Risk and resilience in couple’s adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic’s global scope and resulting social distancing measures have caused unprecedented economic, lifestyle, and social impacts to personal and relationship well-being. While lockdowns have prompted individuals to increase reliance on intimate partners for support, stressful external contexts can also interfere with partners’ capacity to request and provide support, resulting in relationship dissatisfaction and even dissolution. Guided by a risk and resilience framework, this study examined the impact of perceived stress, social contextual factors, and dyadic coping on self-reported relationship satisfaction changes during the initial United States COVID-19 lockdown period. Participants were adults in romantic relationships who completed an online survey between April 13 and June 8, 2020. Overall, survey respondents (N = 1106) reported higher perceived stress levels than established population norms, and small but significant decrements in relationship satisfaction. Multivariable models revealed that higher perceived stress levels were associated with lower relationship satisfaction levels. Additionally, dyadic coping was found to moderate the impact of perceived stress on relationship satisfaction (B = .05, 95% CI = .02– .07), suggesting that engaging in dyadic coping buffered individuals from adverse effects of perceived stress on their relationships. Findings emphasize heightened stress experienced by individuals during the pandemic, potential detrimental effects of stress on couple relationships, and suggest dyadic coping may help buffer couples from adverse effects of the pandemic on their relationships. As such, dyadic coping may be an important target for future interventions designed to assist couples during the ongoing pandemic and future pandemics/natural disasters.

Keywords

COVID-19 couple relationships relationship satisfaction resilience dyadic coping

The global scope of the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its impacts on modern society are unprecedented. In the early effort to control the spread of the COVID-19 causative virus, severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), governments across the globe enacted stringent social distancing measures including stay-at-home orders and the temporary closure of non-essential businesses and schools (Wilder-Smith & Freedman, 2020). The profound economic, lifestyle, and social disruptions caused by these measures triggered a variety of mental health responses ranging in severity from feelings of low mood/worry to clinically significant levels of depression and anxiety (Barzilay et al., 2020; Every-Palmer et al., 2020; Fitzpatrick et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Pearman et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020).

Romantic relationships where partners provide social support and comfort are a critical resource for mental health and well-being and may protect individuals against the negative mental health effects of challenging life events (Bruce et al., 2019; Florian et al., 2002; Pietromonaco & Collins, 2017). Indeed, being isolated at home during the pandemic prompted many individuals to rely more on their romantic partners as they dealt with varied stressors including health and safety concerns, working from home, and increased caregiving and housekeeping responsibilities (Donato et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2020; Günther-Bel et al., 2020; Williamson, 2020). However, the global nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on almost all aspects of social life make it a shared or dyadic stressor affecting both members of the couple. Thus, even though individuals may have initially turned to their partners for comfort and support, partners were also under extreme stress, which may have impaired their ability to provide support. This in turn may have weakened feelings of connection, decreased emotional disclosure, and increased withdrawal behaviors, resulting in relationship dissatisfaction and even dissolution over time (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Neff & Karney, 2009; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009).

The systemic transactional model of couples coping with stress

The systemic-transactional model (STM) (Bodenmann, 1997; Falconier et al., 2015) describes the ways in which partners cope with stress within the context of their relationship (i.e., dyadic coping) and posits that relational partners can respond to stress as interpersonal units. It also recognizes the interdependence between partners’ stress and the resources they bring to bear to cope with that stress. Mutual or common dyadic coping is one type of dyadic coping elicited in situations in which both partners are stressed that has been linked to relationship satisfaction (Falconier et al., 2015), relationship stability (Bodenmann & Cina, 2006), and individual partners’ emotional well-being (Bodenmann et al., 2011). It involves both partners appraising a stressor as “our problem” and working together to maintain the quality of their relationship by engaging in cooperative actions (e.g., joint problem solving, mutual sharing and support) to manage the stressor. The idea is that through collaboration, the deleterious effects of stress on relationship satisfaction can be minimized; and, the couple can grow stronger and more resilient, having successfully coped with the stressor together (Gamarel & Revenson, 2015). Supporting this idea, under highly stressful circumstances, such as coping with the chronic or life-threatening illness of a partner, studies have found that engaging in common dyadic coping is associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Badr et al., 2010, 2018; Falconier & Kuhn, 2019; Meier et al., 2011) and has a stronger impact on long-term relationship outcomes than other forms of dyadic coping (Traa et al., 2015). Emerging evidence also suggests that common dyadic coping is associated with psychological well-being (Donato et al., 2021) and may help couples to maintain equilibrium during the COVID-19 pandemic (Williamson, 2020).

Preliminary research has examined the effects of dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction in the COVID-19 pandemic. Perceived partner responsiveness – the extent to which individuals believe their partner understands, validates, and cares for them – has been show to attenuate the effects of COVID-related stressors on relationship quantity (Balzarini et al., 2020). Similarly, perceived partner positive dyadic coping was found to moderate psychological distress and relationship quality (Randall et al., 2022). However, there has been minimal examination to date of the impact of pre-existing vulnerabilities and social contextual factors on these effects. As a result, this study seeks to further explore the moderating effect of common dyadic coping on the relationship between perceived stress and relationship satisfaction, while examining and controlling for sociodemographic and relationship characteristics and risk factors.

