Personal Relationships, 14 (2007), 551–569. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright Ó 2007 IARR. 1350-4126=07

Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage

GUY BODENMANN, a THOMAS LEDERMANN, a AND

THOMAS N. BRADBURY b
a
University of Fribourg, Switzerland and bUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Abstract
Using data from 198 couples, this study examines whether associations between stress occurring outside of the dyad
and key indicators of relationship functioning are mediated by stress arising within the dyad. Findings suggest that
relationship satisfaction and sexual activity are governed by hassles and problems experienced within the dyad that
are in turn related to stress arising outside the dyad. Associations between external stress and relationship function-
ing are stronger for daily hassles than for critical life events. Higher levels of daily stress predicted less sexual activ-
ity for maritally dissatisfied women and more sexual activity for maritally dissatisfied men. Self-reports of stress
covaried with self-reported indexes of satisfaction and sexuality, suggesting that contextual influences are broadly
influential in intimate relationships.

Theorists have expanded the long-standing
view that interpersonal processes are a primary
cause of marital outcomes, in recognition of
the possibility that interpersonal processes
themselves are associated reciprocally with
the stressful events and chronic stressors to
which couples are exposed. Drawing from
earlier models highlighting the influence of
minor hassles (e.g., Burr & Klein, 1994) and
major life events (e.g., McCubbin & Patterson,
1983), these formulations aim to articulate
how these contextual influences intersect with
specific interactional processes and individual
difference variables to produce changes in
satisfaction and relationship stability. Karney
and Bradbury’s (1995; Bradbury & Karney,
2004) theoretical framework, derived from
their meta-analysis of the large literature on
marriage, posits that distress and dissolution
Guy Bodenmann, Institute for Family Research and Coun-
seling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland;
Thomas Ledermann, Institute for Family Research and
Counseling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland;
Thomas N. Bradbury, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles.
Correspondence should be addressed to Guy Bodenmann,
University of Fribourg, Institute for Family Research and
Counseling, Rue de Faucigny 2, CH-1700 Fribourg,
Switzerland, e-mail: joseguy.bodenmann@unifr.ch.
emerge from the combination of: (a) enduring
vulnerabilities (e.g., problematic personality
traits such as neuroticism, turbulent family of
origin), (b) stressful events (e.g., major life
events, stressful circumstances, normative
transitions), and (c) poor adaptive processes
(e.g., inability to empathize with and support
the partner; defensive, hostile, and disengaged
problem-solving skills). This perspective as-
sumes that marital quality fluctuates downward
as acute life events compromise these adaptive
processes, and these fluctuations are expected
to be especially large when chronic stress is
high (Karney, Story, & Bradbury, 2005).
Bodenmann’s (2000, 2005) model further
specifies the role of internal stress (e.g., nega-
tive communication patterns and dyadic con-
flicts, health problems of one partner) and
external stress (e.g., work stress, financial
stress, stress resulting from the family of origin
and living in impoverished neighborhoods) in
marriage. This framework assumes that
chronic minor stresses, which originate out-
side the relationship and increase the likeli-
hood of marital tension and conflict, are
particularly deleterious for marriage because
they erode relationship quality slowly and
often outside of conscious awareness. This
model hypothesizes that chronic external stress

