Stress,Dyadic Coping,and Relationship Instability During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

How romantic partners respond to stress has important implications for the well-being of their relationship. In this study, we examined the effects of three types of stress on relationship instability and evaluated individuals’ perceptions of their partner’s dyadic coping as a mediator in a sample of 117 different-gender couples (N = 234) across 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that perceived stress, but not economic pressure or pandemic concerns, was associated with increases in relationship instability for both men and women. For women but not men, perceived stress was negatively associated with dyadic coping, and dyadic coping was related to lower relationship instability. Although direct effects were present for most of the variables of interest, dyadic coping did not mediate the associations between stress and relationship instability for either partner. These findings underscore the direct paths between stress, adaptive responses, and relationship instability, building upon past theorizing and research on stress and dyadic coping.

Keywords

Stability romantic relationships couples dating marriage crisis

Stress, Dyadic Coping, and Relationship Instability during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted American society. Not only has the US recorded over 600,000 deaths and 37,000,000 infections as of this writing (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021), but the pandemic also destabilized the economy, forcing many businesses to close and causing record unemployment rates (U.S. Department of Labor, 2020). Beyond the economic consequences of the pandemic, individuals reported great uncertainty and stress related to their own and their family’s health and well-being (American Psychological Association, 2020). Although the individual consequences of pandemic-related stressors are well-documented, stress is not an individual phenomenon (Bodenmann, 1995, 2005). Investigations into the effects of stress within intimate partnerships are particularly important in the context of COVID-19, when many social supports were disrupted as a result of public health guidelines.

There is a robust association between stress and romantic relationship functioning (see Neff & Karney, 2017). Stress external to a couple (e.g., job stress) weighs heavily on partners and can lead to poor relationship outcomes, such as dissatisfaction and instability (Falconier & Jackson, 2020; Randall & Bodenmann, 2017). When under stress, partners tend to perceive more problems in their relationship (Neff & Karney, 2004) and are less likely to engage in positive relationship behaviors that facilitate conflict resolution (Neff & Karney, 2009, 2017). Consequently, episodes of stress may be associated with reductions in the adaptive processes needed to maintain relational stability in the face of stressors. For example, shared coping efforts (i.e., dyadic coping) promote resilience to stress and its relational consequences (Falconier et al., 2015; Papp & Witt, 2010); however, stressful experiences reduce dyadic coping efforts (e.g., Johnson et al., 2016) as individuals feel depleted from their stress and may lack the energy necessary to successfully cope (Buck & Neff, 2012). Although major and uncontrollable stressors might provide opportunities for partners to support one another in the context of adversity (e.g., Clavél et al., 2017; Cohan, 2010), findings regarding the effects of major stressors are mixed (Randall & Bodenmann, 2009), and the COVID-19 pandemic brought about stressors manifesting from various domains (e.g., financial and pandemic-specific concerns), which are likely related to poorer dyadic coping efforts.

In the present study, we sought to advance research on the association between stress (i.e., perceived stress, economic pressure, and pandemic concerns) and relationship instability (i.e., the cognitive and affective process of considering ending a relationship; Booth et al., 1983) across 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic by examining the mediating role of percieved dyadic coping of partners. Exploring the role of this adaptive process is important because dyadic coping abilities might be taxed in times of stress (Johnson et al., 2016) and dyadic coping is related to relationship well-being (e.g., Falconier et al., 2015).

Stress and Relationship Instability

Overall, general feelings of stress are high during the pandemic (Kowal et al., 2020), which may influence individuals’ romantic relationships (Williamson, 2020). Many Americans are contending with numerous stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic (American Psychological Association, 2020), including struggling to cover basic expenses (Parker et al., 2020) and a fear of death caused by the virus (Pradhan et al., 2020). Economic pressure, or stress related to one’s finances, for example, is associated with concerns about a relationship’s future (Barton & Bryant, 2016). In addition to economic stress, the COVID-19 pandemic spurred concerns about health and well-being (Pradhan et al., 2020). Concerns about the pandemic may be associated with relationship outcomes (Balzarini et al., 2020; Overall et al., 2020), given that health-related stress is linked to psychological distress and reduced life satisfaction (e.g., Meier et al., 2011), which can negatively impact relationship processes (e.g., Proulx et al., 2007; Manne et al., 2010; Rajaei et al., 2021). Further, perceived stress, a measure of global feelings of stress (Cohen et al., 1983), is likely to capture experiences of stress beyond just the domains of finances or health, including general stressors, which are consequential for relational well-being (Baldoni et al., 2020; Bodenmann, 1995). Taken together, various forms of stress are related to reduced relationship satisfaction (Archuleta et al., 2011; Barton et al., 2015; Karney et al., 2005), and they are associated with concerns about the long-term viability of the relationship through their harmful effects on relational interactions (Barton & Bryant, 2016; Conger et al., 1990; Gudmunson et al., 2007). Despite the likelihood that these stressors can influence individual’s perceptions that their relationship is in trouble, there is limited research exploring each of these domains of stress and relationship instability.

Although family stress models focus on relationship stability as a static construct (i.e., stability as a binary state of together or separated), scholars have acknowledged the complex, process-oriented nature of instability (e.g., Karney et al., 1999; Monk et al., 2018). For example, one critical antecedent to dissolution is feeling that the relationship is unsteady or in trouble, which can capture a relationship period that is rife with upheaval before an assured decision to terminate the relationship is made, if ever (Booth et al., 1983). If partners are unable to effectively cope with a stressor, their relationship might be at risk for breakup. Generally, relationship dissolution is associated with emotional and psychological distress (Bourassa et al., 2019; Sbarra & Emery, 2005), as well as reduced life satisfaction (Rhoades et al., 2011). Relationship instability provides important insight as a precursor of breakup, which may occur even for individuals who are relatively satisfied in their relationships (Lavner & Bradbury, 2012). Whereas fluctuations in relationship satisfaction are a normative aspect of relationships (Arriaga et al., 2006; Langlais et al., 2017), relationship instability suggests that an individual believes the relationship is in trouble and is considering ending the relationship or has taken steps to do so (Booth et al., 1983), which is likely a critical indicator of the viability of the relationship before dissolution occurs.

