An experimental approach to communal coping

Abstract

Communal coping has been linked to better psychological and physical health across a variety of stressful contexts. However, there has been no experimental work causally linking communal coping to relationship and health outcomes. In addition, research has emphasized the collaboration over the shared appraisal component of communal coping. The present study sought to isolate the role of appraisal by manipulating whether dyads viewed a stressor as shared or individual. Friend dyads (n = 64 dyads; 128 participants) were randomly assigned to view a stressor as either a shared or an individual problem, but both groups were allowed to work together. Across self-report and observational measures dyads reported more collaboration and support, better relationship outcomes, and more positive mood after the stressor in the shared than the individual appraisal group. This is the first laboratory evidence to establish causal links of communal coping—specifically shared appraisal—to positive relationship and health outcomes.

Keywords

Coping interpersonal perceptions responsiveness social support stress

Stress occurs when individuals perceive that they lack the resources necessary to handle a threatening situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). One way people can manage stressors is by leveraging resources from their social network—that is, engage in interpersonal coping rather than individual coping. One specific type of interpersonal coping is communal coping—which consists of a shared appraisal of the stressor and joint collaboration to manage it (Helgeson et al., 2018; Lyons et al., 1998). Appraisal refers to how an individual cognitively perceives a stressor; these appraisals exist along a continuum from the perception of a stressor as a completely individual problem to a completely shared problem (Basinger, 2018). Collaboration refers to collective action undertaken to manage the stressor (Lyons et al., 1998), and refers to any number of strategies that reflect joint input, mutual effort, and a team approach to address the stressor (Berg et al., 2008).

Although communal coping is defined in terms of these two components, some researchers have examined communal coping holistically without distinguishing between the two. Measures of overall communal coping have been linked to positive adjustment outcomes across a variety of stressors, particularly in the realm of chronic illness. For example, research has linked observational measures of communal coping to better relationship quality and less psychological distress (Van Vleet et al., 2018) and self-reports of communal coping to positive mood and better self-care behaviors on the same day as well as the next day for persons with type 2 diabetes and their spouses (Zajdel et al., 2018).

In contrast, some researchers have focused on the collaboration portion of communal coping and found links to positive relationship and health outcomes. For example, collaboration has been linked to more positive adjustment on a daily basis in men with prostate cancer and their spouses (Berg et al., 2008), and to better relationship quality, less psychological distress, and better self-care behaviors among persons with diabetes (Zajdel & Helgeson, 2020). An interpersonal coping strategy that is closely related to collaboration—common dyadic coping—has also been linked to fewer depressive symptoms in women with breast cancer (Rottmann et al., 2015) as well as better diet and exercise adherence in persons with type 2 diabetes (Johnson et al., 2013).

However, there is less research on the second component of communal coping—shared appraisal. Shared appraisal has been studied primarily through an indirect measure of “we-talk” which refers to the use of first-person plural pronouns. This measure is thought to capture the relative interdependence between two individuals (Karan et al., 2019). We-talk has been linked to enhanced relationship quality, reduced psychological distress and better self-care behavior among people who face a variety of chronic health stressors (see Karan et al., 2019 for a review). Some studies have also included self-report measures of shared appraisal in the context of diabetes (i.e., extent to which a couple member perceives diabetes to be a shared problem) and linked those appraisals to lower psychological distress and better illness-specific outcomes (Berg et al., 2020; Zajdel et al., 2019).

More recently, researchers have suggested that shared appraisal and collaboration are distinct aspects of communal coping rather than representative of a single holistic construct (e.g., Zajdel & Helgeson, 2020). In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there is synergy between shared appraisal and collaboration. Not only has shared appraisal been linked to positive relationship and health outcomes, but some research suggests that shared appraisal may influence the relation of collaboration to outcomes. For example, collaboration was more strongly linked to psychological and physical health when patients held a shared rather than an individual appraisal of diabetes (Helgeson et al., 2019), and daily collaboration was linked to worse self-care and blood glucose when patients with type 1 diabetes held an individual appraisal, but not when they held a shared appraisal (Berg et al., 2020). Further, among youth with type 1 diabetes, collaboration with parents was related to more effective coping when diabetes was viewed as a shared responsibility (Berg et al., 2009).

Despite the large body of work that has linked communal coping and its components to relationship and health outcomes, all of this work is correlational. That is, none of this research examines the causal links of communal coping to relational or health outcomes. Although there are some interventions that incorporate aspects of communal coping theory (e.g., Rohrbaugh et al., 2012), communal coping is only one component of the intervention making it difficult to determine if the effects of the intervention are due to communal coping, shared appraisal, collaboration, or other intervention components. Similar interventions have focused on increasing collaborative behaviors in couples (e.g., Trief et al., 2016; Wooldridge & Ranby, 2018), but have not focused on fostering a shared appraisal. However, if a shared appraisal augments the benefits of collaboration, researchers might want to consider manipulating the appraisal of a stressor to impact relational and health outcomes. Thus, the primary goal of this study is to extend the literature on communal coping by manipulating a shared vs. individual appraisal of a laboratory stressor to examine its effects on collaboration, relationship processes, stressor outcomes, and mood as a proxy for psychological health.

A laboratory design will add internal validity to the rich literature on communal coping and its components—as the vast majority of the work has been studied in the context of chronic illness and is characterized by strong external validity. We examine the effects of a shared versus individual appraisal in the context of a stressor reliably known to increase laboratory stress—the speech task of the Trier Social Stress Test (Kirschbaum et al., 1993). We identified three sets of outcomes that parallel those studied in the chronic illness literature: relational intimacy, coping (e.g., self-efficacy, problem-solving), and mood (proxy for psychological health) in a sample of healthy dyads.