551
552
affects marital satisfaction via four mediating
processes: (a) decreasing the time that partners
spend together, which in turn results in a reduc-
tion of shared experiences, weakening feelings
of togetherness, decreasing self-disclosure,
and jeopardizing dyadic coping; (b) decreasing
the quality of communication by eliciting less
positive interaction and more negative interac-
tion and withdrawal; (c) increasing the risk of
psychological and physical problems, such as
sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and mood
disturbances; and (d) increasing the likelihood
that problematic personality traits will be ex-
pressed between partners (e.g., in the form of
rigidity, anxiety, and hostility). These frame-
works provide the conceptual basis for the
present work, which tests the premise that
minor and major stresses arising outside the
dyad serves as an exogenous variable that co-
varies with internal stressors within the dyad,
which then mediates the effects of external
stressors on endogenous variables, including
partners’ global evaluations of the marriage
and sexual intimacy.
Brief review of research
Research addressing relationship quality and
sexual functioning is beginning to shed light
on the interplay between stress and marital
functioning. Thus, several studies show a sig-
nificant association between higher levels of
stress and lower levels of relationship satisfac-
tion (e.g., Bodenmann, 2000, 2005; Cohan &
Bradbury, 1997; Harper, Schaalje, & Sandberg,
2000; for a review, see Story & Bradbury,
2004); however, it seems that marital satisfac-
tion is linked more closely to daily hassles than
to critical life events (see Williams, 1995). A
5-year longitudinal study by Bodenmann and
Cina (2006) extends this work by showing that
daily hassles are among the most important
predictors of divorce. Recent studies also
begin to outline the role that distal forms of
stress (e.g., poverty) play in expressions in
warmth and hostility (Cutrona et al., 2003)
and how different forms of stress can interact
to hasten the rate at which marriages deterio-
rate (Karney et al., 2005).
Stress is also likely to affect physical inti-
macy. Research links a satisfying sexual rela-
G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury
tionship, characterized by satisfaction with the
quality and frequency of sex and by the
absence of sexual dysfunction, with greater
feelings of love (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick,
2002), marital happiness (e.g., Brezsnyak &
Whisman, 2004), and lower levels of marital
conflict (Metz & Epstein, 2002). Studies also
show that stress within the dyad, in the form of
marital tension and conflict, covaries with
lower sexual satisfaction and greater likeli-
hood of sexual dysfunction (e.g., Hurlbert,
Apt, Hurlbert, & Pierce, 2000). Surprisingly,
Morokoff and Gillilland (1993) showed that
desired frequency of sexual intercourse increa-
sed with daily hassles for husbands and for
wives. Although we would not expect a posi-
tive association between hassles and sexual
desire, it is consistent with McCarthy’s
(2003) view that sexual activity may often
serve to reduce tension as couples contend
with stressors in everyday life or marriage.
Acute life events in the past 6 months, in
contrast, were unrelated to sexual functioning
(after controlling for age) in the Morokoff and
Gillilland study, though unemployed men
experienced more difficulties in sexual perfor-
mance compared to employed men.
Goals of the present study
The accumulated evidence suggests that the
ecological niche in which couples reside is
associated with the level of satisfaction they
experience and the quality of the communica-
tion and physical intimacy they display. At the
same time, a few important shortcomings of
these studies are apparent. First, most of the
studies fail to differentiate between minor
forms of stress, such as daily hassles (see
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and major stress,
or they assess only one of these forms of stress.
Second, studies focusing on everyday stress
and daily hassles often do not distinguish
explicitly between stress that is internal and
external to the dyad, which is likely to inflate
correlations with marital processes and out-
comes. Third, research examines the associa-
tion between stress and marriage most often in
relation to such outcomes as marital satisfac-
tion or marital communication. Relatively few
studies examine sexuality, either by itself or in
Stress, sex, and satisfaction
conjunction with other marital outcomes.
Fourth, several of these studies assess individ-
ual spouses without corresponding data from
their partners. As a result, studies have not
examined dyadic effects systematically, and
we know little about the reciprocal effects of
the stress experienced by one partner on the
marital satisfaction and sexuality of the other.
The present report builds on the growing
theoretical interest in stress and marriage,
and the empirical literature that supports this
interest, while also addressing important limi-
tations in existing studies. Specifically, we dis-
tinguish between (a) stress that is external
versus internal to the couple, (b) critical life
events and daily hassles, (c) actor and partner
effects, and (d) a range of different facets of
marital quality, including marital satisfaction,
and various indexes of sexual functioning
(sexual satisfaction, activity, and dysfunction)
in testing the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. As shown in Figure 1, we
test the hypothesis that external stress predicts
more hassles and higher tension within the
dyad, which in turn predicts lower relationship
functioning (i.e., marital satisfaction and sex-
ual functioning). That is, we predict that expe-
riences of internal stress within the dyad
mediate, at least partially, the relationship
between external stress and relationship
functioning.
a3w
External stress Internal daily
a1w
women stress women
p1w E1w
R RE1
p1m
E1m
External stress Internal daily
a1m
men stress men
a3m
Figure 1. Actor–Partner Mediator Model with external stress as exogenous variables, internal
daily stress as mediators, and relationship functioning as endogenous variables.
553
Hypothesis 2. We predict that actor effects
(i.e., the association between the stress that
one person reports and his or her marital
functioning) will be greater in magnitude than
parallel partner effects (i.e., the association
between the stress that one person reports
and his or her partner’s marital functioning).
More importantly, based on findings suggest-
ing that wives report more stress than hus-
bands (e.g., Bodenmann, 2000; Cohan &
Bradbury, 1997) and that wives’ changes in
satisfaction appear to be more responsive to
stress than those of husbands (e.g., Karney
et al., 2005), we predict that the daily hassles
and stress that wives experience within the
marriage will be predicted more reliably by
husbands’ external stress than the opposite
effect.
Hypothesis 3. Although external critical
life events may exert negative effects on mar-
ital quality (see Karney et al., 2005; Neff &
Karney, 2004), we assume that negative
effects of external daily hassles on marital
quality will be stronger (Bodenmann, 2005;
Williams, 1995). This hypothesis is consistent
with Bodenmann’s contention that daily has-
sles are particularly pernicious because they
extract a small but persisting cost on individ-
uals and their relationship, often outside of
explicit awareness.
Endogenous E2w
a2w
variables women
p2w
RE2
p2m
Endogenous E2m
a2m
variables men
554
Hypothesis 4. Following Morokoff and
Gillilland (1993), we predict that higher levels
of daily hassles will predict higher levels of
sexual activity. As it is possible that satisfied
and dissatisfied couples will vary in their
capacity to manage the effects of daily stress
on their sexual interactions, we will examine
whether relationship satisfaction moderates
this association. Specifically, we predict that
higher levels of daily hassles will covary with
higher levels of sexual activity of satisfied
couples, as they are likely to possess not only
the interactional skills needed to discuss and
defuse daily stress but also the propensity to
engage in sexual activity when the daily has-
sles in their lives subside, however temporar-
ily. Among dissatisfied couples, in contrast,
we predict that the association between daily
hassles and sexual activity will be weaker or
possibly in the opposite direction as daily
stress will not be negotiated as well and sexual
interaction will become less likely.
Method
Participants
Three hundred ninety-six individuals residing
in the German-speaking part of Switzerland
participated in the study, representing a con-
venience sample of 198 intact heterosexual
couples. Among the women, 21% were 20–
30 years, 54% were 31–40 years, and 25% were
41 years or older. Among the men, 14% were
20–30 years, 48% were 31–40 years, and 38%
were 41 or older. Although a few participants
ended their formal education with elementary
school (10% of the women, 7% of the men),
most earned a terminal high school degree
(48% women, 47% of the men) or a college
or university degree (42% women, 46% men).
Average relationship duration was 12.4 years
(SD ¼ 7.5; range ¼ 1.1–36.5 years), 75% of
the couples (n ¼ 148) were married, and 70.4%
had children (M ¼ 1.6; SD ¼ 1.29; range ¼
1–5). It is important to recognize that a signifi-
cant minority of the couples were not married.
Comparison of married couples with not-married
couples showed that unmarried participants
were younger, women M ¼ 33.1 (SD ¼
16.3) versus M ¼ 37.1 (SD ¼ 16.8), t(68) ¼
G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury
2.39, p , .05; men M ¼ 35.8 (SD ¼ 17.1)
versus M ¼ 39.4 (SD ¼ 17.9), t(77) ¼ 2.51,
p , .05; and reported a shorter relationship
duration, M ¼ 6.58 (SD ¼ 5.41) versus M ¼
14.09 (SD ¼ 7.25), t(101) ¼ 7.50, p , .001.
Nonetheless, married and unmarried partici-
pants did not significantly differ on any of
the variables of interest, with the exception
of sexual activity (assessed with five items
rated on 5-point scales: 1 ¼ never; 5 ¼ very
often; see below), where unmarried partici-
pants of both genders reported a higher fre-
quency: women M ¼ 18.1 (SD ¼ 3.5) versus
M ¼ 16.5 (SD ¼ 3.9), t(91) ¼ 2.47, p , .05;
men t(86) ¼ 3.13, p , .01.
Procedure and measures
