Journal of Family Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 27, No. 5, 795– 805 0893-3200/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034009

Does Dyadic Coping Mediate the Relationship Between Emotional

Intelligence (EI) and Marital Quality?

Moshe Zeidner and Iris Kloda Gerald Matthews

University of Haifa University of Central Florida

This study tested for the mediational effects of dyadic coping in the observed relationship between
emotional intelligence, assessed both as ability and as trait, and quality of marital relations. We used a
standard dyadic design involving 100 newlywed heterosexual couples who were assessed on EI measures
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

along with measures of dyadic coping and perceived marital quality. Total dyadic coping, as well as
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

dyadic coping of oneself and dyadic coping of partner, were observed to mediate the association between
EI and marital quality. These data provide some support for the commonly held assumption that EI plays
a role in marital relationships, as mediated by dyadic coping. However, whereas the individual appears
to benefit from being emotionally intelligent, the benefit is not transmitted to the other partner in the
relationship.

Keywords: dyadic coping, emotional intelligence, family stress, marital quality

This study examines the mediating role of dyadic coping in
the observed relationship between emotional intelligence (EI),
assessed as both ability and as trait, and marital quality in
heterosexual newlyweds. We begin our survey of the literature
by briefly discussing EI and move on to discuss the role of EI
in marital relations. Next, we discuss the potential mediating
role of dyadic coping with marital stress and adaptive marital
outcomes.
EI and Marital Quality
EI represents a rich array of affective characteristics designed to
help one perceive, express, understand, apply, and manage emo-
tions, particularly when encountering emotionally laden situations
(Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2009). In many ways, EI has been
heralded as a promising new construct in psychological science
that is directed toward improving the human condition, including
close personal relationships (Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005;
Zeidner et al., 2009). In view of the frequently claimed pivotal role
of EI in personal relations, EI has been claimed to play an impor-
tant role in determining stability and happiness in romantic rela-
tions and marriage as well (Fitness, 2001).
Although some authors (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000)
have conceptualized and assessed EI as a cognitive ability, others
(e.g., Pérez, Petrides, & Furnham, 2005) have viewed EI as a trait,
comprised of a conglomerate of affective, personality, and moti-
Moshe Zeidner, Department of Counseling and Human Development,
University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Israel; Iris Kloda, Gordon College of
Education, University of Haifa; and Gerald Matthews, ACTIVE Lab,
University of Central Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Moshe
Zeidner, Department of Counseling and Human Development, Univer-
sity of Haifa, Aba Hushi St., Haifa, Mt. Carmel 31905, Israel. E-mail:
Zeidner@research.haifa.ac.il
vational traits and dispositions. These disparate positions give us
two primary, contrasting ways of assessing EI (Zeidner et al.,
2009): (a) as a cognitive ability, best measured via performance-
type tests, e.g., Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT), Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002, and (b) as a
personality trait, best measured via self-report inventories (e.g.,
Schutte Self-Report Inventory [SSRI], Schutte et al., 1998). Abil-
ity and trait measures are typically only modestly positively cor-
related (Brackett & Mayer, 2003) or even independent (Zeidner &
Kaluda, 2008). Although the trait EI construct shares a large
amount of variance with the affective facets of higher-order per-
sonality traits— hence, trait EI, it also has been shown to capture
additional emotion-related variance that allows it to predict well-
being criteria incrementally over conventional personality mea-
sures (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007).
There are several reasons why both variants of EI might be
associated with higher marital satisfaction. According to Mayer et
al. (2000), key components of ability EI should shape both the
encoding of information and the regulation of emotion during
partner interactions. On the “input” side, components include
accurate perception of emotion, integrating emotion with thought,
and understanding the meanings of emotion. Competencies in
“reading” and interpreting the emotional state of the other may
contribute positively to the quality of the relationship. On the
“output” side, EI may relate to superior skills both in regulating
one’s own emotions, such as constructive expression of anger
during a dispute, and in regulating the other’s emotions, such as
comforting a partner who is upset. Brackett et al. (2005) review
evidence that competencies including accurate emotion perception,
sensitivity in communication of emotion, and regulation of nega-
tive emotions are associated with marital happiness. Trait EI scales
have been successful in predicting adaptive coping and well-being
in a variety of contexts (see Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2012,
for a review). Coping may be critical to trait EI, so that high trait
EI protects against a range of real-life stressors. Trait EI may then