Risk and resilience models of couples’ coping

Despite the intriguing possibility that engaging in common dyadic coping may help to buffer couples from the adverse effects of stress experienced during the pandemic on their relationships, risk and resilience models (Chen & Bonanno, 2020; Prime et al., 2020) point out that changes in relationship satisfaction in the face of stress can be attributed to both risk-enhancing and protective factors. Given this, examining the potential buffering effects of common dyadic coping without also considering the effects of known risk factors for relationship dissatisfaction and dissolution (e.g., unemployment, economic hardship, being a member of a racial/ethnic minority group) (Barton & Bryant, 2016; Barton et al., 2018; Neff & Karney, 2004) may result in biased estimates because the added stress of the pandemic and pandemic-related social restrictions may exacerbate the effects of these pre-existing risk factors. Indeed, studies have found that younger aged individuals and non-cohabiting relationship partners experienced significant decrements in relationship satisfaction during the pandemic, suggesting these groups may have been more vulnerable to the effects of pandemic-related restrictions (e.g., social distancing, stay at home orders) on their relationships (Biddle et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020).

Social contextual factors and vulnerable population subgroups

It is also possible that the myriad of stressors encountered during the pandemic heightened the risk for relationship dissatisfaction in otherwise low-risk groups. For example, even though social connection with other household members is generally viewed as an asset for married couples (Li et al., 2020; Okabe-Miyamoto et al., 2021), couples living in larger, or intergenerational households may have encountered new challenges such as increased anxiety regarding virus transmission or diminished supports for caregiving for elderly parents (Cohen et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020) that could have adversely affected their romantic relationships. Likewise, couples with children have had to balance work and increased childcare demands in the wake of school and daycare closings during the pandemic, which could have contributed to partner and relationship dissatisfaction (Overall et al., 2021; Schmid et al., 2021). Finally, in the early days of the pandemic, regional differences in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths – particularly in the Northeastern and Western regions of the US, may have contributed to variability in stress levels (Green et al., 2021), and disproportionately affected the relationships of couples living in these regions. Thus, by examining the confluence of these factors on changes in relationship satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, vulnerable population subgroups can be identified, and more targeted interventions to address the negative relationship effects of the ongoing pandemic can be developed.

Present study

Based on the above, this population-based study examined the role that perceived stress, social contextual factors, and dyadic coping played in self-reported changes in relationship satisfaction during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period in the United States. We hypothesized that after controlling for relevant social contextual risk factors, engaging in common dyadic coping would buffer couples from the adverse effects of perceived stress during the pandemic on their relationship satisfaction.

Method

Sample and setting

This study reports on data obtained from a study of the psychosocial and health behavior impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board (H-47,505) (Badr et al., 2020). Eligible individuals were ≥ age 18, resided in the United States, and fluent in English or Spanish. Surveys were distributed via paid and unpaid social media advertisements and an online survey crowdsourcing platform between April 13^th and June 8^th, 2020. This recruitment window corresponded to the initial stay-at-home order period that was adopted by most of the United States.

Procedure

A waiver of written informed consent was obtained under Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations at 45 CFR 46.117(c) and the Common Rule. Recruitment advertisements and social media posts contained a web hyperlink that directed participants to the survey landing page, which contained a brief cover letter describing the purpose of the research, eligibility criteria and a plain language statement. If, after reading the cover letter, individuals were interested in participating, they checked a box to confirm understanding and consent to participate. The survey was administered online in English and Spanish on the Qualtrics survey platform (Provo, Utah). Participants could take up to 2 weeks to complete the survey. Given that accountability and validity can be more difficult to enforce in online research, attention checks (e.g., red herring questions), tactics to help prevent machine responses (e.g., Captcha) and participants taking the survey more than once (e.g., IP Control), and data quality checks (e.g., answer consistency and speed checks) were used.

Measures

Social contextual factors

Individuals were asked about their age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, if they were currently in a romantic relationship (yes/no), marital status, household income, number of household residents, whether they cohabited with a spouse/romantic partner (yes/no), romantic relationship length, whether they lived with someone over 65 (yes/no) or under 18 (yes/no), their employment status, and, if they were unemployed, whether they became unemployed due to the pandemic (yes/no). Individuals were additionally asked about their postal zip code and nearest cross streets to classify them into one of the four major US Census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West).

Perceived stress

One of the most widely used methods of assessing stress has been the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen et al., 1983). The PSS was originally conceptualized as 14 items which ask general questions about how often individuals felt their lives were unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded in the past month. A 4-item version of the PSS (PSS-4) was also developed (S. Cohen, 1988) that has demonstrated a clear advantage in terms of ease of use and online administration (Herrero & Meneses, 2006). Scores are summed to calculate a total score ranging from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress. In this study, instructions were modified slightly to ask individuals to report on stress, since they “became aware of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States,” as opposed to the previous month. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) in this study was α = .69. This is consistent with a review conducted by Lee and colleagues (2012) which reported internal consistency reliability in studies using the PSS-4 ranging from 0.60 to 0.82. Many statisticians have suggested that alphas in the 0.65–0.80 range are acceptable (Cortina, 1933; DeVellis, 2003; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Moreover, low reliability has been shown to affect Type II-not Type I-error, which makes it less likely to observe significant results but does not cause spuriously significant findings (Rosenthal, 1995). Schmitt (1996) also demonstrated that reliabilities as low as 0.50 do not seriously attenuate validity coefficients and noted that the 0.70 alpha criterion for reliability may not always be appropriate for short scales. He further argued that when measures have other desirable properties such as meaningful content coverage, low alphas should not deter their use.

