A Repeated-Measures Study of Relational Turbulence and Transition Processing Communication During the Summer of COVID-19 (Summer 2020)

Abstract

Drawing upon relational turbulence theory and the experiencing life transitions model, this study examined communication and relationship qualities as married couples experienced work-family changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixty-four American married, different-sex partners affected by job-related changes due to COVID-19 reported their relationship qualities and their own and their spouse’s engagement in transition processing communication weekly for 10 weeks. Hypotheses addressed associations between relationship qualities and communication experiences both averaged across the 10 weeks and indexed by within-week deviations from those averages, controlling for the previous week’s reports. Husbands’ and wives’ own attempts—and also their perceptions of their spouse’s attempts—to increase interaction, promote connection, promote feeling situated, and increase confidence were associated with decreased relationship uncertainty and improved interdependence. Husbands’ self-reported relationship qualities demonstrated the strongest associations with averaged reports of relationship-focused communication, whereas wives’ relational qualities were more strongly associated with week-to-week fluctuations in relationship-focused communication.

Keywords

COVID-19 experiencing life transitions model facilitation from a partner interference from a partner relationship maintenance relational uncertainty relational turbulence transition processing communication

In March of 2020, the World Health Organization declared the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a global pandemic, and communities across the United States and around the world enacted stay-at-home orders to try to minimize its impact. The shift turned millions of homes into simultaneous work, school, and living environments, as many companies relied on virtual work arrangements, schools engaged in remote learning, and businesses shuttered their doors. As scholars continue to examine the impact of the pandemic and associated shutdown, studies have begun to demonstrate the negative effects of these drastic changes on individual and relational health (Calarco et al., 2020b; Kowal et al., 2020; Waddell et al., 2021). For individuals, the lockdown was associated with increased stress (Kowal et al., 2020), depression, and anxiety (Günther-Bell et al., 2020). For marital relationships, the transition had both positive and negative consequences, with some married partners reporting increases in relationship satisfaction (20%) and others reporting relationship decline (40%, Schmid et al., 2020). These divergent outcomes raise questions about the ways in which some married partners maintained positive relationships throughout the difficult situation. Examining the relational maintenance strategies engaged by couples during the pandemic lockdown may inform future marital interventions in times of stress. Thus, in this paper, we examine the relationship experiences of married couples who experienced work-related disruptions during the summer of 2020 (i.e., “the summer of COVID-19”), as well as the communication used to navigate those relationship experiences.

To illuminate the ways in which changes to the work-family environment influenced marital relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic, we turned to relational turbulence theory and the experiencing life transitions model. Relational turbulence theory is a framework for understanding variations in subjective responses to experiences in close relationships (Solomon et al., 2016). The theory explains that transitions in and around marriages often coincide with experiences of relational uncertainty and changes in interdependence, which in turn, lead to biased cognitions, intensified emotions, and polarized communication episodes. Left unchecked, the theory contends that experiences of polarized episodes can contribute to an overall sense of relational turbulence or the perception that the relationship is generally unstable and chaotic. In light of the negative and pervasive impact of relational turbulence on romantic partnerships, recent studies have engaged the experiencing life transitions model (Meleis et al., 2000) from the field of nursing to identify types of transition processing communication, defined as strategic relational maintenance engaged during periods of change, that married partners might enact to attenuate the relational consequences of difficult transitions (e.g., Brisini et al., 2018; Brisini & Solomon, 2020a). Building on those studies, this project uses the frameworks offered by relational turbulence theory and the experiencing life transitions model to examine the influence of four types of transition processing communication on relationship qualities during the summer of COVID-19.

Solomon et al. (2016) defined a relational transition as “a period of discontinuity between times of relative stability, during which individuals adapt to changing roles, identities, and circumstances” (p. 5). For many families, stay-at-home orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic initiated a period of chaos in which work and family life collided and families were isolated from their social networks (e.g., Lebow, 2020; Schmid et al., 2020). This was especially true for people who experienced a change in their employment—either job loss or remote work—during this time. For these couples, everyday routines and scripts were upended as families tried to negotiate a new normal existing primarily inside their own homes. To gain insight into the ways in which relationship communication influenced marital qualities during this transition, we conducted a longitudinal study that utilized weekly diaries to chart the trajectory of relationship experiences and communication from week to week during the summer of COVID-19. As a foundation for this study, we first discuss the ways in which the pandemic affected marital relationships. We then describe the conceptual frameworks of relational turbulence theory and the experiencing life transitions model, in turn.

COVID-19 as a Relational Transition

Lock-down orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a major transition for married partners across the globe. For example, research by Balzarini et al. (2022) identified increases in stress, financial strain, and social isolation as negative predictors of marital satisfaction during the COVID-19 lock-down. In addition, married partners often reported increased conflict related to the pandemic and its associated restrictions, which were in turn, associated with decreases in sexual intimacy (Luetke et al., 2020). The factors that exacerbated these experiences for families underscore the role of work-related disruptions as a contributor to relationship stress.

One particularly robust finding is evidence of sex differences, such that women managed greater parenting and domestic responsibility and reported more stress and anxiety than men (Kowal et al., 2020; H. J. McLaren et al., 2020; Pieh et al., 2020). In a study by Waddell et al. (2021), husbands and wives both reported that wives took on more responsibility during the pandemic, and this caused greater relationship problems and lowered relationship satisfaction. These patterns are likely to have been more pronounced within couples affected by job changes. In particular, for women no longer working outside the home, the ability to leave household responsibilities behind was curtailed. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that the workplace and economic toll of the pandemic was generally more pronounced for women, compared to men (Blundell et al., 2020).

The relationship transitions imposed by pandemic-related job changes were likely compounded by the presence of children in the home. Additional childcare burden and the move toward virtual and homeschool created major stressors for parents during the initial lockdown period of the pandemic (Adams et al., 2020). In addition, a study by Hiraoka and Tomoda (2020) found that parents reported significant increases in both parental and general stress after school closures. Moreover, parents who struggled with work-family balance as a result of the pandemic reported higher levels of stress and greater marital conflict (Chung et al., 2020). Although a study by Smail et al. (2020) provided evidence that having young children was associated with decreases in mental distress during the pandemic, the weight of evidence suggests that many families struggled to manage the demands of job-related changes when they had children to attend to as well.

Although the research reviewed here was not focused specifically on work-related disruptions as a source of relationship change and distress, the body of evidence highlights how those individuals most dramatically affected by work-related changes experienced relationship challenges. For women, parents of children, and individuals with lower socioeconomic status, the stress imposed by COVID-19 was especially pronounced, in part because the pivot to remote work and the increase in unemployment changed the context for family relationships. In the following section, we use relational turbulence theory and the experiencing life transitions model to both shed light on those relationship experiences and clarify how communication may help couples navigate stressful relationship changes.

Integrating Relational Turbulence Theory and the Experiencing Life Transitions Model

Relational turbulence theory (Solomon et al., 2016) provides insight into the mechanisms through which the negative relational impacts of COVID-19 may occur. The theory identifies two relationship parameters that shape cognitions and emotions during communication episodes: relational uncertainty and interdependence. Relational uncertainty is a characteristic of relationships in which one partner lacks the information necessary to explain or predict aspects of the partnership. When major changes occur in and around romantic relationships, previously held scripts, schema, norms, and routines can be upended, causing questions to arise regarding one’s own and one’s partner’s engagement and behavior in the relationship. Thus, the experience of relational uncertainty stems from three sources: self uncertainty, questions about one’s own involvement in the relationship; partner uncertainty, questions about a partner’s involvement in the relationship; and relationship uncertainty, questions about the nature and future of the relationship itself (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004, Solomon et al., 2016). According to RTT, feelings of relational uncertainty promote biased cognitive appraisals of information in relationship episodes. For example, relational uncertainty has demonstrated positive associations with state measures of taking conflict personally (Brisini & Solomon, 2020b)), negative appraisals of irritating partner behaviors (Theiss & Knobloch, 2009), appraisal of the intentionality of hurtful messages (Theiss et al., 2009), and perceptions of relationship conversations as more threatening (Knobloch et al., 2007) in previous research.