795
 796 ZEIDNER, KLODA, AND MATTHEWS
enhance marital relations through promoting more effective coping
with stressors that impact both partners.
A number of empirical studies link both ability-based (Lopes
et al., 2004) and trait (Schutte et al., 2001) forms of EI to
elevated marital satisfaction. However, two forms of relation-
ship between EI and marital satisfaction might be distinguished.
First, the benefits of EI might be mainly personal; a high-EI
individual might gain high personal satisfaction from the mar-
riage without providing any additional satisfaction to his or her
partner. Second, high EI might be expressed through support of
the other partner, for example, through regulating their emo-
tions constructively as well as one’s own. These two possibil-
ities are distinguished in studies that differentiate “actor” and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
“partner” effects. Although a number of studies have failed to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
report partner effects (Brackett et al., 2005; Zeidner & Kaluda,
2008), Schröder-Abé and Schütz (2011) found that higher EI
was associated with higher levels of both actor and partner
relationship satisfaction. Across these studies, actor effects
appear more reliable than partner effects.
EI and Dyadic Coping With Marital Stress and
Conflict
Dyadic coping is based on the assumption that married persons
are embedded within a shared social context, with common con-
cerns and mutual goals and a large degree of interdependence. As
a systemic pattern, dyadic coping entails coping strategies aimed at
maintaining or restoring the structural, functional, behavioral,
emotional, and social balance of the entire dyadic system, as well
as the equilibrium of each partner. Dyadic coping, which occurs in
addition to individual coping efforts, may be distinguished from
individual coping efforts (Bodenmann, 1995).
Dyadic coping is related to, but can be clearly distinguished
from, more familiar constructs, such as social support (Boden-
mann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006; Bodenmann, Randall, & Cutrona,
2013). Thus, social support is often characterized as the unidirec-
tional flow of resources in which one person provides aid to a
second, stressed person, with the person receiving support gener-
ally considered the basic unit of analysis. By contrast, dyadic
coping goes beyond social support, being based on the notion of
interdependence and mutual influence; the dyad is viewed as the
basic unit of analysis.
A meta-analytic study (Bodenmann, 2005), based on 13 studies
and 783 couples, shows that positive dyadic coping is associated
with better marital function and higher relationship satisfaction,
with dyadic coping accounting for 30%– 40% of the variance in
marital satisfaction. Links between dyadic coping and marital
quality have been reported to be in the absolute range of .39 to .65
(Bodenmann, Bradbury, & Pihet, 2009).
High-EI individuals show several attributes expected to support
dyadic coping, including more effective communication patterns
(Smith, Heaven, & Ciarrochi, 2008) and perspective taking
(Schröder-Abé & Schütz, 2011), as well as more general facilities
for adaptive coping and constructive mood regulation (Zeidner et
al., 2009, 2012). Thus, multiple attributes of high EI may work
together to enhance dyadic coping. To the extent that the contri-
butions of one high-EI partner to dyadic coping are recognized
both by that person and the other partner, both actor and partner
effects might be expected.
Overview of the Present Study
This study sets out to examine the nexus of relationships be-
tween EI, assessed both as ability and as trait, dyadic coping, and
quality of marital relations in newlywed heterosexual couples. In
specific, we aim at achieving the following objectives.
Objectives
First, the primary goal of the present study is to test a media-
tional model in which a person’s EI is related to dyadic coping,
which in turn, impacts marital satisfaction. EI may serve as an
enduring personal resource for coping dyadically and establishing
and maintaining positive personal relationships. Specifically, EI
may enhance dyadic coping both through input processes— better
perception and understanding of their partner’s feelings—and
through output processes of more effective regulation of the emo-
tions of self and other, resolving conflicts constructively, and
adopting task-focused coping strategies such as alleviating their
partner of actual burdens. The dyadic coping construct may cap-
ture both the input and output elements of EI as they are integrated
functionally in service of the common goal of supporting the
marriage. To our knowledge, no systematic research to date has
actually tested the mediational role of dyadic coping in the EI-
marital satisfaction relationship. The simplest hypothesis is that EI
supports the total dyadic coping of both partners, given that EI is
said to be associated with both intra- and interpersonal competen-
cies (Mayer et al., 2000). However, as detailed below, we aimed
also to test whether one’s own dyadic coping was a more reliable
mediator of EI effects than perceived dyadic coping of one’s
partner.
A second, but related, objective was to compare the roles of
various facets of dyadic coping (by oneself, by partner, total
dyadic coping) in marital satisfaction. Bodenmann’s (2008) Dy-
adic Coping Inventory (DCI), which we use in this study, has
become the standard measure in the field. According to DCI
instructions, participants rate how they deal as a couple with
stress. Dyadic coping is measured as an interpersonal construct,
because the actor scores how he or she supports the other partner
in dealing with his or her stress. The structure of the questionnaire
allows measurement of both partners’ contributions to dyadic
coping (one’s own and the partner’s dyadic coping). Bodenmann’s
studies (Bodenmann, 1995; Bodenmann, 2005) suggest that both
the DCI scales for these constructs predict marital quality. Thus,
we tested total dyadic coping as a mediator. If marital quality
depends on some synergy between self- and other-perceptions,
total coping may be the strongest predictor out of the DCI scales.
However, self- and other-perceptions may be differentially related
to EI and thus play differing roles in mediating any effect of EI on
marital satisfaction. Specifically, if higher EI individuals are better
able to provide emotional support to their partners (Brackett et al.,
2005), then EI should be associated with DCI dyadic coping by
oneself, potentially leading to higher marital satisfaction in both
partners. The role of perceived dyadic coping by partner is more
equivocal. High EI of the self should promote more constructive
appraisals of the other partner and facilitation and support of the
other’s coping efforts. Thus, we might expect positive associations
between EI and dyadic coping by partner. However, EI may also