Common dyadic coping

Individuals who indicated that they were in a romantic relationship completed the 5-item common dyadic coping subscale of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) (Bodenmann, 2008; Ledermann et al., 2010), which describes what individuals and their partners do when they are both feeling stressed. Items were introduced as follows, “This section is about what you and your partner do to cope with the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic together.” Example items are, “We try to cope with the problem together and search for solutions,” “We engage in a serious discussion about the problem and think through what has to be done,” and, “We help one another to put the problem in perspective and see it in a new light.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “very rarely” to 5 = “very often”), and a mean score was computed. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was α = .88.

Relationship satisfaction change

Individuals who indicated that they were in a romantic relationship were asked to rate the degree of happiness of their relationship prior to and since the COVID-19 pandemic on a scale of 1 (very unhappy) to 7 (perfectly happy). The delta (i.e., change) was computed by subtracting the relationship satisfaction score prior to the pandemic from the score since the pandemic (range of −6 to 6).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated including the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), median, range (for continuous variables), and relative frequency (for categorical variables). Welch’s t-test for unequal variances was run to compare our analysis sample mean PSS-4 scores to population norms. A bivariate correlation matrix was computed for continuous variables of interest. Univariate regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between each of the social contextual factors, perceived stress, and common dyadic coping score versus the relationship satisfaction change variable. Then, all the variables associated with relationship satisfaction change from the univariate regression analysis (p < .05) were subsequently entered into a separate multivariable linear regression model. Moderator analysis was conducted to determine the effect of common dyadic coping on the relationship between perceived stress and relationship satisfaction change. Procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991) were used to test the simple slopes of the interaction and to facilitate visualization. A hierarchical regression whereby the multivariable model was estimated initially without and subsequently with the interaction term was run. Finally, a sensitivity power analysis was conducted (Cohen, 1988). All statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0.

Results

Sample characteristics

Of the 2435 adults who consented to participate, 213 were excluded because they did not pass our survey quality control and data quality checks. In total, 1106 (49.8%) of the 2222 participants who provided useable data indicated they were in a romantic relationship, and constituted the final study sample. Table 1 presents sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample. Overall, survey respondents were mostly middle aged (M = 44.82 years, SD = 14.90 years, median = 42, range = 19–93), college educated (73.3%), and married (72.3%). 83.4% of our sample indicated they cohabited with their spouse or romantic partner, and over 30% of respondents had been in their relationship for over 20 years. Only 6.4% of respondents were in a new relationship (<1 year). Of those who disclosed their gender, approximately 66.9% identified as cisgender women and 32% as cisgender men. Approximately two-thirds (67.5%) identified as white, and one-third (32.6%) identified as racial/ethnic minorities (14.1% Black, 11.8% Hispanic, 6.7% other). In terms of income/employment, 9.2% had an annual household income of less than $25K, 30.8% an income of $25K-$75K, and 60.0% of $75K or more. 57.9% of the sample reported working full time, and 13.1% reported pandemic-induced unemployment.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample (n = 1106).

	N	%
Age
18–30	206	18.8
31–50	516	47.1
51–65	254	23.2
>65	119	10.9
Gender
Male	353	32.0
Female	739	66.9
Race/Ethnicity
White	740	67.5
Black	155	14.1
Hispanic	129	11.8
Other	73	6.7
Education
Not college educated	295	26.7
College educated	811	73.3
Marital status
Unmarried	306	27.7
Married	798	72.3
Cohabits with spouse/romantic partner
Yes	837	83.4
No	166	16.6
Relationship length
<1 year	71	6.4
1–5 years	239	21.7
6–10 years	174	15.8
10–15 years	166	15.1
15–20 years	112	10.2
>20 years	339	30.8
Annual household income
Less than $25K	98	9.2
$25,000 to $74,999	328	30.8
$75K or more	640	60.0
Number of household residents
1	119	10.8
2	395	35.9
3–4	456	41.4
5 or more	131	11.9
Lives with someone > age 65
Yes	198	19.8
No	804	80.2
Lives with someone < age 18
Yes	456	45.9
No	537	54.1
Employment status
Working full time	639	57.9
Working part time	148	13.4
Retired	115	10.4
Unemployed	201	18.2
Pandemic-induced unemployment
Yes	108	13.1
No	716	86.9
Region
Northeast	188	17.2
Midwest	155	14.2
South	611	55.9
West	139	12.7

Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations of continuous variables as well as their bivariate correlations. The mean PSS-4 score was 6.72 out of 16 (SD = 2.97; Range = 0–16). This differed significantly from both US (M = 4.49, SD = 2.96, t (2034) = 20.39, p < .001) and British population norms (M = 6.11, SD = 3.14, t (2362) = 4.99, p < .001) (S. Cohen, 1988; Warttig et al., 2013). Thirty-nine percent of our study sample reported total PSS-4 scores greater than +1SD above the US population norm. The mean common dyadic coping score was 3.58 out of 5 (SD = 0.97; Range = 1–5). Participants reported that their average relationship satisfaction prior to the pandemic was 5.60 out of 7 (SD = 1.35; Range = 1–7), and that their average relationship satisfaction since the pandemic was 5.36 out of 7 (SD = 1.52). A paired samples t-test showed that the relationship satisfaction delta (−0.24) was significant (p < .001).

