Daily dyadic coping: Associations with postpartum sexual desire and sexual and relationship satisfaction

Abstract

The transition to parenthood involves numerous stressors. Consequently, many new parents report negative changes to their sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction relative to pre-pregnancy, with the most disruption reported at 3-months postpartum. While prior research suggests that dyadic coping—a couple’s capacity to deal with stress effectively and mutually—is positively linked with relationship satisfaction, little is known about how it relates to sexual and relational outcomes in new parents’ daily lives. This study examined how common and negative dyadic coping were associated with new parents’ own and their partner’s daily sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. New parent couples (N = 120) completed a baseline survey and 21 days of daily diaries between 3- and 4-months postpartum. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. After controlling for mood, for both women who gave birth and their partners, on days that they reported higher common dyadic coping, they reported greater sexual desire, and sexual and relationship satisfaction. On days when women reported lower negative dyadic coping, both they and their partner reported greater relationship satisfaction. When women reported higher common dyadic coping, their partners reported greater sexual desire. When women reported lower negative dyadic coping, they reported greater sexual desire. When partners reported lower negative dyadic coping, they reported greater relationship satisfaction. Focusing on strategies to encourage common and reduce negative daily dyadic coping may be beneficial for sexual and relationship well-being early in the postpartum when couples report experiencing a peak in sexual and relationship challenges.

Keywords

dyadic coping couples parenthood sexual desire sexual satisfaction relationship satisfaction

Although generally experienced as joyful, the postpartum period—the year following the birth of a child—can also be challenging for new parents. New parents report many novel stressors relative to pre-pregnancy (e.g., increased fatigue, problems with mood, changing roles and responsibilities; Tavares et al., 2019), each of which can vary daily. Moreover, these stressors have been linked with lower sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in new parents (De Judicibus & McCabe, 2002; Doss et al., 2009; Fitzpatrick et al., 2021). Indeed, over 40% of new parents experience declines in their sexual desire compared to pre-pregnancy (De Judicibus & McCabe, 2002; Fischman et al., 1986), and a similar percentage report declines in their overall sexual satisfaction (Ahlborg et al., 2005) and relationship satisfaction (Doss et al., 2009). Postpartum declines in sexual and relationship well-being have important implications for the couple and family. While sexual desire and satisfaction promote relationship quality (Brezsnyak & Whisman, 2004; Joel et al., 2020), relationship dissatisfaction has been linked to negative outcomes for families, including relationship dissolution, poorer quality of the parent-child relationship, and problems in the socio-emotional development of the child (Fincham et al., 2018). Although declines in sexual desire, and sexual and relationship satisfaction, are common for both parents, and studies examining predictors of these declines are emerging, those that do exist are primarily cross-sectional or focus on declines in relationship satisfaction only (e.g., Leonhardt et al., 2022; Rauch-Anderegg et al., 2020; Stertz & Wiese, 2020). Given the numerous common stressors new parents face daily with a newborn—and how important postpartum stress is for couples’ sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction (Tavares et al., 2019)—one potential predictor of new parents’ sexual and relationship outcomes is how they jointly cope with these challenges inherent to the postpartum period. As such, the aim of the current daily diary study was to examine how new parents’ daily dyadic coping relates to their own and their partner’s daily sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction.

Systemic Transactional Model and dyadic coping in the transition to parenthood

In the transition to parenthood, new parents face distinct biological (e.g., hormonal changes related to breastfeeding, genital trauma from childbirth), psychological (e.g., postpartum depression), and social stressors (e.g., division of labour, changing identities) that have been linked to declines in sexual desire, and sexual and relationship satisfaction in both partners (Doss et al., 2009; Fitzpatrick et al., 2021). Additionally, by 3-months postpartum, most couples have resumed sexual activity (Lurie et al., 2013) and longitudinal studies sampling couples from pregnancy to 12-months postpartum reveal that sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction are lowest at 3-months postpartum (Leonhardt et al., 2022; Rosen et al., 2020). Further, women who gave birth report significantly lower sexual desire and sexual satisfaction than their partners at 3-months postpartum, suggesting that they experience unique biopsychosocial changes and stressors compared to their partners (Schwenck et al., 2020).

According to Bodenmann’s (1997) Systemic Transactional Model, given the inherent interdependence of stress and coping within relationships, both partners are affected by individual and couple stressors. Thus, stressful situations, such as the novel biopsychosocial stressors in the transition to parenthood, are thought to affect the physical and psychological well-being of both partners, which includes their sexual and relationship well-being (Bodenmann, 2005). Indeed, new parents who report lower perceived stress have more positive sexual experiences (Tavares et al., 2019). Dyadic coping refers to how partners deal with and respond to a stressor together within their romantic relationship. This process consists of an interaction between three factors: one person’s stress signals, how these stress signals are perceived by their partner, and how their partner responds to the stress signals (Bodenmann, 2005). While stressors may be experienced by the partners directly (i.e., at the same time) or indirectly (i.e., one partner experiences the stressor first, and then the stressor is shared with the second partner), the stressors are considered dyadic as they inherently impact both members of the couple (Bodenmann, 2005). As a result, in dyadic coping, the stress appraisal process moves from being an individual process to a dyadic process, in which both members of the couple appraise the stressor, and any support or collaboration (or lack thereof) has implications for both partners’ satisfaction and well-being (Bodenmann, 2005; Cutrona et al., 2018). Importantly, dyadic coping is distinguishable from the concept of more general social support, where one partner typically offers support with the other partner receiving the support, instead of a more dyadic, interdependent process, including aspects of support and collaboration. Another difference is that social support may occur outside of a romantic relationship, whereas dyadic coping is specific to romantic couples and considers the dyad as the unit of coping (Bodenmann, 1997; Cutrona et al., 2018).