Stress and Adaptive Processes

The stressors couples faced during the pandemic may necessitate engagement in pro-relationship behaviors, such as dyadic coping (Falconier et al., 2015; Neff & Karney, 2017). Dyadic coping involves partners communicating about their concerns and engaging in joint coping efforts through positive, supportive communication (Bodenmann, 1995, 2005). The process of dyadic coping involves either both partners sharing appraisals of stress and managing this stress together or one partner assisting the other in coping with stress (Bodenmann & Randall, 2020). Dyadic coping is consistently associated with relationship satisfaction (Falconier et al., 2015; Hilpert et al., 2016; Rusu et al., 2020), and is negatively associated with divorce (Bodenmann & Cina, 2006) and destructive interaction amidst stress (Hilpert et al., 2015, 2018), demonstrating its benefits for relationship well-being.

Although stress may necessitate dyadic coping within couples, it might also impede couples’ abilities to engage in adequate dyadic coping. Williamson et al. (2013), for example, found that individuals who reported high levels of stress responded to their partners with more negativity in problem-solving and support provision tasks, above and beyond individuals’ level of satisfaction with their relationship. Stress theories can provide insight into the effects of stressors, including pandemic-related stress, on relationship processes (e.g., Pearlin & McCall, 1990). Several theories highlight the adverse effect stress can have on family life (Hill, 1949; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). For example, the two-route model of stress effects on marriage (Neff & Karney, 2017) proposes that stress hinders constructive marital interaction in the face of compounding problems, resulting in changes in marital stability. According to these models, the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated stressors require behaviors like dyadic coping if couples wish to maintain relational stability (Pietromonaco & Overall, 2021); however, stress may, paradoxically, hinder abilities to constructively engage in dyadic coping.

Although stress is linked to both reductions in dyadic coping and increased relationship instability, to our knowledge, no research has examined the indirect effect of stress on relationship instability through dyadic coping. Importantly, an individual’s perceptions of their partner’s behavior are often more salient than their partner’s reported behaviors (see Joel et al., 2020; Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013). Because perceptions of a partner’s relationship maintenance behaviors (vs. the self-reported behaviors themselves) are most influential in relationship outcomes (Falconier et al., 2015; Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013) and dyadic coping is a form of relationship maintenance (Bodenmann & Randall, 2020), we evaluated perceptions of a partner’s dyadic coping efforts. In line with research and theory we outlined, we expected there to be direct effects between each stressor and both dyadic coping (negatively associated) and relationship instability (positively associated). We also hypothesized that dyadic coping would be negatively associated with relationship instability. Finally, we hypothesized an indirect effect of the stressors of interest on relationship instability through perceptions of a partner’s dyadic coping. Although much of the literature on dyadic coping uses longitudinal designs, little is known about its role in changes in relationship instability over time. Longitudinal research on this association is necessary to determine if lower levels of dyadic coping are a mechanism explaining the detrimental effect between stress and relationship instability. Accordingly, we examined changes in relationship instability over time by accounting for prior reports of instability assessed earlier in the pandemic.

Method

Sample

Data for this study were drawn from a larger longitudinal project on relationship functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were recruited through posts on various social media platforms and emails to community organizations. To increase the diversity of the sample, the researchers advertised the study on various social media groups (e.g., unemployment Facebook groups). Eligible participants were those who were over the age of 18, had access to a computer, lived in the United States, and had a romantic partner who was also willing to participate in Wave 1.

A total of 235 individuals (117 different-gender dyads) completed Wave 1. One individual was removed from the sample because her partner did not participate. At Wave 1, 65% of couples were legally married, 25.6% were casually or exclusively dating, 6.0% were engaged to be married, and 3.4% were in a domestic partnership or civil union. Eighty-eight percent of couples reported living together all the time, 6.0% reported living together part of the time but maintaining separate residences, and 6.0% of the couples lived in separate residences all the time. Additionally, at Wave 1, 67.2% of men reported quarantining or isolating due to the pandemic; of those, 93.6% reported quarantining or isolating with their partner. Similarly, 83.8% of women reported quarantining or isolating due to the pandemic; of those, 76.9% reported doing so with their partner. On average, men reported earning an individual monthly income of $3,000–$3,999, whereas women earned $2,000–$2,999 on average. Additional demographic information is available in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic variables (N = 234).

	Men (n = 117)		Women (n = 117)
Variables	M	SD	M	SD
Age	32.27	9.30	30.19	8.46
	n	%	n	%
Race
White	97	82.9	96	82.1
Hispanic/Latino/a	7	6.0	5	4.3
African American/Black	4	3.4	1	0.9
Multiracial	6	5.1	10	8.5
Other	3	2.6	5	4.3
Education
High school education, equivalent or less	5	4.3	3	2.6
Partial college	24	20.5	14	11.9
Trade school	5	4.3	1	0.9
Four year university	58	49.6	57	48.7
Graduate or professional Degree	25	21.4	42	35.9
Employment status
Full time	76	65.0	60	51.3
Part time	6	5.1	11	9.4
Student	14	12.0	11	9.4
Homemaker	0	0.0	19	16.2
Furloughed	8	6.8	5	4.3
Out of work	10	8.5	5	4.3
Self-employed	1	0.9	4	3.4
Retired	2	1.7	2	1.7

Procedure

After completing the eligibility questionnaire, participants were sent an email with instructions, a link to the first survey, and a unique identifier to link their responses across waves. Partners were directed to complete the surveys independently from one another and to refrain from discussing their responses until they had both submitted their surveys. The surveys took approximately 45 minutes to complete, and each partner was compensated with a $10 gift card to a national vendor for each survey they completed. Participants who completed all three surveys received an additional $10, for a total of $40. Participants completed the surveys in early May (Wave 1) and completed subsequent waves approximately four (Wave 2) and six (Wave 3) months after the initial survey.