Relational turbulence theory also identifies interdependence as a feature of relationships that influences communication experiences. Transitions in relationships alter the ways and extent to which partners influence each other’s goal-directed activities. When daily routines and activities are changed as the result of a transition, spouses have more opportunity to influence each other’s goals. For married couples, interference from a partner is the perception that a spouse gets in the way of achieving daily goals. In contrast, facilitation from a partner is the perception that one’s spouse helps in the achievement of daily goals (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). Both interference and facilitation are disruptions to behavioral sequences that elicit emotional responses (Berscheid, 1983), and relational turbulence theory suggests that repeated activation of emotions is associated with stronger emotions during subsequent communication episodes (Solomon et al., 2016). Empirical evidence aligns with the assumption that interference from a partner is associated with increased negative affect (Knobloch et al., 2007; Solomon & Brisini, 2017), intensity of hurt (McLaren et al., 2011), and jealousy (Theiss & Solomon, 2006a), but there is less evidence linking facilitation from a partner to amplified emotional responses (see Knobloch et al., 2007).

Examining communication behaviors that influence relationship parameters provides a test of an understudied claim of RTT and may provide practical guidance for married partners. Indeed, most work engaging the relational turbulence framework to date has focused on relational uncertainty and changes in interdependence as independent variables predicting communication outcomes (e.g., Theiss & Knobloch, 2009; Theiss et al., 2009). More specifically, tests of the theory typically model communication phenomena, including topic avoidance, distributive conflict behaviors (Worley & Shelton, 2020), and directness of communication about irritations (Theiss & Solomon, 2006b), as the consequence of relational uncertainty or interference and facilitation from a partner. Although less often the focus of research, relational turbulence theory (Solomon et al., 2016) stipulates that communication can exert a reciprocal effect on experiences of relational uncertainty and disruptions to interdependence. As reflected by the gray dashed line in Solomon et al.’s (2016) conceptual model, the theory allows that this cycle can amplify relational uncertainty and undermine interdependence or it can alleviate those conditions, depending on qualities of the communication that occurs between partners.

A few studies to date have examined communication as determinants of the relationship experiences highlighted by relational turbulence theory. For example, longitudinal studies by Theiss et al. have found that reports of relationship talk and direct communication about jealousy one week were associated with decreases in relational uncertainty a week later (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011; Theiss & Solomon, 2006b). In contrast, topic avoidance was associated with increases in relational uncertainty the following week (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011). Taken together, the theoretical logic and these studies suggest that, in the context of a transition, constructive, relationship-focused communication may serve as an intervention that attenuates the relational uncertainty and dysfunctional interdependence that may emerge from the changes in the relationship environment (Brisinit et al., 2018; Brisini & Solomon,2020c).

Although relational turbulence theory does not specify the types of communication that may be favorable during potentially tumultuous transitions, recent studies engaging the RTT framework have identified transition processing communication (TPC) as a means of improving relationship quality during difficult life events. In the following section, we discuss the ways in which four forms of TPC may improve relationship experiences during difficult life events.

Transition Processing Communication During Transitions

Research on relational maintenance behaviors has provided insight into the ways in which married partners maintain closeness, intimacy, and positive affect throughout the lifespan of the partnership. Studies going back decades have identified a multitude of behaviors—conscious and unconscious, verbal and nonverbal, dramatic to mundane—most of which demonstrate overwhelmingly positive associations with relationship quality (for review see Ogolsky et al., 2017). More recently, frameworks such as the theory of resilience and relational load suggest that a build-up of positive relational maintenance behaviors over time creates a buffer against the impact of life stressors on relationships (Afifi et al., 2016). Because our focus is on strategic, rather than routine, responses to the challenges experienced due to COVID-19 in the summer of 2020, we focused on specific strategies which couples might use or amplify to maintain a positive relationship when faced with a challenging life event.

To develop a framework for improving relational communication during difficult transitions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, we turned to the field of nursing. Meleis and colleagues (2000) examined individual transitions across multiple studies (e.g., Im, 1996; Messias, 1997; Sawyer, 1997) and explicated the experiencing life transitions model, which identifies four interconnected categories of communication and cognitions that represent phases of increasing acceptance of change and serve as indicators of a successful medical transition. Drawing from the experiencing life transitions model (Meleis et al., 2000), Brisini and Solomon (2020a) defined transition processing communication (TPC) as relationship-focused behavior and cognition employed during relational transitions with the explicit intention of improving relationship experiences. Following Meleis and colleagues (2000), TPC has been categorized into four types: increasing interaction, promoting connection, promoting feeling situated, and increasing confidence, which we describe in turn (Brisini et al., 2018, Brisini & Solomon, 2020a). These TPC represent four categories of strategic relational maintenance employed specifically during relationship transitions and with the goal of preventing turbulent relationship experiences, despite a potentially stressful or chaotic environment.

For couples navigating a transition, increasing interaction may help decrease relational uncertainty by providing spouses with increased opportunities to re-establish relational norms and schema in light of the transition. Spending more time alone together also allows spouses a chance to engage in positive interactions and to gain more information from which to draw inferences (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011). For example, previous research suggests that couples who report higher levels of mutual enjoyment of leisure activities are less likely to have a conflict-ridden relationship and are more likely to be partner focused (Ogolsky et al., 2016). In addition, frequent interactions with one’s spouse may improve interdependence by providing the opportunity to create positive routines (Brisini & Solomon, 2020c). During the COVID-19 pandemic, some couples may have felt like they were interacting with their spouse more than ever; however, as a form of TPC, increasing interaction refers to time alone with a spouse as a form of relational maintenance. In the chaos of pandemic shutdowns, the opportunity to spend time alone with a spouse doing shared, enjoyable activities may have increased for some couples and have been difficult to achieve for others. Regardless, previous research suggests that couples who spend more time together engaging in positive activity during a transition also experience improvements in relationship quality (Brisini et al., 2018, Brisini & Solomon, 2020a, 2020c).

Promoting connection, attempts to maintain a strong emotional bond with a spouse, may also improve relationship experiences for married partners during stressful life events. Whereas increasing interaction reflects spouses’ attempts to engage in positive shared activity, promoting connection characterizes attempts to increase relationship talk and self-disclosure. A multitude of studies suggest that experiences of relational uncertainty lead to decreases in relationship talk and more indirect communication between romantic partners (e.g., Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004; Knobloch & Theiss, 2011; Theiss & Solomon, 2006b); however, when relational schema become ambiguous, increased openness between spouses becomes increasingly necessary. Engaging in relationship talk provides information for re-establishing behavioral norms and scripts. For example, in a longitudinal study by Knobloch and Theiss (2011), increased relationship talk was associated with decreased relational uncertainty one week later. Direct communication with a partner about romantic jealousy (Theiss & Solomon, 2006b) also leads to improved relationship quality. Thus, attempts to promote connection with a spouse may prove beneficial for romantic partners facing uncertainty and disruptions to interdependence during the pandemic.