Two established types of dyadic coping include common dyadic coping and negative dyadic coping. Common dyadic coping involves partners engaging in adaptive joint actions (e.g., problem-solving, communicating common concerns, emotional support) to handle a common stressor. In contrast, negative dyadic coping is characterized by a lack of collaboration such as unwilling and unmotivated support, mocking or minimizing sentiments, and superficial interest in the problem (Bodenmann, 1997). Although more effective dyadic coping is considered to include more common and less negative dyadic coping, these two types of dyadic coping are conceptualized along separate dimensions and empirical evidence supports their distinction (Bodenmann et al., 2018; Levesque, Lafontaine, Caron, & Fitzpatrick, 2014). As such, endorsement of one type of dyadic coping does not preclude endorsement of the other. When couples engage in more effective dyadic coping, both partners’ sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction may be enhanced by reducing levels of stress and promoting intimacy, trust, and mutual closeness (Bodenmann, 2005). In support of this directional association, a longitudinal study of community couples (N = 1543) found that more effective dyadic coping predicted better relationship outcomes; however, there was minimal evidence of the reverse direction with relationship outcomes predicting dyadic coping (Johnson & Horne, 2016). Overall, considering the heightened levels of stress associated with the transition to parenthood, dyadic coping may be especially important during key periods (e.g., when couples may be experiencing challenges to their sexual relationship after resuming sexual activity).

Links between dyadic coping and sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction

In line with the Systemic Transactional Model (Bodenmann, 1997), a meta-analysis (k = 72 studies, N = 17,856) sampling couples who were struggling with an illness, as well as community couples, found that dyadic coping was positively linked with relationship satisfaction (r = .45) and that this association did not vary significantly across gender (Falconier et al., 2015). A more recent study not included in the meta-analysis examining dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction across 35 nations (N = 7973 participants) also found a significant association (B = 0.59). However, in this study the associations between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction were generally stronger for women (n = 17 nations, including Canada and the US) or equal across genders (n = 14 nations; Hilpert et al., 2016). Thus, evidence for gender differences in the strength of the associations between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction are mixed.

Specific to the transition to parenthood, a cross-sectional study found that one parent’s rating of more positive dyadic coping was linked to higher marital adjustment for themselves and their partner (Molgora et al., 2019). Furthermore, a randomized controlled trial of 348 pregnant couples, showed that a brief, two-session intervention aimed to enhance dyadic coping and communication skills, nested within a broader health behaviour intervention, buffered against declines in relationship satisfaction during the postpartum period (Coop Gordon et al., 2018). Finally, a longitudinal study found that women who gave birth and partners’ common dyadic coping in the third trimester of pregnancy predicted women’s higher scores on couple adjustment 3-months postpartum (Molgora et al., 2021). Taken together, dyadic coping has been positively linked to relationship satisfaction in community couples, and to marital satisfaction and couple adjustment for couples in the transition to parenthood. However, no studies have examined day-to-day changes in dyadic coping, nor have they assessed facets of dyadic coping (i.e., common and negative) to examine their independent associations with postpartum relationship satisfaction.

While research has shown that relationship satisfaction is positively linked with sexual desire and satisfaction (Mark, 2012; McNulty et al., 2016), the latter have distinct implications for couples. Indeed, individuals who report greater sexual desire and sexual satisfaction also report greater life satisfaction, independent of their ethnicity, family background, prior sexual and relationship history, age, or health (Schmiedeberg et al., 2017). Despite the importance of sexual desire and satisfaction for relationships, limited research has examined the association between dyadic coping and sexual satisfaction, and no studies have assessed the association with sexual desire. Further, no studies have explored potential differences between partners in the strength of the associations between dyadic coping and sexual outcomes. Bodenmann’s (1997) Systemic Transaction Model states that engaging in common dyadic coping in the context of a shared stressor enhances couples’ mutual trust, attachment, and intimacy—a sense of “we-ness”. In contrast, negative dyadic coping fosters hostility, distancing between partners, and lower relationship commitment, which may lead to declines in couples’ sexual desire and satisfaction (Bodenmann, 2005). Thus, Bodenmann’s (1997) model of dyadic coping applied to sexuality suggests that greater common and lower negative dyadic coping may promote sexual desire and satisfaction.

There is emerging evidence to support links between dyadic empathy and coping and sexual outcomes within and outside the transition to parenthood. Indeed, in a 3-month, weekly diary study of undergraduate women, higher reports of dyadic coping were associated with greater sexual satisfaction (Bodenmann et al., 2010). In a cross-sectional sample of new parents, greater dyadic empathy, which significantly predicts one’s dyadic coping abilities (Levesque, Lafontaine, Caron, Flesch, & Bjornson, 2014), was linked with higher relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction for both the women who gave birth and their partners (Rosen et al., 2017). In the same study, dyadic empathy among women who gave birth was associated with their own higher sexual desire; however, when their partners were more empathic, women who gave birth reported lower sexual desire (Rosen et al., 2017). Only one study to our knowledge has specifically examined dyadic coping and sexuality in new parent couples. In the study, greater common dyadic coping was associated with an individual’s own lower sexual distress—negative feelings associated with one’s sexual relationship (Derogatis et al., 2008)—at 3-months postpartum, but was not associated with how their sexual distress changed over time (Tutelman et al., 2021). These results suggest that how new parents cope together is important for managing sexual distress at a time when most couples have just resumed sexual activity and are experiencing significantly low sexual desire and satisfaction (Lurie et al., 2013; Rosen et al., 2020). Overall, previous research has shown that dyadic coping is associated with sexual satisfaction in a community sample and lower sexual distress in new parents, however, no studies have evaluated daily changes in new parents’ dyadic coping and the associations with sexual satisfaction or desire.

Current study

To the best of our knowledge, with the exception of the aforementioned studies (i.e., Bodenmann et al., 2010; Rosen et al., 2017; Tutelman et al., 2021), previous cross-sectional and daily experience research has focused primarily on how couples’ dyadic coping relates to their relationship satisfaction, neglecting sexual outcomes. The only study that explored dyadic coping and sexuality in the transition to parenthood (i.e., Tutelman et al., 2021) focused on sexual distress over months, not days, and ignored positive aspects of sexual well-being (e.g., sexual desire, satisfaction) despite their importance for couple and family well-being (Brezsnyak & Whisman, 2004; Joel et al., 2020). Thus, we aimed to establish associations between dyadic coping and sexual outcomes as a first step in elucidating these relationships. Further, new parents are faced with novel stressors daily and, as such, a daily experience design is better able to capture within-person variability while also limiting recall biases (Boynton & O’Hara, 2018). Additionally, the majority of prior research in the transition to parenthood has collapsed dyadic coping into a single construct, despite evidence that dyadic coping is better characterized by multiple processes (e.g., common and negative dyadic coping) that have different associations with outcomes (Falconier & Kuhn, 2019). It is possible that conflating these distinct processes obscures the effects of dyadic coping on sexual and relational outcomes. Given the mixed results regarding potential gender differences in the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction, and the limited research that exists for the effect of dyadic coping on sexual outcomes, in the current study we examined potential differences between women and partners in an exploratory way.