Table 2.

Correlations of continuous variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	M	SD
1. Age	—	—	—	—	—	44.82	14.90
2. Number of household residents	−.17^a	—	—	—	—	2.95	1.37
3. Perceived stress	−.21^a	.03	—	—	—	6.72	2.97
4. Common dyadic coping	−.05	.004	−.17^a	—	—	3.58	.97
5. Relationship satisfaction change	.004	.05	−.13^a	.26^a	—	−.24	1.16

^adenotes correlations significant at the 0.01 level. Perceived stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4), and scores were summed to calculate a total score ranging from 0 to 16 (higher scores indicate greater perceived stress). Common dyadic coping was assessed using the five-question common dyadic coping subscale of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI); items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, and a mean score was computed (higher scores indicate higher levels of common dyadic coping). Relationship satisfaction change was measured by asking participants rate the degree of happiness of their relationship prior to and since the COVID-19 pandemic on a scale of 1 (very unhappy) to 7 (perfectly happy) and calculating the delta (range of −6 to 6).

Univariate results

As Table 3 shows, individuals who were Black/African American, with annual household incomes below $75K, who were subjected to pandemic-induced unemployment, and who reported higher levels of perceived stress reported decrements in relationship satisfaction. Conversely, individuals who classified as “other” race (i.e., races other than non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic), who were married, who had been in their relationships for longer periods of time, and who reported higher levels of common dyadic coping reported increases in relationship satisfaction.

Table 3.

Univariate linear regression analyses showing relationship satisfaction change as a function of individual-level determinants.

Predictors	Unstandardized coefficients	Standard error	p-value
Age			.94
18–30	Ref
31–50	.04	.10	.71
51–65	.07	.11	.53
>65	.03	.13	.82
One unit increase	.00	.00	.89
Gender			.24
Female	Ref
Male	−.09	.08
Race/Ethnicity			< .001
White	Ref
Black	−.30	.10	<.01
Hispanic	−.11	.11	.34
Other	.36	.14	.01
Education			.13
Not college educated	Ref
College educated	.12	.08
Marital status			< .001
Unmarried	Ref
Married	.28	.08
Cohabits with romantic partner			.48
No	Ref
Yes	.07	.10
Relationship length	.09	.02	< .001
Annual household income			< .01
$75K or more	Ref
$25K to $75K	−.19	.08	.01
Less than $25K	−.32	.12	.01
Number of household residents			.09
One unit increase	.04	.03
Lives with someone > age 65			.23
No	Ref
Yes	−.11	.09
Lives with someone < age 18			.19
No	Ref
Yes	−.09	.07
Employment status			.25
Working full time	Ref
Working part time	−.10	.11	.36
Retired	−.04	.12	.76
Unemployed	−.19	.09	.05
Pandemic-induced unemployment			.02
No	Ref
Yes	−.30	.11
Region			.20
Northeast	Ref
Midwest	.04	.12	.72
South	.13	.09	.16
West	−.06	.13	.67
Perceived stress	−.05	.01	< .001
Common dyadic coping	.31	.04	< .001

Multivariable results

As Table 4 and Figure 1 show, individuals who had higher levels of perceived stress (B = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.30 to −0.11) reported decrements in relationship satisfaction. Individuals who were classified as “other” race reported increases in relationship satisfaction (B = .36, 95% CI = .06–0.67). Additionally, increasing relationship length (B = .09, 95% CI = .03–0.15) was associated with increases in relationship satisfaction. A significant interaction for perceived stress x common dyadic coping was also found (B = .05, 95% CI = .02–.07). The hierarchical regression model without the interaction had R² = 0.11 and F = 9.12 (p < .001), and the subsequent model including the interaction showed improvement to R² = .13, ΔR²= .02, F change = 14.07 (p < .001), and F = 9.72 (p < .001). All statistics associated with the hierarchical regression model are shown in Supplemental Table 1. An effect-size sensitivity power analysis performed in G*Power version 3.1 indicated that our sample size was sufficient to detect small effect sizes (α = 0.05, β = 0.80, ƒ² = 0.007) (Cohen, 1988; Faul et al., 2007, 2009).

Table 4.

Multivariable linear regression analysis showing relationship satisfaction change as a function of individual-level determinants and the moderating role of common dyadic coping.

Predictors	Unstandardized coefficients	Standard error	p-value
Predictors	Unstandardized coefficients	Standard error	p-value	Race/Ethnicity	.03
White	Ref
Black	−.18	.13	.15
Hispanic	.03	.13	.81
Other	.36	.16	.02
Marital status			.95
Unmarried	Ref
Married	−.01	.11
Relationship length	.09	.03	< .01
Annual household income			.71
$75K or more	Ref
$25K to $75K	−.07	.09	.47
Less than $25K	−.09	.14	.55
Pandemic-induced unemployment			.06
No	Ref
Yes	−.24	.12
Perceived stress	−.20	.05	< .001
Common dyadic coping	−.05	.10	.63
Common dyadic coping x perceived stress moderator	.05	.01	< .001

Figure 1.

Multivariable linear regression model with moderation estimating the associations between explanatory variables and relationship satisfaction change. Vertical line represents a beta of null, and bars denote 95% confidence intervals. ♦ indicate the reference groups.

As Figure 2 shows, tests of the simple slopes revealed that individuals with high (+1 SD) levels of common dyadic coping reported slight increases in relationship satisfaction under conditions of high perceived stress (+1 SD). However, this difference was not significant (b₁ = .02, t (735) = 1.12, p = .26). In contrast, individuals who had low levels of common dyadic coping (−1 SD) reported decrements in relationship satisfaction, and this negative association was significantly amplified for individuals who had high perceived stress (b₂ = −0.07, t (735) = −3.72, p < .001).

Figure 2.

Moderation by dyadic coping on the effect of perceived stress on relationship satisfaction change. Individuals who reported low levels of common dyadic coping reported decrements in relationship satisfaction, which was significantly amplified for individuals who had higher levels of perceived stress. Individuals who reported high levels of common dyadic coping reported slight insignificant increases in relationship satisfaction under conditions of high perceived stress.

Discussion

This population-based study examined the role of perceived stress, social contextual factors, and dyadic coping in self-reported changes in relationship satisfaction during the COVID-19 lockdown period in the United States. After controlling for social contextual factors, our multivariable analysis revealed that higher levels of perceived stress were associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Additionally, a significant interaction for perceived stress x common dyadic coping was found, suggesting that engaging in common dyadic coping buffered individuals from the adverse effects of perceived stress on their relationships. Specifically, individuals who engaged in high levels of common dyadic coping reported small non-significant improvements in relationship satisfaction regardless of their level of perceived stress, whereas individuals who engaged in low levels of common dyadic coping reported increasingly larger decrements in relationship satisfaction as their perceived stress levels increased. Overall, these findings are consistent with the STM as well as with previous studies that have found that dyadic coping moderates the negative effects of stress on relationship outcomes (Balzarini et al., 2020; Bodenmann et al., 2010; Falconier et al., 2015; Fallahchai et al., 2019; Randall et al., 2022). Moreover, they affirm the importance of examining stress and coping in a dyadic context (Randall & Bodenmann, 2017), and underscore the idea that the way in which couples manage shared stress together may be an important determinant of relationship satisfaction (Badr et al., 2010; Falconier & Kuhn, 2019; Fallahchai et al., 2019).

It is important to emphasize that after controlling for social contextual factors, we found that relationships of individuals who reported engaging in higher levels of common dyadic coping were more resilient than those who reported lower levels of common dyadic coping. Thus, even though couples who entered the pandemic with pre-existing contextual vulnerabilities may be at increased risk for developing relationship dissatisfaction, those individuals may still fare well and possibly even realize the potential for relationship growth and improvement if they engage in adaptive relationship processes. These findings add to the literature by showing that engaging in pro-relationship processes are important for couples’ adaptation during the pandemic (Donato et al., 2021; Ogan et al., 2021).

Overall, survey respondents reported perceived stress levels that were higher than established population norms. With regard to perceived stress, we found that 38.9% of individuals scored greater than +1SD above the U.S. population norm on the PSS-4, which is indicative of high levels of stress. This finding aligns with studies showing increased prevalence of stress, depression, and anxiety in response to natural disasters and other significant adverse life events (Beaglehole et al., 2018; Ehring et al., 2011; Norris et al., 2002; Rubonis & Bickman, 1991). It also highlights the importance of enriching and fortifying couple relationships during the pandemic, given that relationships are a critical resource for mental health and well-being (Bruce et al., 2019; Florian et al., 2002; Pietromonaco & Collins, 2017) and may help to protect individuals against the negative mental health effects of the pandemic. Viewed together, these findings uniquely emphasize the heightened stress experienced by individuals during the pandemic and the potential detrimental effects of that stress on couple relationships. They also suggest that engaging in common dyadic coping may help to buffer couples from the adverse effects of the pandemic on their relationships. As such, common dyadic coping may be an important target to consider in relationship education programs and interventions to assist couples during the ongoing pandemic and future pandemics/natural disasters.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several strengths. First, it is one among the largest studies to date investigating the perceived effects of the pandemic on relationship satisfaction. Second, our study sample was racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse, which increases generalizability. Third, our study was grounded by a risk and resilience framework, which will facilitate development of future interventions. Fourth, although there is always the possibility of hidden confounders, we employed a robust analytic approach that minimized the risk of omitted variable bias by controlling for a variety of social contextual factors that have been previously shown to be associated with decrements in relationship satisfaction (e.g., race/ethnicity, household income, marital status). Moreover, our findings bolster and extend previously published research (Falconier et al., 2015; Papp & Witt, 2010) suggesting that common dyadic coping is an important resource for couples in times of stress by demonstrating that it attenuates the effects of stress on relationship satisfaction.

Study limitations include the cross-sectional nature of the data, which indicates findings represent a snapshot in time. Although we asked individuals to report on their stress since the pandemic, we cannot definitively conclude that their stress was caused solely by the pandemic. However, studies have demonstrated elevated stress levels across the globe during the early days of the pandemic (American Psychological Association, 2020; Kowal et al., 2020), which is when this study was conducted. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that at least some proportion of the stress that was reported during that time was due to factors related to the pandemic. Additionally, due to the cross-sectional nature of the dataset, the study included a retroactive report of relationship satisfaction, which may be prone to be influenced by concurrent perceptions and emotions (Ogolsky & Surra, 2014). However, this limitation is partially mitigated by the relatively short period of time which elapsed since lockdowns began (March 2020) and survey administration (April to June 2020). We did not recruit both members of a couple, so we are unable to examine the interplay between dyad members. We also did not ask study participants for their disability status or sexual orientation. As such, we were unable to examine the effects of stress and common dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction in different relationship types, which may be a potential area for further research. Additionally, a single item measure of relationship satisfaction was used, which may be expanded to more robust measures of satisfaction in the future. Finally, individuals from all 50 states completed the survey, but most hailed from urban areas and 56% of our survey sample resided in the Southern region of the United States, limiting generalizability. However, this is partially mitigated by the large and diverse sample.

Conclusion

Findings from this study can be used to inform future research, interventions, and policy efforts aimed at improving relationship resilience during and beyond the current pandemic. Although we found that some individuals perceived decrements relationship satisfaction, engaging in common dyadic coping helped to buffer individuals from the adverse effects of stress that they experienced during the early months of the pandemic on their relationships. This knowledge could be applied to future pandemics or other crises that are experienced on a national or global scale (e.g., natural disasters) to better understand how relationships can be affected and to inform the development of preventive and/or therapeutic interventions. For example, given the demonstrated associations between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction, couples may benefit from prevention-focused psychoeducational programs that seek to increase their awareness of the potential benefits of taking a “we” approach to stress. In a similar vein, clinicians could help couples to attribute the stress they are experiencing to external factors as opposed to their partner (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990) or relationship in an effort to diffuse tension, inspire more collaborative coping and decision making, and strengthen relationships during times of acute stress. Given that stressful life events may catalyze greater scrutiny and evaluation of romantic relationships, couples may also benefit from dyadic coping skills training programs such as the Couples’ Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004) that teach couples joint problem-solving skills and ways they can effectively solicit and provide responsive support (Bodenmann & Randall, 2012; Kayser et al., 2007), so they can negotiate goals, create shared meaning, and recover control over their lives (Cohan & Cole, 2002).

Finally, on a policy level, we hope our findings will inform discussions regarding how mental health care professionals – including marriage and family therapists, who were already struggling to meet the treatment need prior to this pandemic (Kohn et al., 2004) may now need to accommodate increased demand. Improving systems for identifying vulnerable couples and bolstering their access to support services through online programs and telehealth may provide improved outcomes. Likewise, public campaigns that address the toll of the pandemic on relationships, promote adaptive dyadic coping strategies, and disseminate useful information on how to access support services will also be critical.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material - Risk and resilience in couple’s adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic

Supplemental material for Risk and resilience in couple’s adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic by Ellen Xiang, Xiaotao Zhang, Syed A. Raza, Abiodun Oluyomi, Christopher I. Amos, and Hoda Badr in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: HB and CA’s work on this study was supported by OT2HL158258 (PI: Vishwantha). XZ and SAR were supported by the Research Training Award for Cancer Prevention Post-Graduate Training Program in Integrative Epidemiology from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (grant number RP160097, PI: M. Spitz). This study was also supported by the facilities and resources of the Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center P30 CA125123.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: hoda.badr@bcm.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: hoda.badr@bcm.edu.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iD

Ellen Xiang

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

American Psychological Association . (2020). Stress in America 2020: A national mental health crisis. American Psychological Association. Retrieved December 8, 2021, from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/report-october.

Badr

Carmack

C. L.

Kashy

D. A.

Cristofanilli

Revenson

T. A.

(2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychology, 29(2), 169–180. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018165.

Badr

Herbert

Bonnen

M. D.

Asper

J. A.

Wagner

(2018). Dyadic coping in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer and their spouses. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1780. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01780.

Badr

Oluyomi

Adel Fahmideh

Raza

S. A.

Zhang

El-Mubasher

Amos

(2020). Psychosocial and health behavioural impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on adults in the USA: Protocol for a longitudinal cohort study. BMJ open, 10(12), e044642. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044642.

Balzarini

R. N.

Muise

Zoppolat

Di Bartolomeo

Rodrigues

D. L.

Alonso-Ferres

Urganci

Debrot

Pichayayothin

Dharma

Chi

Karremans

Schoebi

Slatcher

R. B.

(2020). Love in the time of COVID: Perceived partner responsiveness buffers people from lower relationship quality associated with COVID-related stressors. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e3fh4.

Barton

A. W.

Beach

S. R. H.

Bryant

C. M.

Lavner

J. A.

Brody

G. H.

(2018). Stress spillover, African Americans’ couple and health outcomes, and the stress-buffering effect of family-centered prevention. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(2), 186–196. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000376.

Barton

Bryant

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

Barzilay

Moore

T. M.

Greenberg

D. M.

DiDomenico

G. E.

Brown

L. A.

White

L. K.

Gur

R. C.

Gur

R. E.

(2020). Resilience, COVID-19-related stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic in a large population enriched for healthcare providers. Translational Psychiatry, 10(1), 291–298. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-00982-4.

10.

Beaglehole

Mulder

R. T.

Frampton

C. M.

Boden

J. M.

Newton-Howes

Bell

C. J.

(2018). Psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 213(6), 716–722. https://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2018.210.

11.

Biddle

Edwards

Gray

Sollis

(2020). Mental health and relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic.

12.

Bodenmann

(1997). Dyadic coping - a systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 137–140. Advance online publication.

13.

Bodenmann

(2008). Dyadic coping inventory (DCI). Test manual. BernHuber.

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://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j087v44n01_04.

15.

Bodenmann

Meuwly

Bradbury

T. N.

Gmelch

Ledermann

(2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 408–424. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361616.

16.

Bodenmann

Meuwly

Kayser

(2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being. European Psychologist.

17.

Bodenmann

Pihet

Kayser

(2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 485–493. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485.

18.

Bodenmann

Randall

A. K.

(2012). Common factors in the enhancement of dyadic coping. Behavior Therapy, 43(1), 88–98. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.04.003.

19.

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://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x.

20.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

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

21.

Bruce

L. D.

J. S.

Lustig

S. L.

Russell

D. W.

Nemecek

D. A.

(2019). Loneliness in the United States: A 2018 national panel survey of demographic, structural, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP, 33(8), 1123–1133. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0890117119856551.

22.

Chen

Bonanno

(2020). Psychological adjustment during the global outbreak of COVID-19: A resilience perspective. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000685.

23.

Cohan

Cole

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

24.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Law-rence Erlbaum Associates. Inc, Publishers.

25.

Cohen

(1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In Spacapan

Oskamp

(Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Sage.

26.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

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

27.

Cohen

Russo

M. J.

Campos

J. A.

Allegri

R. F.

(2020). Living with dementia: Increased level of caregiver stress in times of COVID-19. International Psychogeriatrics, 32(11), 1377–1381. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220001593.

28.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.

29.

DeVellis

(2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.

30.

Donato

Parise

Pagani

A. F.

Lanz

Regalia

Rosnati

Iafrate

(2021). Together against COVID-19 concerns: The role of the dyadic coping process for partners’ psychological well-being during the pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3681. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.578395.

31.

Ehring

Razik

Emmelkamp

(2011). Prevalence and predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and burnout in Pakistani earthquake recovery workers. Psychiatry Research, 185(1-2), 161–166. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2009.10.018.

32.

Evans

Mikocka-Walus

Klas

Olive

Sciberras

Karantzas

Westrupp

E. M.

(2020). From ‘It has stopped our lives’ to ‘Spending more time together has strengthened bonds’: The varied experiences of Australian families during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2906. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.588667.

33.

Every-Palmer

Jenkins

Gendall

Hoek

Beaglehole

Bell

Williman

Rapsey

Stanley

(2020). Psychological distress, anxiety, family violence, suicidality, and wellbeing in New Zealand during the COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study. Plos One, 15(11), e0241658. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241658.

34.

Falconier

M. K.

Jackson

J. B.

Hilpert

Bodenmann

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

35.

Falconier

M. K.

Kuhn

(2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 571. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571.

36.

Fallahchai

Fallahi

Randall

A. K.

(2019). A dyadic approach to understanding associations between job stress, marital quality, and dyadic coping for dual-career couples in Iran. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 487. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00487.

37.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.

38.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.

39.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

Harris

Drawve

(2020). How bad is it? Suicidality in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 50(6), 1241–1249. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12655. HTTPS://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1111/sltb.12655.

40.

Florian

Mikulincer

Hirschberger

(2002). The anxiety-buffering function of close relationships: Evidence that relationship commitment acts as a terror management mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 527–542. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.527.

41.

Gamarel

K. E.

Revenson

T. A.

(2015). Dyadic adaptation to chronic illness: The importance of considering context in understanding couples’ resilience. In Couple resilience (pp. 83–105). Springer. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_5.

42.

Green

Huberty

Puzia

Stecher

(2021). The effect of meditation and physical activity on the mental health impact of COVID-19–related stress and attention to news among mobile app users in the United States: Cross-sectional survey. JMIR Mental Health, 8(4), e28479. https://dx.doi.org/10.2196/28479.

43.

Günther-Bel

Vilaregut

Carratala

Torras-Garat

Pérez-Testor

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

44.

Herrero

Meneses

(2006). Short web-based versions of the perceived stress (PSS) and center for epidemiological studies-depression (cesd) scales: A comparison to pencil and paper responses among internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 830–846. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.007.

45.