In addition to spending time together and establishing a bond, couples experiencing a major transition can situate themselves in their new circumstances by considering the ways in which their lives have changed as a result of the event (Meleis et al., 2000). Promoting feeling situated is a form of transition processing communication in which married partners attempt to make sense of and positively frame changes that have occurred as the result of a relational transition, often by co-constructing relational narratives. Previous research on narratives suggests that positively re-framing negative events to focus on positive outcomes is beneficial for both emotional well-being and resilience (Pals, 2006), and can lead to decreased stress (Robbins et al., 2019). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, promoting feeling situated has the potential to reduce relational uncertainty and improve interdependence by helping partners to make sense of their circumstances and set up routines and expectations in light of the new changes.

Married partners can increase confidence in their relationship during stressful events by demonstrating their continued commitment to and engagement in their relationship both verbally and non-verbally. Whereas promoting connection reflects participants attempts to engage in intentional relationship-focused conversations to improve their relational bond, increasing confidence reflects individuals’ day-to-day (though, often strategic) use of relational maintenance as brief reminders of their investment in the relationship to reinforce the connection. In a series of studies, Weigel and Ballard-Reisch identified 10 commitment indicators to maintain positive romantic relationships, such as providing support, expressing words of commitment, and engaging in nonverbal affection. In their studies, the use of commitment indicators was associated with decreased relational uncertainty and increased relational satisfaction (Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 2002; Weigel et al., 2011). Thus, engagement in concrete expressions of commitment may improve married partners’ relationship quality during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown.

In cross-sectional studies, engagement in the four forms of TPC has been negatively associated with relational uncertainty and interference from a partner across a number of transitions among a general, married population (Brisini et al., 2018), parents of neurotypical children (Brisini & Solomon, 2020a), and parents of children with ASD (Brisini & Solomon, 2018). Brisini and Solomon (2020c) found similar results in a dyadic, longitudinal study of parents of children with ASD during the transition to school, especially for wives. Following the logic of the experiencing life transitions model and the results of these studies, we expect that engagement in TPC is associated with improvements in perceptions of relationship qualities (i.e., relational uncertainty and indices of interdependence) for husbands and wives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We add nuance to this general prediction in two ways. First, we consider both between- and within-couple relationships between TPC and relationship qualities. Between-couple differences are evident in how the levels of TPC reported by partners, averaged over time, correspond with partners’ perceptions of their relationships. Within-couple patterns are revealed by examining how week-to-week fluctuations in TPC, indexed as deviations from that overall average, correspond with weekly reports of relationship qualities. Figure 1 illustrates how these two sets of relationships can be simultaneously estimated from repeated measures data—in this case, weekly reports of TPC and relationship qualities collected over a span of 10 weeks. The top portion of the figure shows how data from each of the 10 weeks is “stacked,” with each panel representing the association between each week’s TPC and relationship qualities, with the previous week’s relationship quality level covaried. The bottom-most portion of the figure illustrates how the average level of the TPC and relationship quality variables are drawn from the weekly variables and associated with each other. By extracting the average of the TPC and relationship quality measures in this way, the weekly variables represent each week’s deviation from the partner’s overall average. Thus, associations between TPC and relationship qualities, represented as the averages over the 10 weeks, and associations between weekly variances around those means, are both encompassed within this model.

Figure 1.

Longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model representing within-week and aggregated associations.

A second complexity is addressed by our examination of self- and partner-focused effects. One set of associations focuses on how an individual’s own TPC corresponds with their reports of relationship qualities. Correspondence between an actor’s TPC and that actor’s relationship qualities indexes how people’s own communication activity helps them to experience this life transition in functional ways. In addition, one partner’s TPC may correspond with their partner’s perceptions of relationship qualities. In other words, people’s efforts to communicate through a transition may also reap benefits for their partner. At yet another level, perceiving that one’s partner is making the effort to promote transition processing through communication can influence relationship qualities.¹ In previous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, a person’s own engagement in TPC and perceptions of a partner’s engagement were both associated with improved relational qualities (Brisini et al., 2018, Brisini & Solomon, 2018, 2020a). In the longitudinal study, a person’s perception that a partner engaged in TPC demonstrated stronger associations than a partner’s self-reported communication (Brisini & Solomon, 2020c). Thus, engaging in TPC and seeing a partner initiate interaction intended to help a partnership transcend a difficult transition may both function to reduce relational uncertainty and improve interdependence.

Considering these two sources of complexity, we offer six hypotheses articulating the association between TPC and relationship qualities. The first three predictions focus on the average levels of communication activities and perceptions of relationship qualities, aggregated across a 10-week period. The second three predictions focus on how week-to-week deviations from that overall average are associated.

H1: On average, husbands and wives who report higher levels of TPC report lower levels of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and higher levels of facilitation from a partner.

H2: On average, husbands and wives whose spouse reports higher levels of TPC report lower levels of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and higher levels of facilitation from a partner.

H3: On average, husbands and wives who perceive their spouse to engage in higher levels of TPC report lower levels of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and higher levels of facilitation from a partner.

H4: Controlling for the previous week’s relationship qualities, increases in husbands’ and wives’ use of TPC during any given week, relative to their average use of TPC, decreases their own relational uncertainty and interference from a partner and increases their own facilitation from a partner.

H5: Controlling for the previous week’s relationship qualities, increases in husbands’ and wives’ use of TPC during any given week, relative to their average use of TPC, decreases their spouse’s relational uncertainty and interference from a partner and increases their spouse’s facilitation from a partner.

H6: Controlling for the previous week’s relationship qualities, an increase in husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of their spouse’s engagement in TPC during any given week, relative to their average use of TPC, decreases their own relational uncertainty and interference from a partner and increases their own facilitation from a partner.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic was widely disruptive to family life, the transitions imposed by the virus were not the same for all families. Our perspective highlights transitions in family life imposed by structural changes due to the pandemic. In particular, families in which partners who began working from home during the lockdown period faced abrupt shifts in routines and scripts that laid the groundwork for relationship change. For that reason, our investigation focused on people who experienced job related changes—including job loss or a switch to telecommuting—in the months following the emergence of COVID-19 in the United States. We turn to the details of our study design next.

Method

To examine the associations between transition processing communication and relationship experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used a repeated-measures design consisting of a pre-test, 10 weekly diary surveys, and a post-test. Participants completed the surveys via email or text message using Qualtrics survey software.

Participants

Our sample consisted of 64 heterosexual, married partners (128 individuals) whose age ranged from 24 to 84 (M = 44.14, SD = 13.79) and who had been married for an average of 15.53 years (SD = 12.30).² Twenty-three percent identified as non-European American, with 9% identifying as Latinx, 9% identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2% identifying as African American. Participants reported having 0 to 4 children, with most participants having at least one child (86%) and 62% of couples reporting children under the age of 18.

Participants were recruited for this study using a Qualtrics pre-paid panel.³ Qualtrics recruits participants based on criteria set forth by the researcher. For this study, participants needed to be over the age of 18, currently married, and at least one partner had to have either lost a job or moved to telecommuting from home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both members of the couple had to be willing and able to participate in the study. Approximately 58% of participants reported that one spouse had a change in their job related to the COVID-19 pandemic at the start of the study (19% reported that one spouse lost a job, 39% reported that one spouse moved to a work-from-home arrangement). The remaining 42% of couples reported changes to both spouse’s work arrangements (4% reported that both spouses lost their jobs, 29% reported that both spouses were working from home, 10% reported that one spouse lost a job and the other started working from home).

Participants were invited by Qualtrics to participate in the pre-test survey of this study through an emailed survey link. At the end of the pre-test survey, participants were invited to participate in the diary and post-test surveys, if they were interested. In total, 200 couples completed the pre-test survey and of those, 123 indicated their interest in participating in the diary portion of the study. In total, 64 couples (128 individuals) completed the pre-test, the post-test, and at least three diary surveys. These couples comprised the sample for the current study.⁴ Participants in the pre-test were paid by Qualtrics. Those who agreed to participate in the diary and post-test surveys could earn up to $50 ($100 per couple) on an Amazon gift card for completing all waves of the study. Separate informed consent documents were signed for the pre-test survey and the diary and post-test surveys.