The goal of the present study was to examine how new parents’ daily dyadic coping related to their own and their partner’s daily sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction between 3- and 4- months postpartum. Based on Bodenmann’s (1997) Systemic Transactional Model and prior research, we hypothesized that on days when a parent reported greater common and lower negative dyadic coping compared to their average across all days, they and their partner would report greater sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. To rule out alternative hypotheses, we also examined potential covariates which have been previously linked to changes in couples’ sexuality and relationship postpartum (i.e., breastfeeding, daily stress, mood, parental fatigue; Johnson, 2011; Schlagintweit et al., 2016).

Method

Participants

We conducted an a priori power analysis based on the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Cook & Kenny, 2005) using Monte Carlo simulations (Wang & Wang, 2019) conducted in Mplus (Version 8; Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). With a moderate actor effect (.30), a small partner effect (.14; Herzberg, 2013; Papp & Witt, 2010; Rosen et al., 2017), 80% power, and an alpha of .05, we determined a necessary sample size of 115 couples. The final sample included 120 first-time parent couples who were recruited prior to 4-months postpartum from Canada (67%) and the US (33%) through print and online advertisements (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Kijiji, Reddit) from December 2019 to July 2021. A subsample of participants (n = 55 couples) was recruited as part of a larger study that follows couples from pregnancy through to 15-months postpartum and the remaining couples (n = 65 couples) were recruited specifically for the current study. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for both studies. There were no differences between recruitment groups on any sociodemographic variables.

To participate, participants were required to be over the age of 18, fluent in English, and to have access to a personal email account. Couples had to be in a committed, cohabitating relationship of at least 6 months and have no other children. Further, the couple was required to have a singleton birth (i.e., no twins, triplets, etc.) with no major health complications as these factors are likely to put an additional strain on postpartum adjustment (Wright et al., 2000). Exclusion criteria included unmanaged, self-reported medical or psychiatric illnesses. The study was inclusive of sex and gender diverse couples. All the participants who gave birth in the study self-identified as women; thus, throughout the paper we refer to the participants who gave birth as “women”. The partners identified as men (n = 115), women (n = 3), and different gendered (n = 2; see Table 1), thus, throughout the paper we use the term “partners” to describe the partners of women who gave birth.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for the sample (N = 120 couples).

	WomenM ± SD or N (%)	PartnersM ± SD or N (%)
Age (years)	31.47 ± 3.90	33.01 ± 5.09
Gender
Woman	120 (100%)	3 (2.5%)
Man	–	115 (95.8%)
Different gender^a	–	2 (1.7%)
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual	108 (90.0%)	109 (90.8%)
Bisexual	9 (7.5%)	–
Queer	3 (2.5%)	3 (2.5%)
Lesbian	–	3 (2.5%)
Asexual	–	3 (2.5%)
Not listed^b	–	2 (1.7%)
Ethnicity/Culture
White	97 (80.8%)	99 (82.5%)
East Asian	6 (5.0%)	3 (2.5%)
Hispanic/Latino/Latina	5 (4.2%)	3 (2.5%)
African American/Black	2 (1.7%)	4 (3.3%)
Biracial/Multiracial	2 (1.7%)	3 (2.5%)
Not listed^c	8 (6.7%)	8 (6.7%)
Relationship Status
Married	96 (80.0%)
Common-law/living together	14 (11.7%)
Engaged	10 (8.3%)
Relationship Length (years)	6.06 ± 3.18
Shared Annual Income
$0-$39,999	4 (3.3%)
$40,000-$79,999	24 (20.0%)
>$80,000	92 (76.7%)
Independent variables
Common dyadic coping	13.85 ± 4.46	13.19 ± 4.02
Negative dyadic coping	5.81 ± 2.15	5.93 ± 1.82
Dependent variables
Relationship satisfaction	16.34 ± 3.18	16.34 ± 3.18
Sexual satisfaction	4.00 ± 1.41	4.18 ± 1.47
Sexual desire	3.83 ± 1.38	4.58 ± 1.36

^aOptions provided for genders: woman, man, genderqueer, agender, and an open-ended response. To protect confidentiality, cells containing only one participant will not be reported on.

^bOptions provided for sexual orientations: asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, straight/heterosexual, pansexual, queer and an open-ended response.

^cNot listed ethnicities included the following: Asian American, Asian, Aboriginal/Native American/American Indian/Alaska Native/First Nation, East Indian, European, Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern.

Procedure

Once couples were recruited, a screening interview was completed to confirm eligibility criteria, and both partners provided informed consent in an online form prior to beginning the study. Eligible participants were scheduled to complete the baseline survey between three- and 4-months postpartum including measures of sociodemographics. All surveys were administered using the Qualtrics Research Suite survey software. The survey link expired after 4 weeks. Once both partners completed the baseline survey, they received a daily diary orientation call from a graduate student or research assistant and began the 21-day daily diary portion of the study. Each day for 21 days, participants received a survey link to their email at 5 p.m. in their respective time zone and were instructed to complete (independently from their partner) brief, validated measures assessing their dyadic coping, sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and relevant potential covariates (e.g., daily stress, fatigue). Importantly, participants did not need to be sexually active that day, or any day in the past 4 weeks, to complete the measures of sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in the baseline and daily surveys. A built-in date tracking feature of the Qualtrics Research Suite survey software confirmed whether participants were completing the diary each day (survey links expired at 4 a.m. the next day). Retention strategies based on Dillman’s (2007) tailored method were employed: completion of the baseline survey was encouraged via phone call reminders at 1- and 3-weeks by a research assistant, participants were contacted weekly during the diary period by the same researcher who completed their daily diary orientation call to encourage study participation and answer participants’ questions, and increased financial incentives for diary completion (i.e., up to $20 per week per partner, pro-rated based on diary completion). The overall rate of diary completion was 87.6% (90.8% for women, 84.4% for partners). This study received approval from the IWK Health Centre’s ethics review board.

