
coping. Thus, for each couple in the sample, the base level (intercept) of marital quality of each spouse as well as the association
between marital quality and dyadic coping (slope) were quantified
by regression parameters. Including one intercept in the model for
each partner allowed us to independently predict husbands and
wives base level of marital quality at the second level, thus
facilitating the interpretation and allowing interesting post hoc
contrasts.
At Level 2, the parameters of this within-couple model (the base
level of marital quality for husbands and wives, i.e., the intercepts)
and the association between dyadic coping and marital quality (i.e.,
the slope) were then dependent variables. The dependent variables
could then be predicted by general couple characteristics (e.g.,
duration of the relationship or the average level in dyadic coping).
This modeling can be conducted when sufficient variance between
the different couples of the sample exists. We used the second
level of analysis to determine the degree to which the intercouple
variance in marital quality was explained by dyadic coping measures. Again, we were interested in not only how each individuals
own perceived dyadic coping related to marital quality but also
how the dyadic coping of one partner related to the other partners
marital quality.
In a preliminary analysis, we also examined whether dyadic
coping scores at a previous time point predicted marital quality at
a later time point. Because the analysis showed no significant
effect on the change in marital quality (either considering the total
or subscale scores) over the four time points, our reporting of
results in this article is limited to dyadic coping measured at the
same time as marital quality.
Additional reasons were also considered in selecting the HLM
approach. First, HLM allows modeling changes over time in both
husbands and wives scores simultaneously, thus controlling for

dependencies in mens and womens data. Second, HLM provides

reliable estimates of within-subject parameters even with a relatively small sample size, including in the analyses all available
data points for each participant and maximizing the efficiency of
the sample parameters estimation by weighting individual parameters according to their predictive power.

Results
HLM Modeling for the Prediction of Marital Quality
Partners evaluations of characteristics of their relationship were quite similar, with husbands and wives ratings
correlating at .75, .56, .62, and .68 for their marital quality
total score on the four times of measurement and at .58, .48,
.57, and .50 for their dyadic coping total score. This finding
supported our decision to use HLM to take into account the
dependency between husbands and wives scores.
The association between marital quality and dyadic coping over the 2 years of the study was thus modeled via HLM
using two levels of analysis. On the first level, the marital
quality of each couple was predicted from the base level of
marital quality for the husband (intercept for husband, corresponding to his expected marital quality with an average
dyadic coping score), the base level of marital quality for
the wife (intercept for wife, corresponding to her expected
marital quality with an average dyadic coping score), and the
dyadic coping scores of each partner at each time point (this
slope or parameter corresponding to the amount of change in
marital quality when the dyadic coping score increased by 1
standard deviation; see Tables 1 and 2, left columns).

Table 1
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for the Prediction of Marital Quality by Positive Dyadic Coping
Predictors on the second level (L2)b
Predictors on the first level
(L1)a

Interindividual
variance in
parameters

Duration of
relationship

Average score on subscale

Women

Men

0.129*
0.160*
Not evaluated

0.168*
0.182*
Not evaluated

0.017
0.169
Not evaluated

0.250*
0.182
Not evaluated

0.197*
0.187
Not evaluated

0.105
0.124
Not evaluated

0.198**
0.335***
Not evaluated

0.176*
0.047
Not evaluated

Dependent variable: Marital qualityTotal score

c

Intercept husband
Intercept wifec
Positive dyadic coping at d

1.990
2.004
0.214

67.32
61.67
5.72

.000
.000
.000

0.26***
0.28***
0.14***

0.005
0.010***
0.002

Dependent variable: Marital qualityNonquarreling scale

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Positive dyadic coping at d

2.368
2.326
0.096

53.19
51.63
2.71

.000
.000
.007

0.40***
0.39***
0.14

0.006
0.010*
0.004

Dependent variable: Marital qualityTenderness scale

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Positive dyadic coping at d

1.585
1.810
0.233

36.49
39.80
5.44

.000
.000
.000

0.39***
0.41***
0.14*

0.009*
0.019***
0.002

Dependent variable: Marital qualityTogetherness scale

c

Intercept husband
Intercept wifec
Positive dyadic coping at d

1.927
1.860
0.218

61.20
61.21
5.93

.000
.000
.000

0.28***
0.27***
0.08**

0.000
0.011**
0.003

L1 predictors: intercept, sex, and positive dyadic coping at p .10. b L2 predictors: length of the relationship (in years) and average
score on dyadic coping subscale (over the four time points) for women and for men. c df 83. d df 85.
p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.
a