Measures

Relationship Instability

At the first and third wave, five items from the marital instability index (Booth et al., 1983) assessed relationship instability (e.g., “How often do you think about breaking up with or leaving your partner?”; 1 = Never/Very Unlikely; 5 = Very often/Very likely). Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater instability. In the current study, the scale had acceptable to moderate reliability at Wave 1 (α_men = .81, α_women = .84) and Wave 3 (α_men = .73, α_women = .88). Across waves, missingness for this variable was moderate (ranging from 0.4% to 14.5%).

Economic Pressure

Economic pressure was represented by three constructs assessed at Wave 1. First, participants responded to a single item adapted from Conger et al. (1994). The item asked, “Think over the past month. Generally, did you end up with…” with responses ranging from 1 (More than enough money left) to 5 (Very short of money). Higher scores indicated higher economic pressure. Second, participants reported on their unmet material needs with seven items (Conger et al., 1994). These items began with the stem, “Your family has the money you need for…“, with example responses including “clothing” and “food.” Responses ranged from 1 (Strongly agree) to 7 (Strongly disagree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of material need. Reliability for this sample was high for men (α = .90) and women (α = .90). Third, participants reported on unstable work experiences with six items (Conger et al., 1994). These items asked, “During the past month, have you had the following experiences?” Example responses included “changing jobs for a worse one” or “involuntary losses of work” with a binary response (0 = No; 1 = Yes). Reliability for these six items was high for men (α = .90) and women (α = .90). To create the economic pressure variable, responses across the three scales were averaged and standardized. Reliability for this standardized variable was moderate for men (α = .81) and acceptable for women (α = .79). There were no missing responses for this variable. A principal component analysis confirmed the items met acceptable levels of extraction.

Pandemic Concerns

Pandemic concerns were assessed at Wave 1 with six items. Two items measured individuals’ concern with the state of the pandemic (e.g., “How concerned are you that the COVID-19 outbreak is now considered a pandemic?“; 1 = Not at all concerned; 4 = Extremely concerned). Additionally, four items assessed individuals’ uncertainty about the health and well-being of themselves, their partner, their friends, and their family members (1 = Completely uncertain; 7 = Completely certain). After reverse scoring the health concern items, the items were standardized and averaged to create a standardized variable. Greater values indicated greater concerns about the pandemic. Reliability for this measure was moderate for men (α = .80) and women (α = .84). Missingness was minimal for this variable (0.4%). A principal component analysis confirmed the items met acceptable levels of extraction.

Perceived Stress

Perceived stress was assessed at Wave 1 using the 14-item perceived stress scale (Cohen et al., 1983). A sample item includes “In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and ‘stressed’?” (1 = Never; 5 = Very often). Responses were averaged, and higher scores indicated greater perceived stress. Reliability for this sample was moderate for men (α = .84) and women (α = .84). Missingness was minimal for this variable (0.4%).

Dyadic Coping

Perceptions of partner’s positive dyadic coping were assessed at Wave 2 with 16 items from the Dyadic Coping Inventory (Bodenmann et al., 2018). We averaged responses from the subscales assessing common dyadic coping (five items), supportive dyadic coping (five items), delegated dyadic coping (two items), and stress communication (four items). Responses were given on five-point Likert scales (e.g., “My partner shows empathy and understanding to me; ” 1 = Very rarely; 5 = Very often). Items were averaged, with greater values indicating greater perceptions of positive dyadic coping from one’s partner. Reliability for this sample was high for men (α = .92) and women (α = .90). Missingness was moderate for this variable (8.1%).

Covariates

Relationship length, marital status, and presence of children were included as covariates based on their influence on relationship functioning (e.g., Proulx et al., 2017).

Analysis Plan

Prior to conducting analyses to address our hypotheses, we conducted bivariate correlations to evaluate the relations among study variables (see Table 2). To test our hypotheses, we conducted a path analysis using Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). All variables of interest were correlated between partners to account for the non-independence of the data. Missing data were accounted for using full information maximum likelihood (FIML; Acock, 2005). Skewness and kurtosis values were outside the recommended range for relationship instability (Byrne, 2012). Therefore, maximum likelihood robust (MLR) estimation was used to calculate the initial models. However, because the testing of indirect effects does not allow for MLR estimation, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with 2000 iterations of bootstrapping was used for the final model testing indirect effects.

Table 2.

Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics for study variables (N = 234).

	Bivariate Correlations							Descriptive Statistics
								Men (n = 117)		Women (n = 117)
Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1. Perceived stress (Wave 1)	.23 *	.33**	.29**	−.13	.17	.26*	−.13	2.50	0.55	2.75	0.52
2. Economic pressure (Wave 1)	.21*	.59 **	.13	.05	.11	.13	.09	0.00^†	0.54	0.00	0.52
3. Pandemic concerns (Wave 1)	.25**	.18*	.28 **	.04	.07	.08	.09	0.00^†	0.70	0.00	0.75
4. Perceptions of partner’s positive dyadic coping (Wave 2)	-.23*	-.05	-.16	.48 **	-.13	-.12	-.05	3.78	0.63	3.89	0.60
5. Relationship instability (Wave 1)	.27*	.21*	.13	−.31**	.57 **	.73**	−.11	1.48	0.48	1.58	0.53
6. Relationship instability (Wave 3)	.35**	.26**	.13	−.41**	.78**	.31 **	−.21*	1.39	0.41	1.47	0.53
7. Relationship length (Wave 1)	−.20*	.07	.15	−.16	.05	−.04	-	7.84	8.39	7.89	8.62

Note. Descriptive statistics and correlations come from raw data. Bolded diagonal values are correlations between partners within the same couple. Men’s values are above the diagonal; women’s values are below the diagonal. Correlations were calculated accounting for moderate missing data among variables (≤19.7%). Relationship length was computed at the couple-level.