As insufficient resources were available to con-
duct a random-digit telephone survey of cou-
ples, couples instead volunteered to participate
in response to community-wide newspaper
advertisements placed in the German-speaking
region of Switzerland. Couples contacting the
laboratory about the study were mailed a packet
of questionnaires that included separate and dis-
tinct materials for each partner, together with
instructions to complete the questionnaires
independently and to return the forms to the
institute within 2 weeks. We did not pay cou-
ples for their participation as it is unusual in
Switzerland to pay participants for their partic-
ipation in this kind of research. In addition to
providing demographic information (age, sex,
education, marital status, relationship duration,
relationship satisfaction, type of residence,
number of children, occupation, and employ-
ment status), participants completed the follow-
ing measures.
Hassles Scale. We administered a shortened
and adapted version of the original Hassles
Scale (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus,
1981), consisting of 37 of the original 117
items. We rephrased terms that seemed redun-
dant (e.g., we relabeled hassles associated with
‘‘planning meals’’ and ‘‘caring for pet’’ as has-
sles with ‘‘task sharing in household’’; we rela-
beled hassles over ‘‘smoking too much’’ and
‘‘use of alcohol’’ as hassles with ‘‘unhealthy
behaviors’’). Participants rated all items on
Stress, sex, and satisfaction
5-point scales (1 ¼ not at all stressful, 5 ¼ very
stressful). The items reflected a range of daily
hassles (i.e., irritating, frustrating, or distressing
demands in everyday transactions) that partic-
ipants rated with reference to the previous
month. Factor analysis of these responses
yielded one factor representing stress external
to the dyad (29 items, e.g., troublesome neigh-
bors, social obligations, financial problems,
problems getting along with fellow workers,
customers or clients giving you a hard time,
not liking current work duties, too many inter-
ruptions, having to wait, too many things to do;
internal consistency as measured by Cronbach’s
a ¼ .86) and a second representing stress
internal to the dyad (8 items, e.g., problems
with your partner, overload with family respon-
sibilities, time pressures in the family, demands
of task sharing in household, different goals,
annoying habits of the partner; Cronbach’s a ¼
.75). The mean score for external daily stress
was 53.7 (SD ¼ 12.1, range ¼ 30–110) for
women and 50.5 (SD ¼ 11.7, range ¼ 29–93)
for men, t(188) ¼ 2.80, p , .01. Mean scores
of internal daily stress were 16.1 (SD ¼ 5.0,
range ¼ 8–39) for women and 14.4 (SD ¼ 4.3,
range ¼ 8–28) for men, t(188) ¼ 4.59, p , .001.
Life Events Questionnaire. The Life Events
Questionnaire (Bodenmann, 2000), based upon
the Social Readjustment Scale of Holmes and
Rahe (1967) and the Life Experiences Survey
by Sarason, Johnson, and Siegel (1978), ass-
esses 27 potentially stressful life events in dif-
ferent domains such as personal injuries (severe
illness, handicap), experiences of loss (death of
a loved one), work-related events (unemploy-
ment, loss of work), and social conflicts (severe
marital distress, severe social tensions with rel-
atives, friends, neighbors or colleagues at work)
within the past 12 months. Participants indi-
cated the degree of stress caused by these life
events on a 3-point scale (1 ¼ somewhat stress-
ful, 2 ¼ stressful, 3 ¼ very stressful). The total
score of the scale used in this study was the
combined measure of the occurrence of critical
life events multiplied by their stress impact
(Cronbach’s a ¼ .67). In this version, we
included only external major stressors (i.e.,
unemployment, death of a friend, changing
place of domicile) that did not involve the mar-
555
riage directly in order to avoid redundancy
between the independent and dependent varia-
bles studied here. Prior longitudinal studies
with married couples have shown that measures
of this type can yield valid data (e.g., Cohan &
Bradbury, 1997; Neff & Karney, 2004). The
mean scores of this combined scale were 10.0
(SD ¼ 6.4, range ¼ 1–29) for women and 7.9
(SD ¼ 5.4, range ¼ 1–35) for men, t(182) ¼
4.34, p , .001.
Partnership Questionnaire. The Partner-
ship Questionnaire (Partnerschaftsfragebogen,
or PFB; Hahlweg, 1996), a 31-item measure of
marital satisfaction, consists of three sub-
scales: quarrelling (item examples: my partner
blames me for things that I have done in the
past; my partner criticizes me in a sarcastic
way; my partner shouts at me during argu-
ments; a ¼ .91), affection (item examples:
my partner makes me feel that I am physically
attractive for him or her; my partner is affec-
tionate toward me; a ¼ .90), and togetherness
(item examples: my partner shares his/her
thoughts and feelings with me; my partner tells
me what he or she had experienced during the
day; a ¼ .84). Items are rated on a 4-point
scale with 0 ¼ never and 3 ¼ very often. In
this study, we used only the affection and
togetherness scales in forming an index of
marital satisfaction (a ¼ .93). Due to medium
correlations between quarrelling and internal
daily stress (r ¼ .41 for women, r ¼ .48 for
men), we excluded the subscale ‘‘quarrelling’’
in order to avoid redundancy with internal
daily stress. In this study, men reported an
average score of 61.6 on the PFB and women
of 61.3, t(189) ¼ 0.32, ns, indicating nondis-
tressed couples, with considerable variation
(for men, SD ¼ 15.4; range: 15–90; for women,
SD ¼ 15, range: 10–90).
Sexual satisfaction subscale of the Marital
Satisfaction Inventory. The Marital Satisfac-
tion Inventory (Snyder, 1981; German transla-
tion by Klann, Hahlweg, & Hank, 1992) is
a 150-item true–false self-report questionnaire
designed to assess the nature and extent of mar-
ital distress along 11 key dimensions (e.g.,
effective communication, marital aggression,
sexual dissatisfaction, agreement on finances,
556
and conflict over child rearing). In this study,
we used only the 19-item scale measuring
sexual dissatisfaction, examples, my partner
sometimes shows too little enthusiasm for
sex; my partner has too little regard some-
times for my sexual satisfaction: women,
M ¼ 8.2, SD ¼ 3.0, range ¼ 0–12; men,
M ¼ 7.7, SD ¼ 3.3, range ¼ 0–12; t(187) ¼
2.69, p , .01. We recoded this scale so that
higher scores indicated higher satisfaction.
The internal consistency of the scale was .82.
Sexual Activity Scale. Designed for this
study, this scale assesses the typical frequency
of sexual behaviors with five items adminis-
tered on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ rarely,
3 ¼ from time to time, 4 ¼ frequently, 5 ¼ very
often). Behaviors assessed include petting,
partner stimulation (massages), oral sex, and
sexual intercourse. The internal consistency of
the scale was a ¼ .86. The mean score was
17.0 (SD ¼ 3.81, range ¼ 7–25) for women
and 16.4 (SD ¼ 3.75, range ¼ 5–25) for men,
t(187) ¼ 2.83, p , .01.
Sexual Dysfunction Scale. Following the
diagnostic categories of Diagnostic and Statis-
tical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed.
(DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association,
1994), men and women rated several potential
sexual problems, indicating (a) how often they
experienced these problems in the relationship
(5-point scale: never, rarely, from time to time,
often, very often) and (b) how much pain these
problems caused (4-point scale: no pain, mod-
erate pain, high pain, very high pain). Women
rated sexual desire problems (hypoactive sex-
ual desire), sexual aversion problems, sexual
arousal problems, orgasmic problems, dyspar-
eunia, and vaginismus; men rated sexual desire
problems (hypoactive sexual desire), sexual
aversion problems, erectile problems, orgas-
mic problems, premature ejaculation, and sex-
ual pain problems. In this study, we used
a combined measure encompassing the fre-
quency of the sexual problems and the self-
perceived pain. Cronbach’s alpha of this
variable was less than optimal (.68 for women
and .60 for men), suggesting that these dys-
functions do not represent a common underlying
construct. The average score on the combined
G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury
measure was 22.6 (SD ¼ 13.7, range ¼ 6–73)
for women and 14.0 (SD ¼ 9.2, range ¼ 2–77)
for men, t(181) ¼ 7.16, p , .001.
Symptom Check List. Derogatis (1992)
developed Symptom Check List (SCL–90–R),
a 90-item instrument to assess a broad range of
psychological problems and symptoms of psy-
chopathology. This instrument permits evalu-
ation of a variety of concepts, including
somatization, obsessive–compulsive problems,
interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety
and hostility. Users can employ three global
scores in research as well as clinical practice.
In this study, we used the global severity index
to control for a general bias in the perception
of the participants with regard to neuroticism.
Participants rated this on a 5-point scale (0 ¼
not at all, 4 ¼ extremely). The reliability of
this scale was a ¼ .96. The mean score was
49.8 (SD ¼ 40.4, range ¼ 0–233) for women
and 30.0 (SD ¼ 25.6, range ¼ 0–145) for men,
t(189) ¼ 6.47, p , .001.
Results
Bivariate correlations among measures
Intercorrelations among the study variables are
shown in Table 1. Several associations are
noteworthy. First, relationship satisfaction,
sexual satisfaction, and sexual activity inter-
correlate reliably. Second, sexual dysfunction
appears to be a distinct variable, with low lev-
els of association with other sexual function-
ing variables and a nonsignificant association
between partners. Third, factor analysis of the
hassles measure produced distinguishable
indexes of hassles that are internal and external
to the dyad. These two variables correlate
among men and among women, as we would
expect (rs ¼ .60 and .63, respectively), yet the
between-partner correlations are higher for
internal hassles (r ¼ .46) than for external
hassles (r ¼ .11), thus helping to validate the
distinction we are drawing between them.
Fourth, acute life events covary reliably with
the external stress measure, yet these measures
share less than 20% of their variance, suggest-
ing that these are not redundant measures.
Fifth, higher levels of marital satisfaction do
 Stress, sex, and satisfaction 557