Procedures

Participants completed our study over the course of 12 weeks. In the first week, individuals received the pre-test survey via an email with a single survey link. The first spouse completed the survey, followed by the second spouse, using the same log-in. At the end of the pre-test, participants were invited to participate in the remaining portions of the study. Those who agreed entered separate email addresses and phone numbers for each partner to receive future surveys. They were given a randomly generated participant ID number connecting their diary and post-test responses to their pre-test responses, as well as to their spouse’s responses. One week later at 8 pm, participants received their first survey diary via separate text messages to their individual phones and were instructed to complete the survey before going to sleep that night without discussing their responses with their partner. Participants who did not complete the survey received a reminder at 9 o’clock the following morning. Participants continued to receive diary surveys via text message every Friday night at 8 pm until all 10 diary surveys had been administered. One week later, they received the post-test via an emailed link.

Measures

In this study, we focus on measures of relationship qualities and transition processing communication assessed by weekly diary surveys and use marital satisfaction measured at pre-test as a covariate (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). The measures for this study were validated in previous studies and replicate those used in Brisini and Solomon (2020c). All items were assessed on 6-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), unless otherwise stated.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Across the 10 Diary Surveys.

Variables	Husbands			Wives			t(62)
Variables	M	SD	α	M	SD	α	t(62)
Relationship uncertainty	2.01	1.26	.89	2.04	1.34	.90	−0.18
Interference from a partner	1.99	1.18	—	2.14	1.30	—	−1.42^ϯ
Facilitation from a partner	4.52	1.37	—	4.19	1.53	—	2.08*
Increasing interaction (s)	4.27	1.42	.92	4.26	1.30	.92	−0.13
Feeling connected (s)	4.39	1.26	.87	4.49	1.21	.87	−0.87
Feeling situated (s)	3.88	1.43	.84	3.98	1.37	.82	−0.73
Increasing confidence (s)	4.45	1.28	.85	4.39	1.24	.82	0.08
Increasing interaction (p)	4.21	1.47	.93	4.28	1.39	.93	−0.47
Feeling connected (p)	4.42	1.25	.89	4.27	1.32	.89	0.74
Feeling situated (p)	3.88	1.46	.87	3.81	1.50	.90	0.07
Increasing confidence (p)	4.36	1.32	.86	4.34	1.32	.85	−0.08
Marital satisfaction	5.32	0.77	.92	5.11	1.09	.95	1.31^ϯ

Note. Cell entries are aggregated across all diary surveys, with the exception of marital satisfaction, which was measured only at pre-test. N_husbands = 581 data points from 64 husbands and N_wives = 593 data points from 64 wives. (s) = self; (p) = partner. Measures of facilitation from a partner and interference from a partner contained two items. Therefore, reliability was not calculated for these measures.

p < .10. *p < .05.

Participants completed brief measures of self, partner, and relationship uncertainty, as well as qualities of interdependence. In this report, we focus on the measure of relationship uncertainty, because RTT suggests that it captures relational uncertainty at a higher level of abstraction informed by both self and partner uncertainty.⁵ Specifically, we measured relationship uncertainty using a three-item scale capturing participants’ feelings about the nature of the relationship itself “this week” (Brisini & Solomon, 2020c; adapted from Solomon & Brisini, 2017). Interference and facilitation from a partner were each measured using two items designed to assess the extent to which participants felt their spouse hampered or helped in the attainment of daily goals “this week.”

We measured participants’ engagement in TPC, as well as their perception of their partner’s TPC, over the course of the study using three Likert-type items (1 = not very often, 6 = very often) for each of the four forms of communication. Increasing interaction captured attempts to spend meaningful time alone with a spouse (e.g., “This week, I/my partner made time in my/their schedule to be alone with my spouse/me”). Promoting connection reflected individuals’ attempts to increase self-disclosure and relationship talk over the previous week (e.g., “This week, I/my partner tried to be open with my spouse/me about how I/they feel”). Promoting feeling situated assessed partners’ attempts to discuss and positively frame changes that occurred because of the pandemic over the course of the week (e.g., “This week, I/my partner tried to reflect on the positive consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted for my/our relationship”). Finally, increasing confidence measured participants’ attempts to demonstrate commitment to their partner both verbally and non-verbally over the course of the week (e.g., “This week, I/my partner reassured my spouse/me that I’m/they’re not going anywhere”).

Given the strong correlations between aspects of relational turbulence and marital satisfaction in previous research (e.g., Solomon & Brisini, 2017), we measured marital satisfaction at pre-test as a potential covariate. Marital satisfaction was assessed using five items from Norton’s (1983) Marriage Quality Index, which captures the overall quality of the relationship (e.g., “My marriage with my spouse makes me happy”).

Analyses

To test our hypotheses, we used a longitudinal Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model (APIM) analysis utilizing structural equation modeling. The APIM framework allows us to examine data from husbands and wives nested in dyads in ways that both address dependence in those reports and assess associations within couples (per H4, H5, H6) and between couples (per H1, H2, H3). As previously described, the longitudinal facet of the APIM analysis we conducted “stacks” the data from each week, allowing us to estimate associations using data from each week, while accounting for dependence in data across the 10 weeks of the study. We included terms representing the average level of the outcome variables for each couple and accounted for the association between them. In addition, we modeled variation from the mean for husbands’ and wives’ each week. Finally, we included paths from scores on the dependent variable each week to scores on the same variable the following week to account for the lagged effect of each variable. H1, H2, and H3 are tested by the association between the time-averaged coefficients in the model, and H4, H5, and H6 are tested by the path coefficients estimating the association between TPC and RTT variables. Because both estimates are derived from the same model, the path coefficients represent the association between weekly deviations from the 10-week average for the variables. An exemplar model is depicted in Figure 1.

In these analyses, the unit of analysis is the diary entry with up to 10 diaries per respondent (1,172 total observations, 592 for wives and 580 for husbands).⁶ Husbands’ and wives’ scores were represented in separate variables within a single case (the dyad; Kenny et al., 2006). To account for shared variance between the time points within person, we specified a first-order autoregressive residual covariance structure. We accounted for shared variance within each dyad by allowing the disturbance terms to correlate between husbands and wives at each time point. TPC variables were split into time-averaged and time-varying components to separate the extent to which participants generally perceive themselves to engage in TPC and the degree to which participants used more or less TPC that week than they normally do. Time-averaged components were represented using separate cluster means for husbands and wives. Time-specific components were then computed by centering the original TPC variables around husbands’ and wives’ cluster means. We conducted separate APIMs for each pair of independent and dependent variables (e.g., relationship uncertainty and increasing interaction, relationship uncertainty and promoting connection) using Lavaan in R (with initial syntax generated using the LDDinSEM-application; Gistelinck & Loeys, 2020). We also included marital satisfaction scores measured at pre-test as a covariate.⁷

H1, H2, H4, and H5 were assessed using a standard APIM, and H3 and H6 were evaluated using a modified APIM that omitted partner effects. We predicted actor-only patterns because we had no theoretical justification linking one’s spouse’s perceptions of one’s own communication to one’s own relationship experience without significant mediators (untested in this study; Fitzpatrick et al., 2016; Kenny et al., 2006). In addition, the complexity of the associations would make interpreting the results unruly. Actor-only patterns still account for interdependence between husbands’ and wives’ data by covarying the independent and dependent variables, but do not predict partner effects (Kenny et al., 2006).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

As an initial step, we examined demographic differences among our participants with regard to our variables of interest. We first conducted paired samples t-tests to compare means for the three relationship parameters examined in this study across the 10 diaries for husbands and wives (see Table 1). In variables that were aggregated data across the 10-week period, we observed that husbands reported more facilitation from a partner than wives did, t(61) = 2.08, p < .05. Significant differences were also identified in reports of interference from a partner, t(122) = −2.15, p < .05, for couples with and without children in the home. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) identified no significant differences in any of the variables of interest based on participants’ reported ethnicity.