DYADIC COPING AND MARITAL QUALITY

489

Table 2
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for the Prediction of Marital Quality by Negative Dyadic Coping
Predictors on the second level (L2)b
Predictors on the first level
(L1)a

Interindividual
variance in
parameters

Duration of
relationship

Average negative dyadic coping

Women

Men

0.068
0.136
Not evaluated

0.318**
0.306**
Not evaluated

0.045
0.361***
Not evaluated

0.465***
0.231*
Not evaluated

0.056
0.019
Not evaluated

0.236
0.315*
Not evaluated

0.145
0.153
Not evaluated

0.218
0.226*
Not evaluated

Dependent variable: Marital qualityTotal score

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Negative dyadic coping at d

1.975
2.001
0.178

57.42
51.65
4.85

.000
.000
.000

0.31***
0.34***
0.09

0.003
0.006
0.002

Dependent variable: Marital qualityNonquarreling scale

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Negative dyadic coping at d

2.356
2.350
0.179

59.57
61.49
5.16

.000
.000
.000

0.36***
0.32***
0.11

0.006
0.004
0.006

Dependent variable: Marital qualityTenderness scale

c

Intercept husband
Intercept wifec
Negative dyadic coping at d

1.578
1.804
0.098

30.29
32.70
2.38

.000
.000
.018

0.48***
0.50***
0.05

0.007
0.017**
0.003

Dependent variable: Marital qualityTogetherness scale

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Negative dyadic coping at d

1.918
1.859
0.218

45.27
42.07
5.93

.000
.000
.000

0.38***
0.40***
0.10T

0.002
0.008
0.002

L1 predictors: intercept, sex, and negative dyadic coping at p .10. b L2 predictors: length of the relationship (in years) and average
negative dyadic coping score (over the four time points) for women and for men. c df 83. d df 85.
p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.

Because the final estimated model already comprised an

important number of predictors, we excluded predictors that
were not the main focus of our hypothesis. Time was not
included in the model for the sake of parsimony, because
preliminary analysis revealed that its effect was for the most
part not significant. Time also showed some collinearity
with dyadic coping, and our primary interest was in the
association between dyadic coping and marital quality and
not in the change of the latter over time. Moreover, additional preliminary analysis revealed that the variance between individuals in their time slope was in most cases not
sufficient to allow prediction and that when it existed, it
could not be predicted from dyadic coping.
Entering dyadic coping as two separate predictors for
husbands and for wives would also have allowed us to
investigate more clearly gender differences at the intraindividual level, but multicollinearity among predictors made
this unfeasible.
On the second level, the intracouple parameters (the
intercepts or base levels of marital quality of the husbands
and wives and the slope or association between dyadic
coping and marital quality) estimated on the first level could
further be predicted by (a) the duration of the relationship
and (b) the average dyadic coping score (over the four
measurement times) for husbands and for wives. Again, for
the sake of parsimony, other predictors such as sociodemographic variables were not included.

Differences in Marital Quality

Marital quality total score as well as the Nonquarreling
subscale score did not significantly differ between men and
women on average, as indicated by the comparable values
of husbands and wives intercepts. Post hoc comparisons
for marital quality and quarreling were, respectively, 2(1,
N 90) 0.35 and 2(1, N 90) 0.88, both nonsignificant for models including positive dyadic coping, and
2(1, N 90) 1.36 and 2(1, N 90) 0.03, for
negative dyadic coping. However, gender had a significant
effect for the other subscales: Husbands reported significantly less tenderness than their wives. Post hoc comparisons of intercepts were 2(1, N 90) 29.83, p .001 for
the model with positive coping, and 2(1, N 90) 27.90,
p .001, for the model with negative coping. In addition,
husbands reported marginally more togetherness. Post hoc
comparisons of intercepts were 2(1, N 90) 4.58, p
.05, for the model with positive coping and 2(1, N 90)
2.89, p .10, for the model with negative coping. Further,
regardless of gender, individuals differed widely in their
base level of marital quality, as can be seen in the column
headed Interindividual variance in parameters in Tables 1
and 2 for husbands and wives intercepts.
These interindividual differences can be predicted by a
couples characteristics on the second level: Marital quality,
tenderness, and togetherness were lower among wives in
long-term relationships, as shown by the significant (or

490

BODENMANN, PIHET, AND KAYSER

marginally significant) s for the duration of the relationship, whereas only nonsignificant decreases were observed
for husbands.