contribute to inaccurate perceptions of the partner. Thus, falsely
believing an unsympathetic partner to be supportive is not emo-
 DYADIC COPING
tionally intelligent. Thus, we expected that dyadic coping by self
would have a stronger role than dyadic coping by other in medi-
ating associations between EI and marital quality.
A third goal is to probe the relevance of dyadic coping to the
adjustment and marital quality of newlywed couples in the earlier
phases of their marital relationships. Past research on dyadic
coping has largely focused on longer-term couples facing major
life events and chronic stressors, with few studies examining
newlywed couples in relatively new relationships. Newlyweds are
faced with a number of unique and distinct challenging tasks.
Among other things, they need to negotiate: arriving at a satisfac-
tory division of marital roles and responsibilities; reestablishing or
redefining ties, both as individual and as couple, with each mem-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ber’s extended family and peer network; and also learning ways to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
maintain and nurture their developing relationship. Although these
tasks are often begun prior to marriage, the early years of marriage
are usually the time in which major conflicts are first revealed and
confronted. Because a couple’s ability to manage marital conflict
and reconcile differences may be an important determinant of
marital satisfaction and stability, the first year of marriage may be
a critical phase for the developmental course of the marriage.
A fourth and final objective of the present study is to assess the
effects of EI, assessed as both self-report and ability, in relation to
dyadic coping, on one hand, and perceived marital quality, on the
other. Most prior studies have relied on the person’s self-reports of
their EI, which may be biased by self-appraisals— both positive
and negative. Indeed, questionnaire measures of trait EI may
correlate with marital well-being precisely because both types of
measure reflect how positive the person’s self-opinions are. This
study hopes to improve on prior research by the inclusion of both
an ability-based and trait (self-report) measure of EI. This seems to
be important for two reasons. First, the two measures may repre-
sent different constructs that contribute differentially to interper-
sonal interactions (Zeidner et al., 2009). Second, effects of trait EI
may be vulnerable to common method construct variance (i.e.,
self-report measures of EI, coping, and marital quality), and so the
case for the relevance of EI to marital satisfaction may be stronger
if also demonstrated using an ability measure.
Research Hypotheses
Based on the assumption that EI and dyadic coping are both
enduring resources for adaptive coping in close relationships
(Brackett et al., 2005; Zeidner et al., 2009), and some prior
research attesting to positive associations between EI, coping, and
positive relationship outcomes, we predicted that EI, assessed as
trait and ability, will be positively associated with dyadic coping
(H1); that dyadic coping will be strongly related to perceived
marital quality (H2); and that EI will be positively related to
marital quality in dyadic partners (H3). Tests of hypotheses inves-
tigated both actor and partner effects of EI, but no prediction was
made given conflicting results from previous studies. We also
hypothesized that both ability and trait EI measures will be inde-
pendently associated with higher marital quality (H4), given that
both constructs have been demonstrated to be related to marital
and well-being outcomes (Zeidner & Kaluda, 2008; Zeidner et al.,
2012) but are only weakly intercorrelated (Brackett & Mayer,
2003), at most. It was also hypothesized that dyadic coping will
significantly mediate the EI–marital quality relationship in dyadic
797
partners (H5), with dyadic coping by self demonstrating a stronger
role than dyadic coping by other in mediating associations between
EI and marital quality (H6).
Method
Participants
Participants were 100 recently newlywed heterosexual couples,
married within 1 year of assessment, on average (M ⫽ 11 months,
SD ⫽ 7.23). Participants were solicited from among the wider
student population and were graduates of a major Israeli research
university. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 32 years (M ⫽
25.87, SD ⫽ 2.71). Husbands were significantly older, on average,
than their spouses, 27.52 (2.62) ⬎ 25.87 (2.72), t(97) ⫽ ⫺7.30,
p ⬍ .001, with dyadic partners strongly similar in age, r(98) ⫽ .67,
p ⬍ .001.
Measures
Ability-based EI. Ability-based EI was assessed via the 141-
item MSCEIT V 2.0 (Mayer et al., 2002). The original English
version was translated into Hebrew by two bilingual psychologists
and then back-translated to English by a third bilingual psychol-
ogist, to ensure correspondence between the English and Hebrew
renditions. This performance-based assessment consists of eight
tasks assessing the four core branches of EI: (1) Perceiving Emo-
tions, (2) Emotional Facilitation, (3) Understanding Emotions, and
(4) Managing Emotions (Mayer et al., 2002). All items have either
a multiple-choice format or 5-point rating scale format.
All tests were proportion consensus-scored with consensus
weights determined from the entire sample (N ⫽ 200) of newly-
weds. This approach has been justified on both empirical and
rationale grounds (MacCann, Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts,
2003). Specifically, the consensus scores that we used in this study
reflect the proportion of participants in this study who endorsed
each MSCEIT test item. Responses were tallied, and participants
were given credit for responses to the extent that their answers
matched those provided by the sample. More specifically, under
this scoring technique, for example, a participant who chose 4 in
the present investigation would receive a score of 0.42 for that item
if 42% of the participants answered that that emotion was defi-
nitely present, and so forth. Participants were given credit for
responses to the extent that their answers matched those provided
by the sample. The alpha reliability of the total scale, which was
used in the various analyses, was .78 for both men and women.
Because the MSCEIT is a relatively new instrument that has not
yet been published in Hebrew, no national Hebrew norms are
presently available. Furthermore, based on our experience, Amer-
ican norm group scoring does not work well in an Israeli sample
(as it was shown in other, non-English-speaking countries).
Trait EI. Trait EI was assessed via the SSRI. The SSRI
(Schutte et al., 2001) is a widely used self-report inventory in
which individuals are instructed to give their level of endorsement
to 33 statements describing aspects of emotional life (e.g., “I know
why my emotions change”) on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The original English version was