In addition to these three primary outcomes, we examined two relational processes that have been postulated to mediate the links of communal coping to outcomes: social support and perceived responsiveness (Helgeson et al., 2018; Zajdel et al., 2018). Social support—the emotional and tangible resources that one person provides to another (Cohen & Syme, 1985)—has been linked to health across a variety of contexts (see DiMatteo, 2004 and Uchino, 2006 for reviews). Communal coping theory suggests that a shared appraisal may increase supportive interactions (Helgeson et al., 2018), although there has been no empirical evidence that causally tests this hypothesis. Communal coping theory suggests that a shared appraisal makes it more likely for the stressed individual to request support and be more receptive to network members’ support attempts—while also influencing network members to recognize the role they play in managing the stressor and increasing their support attempts (Helgeson et al., 2018). Thus, we examined whether manipulating a shared appraisal leads to increased support provision (both emotional and instrumental) and increased support receipt.

Not only is a shared appraisal likely to increase support behaviors, but that support is more likely to be perceived as responsive to needs under conditions of a shared rather than an individual stressor appraisal (Helgeson et al., 2018; Zajdel et al., 2018). Perceived responsiveness is the perception that one’s partner respects and understands the self and provides appropriate support (Reis et al., 2004). Under conditions of a shared appraisal, dyads are more likely to communicate regarding the stressor and discuss a collective action plan to manage it. In this context, both members of a dyad are likely to feel that the other person has responded in an appropriate manner. This study therefore sought to determine whether instilling a shared appraisal leads to an increased perception of responsive support.

Current study

To determine whether a shared stressor appraisal is linked to the primary outcomes of relationship intimacy, coping outcomes, and mood, as well as relationship processes of support and partner responsiveness, we manipulated whether friend dyads viewed a speech task as either a shared or individual problem while encouraging both groups to collaborate. Individuals were allowed to communicate via instant messaging in separate rooms.¹ We used multiple measures of appraisal, collaboration, and support processes that including self-report, coded ratings of instant message conversations, and linguistic analysis of conversations to ensure that findings generalized across these measures. We hypothesized that friend dyads in the shared appraisal condition would report more collaboration, enhanced relational processes (more support, greater perceived responsiveness), and improved primary outcomes (more relationship intimacy, better mood, and more effective coping) compared to those in the individual appraisal condition. We also hypothesized that linguistic indicators and coder-rated measures derived from transcripts of participants’ conversations would confirm these predictions.

Method

Participants

Participants were 128 undergraduates (n = 64 dyads) from Carnegie Mellon University. Individuals were instructed to bring a close friend over 18 years old to the research site. Participants (n = 128) were 33% White, 5% Black, and 62% Asian, and the average age was 19 years old (range 18–22 years). Participants included more females (66%) than males (34%).

Procedure

Participants were recruited via Carnegie Mellon University’s participant pool and asked to bring a close friend to the experiment. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire that included background measures (e.g., general relationship intimacy) and mood (Time 1). Dyad members were randomly assigned to the role of speaker or partner. Speakers were assigned to complete a modified Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) task (Kirschbaum et al., 1993) in which they were told they would have to give a speech that would be rated by judges. The TSST has been shown to provide a reliable stress response in participants, including college students (see Kudielka et al., 2007 for a review). Partners were assigned to complete a set of optional crossword puzzles.

Dyads were then randomly assigned to either the shared or individual appraisal condition, as described below. After the manipulation, speakers and partners were separated to complete a second questionnaire that assessed communal coping, relational processes, and primary outcomes (Time 2). The speaker had 10 minutes to prepare for the speech task while the partner had 10 minutes to complete the crossword puzzles—although partners were told they could choose if and how many crossword puzzles they wanted to complete. Dyad members were told that they could communicate and work together on the speech task as much as they wished over instant messaging (see below for full instructions). Communication transcripts were later coded for communal coping and outcome measures. After 10 minutes, participants completed a final questionnaire that assessed communal coping, relational processes, and primary outcomes (Time 3). Dyad members were then reunited, debriefed, and paid $10 or received course credit for participation.

Task description and appraisal manipulation

Participants in both conditions received the following instructions regarding the speech task:

You (to the speaker) are going to be asked to give a speech. You must imagine that at the end of an exam in one of your classes the TA says that he caught you cheating off Person B (the partner) during the exam and that you will face disciplinary action. You need to prepare and give a speech as if you are in front of the Academic Review Board appealing the claim. We will videotape this speech and have it reviewed by psychologists trained in reading body language to see how confident you are in your innocence.

Participants in both conditions were told that they would be taken to separate rooms to complete their first task, but that they would be allowed to communicate as much as they desired via instant messenger. Participants were told that they could communicate, brainstorm, help craft the speech, or help each other in any way that they wished during this time period.

Appraisal was then manipulated by telling dyads in the shared appraisal condition that they should view the task as shared. They were provided with examples of tasks that can be viewed as shared. Participants in the shared appraisal condition received these instructions:

Even though you (speaker) are accused of cheating off your friend (partner), we want you both to think of this as a shared problem. Sometimes in life there are things that happen that affect not just one person but affect the people who care about them. For example, imagine that one person in a couple is diagnosed with diabetes. They could both view diabetes as a joint problem—a problem that affects both of them and is shared. On the other hand, you could also imagine that one person in a couple is diagnosed with diabetes and it is viewed solely as the individual’s problem. With respect to this task, we want you both to view this as a joint problem. Even though you (speaker) are the one to actually give the speech, we want you to think about it as a shared problem.

In contrast, in the individual appraisal condition participants were told that even though they can work together, they should remember that it is the speaker’s task only. Participants in the individual appraisal condition received these instructions:

You (speaker) are accused of cheating off your friend (partner), and we want you both to think of this as your (speaker) problem. Sometimes in life there are things that happen that affect not just one person but affect the people who care about them. For example, imagine that one person in a couple is diagnosed with diabetes. They could both view diabetes as a joint problem—a problem that affects both of them and is shared. On the other hand, you could also imagine that one person in a couple is diagnosed with diabetes and it is viewed solely as the individual’s problem. With respect to this task, we want you both to view this as your (speaker) individual problem. You are the one who actually has to give the speech, so we want you to think about it as an individual problem.

Measures

Self-report measures were collected at three time points. As shown in Table 1, Time 1 instruments were measured at baseline when dyad members arrived at the laboratory. Time 2 instruments were measured after the appraisal manipulation but before couple members were separated to work on their respective tasks. Time 3 instruments were measured at the end of the speech preparation task.

Table 1.

Self-report measures by time point.