Dyadic Coping and Marital Quality

The association between dyadic coping and marital quality can be tested at two levels: at each time of measurement
or at the average level across all times of measurement.
First, results for positive dyadic coping (combining scores
for Stress Communication, Supportive Coping, and Common Dyadic Coping subscales) and negative dyadic coping
as predictors of marital quality are presented on the basis of
the four measurement times. As can be seen in the left side
of Tables 1 and 2, considering all couples together, the
measurement times characterized by more positive and by
less negative dyadic coping significantly corresponded to
higher marital quality, in terms of total score as well as the
scores on the different subscales such as Nonquarreling,
Tenderness, or Togetherness. It is interesting that for most
of the subscales, the couples significantly differed from each
other regarding the relationship between positive dyadic
coping and marital quality (as can be seen in the column
headed: Interindividual variance in parameters in Tables 1
and 2), whereas this was not the case for the relationship
between negative dyadic coping and marital quality. This
association appeared far more stable for positive dyadic
coping.
On the second level, the intercept for each partner (i.e.,
his or her base level of marital quality) was also in most
cases significantly associated with the average dyadic coping of the spouses. More positive dyadic coping of both
husbands and wives related to higher marital quality for
men as well as for women, to less quarreling as reported by
women, and to more togetherness as reported by men.
Among husbands, the more positive they reported the quality of their dyadic coping to be, the less they perceived
quarreling with their wives. For the wives, the more positive
dyadic coping was related to more perceived togetherness
and more tenderness as reported by their partners. The
strength of the association between positive dyadic coping
and marital quality did not significantly differ between
husbands and wives, except the wives perceived dyadic
coping was more strongly related to togetherness than was
the husbands perceived dyadic coping; post hoc comparison of s was 2(1, N 90) 4.45, p .05. Further, in
couples in which husbands reported less negative dyadic
coping, both their wives and the husbands considered themselves to have a better marital quality, less quarreling, more
tenderness, and more togetherness. Less negative dyadic
coping of wives was related to less quarreling as reported by
women only. Regarding negative dyadic coping, husbands
negative dyadic coping seemed to be more strongly related
than wives negative dyadic coping to mens reported general marital quality and quarreling (post hoc comparisons of
s: 2[1, N 90] 2.53, p .10, and 2[1, N 90]
5.48, p .05, respectively), whereas no such differences
emerged for womens reported marital quality.

In summary, on the level of intraindividual variations as

well as on the level of interindividual differences, more
positive dyadic coping corresponded to better marital quality with similar contributions of husbands and wives
coping.

Forms of Dyadic Coping

Further analyses were conducted by introducing each of
the subscales of the dyadic coping questionnaire as a predictor on the first level to examine associations with marital
quality total score on the basis of each time of measurement
and as an averaged level across all measurement times on
the second level to investigate the relation of these subscales
to the base level of marital quality (intercept; see Table 3).
On the first level, all forms of dyadic coping showed significant relationships with marital quality. At the level of
measurement times (first level, i.e., intracouple), marital
quality was higher in couples in which there was more
communication of stress, more positive dyadic coping (by
oneself and by the partner), less negative dyadic coping (by
oneself and by the partner), and particularly more common
dyadic coping.
On the second level, the mens and womens base level of
marital quality (intercepts) was always significantly related
to the husbands dyadic coping. The more husbands reported that they communicated their stress, provided and
received more supportive and less negative dyadic coping,
and engaged in common dyadic coping, the higher the
marital quality of both husbands and wives. The couples
base level of marital quality was related as well to wives
supportive dyadic coping, although in a weaker and less
systematic way. Mens and womens reported marital quality was significantly higher in couples in which wives
reported giving and receiving more supportive dyadic coping, and women indicated that they were happier in relationships in which they reported less negative dyadic coping
(by themselves and their partners) and more common dyadic coping. However, no systematic association was found
for wives communication of stress.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there
is a relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality
over time. In this longitudinal study, we sought to further
our understanding beyond the usual cross-sectional correlations found between these variables by describing the relations of dyadic coping with marital quality on two levels:
the intraindividual as well as the interindividual level.
On the intraindividual level (measuring change within the
couple at four different times), we consistently found that
more positive and less negative dyadic coping was significantly associated with a higher marital quality, in terms of
total score or of each subscale of the PFB, namely, less
Quarreling, more Tenderness, and more Togetherness.
More detailed analyses considering the different forms of
dyadic coping confirmed that higher levels of stress communication and supportive dyadic coping (by oneself and