Measures

Demographics. Participants reported their sex, gender, sexual orientation, relationship status and duration, education, income, and ethnicity/culture in the baseline questionnaire.

Dyadic coping. Common dyadic coping was assessed daily using the five items of the common dyadic coping subscale of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; e.g., We tried to cope with the problem together and search for solutions; Bodenmann et al., 2018). Common dyadic coping total scores range from 5 to 25, measured on 5-point Likert scales, with higher scores indicating greater perceptions of the couples’ use of common dyadic coping. To maintain a brief daily survey, perceptions of the couples’ use of negative dyadic coping was measured using the four highest factor-loading items (Randall et al., 2016) from the negative dyadic coping subscale of the DCI (e.g., My partner provided support, but did so unwillingly and seemed unmotivated to do so; Bodenmann et al., 2018). Negative common dyadic coping total scores range from 4 to 20, measured on 5-point Likert scales, with higher scores indicating greater negative dyadic coping. The DCI subscales have high construct validity (Randall et al., 2016) and showed good-acceptable within-person reliability of change for the items in women who gave birth (common dyadic coping: R_C = .78; negative dyadic coping: R_C = .73) and partners (common dyadic coping: R_C = .76; negative dyadic coping: R_C = .68).

Sexual desire for partner. Sexual desire was measured daily using one face-valid item (i.e., Since my last diary, I felt a great deal of sexual desire for my partner) used in previous daily diary studies (e.g., Muise & Impett, 2015). The item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale with a higher score representing higher sexual desire for one’s partner.

Sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction was assessed daily using one face-valid item from the Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (GMSEX; Lawrance & Byers, 1995). The bipolar item (i.e., very unsatisfying/very satisfying) was rated on a 7-point Likert scale with a higher score signifying greater sexual satisfaction. The single-item measure has shown strong convergent validity with the well-validated 5-item GMSEX (Mark, 2012), and has been used in prior diary studies (e.g., Herbenick et al., 2011).

Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was assessed daily using the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The measure includes four items of positive and negative indicators of relationship quality (e.g., How rewarding is your relationship with your partner?) measured on 6- and 7-point Likert scales (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Total scores range from 0 to 21, and higher scores indicate higher relationship satisfaction. The CSI-4 has strong convergent and construct validity in addition to high reliability (Funk & Rogge, 2007) and showed good within-person reliability in the present study in both women who gave birth (R_C = .83) and partners (R_C = .82).

Covariates. Both participants reported daily on parental fatigue (1 item; scale of 1–7 with higher scores indicating more fatigue), daily stress (1 item; scale of 1–6 with higher scores indicating greater stress), and mood (e.g., 1 item; scale of 0, very poor mood, to 4, very good mood). In the baseline survey, women who gave birth also responded to one item with nominal options indicating how the baby was fed in the past 4 weeks (i.e., exclusively from breast, bottle-fed, etc.), which was subsequently dichotomized as yes/no for breastfeeding (e.g., Montgomery-Downs et al., 2010).

Data analysis

Analyses were informed by the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Cook & Kenny, 2005). IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26) was used to analyze descriptive statistics and compute correlations. To assess the associations between negative and common dyadic coping and our outcome variables, residual dynamic structural equation modeling (RDSEM; Asparouhov et al., 2018) was conducted in Mplus (Version 8; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). RDSEM combines concepts from multilevel modeling, structural equation modeling, and time-series analyses, and uses residuals to estimate within-person autoregressive and cross-lagged regressions to account for the autocorrelation in residual errors (Asparouhov et al., 2018; McNeish & Hamaker, 2020). In RDSEM, the predictor and outcome variables are split into two levels: Level 1 describes within-person effects and Level 2 encompasses the between-person differences (McNeish & Hamaker, 2020).

A single model that included all the predictor and outcome variables for women and partners was computed using a Bayes estimator and 5000 Markov chain Monte Carlo iterations and thinning to include every 10^th iteration. The Bayes estimator is a full-information estimator in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017), which optimally uses all available data for modeling, and, thus, is unbiased by missingness (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010; Wang & Wang, 2019). Bayesian estimation, achieved via Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, can be less biased and converge more quickly compared to maximum likelihood (Muthén, 2010). The Proportional Scale Reduction (PSR) value was used to evaluate convergence, with values equal or close to one indicating good convergence (Muthén, 2010). To account for within-person stability, daily outcomes were regressed on the outcomes of the previous day (i.e., autoregression; in line with recommendations from Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013), and on time since beginning the daily diaries, to account for potential upward or downward trends in the outcomes as a factor of time (as recommended by McNeish & Hamaker, 2020). Additionally, RDSEM utilizes latent mean centering to partition within- and between-subject variance, including among predictors, outcomes, and lagged predictors (see Asparouhov & Muthén, 2019). Latent mean centering is more accurate than observed mean centering (i.e., calculating within- and between-subject variables manually prior to analyzing) as it accounts for a type of bias introduced during observed mean centering known as Nickell’s bias (for more on Nickell’s bias, see Asparouhov et al., 2018; Nickell, 1981).

We examined both actor (e.g., how an individual’s daily dyadic coping relates to their own daily sexual desire) and partner effects (e.g., how an individual’s daily dyadic coping relates to their partner’s daily sexual desire). We tested whether day-to-day changes from a person’s own mean were associated with daily changes in their own (actor effect) and their partner’s (partner effect) sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. To assess these associations, we estimated covariances between women and partners’ negative and common dyadic coping, and women and partners’ sexual desire, and sexual and relationship satisfaction (i.e., Level 1, within-person effects). Given that we did not have between-subject hypotheses, no specific regression pathways were tested at the between-subject level. However, correlations were calculated at the between-subject level amongst all between-subject variables (the between-subject variables included: women’s and partners’ negative dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction) to ensure the model fit the data well. Using the model constraint command in Mplus, we also compared the model’s regression effects to examine whether the actor and partner associations between predictors and outcomes differed for women compared to partners, and to support evaluating these dyads as distinguishable (i.e., test of distinguishability; e.g., Allsop et al., 2021). To rule out alternative hypotheses, we then examined the associations between covariates (i.e., breastfeeding, daily stress, mood, and parental fatigue) and our outcome variables. Those with a correlation >.30 were included in a separate supplemental model.