	Time 1 (Baseline)	Time 2 (Pre-discussion)	Time 3 (Post-discussion)
Demographics	X
General Relationship Intimacy	X
Cognitive Interdependence	X
Appraisal		X	X
Collaboration		X	X
Self-Report Support			X
Perceived Responsiveness			X
State Relationship Intimacy			X
Confidence		X	X
Mood	X	X	X

Note. All measures listed above are measured for both speaker and partner.

Behavioral coding of communal coping and relational processes were derived from the dyad’s communication transcripts. Raters, blind to condition, coded each line of the transcript of the dyad’s instant messaging conversation for: (1) speaker shared appraisal, (2) partner shared appraisal, (3) speaker support receptiveness, (4) partner instrumental support provision, (5) partner emotional support provision, and (6) speaker problem-solving. Raters determined whether each line of communication met the criteria for one of these five codes as either yes (1) or no (0). The number of times each code was used was summed for each transcript. Codes are defined in the relevant sections below and example items are shown in Supplementary Table 1. Raters were trained until their agreement reached or exceeded kappa = .80. Three raters coded 12 of the 64 transcripts (18.75%) of the transcripts, and kappa coefficients between each dyad were calculated. After that, remaining transcripts were coded by one of the three raters.

To assess overall support and collaboration (defined below) in line with a macroanalytic framework (Baucom et al., 2012), raters were also asked to give each transcript an overall support and collaboration score. Intra-class correlation coefficients were used to assess inter-rater reliability for these two codes. Raters were again trained until ICCs reached or exceeded .80.

Background measures

General relationship intimacy

At Time 1, participants were asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with four statements: (1) This person is one of my closest friends, (2) This person knows a great deal about me, (3) I tell this person a lot about myself, (4) I really trust this person. Participants also rated how close they are to their partner on a scale with 1 = not at all close and 10 = extremely close. Finally, participants completed the Inclusion of Other in Self Scale (IOS; Aron et al., 1992), which consists of seven pairs of concentric circles with various degrees of overlap from 1 (completely separate circles) to 7 (almost completely overlapping circles). Reliability for the 6-item scale was good for both speaker (α = .84) and partner (α = .89).

Cognitive interdependence

At Time 1, cognitive interdependence—the tendency to perceive oneself in relation to close others—was assessed with the 11-item Relational Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (Cross et al., 2000). Participants rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with items such as: “My close relationships are an important reflection of who I am.” Reliability was good for both speaker (α = .89) and partner (α = .84).

Task comprehension and manipulation check measures

Task comprehension

At Time 2 and Time 3, both speaker and partner were asked to indicate how much they agreed with two statements ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree: (1) My friend and I could communicate via instant messaging as much as needed, (2) I was instructed to work together with my friend on this task. These items sought to ensure participants listened to and understood the instructions.

Manipulation checks

At Time 2, speakers were asked to indicate how much they agreed with statements ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree: “This task is solely my responsibility”; “This task is as much my friend’s task as it was mine”; and “I was instructed to think of this task as a shared responsibility between me and my friend.” Partners answered the same three questions except the first statement read as: “This task is solely my friend’s responsibility.” These measures were designed for the specific stressor but adapted from previous research (e.g., Zajdel & Helgeson, 2020). Reliability was good for both speaker (α = .85) and partner (α = .89).

Communal coping measures

Appraisal

Appraisal was measured in three ways: (1) self-report, (2) transcript coding, and (3) we-talk via Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (Pennebaker et al., 2015). The self-report appraisal measure consisted of the same 3 items described above under the manipulation check. However, these items were administered after the speech preparation period (Time 3) to indicate how people interpreted the task they just completed. In other words, at Time 2 we were testing whether respondents heard and understood the appraisal instructions, whereas at Time 3 we were testing how participants viewed the task they had engaged in. Reliability was good for both speaker (α = .87) and partner (α = .82).

Transcript coding of shared appraisal was measured in terms of whether each line of the transcript met the following criterion: “explicit acknowledgment of the problem as shared from the speaker’s (or partner’s) point of view,” adapted from previous research (Van Vleet et al., 2018). Speakers explicitly used language that reflected a shared appraisal .31 times on average per transcript (range 0 to 2). Partners explicitly used language that reflected a shared appraisal .42 times on average per transcript (range 0 to 5).

Shared appraisal was also calculated from the proportion of pronouns that were first-person plural (e.g., we) using the LIWC software. The proportion of pronouns rather than the proportion of language captures the emphasis on whether patients and partners are talking about joint endeavors (we) rather than individual actions (I and he/she) consistent with previous research on communal coping (Helgeson et al., 2017, Lee et al., 2020).² The proportion of pronouns that were first-person plural ranged from 0 to 39% for speakers (M = 8%; SD = 10%) and 0% to 59% for partners (M = 11%; SD = 13%). Almost half of speakers (42%) and 36% of partners did not use any first-person plural pronoun language.

Collaboration

Collaboration was measured by (1) self-report and (2) transcript coding. At Time 3, the speaker and partner indicated how much they agreed with three statements ranging from 1 = very strong disagreement to 7 = very strong agreement: “My friend and I worked together to prepare for the speech”; “My friend and I combined our efforts and knowledge during this task”; “My friend and I discussed how best to approach this speech.” Reliability was good for both speaker (α = .92) and partner (α = .93). These items were grounded in communal coping theory (Helgeson et al., 2018) and adapted for the task.

Raters provided one overall collaboration code for the entire transcript to assess “the extent to which the speaker and partner worked together during the task or attempted to solve the problem together,” adapted from previous research (Van Vleet et al., 2018). Mean coded collaboration was 2.33 (SD = .96, range 1–5).

Relational processes

Social support

Social support was measured via (1) self-report and (2) transcript coding. Speaker self-report of support receipt was measured after the speech preparation (Time 3) by asking speakers if their friend: gave advice, made you feel good about yourself, listened to your concerns, helped you with the presentation, provided suggestions about the speech; whether the speaker felt supported by their friend during the task; and whether the speaker felt comfortable asking their friend for advice or suggestions. Speakers were asked to indicate their responses to each item on a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal. Partner support provision was measured via self-report through a parallel set of items (e.g., Did you give your friend advice or suggestions about the presentation?) with the same response scale. Reliability was good for speakers (α = .83) and partners (α = .87). These items were created for the study but were piloted in a previous sample of college-aged friend dyads (n = 98) and demonstrated adequate reliability (speaker α = .85; partner α = .73).