DYADIC COPING AND MARITAL QUALITY

491

Table 3
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for the Prediction of Marital Quality by Different Types of Dyadic Coping
Marital qualityTotal score
Predictors on the second level (L2)b
Predictors on the first level
(L1)a

Interindividual
variance in
parameters

Duration of
relationship

Average score on subscale

Women

Men

0.044
0.043
Not evaluated

0.228***
0.249***
Not evaluated

0.148**
0.137*
Not evaluated

0.189**
0.219**
Not evaluated

0.113
0.239*
Not evaluated

0.332***
0.272**
Not evaluated

0.130**
0.242***
Not evaluated

0.227***
0.166***
Not evaluated

0.002
0.006
0.002

0.094
0.146*
Not evaluated

0.248**
0.265***
Not evaluated

0.004
0.009***
0.002

0.060
0.116
Not evaluated

0.255***
0.251***
Not evaluated

Stress Communication subscale

c

Intercept husband
Intercept wifec
Communication of stress at d

1.999
1.967
0.042

52.71
43.38
1.97

.000
.000
.049

0.35***
0.42***
0.07*

0.003
0.008
0.001

Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale (oneself)

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Supportive dyadic coping
(oneself) at d

1.982
1.986
0.068

55.91
48.34
2.66

.000
.000
.008

0.32***
0.38***
0.06

0.006
0.011**
0.001

Negative Dyadic Coping subscale (oneself)

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Negative dyadic coping
(oneself) at c

1.986
1.982
0.103

57.67
49.18
2.97

.000
.000
.003

0.32***
0.36***
0.07

0.002
0.007
0.004

Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale (partner)

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Supportive dyadic coping
(partner) at d

1.993
1.974
0.091

65.20
61.76
2.97

.000
.000
.003

0.27***
0.29***
0.05

0.004
0.009**
0.000

Negative Dyadic Coping subscale (partner)

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Negative dyadic coping
(partner) at d

1.967
2.009
0.123

56.89
52.24
4.27

.000
.000
.000

0.31***
0.33***
0.08

Common Dyadic Coping subscale

Intercept husbandc
Intercept wifec
Common dyadic coping at d

1.981
2.021
0.219

68.24
68.24
6.46

.000
.000
.000

0.23***
0.24***
0.14*

L1 predictors: intercept, sex, and the score on each subscale of dyadic coping at p .10. b L2 predictors: length of the relationship
(in years) and average negative dyadic coping score (over the four time points) for women and for men. c df 83. d df 85.
p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.

the partner) and more common dyadic coping, were all

significantly positively associated with marital quality,
whereas negative dyadic coping (by oneself and the partner)
showed a negative relationship with marital quality. However, the hypothesis that dyadic coping might affect marital
quality, which we investigated by including dyadic coping
at the previous measurement time as a predictor, could not
be supported as preliminary analyses had revealed. We did
not report these analyses in this article so that we could
focus on associations within the same times of
measurement.
On the interindividual level, associations between marital
quality and dyadic coping were obvious as well, with some
noteworthy differences between husbands and wives. For
the former, nearly all associations evaluated were signifi-

cant except the relationship of supportive dyadic coping

with reported tenderness for both spouses and with reported
togetherness for women. Thus, mens dyadic coping, in
particular their negative dyadic coping, seemed to be
strongly related to marital quality as reported by both
spouses. For women, only some associations were significant, mostly between supportive dyadic coping and their
own marital quality. Wives reported supportive dyadic
coping was connected to their own reports of marital quality
but not to their husbands perceived marital quality. It is
interesting that less negative dyadic coping of husbands, but
not of wives, was related to a better marital quality for both
partners. This result is remarkable because it reinforces
previous unexpected findings by other researchers who
found that womens negativity was not harmful for mar-