The de-identified data and syntax can be found in the online supplemental materials on the OSF page: https://osf.io/xh76e/.

Results

Sample descriptives and intercorrelations

Descriptive statistics for participant demographics and both partners’ independent and dependent variables (aggregated within-person across all diaries) are in Table 1. There were no differences in reported relationship satisfaction between women and partners t (5038.00) = 0.10, p > .05, 95% CI of mean difference [-0.18, 0.17], Cohen’s d = .01. Partners reported significantly higher negative dyadic coping t (4897.98) = 2.10, p < .05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.23], Cohen’s d = 0.06, sexual desire, t (5037.37) = 19.42, p < .001, 95% CI [0.68, 0.83], Cohen’s d = 0.55, and sexual satisfaction, t (5038.00) = 4.54, p < .001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.26], Cohen’s d = 0.13, than women. Women reported significantly higher common dyadic coping than partners, t (5038) = 5.45, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.42, 0.87], Cohen’s d = 0.15. The interdependence of couple members’ variables was evidenced by low to moderate correlations of women’s and partners’ reports of average common dyadic coping and negative dyadic coping over the 21-day daily diary period. Additionally, average sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction were all moderately correlated within women, within partners, and between women and partners. The within-person correlations between all independent and dependent variables are displayed in Table 2. With respect to covariates, only overall mood was significantly correlated with sexual desire (r = .32), sexual satisfaction (r = .31), and relationship satisfaction (r = .39) above the >.30 threshold. For both our main model and supplemental model (including mood as a covariate), the PSR values were <1.005, indicating good convergence (Muthén, 2010).

Table 2.

Correlations within- and between-individuals for predictor and outcome variables.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Common dyadic coping	0.29	−0.20	0.48	0.52	0.52
2. Negative dyadic coping	−0.19	0.33	−0.55	−0.20	−0.24
3. Relationship satisfaction	0.41	−0.57	0.43	0.55	0.54
4. Sexual satisfaction	0.41	−0.40	0.55	0.61	0.75
5. Sexual desire	0.41	−0.36	0.55	0.61	0.48

Note: Correlations within women are above the diagonal; correlations within partners are below the diagonal. Correlations between women and partners’ predictors and outcomes are on the diagonal, in bold.

All correlations were significant at p < 0.01.

Correlations were calculated using participants’ mean scores across all days for each variable.

Common and negative dyadic coping and sexual desire

As hypothesized, when women and partners reported greater common dyadic coping compared to their average across all days, they each reported higher sexual desire (Table 3).

Table 3.

Within-person effects of common and negative dyadic coping and sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction.

	Women’s sexual desire			Partners’ sexual desire			Women’s sexual satisfaction			Partners’ sexual satisfaction
	B	SD	95% CI	B	SD	95% CI	B	SD	95% CI	B	SD	95% CI
Women’s dyadic coping
Common	0.06*^†	0.01	0.04, 0.08	0.03*^†	0.01	0.01, 0.05	0.05^*†	0.01	0.03, 0.07	0.01	0.01	−0.01, 0.03
Negative	−0.09*^†	0.02	−0.13, −0.05	−0.06*	0.02	−0.10, −0.02	−0.06*	0.02	−0.09, 0.02	−0.03	0.02	−0.07, 0.01
Partners’ dyadic coping
Common	0.01	0.01	−0.01, 0.03	0.05*^†	0.01	0.03, 0.07	0.02	0.01	0.00, 0.04	0.05^*†	0.01	0.03, 0.07
Negative	−0.01	0.02	−0.05, 0.03	−0.02	0.02	−0.05, 0.02	0.03	0.02	−0.01, 0.07	−0.01	0.02	−0.02, 0.05

	Women’s relationship satisfaction			Partners’ relationship satisfaction
	B	SD	95% CI	B	SD	95% CI
Women’s dyadic coping
Common	0.08*^†	0.02	0.06, 0.12	0.01	0.02	−0.03, 0.04
Negative	−0.24*^†	0.03	−0.30, −0.17	−0.21^*†	0.03	−0.28, −0.15
Partners’ dyadic coping
Common	0.01	0.02	−0.02, 0.04	0.08*^†	0.02	0.05, 0.11
Negative	−0.06*	0.03	−0.12, −0.01	−0.16*^†	0.03	−0.22, −0.10

Note: Results of main model that included time.

^†Effects that remained significant in supplemental model when both covariate mood and time were included.

*p < 0.05.

B = unstandardized betas; SD = posterior standard deviation; CI = credible interval.

Moreover, on days when women reported greater common dyadic coping their partners reported greater sexual desire. When women reported lower negative dyadic coping, they and their partner reported greater sexual desire. There were no effects of partners’ common dyadic coping for women’s sexual desire, or of partners’ negative dyadic coping for their own or women’s sexual desire.

Common and negative dyadic coping and sexual satisfaction

Consistent with our hypothesis, on days that women and partners reported more common dyadic coping compared to their average across all days, they also reported higher sexual satisfaction (Table 3). On days when women reported lower negative dyadic coping, they also reported greater sexual satisfaction. Partners’ negative dyadic coping was not associated with their own sexual satisfaction. Finally, there were no effects of women’s or partners’ common or negative dyadic coping on their partners’ sexual satisfaction (i.e., partner effects).

Common and negative dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction

As hypothesized, on days when women and partners each reported higher common dyadic coping compared to their average across all days, they also reported higher relationship satisfaction (see Table 3). On days when women and partners reported lower negative dyadic coping, they and their partners reported greater relationship satisfaction. There were no partner effects for women’s and partners’ common dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction.

Differences between women and partners

A comparison of the actor and partner effects for women compared to partners (i.e., test of distinguishability) determined that the strength of women’s and partners’ regression effects differed significantly for three out of 12 compared effects (i.e., six actor and six partner effects). Two actor effects were greater (more positive) for women compared to partners (i.e., one’s own negative dyadic coping predicting one’s own sexual desire and one’s own sexual satisfaction) and one partner effect was greater (more positive) for partners compared to women (a partner’s negative dyadic coping predicting one’s own sexual desire).