The number of years participants had been married was significantly and negatively correlated with relationship uncertainty (r = −.20, p < .05). As a final test, we examined the associations between marital satisfaction and each of the relational turbulence variables. Marital satisfaction was significantly and negatively related to relationship uncertainty, r = −.44, p < .001 and interference from a partner, r = −.36, p < .001; it was positively associated with facilitation from a partner, r = .23, p < .001. Thus, preliminary analysis identified marital satisfaction as the only consistent and robust demographic correlate with our variables of interest. Therefore, marital satisfaction was covaried in all substantive analyses.

Tests of Hypotheses

To test our hypotheses, we examined 24 separate models, each with one independent and one dependent variable measured separately for husbands and wives and we focused on robust patterns across the different tests. Results of our analyses are reported in Tables 2 and 3, which identify the time-averaged effects, the time-specific effects, and the lagged effects for each variable.

Table 2.

Over-Time APIM of Diary Surveys Assessing Self Transition Processing Communication (H1-4).

IV	DV	Time-averaged effects				Time-specific effects
		Wife	Husband	Wife	Husband	Wife	Husband	Wife	Husband	Wife	Husband
		Actor effects	Actor effects	Partner effects	Partner effects	Actor effects	Actor effects	Partner effects	Partner effects	Lagged effects	Lagged effects
Increasing interaction	RU	−0.14	−0.17**	−0.09	−0.10	−0.26***	−0.07	−0.04	−0.05	0.29***	0.29***
	IP	−0.13	−0.15*	−0.05	0.01	−0.13**	−0.09*	−0.01	−0.08*	0.25***	0.09
	FP	0.63***	0.38***	0.09	0.14	0.42***	0.14*	0.07	0.03	0.16**	0.10*
Promoting connection	RU	−0.21*	−0.22**	−0.15*	−0.09	−0.26***	−0.06	−0.03	−0.03	0.29***	0.29***
	IP	−0.23**	−0.14	−0.05	−0.06	−0.07	−0.02	0.04	−0.17***	0.26***	0.07
	FP	0.76***	0.54***	0.12	0.14	0.41***	0.23***	0.08	0.02	0.13**	0.09*
Promoting feeling situated	RU	−0.18*	0.23**	−0.04	0.04	−0.25***	−0.07	0.01	0.03	0.29***	0.29***
	IP	−0.12	−0.06	0.01	0.10	−0.09*	−0.03	−0.01	−0.10**	0.25***	0.09
	FP	0.70***	0.38***	−0.03	0.02	0.47***	0.14*	0.01	0.01	0.13**	0.09*
Increasing confidence	RU	−0.12	−0.29***	−0.23**	−0.07	−0.28***	−0.10*	−0.11*	−0.02	0.26***	0.28***
	IP	−0.09	−0.23**	−0.14*	0.04	−0.11*	−0.05	−0.16**	−0.16**	0.25***	0.09*
	FP	0.68***	0.54***	0.15*	0.11	0.45***	0.15**	0.14*	0.03	0.14**	0.10*

Note. Per Kenny et al. (2006), cell entries are unstandardized coefficients. The coefficient for time-averaged effects in columns 3 to 6 represent the associations between the independent variables and dependent variables averaged across the 10 diaries. The time-specific effects in columns 7 to 10 represent the associations between variation from the mean within a given week. Finally, the lagged effects in columns 11 and 12 represent associations between scores on the dependent variable 1 week and scores on the same variable the following week. RU = Relationship Uncertainty; IP = interference from a partner; FP = facilitation from a partner. Bolded cell entries are significant.

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Over-Time APIM of Diary Surveys Assessing Partner Transition Processing Communication (H5-6).

IV	DV	Time-averaged effects		Time-specific effects
		Wife	Husband	Wife	Husband	Wife	Husband
		Actor effects	Actor effects	Actor effects	Actor effects	Lagged effects	Lagged effects
Increasing interaction	RU	−0.14	−0.29***	−0.33***	−0.09*	0.27***	0.28***
	IP	−0.13	−0.06	−0.21***	−0.07	0.23***	0.09
	FP	0.60***	0.44***	0.40***	0.23***	0.15**	0.10*
Promoting connection	RU	−0.16	−0.37***	−0.32***	−0.10*	0.26***	0.28***
	IP	−0.12	−0.20*	−0.24***	−0.18***	0.24***	0.08
	FP	0.74***	0.70***	0.40***	0.27***	0.16**	0.10*
Promoting feeling situated	RU	−0.15	−0.28***	−0.28***	−0.11**	0.25***	0.28***
	IP	−0.11	−0.09	−0.21***	−0.03	0.24***	0.09
	FP	0.63***	0.45***	0.45***	0.15*	0.15**	0.10*
Increasing confidence	RU	−0.24**	−0.38***	−0.39***	−0.14***	0.22***	0.29***
	IP	−0.16*	−0.22*	−0.30***	−0.11*	0.21***	0.08
	FP	0.73***	0.61***	0.49***	0.27***	0.13**	0.09

Note. Per Kenny et al. (2006), cell entries are unstandardized coefficients. The coefficient for time-averaged effects in columns 3 and 4 represent the associations between the independent variables and dependent variables averaged across the 10 diaries. The time-specific effects in columns 5 and 6 represent the associations between variation from the mean within a given week. Finally, the lagged effects in columns 7 and 8 represent associations between scores on the dependent variable 1 week and scores on the same variable the following week. RU = relationship uncertainty; IP = interference from a partner; FP = facilitation from a partner. Bolded cell entries are significant.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Time-Averaged (Between Couple) Associations Between TPC and Relationship Qualities

H1 predicted that husbands and wives who reported higher levels of TPC on average, would report lower levels of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and higher levels of facilitation from a partner. We assessed H1 by examining the time-averaged effects of husbands’ and wives’ engagement in each of the four TPC variables on their own relationship qualities (i.e., actor effects, see Table 2). Our hypothesis was largely supported for husbands, such that husbands’ engagement in any of the four forms of TPC were associated with decreases in relationship uncertainty and increases in reports of facilitation from a partner, on average. Increasing interaction and increasing confidence were both negatively associated with interference from a partner. On average, wives’ who reported higher levels of any of the four forms of TPC also reported more facilitation from a partner. In addition, among wives, higher average levels of promoting connection and promoting feeling situated were associated with lower levels of relationship uncertainty. Higher average reports of promoting connection were also associated with decreases in perception of interference from a partner. Thus, results of our analyses provided partial support for H1 with 71% of the predicted effects (83% for husbands and 58% for wives) significant and in the expected direction.