Kayser

Watson

L. E.

Andrade

J. T.

(2007). Cancer as a “we-disease”: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Families, Systems, & Health, 25(4), 404–418. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527.25.4.404.

46.

Kohn

Saxena

Levav

Saraceno

(2004). The treatment gap in mental health care. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82(11), 858–866. https://dx.doi.org//S0042-96862004001100011.

47.

Kowal

Coll-Martín

Ikizer

Rasmussen

Eichel

Studzińska

Koszałkowska

Karwowski

Najmussaqib

Pankowski

Lieberoth

Ahmed

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

48.

Ledermann

Bodenmann

Gagliardi

Charvoz

Verardi

Rossier

Bertoni

Iafrate

(2010). Psychometrics of the dyadic coping inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69(4): 201-212. https://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000024.

49.

Lee

E. H.

(2012). Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nursing Research, 6(4), 121–127. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004.

50.

Liu

C. H.

Zhang

Wong

G. T. F.

Hyun

Hahm

H. C.

(2020). Factors associated with depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptomatology during the COVID-19 pandemic: Clinical implications for U.S. young adult mental health. Psychiatry Research, 290, 113172–113172. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113172. .

51.

Zhang

Liu

Chang

Peng

Liu

Zhang

Ling

Tao

Chen

(2020). Characteristics of household transmission of COVID-19. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 71(8), 1943–1946. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa450.

52.

Meier

Bodenmann

Mörgeli

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, 583–596. https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S24508.

53.

Moccia

Janiri

Pepe

Dattoli

Molinaro

De Martin

Chieffo

Janiri

Fiorillo

Sani

Di Nicola

(2020). Affective temperament, attachment style, and the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak: An early report on the Italian general population. Brain, behavior, and immunity, 87, 75–79. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.048.

54.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 134–148. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255984.

55.

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. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015663.

56.

Norris

F. H.

Friedman

M. J.

Watson

P. J.

Byrne

C. M.

Diaz

Kaniasty

(2002). 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature 1981–2001. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 65(3), 207–239. https://dx.doi.org/10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173.

57.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

58.

Ogan

M. A.

Monk

J. K.

Kanter

J. B.

Proulx

C. M.

(2021). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship instability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(10), 2944–2964. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02654075211046531.

59.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Surra

C. A.

(2014). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective trajectories of commitment to wed. Personal Relationships, 21(4), 620–639. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pere.12054.

60.

Okabe-Miyamoto

Folk

Lyubomirsky

Dunn

E. W.

(2021). Changes in social connection during COVID-19 social distancing: It’s not (household) size that matters, it’s who you’re with. Plos One, 16(1), e0245009. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245009.

61.

Overall

N. C.

Chang

V. T.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Low

R. S. T.

Henderson

A. M. E.

(2021). Partners’ attachment insecurity and stress predict poorer relationship functioning during COVID-19 quarantines. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 285–298. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550621992973.

62.

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://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020836.

63.

Park

C. L.

Russell

B. S.

Fendrich

Finkelstein-Fox

Hutchison

Becker

(2020). Americans’ COVID-19 stress, coping, and adherence to CDC guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(8), 2296–2303. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05898-9.

64.

Pearman

Hughes

M. L.

Smith

E. L.

Neupert

S. D.

(2020). Age differences in risk and resilience factors in COVID-19-related stress. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(2):e38-e44. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa120. .

65.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Collins

N. L.

(2017). Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 531–542. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000129.

66.

Prime

Wade

Browne

D. T.

(2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000660.

67.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

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

68.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

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

69.

Randall

A. K.

Leon

Basili

Martos

Boiger

Baldi

Hocker

Kline

Masturzi

Aryeetey

Bar-Kalifa

Boon

S. D.

Botella

Burke

Carnelley

K. B.

Carr

Dash

Fitriana

Gaines

S. O.

Chiarolanza

(2022). Coping with global uncertainty: Perceptions of COVID-19 psychological distress, relationship quality, and dyadic coping for romantic partners across 27 countries. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(1), 3–33. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02654075211034236.

70.

Rosenthal

(1995). Methodology. In Tesser

(Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 17–49). McGraw-Hill.

71.

Rubonis

A. V.

Bickman

(1991). Psychological impairment in the wake of disaster: The disaster–psychopathology relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 384–399. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.384.

72.

Schmid

Wörn

Hank

Sawatzki

Walper

(2021). Changes in employment and relationship satisfaction in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the German family panel. European Societies, 23(sup1), S743–S758. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1836385.

73.

Schmitt

(1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350.

74.

Traa

M. J.

De Vries

Bodenmann

Den Oudsten

B. L.

(2015). Dyadic coping and relationship functioning in couples coping with cancer: A systematic review. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(1), 85–114. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12094.

75.

Wang

Pan

Wan

Tan

(2020). Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1729. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051729.

76.

Warttig

S. L.

Forshaw

M. J.

South

White

A. K.

(2013). New, normative, English-sample data for the short form perceived stress scale (PSS-4). Journal of Health Psychology, 18(12), 1617–1628. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105313508346.

77.

Wilder-Smith

Freedman

D. O.

(2020). Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: Pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Journal of Travel Medicine, 27(2), taaa020. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa020.

78.

Williamson

H. C

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

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

0.01 MB