covary with lower levels of internal daily

1.00***
2.26***

.63***
2.20**
2.15*

2.16*
stress (r ¼ 2.35 for men; r ¼ 2.45 for
10

2.08

.02
.03

.00
women). This does suggest a modest degree
of confounding between these measures. In
Table 1. Intercorrelations among study variables, for women (above diagonal) and men (below diagonal) and dyads (along the diagonal)

sum, the study variables are generally per-

.73***
2.25***

.62***
2.17**
2.17**
forming as expected and further multivariate
2.14*

.07
2.01
2.02
.07
9

analyses are warranted. As relationship dura-

tion was not highly correlated with any depen-
dent variable, we did not control for it. It is,

.25***
2.29***
2.37***
2.35***
.41***
.65***
.61***
.30***

Note. SCL–90–R ¼ Symptom Check List. N ¼ 198 men and 198 women. We present correlations between the dyad members in bold along the diagonal.
however, conceivable that personal vulnera-

.00
2.07
8

bility creates a general bias with regard to par-

ticipants’ ratings of stress as well as their
evaluation of marital functioning. Intercorre-
.39***
.44***
.34***

.30***
2.20**

lations among the study variables and the

2.13*

.17*
2.03

2.11
2.11
7

SCL–90–R total score ranged between j.29j

(marital satisfaction) and j.65j (internal daily
stress) in women and between j.14j (sexual
2.23***
2.28***
2.24***
.33***
.63***

.36***
.48***

activity) and j.48j (external and internal daily

.11

.00
2.06
6

stress) in men. To control for this effect, we

partialled out overall psychological distress
(SCL–90–R total score) from all self-report
.46***
2.45***
2.49***
2.45***
.43***

.60***
.36***
.48***

data.
.09
.06
5

Statistical analyses: Investigating mediation

with dyadic data
2.44***
2.27***

.27***

.29***
.42***
.19**
2.15*

We tested hypotheses using the Actor–Partner

.03

.09
.01
4

Mediator Model (see Campbell, Simpson,

Kashy, & Fletcher, 2001; Fletcher & Thomas,
2000; Ledermann & Bodenmann, 2006),
.65***
.74***
.63***

2.27***

2.22**
2.16*
2.14*
2.14*

which allows for the analysis of mediator

2.10

2.04
3

effects in studies using dyadic data. This

model is an extended version of the widely
used Actor–Partner Interdependence Model
.64***
.56***

.63***

2.45***
2.23***
2.23***
2.30***
2.22**

(APIM) proposed by Kenny and colleagues

2.13*
2.09
2

(e.g., Kenny, 1996; Kenny & Cook, 1999),

which takes into account the interdependence
of data collected from dyadic partners. The
.64***
.68***
.73***

2.35***

2.31***

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001 (one tailed).