Transcripts were coded line by line for three measures of support: (1) speaker receptiveness to support, (2) partner instrumental support provision, and (3) partner emotional support provision. Speaker support receptiveness was defined as “the speaker accepting support from the partner via agreement, acceptance, or thanking.” Partner instrumental support provision was defined as “the provision of advice, help, or assistance to the speaker,” and partner emotional support provision was defined as “the provision of reassurance, compliments, agreement, or encouragement in regard to the stressor” (Van Vleet et al., 2019).

The global support code was defined as the extent to which the partner provided either tangible assistance or focused on the emotional needs of the partner throughout the conversation. Raters provided one overall judgment for the entire transcript from 1 = not at all to 5 = consistent and high quality (Van Vleet et al., 2018, 2019).

Perceived responsiveness

Perceived emotional responsiveness refers to the extent that one’s partner understands and appropriately supports the self (Reis et al., 2004). Speakers rated items adapted from Fekete and colleagues (2007) and supplemented with a few additional questions to assess 9 total items on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely: supportive, helpful, understanding, involved, judgmental, distant, interfering, controlling, demanding. The last 5 items were reverse coded so that the scale represented higher responsiveness scores. Reliability was good (α = .74). Partner feelings of responsiveness were assessed with 4-items rated on the same scale: appreciated, helpful, ignored, frustrated (Fekete et al., 2007). The last 2 items were reverse scored. Because the overall scale had low reliability (α < .70), the “frustrated” item was dropped which improved reliability (α = .75).

Primary outcomes

State relationship intimacy

At Time 3 only, participants were asked to indicate their agreement on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) with three statements: “I feel like my friend and I are on the same page,” “I feel connected with my friend,” and “I feel that my friend and I are partners in this.” Reliability was good for both speaker (α = .83) and partner (α = .82). These items were created for the study but were piloted in a previous sample of college-aged friend dyads (n = 98) and demonstrated adequate reliability (speaker α = .87; partner α = .80).

Stressor outcomes

Problem-solving

Transcripts were coded for problem-solving, which was defined as “evidence that the speaker was actively engaged in trying to solve the problem, through generating ideas or strategies to address the problem.” Because the speech task topic was an academic violation, strategies to address the problem often focused on the context of the speech and strategies for persuasion (see Supplementary Table 1 for examples).

Confidence

At both Time 2 and Time 3 speaker confidence was assessed with 3 items on a 0% to 100% scale: How confident are you in your ability to prepare for this speech? How confident are you in your ability to deliver a persuasive speech? How confident are you in your ability to convince those who watch the tape of your innocence? Reliability was good (Time 2 α = .94; Time 3 α = .95). Partner confidence regarding the speaker was asked with a parallel set of items and scale (e.g., How confident are you in your friend’s ability to prepare for this speech?). Reliability was good (Time 2 α = .90; Time 3 α = .94).

Mood outcomes

Participants rated their positive and negative mood at Times 1, 2, and 3 using items from the Profile of Mood States well-being, calm, anxiety, and depressed subscales (Usala & Hertzog, 1989). Each of the 12 items was rated on a 1 = not at all to 6 = very much scale. Reliabilities ranged from α = .83 to α = .93 for speakers and from α = .69 to α = .93 for partners across the three assessments. The average internal consistency across the scales for speakers was α = .90 and for partners was α = 87.

Overview of the analysis

First, baseline demographics (sex, age, race), general relationship intimacy, and cognitive interdependence were compared between conditions to ensure randomization was effective. Next, to examine manipulation checks, we ran a series of t-tests to compare conditions on relevant items as well as repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to assess whether the speech task reliably increased both speaker and partner reports of anxiety/stress.

To test our hypotheses, we ran a series of t-tests and repeated measure ANOVAs to assess whether the appraisal manipulation affected appraisal, collaboration, support, perceived responsiveness, state relationship intimacy, problem-solving, confidence, and mood at Time 3. T-tests were used for measures only administered at Time 3 (e.g., support, collaboration), while repeated measures ANOVAs were used when instruments were administered at multiple time points after the manipulation (e.g., mood, confidence). We ran post-hoc power analyses for both speaker and partner for the manipulation (shared appraisal) and one of our primary outcomes (social support) at Time 3 and determined there was adequate power (>80%).

Results

Evaluation of randomization effectiveness

None of the demographic (race, age, gender, ethnicity, year in school) or interpersonal variables relevant to communal coping (cognitive interdependence, general relationship intimacy) differed between conditions (ps > .05) for either speaker or partner.

Effects of condition on Time 2 task comprehension and manipulation checks

Results indicated that the manipulation instructions were clear to participants, as there were no condition differences in the extent to which speakers in the shared appraisal (M = 1.21, SD = .42) or individual appraisal condition (M = 1.26, SD = .44) endorsed the item “My friend and I can communicate via instant messaging as much as needed,” (t₍₆₂₎ = .43, p = .67; ηp² = .003). Similarly, there were no differences in this item for partners in the shared (M = 1.18, SD = .39) or individual appraisal conditions (M = 1.16, SD = .37; t₍₆₂₎ = −.21, p = .83; ηp² = .001). Speakers in the shared appraisal condition (M = 4.64, SD = .60) endorsed the item “I was instructed to work together with my friend on this task” more than those in the individual condition (M = 3.06, SD = 1.24; t₍₆₂₎ = −6.53, p < .001; ηp² = .41). Partners in the shared appraisal condition (M = 4.30, SD = 1.02) also endorsed this item more than those in the individual condition (M = 3.03, SD = 1.25; t₍₆₂₎ = −4.47, p < .001; ηp² = .24).