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

^†Economic pressure and pandemic concerns were standardized variables.

Model fit was estimated using the χ² test, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We used the established guidelines of values below .08 for RMSEA, values greater than .95 for CFI and TLI, and values below .10 for SRMR to indicate good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Change in relationship instability was assessed by controlling for relationship instability at Wave 1.

Results

In terms of attrition, 21 men and 10 women dropped out of the study by Wave 3. There were no significant differences in variables of interest between those who completed the study and those who did not (p-values ranged from .08 to .96).

Testing Direct Effects

For both men and women, mean levels of relationship instability at Wave 1 did not significantly differ from relationship instability at Wave 3. Men and women did not significantly differ on any predictor variables with the exception of perceived stress, t (230.4) = −3.55, p < .001 (M = 3.11, SD = .36 for men; M = 3.27, SD = .30 for women). We used chi-square difference tests to determine which parallel paths to constrain to be equal across partners by comparing the model fit with the constrained paths with a fully unconstrained model. Given all constraints between partners degraded the model fit, parallel paths were freely estimated across partners.

Stressors

The first model, addressing the effect of stressors on change in relationship instability and dyadic coping, was a poor fit to the data (χ² [50] = 86.96, p < .001; RMSEA = .08, 90% CI = [.05, .11]; CFI = .85; TLI = .85; SRMR = .09). Marital status (β = −.11, SE = .10, p = .27 for men; β = −.07, SE = .08, p = .35 for women), relationship length (β = −.06, SE = .05, p = .22 for men; β = −.06, SE = .06, p = .37 for women), and the presence of children (β = −.06, SE = .08, p = .48 for men; β = .04, SE = .08, p = .62 for women) did not reliably predict relationship instability. Consequently, the covariates were removed from the model for parsimony. Next, a model with all stress variables predicting dyadic coping and relationship instability was conducted. In this model, perceived stress was negatively associated with dyadic coping for men (β = −.24, SE = .09, p < .05), but not women (β = −.14, SE = .08, p = .09). Perceived stress was positively associated with relationship instability for men (β = .20, SE =. 07, p < .01) and women (β = .12, SE = .06, p < .05). However, economic pressure was not associated with dyadic coping (β = .11, SE = .08, p = .17 for men; β = −.04, SE = .09, p = .65 for women) or relationship instability (β = −.04, SE = .06, p = .45 for men; β = .08, SE = .06, p = .18 for women). Similarly, pandemic concerns were not significantly associated with dyadic coping (β = .06, SE = .09, p = .49 for men; β = −.12, SE = .06, p = .06 for women) or relationship instability (β = .02, SE = .06, p = .69 for men; β = −.03, SE = .06, p = .65 for women). Removing economic pressure and pandemic concerns from the model did not significantly degrade model fit; therefore, these variables were removed from the model for parsimony. The final model for direct effects resulted in a good fit to the data (see Table 3). Perceived stress was positively associated with relationship instability for men (β = .19, SE = .07, p < .01) and women (β = .13, SE = .05, p < .05), supporting the direct effects hypothesis with regard to perceived stress. The effect of perceived stress on dyadic coping was not significant using conventional thresholds for men (β = −.17, SE = .09, p = .054), but it was significant for women (β = −.18, SE = .08, p < .05).

Table 3.

Summary of coefficients and standard errors for direct effects (N = 234).

	Unstandardized		Standardized
Variables	B	SE	β	SE
Relationship instability
Men’s perceived stress (Wave 1)	.15**	.06	.19**	.07
Women’s perceived stress (Wave 1)	.13*	.06	.13*	.05
Men’s perceptions of dyadic coping (Wave 2)	−.02	.04	−.03	.07
Women’s perceptions of dyadic coping (Wave 2)	−.15*	.06	−.17*	.07
Men’s relationship instability (Wave 1)	.63***	.09	.71***	.08
Women’s relationship instability (Wave 1)	.71***	.09	.73***	.05
Dyadic coping
Men’s perceived stress (Wave 1)	−.20	.11	−.17	.09
Women’s perceived stress (Wave 1)	−.21*	.10	−.18*	.08
	R ²
Men’s perceptions of dyadic coping	.03
Women’s perceptions of dyadic coping	.03
Men’s relationship instability (Wave 3)	.58***
Women’s relationship instability (Wave 3)	.65***

Note: Direct effects are presented from trimmed model using MLR estimation. This model fits the data well (χ² [12] = 17.97, p = .12; CFI = .97; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .07, 90% CI = [.00, .12]; SRMR = .07).

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

Dyadic Coping

Next, we tested the association between dyadic coping and relationship instability. Dyadic coping was not significantly associated with relationship instability for men (β = −.03, SE = .07, p = .63). However, the effect was statistically significant for women (β = −.17, SE = .07, p < .05). Although a gender difference was not hypothesized, we conducted a post-hoc analysis to determine whether this difference in men and women was significant. An omnibus Wald test determined the paths from dyadic coping to relationship instability were not significantly different between men and women, χ² (1) = 2.70, p = .10.