Our second hypothesis predicted that, on average, husbands’ and wives’ whose partners reported higher levels of TPC throughout the study would indicate lower levels of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and higher levels of facilitation from a partner (averaged across the 10 diaries). Examination of the time-averaged partner effects (see Table 2) demonstrated few associations between husbands’ and wives’ reported TPC across the 10 weeks and their partners’ relationship qualities, particularly for husbands. There were no significant time-averaged partner effects for husbands. There were four significant partner effects for wives. Most notably, husbands’ average report of engagement in increasing confidence was negatively associated with wives’ reports of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and positively associated with wives’ perceptions of facilitation from a partner. In addition, husbands’ reports of promoting connection were negatively associated with wives’ relationship uncertainty. In total, only 17% of the time-averaged partner effects were significant (33% for wives and 0% for husbands), providing limited support for H2.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that husbands’ and wives’ averaged perceptions of their spouse’s engagement in TPC across the 10 diary surveys would be negatively associated with their own experiences of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and positively associated with facilitation from a partner during the same week. To test this hypothesis, we again conducted APIMs⁸ (Kenny et al., 2006), this time with participants’ perceptions of their spouse’s engagement in TPC as the independent variable and reports of their own relationship quality as the dependent variable. Husbands’ average engagement in any of the four forms of TPC were associated with decreases in relationship uncertainty and increases in reports of facilitation from a partner. Perceptions of promoting connection and increasing confidence were both negatively associated with interference from a partner. On average, wives’ who reported higher levels of any of the four forms of TPC also reported more facilitation from a partner. In addition, among wives, higher average levels of promoting connection were associated with lower levels of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner. Thus, results of our analyses provided partial support for H5 with 67% of the predicted effects (83% for husbands and 50% for wives) significant and in the expected direction.

Time-Specific (Within Couple) Associations Between TPC and Relationship Qualities

For H4, we predicted that husbands’ and wives’ engagement in the four forms of TPC would be negatively associated with relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner and positively associated with facilitation from a partner each week, after controlling for scores on the independent and dependent variables the previous week. Time-specific actor effects in the analyses represent the extent to which increases in husbands’ and wives’ self-reported relationship-focused communication (compared to their average scores) influenced their own relationship qualities that week (see Table 2). Results of the APIM indicated that wives’ reports of their own engagement in each of the four forms of TPC on one diary were negatively associated with their reports of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and positively associated with facilitation from a partner reported in the same diary, with one exception. Wives’ promoting connection was not associated with their own perceptions of interference from a partner. Increases in husbands’ reported use of the four forms of TPC in any given week were positively associated with facilitation from a partner during the same week. In addition, increases in husbands’ reports of their own attempts to increase confidence were negatively associated with relationship uncertainty and their attempts to increase interaction were negatively associated with interference from a partner. In total, 71% of the predicted effects (92% of wives’ effects and 50% of husbands’ effects) were significant and in the predicted direction. Thus, the pattern of results provides support for H3, particularly for wives.

Our fifth hypothesis predicted that increases in husbands’ and wives’ engagement in TPC during any given week would be associated with decreases in their spouse’s reports of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner and increases in facilitation from a partner. Time-specific partner effects are reported in the ninth and tenth columns of Table 2. For wives, increases in husbands’ self-reported attempts to increase confidence were negatively associated with wives’ reports of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and positively associated with wives’ reports of facilitation from a partner within the same week. For husbands, increases in wives’ engagement in any of the four forms of transition processing communication were negatively associated with interference from a partner. The statistically significant associations were fewer in number for partner effects, with 29% of the coefficients (25% of wives’ effects and 33% of husbands’ effects) significant and in the predicted direction. Thus, partner effects provide limited support for H4.

In tests of H6, time-specific actor effects (reported in Table 3) examine the association between increases in participants’ perceptions of their spouse’s engagement in relationship-focused communication in a given week (compared to their average) and their own relationship experiences. For wives, perceptions of a husband’s engagement in each of the four forms of TPC one week were negatively associated with reports of relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and positively associated with facilitation from a partner. For husbands, perceptions of a wife’s engagement in any of the four forms of TPC was associated with decreases in husbands’ reports of relationship uncertainty and increases in facilitation from a partner. Increases in husbands’ reports of their wife’s attempts to promote connection and increase confidence significantly and negatively predicted husbands’ perceptions of interference from a partner from one diary to the next. In total, 92% of associations between husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of their spouse’s engagement in TPC and their own relationship experiences were significant and in the hypothesized directions (100% of wives’ effects and 83% of husbands’ effects), providing support for H6.

Discussion

Given the widespread impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on families and relationships, the goal of this study was to explore the role of relationship-focused communication in married partners’ relationship experiences during the summer of COVID-19. To achieve this goal, we conducted a longitudinal, dyadic, diary study and asked participants to report their experiences of relational uncertainty and disruptions to interdependence, as well as their engagement in relationship-focused communication over the course of 10 weeks. Results suggest that using transition processing communication improved relationship qualities from week to week. In the following sections, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings and suggest directions for future research.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study provided a repeated-measures test of relational turbulence theory’s claim that communication can influence relationship parameters (Solomon et al., 2016) and it provided evidence that TPC, in particular, may act as a buffer against relationship upheaval during relationship transitions. We found support for our first hypothesis, which predicted that husbands’ and wives’ engagement in TPC is associated with improvements in relationship qualities. Indeed, husbands’ and wives’ own engagement in the four forms of TPC was associated with decreased relationship uncertainty and interference from a partner, and increased facilitation from a partner; however, time-averaged and time-specific associations between TPC and relationship qualities differed for husbands and wives. Husbands’ average reports of relationship-focused communication demonstrated the strongest associations with their own relationship experiences, while wives’ relational qualities were more strongly associated with fluctuations in communication from week to week. We also found associations between husbands’ reports of attempts to increase confidence one week and improvement in their wife’s relationship experience. Finally, per H6, we found significant associations between increases in husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of their spouse’s engagement in TPC and their own relationship experiences in a given week.

Examination of the patterns of effects in this study points to noticeable differences in associations between the actor effects of TPC on relationship qualities for husbands and wives. In particular, for husbands’, time-averaged effects of TPC demonstrated stronger associations with relationship qualities than did their time-specific effects. In contrast, wives’ relationship experiences were more strongly tied to increases in TPC (above the mean) from week to week (with the exception of facilitation from a partner, which demonstrated large and significant time-averaged and time-specific effects). This pattern suggests that husbands’ may be evaluating their relationship experiences based on more global assessments of their communication with their spouse, while wives’ relationship qualities are more tied to daily changes in communication. These changes may reflect the gendered nature of the COVID-19 lockdown period. A wealth of research suggests that women took on greater child and household responsibility and experienced higher levels of stress and anxiety during the pandemic than men (Kowal et al., 2020; McLaren et al., 2020; Pieh et al., 2020). In a dyadic study by Waddell et al. (2021), husbands and wives both acknowledged that wives took on an unfair share of parenting duties and housework during the pandemic, and this inequitable division of domestic labor was associated with increases in reported relationship problems and decreases in relationship satisfaction. Given the disproportionate effects of the pandemic on women’s workloads (McLaren et al., 2020), and the imbalance of labor in different-sex marriages more generally, women may have experienced more dramatic daily and week-to-week changes in their routines and responsibilities during the lockdown period. In turn, women may be more focused on the “here and now” of pandemic life, including their interpersonal relationships, and therefore less responsive to global conditions.

Tests of our hypotheses paralleled those of Brisini and Solomon (2020c); however, this study, demonstrated stronger correlations between transition processing variables and operationalizations of relationship parameters, with more significant associations. Although speculative, we wonder if the difference in associations is related to the nature of the transition. While previous studies examined TPC with regard to developmental progressions, the context for this study might be conceptualized as an aberration calling for coping more than transitioning to a new, permanent state. During the summer of 2020, families were faced with a sudden, seemingly acute stressor—in this case, a drastic change in lifestyle that was stressful, but had a presumable end. Our sample, in particular, faced an acute stressor in the form of a disruption to their work routine. In contrast, Brisini and Solomon (2020c) examined the experiences of parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) during their child’s transition to school for the first time. Although the transition to school is an important event for these families and is temporally bound, raising children with ASD may be considered a chronic stressor for both the individual and the relationship. Indeed, parents of children with ASD experience increased childcare burden and stress (Brobst et al., 2009; Griffith et al., 2010) and in turn, decreased time for relational maintenance (Saini et al., 2015) and increased conflict (Hartley et al., 2017). Thus, the transition to school, as studied by Brisini and Solomon (2020c), may represent one of many ongoing challenges amidst the chronic stress of child-rearing in this context. As a result, increased engagement in TPC may prove less consequential. The difference in the two studies suggests that perceptions of the nature of the imposed change might moderate the benefits of TPC.

The current study tested a relatively unexamined claim set forth by relational turbulence theory. In doing so, we provided evidence that relationship-focused communication has the potential to influence relationship parameters and forestall the emergence of relational turbulence. Relational turbulence theory also predicts reciprocal relationships between relational uncertainty, changes in interdependence, and relational communicational, with a particular focus on communication valence and engagement. Because TPC is communication that is specifically linked to navigating a transition, we considered the potential for TPC to reduce relational uncertainty and improve interdependence the more theoretically and pragmatically important side of this reciprocal relationship. However, future longitudinal studies may further clarify the role of TPC in experiences of turbulence by examining the ways in which uncertainty and interdependence influence partner’s willingness to engage in TPC from one week to the next.

In addition to testing a core theoretical claim advanced by relational turbulence theory, this study has practical applications for married couples and relationship counselors. Our results point to four forms of communication that may serve to improve marital experiences for couples during the pandemic, and across difficult transitions. In particular, our study suggests that married partners may decrease relational uncertainty and improve interdependence by: (a) increasing positive interaction with one’s spouse, (b) promoting connection through relationship talk and self-disclosure, (c) situating oneself in the current context through positive re-framing and constructing narratives, and (d) increasing confidence in the relationship through verbal and non-verbal commitment indicators. All four forms of TPC were associated with improvements in partners’ relationship experiences over the course of the study; however, the perception that a spouse attempted to increase confidence in the relationship through relational maintenance demonstrated particularly robust effects for both husbands and wives. This finding aligns with previous research pointing to relational maintenance, and commitment indicators more specifically, as means of reducing uncertainty and improving relationship quality (Ogolsky et al., 2017; Weigel et al., 2011).

Results of this study demonstrate significant associations between a married partner’s own communication and their relationship experiences. The study also found associations between a partner’s perception of their spouse’s relationship-focused communication and relationship experiences the following week. Husbands’ and wives’ self-reported TPC, however, demonstrated very few effects on their spouse’s relationship quality, especially for husbands. These results suggest that for relationship health, perhaps as important as engaging in relationship-focused communication during difficult transitions, is recognizing when a partner is making such attempts. In this study, correlations between husbands’ and wives’ self-report behaviors and their spouse’s perceptions of their behaviors range from .47 to .52, which suggests that husbands’ and wives’ may not recognize their partners’ attempts to engage in TPC. Thus, relationship counselors and married partners in general may find greater relationship improvement if husbands’ and wives’ make attempts not only to increase TPC, but to recognize their partners attempts.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The results of this study are qualified by the limitations of our methodology. First, our study engaged a sample of married couples for whom at least one partner was working from home or without a job due to COVID-19 restrictions. These sampling criteria allowed us to examine couples experiencing major changes in everyday routines and norms, however, they also influenced the size of our sample and introduce sampling biases (e.g., people who were previously unemployed were omitted from this study). The relative homogeneity of the sample decreases the generalizability of the findings. Although we did not specifically recruit different sex couples for the study, the final sample consisted solely of different sex, married couples, and participants were primarily white. In doing so, the results may not speak to the experiences of individuals in same sex relationships, individuals of color, or those who were cohabitating (not married) during the pandemic lockdown. The study also did not account specifically for financial stressors, which have been associated with increased marital conflict throughout the lockdown period (Lee et al., 2022).

Although our study maintained ample degrees of freedom to conduct our analyses due to the repeated measures design, the relatively small sample of participants may influence the generalizability of our findings. In addition, participants were allowed to opt-in to the diary survey component of the study, and our sample is not random, which provides the opportunity for selection bias. Our study was also administered using self-report scales, online survey software, and text message distribution. This method allowed for decreased recall bias and minimal interruption to participants’ lives; however, self-report scales are also associated with increased self-report bias, especially for reports of communication behaviors. With these limitations in mind, future studies should engage random sampling techniques and external observation to examine married partner’s engagement in TPC.

Conclusion

This paper engaged relational turbulence theory (Solomon et al., 2016) to examine the associations between relationship-focused communication and marital qualities during the summer of COVID-19. Specifically, we utilized a dyadic, repeated measures study to test the impact of transition processing communication on experiences of relational uncertainty and disruptions to interdependence over the course of 10 weeks during the nation-wide shut down and eventual re-opening. Our results offer insight into the forms of communication that influenced relationship qualities during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide a potential framework for future interventions aimed at improving relationship experiences during difficult life events.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kellie St.Cyr Brisini

Notes

Author Biographies

Kellie St.Cyr Brisini is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Louisiana State University.

Denise Haunani Solomon is a liberal arts professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University.

References

Adams

Todd

. (2020). Meeting the school-age childcare needs of working parents facing COVID-19 distance learning. (Report No. ED610005). Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/meeting-school-age-child-care-needs-working-parents-facing-covid-19-distance-learning

Afifi

T. D.

Merrill

A. F.

Davis

. (2016). The theory of resilience and relational load. Personal Relationships, 23(4), 663–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12159

Balzarini

R. N.

Muise

Zoppolat

Di Bartolomeo

Rodrigues

D. L.

Alonso-Ferres

Urganci

Debrot

Bock Pichayayothin

Dharma

Chi

Karremans

J. C.

Schoebi

Slatcher

R. B.

(2022). Love in the time of COVID: Perceived partner responsiveness buffers people from lower relationship quality associated with COVID-related stressors. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221094437

Berscheid

(1983). Emotion. In Kelley

H. H.

Berscheid

Christensen

Harvey

J. H.

Huston

T. L.

Levinger

McClintock

Peplau

L. A.

Peterson

D. R.

(Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110–168). Freeman.

Blundell

Costa Dias

Joyce

(2020). COVID-19 and inequalities. Fiscal Studies, 41, 291–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12232

Brandon

D. M.

Long

J. H.

Loraas

T. M.

Mueller-Phillips

Vansant

. (2013). Online instrument delivery and participant recruitment services: Emerging opportunities for behavioral accounting research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-50651

Brisini

K. S. C.

Solomon

D. H

. (2018). Relationship transitions for parents of children with autism spectrum disorder: types, turbulence, and transition processing communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1498980

Brisini

K. S. C.

Solomon

D. H

. (2020a). Children’s Transitions and Relational Turbulence in Marriage: Can Transition Processing Communication Help? Journal of Family Communication, 20(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2019.1662421

Brisini

K. S. C.

Solomon

D. H

. (2020b). Relational uncertainty and Taking conflict personally: Comparing parents of children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 50(12), 4401–4411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04492-6

10.

Brisini

K. S. C.

Solomon

D. H

. (2020c). Relational turbulence and marital communication when children with Autism start school: A longitudinal dyadic diary study. Health Communication, 35(4), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1567445

11.

Brisini

K. S. C.

Solomon

D. H.

Nussbaum

. (2018). Transitions in marriage: Types, turbulence, and transition processing activities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(6), 831–853. https://doi.org/10/1177/0265407517699283

12.

Brobst

J. B.

Clopton

J. R.

Hendrick

S. S.

(2009). Parenting children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: The couple’s relationship. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357608323699

13.