The manipulation was effective in increasing a shared appraisal at Time 2 for both speakers and partners. Prior to the speech preparation period, speakers reported more of a shared appraisal in the shared appraisal condition (M = 3.87, SD = .63) than speakers in the individual condition (M = 1.45, SD = .39; t₍₆₂₎ = −18.34, p < .001; ηp² = .84). Partners also reported greater shared appraisal in the shared appraisal condition (M = 4.48, SD = .58) compared to the individual condition (M = 2.08, SD = .72; t₍₆₂₎ = −14.83, p < .001; ηp² = .78).

Effect of condition on changes in anxiety (stress response)

The task appeared to produce a stress response for both dyad members. Repeated measures ANOVAs showed that speakers’ anxiety significantly increased after hearing the speech instructions across both conditions (F = 78.71, p < .001; ηp² = .56). Additionally, partners’ feelings of anxiety also significantly increased after hearing the speech instructions (F = 9.86, p < .01; ηp² = .14), but partners in the shared appraisal condition showed marginally more anxiety than those in the individual appraisal condition (F = 3.64, p < .10; ηp² = .06).

Effects of manipulation on Time 3 communal coping

As shown in Table 2, both components of communal coping—appraisal and collaboration—were higher in the shared appraisal condition compared to the individual appraisal condition after the speech preparation task for both speakers and partners. Coder-rated transcripts corroborated this finding by revealing more explicit indicators of shared appraisal in the shared appraisal compared to the individual appraisal conditions for both speaker and partner. Additionally, LIWC analyses indicated greater we-talk in the shared appraisal condition compared to the individual appraisal condition. Finally, coder-rated collaboration indicated dyads in the shared appraisal condition collaborated more than those in the individual appraisal.

Table 2.

Effects of manipulation on appraisal and collaboration after speech task.

	Speaker				Partner
	Shared Appraisal	Individual Appraisal	Group Comparison	Effect Size	Shared Appraisal	Individual Appraisal	Group Comparison	Effect Size
Time 3 SR Appraisal	4.11 (.78)	1.74 (.71)	t = −12.65***	η_p ² = .72	4.43 (.60)	2.29 (.92)	t = −11.11***	η_p ² = .67
Time 3 SR Collaboration	5.92 (1.47)	4.67 (1.82)	t = −3.01**	η_p ² = .13	5.81 (1.38)	4.55 (1.97)	t = −2.95**	η_p ² = .13
Coded Appraisal	.61 (.75)	.00 (.00)	t = −4.66***	η_p ² = .25	.76 (1.18)	.06 (.25)	t = −3.31**	η_p ² = .14
We-talk	.13 (.12)	.04 (.07)	t = −3.86***	η_p ² = .19	.17 (.15)	.04 (.05)	t = 4.80***	η_p ² = .26
Coded Collaboration^	2.61 (1.00)	2.03 (.84)	t = 2.50*	η_p ² = .09	--	--	--	--

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. -- Indicates this variable was not applicable for the individual. SR refers to self-report. ^Note that this variable is coded for the entire transcript; it is not a speaker or partner code.

Effects of the manipulation on Time 3 relational processes

As shown in Table 3, speakers reported receiving more social support and partners reported providing more social support at Time 3 in the shared appraisal compared to the individual condition. While there were no condition differences in coded speaker support receptiveness or coded partner emotional support provision, there was a trend toward more coded partner instrumental support provision in the shared appraisal condition compared to the individual appraisal condition. There was significantly more global support coded across the entire transcript in the shared appraisal compared to the individual condition. Both speakers and partners also reported greater perceived responsiveness in the shared appraisal compared to the individual condition.

Table 3.

Effects of manipulation on support, relationship intimacy, and problem-solving.

	Shared Appraisal	Individual Appraisal	Group Comparison	Effect Size
Self-Report Support Receipt: Speaker	4.45 (.59)	3.89 (.78)	t = −3.22**	ηp² = .14
Self-Report Support Provision: Partner	4.26 (.61)	3.72 (.81)	t = −3.03**	ηp² = .13
Coded Speaker Support Receptiveness	2.70 (2.73)	2.00 (1.88)	t = −1.18	ηp² = .02
Coded Partner Emotional Support Provision	2.21 (1.83)	1.71 (2.07)	t = −1.03	ηp² = .02
Coded Partner Instrumental Support Provision	5.27 (4.52)	3.39 (2.97)	t = −1.96+	ηp² = .06
Coded Global Support	2.82 (1.01)	2.26 (.93)	t = −2.30*	ηp² = .08
Perceived Responsiveness: Speaker	4.60 (.39)	4.35 (.44)	t = −2.40*	ηp² = .09
Perceived Responsiveness: Partner	4.22 (.70)	3.85 (.74)	t = −1.97+	ηp² = .06
State Relationship Intimacy: Speaker	6.25 (1.06)	5.61 (.90)	t = −2.63*	ηp² = .10
State Relationship Intimacy: Partner	6.22 (.97)	5.71 (.89)	t = −2.19*	ηp² = .07
Coded Speaker Problem-Solving	4.94 (3.55)	3.03 (2.36)	t = −2.51*	ηp² = .09

Note. + < .06, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Effects of manipulation on Time 3 primary outcomes

Relationship intimacy

As shown in Table 3, both speakers and partners reported more state relationship intimacy in the shared appraisal compared to the individual condition.

Stressor outcomes

Problem-solving

As shown in Table 3, coder-rated problem-solving was higher in the shared appraisal compared to the individual condition for speakers.

Confidence

As shown in Table 4, speaker confidence increased over time (F = 48.17, p < .001; ηp² = .44), but there were no condition differences or condition by time interactions. Partner confidence did not differ by time or condition, but there was a condition by time interaction such that partner confidence (F = 4.46, p = .04; ηp² = .07) increased more over time in the shared appraisal compared to the individual appraisal condition.

Table 4.

Means and standard deviations for confidence and mood across time.