492

BODENMANN, PIHET, AND KAYSER

riages but in many cases was even favorable (Gottman,

Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998; Gottman & Krokoff,
1989; Schilling, Baucom, Burnett, Allen, & Ragland, 2003).
Our findings are consistent with results of previous studies conducted on dyadic coping or support in marriage.
Burke and Weir (1975), who were among the first to study
empirically the relationship between dyadic coping and
marital quality, reported significant correlations between
marital support and marital satisfaction. Spousal support
was strongly related to marital satisfaction of wives in
several studies (see Acitelli & Badr, 2005). These authors
found only low correlations, however, between spousal
support and the husbands satisfaction. It seems, on the
other hand, that reciprocity of support in couples is important, as the findings by Wright and Aquilino (1998) illustrated. Caregiving wives reported higher scores of marital
satisfaction when their ill husbands also provided emotional
support to them.
The fact that mens supportive dyadic coping was more
important for women than vice versa indicates that women
may pay more attention to the partners behavior and that
his investment in marriage is critical for womens satisfaction. On the other hand, men may not be aware of or attend
to their partners behaviors and seem less influenced by
their spouses dyadic coping with regard to their appraisal
of marital quality. For both genders, dyadic coping was,
however, important for marital quality.
There are some limitations of this study. First, the lack of
variation in the socioeconomic status of the sample limits
the generalizability of these findings to couples with low
socioeconomic status and education. Another limitation of
this study concerns the reliance on a measure of selfreported dyadic coping. The use of only one method of
measurement may have contributed to significant associations between marital quality and dyadic coping. Future
research should include other data sources such as observational data of dyadic coping. It would also be interesting to
examine the relationship of the different forms of dyadic
coping with other outcomes such as the adjustment to an
acute stressor (e.g., unemployment) in a couples life. As
has already been stated, further research should also focus
more on the developmental process of dyadic coping related
to the development of the close relationship to examine how
dyadic coping influences marital quality over time.
It has been argued that the concept of dyadic coping is
especially relevant to prevention of marital deterioration
and marital therapy (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004). This
idea has again been supported by the fact that dyadic coping
is strongly associated with marital quality. Therefore,
strengthening dyadic coping (in addition to communication
skills) in couples may be critical for maintaining or improving their marital quality. Programs focusing on an improvement of dyadic coping have been proposed by Bodenmann
and Shantinath (2004) for divorce prevention and by Kayser
(2005) for women with breast cancer. It will be important in
future research to highlight the importance of dyadic coping
in different groups (e.g., highly stressed couples), in different situations (e.g., transition to parenthood), and with dif-

ferent outcome variables (e.g., health, adjustment, divorce

risk).

References
Acitelli, L. K., & Badr, H. J. (2005). My illness or our illness?
Attending to the relationship when one partner is ill. In T. A.
Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping
with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 121
136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Badr, H. (2004). Coping in marital dyads: A contextual perspective
on the role of gender and health. Personal Relationships, 11,
197211.
Barbarin, O. A., Hughes, D., & Chesler, M. A. (1985). Stress,
coping, and marital functioning among partners of children with
cancer. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 473 480.
Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren [Stress and
coping in couples]. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for
marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives
on dyadic coping (pp. 3350). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The Couples Coping
Enhancement Training (CCET): A new approach to prevention
of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations, 53, 477 484.
Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1994). HLM:
Hierarchical linear modelling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L
programs. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1975). Giving and receiving help with
work and non-work related problems. Journal of Business Administration, 6, 59 78.
Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1991). Couples coping with a
myocardial infarction: A contextual perspective on wives distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 404
412.
Cranford, J. A. (2004). Stress-buffering or stress-exacerbation?
Social support and social undermining of moderators of the
relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms
among married couples. Personal Relationships, 11, 23 40.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples. Marriage as a
resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful
events and satisfaction with spouse supportive behavior. Communication Research, 19, 154 174.
Dehle, C., Larsen, D., & Landers, J. E. (2001). Social support in
marriage. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 307
324.
DeLongis, A., & OBrien, T. (1990). An interpersonal framework
for stress and coping: An application to the families of Alzheimers patients. In M. A. P. Stephens, J. H. Crowther, S. E.
Hobfoll, & D. L. Tennenbaum (Eds.), Stress and coping in
later-life families (pp. 221240). New York: Hemisphere.
Goodman, C. C. (1999). Reciprocity of social support in long-term
marriage. Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 5, 341357.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998).
Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 522.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and
satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 57, 4752.
Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik
(FPD) [Questionnaire for partnership diagnostics]. Gottingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.