2.21**
2.22**

classic APIM yields an estimation of the effect

2.12*

2.15*
2.07
1

of one’s own independent variable on one’s

own dependent variable (actor effect) and on
the partner’s dependent variable (partner
10. Duration of relationship

effect). Using manifest variables, the APIM

8. SCL–90–R total score

is a saturated model with 0 df. The Actor–

6. External daily stress
4. Sexual dysfunctions
5. Internal daily stress
1. Marital satisfaction
2. Sexual satisfaction

7. Critical life events

Partner Mediator Model outlined in Figure 1

3. Sexual activity

consists of six pairwise variables (three per

partner), including two manifest exogenous
(independent) variables, two manifest mediator
Variables

variables, and two manifest endogenous

9. Age

(dependent) variables. The path models used

in this study with direct actor effects (horizontal
558
arrows) between the exogenous and endoge-
nous variables have 2 df; we can assume that
direct partner effects (diagonal arrows) be-
tween exogenous and endogenous variables
are statistically irrelevant. If the path models
with 2 df fit the data well, then this assumption
is verified. The assumption of complete medi-
ation is—assuming good model fit—sup-
ported if the direct effects between external
stress and the marital variables are not signif-
icant. Partial mediation can be inferred in the
association between the exogenous and endo-
geneous variables if one or both of these direct
effects are significant.
We used the z statistic to evaluate the medi-
ation effects between the exogenous and
endogenous variables, with
^ Actor–Partner Models with external daily
^b
a
z¼
^ a^b^
r
where a ^ denotes the estimated indirect
^b
effect between X (exogenous variable) and Y
(endogenous variable) through M (mediator),
and r ^ a^b^ represents the estimated standard
error of the indirect effect. The standard error
will be estimated by Sobel’s (1982) approxi-
mate formula that MacKinnon and his col-
leagues (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman,
West, & Sheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Warsi, &
Dwyer, 1995) recommend:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
^ a^b^
r ^2 r
¼ a ^ 2^ 1 b ^2 r^2
b ^
a fit, and values , .05 indicate a good fit. As
where a ^ denote the estimated structural
^ and b
coefficients of the path X / M, and M / Y,
^ 2a^ and r
respectively, r ^ 2b^ are the estimated var-
iances of a^ and b.^
The hypothesis holds that internal daily
stress mediates the relation between exoge-
nous variables (represented here as external
stress) and endogenous variables (represented
by marital functioning variables) when (a) the
models show an adequate fit, (b) the direct
effects constituting a mediation effect are sig-
nificant, and (c) the mediation effect is sig-
nificant using Equations 1 and 2. When the
direct actor effects between external stress
(exogenous variable) and marital function-
ing variables (endogenous variables) are not
G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury
significant, however, the relationship between
the exogenous and endogenous variables is
completely mediated by internal stress.
We tested differences between parameters
(e.g., actor vs. partner effects) within one
model by means of model comparisons com-
paring the default model with a nested model
assuming equal parameters. We will assume
that parameters are statistically different when
the chi-square difference test is significant.
We tested differences between coefficients
across different models by computing the
95% confidence limits using Fisher’s Z trans-
formation. We can say that a substantial dif-
ference exists if the confidence interval of one
effect excludes the coefficient of another effect.
ð1Þ stress as exogenous variables
The estimated maximum likelihood coeffi-
cients of the Actor–Partner Mediator Models
with external daily stress as exogenous varia-
bles and internal daily stress as the mediator
are shown in Table 2. To evaluate the fit of
a particular structural model, we use chi-
square, the comparative fit index (CFI),
root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the fit criteria proposed by
Hu and Bentler (1999), who suggest a cut-
off ..95 for CFI and ,.06 for RMSEA.
According to Browne and Cudeck (1993),
RMSEA values , .08 indicate an acceptable
ð2Þ
readers can see in Table 2 (bottom), all models
with daily stress fit the data well. These find-
ings, which indicate that the relations between
external daily stress and marital functioning
are at least partially mediated by internal daily
stress, are consistent with Hypothesis 1.
Association between external daily stress and
internal daily stress. As shown at the top
left side of Table 2, actor effects relating
external daily stress and internal daily stress
were statistically significant, for women and
for men. As partner effects were not signifi-
cant and as women’s actor effect were signif-
icantly higher than the partner effect from men
to women (v2Diff ¼ 9:45, p ¼ .002), we found
that actor effects were more important than the
Table 2. Actor and partner effects (maximum likelihood estimates), correlations, and model fits for the Actor–Partner Mediator Model with internal
daily stress as mediator and the overall distress (Symptom Check List [SCL–90–R]) as covariables
Models with external daily stress Models with acute life events
Marital Sexual Sexual Sexual Marital Sexual Sexual Sexual
Source satisfaction satisfaction activity dysfunction satisfaction satisfaction activity dysfunction
External stress / internal daily stress
Actor effects
Stress, sex, and satisfaction

Women, a 1w .38*** .38*** .38*** .38*** .25*** .25*** .25*** .25***

Men, a 1m .49*** .49*** .49*** .49*** .29*** .29*** .29*** .29***
Partner effects
Men / women, p 1w .10 .10 .10 .10 .23*** .23*** .23*** .23***
Women / men, p 1m .00 .00 .00 .00 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08
Internal daily stress / endogenous variable
Actor effects
Women, a 2w 2.31*** 2.33*** 2.27*** .19** 2.29*** 2.31*** 2.25*** .20**
Men, a 2m 2.33*** 2.35*** 2.25*** .14* 2.22*** 2.33*** 2.18** .11
Partner effects
Men / women, p 2w 2.23*** 2.13* 2.20** .12 2.24*** 2.13* 2.21** .12
Women / men, p 2m 2.26*** 2.23*** 2.22** 2.04 2.27*** 2.23*** 2.23** 2.03
External stress / endogenous variable
Actor effects
Women, a 3w .05 .04 .06 .03 Fixed at 0 Fixed at 0 Fixed at 0 Fixed at 0
Men, a 3m .20** .04 .15* 2.08 Fixed at 0 Fixed at 0 Fixed at 0 Fixed at 0
Correlations
Between exogenous variables, R .01 .02 .01 .02 .34*** .34*** .34*** .34***
Between error terms 1, R E1 .31*** .31*** .31*** .31*** .27*** .27*** .27*** .27***
Between error terms 2, R E2 .52*** .55*** .60*** Fixed at 0 .52*** .55*** .60*** Fixed at 0
Explained variances
R 2w internal daily stress women (%) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
R 2m internal daily stress men (%) 24 24 24 24 8 8 8 8
R 2w endogenous variable women (%) 19 14 14 7 18 14 14 7
559

(continued)
560 G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

corresponding partner effects. This suggests

dysfunction

Note. Due to a poor model fit, the estimates of the model with critical life events and sexual satisfaction cannot be interpreted. The SCL–90–R total score was partialed out from all manifest
Sexual
that internal daily stress may be affected more

8.511

.130
.958
.060
by one’s own external daily stress than by the

5
partner’s external daily stress.
Models with acute life events

Association between internal daily stress

activity
Sexual

8.969

.062
.975
.079
and relationship functioning. Actor effects
were consistent in demonstrating that higher
11

levels of internal daily stress covaried with

lower levels of marital satisfaction, sexual sat-
satisfaction
Sexual

isfaction, and sexual activity, and with higher

11.004

.027
.967
.094

levels of sexual dysfunction, for men and for

21

women. With the exception of the sexual dys-

function variable, we found significant part-
satisfaction

ner effects between internal daily stress and

Marital

relationship functioning. Specifically, to the

5.169

.270
.994
.039

extent that one spouse reported more daily

16

stress and tension in the relationship, the part-

ner was more likely to report lower levels of
dysfunction

marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and

Sexual

1.656

.647
1.000
.000

sexual activity. As a group, these findings

are in line with our first hypothesis that daily
1

stress and tension within the dyad, as reported

Models with external daily stress

both by one’s self and the partner, covary with

activity
Sexual

poorer relationship functioning.

0.536

.765
1.000
.000
12

Association between external daily stress and

relationship functioning. With respect to
satisfaction

direct actor effects between external daily

Sexual

.362

.009
2.035

1.000

stress and indexes of relationship func-

tioning variables, we found no significant
21

associations for women, but two significant

associations—involving marital satisfaction
satisfaction

and sexual activity—for men. These direct

Marital

0.144

1.000
.000

associations were positive, indicating that

19

2
930

men who reported higher levels of external

daily stress also reported higher levels of
marital satisfaction and sexual activity. This
Root mean square error of approximation

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001 (one tailed).

finding has to be considered in the context of

the mediator model analyses because the cor-
R 2m endogenous variable men (%)

relations between external daily stress and the

two outcome variables sexual activity and
marital satisfaction are negative (see Table 1).
Among men, these positive direct effects are
Comparative fit index
Table 2. (continued)

substantially lower than the effects between

external daily stress and internal daily stress
and between internal daily stress and the two
outcome variables marital satisfaction and
variables.

sexual activity (see Table 2). It is noteworthy

Source

that these effects may not be separate and

v2
df
p

distinct as the bivariate correlation between

Stress, sex, and satisfaction
marital satisfaction and sexual activity is .74
for women and .73 for men (see Table 1).
Tests of mediation. To evaluate mediation
effects, Equations 1 and 2 were used to test for
significance. In the Actor–Partner Mediator
Model tested here, we can distinguish eight
indirect effects (two actor–actor, two actor–
partner, two partner–actor, and two partner–
partner). In Table 3 we present the estimated
indirect effects, standard errors, and the results
of the z statistics for the mediation effects con-
sisting of two significant direct effects. In all
four models with external daily stress as exog-
enous variables, both indirect effects involving
two actor effects were significant. There was
one exception, however: In the model with sex-
ual dysfunction, we found no significant actor–
actor effect for men, which was mainly due to
a weak actor effect from internal daily stress
to sexual dysfunctions in men. Apart from the
model with sexual dysfunction, both actor–
partner indirect effects were substantial. The
other four mediator effects including partner
effects between external and internal daily
stress were not significant in all four models
with external daily stress as exogenous variables.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, these find-
ings suggest that couples experiencing higher
levels of external daily stress also experience
higher levels of stress and tension within the
dyad and, in turn, lower levels of relationship
and sexual satisfaction, sexual activity, and (to
a moderate extent) more sexual dysfunctions.
With respect to the distinction between partial
and complete mediation, the findings suggest
that the relations between external daily stress
and sexual satisfaction and between external
daily stress and sexual dysfunction are com-
pletely mediated, whereas the associations
between external daily stress and marital sat-
isfaction and sexual activity are partially medi-
ated by internal daily stress due to substantial
direct actor effects between the exogenous and
endogenous variables in men.
Actor–Partner Models with acute life events
as exogenous variables
The analyses just described were repeated
using acute life events as the exogenous vari-
561
ables, to test the prediction that acute life
events are less consequential than daily hassles
in predicting daily stress within the relation-
ship (Hypothesis 3). The first model analyses
reveal poor fits for all models with direct paths
between the exogenous and endogenous vari-
ables (RMSEA ranged between .081 and .132),
except for the model with sexual dysfunctions
as endogenous variables, v2(3) ¼ 2.06, p ¼
.561; CFI ¼ 1.000, RMSEA ¼ .000. Because
the two direct effects between the exogenous
and endogenous variables were small in all four
models, they were excluded. The model with-
out direct effects between the exogenous and
endogenous variables counts 4 df and assumes
that the relations between acute life events and
the marital outcome variables are completely
mediated by internal daily stress. Poor fits were
obtained for the model that included sexual sat-
isfaction and thus we do not discuss this model
further. In contrast, we obtained good fits for
the models that included marital satisfaction
and sexual activity—with respect to RMSEA—
an acceptable fit resulted for the model that in-
cluded sexual dysfunction (see Table 2, bottom).
Association between acute life events and
internal daily stress. As shown in Table 2,
in the remaining three models, all actor effects
were substantially weaker than corresponding
effects between external daily stress and inter-
nal daily stress (.25 vs. .38 for women and .29
vs. .49 for men; see Table 2). Given the 95%
confidence limits of the actor effects between
external and internal daily stress (.27 and .55 for
women, and .40 and .68 for men), the effects
between critical life events and internal daily
stress were significantly lower than those
obtained between external daily stress and inter-
nal daily stress. (This was also true for men but
not for women when using the 95% confidence
limit of the coefficients between critical events
and internal daily stress, which were .12 and .40
for women and .16 and .44 for men.)
Partner effects were also apparent, though
only in the case of acute life events reported by
men and internal daily stress reported by
women. The confidence limits of .10 and .38
for the effect from men to women and 2.22
and .06 for the effect from women to men sup-
port Hypothesis 2: The association between
562 G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

Table 3. Mediation effects for the Actor–Partner Mediator Models (APMeM) with external
stress as exogenous variables, internal daily stress as mediators, and marital functioning as
endogenous variables

p (two 95% confidence

Effect IE SE z tailed) interval
APMeM with external daily stress and marital satisfaction
Xw / Mw / Yw ¼ A / A 20.200 0.058 23.465 .001 20.31 to 20.09
Xw / Mw / Ym ¼ A / P 20.167 0.053 23.161 .002 20.27 to 20.06
Xm / Mm / Yw ¼ A / P 20.174 0.057 23.065 .002 20.29 to 20.06
Xm / Mm / Ym ¼ A / A 20.242 0.065 23.737 .000 20.37 to 20.12
APMeM with external daily stress and sexual satisfaction
Xw / Mw / Yw ¼ A / A 21.061 0.302 23.512 .000 21.65 to 20.47
Xw / Mw / Ym ¼ A / P 20.867 0.298 22.911 .004 21.45 to 20.28
Xm / Mm / Yw ¼ A / P 20.485 0.275 21.763 .078 21.02 to 0.05
Xm / Mm / Ym ¼ A / A 21.497 0.378 23.960 .000 22.24 to 20.76
APMeM with external daily stress and sexual activity
Xw / Mw / Yw ¼ A / A 21.152 0.371 23.109 .002 21.88 to 20.43
Xw / Mw / Ym ¼ A / P 20.964 0.363 22.657 .008 21.68 to 20.25
Xm / Mm / Yw ¼ A / P 20.984 0.372 22.648 .008 21.71 to 20.26
Xm / Mm / Ym ¼ A / A 21.274 0.430 22.960 .003 22.12 to 20.43
APMeM with external daily stress and sexual dysfunction
Xw / Mw / Yw ¼ A / A 2.707 1.238 2.187 .029 0.28 to 5.13
Xw / Mw / Ym ¼ A / P 20.358 0.790 20.453 .651 21.91 to 1.19
Xm / Mm / Yw ¼ A / P 1.965 1.282 1.532 .125 20.55 to 4.48
Xm / Mm / Ym ¼ A / A 1.649 1.014 1.625 .104 20.34 to 3.64
APMeM with critical life events and marital satisfaction
Xw / Mw / Yw ¼ A / A 20.007 0.002 22.743 .006 20.01 to 0.00
Xw / Mw / Ym ¼ A / P 20.006 0.002 22.602 .009 20.01 to 0.00
Xm / Mw / Yw ¼ P / A 20.007 0.003 22.537 .011 20.01 to 0.00
Xm / Mw / Ym ¼ P / P 20.007 0.003 22.424 .015 20.01 to 0.00
Xm / Mm / Yw ¼ A / P 20.007 0.003 22.550 .011 20.01 to 0.00
Xm / Mm / Ym ¼ A / A 20.007 0.003 22.425 .015 20.01 to 0.00
APMeM with critical life events and sexual activity
Xw / Mw / Yw ¼ A / A 20.038 0.015 22.506 .012 20.07 to 20.01
Xw / Mw / Ym ¼ A / P 20.036 0.016 22.301 .021 20.07 to 20.01
Xm / Mw / Yw ¼ P / A 20.040 0.017 22.330 .020 20.07 to 20.01
Xm / Mw / Ym ¼ P / P 20.038 0.017 22.163 .031 20.07 to 0.00
Xm / Mm / Yw ¼ A / P 20.042 0.018 22.326 .020 20.08 to 20.01
Xm / Mm / Ym ¼ A / A 20.037 0.018 22.059 .040 20.07 to 0.00
APMeM with critical life events and sexual dysfunctions
Xw / Mw / Yw ¼ A / A 0.103 0.048 2.150 .032 0.01 to 0.20
Xm / Mw / Yw ¼ P / A 0.109 0.053 2.038 .042 0.00 to 0.21

Note. In this table, we present mediation effects only for those models in which both direct effects were significant. IE ¼
indirect effect; w ¼ women; m ¼ men; A ¼ actor effect; P ¼ partner effect. Equation 1 was used to compute z scores;
standard error was estimated by means of Equation 2. The formula used to compute normal 95% confidence interval is
^ ^
cb61:96 r^ ^cb^ .
Stress, sex, and satisfaction
women’s internal daily stress and men’s acute
life events is stronger than the association
between men’s internal daily stress and wom-
en’s acute life events.
As noted, Hypothesis 3 predicts that exter-
nal daily hassles would account for more var-
iation in internal daily stress than would acute
life events. Partially consistent with this pre-
diction, the results summarized in Table 2
show that external daily stress accounted for
16% of the variation in women’s internal daily
stress and 24% of the variation in men’s inter-
nal daily stress; corresponding figures for
acute life events were 16% and 8%, respec-
tively. Given that partners are more similar
in their reports of acute life events (r ¼ .39)
than their reports of external daily hassles (r ¼
.11; see Table 1), this pattern of results is con-
sistent with the notion that acute life events are
more likely to be shared experiences and hence
are more likely to be recognized mutually, pro-
ducing less turmoil within the dyad in turn.
Daily external hassles, in contrast, are more
likely to be unshared experiences that are man-
aged at the individual level and thus may
evoke greater tension in the partners.
Association between internal daily stress and
relationship functioning. Actor effects relat-
ing internal daily stress to marital satisfaction,
sexual activity, and sexual dysfunction were
comparable in magnitude to corresponding
effects found in the models with external daily
stress except the associations between men’s
internal stress and men’s marital satisfaction
and sexual activity that appeared to be weaker
in the model with acute life events than the
parallel associations obtained in the model with
external daily stress (2.22 vs. 2.33, and 2.18
vs. 2.25). Partner effects relating internal daily
stress to marital satisfaction were also evident
for men and for women. The differences in the
magnitude of the effects in the models with
external daily stress and the models with critical
events derived from the different model speci-
fication (one with direct actor effects between
external stress and marital functioning having 2
df, the other without direct actor effects
between the exogenous and endogenous varia-
bles having 4 df) and the substantial direct actor
effects between external daily stress and marital
563
satisfaction and between external daily stress
and sexual activity in men. As in the first set
of analyses, there were no partner effects relat-
ing internal daily stress to sexual dysfunction,
for men or for women.
Tests of mediation. As above, Equations 1
and 2 were used to test mediation effects. In all
three models, both actor–actor mediation
effects were significant, with the exception
of the model with acute events, where only
women’s actor–actor indirect effects were sub-
stantial (Table 3). In the model with marital
satisfaction and sexual activity, six of the eight
mediation effects were significant. Nonsignif-
icant mediation effects involved the effect
from women’s life events to men’s internal
stress. In the model with sexual dysfunction,
only the association between men’s critical
events and men’s sexual dysfunction via wom-
en’s internal stress was significant.
Marital satisfaction as a moderator of the
association between daily external hassles
and sexual activity. In an effort to build
upon Morokoff and Gillilland’s (1993) finding
that daily hassles and sexual activity would
covary positively, in Hypothesis 4 we pre-
dicted that this association would be moder-
ated by marital satisfaction. We tested the
Actor–Partner Moderator Model (Campbell,
Simpson, Kashy, & Rholes, 2001; Ledermann &
Bodenmann, 2006) in which men’s and wom-
en’s sexual activity were predicted by marital
satisfaction and external hassles of both partners,
together with the interaction between satisfac-
tion and hassles for each partner. To avoid multi-
collinearity, the predictors (external daily stress)
and moderators (marital satisfaction) were cen-
tered as recommended by Aiken and West
(1991) among others. This Actor–Partner Mod-
erator Model fit the data well (v2 ¼ 13.06, df ¼
9, p , .16; CFI ¼ .991, RMSEA ¼ .048). Sig-
nificant actor and partner effects were obtained
for women’s marital satisfaction (.50, p , .001;
.28, p , .001, respectively) and for men’s mar-
ital satisfaction (.56, p , .001; .33, p , .001,
respectively). Most importantly, the actor effects
relating the interaction of daily hassles and mar-
ital satisfaction to sexual activity were signifi-
cant for women (.10, p , .05) and for men
564 G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

(2.13, p , .01); corresponding partner effects
were nonsignificant.
Following Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken
(2003), Figure 2 presents these interactions by
showing the associations between daily has-
sles and sexual activity for individuals 1 SD
above the mean, at the mean, and 1 SD below
the mean in marital satisfaction. The figures
for women (top) and for men (bottom) show
that the moderating effects of satisfaction on
the association between daily hassles and
sexual activity take different forms for women
and for men. Among the most satisfied
women, sexual activity does not appear to vary
much as a function of daily hassles. In contrast,
among women who are at or 1 SD below the

25.0

20.0
Wife's sexual activity

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
-2 2
Wife's external stress centered
low marital satisfaction medium marital satisfaction
high marital satisfaction

25.0
Husband's sexual activity

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
-2 2
Husband's external stress centered
low marital satisfaction medium marital satisfaction
high marital satisfaction