	Mean Time 1 Shared Appraisal	Mean Time 1 Individual Appraisal	Mean Time 2 Shared Appraisal	Mean Time 2 Individual Appraisal	Mean Time 3 Shared Appraisal	Mean Time 3 Individual Appraisal
Confidence^
Speaker	--	--	55.66 (26.13)	47.10 (22.32)	67.98 (23.27)	60.43 (17.80)
Partner	--	--	79.38 (18.17)	81.08 (13.29)	85.00 (14.27)	79.03 (17.49)
Speaker Positive Mood
Well-being	3.02 (.95)	2.92 (.95)	3.14 (1.39)	2.58 (1.32)	3.20 (1.40)	2.68 (1.27)
Calm	3.37 (.93)	3.39 (.66)	3.07 (1.24)	3.01 (1.12)	3.51 (1.40)	3.27 (1.12)
Speaker Negative Mood
Anxiety	2.03 (.91)	2.00 (.83)	3.25 (1.15)	3.34 (1.27)	2.72 (1.27)	2.85 (1.30)
Depressed	1.39 (.82)	1.34 (.54)	1.55 (1.05)	1.60 (.92)	1.36 (.96)	1.37 (.67)
Partner Positive Mood
Well-being	3.04 (.88)	2.87 (1.07)	3.27 (1.37)	3.28 (1.31)	3.81 (1.35)	3.32 (1.39)
Calm	3.42 (1.01)	3.32 (.88)	3.59 (1.35)	3.82 (1.14)	4.21 (1.22)	3.90 (1.32)
Partner Negative Mood
Anxiety	1.84 (.55)	1.96 (.77)	2.45 (1.00)	2.11 (1.07)	1.90 (.95)	2.02 (1.04)
Depressed	1.14 (.29)	1.40 (.72)	1.21 (.41)	1.47 (.82)	1.13 (.35)	1.39 (.67)

Note. ^-- indicates the variable was not assessed at this time point because it was not applicable.

Mood

There was only one time by condition interaction on speaker mood, as speakers in the shared appraisal condition increased more in well-being (F = 3.50, p = .03; ηp² = .05) over time than those in the individual appraisal condition. There were no time by condition effects on speaker calm, anxious, or depressed mood, nor any main effects of condition on any speaker mood outcome. There were no linear effects of time on speaker well-being, calm, or depressed mood. Only anxious mood increased linearly over time (F = 26.60, p < .001; ηp² = .30). However, there were quadratic effects of time on speaker calm (F = 16.45, p < .001; ηp² = .21), anxious (F = 76.89, p < .001; ηp² = .55), and depressed mood (F = 13.19, p = .001; ηp² = .18) such that there was worse mood from Time 1 to Time 2 and better mood from Time 2 to Time 3. There were no quadratic effects of time on speaker well-being.

In regard to partner mood, there were non-significant time by condition trends on partner well-being (F = 2.67, p = .07; ηp² = .04) and calm mood (F = 2.81, p = .06; ηp² = .04) such that partners in the shared appraisal condition showed a larger increase in well-being and calm mood than those in the individual condition. There were no effects of time by condition on partner anxious or depressed mood. There were no significant effects of condition on any partner mood outcome, though there was a marginal effect of condition on depressed mood (F = 3.86, p < .06; ηp² = .06), such that there was marginally more depressed mood in the individual appraisal condition. Regarding time, only partner well-being (F = 26.31, p < .001; ηp² = .30) and calm mood increased linearly over time (F = 28.72, p < .001; ηp² = .32). Partner anxious and depressed mood did not increase linearly, however, there were quadratic effects of time on partner anxious mood (F = 12.01, p = .001; ηp² = .16) and marginally for depressed mood (F = 2.99, p < .10; ηp² = .05) such that there was an increase from Time 1 to Time 2 and a decrease from Time 2 to Time 3.

Discussion

Although there is a large and growing literature showing that communal coping is linked to better coping, enhanced relationship well-being, reduced psychological distress, and better physical health (e.g., Van Vleet et al., 2018; Zajdel & Helgeson, 2020) that work has failed to examine causality. The prior work’s strength has been external validity rather than internal validity. Here we tackle internal validity by conducting the first experimental test of communal coping—specifically manipulating perceptions of a shared appraisal—to examine effects on relationships, mood, and coping in the context of a laboratory stressor. The primary goal of the present study was to determine whether we can alter an individual’s appraisal of a stressor as either shared or individual, and whether such a manipulation would impact real-time communication, support, and behaviors undertaken to manage the stressor. While we acknowledge the low external validity of this design—we view this study as proof of concept that is poised to inform interventions rooted in communal coping for dyads coping with real world stressors.

Across multiple measures, we showed that both the individuals undergoing the stressful situation (speakers) and their friends (partners) perceived a modified version of the Trier Social Stress Task stressor as either shared or individual as a function of our manipulation. Those dyads in the shared appraisal condition reported and behaved in ways consistent with viewing the stressor as shared after they had the opportunity to communicate with one another. Specifically, compared to those in the individual appraisal condition, speakers and partners in the shared appraisal condition were more likely to view the task as shared, used more we-talk when they communicated with one another, and expressed more indicators of a shared appraisal in the communication according to raters blind to condition. For example, one partner in the shared appraisal condition said “Okay, let’s make a game plan,” and another partner asked, “Do we know anyone we can ask for advice?” Previous research on communal coping had not determined whether shared appraisals—or communal coping more broadly—could be fostered among individuals in a laboratory setting (Bodenmann, 2018). This is the first experimental paradigm to demonstrate that appraisal can be manipulated and additionally, that it can be differentiated from collaboration.

The appraisal manipulation also influenced how dyad members interacted with one another. Across both self-report and coded behaviors dyads in the shared appraisal condition engaged in more collaboration, despite the fact both groups were explicitly told they could work together. This finding is consistent with recent theory and data suggesting that a shared appraisal may foster collaboration (Helgeson et al., 2018; Zajdel & Helgeson, 2020). The cognitive domain of communal coping—thinking about the problem as shared—may occur prior to the behavioral domain of communal coping—working together with a partner to manage the stressors. However, it is possible that a feedback loop exists, such that greater shared appraisal leads to greater collaboration which then impacts shared appraisal.