adapted to Hebrew via translation and back-translation procedures
outlined previously for the MSCEIT. The developers of this scale
 798 ZEIDNER, KLODA, AND MATTHEWS
suggest that it provides a measure of general EI, and this measure
showed satisfactory full-score reliability for the newlyweds in this
study (.86 for both men and women). In contrast to the MSCEIT,
this self-report measure does not directly tap people’s emotional
abilities but rather people’s self-reported beliefs about their emo-
tional abilities.
Dyadic coping patterns. Patterns of dyadic coping with
sources of stress in marriage were assessed by the 37-item DCI
(Bodenmann, 2008). Participants were asked to consider their own
and their partner’s stress and coping in the context of the stressful
events in their life. Both dyadic partners rated how frequently they
and their partner engage in certain coping and communication
behaviors on a scale of 1 (very rarely) to 6 (very often). Subscales
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tapped stress communication of both self and partner (eight items;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
“I show my partner through my behavior when I am not doing well
or when I have problems,” “My partner tells me openly how he or
she feels and that he or she would appreciate my support”);
supportive dyadic coping of self and partner (10 items: e.g., “My
partner expresses that he or she is on my side,” “I show empathy
and understanding to my partner”); delegated dyadic coping of self
and partner (four items: e.g., “My partner takes on things I nor-
mally do in order to help me out”; “When my partner feels he or
she has too much to do, I help him/her out”); common dyadic
coping (five item; e.g., “We help one another to put the problem in
perspective and see it in a new light”); and negative dyadic coping
(eight items; e.g., “I do not take my partner’s stress seriously,”
“When I’m stressed, my partner tends to withdraw”).
The following two subscales proposed by Bodenmann (2008)
were used in the multivariate analyses testing of key hypotheses in
this study: (a) dyadic coping by oneself aggregate scale (15 items;
alphas: Males ⫽ .76, Females ⫽ .82) and (b) dyadic coping by
partner (15 items; alphas: Males ⫽ .76, Females ⫽ .82). The
dyadic coping of oneself and dyadic coping by partner aggregate
scales are comprised of a linear sum of items scores of the
following subscales targeting self and other, respectively: stress
communication (k ⫽ 4 items); supportive dyadic coping (k ⫽ 5),
delegated coping (k ⫽ 2), and low negative dyadic coping (k ⫽ 4,
with reverse scoring of items). Items were scored in the direction
of more positive dyadic coping, exclusive of two evaluation items.
Furthermore, we used a total dyadic coping scale comprised of the
sum score of all scale item ratings, save for two evaluation items,
scored in the direction of positive dyadic coping (35 items; alphas:
Husbands ⫽ .91, Wives ⫽ .94).
As Bodenmann noted (personal communication, February 7,
2013), the DCI scale gauges dyadic coping (not individual coping),
but the assessment also reflects the individual’s perspective. Thus,
scores not only reflect the objective quality of coping but also the
individual’s appraisal, which may be subject to bias. One partner
might over- or underestimate the true effectiveness of dyadic
coping. The role of appraisal bias explains why self- and other-
scores for dyadic coping are significantly but imperfectly posi-
tively correlated (Bodenmann, 2005). Furthermore, as noted by
Bodenmann, the particular type of stress (chronic, acute) does not
need to be specified in the instructions because it can relate to
minor stressors as well as major stressful events, with individuals
generally finding it difficult to distinguish these forms of stress
accurately.
Marital satisfaction. Perceived quality of marital relations
(marital satisfaction) was assessed via a modified Hebrew adap-
tation of Norton’s Quality of Marriage Index (QMI, Norton, 1983).
The QMI is a six-item scale asking spouses to rate the extent to
which they agree with general statements about their marriage
(e.g., “We have a good marriage”). Both members of each couple
indicated how much they agreed (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 9 ⫽
strongly agree) with each statement of the inventory. Raw scores
were rescaled to T scores (M ⫽ 50, SD ⫽ 10) across participants.
Satisfactory alpha scale reliability coefficients were found in this
study for both husbands (␣ ⫽ .92) and wives (␣ ⫽ .97).
Procedure
Both dyadic partners were present in the lab during assessment.
After signing of consent forms, each of the participants was seated
in separate rooms and asked to complete an assessment battery that
included personal information, an ability-based measure of EI
(MSCEIT) and a self-report measure of EI. After a break, partic-
ipants completed the second part of the assessment battery, com-
prised of the DCI and QMI. The couples were compensated for
their participation.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the research variables,
separately for each dyadic partner. As shown in Table 1, no
significant differences were observed on self-reported EI, total
dyadic coping scores, and marital well-being between husbands
and wives. Wives scored slightly higher than their husbands on
ability-based EI. Tables 2 and 3 present within- and between-
partner correlations, respectively, between EI scales, aggregate
dyadic scales, and marital quality. As shown in Table 2, although
the trait EI measure was significantly correlated with each of the
dyadic coping measures in both husbands and wives (supporting
H1), the ability EI measure was significantly correlated with
dyadic measures in husbands only. The intercorrelations between
ability-based and trait measures of EI were very low in both gender
groups, as is often the case (see Zeidner et al., 2009). However, the
two EI measures were significantly, though modestly, correlated
for wives but not for husbands—an unexpected finding. As ex-
pected (H2), all the dyadic coping measures were substantially
correlated with marital quality. As shown in Table 3, the between-
partner correlations on dyadic coping indices as well as perceived
quality of marital relations were consistently significant. Curi-
ously, correlations among dyadic partners on EI measures were
negligible.
Modeling Actor and Partner Effects
Analytic strategy. We used the Actor-Partner Independence
Model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) in our analyses
because it has been shown to adequately handle the lack of
independence that is present in data from couples, providing sep-
arate estimates of actor and partner effects. Paths for within-spouse
(actor) effects and cross-spouse (partner) effects were modeled via
AMOS 18. The general strategy in specifying path models with a
dyadic design is that the model is drawn twice, once for each
member of the dyad (Kenny et al., 2006). We correlated all
 DYADIC COPING 799