Testing Indirect Effects

Finally, we tested the mediating role of dyadic coping in the link between stress and relationship instability. This model was a good fit to the data (χ² [12] = 17.97, p = .12; RMSEA = .07, 90% CI = [.00, .12]; CFI = .97; TLI = .95; SRMR = .07). The total effect (i.e., direct and indirect effect) from perceived stress to relationship instability was significant for men (β = .19, SE = .07, p < .01) and women (β = .16, SE = .05, p < .01). However, the indirect effect through dyadic coping was not significant for men (β = .01, SE = .01, p = .63) or women (β = .03, SE = .02, p = .11), indicating that dyadic coping did not reliably mediate the effect of perceived stress on relationship instability. Bootstrapping cannot be used with the robust estimator; therefore, we bootstrapped these effects using ML estimation, which produced a good fit to the data (χ² [12] = 20.26, p = .06; RMSEA = .08, 90% CI = [.00, .13]; CFI = .96; TLI = .93; SRMR = .07). Similar results were found when assessing the total effect (β = .19, SE = .07, p < .01 for men; β = .16, SE = .05, p < .01 for women; see Figure 1) and total indirect effect (β = .01, SE = .01, p = .69 for men; β = .03, SE = .02, p = .12 for women) using ML.

Figure 1.

Path model. Note: Standardized coefficients are presented above. T = Total effect; TI = Total indirect effect. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The current study examined the direct and indirect associations among three types of stress, dyadic coping, and changes in relationship instability in romantic couples across 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also investigated the mediating role of dyadic coping between stress and relationship instability. We found partial support for our first hypothesis in that global perceived stress, but not economic pressure or pandemic concerns, was positively associated with relationship instability; higher levels of stress predicted increased relationship instability while accounting for baseline levels of instability. Similarly, we found partial support for the second hypothesis, as perceived stress, but not economic pressure or pandemic concerns, was negatively associated with perceptions of a partner’s dyadic coping for women; this effect was marginally significant for men in the final model. We also found partial support for our third hypothesis, as dyadic coping was negatively associated with relationship instability for women, but not men. In terms of indirect effects, we did not find evidence that dyadic coping served as a mediating mechanism in the association between stress and relationship instability. Overall, this study provides evidence that stressed women were less likely to perceive dyadic coping from their partner and individuals experienced increases in their relationship instability across 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our study underscores previous findings demonstrating an association between stress with relational upheaval (Barton & Bryant, 2016; Barton et al., 2015) in that stress may promote increases in perceptions or thoughts of relational turmoil. This effect was not significant for economic pressure or pandemic concerns as specific sources of stress in our path model, likely because the global measure of perceived stress encompasses many specific stressors that are subsumed into an overall appraisal of stress. Further, our sample was predominantly middle class and reported low levels of economic pressure and pandemic concerns. These results are in line with past findings suggesting that uncontrollable and salient experiences of stress may not negatively impact relationships (Clavél et al., 2017; Cohan, 2010; Diamond & Hicks, 2012). It is possible that the common experience of the pandemic allowed couples to attribute specific stressors to external forces rather than their partners, protecting them from considering relational disruption (Williamson et al., 2021). On the other hand, consistent with theoretical perspectives on relationship functioning amidst stress (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Neff & Karney, 2017), individuals’ perceived stress early in the pandemic was influential in their concerns of relationship dissolution, even while accounting for prior relationship instability and other relevant personal and relationship characteristics. This might be related to the fact that perceived stress encapsulates responses to major and minor stressors (Cohen et al., 1983) which might arise from the conditions of the pandemic, and minor stressors are robustly related to poorer relationship quality (see Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). Although stress certainly impacts concurrent relationship functioning (Neff & Karney, 2017), our findings suggest that experiences of stress also influence individuals’ considerations for the future of their relationship. Because instability is consequential for the well-being of individuals (Bourassa et al., 2019; Rhoades et al., 2011), reducing levels of stress in the wake of crises is important for protecting individual and relational well-being (Cohan & Cole, 2002).

We found support for past theorizing that stressful environments tax individuals’ ability to engage in adaptive processes (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Neff & Karney, 2017). In line with this perspective, our results indicated that episodes of stress, which are common during the pandemic (American Psychological Association, 2020), were negatively associated with perceptions of supportive and positive coping behaviors from a partner. This effect was in the same direction for men and women but was significant only for women. This builds upon evidence that stressful environments burden individuals’ cognitive capacities, leaving them with limited resources to give or perceive positive relationship behaviors (Buck & Neff, 2012; Neff & Karney, 2004).

We found that perceptions of a partner’s dyadic coping were negatively associated with relationship instability for women, but not men. Women who perceived less dyadic coping from their partner reported increases in their relationship instability over 6 months. The fact that this association was significant for women, but not men, may be because there was greater variability to predict in relationship instability for women than men. The greater variability in instability for women may be due to the fact that women demonstrate greater attentiveness to the state of the relationship than men do (e.g., Acitelli, 1992), or that the task of maintaining relationships tends to fall on women (Ogolsky & Monk, 2018). Although the pandemic may increase emotional labor burdens on women (Kowal et al., 2020; see also Mooi-Reci & Risman, 2021), we did not find a significant gender difference in the association between perceptions of a partner’s dyadic coping and relationship instability, perhaps due to our dyadic sample, which might result in higher-functioning couples (Barton et al., 2020). However, this explanation as to why this effect was not significant for men is speculative given we did not find significant evidence of a true gender difference in the effect itself. Similarly, depending on what measures of stress were included in the model, the effect of perceived stress on dyadic coping was significant for one gender, but not the other. With the inclusion of economic pressure and pandemic concerns in the model, perceived stress was negatively associated with dyadic coping for men, but not women. However, with economic pressure and pandemic concerns removed from the model, this same effect was significant for women, but not men. Further, this contradictory change in significance between partners reinforces that when using traditional self-report measures in relationship science, women and men are often more alike than different in many relational processes (Zell et al., 2015) and demonstrates a potentially unique interplay between different forms of stress, as global, perceived stress may already encompass reports of economic and pandemic-specific stress (Cohen et al., 1983).