Not only did the appraisal manipulation impact collaboration, but there was evidence that the manipulation impacted support processes. Partners reported providing more support, and speakers reported receiving more support in the shared appraisal condition, indicating that partner support was clearly communicated to the speaker. Importantly, both individuals reported that their partner was more responsive to their needs in the shared than individual appraisal condition. Perceived partner responsiveness indicates that support is being provided in an appropriate manner and has been linked to both mental health (e.g., Zajdel et al., 2018) and physical health (e.g., Slatcher et al., 2015). In addition, both speakers and partners felt closer to each other after engaging in the stressor task in the shared appraisal condition, suggesting that instilling a shared appraisal of a stressor can enhance relationship intimacy. Substantial empirical data shows a shared appraisal—measured via we-talk—is linked to more relationship satisfaction (Karan et al., 2019). However, these prior correlational studies are unable to disentangle whether shared appraisal leads to relationship intimacy or if relationship intimacy leads to shared appraisal.

Importantly, the appraisal manipulation impacted how dyads coped with the stressor. Those in the shared appraisal condition engaged in more problem-solving when communicating with their partner than those in the individual appraisal condition, which indicates the potential for greater progress in resolving conflicts and managing stressors. Although the manipulation did not affect the speaker’s confidence in handling the stressor, the manipulation affected the partner’s confidence regarding their friend’s ability to handle the stressor. Partners in the shared appraisal condition may have had more confidence in their friend’s ability because the two of them discussed more options during their conversation or because they were able to provide more input into how the problem would be managed. Prior research has shown partner confidence to be critical and at times even more important than the stressed individual’s own confidence. For example, research on couples with heart disease indicated that spouse’s confidence in the patient’s ability to take care of the illness was more predictive of adaptation to heart failure than the patient’s own confidence (Rohrbaugh et al., 2004).

Ultimately, communal coping is expected to impact health. Because dyad members were healthy college students, we were unable to measure the typical health outcomes commonly used in communal coping research (e.g., smoking cessation, glycemic control). Instead, we used mood as a proxy for psychological well-being. Both speaker and partner positive mood increased more in the shared appraisal condition during the course of the stressor relative to those in the individual appraisal condition, consistent with other research that has linked communal coping to more positive mood (Van Vleet et al., 2018; Zajdel et al., 2018). However, the appraisal manipulation did not impact negative mood. It is possible that communal coping is more strongly linked to increased positive mood rather than decreased negative mood, but future work should examine the links of communal coping to negative mood.

Future research should also consider if a shared appraisal would be beneficial for stress and other health related measures (e.g., blood pressure) in managing a more severe stressor. Future studies could include the full version of the Trier Social Stress Test, in which participants give the speech in front of a panel of experimenters before proceeding with mental arithmetic. Although we measured stress after the task, we did not measure whether participants found this stressor to be realistic nor did we directly measure participant reports of stressor severity. Future studies could ask individuals to identify a current stressor that is impacting their lives and observe the different behaviors adopted in a shared vs. individual appraisal condition. Indeed, some researchers in the communal coping literature have called for paradigms in which couples coping with chronic illness are given a task related to their illness (e.g., meal planning in type 2 diabetes) and determine how couples communicate and problem solve in real time (Zajdel & Helgeson, 2020). This study serves as initial evidence to suggest we may be able to influence how dyads appraise a stressor which then has subsequent effects on coping.

These findings have implications for intervention research for people facing stressful life events. Currently, only a few interventions have incorporated communal coping theory (e.g., Rohrbaugh et al., 2012), and they often focus on the collaborative component rather than the appraisal component (e.g., Trief et al., 2016; Wooldridge & Ranby, 2018). The present findings suggest that building an intervention that fosters a shared appraisal may enhance psychological and physical health, in part because a shared appraisal enhances collaboration, increases supportive exchanges, and leads to more responsive support behaviors. Additionally, researchers have suggested that the shared appraisal component of communal coping may also mitigate biological reactions to stress (e.g., inflammation, cortisol response; Rentscher, 2019). Future research may seek to build upon this study design by measuring physiological markers of stress (e.g., blood pressure, cortisol) to determine the biological impact of a shared appraisal.

Although this study was conducted with a healthy, young sample in the laboratory, we view the findings of this research as a first step in identifying communal coping—in this case, a shared appraisal specifically—as a causal factor in relationship and psychological health outcomes. The internal validity of this research coupled with the external validity of the large body of correlational research on couples facing chronic stressors provides a basis for intervention research to be conducted. Couples facing a chronic illness or chronic stressor may benefit from having a shared appraisal encouraged in the context of an intervention. Overall, we urge future researchers to leverage the role of a shared appraisal when designing interpersonal coping interventions to impact relationship, psychological, and potentially physical health.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_0265407521992464 - An experimental approach to communal coping

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_0265407521992464 for An experimental approach to communal coping by Melissa Zajdel and Vicki S. Helgeson in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Portions of this study were accepted for presentation at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the American Psychosomatic Society (canceled due to COVID-19). This research was conducted when all authors were affiliated with the Psychology Department at Carnegie Mellon University. Melissa Zajdel is now a post-doctoral scholar at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Ilan Schwell and Geneva Oke for their work conducting the laboratory sessions and acknowledge the support of the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by NIH (R01 DK095780).

ORCID iDs

Melissa Zajdel

Vicki S. Helgeson

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research can be shared with the public. The data can be obtained via emailing the first author at melissa.zajdel@nih.gov. The materials used in the research can be publicly shared. The materials can be obtained by emailing melissa.zajdel@nih.gov.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Basinger

E. D.

(2018). Explicating the appraisal dimension of the communal coping model. Health Communication, 33(6), 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1300208

Baucom

K. J.

Baucom

B. R.

Christensen

(2012). Do the naïve know best? The predictive power of naïve ratings of couple interactions. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 983–994. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0028680

Berg

C. A.

Helgeson

V. S.

Tracy

E. L.

Butner

J. E.

Kelly

C. S.

Van Vleet

Litchman

M. L.

(2020). Daily illness appraisal and collaboration in couples with type 1 diabetes. Health Psychology, 39(8), 689–699. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/hea0000871

Berg

C. A.

Skinner

Butler

J. M.

Palmer

D. L.

Butner

Weibe

(2009). The fit between stress appraisal and dyadic coping in understanding perceived coping effectiveness for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015556

Berg

C. A.

Wiebe

D. J.

Butner

Bloor

Bradstreet

Upchurch

Hayes

Stephenson

Nail

Patton

(2008). Collaborative coping and daily mood in couples dealing with prostate cancer. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 505–516. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0012687

Bodenmann

(2018, July 12–16). Dyadic coping: What we know and where we could go. Keynote talk at the 2018 International Association for Relationships Research Annual Meeting, Fort Collins, CO, United States.