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Key Individual Level Variables in the Study, by Gender

Husbands Wives
Key variables M SD M SD ta db

Emotional intelligence
MSCEIT (total) .42 .04 .44 .03 ⫺3.77ⴱ ⫺.38ⴱ
Schutte (total) 127.02 13.11 130.07 12.68 ⫺1.78 ⫺.22
Dyadic coping
DCOtot 4.56 .55 4.70 .59 ⫺2.08ⴱ ⫺.21
DCPtot 4.66 .60 4.64 .72 .33 .03
DCItot 4.56 .56 4.63 .65 .07 ⫺.10
Marital quality 8.27 .88 8.20 1.26 .70 .07
Note. MSCEIT ⫽ Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; DCOtot ⫽ total score of dyadic coping
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

by oneself; DCPtot ⫽ total score of dyadic coping by the partner; DCItot ⫽ total score of the Dyadic Coping
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Inventory.
a
Calculated as t tests for dependent measures. b d scores for dependent measures were calculated by dividing
the difference score by the standard deviation of the difference score.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.

exogenous variables across dyad members, and we also correlated tion. An unconditional path model testing for actor and partner
the disturbances across dyad members, thus allowing for noninde- effects in the relation between both self-report and ability-based
pendence of the data. As a rule, we first made comparisons EI, as exogenous variables, and marital quality, as endogenous
between models in which paths were allowed to vary freely and variables, proved to be a “just identified” model, with 0 degrees of
then constrained actor or partner paths, whatever may be the case, freedom. When actor effects were constrained to be equal for
to equality, for husbands and wives. If the constrained model did husbands and wives, the conditional model showed a reasonable
not worsen the fit significantly relative to the unconstrained model, fit, ␹2 (2) ⫽ 4.2, p ⫽ .62. When both actor and partner effects were
we preferred the simpler model, suggesting that the actor or partner constrained to be equal for dyadic pairs, this restriction yielded an
paths in the model were invariant for husbands and wives. almost an identical fit as the previous model tested, ␹2 (4) ⫽ 4.31,
Mediation for dyadic coping in the relationship between EI and p ⫽ .37, CFI ⫽ .94, NFI ⫽ .92, and RMSEA ⫽ .03. However,
marital quality was tested by comparing the chi-square fit of the when actor and partner effects were constrained to be equal in the
“full” model that included paths for direct effects of EI predicting model, this model showed an unsatisfactory fit, ␹2 (6) ⫽ 22.90,
relationship quality to the fit of “reduced” models, where these p ⬍ .001, significantly worsening the fit, ␹diff
2
(2) ⫽ 18.59, p ⬍
direct paths were not estimated. When comparing models, results .001. Thus, although actor effects for dyadic pairs were significant
are presented below in the form of chi-square (␹2) difference tests. for both self-report EI (husbands, p ⫽ .30, wives, p ⫽ .29) and
If the difference in model fit between the full and reduced model ability based EI (husbands, p ⫽ .22, wives, p ⫽ .17), the partner
was not found to be statistically significant, there was evidence of effects were negligible for both self-report EI (husbands, p ⫽ .05,
mediation. We tested separate models for the mediating effects of wives, p ⫽ .04), and ability-based EI (husbands, p ⫽ ⫺.06, wives,
total dyadic coping, dyadic coping by oneself, and dyadic coping p ⫽ ⫺.04). Thus, H3 and H4 were supported for actor but not
by one’s partner, in turn. partner effects.
Testing for actor and partner effects for EI and total dyadic Next, we tested a path model linking EI, assessed as both trait
coping and marital quality. We first tested a path model linking and ability, to total dyadic coping (as a further test of H1). An
EI, assessed as both trait and ability, to perceived marital satisfac-
Table 3
Table 2 Between-Partner Correlations Among Key Variables
Within Partner Correlations Among Key Variables (Men Above
Husbands
Diagonal, Women Below Diagonal)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Wives
1. MSCEIT — .10 .33ⴱ .33ⴱ .33ⴱ .31ⴱ 1. Ability EI .07 .10 .07 .10 .05 .01
2. SSRI .23ⴱ — .44ⴱ .20ⴱ .35ⴱ .23ⴱ 2. EI-SR .02 .14 .07ⴱ .10 .12 .09
3. DCOtot .12 .53ⴱ — .76ⴱ .93ⴱ .57ⴱ 3. DCOtot .06 .08 .25ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ
4. DCPtot .19 .38ⴱ .78ⴱ — .93ⴱ .66ⴱ 4. DCPtot .10 .13 .32ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ
5. DCItot .15 .48ⴱ .92ⴱ .95ⴱ — .69ⴱ 5. DCItot .07 .11 .29ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ
6. Marital quality .15 .41ⴱ .66ⴱ .65ⴱ .70ⴱ — 6. Marital quality ⫺.03 .08 .27ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ
Note. Correlations for husbands and wives appear above and below the Note. Dyadic correlations on identical variables appear on the diag-
main diagonal (—), respectively. MSCEIT ⫽ Mayer-Salovey-Caruso onal (boldface). EI ⫽ emotional intelligence; EI-SR ⫽ self-report EI;
Emotional Intelligence Test; DCOtot ⫽ total score of dyadic coping by DCOtot ⫽ total score of dyadic coping by oneself; DCPtot ⫽ total score
oneself; DCPtot ⫽ total score of dyadic coping by the partner; DCItot ⫽ of dyadic coping by the partner; DCItot ⫽ total score of the Dyadic
total score of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Coping Inventory.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 800 ZEIDNER, KLODA, AND MATTHEWS
unconditional path model testing for actor and partner effects in
the relation between both self-report and ability-based EI, as
exogenous variables, and total dyadic coping, as endogenous vari-
ables, proved to be a “just identified” model, with 0 degrees of
freedom. When actor effects, for both EI measures, were con-
strained to be equal for husbands and wives, the conditional model
showed a less than satisfactory fit, ␹2 (2) ⫽ 4.64, p ⫽ .09, CFI ⫽
.95, NFI ⫽ .94, and RMSEA ⫽ .12, AIC ⫽ 54.64. When both actor
and partner effects were constrained to be equal for dyadic pairs
this restriction yielded a more satisfactory fit, ␹2 (4) ⫽ 4.91, p ⫽
.30, CFI ⫽ .98, NFI ⫽ .94, and RMSEA ⫽ .05, AIC ⫽ 50.91. Thus,
whereas actor effects for dyadic pairs were significant for both
self-report EI (husbands: .40, p ⬍ .001; wives: .35, p ⬍ .001) and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ability based EI (husbands: .23, p ⬍ .002; wives: .15, p ⬍ .002),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
partner effects were negligible for both self-report EI (husbands:
.04; wives: .04), and ability-based EI (husbands: .03; wives: .03).
When actor and partner effects were constrained to be equal, this
model showed an unsatisfactory fit, ␹2 (6) ⫽ 27.73, p ⬍ .001,
significantly worsening the fit, ␹diff
2
(2) ⫽ 22.82, p ⬍ .001.
Finally, we tested path model testing for actor and partner
effects in the relation between total dyadic coping and marital
quality. The unconstrained model was saturated (just identified),
with 0 degrees of freedom. When actor effects were constrained to
be equal for husbands and wives, the conditional model showed a
reasonable fit, ␹2 (1) ⫽ .39, p ⫽ .83; the model yielded acceptable
values for all indices, CFI ⫽ 1.00, NFI ⫽ .99, and RMSEA ⫽ .000,
AIC ⫽ 26.39. When both actor and partner effects were con-
strained to be equal for husbands and wives, the model was not
significantly worse, ␹2 (2) ⫽ .41, p ⫽ .81, showing acceptable
values for all indices: CFI ⫽ 1.00, NFI ⫽ .99, and RMSEA ⫽
0000, AIC ⫽ 24.43. The model showed significant actor
(Husband ⫽ .62, p ⬍ .001, Wife ⫽ .68, p ⬍ .001) and partner
(Husband ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .02, Wife ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .02) effects. However,
when both actor and partner effects were constrained to be equal,
this model, ␹2 (3) ⫽ 28.74, p ⫽ .001, significantly worsened the
fit, ␹diff
2
(1) ⫽ 28.31 p ⬍ .001. This suggests that actor effects are
stronger than partner effects, although both were shown to be
significant.
Given that only actor effects, but no partner effects, were found
in the association of EI with both marital satisfaction and dyadic
coping, respectively, only actor effects were tested in the mediat-
ing models below.
Mediating analyses for total dyadic coping. We tested first
for the mediating effects of total dyadic coping in accounting for
the EI–marital quality association. The unconstrained model, in-
cluding both direct and indirect paths from EI measures to marital
quality, via total dyadic coping, yielded a satisfactory fit ␹2 (10) ⫽
12.03, p ⫽ .28, with satisfactory fit indices, CFI ⫽ .99, NFI ⫽ .95,
RMSEA ⫽ .05, AIC ⫽ 80.03. When actor effects were constrained
to be equal for husbands and wives, this model also showed a
satisfactory fit, ␹2 (15) ⫽ 17.74, p ⫽ .20, CFI ⫽ .99, NFI ⫽ .92,
RMSEA ⫽ .04, AIC ⫽ 75.74. Because the constraints imposed did
not significantly worsen the model at the .05 level of probability,
␹diff
2
(5) ⫽ 1.92, ns, this suggests that the actor effects in the model
are invariant for husbands and wives.
As shown in Figure 1, the direct paths from EI measures to
perceived marital quality were statistically insignificant for self-
reported EI and ability-based EI. The indirect paths, from EI to
marital quality, through dyadic coping of self, were statistically
significant (p ⬍ .05) for the EI measures. In fact, indirect effects
comprised more than 85% of the total standardized effects for trait
EI measures (Husbands: 86%, Wives ⫽ .85%) and about 65% for
ability measures (Husbands: 64%, Wives ⫽ .67%). A comparison
of this model with a reduced model not including the direct effects
from EI measures to marital quality, ␹2 (17) ⫽ 19.66, p ⫽ .24, did
not significantly worsen the model, ␹diff 2
(2) ⫽ 1.92, ns. Therefore,
the more parsimonious model, without the direct paths from EI
measures to marital satisfaction, was preferred over the less par-
simonious model (supporting H5).
Mediating effects for dyadic coping of self and others.
Finally, we conducted separate tests for the mediating effects of
the two components of total dyadic coping: dyadic coping of self
and dyadic coping of one’s partner, in turn.
Dyadic coping by self. Mediation models were analogous to
those tested for total dyadic coping. The unconstrained model,
including both direct and indirect paths from EI measures to
marital quality, via dyadic coping of self, yielded a satisfactory fit,
␹2 (10) ⫽ 13.37, p ⫽ .20, with satisfactory fit indices, CFI ⫽ .98,
NFI ⫽ .91, RMSEA ⫽ .06, AIC ⫽ 81.37. When actor effects were
constrained to be equal for husbands and wives, this model showed
a satisfactory fit, ␹2 (15) ⫽ 19.34, ⫽ .20, CFI ⫽ .97, NFI ⫽ .90,
RMSEA ⫽ .05, AIC ⫽ 77.34. Because these constraints did not
significantly worsen the model, ␹diff 2
(5) ⫽ 5.97, this suggests that
the actor effects in the model are invariant for husbands and wives.
As shown in Figure 2a, depicting direct and indirect paths, the
direct paths from EI measures to perceived marital quality were
statistically insignificant for self-reported EI and ability-based EI. The
indirect paths, from EI to marital quality, through dyadic coping of
self, were statistically significant (p ⬍ .05) for trait EI and also for
ability EI. Indirect effects comprise the lion’s share of the total
variance for trait EI (Husbands: 87%, Wives ⫽ 84%), but less so for
ability measures (Husbands: 45%, Wives ⫽ 50%). A comparison of
this model with a reduced model not including the direct effects from
EI measures to marital quality, ␹2 (17) ⫽ 22.80, p ⫽ .16, did not
significantly worsen the model, ␹diff 2
(2) ⫽ 3.46, ns. Therefore, the
more parsimonious model, without the direct paths, was preferred
over the less parsimonious model, suggesting full mediation.
Dyadic coping of other (partner). Having shown that dyadic
coping by oneself mediates the EI–marital quality relationship, we
next tested for the mediating effects of dyadic coping by partner. The
unconstrained model, including both direct and indirect paths from EI
measures to marital quality, via dyadic coping of partner, yielded a
satisfactory fit, ␹2 (10) ⫽ 18.02, p ⫽ .06, CFI ⫽ .95, NFI ⫽ .91
RMSEA ⫽ .09, AIC ⫽ 205.62. When actor effects were constrained
to be equal for husbands and wives, this model showed no less a
satisfactory fit, ␹2 (15) ⫽ 24.98, p ⫽ .05, CFI ⫽ .94, NFI ⫽ .87,
RMSEA ⫽ .08, AIC ⫽ 82.52. Because these constraints did not
significantly worsen the model, ␹diff 2
(5) ⫽ 6.98, this suggests that the
actor effects in the model are invariant for husbands and wives.
As shown in Figure 2b, the indirect paths, from EI to marital
quality, through dyadic coping of partner were statistically signif-
icant (p ⬍ .05) for trait EI and also for ability EI. At the same time,
the direct paths from EI measures to perceived marital quality were
statistically significant for trait EI but were statistically insignifi-
cant for ability EI. Although the indirect effects account for about
half of the total path effects for trait EI (Husbands: 48%, Wives:
50%), the indirect effects account for about two thirds of the total
path effects for ability EI (Husbands: 64%, Wives: 67%). A
 DYADIC COPING
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. Path diagram of mediating effects of total dyadic coping in the relationship between EI and marital
quality. Standardized path coefficients are presented in the path diagram. Statistically significant (p ⬍ .05) paths
among observed measures appear in bold fonts. N ⫽ 200.
comparison of this model with a reduced model not including the
direct effects from EI measures to marital quality, ␹2 (17) ⫽ 22.80,
p ⫽ .15, did not significantly worsen the model, ␹diff
2
(2) ⫽ 2.18,
ns. Therefore, the more parsimonious model, without the direct
paths, was preferred over the less parsimonious model. Overall,
these analyses confirm the general prediction that dyadic coping,
mediates the observed relationship between EI and marital quality,
but we did not confirm the hypothesis that dyadic coping by self
would have the strongest mediating effect (H6).
Discussion
This study investigated the nexus of relations between EI, one’s
own dyadic coping, and perceived marital quality, using a standard
matched-pairs dyadic design. Bivariate analyses confirmed that EI,
dyadic coping, and marital quality tend to be positively intercor-
related. We now discuss our findings from the APIM analyses in
relation to key hypotheses.
EI and Dyadic Coping (H1)
Both pairwise correlations and path effects suggest that EI,
assessed as both trait and ability, was positively associated with
one’s own dyadic coping, supporting H1. These data lend
support to the observed “actor effect” of EI in relation to dyadic
801
coping of oneself in marital partners. Facilitation of dyadic
coping by high EI is compatible with several attributes of EI,
including more effective emotional communication and regula-
tion, perspective taking, and adaptive coping (Schutte et al.,
2001; Zeidner et al., 2012). However, these findings leave open
the issue of whether EI relates to actual dyadic coping behav-
iors or only to perceptions of dyadic coping. Also, analyses
suggested that EI does not show “partner effects” with respect
to dyadic coping. Why EI does not spillover to impact one’s
partner’s dyadic coping is puzzling and remains to be resolved;
this finding certainly is not congenial with the basic assump-
tions pervading in the EI literature. The result is compatible
with the notion that EI influences perceptions more strongly
than actual behavior, an issue to which we return when discuss-
ing mediation models. It is noted, however, that partner effects
are rarely reported in the literature with most prior studies on
personal variables and relational outcomes attesting mainly to
actor effects (though see Schröder-Abé & Schütz, 2011).
Dyadic Coping and Marital Satisfaction (H2)
As hypothesized, based on theory and prior research, our data
suggest that both one’s own and the other partner’s dyadic coping
reliably covaries with the quality of intimate relationships. The
strong correlations between dyadic coping and marital outcomes
 802 ZEIDNER, KLODA, AND MATTHEWS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 2. Path diagram of mediating effects of dyadic coping by self (a) and by partner (b) in the relationship
between EI and marital quality. Standardized path coefficients are presented in the path diagram. Statistically
significant (p ⬍ .05) paths appear in bold fonts. N ⫽ 200.