Calarco

J. M.

Anderson

Meanwell

E. V.

Knopf

(2020a). “Let’s not pretend it’s fun”: How COVID-19-related school and childcare closures are damaging mothers’ well-being. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/jyvk4

14.

Calarco

J. M.

Meanwell

E. V.

Anderson

Knopf

(2020b). “My husband thinks I’m crazy”: COVID-19-related conflict in couples with young children. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/cpkj6

15.

Chung

Chan

Lanier

P. W. Y.

(2020). Associations between work-family balance, parenting stress, and marital conflicts during COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nz9s8

16.

Fitzpatrick

Gareau

Lafontaine

M. F.

Gaudreau

(2016). How to use the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to estimate different dyadic patterns in Mplus: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.1.p074

17.

Gistelinck

Loeys

(2020). Multilevel autoregressive models for longitudinal dyadic data. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 27(3), 433–452.

18.

Goodboy

A. K.

Bolkan

Sharabi

L. L.

Myers

S. A.

Baker

J. P.

(2020). The relational turbulence model: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 222–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa002

19.

Griffith

G. M.

Hastings

R. P.

Nash

Hill

(2010). Using matched groups to explore child behavior problems and maternal well-being in children with Down syndrome and autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(5), 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0906-1

20.

Günther-Bel

Vilaregut

Carratala

Torras-Garat

Pérez-Testor

(2020). A Mixed-method study of individual, couple, and parental functioning during the state-regulated COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Family Process, 59(3), 1060–1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12585

21.

Hartley

S. L.

Papp

L. M.

Mihaila

Bussanich

P. M.

Goetz

Hickey

E. J.

(2017). Couple conflict in parents of children with versus without Autism: Self-reported and observed findings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2152–2165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0737-1

22.

Hiraoka

Tomoda

(2020). Relationship between parenting stress and school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 74(9), 497–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13088

23.

E. O.

(1997). Neglecting and ignoring menopause within a gendered multiple transitional context: Low income Korean immigrant women. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.

24.

Kenny

D. A.

Acitelli

L. K.

(2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.439

25.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.

26.

Knobloch

L. K.

Carpenter-Theune

K. E.

(2004). Topic avoidance in developing romantic relationships: Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research, 31(2), 173–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203261516

27.

Knobloch

L. K.

Miller

L. E.

Bond

B. J.

Mannone

S. E.

(2007). Relational uncertainty and message processing in marriage. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 154–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701390069

28.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal Actor–Partner Interdependence Model. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.542471

29.

Kowal

Coll-Martín

Ikizer

Rasmussen

Eichel

Studzińska

Koszałkowska

Karwowski

Najmussaqib

Pankowski

Lieberoth

Ahmed

(2020). Who is the most stressed during the COVID-19 pandemic? Data from 26 countries and areas. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 12(4), 946–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12234

30.

Lebow

J. L

. (2020). Family in the age of COVID-19. Family Process, 59(2), 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12543

31.

Lee

Yoo

Chin

Son

Sung

Chang

Y. E.

(2022). Pathways from economic hardship to couple conflict by socioeconomic status during COVID-19 in Korea. Family Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12771

32.

Luetke

Hensel

Herbenick

Rosenberg

(2020). Romantic relationship conflict due to the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in intimate and sexual behaviors in a nationally representative sample of American adults. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 46(8), 747–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2020.1810185

33.

McLaren

H. J.

Wong

K. R.

Nguyen

K. N.

Mahamadachchi

K. N.

(2020). Covid-19 and women’s triple burden: Vignettes from Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Vietnam and Australia. Social Sciences, 9(5), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9050087

34.

McLaren

R. M.

Solomon

D. H.

Priem

J. S.

(2011). Explaining variation in contemporaneous responses to hurt in premarital romantic relationships: A relational turbulence model perspective. Communication Research, 38(4), 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377896

35.

Meleis

A. I.

Sawyer

L. M.

E.-O.

Hilfinger Messias

D. K.

Schumacher

(2000). Experiencing transitions: An emerging middle-range theory. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200009000-00006

36.

Messias

D. K. H

. (1997). Narratives of transnational migration, work, and health: The live experiences of Brazilian women in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.

37.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302

38.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Monk

J. K.

Rice

T. M.

Theisen

J. C.

Maniotes

C. R.

(2017). Relationship maintenance: A review of research on romantic relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9, 275–306. https://doi.org/libezp.lib.lsu.edu/10.1111/jftr.12205

39.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Surra

C. A.

Monk

J. K.

(2016). Pathways of commitment to wed: The development and dissolution of romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12260

40.

Pals

J. L.

(2006). Narrative identity processing of difficult life experiences: Pathways of personality development and positive self-transformation in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 74(4), 1079–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00403.x

41.

Pieh

Budimir

Probst

(2020). The effect of age, gender, income, work, and physical activity on mental health during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 136, 110186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110186

42.

Priem

J. S.

Solomon

D. H.

Steuber

K. R.

(2009). Accuracy and bias in perceptions of emotionally supportive communication in marriage. Personal Relationships, 16(4), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01238.x

43.

Robbins

M. L.

Wright

R. C.

María López

Weihs

(2019). Interpersonal positive reframing in the daily lives of couples coping with breast cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 37(2), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2018.1555198

44.

Saini

Stoddart

K. P.

Gibson

Morris

Barrett

Muskat

Nicholas

Rampton

Zwaigenbaum

(2015). Couple relationships among parents of children and adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Findings from a scoping review of the literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 17, 142–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2015.06.014

45.

Sawyer

L.M

. (1996). Engaged mothering within a racist environment: The transition to motherhood for a group of African American women. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California San Fransisco, San Francisco.

46.

Schmid

Wörn

Hank

Sawatzki

Walper

(2020). Changes in employment and relationship satisfaction in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the German family Panel. European Societies, 23, S743–S758. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1836385

47.

Smail

Riehm

Veldhuis

Johnson

Holingue

Stuart

E. A.

Kalb

Thrul

(2020). Associations of household structure and presence of children in the household with mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. PsyArxiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8qm7s

48.

Solomon

D. H.

Brisini

K. S.

(2017). Operationalizing relational turbulence theory: Measurement and construct validation. Personal Relationships, 24(4), 768–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12212

49.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(6), 795–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504047838

50.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

McLaren

R. M.

(2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12091

51.

Theiss

J. A.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2009). An actor-partner interdependence model of irritations in romantic relationships. Communication Research, 36(4), 510–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333033

52.

Theiss

J. A.

Knobloch

L. K.

Checton

M. G.

Magsamen-Conrad

(2009). Relationship characteristics associated with the experience of hurt in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 35(4), 588–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01364.x

53.

Theiss

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(2006a). A relational turbulence model of communication about irritations in romantic relationships. Communication Research, 33(5), 391–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206291482

54.

Theiss

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(2006b). Coupling longitudinal data and multilevel modeling to examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy experiences in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 469–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00284.x

55.

Waddell

Overall

N. C.

Chang

V. T.

Hammond

M. D.

(2021). Gendered division of labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for relationship problems and satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(6), 1759–1781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996476

56.

Weigel

D. J.

Ballard-Reisch

D. S.

(2002). Investigating the behavioral indicators of relational commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(3), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502193006

57.

Weigel

D. J.

Brown

O’Riordan

C. K.

(2011). Everyday expressions of commitment and relational uncertainty as predictors of relationship quality and stability over time. Communication Reports, 24(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2010.511400

58.

Worley

T. R.

Shelton

M. R.

(2020). Work–family conflict, relational turbulence mechanisms, conflict tactics and marital satisfaction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(2), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1735647