Finally, contrary to our predictions, dyadic coping did not mediate the association between stress and relationship instability for men or women using conventional thresholds (p < .05). It is possible that our model, given its number of parameters and small sample size, lacked the necessary power to detect an indirect effect. Additionally, although average levels of relationship instability decreased across the study, these differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, there was limited variability to predict in the outcome after accounting for prior instability. Other behaviors, such as negative dyadic coping, demand/withdraw patterns, destructive conflict, or aggression might serve as the mechanism between stress and relationship instability, given the impact of negative behaviors on relationship outcomes (Rivers & Sanford, 2018), which might be more salient than positive behaviors (see Gottman & Gottman, 2017). Even so, this finding likely reflects the importance of the unique associations between each of the study variables. Our results demonstrate that stress does not fully operate through dyadic coping; rather, it has direct implications for relationship instability.

Limitations and Future Directions

The limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting its results. First, the sample for our study was largely homogeneous among ethnic and economic factors, which can limit the power to find and generalize effects beyond our primarily White, middle-class sample. Second, although the number of dyads in our sample is comparable to other studies (e.g., Karademas & Roussi, 2017; Knobloch & Knobloch-Fedders, 2010), our sample size was relatively small and the number of parameters in dyadic models can impair the ability to find reliable effects. Third, the sample reported relatively low levels of economic pressure and relationship instability, which limited the amount of variance to explain, especially when controlling for prior reports of instability. When studying couples, dyadic samples tend to report better relationship functioning than samples of individuals in relationships (Barton et al., 2020). Future work should investigate these associations in individuals or couples who report greater relationship instability. Fourth, our measure for pandemic concerns was not previously validated, and thus may explain the null findings present in our study. Future studies might assess this construct with a validated scale for pandemic anxiety (Lee, 2020). Because data regarding individuals’ perceived stress and relationship instability were not measured before the pandemic, we also cannot conclude that stress was caused by the pandemic. Given global stress was measured during the pandemic, however, it is reasonable to believe that individuals’ levels of stress occurred at least partly in response to factors related to the pandemic, which is supported by other studies (American Psychological Association, 2020; Kowal et al., 2020). Similarly, existing stress models suggest that enduring vulnerabilities, such as individual differences, might partially explain the effects of stress on relationship stability (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). For example, neuroticism might influence this association, as individuals high in neuroticism are more prone to feelings of stress or worry. Although individual factors tend to have minimal effects on relationship outcomes when compared to relationship factors (Le et al., 2010), these unique differences might reduce or exacerbate the experiences of stress. Future work would benefit from exploring other mechanisms that may explain associations between stress, coping, relationship instability, and individual variables. For instance, ample research demonstrates the role that stress plays in experiences of individual mental health, and subsequent relationship behaviors (e.g., Neppl et al., 2016). Our study is also limited by the fact that we did not collect data on ability status. Future studies should examine the role of ability status when examining stress, dyadic coping, and relationship instability. Additionally, our measure of general stress did not distinguish between external stress and internal stress (i.e., stress within the relationship). It is possible that participants reported on stress that was occurring within their relationships, which might conflate the associations between stress and relationship instability. Finally, although we surveyed couples across a 6-month period of the pandemic, the pandemic has continued to evolve over time. Perceptions and experiences of the pandemic, and its associated consequences, are likely to compound and change as the pandemic continues. Analyses that consider relational processes for the duration of the pandemic and beyond would be beneficial in clarifying the role of adaptive processes and stress in relationship instability.

Implications and Conclusion

The US government attempted to stymie the economic consequences of the pandemic by providing stimulus checks to many citizens. Even so, a plethora of stressors remain, such as concerns about health, caring for children while working from home, and social isolation (Sanderson et al., 2020). Our findings suggest that general feelings of stress during the pandemic, which may be attributed to a variety of sources, might be harmful for relationship functioning and outcomes. Accordingly, community organizations and government entities should consider additional means of reducing stress during the pandemic to promote the well-being of individuals and their romantic relationships (e.g., Cooney & Shaefer, 2021).

Understanding the connections between stress, coping, and relationship outcomes is consequential for relationship research and intervention. Insight into the efficacy of dyadic coping in reducing thoughts of ending the relationship is influential for therapy, as couples under stress can learn to manage their stress together to ward off its negative consequences (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004). Clinicians might help couples recognize the external nature of their stress, attributing it to the pandemic rather than to one another (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). This externalization of problems may help partners depersonalize relational tension and inspire more cooperation within their relationship in order to encourage the enactment of dyadic coping. Additionally, crises such as natural disasters might act as catalysts in major life decisions, such as relationship dissolution, as individuals seek to find meaning and gain control of their lives (Cohan & Cole, 2002). Accordingly, clinicians can help partners develop strong coping skills amidst crises as a means to negotiate goals and meaning. Though their coping efforts might be taxed in the face of adversity, therapists can help couples work together to endure external issues and exert agency over their lives.

Overall, the results of this study demonstrate the influence of stressful contexts in relationship functioning. Our findings align with models of family stress, demonstrating the links between stress and relationship instability, while expanding common conceptualizations of instability to include considerations of dissolution rather than the act of dissolution. However, we did not find evidence that dyadic coping is the mechanism that connects stress to relationship instability. As more research is conducted on the relational impacts of COVID-19, researchers and clinicians can seek to elucidate the role of adaptive processes like dyadic coping in relationship instability over time.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

This research was partially supported by an internal grant from the University of Missouri.

ORCID iDs

Matthew A. Ogan

J. Kale Monk

Jeremy B. Kanter

References

Acitelli

L. K.

(1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181015.

Acock

A. C.

(2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 1012-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x.

American Psychological Association (2020). Stress in America 2020: A national mental health crisis. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/report-october.

Archuleta

K. L.

Britt

S. L.

Tonn

T. J.

Grable

J. E.

(2011). Financial satisfaction and financial stressors in marital satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 108(2), 563-576. https://doi.org/10.2466/07.21.PR0.108.2.563-576.