reported in our study are consistent with links between dyadic
coping and marital quality previously reported in the literature (cf.
Bodenmann et al., 2009). However, much of previous research has
typically focused on older couples married for longer durations
(e.g., Bodenmann, 2005). This study confirms the importance of
dyadic coping for newlyweds, notwithstanding the unique qualities
of the first year of marriage.
EI and Marital Quality (H3)
Our path-analytic data supported our third hypothesis predicting
that EI, assessed as trait and ability, is significantly predictive of
perceived quality of marital relations in both husbands and wives.
However, no partner effects were found; high EI benefits the self
but not the other person. These findings are consistent with prior
research reporting significant actor— but no partner— effects in
the relationship between EI and marital outcome factors (Brackett
et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2008). They contrast with Schröder-Abé
and Schütz’s (2011) finding that trait EI relates to both actor and
partner effects, in a study that used APIM analyses similar to our
own.
Links Between Trait and Ability-Based EI and
Perceived Marital Quality (H4)
A general challenge for research on EI is that trait and ability
measures of EI sometimes fail to converge and even yield diamet-
rically opposite results (Zeidner, Shani-Zinovich, Matthews, &
Roberts, 2005). In the present data, the two types of measure were
significantly but weakly correlated in women (r ⫽ .23), but inde-
pendent in men, suggesting that the measures may in fact be
assessing different constructs. Nevertheless, both tests correlated
 DYADIC COPING
with marital satisfaction. In the APIM models, both trait and
ability EI were independently predictive of marital quality, sup-
porting H4. Similarly, both measures independently predicted the
person’s own dyadic coping.
The present results follow the more general findings in the
well-being literature (Martins, Ramalho, Morin, 2010; Zeidner et
al., 2012) that trait and ability EI measures predict similar criteria,
despite their near-independence. Present findings also confirm that
trait EI may be somewhat more predictive of outcomes than is
ability EI. For example, in the Martins et al. (2010) meta-analysis,
effect sizes for associations with mental health were .17 for the
Mayer-Salovey ability EI tests and .28 for the trait EI Schutte
scale.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Present findings may, of course, reflect overlap between trait EI
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and personality, given that various personality traits that correlate
with EI reliably predict coping (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart,
2007). In fact, many of the prior studies on EI and adaptive
outcomes are plagued by common method construct variance.
Self-report assessments rely on the person’s self-reports of their
subjective well-being and adaptive social functioning, which may
be biased by self-appraisals. That is, marital or social well-being
may correlate with questionnaire measures of EI in part because
both types of measure reflect how positive the person’ self-
opinions are. Alternatively, ability and trait scales may pick up
different adaptive processes contributing to marital harmony, such
as coping in the case of trait EI, and more narrowly defined skills
for emotion perception, understanding and management in the case
of ability EI.
Mediation Effects of Dyadic Coping in the EI–Marital
Quality Relationship (H5 and H6)
Results are consistent with H5, predicting that total dyadic coping
will mediate the relationship between EI and marital quality. The
indirect effects for dyadic coping in the EI–marital quality relationship
were found for both EI measures, although they were stronger for trait
EI than for ability EI. Thus, these data, in part, support the notion that
individuals who perceive they can identify, apply, understand, and
regulate their emotions also report stronger dyadic coping, which in
turn, impacts on marital outcomes. This is the first study, to our
knowledge, demonstrating the mediating effects of dyadic coping in
the relationship between trait EI and marital outcomes.
Our bivariate data suggested differential relations between EI mea-
sures and perceived marital quality by gender, with the MSCEIT
being more predictive for men than for women, similar to Brackett et
al. (2005) and Smith et al. (2008). To the extent that men tend to be
lower than women in ability EI, as confirmed here, low EI scores may
impact men more strongly. However, in the APIM models, constrain-
ing paths for husbands and wives to be equal did not lead to any loss
of fit, implying that gender differences may not be robust. An inter-
esting detail of the findings was that self-report and ability EI were
positively correlated in men but not women; the higher EI of women
may be reflected in more veridical self-reports.
The nature of the EI effects here, such that high EI benefits the
self but not the partner, suggests how perceived dyadic coping may
affect relationship quality. The dyadic coping measure likely re-
flects both actual coping behaviors and the individual’s percep-
tions of coping activity and effectiveness. As in the studies of
Bodenmann et al. (e.g., 2006), corresponding self and partner
803
coping measures were only moderately correlated. If EI influenced
actual coping (e.g., if emotionally intelligent individuals were
experts in social problem-solving), partner effects would be ex-
pected. High EI in one spouse seems to confer few visible benefits
on the couple as a whole. Alternatively, high EI may enhance
self-appraisal. The emotionally intelligent person may view the
couple’s dyadic coping optimistically, leading to higher marital
satisfaction. Trait EI, in particular, has been linked to higher
self-esteem and a range of positive appraisals that are not neces-
sarily rooted in objective reality (Zeidner et al., 2009). The overlap
of trait EI with general traits, such as extraversion and emotional
stability that overlap with self-esteem, likely contributes to these
associations.
A related explanation for the EI effects here is that high EI
biases perceptions of similarity in dyadic coping. Perceived sim-
ilarity relates more to relationship quality than does actual simi-
larity, both in relation to general behavioral characteristics (Aci-
telli, Douvan, & Veroff, 1993), and to dyadic coping specifically
(Iafrate, Bertoni, Margola, Cigoli, & Acitelli, 2012). Thus, actors
high in EI may evaluate each partner as committing effort to
dyadic coping, whereas the low EI actor may tend to perceive the
other partner as failing to pull their weight. In newlyweds, realism
in perceptions of one’s partner may be incompatible with the
idealization of the other typical of the early phase of love (Iafrate,
Bertoni, Donato, & Finkenauer, 2012). Thus, high EI at this stage
may reside not in practical problem-solving but in fostering ro-
mantic fantasy adaptively, feeding into perceptions of dyadic cop-
ing, consistent with Bodenmann’s (e.g., 2006) view that dyadic
coping enhances cognitive representations of the relationship as
supportive.
We also compared the roles of dyadic coping by oneself and
dyadic coping by partner in marital satisfaction. Our data are
consistent with prior research (Bodenmann, 2005, 2008; Boden-
mann et al., 2009) suggesting that both DCI scales predict marital
quality. With respect to dyadic coping of oneself, high EI individ-
uals may be better able to provide emotional support to their
partners, handle conflicts effectively, forgive their partners, and
cope dyadically, potentially leading to their higher marital satis-
faction. We suggested initially that the role of dyadic coping by
partner is more equivocal, in that EI should relate primarily to
accurate perceptions of the partner, rather than to perceiving the
partner as necessarily supportive. However, the observed associ-
ations between EI and dyadic coping by partner suggest that high
EI is broadly associated with more supportive coping by partner, as
well as perhaps more constructive appraisals of the other partner.
Overall, the mediational analyses showing significant mediating
effects for dyadic coping, as well as for both self and partner,
suggest that it is perceptions of overall dyadic coping, regardless of
who is doing the coping, that are most important.
Limitations
The current study has a number of limitations. First, a signifi-
cant limitation of this study is that it is entirely cross-sectional, and
it is therefore difficult to untangle the direction of cause and effect
relationships here. For example, it is possible that one of the
consequences of being in a high-quality intimate relationship is
that people become better able to deal with their emotions. Second,
we utilized the performance-based measure—the MSCEIT— using
 804 ZEIDNER, KLODA, AND MATTHEWS
consensus-scores, with weights derived from the local population
(i.e., sample studied). Different consensus scores derived from
different populations may have lead to different outcomes, and the
findings need to be tempered accordingly. Finally, the fact that the
objective performance measure of EI was generally weaker than
for self-report leaves the study open to criticism that the significant
findings were simply due to shared method variance. Future re-
search would benefit by using some sort of discriminative person-
ality measure (e.g., emotional stability) that would have been
helpful to show that the significant relations were not entirely due
to shared method variance.
However, there are reasons for supposing that the relationships
between trait EI, dyadic coping, and marital quality do not reflect
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
method variance only. Results are in line with a previous meta-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
analytic review of relationships between EI and well-being mea-