Ruling out alternative hypotheses

To rule out the possibility that our results could be accounted for by women’s and partners’ daily changes in mood, we included mood as a covariate. All our effects remained significant with three exceptions: the associations between women’s lower negative dyadic coping and their own sexual satisfaction and partners’ sexual desire, and between partners’ lower negative dyadic coping and women’s relationship satisfaction became non-significant.

Discussion

This study examined the daily associations between two types of dyadic coping (i.e., common and negative) and sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction, during a vulnerable period when most new parent couples have resumed sexual activity and report experiencing a peak in sexual and relationship challenges (Leonhardt et al., 2022; Lurie et al., 2013; Rosen et al., 2020). Overall, our results showed that daily perceptions of higher common and lower negative dyadic coping were associated with greater sexual desire, satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction for both members of new parent couples. These results are consistent with Bodenmann’s (1997) Systemic Transactional Model indicating that how couples jointly cope with daily stressors is associated with daily variations in their sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction early on in the transition to parenthood.

Consistent with our predictions, daily common and negative dyadic coping were linked with new parents’ sexual well-being. Specifically, after accounting for mood, for both women who gave birth and their partners, on days that they reported higher common dyadic coping compared to their average across all days, they reported greater sexual desire and sexual satisfaction. The strength of these effects between women and partners were not significantly different. Additionally, women’s greater common dyadic coping was associated with partners’ greater sexual desire. Further, women’s reports of lower negative dyadic coping were associated with their own greater sexual desire. When new parents use more common dyadic coping, they may perceive their partners to be more understanding and responsive, thus promoting intimacy, whereas negative dyadic coping may interfere with intimacy as partners are perceived as dismissive and unresponsive (Laurenceau et al., 2005). Daily couple intimacy—and perceived partner responsiveness in particular—is a key contributor to sexual desire (Birnbaum et al., 2016) and sexual satisfaction (Rubin & Campbell, 2012), including during the transition to parenthood (Hipp et al., 2012; van Anders et al., 2013). Additionally, both acute and chronic stress have been linked to increased levels of relationships stress and tension, which are associated with lower sexual desire and sexual satisfaction in community couples (Bodenmann et al., 2006, 2007), and couples in the transition to parenthood (Tavares et al., 2019; van Anders et al., 2013). Although there was one significant effect of negative dyadic coping, there were five unique effects of greater common dyadic coping on women’s and partners’ greater sexual desire and satisfaction. Our results suggest that employing common dyadic coping to jointly problem solve daily stressors may be especially important to sexual desire and sexual satisfaction during the vulnerable period when sexual well-being is lowest—that is, between three- and 4-months postpartum (Lurie et al., 2013; Rosen et al., 2020).

In line with our hypothesis and consistent with meta-analytic findings (Falconier et al., 2015), after controlling for mood, on days when women who gave birth and their partners reported greater common and lower negative dyadic coping, they each reported greater relationship satisfaction. For both common and negative dyadic coping, the strength of the effects between women and partners were not significantly different. Further, women’s lower negative dyadic coping was also associated with partners’ greater relationship satisfaction. The current results add to the literature by determining that these associations exist at the daily level and by identifying the specific associations of common and negative dyadic coping to postpartum relationship satisfaction. Per Bodenmann’s (1997) Systemic Transactional Model, common dyadic coping fosters the feeling of “we-ness” among partners, and strengthens their mutual trust, intimacy, attachment, and commitment in the presence of a mutual stressor (Bodenmann et al., 2016). The daily challenges surrounding caring for new baby are some of the greatest mutual stressors a couple may face during their lifetime, with significant negative impacts to their relationship satisfaction (Doss et al., 2009). As such, new parents may experience greater relationship satisfaction on days that they engaged in more collaborative efforts to deal with a challenge by creating a sense that the relationship is comforting and supportive (Levesque, Lafontaine, Caron, Flesch, & Bjornson, 2014). Conversely, negative dyadic coping is characterized by hostile or ambivalent responses to a partner’s stress (e.g., one partner disparages the experience of the other by minimizing partner stress or suggesting they should deal with the problem on their own; Bodenmann, 2005), which may, in turn, foster a perceived lack of empathy, a significant predictor of lower relationship satisfaction (Cramer & Jowett, 2010).

Strengths, limitations & future directions

To our knowledge, this was the first study to investigate the daily associations between dyadic coping and sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in the transition to parenthood—and the first to evaluate the association between dyadic coping and sexual desire overall. We identified distinct associations of common and negative dyadic coping to women’s and partners’ sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction which supports the theoretical assertion that these facets of coping be considered separately. A key strength of this study was its use of daily diary methods, which reduce recall biases and allow for the evaluation of fluctuations in new parents’ daily coping during a period of considerable change with a new baby. Finally, given the importance of sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction for both partners’ overall well-being (Joel et al., 2020), this study included both couple members’ experiences and implemented a dyadic approach to account for their interdependence.

The study findings are correlational and sampled a relatively short period of new parents’ experience in the postpartum, which cannot capture changes over longer periods of time, especially with a new baby (Mitnick et al., 2009). Causal conclusions cannot be drawn, and the findings may not be generalizable to the entire postpartum period. Future studies should employ methods that will allow for analyses of causation (e.g., multiple time-points per day, year-long longitudinal method). The study sample was relatively homogenous; most participants identified as heterosexual, cisgender, and White, fell within the highest category of shared annual income, and we did not assess for disabilities in our sample, limiting the generalizability of our findings. Future research should aim to explore these associations within a sample with greater diversity. Further, while the purpose of this study was to elucidate the associations between dyadic coping and sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in the early postpartum, we hypothesized some mechanisms for these associations in accordance with Bodenmann’s (1997) Systemic Transactional Model (e.g., intimacy, stress reduction). These mechanisms should be tested in future research to inform interventions and psychoeducation for new parents’ sexual and relationship well-being in the early postpartum.