Arriaga

X. B.

Reed

J. T.

Goodfriend

Agnew

C. R.

(2006). Relationship perceptions and persistence: Do fluctuations in perceived partner commitment undermine dating relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1045-1065. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1045.

Baldoni

Giannotti

Casu

Luperini

Spelzini

(2020). A dyadic study on perceived stress and couple adjustment during pregnancy: The mediating role of depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Issues, 41(11), 1935-1955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20934834.

Balzarini

R. N.

Muise

Zoppolat

Bartolomeo

A. D.

Rodrigues

D. L.

Alonso-Ferres

, et al (2020). Love in the time of COVID: Perceived partner responsiveness buffers people from lower relationship quality associated with covid-related stressors. https://psyarxiv.com/e3fh4/download?format=pdf.PsyArXiv

Barton

A. W.

Bryant

C. M.

(2016). Financial strain, trajectories of marital processes, and African American newlyweds' marital instability. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(6), 657-664. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000190.

Barton

A. W.

Futris

T. G.

Nielsen

R. B.

(2015). Linking financial distress to marital quality: The intermediary roles of demand/withdraw and spousal gratitude expressions. Personal Relationships, 22(3), 536-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12094.

10.

Barton

A. W.

Lavner

J. A.

Stanley

S. M.

Johnson

M. D.

Rhoades

G. K.

(2020). "Will you complete this survey too?" Differences between individual versus dyadic samples in relationship research. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 196-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000583.

11.

Bodenmann

(1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 34-49.

12.

Bodenmann

(2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson

T. A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33-49). American Psychological Association.

13.

Bodenmann

Arista

L. J.

Walsh

K. J.

Randall

A. K.

(2018). Dyadic coping inventory. In Lebow

Chambers

Breunlin

D. C.

(Eds), Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_678-1.

14.

Bodenmann

Cina

(2006). Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44(1–2), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v44n01_04.

15.

Bodenmann

Randall

A. K.

(2020). General and health‐related stress and couples' coping. In Wampler

K. S.

Blow

A. J.

(Eds), The Handbook of Systemic Family Therapy (Volume 3, pp. 253-268). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119790945.ch11.The Handbook of Systemic Family Therapy

16.

Bodenmann

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(5), 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x.

17.

Booth

Johnson

Edwards

J. N.

(1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(2), 387-394. https://doi.org/10.2307/351516.

18.

Bourassa

K. J.

Tackman

A. M.

Mehl

M. R.

Sbarra

D. A.

(2019). Psychological overinvolvement, emotional distress, and daily affect following marital dissolution. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.184.

19.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

(1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3.

20.

Buck

A. A.

Neff

L. A.

(2012). Stress spillover in early marriage: The role of self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 698-708. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029260.

21.

Byrne

B. M.

(2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

22.

Clavél

F. D.

Cutrona

C. E.

Russell

D. W.

(2017). United and divided by stress: How stressors differentially influence social support in African American couples over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(7), 1050-1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217704195.

23.

Cohan

C. L.

(2010). Family transitions following natural and terrorist disaster: Hurricane Hugo and the September 11 terrorist attack. In Miller

T. W.

(Ed), Handbook of stressful transitions across the lifespan (pp. 149-164). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0748-6_8.Handbook of Stressful Transitions Across the Lifespan

24.

Cohan

C. L.

Cole

S. W.

(2002). Life course transitions and natural disaster: Marriage, birth, and divorce following Hurricane Hugo. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(1), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.16.1.14.

25.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404.

26.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Lorenz

F. O.

Conger

K. J.

Simons

R. L.

Whitbeck

L. B.

, et al (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(3), 643-656. https://doi.org/10.2307/352931.

27.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. Lorenz

F. O.

Simons

R. L.

(1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541-561.

28.

Cooney

Shaefer

H. L.

(2021). Material hardship and mental health following the COVID-19 relief bill and American Rescue Plan Act. University of Michigan Poverty Solutions.

29.

Diamond

L. M.

Hicks

A. M.

(2012). "It's the economy, honey!" Couples' blame attributions during the 2007-2009 economic crisis. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 586-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01380.x.

30.

Falconier

M. K.

Jackson

J. B.

(2020). Economic strain and couple relationship functioning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 27(4), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000157.

31.

Falconier

M. K.

Jackson

J. B.

Hilpert

Bodenmann

(2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002.

32.

Gottman

(2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12182.

33.

Gudmunson

C. G.

Beutler

I. F.

Israelsen

C. L.

McCoy

J. K.

Hill

E. J.

(2007). Linking financial strain to marital instability: Examining the roles of emotional distress and marital interaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28(3), 357-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-007-9074-7.

34.

Hill

(1949). Families under stress: Adjustment to the crises of war separation and return. Harper.

35.

Hilpert

Kuhn

Anderegg

Bodenmann

(2015). Comparing simultaneously the effects of extra-dyadic and intra-dyadic experiences on relationship outcomes. Family Science, 6(1), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2015.1082018.

36.

Hilpert

Randall

Sorokowski

Atkins

Sorokowska

Ahmadi

, et al (2016). The associations of dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction vary between and within nations: A 35-nation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106.

37.

Hilpert

Milek

Atkins

D. C.

Bodenmann

Bradbury

T. N.

(2018). Couples coping with stress: Between-person differences and within-person processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(3), 366-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000380.

38.

L. t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

39.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Allison

C. J.

Arriaga

X. B.

Baker

Z. G.

Bar-Kalifa

, et al (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061-19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117.

40.

Johnson

M. D.

Horne

R. M.

Galovan

A. M.

(2016). The developmental course of supportive dyadic coping in couples. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 2031-2043. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000216.

41.

Karademas

E. C.

Roussi

(2017). Financial strain, dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction, and psychological distress: A dyadic mediation study in Greek couples. Stress and Health, 33(5), 508-517. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2735.