sures, based on a variety of methodologies (Martins et al., 2010).
Furthermore, although some authors have noted excess reliance on
self-reports in EI research (Zeidner et al., 2009), trait EI has been
found to relate to objective stress criteria including cortisol re-
sponse (Mikolajczak, Menil, & Luminet, 2007) and performance
impairment (Mikolajczak, Roy, Verstrynge, & Luminet, 2009). In
the present study, we found that trait EI effects were largely
paralleled by ability EI effects, albeit of lower magnitude. We also
demonstrated partner effects for the dyadic coping measure, dem-
onstrating its potential for picking up trait effects that go beyond
self-perception.
In summary, keeping the above constraints in mind, the data
provide some evidence in favor of the role of EI in impacting upon
dyadic coping, mainly in the capacity of actor effects— but not
partner effects. Indeed, we obtained no evidence that EI has any
actual impact on the dyadic coping and satisfaction of the other.
High EI appears to give a rosy view of both self and other efforts
at dyadic coping, which raises personal marital satisfaction. How-
ever, the absence of a corresponding partner effect for influence of
EI on marital quality shows that these biases in perceptions of joint
coping efforts are beneficial to the self alone. These conclusions
are consistent with prior studies showing that self characteristics
contribute more to marital communication and satisfaction than
partner characteristics (Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Neyer & Voigt,
2004).
Both trait and ability EI appear to impact only personal internal
experience (one’s EI affects one’s own dyadic coping, which
affects one’s own marital satisfaction). This finding is challenging
for theories of EI (e.g., Brackett et al., 2005; Schutte et al., 2001),
because if EI functions as the literature claims it does, partner
effects should be apparent. That is, if higher levels of EI are indeed
beneficial for the relationship, then this should be reflected in both
partners’ satisfaction. The fact that it does not suggests that the
association between EI and perceived marital quality might reflect
the nature of EI as a trait that enhances personal experience of the
marriage, without necessarily enhancing support of the partner.
However, to substantiate the lack of partner effects, observational
studies that indicate how EI might impact actual interpersonal
behaviors would be desirable. Also, longitudinal data are needed to
help clarify the direction of effects in the EI– dyadic coping–
marital satisfaction nexus.
References
Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in
the first year of marriage: How important are similarity and understand-
ing? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 5–19. doi:
10.1177/0265407593101001
Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of
stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische
Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 54, 34 – 49.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance in marital
functioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.),
Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives in dyadic coping (pp.
33– 49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:
10.1037/11031-002
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadic coping inventory: Test manual. Bern,
Switzerland: Huber.
Bodenmann, G., Bradbury, T. N., & Pihet, S. (2009). Relative contribu-
tions of treatment-related changes in communication skills and dyadic
coping skills to the longitudinal course of marriage in the framework of
marital distress prevention. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 1–21.
doi:10.1080/10502550802365391
Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between
dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal
of Family Psychology, 20, 485– 493. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485
Bodenmann, G., Randall, A. K., & Cutrona, C. (2013). Social support and
dyadic coping: Commonalities and differences. Manuscript in prepara-
tion.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and
incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158. doi:
10.1177/0146167203254596
Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelli-
gence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships,
12, 197–212. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00111.x
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between person-
ality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 1080 –1107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080
Fitness, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence in intimate relationship. In J.
Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in
everyday life (pp. 98 –112). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Iafrate, R., Bertoni, A., Donato, S., & Finkenauer, C. (2012). Perceived
similarity and understanding in dyadic coping among young and mature
couples. Personal Relationships, 19, 401– 419. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811
.2011.01369.x
Iafrate, R., Bertoni, A., Margola, D., Cigoli, V., & Acitelli, L. K. (2012).
The link between perceptual congruence and couple relationship satis-
faction in dyadic coping. European Psychologist, 17, 73– 82. doi:
10.1027/1016-9040/a000069
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J., Schutz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey,
P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018 –1034. doi:10.1177/
0146167204264762
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality
in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 304 –326. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304
MacCann, C., Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2003).
Psychological assessment of emotional intelligence: A review of self-
report and performance-based testing. The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 11, 247–274. doi:10.1108/eb028975
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-
analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 554 –564. doi:10.1016/j.paid
.2010.05.029
 DYADIC COPING
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Competing models of
emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human
intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 396 – 422). New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Scale. Toronto: MHI.
Mikolajczak, M., Menil, C., & Luminet, O. (2007). Explaining the protec-
tive effect of trait emotional intelligence regarding occupational stress:
Exploration of emotional labour processes. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 1107–1117. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.003
Mikolajczak, M., Roy, E., Verstrynge, V., & Luminet, O. (2009). An
exploration of the moderating effect of trait emotional intelligence on
memory and attention in neutral and stressful conditions. British Journal
of Psychology, 100, 699 –715. doi:10.1348/000712608X395522
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Neyer, F. J., & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on
romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. European Journal of Per-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sonality, 18, 279 –299. doi:10.1002/per.519
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the depen-
dent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151. doi:
10.2307/351302
Pérez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring trait
emotional intelligence. In R. Schulze & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional
intelligence: An international handbook (pp. 181–201). Cambridge,
MA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait
emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of
Psychology, 98, 273–289. doi:10.1348/000712606X120618
Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2011). Walking in each other’s shoes:
Perspective taking mediates effects of emotional intelligence on rela-
tionship quality. European Journal of Personality, 25, 155–169. doi:
10.1002/per.818
805
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C.,
Jedlicka, C., & Rhodes, E. W. G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and
interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 523–536.
doi:10.1080/00224540109600569
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T.,
Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a
measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 25, 167–177. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4
Smith, L., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Trait emotional
intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfac-
tion. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1314 –1325. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.024
Zeidner, M., & Kaluda, I. (2008). Romantic love: What’s emotional
intelligence (EI) got to do with it? Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 44, 1684 –1695. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.018
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2009). What we know about
emotional intelligence: How it affects learning, work, relationships, and
our mental health. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). The emotional
intelligence, health, and well-being nexus: What have we learned and
what have we missed? Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 4,
1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01062.x
Zeidner, M., Shani-Zivotich, I., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2005).
Assessing emotional intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school
students: Outcomes depend on the measure. Intelligence, 33, 369 –391.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.03.001
Received November 6, 2012
Revision received June 18, 2013
Accepted June 27, 2013 䡲