DYADIC COPING AND MARITAL QUALITY

Karney, B. R., Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Marriages
in context: Interactions between chronic and acute stress among
newlyweds. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann
(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on
dyadic coping (pp. 1332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kayser, K. (2005). Enhancing dyadic coping during a time of
crisis: A theory-based intervention with breast cancer patients
and their partners. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann
(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on
dyadic coping (pp. 175194). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kayser, K., Sormanti, M., & Strainchamps, E. (1999). Women
coping with cancer: The influence of relationship factors on
psychosocial adjustment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23,
725739.
Kuijer, R. G., Ybema, J. F., Buunk, B. P., Thijs-Boer, F., &
Sanderman, R. (2000). Active engagement, protective buffering,
and overprotection: Three ways of giving support by intimate
partners of patients with cancer. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, 256 285.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping. New York: Springer.
Manne, S., Ostroff, J., Sherman, M., Glassman, M., Ross, S.,
Goldstein, L., & Fox, K. (2003). Buffering effects of family and
friend support on associations between partner unsupportive behaviors and coping among women with breast cancer. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 771792.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context affect
intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134 148.
Pakenham, K. I. (1998). Couple coping and adjustment to multiple
sclerosis in care receiver care giver dyads. Family Relations, 47,
269 277.
Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support, conflict,
and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 219 230.
Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., & Barnett, R. C. (1995). A
multivariate hierarchical model for studying psychological
change within married couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9,
161174.
Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on subsequent
behavior during marital interaction: The roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 651 659.

493

Revenson, T. A. (1994). Social support and marital coping with

chronic illness. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 16, 122130.
Revenson, T. A., Kayser, K., & Bodenmann, G. (2005). Emerging
perspectives on couples coping with stress. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Robles, T. F., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of
marriage: Pathways to health. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 409
416.
Rohrbaugh, M. J., Cranford, J. A., Shoham, V., Nicklas, J. M.,
Sonnega, J. S., & Coyne, J. C. (2002). Couples coping with
congestive heart failure: Role and gender differences in psychological distress. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 313.
Ruvolo, A. P. (1998). Marital well-being and general happiness of
newlywed couples: Relationships across time. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 15, 470 489.
Schilling, E. A., Baucom, D. H., Burnett, C. K., Allen, E. A., &
Ragland, L. (2003). Altering the course of marriage: The effect
of PREP communication skills acquisition on couples risk of
becoming maritally distressed. Journal of Family Psychology,
17, 4153.
Schmaling, K. B., & Sher, T. G. (2000). The psychology of couples
and illness: Theory, research, and practice. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding marriage
and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1139 1162.
Suls, J., Green, P., Rose, G., Lounsbury, P., & Gordon, E. (1997).
Hiding worries from ones spouse: Associations between coping
via protective buffering and distress in male post-myocardial
infarction patients and their wives. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 333349.
Tesser, A., & Beach, S. R. H. (1998). Life events, relationship
quality, and depression: An investigation of judgment discontinuity in vivo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
36 52.
Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain
from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and
women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 530.
Wright, D. L., & Aquilino, W. S. (1998). Influence of emotional
support exchange in marriage on caregiving wives burden and
marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 47, 195204.

Received December 1, 2004

Revision received September 2, 2005
Accepted September 2, 2005