Figure 2. Association between external daily stress and sexual activity as moderated by level of
marital satisfaction, for women (top) and for men (bottom).
Note. This model was tested using two measures of external stress (i.e., external daily hassles and
acute life events), one mediator (daily stress and tension arising within the relationship), and four
variables hypothesized to reflect relationship functioning (i.e., marital satisfaction, sexual sat-
isfaction, sexual activity, and sexual dysfunction).
Stress, sex, and satisfaction
satisfaction mean, sexual activity tends to
decline with increasing levels of daily hassles.
This pattern of results is not surprising, in the
sense that stress does not appear to have adverse
effects on women’s sexual activity when their
satisfaction is high and that higher levels of
stress appear to covary with lower levels of
sexual activity when their satisfaction is lower.
Among men as a group, as with women, the
sexual activity of relatively satisfied men does
not appear to vary much as a function of their
daily hassles. For men who are at or 1 SD
below the mean in marital satisfaction, sexual
activity tends to increase as daily hassles
increase. Thus, the sexual activity of satisfied
men, like that of maritally satisfied women,
appears to be relatively independent of daily
hassles. But unlike the pattern obtained for
women, higher levels of daily hassles corre-
spond with higher levels of sexual activity when
men are at or below the sample mean in satis-
faction, and this association appears to be stron-
ger among those men with lower satisfaction.
In short, our most basic prediction in
Hypothesis 4—that higher levels of daily has-
sles will covary with higher levels of sexual
activity—was supported. In contrast, our pre-
dictions about the moderating role of marital
satisfaction were only partly correct: Levels of
sexual activity in the face of daily hassles were
not higher among the most satisfied couples,
and sexual activity declined with increases in
daily hassles only for relatively distressed
women but not for relatively distressed men.
Discussion
This study evaluated the associations among
stressors arising outside of marriage (in the form
of acute life events and daily stress), stressors
arising within the relationship (in the form of
daily relationship stresses and strains), and re-
lationship functioning (indexed by marital
satisfaction and sexual variables). We tested
mediational hypotheses using the Actor–Partner
Mediator Model proposed by Ledermann and
Bodenmann (2006), which extends the APIM
(e.g., Kenny, 1996) often used with dyadic data.
In undertaking this study, we aimed to test
recent theoretical statements that assert that inti-
mate relationships cannot be understood with-
565
out reference to the contexts in which couples
reside and specifically argue for distinguishing
between stressors that are external and internal
to the intimate dyad (see Bodenmann, 2000,
2005; Neff & Karney, 2004). Data were col-
lected from both partners in 198 couples in
established relationships, and actor and partner
effects were analyzed in all models.
Results support previous findings indicat-
ing that stress might play an important role
in understanding marital functioning. Three
sets of associations support this claim. First,
whether measured as daily hassles or acute life
events, partners reporting higher levels of
stress arising outside the dyad also reported
higher levels of stress and tension within the
dyad. Partner effects were also evident, par-
ticularly for women’s outcomes, indicating
that external stress reported by men covaried
more strongly with wives’ experience of daily
relationship tension than vice versa. Second,
spouses experiencing more stress as arising
within the relationship tended to have lower
levels of marital satisfaction, sexual satisfac-
tion, and sexual activity, and higher levels of
sexual dysfunction, and they tended to have
partners with lower levels of marital satisfac-
tion, sexual satisfaction, and sexual activity,
though not a higher level of sexual dysfunc-
tion. Third, in the models suggesting partial
mediation, men reporting more daily hassles
external to the relationship reported more mar-
ital satisfaction and more sexual activity.
These two latter results were relatively
weak though reliable, and they permitted tests
of internal stress as a mediator of associations
between either form of external stress and rela-
tionship outcomes. In general, results provided
support for the mediational framework out-
lined in Figure 1 and represented by Hypoth-
esis 1. At least with the cross-sectional design
used here, it seems that internal stress mediates
the association between two forms of contex-
tual variables—external daily hassles and crit-
ical life events—and key aspects of marital
functioning such as marital satisfaction and
sexuality. We can infer that different goals of
the partners, divergent needs, and annoying
habits (operationalized here as stress arising
within the dyad) often become harmful for
the relationship when partners are stressed by
566
external circumstances; when external stresses
are reduced, these same relationship issues be-
come less salient to partners and their relation-
ship functioning can improve (Bodenmann,
2000; Neff & Karney, 2004). Of course, anal-
yses of samples in which couples are under
unusually high levels of external stress might
yield different results. It is possible that the
levels of external stress studied here were not
sufficiently destabilizing or detrimental to the
marital interaction behaviors couples would
typically use to manage stressful events and
circumstances.
Three additional findings merit detailed
discussion. First, consistent with Hypothesis
2, the results of this study demonstrate that
various indexes of external stress are not all
associated to the same degree with relationship
functioning. In particular, associations between
external daily stress and tension experienced
within the dyad were stronger than those
involving acute life events (cf. Bodenmann,
2000; Morokoff & Gillilland, 1993; Williams,
1995). Why might this be? First, almost by def-
inition, partners experience the accumulation of
everyday stress more frequently, and this can
exert a greater influence on the equilibrium that
couples seek to establish. Second, spouses may
find it easier to attribute their internal stresses to
salient life events than to more subtle and ordi-
nary daily hassles. Couples may in turn invoke
distinct coping efforts that will allow them to
manage and resolve these acute events. Third,
external daily hassles may elicit less empathy
and understanding from the partner, as the part-
ner might not be aware of these hassles, their
objectively rated intensity is typically low, and
the impact of this kind of stress is likely to be
underestimated. The present findings are there-
fore in line with the transactional stress theory
of Lazarus and Folkman (1984), which main-
tains that even an event that is objectively rated
as trivial (such as missing the bus, coming late
to an appointment, being criticized by a supe-
rior) may cause a great deal of stress that can
spill over to affect one’s work life and social
relationships. At least two design modifications
are needed to understand these associations
more fully. First, external daily stress, measured
as a proximal variable, may have covaried more
highly than acute life events with internal stress
G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury
because acute life events were assessed over
a 12-month period and were likely to be a less
salient influence on couples. Second, diary data
on the environmental challenges and interper-
sonal processes implicated here would help to
pinpoint the ways in which stress operates on
intimate relationships.
Despite evidence that wives reported higher
mean levels of all forms of stress in this study
(acute life events Cohen’s d ¼ 0.32, external
daily hassles Cohen’s d ¼ 0.20, internal daily
hassles Cohen’s d ¼ 0.33), husbands did not
appear to pay a price for this: Partner effects
relating wives’ internal daily stress to hus-
bands’ marital satisfaction (2.26), sexual sat-
isfaction (2.23), and sexual activity (2.22)
were comparable to parallel effects relating
husbands’ internal stress to these same vari-
able for wives (2.23, 2.13, and 2.20, respec-
tively, for models involving external daily
stress). We can speculate that wives may be
particularly good at absorbing and not radiat-
ing the stress that husbands encounter outside
the relationship and that wives are particularly
adept at identifying moments at which support
efforts are most needed. This possibility is
consistent with recent research showing that
whereas men and women are quite similar in
delivering social support to one another in
laboratory settings (e.g., Pasch & Bradbury,
1998), women outpace men in how respon-
sive they are to the partner’s need for support
(Neff & Karney, 2005). Understanding whe-
ther the burden of absorbing the partner’s
stress and providing better support than they
receive is detrimental for the long-term health
of women (e.g., in the form of depression) is
beyond the scope of this study, though future
studies might benefit from investigating longer
term health outcomes in relation to men’s
daily stress and women’s interpersonal res-
ponses to this stress.
A third key finding provided support for the
idea that higher levels of stress can enhance
couple functioning (Hypothesis 4). Higher lev-
els of external daily stress did predict higher
levels of stress within the dyad but to a lesser
degree daily stress also predicted higher levels
of satisfaction and sexual activity for men. The
positive association between daily stress and
sexual activity is consistent with an earlier
Stress, sex, and satisfaction
study by Morokoff and Gillilland (1993;
also see McCarthy, 2003), though here we
demonstrated that the nature of this association
varies as a function of marital satisfaction. We
hypothesized that satisfied couples, by virtue
of being more resilient to stress and more
responsive to one another, would engage in
more sexual activity to the extent that external
daily stresses provided them with opportuni-
ties to interact and provide one another with
validation and compassion. This idea was not
supported, as levels of sexual activity were
about the same in satisfied men and women,
regardless of their reported levels of daily
stress (see Figure 2). Relatively dissatisfied
spouses, on the other hand, were expected to
report lower levels of sexual activity when
stress was high than when it was low. This
aspect of Hypothesis 4 was supported, though
only for women. For relatively dissatisfied
men, the opposite pattern was obtained: Those
reporting higher levels of daily hassles
reported higher levels of sexual activity, much
like we anticipated for satisfied spouses.
Though we must resort to speculation on this
point, this result suggests that the daily hassles
experienced by men who are relatively dissat-
isfied might provide opportunities for couples
to join together against a common adversary,
and this increased contact may promote sexual
interaction. On the basis of these moments of
heightened interaction, partners might recog-
nize the inherent strengths of their relationship
and thus enjoy higher levels of satisfaction and
sexual activity. The results shown in Figure 2
suggest that a different process operates when
distressed women experience high levels of
daily hassles. Men may be at least as support-
ive as women, and these supportive acts may
bring the couple closer together but not even-
tuate in sexual interaction. Alternatively, men
may not be particularly adept at providing sup-
port to their distressed and stressed partner,
opportunities for supportive exchanges may
be lost and, accordingly, these wives report
less sexual activity than their equally stressed
counterparts who are in more satisfying rela-
tionships. An observational study of social
support behaviors in couples provides support
for this latter interpretation, in that wives dis-
play more positive support to the extent that
567
the husband is higher in negative affectivity;
men, however, display less positive support as
wives’ negative affectivity increases (Pasch,
Bradbury, & Davila, 1997). To explore these
possibilities in greater detail, we need further
research that tracks daily stress, supportive
interactions, and sexual interaction among sat-
isfied and dissatisfied men and women.
Among similar lines, the relatively weak
pattern of results relating stress and sexual dys-
function suggests the need for further study on
this association (cf. Bodenmann, Ledermann,
Blattner-Bolliger, & Galluzzo, 2006; Morok-
off & Gilliland, 1993). To the extent that they
are a relatively stable feature of an individuals’
sexual life, sexual dysfunctions may be some-
what independent of contextual influences.
Interpretation of the present results must be
qualified by several factors. First, the cross-
sectional nature of this study makes causal
inferences impossible. Second, we can make
no claims about how individuals or couples
might respond to across-time fluctuations in
daily hassles or life events. Third, the use of
a convenience sample limits generalizability
to the larger population of couples. Fourth,
we have no independent assessment of stress,
which leaves open the possibility that individ-
ual differences in personality factors are con-
tributing to the effects observed here. It is
noteworthy, however, that intradyadic correla-
tions were high for internal stress (.46) and
critical life events (.39) but rather low for
external daily stress (.11), suggesting that no
general bias could be observed. Fifth, the has-
sles and life events that were assessed here
may vary dramatically between respondents;
unemployment, for example, is not a uniform
experience, and apart from the impact ratings
collected here, these variations were not well
measured. Other studies have profitably distin-
guished, for example, between chronic and
acute stressors (e.g., Karney et al., 2005), but
that distinction could not be pursued here
because duration of stress exposure was not
assessed. Sixth, though we do not expect
cultural contexts to moderate associations
between stress and relationship functioning,
at least within Westernized societies, addi-
tional data are needed to establish the gen-
eralizability of the present findings. Prior
568
studies on this topic conducted with European
and U.S. samples have yielded comparable
findings (e.g., Bodenmann, 2005; Story &
Bradbury, 2004).
Notwithstanding these limitations, the present
study links variation in key marital variables—
marital satisfaction and sexual functioning—
with spouses’ experiences of daily hassles in
the relationship, which in turn covary with daily
hassles and, to a lesser degree, the acute life
events they encounter outside the relationship.
Evidence that higher levels of stress sometimes
corresponded with better marital functioning
indicates that more complex models are needed
to specify the mechanisms that might underlie
these associations and to explore their implica-
tions for preventive intervention. Although
scholars often view modification of couples’
interactional processes as the surest route to
preventing adverse marital outcomes, further
analysis of couples’ ecological niches may
reveal that protecting the emotional climate
within a marriage from the harmful effects
of external stressors is a compelling alterna-
tive (e.g., Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004;
Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). The most imme-
diate practical implication of this study is that
coping and stress management may prove to
be a useful target in intervention programs
designed to prevent and treat relationship dis-
tress. Enhancing traditional communication
and problem-solving skills may be insufficient
for strengthening the marital dyad, as our find-
ings suggest that ineffective management of
daily hassles may produce relationship con-
flicts and tension within the relationship.
Addressing external sources of conflict (e.g.,
see the Couples Coping Enhancement Training
program; Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004), has
the potential to redirect partners’ change efforts
away from one another so that they focus at
least as much on the environmental circumstan-
ces that are affecting them.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression
testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury
Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren
[Stress and coping in couples]. Göttingen, 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: Emer-
ging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping
among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and sepa-
rated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective
longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce and Remar-
riage, 44, 71–89.
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., Blattner-Bolliger, D., &
Galluzzo, C. (2006). The associations among everyday
stress, critical life events and sexual problems. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194, 494–501.
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.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Preventing
marital dysfunction: Review and analysis. In F. D.
Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of
marriage: Basic issues and applications (pp. 375–
401). New York: Guilford.
Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Understanding
and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. Jour-
nal of Marriage and Family, 66, 862–879.
Brezsnyak, M., & Whisman, M. A. (2004). Sexual desire
and relationship functioning: The effects of marital
satisfaction and power. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 30, 199–217.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–
162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burr, W. R., & Klein, S. (Eds.). (1994). Managing family
stress. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G.
J. O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of
ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447–462.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W.
S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and
behavior in a stressful situation: An application of
the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 821–843.
Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life
events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course
of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 114–128.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Abraham, W. T., Gardner,
K. A., Melby, J. N., Bryant, C., et al. (2003). Neighbor-
hood context and financial strain as predictors of
marital interaction and marital quality in African
American couples. Personal Relationships, 10,
389–409.
Derogatis, L. R. (1992). SCL–90–R, administration, scor-
ing & procedures manual-II for the R(evised) version
and other instruments of the Psychopathology Rating
Scale Series. Townson, MD: Clinical Psychometric
Research.
Stress, sex, and satisfaction
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Thomas, G. (2000). Behavior and on-
line cognition in marital interaction. Personal Rela-
tionships, 7, 111–130.
Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiag-
nostik (FPD) [Partnership questionnaire]. Göttingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.
Harper, J. M., Schaalje, B. G., & Sandberg, J. G. (2000).
Daily hassles, intimacy, and marital quality in later life
marriages. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28,
1–18.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2002). Linking romantic
love with sex: Development of the perceptions of love
and sex scale. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 19, 361–378.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjust-
ment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 11, 213–218.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for the fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hurlbert, D. F., Apt, C., Hurlbert, M. K., & Pierce, A. P.
(2000). Sexual compatibility and the sexual desire-
motivation relation in females with hypoactive sexual
desire disorder. Behavior Modification, 24, 325–347.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S.
(1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measure-
ments: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life
events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1–39.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal
course of marital quality and stability: A review of
theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 3–34.
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. 13–32). Washington, DC: APA.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in
dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 13, 279–294.
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in re-
lationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic diffi-
culties, and illustrations. Personal Relationship, 6,
433–448.
Klann, N., Hahlweg, K., & Hank, G. (1992). Deutsche
Validierung des ‘‘Marital Satisfaction Inventory’’
(MSI) von Snyder (1981). System Familie, 5, 10–21.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal,
and coping. New York: Springer.
Ledermann, T., & Bodenmann, G. (2006). Moderator-
und Mediatoreffekte bei dyadischen Daten: Zwei
Erweiterungen des Akteur-Partner-Interdependenz-
Modells [Moderator and mediator effects in dyadic
569
research: Two extensions of the Actor–Partner Inter-
dependence Model]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie,
37, 27–40.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M.,
West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other interven-
ing variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7,
83–104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A
simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 30, 41–62.
McCarthy, B. (2003). Marital sex as it ought to be. Journal
of Family Psychotherapy, 14, 1–12.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family
stress process: The double ABCX model of adjust-
ment and adaptation. Marriage and Family Review,
6, 7–37.
Metz, M. E., & Epstein, N. (2002). Assessing the role of
relationship conflict in sexual dysfunction. Journal of
Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 139–164.
Morokoff, P. J., & Gillilland, R. (1993). Stress, sexual
functioning, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex
Research, 30, 43–53.
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.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in
social support: A question of skill or responsiveness?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
79–90.
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.
Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender,
negative affectivity, and observed social support
behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relation-
ships, 4, 361–378.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978).
Assessing the impact of life changes: Development
of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 46, 932–946.
Snyder, D. K. (1981). Marital satisfaction inventory (MSI)
manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for
indirect effects in structural equation models. In S.
Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–
312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding
marriage and stress: Essential questions and chal-
lenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1139–1162.
Williams, L. M. (1995). Associations of stressful life
events and marital quality. Psychological Reports,
76, 1115–1122.