Conclusion

This study supports the Systemic Transactional Model (Bodenmann, 1997) of dyadic coping in the transition to parenthood; perceiving lower negative and greater common dyadic coping—that is, that you and your partner engage in joint problem solving when faced with the common stressor of a new baby—was associated with greater sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in couples’ daily lives. Interventions might target dyadic coping as a relevant factor to promote couples’ sexual desire, and sexual and relationship satisfaction early in the postpartum. For example, interventions can provide psychoeducation regarding the benefits of common dyadic coping, not only for couples’ relationship more broadly, but also for their sexual relationship. Interventions should focus on facilitating common dyadic coping strategies such as identifying the problem, helping each other relax to reduce stress, and being affectionate with one another, while encouraging couples to be aware of and reduce the use of negative coping strategies (e.g., offering unwilling and unmotivated support, not taking their partner’s stress seriously). Overall, these findings highlight that new parents’ daily fluctuations in dyadic coping in the early postpartum are associated with sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction, and may be a valuable target for interventions during a period of significant personal and relational challenges.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by an Insight Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awarded to S. J. Dawson and N. O. Rosen. G. C. Schwenck was supported by a SSHRC Doctoral Scholarship, Killam Doctoral Scholarship, Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit Scholarship, Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship, Research Nova Scotia Scholars Award, and Mitacs Research Training Award. S. J. Dawson was supported by a SSHRC Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship, IWK Postdoctoral Fellowship, and a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award. D. B. Allsop was supported by a Killam Doctoral Scholarship, Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit Scholarship, Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship, and the Dalhousie Presidential Doctoral Scholarship. N. O. Rosen was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award and the Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation. This research has previously been presented at the 47^th Annual Meeting of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research.

ORCID iD

Natalie O Rosen

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 has been publicly posted. The data can be obtained at: or by emailing: nrosen@dal.ca. The materials used in the research have not been publicly shared but are available upon request. The materials can be obtained by emailing: nrosen@dal.ca.

References

Ahlborg

Dahlöf

L. G.

Hallberg

L. R. M.

(2005). Quality of the intimate and sexual relationship in first-time parents six months after delivery. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552270

Allsop

D. B.

Wang

C.-Y.

Dew

J. P.

Holmes

E. K.

Hill

E. J.

Leavitt

C. E.

(2021). Daddy, mommy, and money: The association between parental materialism on parent–child relationship quality. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 42(2), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09705-9

Asparouhov

Hamaker

E. L.

Muthén

(2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2010). Bayesian analysis of latent variable models using Mplus (technical report). : Muthen & Muthen.

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2019). Latent variable centering of predictors and mediators in multilevel and time-series models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1511375

Birnbaum

G. E.

Reis

H. T.

Mizrahi

Kanat-Maymon

Sass

Granovski-Milner

(2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000069

Bodenmann

(1997). Dyadic coping: A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 137–140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571

Bodenmann

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

T. A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002

Bodenmann

Arista

Walsh

Randall

(2018). Dyadic coping inventory. In Lebow

Chambers

Breunlin

D. C.

(Eds), Encyclopedia of couple and family Therapy (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_678-1

10.

Bodenmann

Atkins

D. C.

Schär

Poffet

(2010). The association between daily stress and sexual activity. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019365

11.

Bodenmann

Ledermann

Blattner

Galluzzo

(2006). Associations among everyday stress, critical life events, and sexual problems. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(7), 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000228504.15569.b6

12.

Bodenmann

Ledermann

Bradbury

T. N.

(2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x

13.

Bodenmann

Randall

A. K.

Falconier

M. K.

(2016). Coping in couples: The Systemic Transactional Model (STM). In Falconier

M. K.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 5-22). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644394.

14.

Bolger

Laurenceau

J.-P.

(2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.

15.

Boynton

M. H.

O’Hara

R. E.

(2018). Using daily diary methods to inform and enrich social psychological research. In Blanton

LaCroix

J. M.

Webster

G. D.

(Eds), Measurement in social psychology (1st ed., pp. 127–152). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452925

16.

Brezsnyak

Whisman

M. A.

(2004). Sexual desire and relationship functioning: The effects of marital satisfaction and power. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 30(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230490262393

17.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

18.

Coop Gordon

Roberson

P. N.

Hughes

J. A.

Khaddouma

A. M.

Swamy

G. K.

Noonan

Gonzalez

A. M.

Fish

Pollak

K. I.

(2018). The effects of a couples‐based health behavior intervention during pregnancy on Latino couples’ dyadic satisfaction postpartum. Family Process, 57(3), 629–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12354

19.

Cramer

Jowett

(2010). Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509348384

20.

Cutrona

Bodenmann

Randall

A. K.

Clavél

F. D.

Johnson

(2018). Stress, dyadic coping, and social support: Moving toward integration. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.027

21.

De Judicibus

M. A.

McCabe

M. P.

(2002). Psychological factors and the sexuality of pregnant and postpartum women. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552128

22.

Derogatis

L. R.

Clayton

Lewis-D'Agostino

Wunderlich

(2008). Validation of the female sexual distress scale-revised for assessing distress in women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5(2), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00672.x

23.

Dillman

(2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

24.

Doss

B. D.

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2009). The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013969

25.

Falconier

M. K.

Jackson

J. B.

Hilpert

Bodenmann

(2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.00

26.

Falconier

M. K.

Kuhn

(2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571

27.

Fincham

F. D.

Rogge

Beach

S. R. H.

(2018). Relationship satisfaction. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds), The cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 422–436). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.033

28.

Fischman

S. H.

Rankin

E. A.

Soeken

K. L.

Lenz

E. R.

(1986). Changes in sexual relationships in postpartum couples. Journal of Obstretic, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 15(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.1986.tb01369.x

29.

Fitzpatrick

E. T.

Kolbuszewska

M. T.

Dawson

S. J.

(2021). Perinatal sexual dysfunction: The importance of the interpersonal context. Current Sexual Health Reports(13), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-021-00313-8

30.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

31.

Herbenick

Reece

Hensel

Sanders

Jozkowski

Fortenberry

J. D.

(2011). Association of lubricant use with women's sexual pleasure, sexual satisfaction, and genital symptoms: A prospective daily diary study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(1), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02067.x

32.

Herzberg

P. Y.

(2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.655726

33.

Hilpert

Randall

A. K.

Sorokowski

Atkins

D. C.

Sorokowska

Ahmadi

Aghraibeh

A. M.

Aryeetey

Bertoni

Bettache

Błażejewska

Bodenmann

Borders

Bortolini

T. S.

Butovskaya

Castro

F. N.

Cetinkaya

Cunha

David

O. A.

Yoo

(2016). The associations of dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction vary between and within nations: A 35-nation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106

34.

Hipp

L. E.

Low

L. K.

van Anders

S. M.

(2012). Exploring women's postpartum sexuality: Social, psychological, relational, and birth-related contextual factors. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(9), 2330–2341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02804.x

35.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Allison

C. J.

Arriaga

X. B.

Baker

Z. G.

Bar-Kalifa

Bergeron

Birnbaum

G. E.

Brock

R. L.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

Carmichael

C. L.

Chen

Clarke

Cobb

R. J.

Coolsen

M. K.

Davis

Jong

D. C. d.

Debrot

DeHaas

E. C.

Visserman

M. L.

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

36.

Johnson

C. E.

(2011). Sexual health during pregnancy and the postpartum. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(5), 1267–1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02223.x

37.

Johnson

M. D.

Horne

R. M.

(2016). Temporal ordering of supportive dyadic coping, commitment, and willingness to sacrifice. Family Relations, 65(2), 314–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12187

38.

Laurenceau

J.-P.

Barrett

L. F.

Rovine

M. J.

(2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314

39.

Lawrance

Byers

E. S.

(1995). Sexual satisfaction in long‐term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x

40.

Leonhardt

N. D.

Rosen

N. O.

Dawson

S. J.

Kim

J. J.

Johnson

M. D.

Impett

E. A.

(2022). Relationship satisfaction and commitment in the transition to parenthood: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12785

41.

Levesque

Lafontaine

M.-F.

Caron

Fitzpatrick

(2014). Validation of the English version of the dyadic coping inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614522272

42.

Levesque

Lafontaine

M.-F.

Caron

Flesch

J. L.

Bjornson

(2014). Dyadic empathy, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A dyadic model. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i1.697

43.

Lurie

Aizenberg

Sulema

Boaz

Kovo

Golan

Sadan

(2013). Sexual function after childbirth by the mode of delivery: A prospective study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 288(4), 785–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2846-4

44.

Mark

K. P.

(2012). The relative impact of individual sexual desire and couple desire discrepancy on satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 27(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2012.678825

45.

McNeish

Hamaker

E. L.

(2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods, 25(5), 610–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000250

46.

McNulty

J. K.

Wenner

C. A.

Fisher

T. D.

(2016). Longitudinal associations among relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0444-6

47.

Mitnick

D. M.

Heyman

R. E.

Smith Slep

A. M.

(2009). Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(6), 848–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017004

48.

Molgora

Acquati

Fenaroli

Saita

(2019). Dyadic coping and marital adjustment during pregnancy: A cross‐sectional study of Italian couples expecting their first child. International Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12476

49.

Molgora

Chiara

Emanuela

(2021). The role of dyadic coping for the individual and relational well-being of couples during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 43(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211022394

50.

Montgomery-Downs

H. E.

Clawges

H. M.

Santy

E. E.

(2010). Infant feeding methods and maternal sleep and daytime functioning. Pediatrics, 126(6), e1562–e1568. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1269

51.

Muise

Impett

E. A.

(2015). Good, giving, and game: The relationship benefits of communal sexual motivation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614553641

52.

Muthén

(2010). Bayesian analysis in Mplus: A brief introduction. In Citeseer.

53.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

54.

Nickell

(1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(6), 1417–1426. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911408

55.

Papp

L. M.

Witt

N. L.

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

56.

Randall

A. K.

Hilpert

Jimenez-Arista

L. E.

Walsh

K. J.

Bodenmann

(2016). Dyadic coping in the US: Psychometric properties and validity for use of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Current Psychology, 35(4), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0

57.

Rauch-Anderegg

Kuhn

Milek

Halford

W. K.

Bodenmann

(2020). Relationship behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 41(4), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19878864

58.

Rosen

N. O.

Dawson

S. J.

Leonhardt

N. D.

Vannier

S. A.

Impett

E. A.

(2020). Trajectories of sexual well-being among couples in the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam000068

59.

Rosen

N. O.

Mooney

Muise

(2017). Dyadic empathy predicts sexual and relationship well-being in couples transitioning to parenthood. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(6), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1208698

60.

Rubin

Campbell

(2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611416520

61.

Schlagintweit

H. E.

Bailey

Rosen

N. O.

(2016). A new baby in the bedroom: Frequency and severity of postpartum sexual concerns and their associations with relationship satisfaction in new parent couples. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(10), 1455–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.08.006

62.

Schmiedeberg

Huyer-May

Castiglioni

Johnson

M. D.

(2017). The more or the better? How sex contributes to life satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0843-y

63.

Schwenck

G. C.

Dawson

S. J.

Muise

Rosen

N. O.

(2020). A comparison of the sexual well-being of new parents with community couples. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 17(11), 2156–2167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.08.011

64.

Stertz

A. M.

Wiese

B. S.

(2020). Child-related bliss and couples’ partnership satisfaction in the early parenthood period: A longitudinal dyadic perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(8), 1046–1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000717

65.

Tavares

I. M.

Schlagintweit

H. E.

Nobre

P. J.

Rosen

N. O.

(2019). Sexual well-being and perceived stress in couples transitioning to parenthood: A dyadic analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 19(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.07.004

66.

Tutelman

P. R.

Dawson

S. J.

Schwenck

G. C.

Rosen

N. O.

(2021). A longitudinal examination of common dyadic coping and sexual distress in new parent couples during the first 12 months postpartum. Family Process, 1-16(1), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12661

67.

van Anders

S. M.

Hipp

L. E.

Low

L. K.

(2013). Exploring co‐parent experiences of sexuality in the first 3 months after birth. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(8), 1988–1999. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12194

68.

Wang

(2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.

69.

Wright

Bélanger

Dulude

(2000). The effects of pregnancy complications on the parental adaptation process. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 18(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830050001645