42.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2016.1.02.

43.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

Johnson

M. D.

(1999). Deconstructing stability. In Adams

J. M.

Jones

W. H.

(Eds), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 481-499). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

44.

Karney

B. R.

Story

L. B.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2005). Marriages in context: Interactions between chronic and acute stress among newlyweds. Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping, 13–32.

45.

Knobloch

L. K.

Knobloch-Fedders

L. M.

(2010). The role of relational uncertainty in depressive symptoms and relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 137-159.

46.

Kowal

Coll‐Martín

Ikizer

Rasmussen

Eichel

Studzińska

, et al (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.

47.

Langlais

M. R.

Surra

C. A.

Anderson

E. R.

Priem

(2017). Differentiating declining commitment and breakup using commitment to wed. Journal of Family Studies, 23(3), 352-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1120225.

48.

Lavner

J. A.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2012). Why do even satisfied newlyweds eventually go on to divorce? Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025966.

49.

Dove

N. L.

Agnew

C. R.

Korn

M. S.

Mutso

A. A.

(2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377-390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x.

50.

Lee

S. A.

(2020). Coronavirus anxiety scale: A brief mental health screener for COVID-19 related anxiety. Death Studies, 44(7), 393-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2020.1748481.

51.

Manne

Badr

Zaider

Nelson

Kissane

(2010). Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 4(1), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-009-0109-y.

52.

Meier

Bodenmann

Moergeli

Jenewein

(2011). Dyadic coping, quality of life, and psychological distress among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients and their partners. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 6, 583-595. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S24508.

53.

Monk

J. K.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Oswald

R. F.

(2018). Coming out and getting back In: Relationship cycling and distress in same‐ and different‐sex relationships. Family Relations, 67(4), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12336.

54.

Mooi-Reci

Risman

B. J.

(2021). The gendered impacts of COVID-19: Lessons and reflections. Gender & Society, 35(2), 161-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001305.

55.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

56.

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(2), 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255984.

57.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 435-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015663.

58.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2017). Acknowledging the elephant in the room: How stressful environmental contexts shape relationship dynamics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.013.

59.

Neppl

T. K.

Senia

J. M.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2016). Effects of economic hardship: Testing the family stress model over time. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000168.

60.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Bowers

J. R.

(2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512463338.

61.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Monk

J. K.

(2018). Maintaining relationships. In Vangelisti

Perlman

(Eds), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 523-537). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.040.

62.

Overall

N. C.

Chang

V. T.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Low

R. S. T.

Henderson

A. M. E.

(2020). Whose relationships are vulnerable during COVID-19 quarantines? Partners’ attachment anxiety and stress predict poorer relationship functioning. Open Science Foundation. https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/7cvdm/providers/osfstorage/5f2f6020479288008585c561?action=download&direct&version=1.

63.

Papp

L. M.

Witt

N. L.

(2010). Romantic partners' individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 551-559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020836.

64.

Parker

Minkin

Bennett

(2020). Economic fallout from COVID-19 continues to hit lower-income Americans the hardest. Pew Research Center’s. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/09/24/economic-fallout-from-covid-19-continues-to-hit-lower-income-americans-the-hardest/.

65.

Pearlin

L. I.

McCall

M. E.

(1990). Occupational stress and marital support. In Eckenrode

Gore

(Eds), Stress between work and family (pp. 39-60). Plenum Press.Stress Between Work and Family

66.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Overall

N. C.

(2021). Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples' relationships. American Psychologist, 76(3), 438-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000714.

67.

Pradhan

Chettri

Maheshwari

(2020). Fear of death in the shadow of COVID-19: The mediating role of perceived stress in the relationship between neuroticism and death anxiety. Death Studies, 1, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2020.1833384.

68.

Proulx

C. M.

Ermer

A. E.

Kanter

J. B.

(2017). Group-based trajectory modeling of marital quality: A critical review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12201.

69.

Proulx

C. M.

Helms

H. M.

Buehler

(2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x.

70.

Rajaei

Jensen

J. F.

Brimhall

A. S.

Torres

E. T.

Schwartz

A. J.

(2021). Dyadic function of couples with cancer: A review. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 20(3), 279-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2020.1841055.

71.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004.

72.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010.

73.

Rhoades

G. K.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

Atkins

D. C.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2011). Breaking up is hard to do: The impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 366-374.

74.

Rivers

A. S.

Sanford

(2018). Negative relationship behavior is more important than positive: Correlates of outcomes during stressful life events. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(3), 375-384. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000389.

75.

Rusu

P. P.

Nussbeck

F. W.

Leuchtmann

Bodenmann

(2020). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal study disentangling timely stable from yearly fluctuations. Plos One, 15(4), e0231133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231133.

76.

Sanderson

W. C.

Arunagiri

Funk

A. P.

Ginsburg

K. L.

Krychiw

J. K.

Limowski

A. R.

, et al (2020). The nature and treatment of pandemic-related psychological distress. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 50(4), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-020-09463-7.

77.

Sbarra

D. A.

Emery

R. E.

(2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12, 213-232.

78.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker.

79.

U.S. Department of Labor (2020). Unemployment insurance weekly claims: Release number USDL 20-1574-NAT. https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf.

80.

Williamson

H. C.

(2020). Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationship satisfaction and attributions. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1479-1487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620972688.

81.

Williamson

H. C.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2013). Financial strain and stressful events predict newlyweds' negative communication independent of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031104.

82.

Williamson

H. C.

Zheng

Neff

L. A.

(2021). Blame the pandemic: Stress spillover in the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. National Council on Family Relations. https://www.ncfr.org/ncfr-report/summer-2021/blame-pandemic-stress-spillover-recovery.

83.

Zell

Krizan

Teeter

S. R.

(2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208.