Cohen

S. E.

Syme

S. L.

(1985). Social support and health. Academic Press.

Cross

S. E.

Bacon

P. L.

Morris

M. L.

(2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.791

10.

DiMatteo

M. R.

(2004). Social support and patient adherence to medical treatment: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 23(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.2.207

11.

Fekete

E. M.

Stephens

M. A. P.

Mickelson

K. D.

Druley

J. A.

(2007). Couples’ support provision during illness: The role of perceived emotional responsiveness. Families, Systems, & Health, 25(2), 204. https://doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527.25.2.204

12.

Helgeson

V. S.

Berg

C. A.

Kelly

C. S.

Van Vleet

Zajdel

Tracy

E. L.

Litchman

M. L.

(2019). Patient and partner illness appraisals and health among adults with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42(3), 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-018-0001-1

13.

Helgeson

V. S.

Hochstedler

Essien

(2016, July 20–24). Effects of manipulated communal coping on dating couples coping with a stressor [Paper presentation]. International Association of Relationship Research, Toronto, Canada.

14.

Helgeson

V. S.

Jakubiak

Seltman

Hausmann

Korytkowski

(2017). Implicit and explicit communal coping in couples with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(7), 1099–1121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516669604

15.

Helgeson

V. S.

Jakubiak

Van Vleet

Zajdel

(2018). Communal coping and adjustment to chronic illness: Theory update and evidence. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 22(2), 170–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317735767

16.

Johnson

M. D.

Anderson

J. R.

Walker

Wilcox

Lewis

V. L.

Robbins

D. C.

(2013). Common dyadic coping is indirectly related to dietary and exercise adherence via patient and partner diabetes efficacy. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 722–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034006

17.

Karan

Rosenthal

Robbins

M. L.

(2019). Meta-analytic evidence that we-talk predicts relationship and personal functioning in romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2624–2651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518795336

18.

Kirschbaum

Pirke

K. M.

Hellhammer

D. H.

(1993). The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’—A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1–2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000119004

19.

Kudielka

B. M.

Hellhammer

D. H.

Kirschbaum

(2007). Ten years of research with the Trier Social Stress Test—Revisited. In Harmon-Jones

Winkielman

(Eds.), Social neuroscience: Integrating biological and psychological explanations of social behavior (pp. 56–83). The Guilford Press.

20.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

21.

Lee

Helgeson

V. S.

Van Vleet

Tracy

E. L.

de Grey

R. G. K.

Zajdel

Berg

C. A.

(2020). Implications of we-talk for relationships and health among patients with type 1 diabetes and their spouses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(1), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519865613

22.

Lyons

R. F.

Mickelson

K. D.

Sullivan

M. J.

Coyne

J. C.

(1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(5), 579–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598155001

23.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Boyd

R. L.

Jordan

Blackburn

(2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin. https://hdl-handle-net.web.bisu.edu.cn/2152/31333

24.

Reis

H. T.

Clark

M. S.

Holmes

J. G.

(2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

A. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

25.

Rentscher

K. E.

(2019). Communal coping with health problems. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00398

26.

Rohrbaugh

M. J.

Shoham

Coyne

J. C.

Cranford

J. A.

Sonnega

J. S.

Nicklas

J. M.

(2004). Beyond the “self” in self-efficacy: Spouse confidence predicts patient survival following heart failure. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.184

27.

Rohrbaugh

M. J.

Shoham

Skoyen

J. A.

Jensen

Mehl

M. R.

(2012). We-talk, communal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health-compromised smokers. Family Process, 51(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01388.x

28.

Rottmann

Hansen

D. G.

Larsen

P. V.

(2015). Dyadic coping within couples dealing with breast cancer: A longitudinal, population-based study. Health Psychology, 34(5), 486–495. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/hea0000218

29.

Slatcher

R. B.

Selcuk

Ong

A. D.

(2015). Perceived partner responsiveness predicts diurnal cortisol profiles 10 years later. Psychological Science, 26(7), 972–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615575022

30.

Trief

P. M.

Fisher

Sandberg

Cibula

D. A.

Dimmock

Hessler

D. M.

Forken

Weinstock

R. S.

(2016). Health and psychosocial outcomes of a telephonic couples behavior change intervention in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: A randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care, 39(12), 2165–2173. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-0035

31.

Uchino

B. N.

(2006). Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-006-9056-5

32.

Usala

P. D.

Hertzog

(1989). Measurement of affective states in adults: Evaluation of an adjective rating scale instrument. Research on Aging, 11(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027589114001

33.

Van Vleet

Helgeson

V. S.

Seltman

H. J.

Korytkowski

M. T.

Hausmann

L. R. M.

(2018). Communally coping with diabetes: An observational investigation using the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(5), 654–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000414

34.

Van Vleet

Helgeson

V. S.

Seltman

H. J.

Korytkowski

M. T.

Hausmann

L. R. M.

(2019). An examination of the communal coping process in recently diagnosed diabetes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1297–1316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518761226

35.

Wooldridge

J. S.

Ranby

K. W.

(2018, April). A couples-based approach for increasing physical activity among couples with type 2 diabetes: A preliminary study [Poster presentation]. 38th Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.

36.

Zajdel

Helgeson

V. S.

(2020). Communal coping: A multi-method approach with links to relationships and health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(5), 1700–1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520903811

37.

Zajdel

Helgeson

V. S.

Naqvi

Seltman

Korytkowski

(2019, March). The role of daily appraisal and collaboration in coping with type 2 diabetes [Poster presentation]. 39th Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.

38.

Zajdel

Helgeson

V. S.

Seltman

H. J.

Korytkowski

M. T.

Hausmann

L. R.

(2018). Daily communal coping in couples with type 2 diabetes: Links to mood and self-care. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax047

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB