Dyadic coping and marital quality in same-sex and different-sex marriages

Abstract

Dyadic coping, the process through which couples manage stress together, is important for relationship well-being. However, very few studies have considered dyadic coping and its link with marital quality in same-sex marriages. We analyze dyadic data from a sample of midlife same- and different-sex married couples (N = 838 individuals, 418 couples) to assess gender differences in various forms of dyadic coping (i.e., received and provided positive and negative dyadic coping as well as common/collaborative dyadic coping) and the associations of dyadic coping with marital quality. Results suggest that women married to women are more likely to receive positive support and less likely to receive negative support compared to women married to men. Both men and women in same-sex marriages are more likely to cope with stress collaboratively than their counterparts in different-sex marriages. All forms of dyadic coping are equally important for the marital quality of men and women in same- and different-sex marriages.

Keywords

Dyadic coping stress same-sex marriage marital quality gender differences

Introduction

Spouses often help each other cope with stress. Dyadic coping (DC) – the process of co-management of stress in intimate relationships (e.g., stress communication, empathic responding, and joint problem solving) – has been positively associated with relationship well-being and both spouses’ psychological and physical well-being (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Falconier & Kuhn, 2019). Like other marital dynamics (e.g., marital communication; emotional support; care work), dyadic coping efforts and benefits may differ for men and women. For example, women are generally more engaged in dyadic coping than men in different-sex marriages (Bodenmann et al., 2006). While some studies suggest that dyadic coping is equally important for men’s and women’s views of relationship quality (Falconier et al., 2015), others note unequal benefits of dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction among wives and husbands (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Herzberg, 2013).

Despite the rich literature on dyadic coping within different-sex marriages, little is known about dyadic coping in same-sex relationships. Beyond the general life stress experienced by all couples, same-sex couples face considerably more social stress compared to their different-sex counterparts: they experience not only individual-level social stress (e.g., stigma and discrimination; expectation of rejection) uniquely tied to their sexual identity (Mayer et al., 2008), but also couple-level stress (e.g., internalized devaluation of one’s own relationship; concealment of same-sex relationship) associated with being in a socially devalued intimate relationship (Frost et al., 2017). The negative effects of sexual minority stress on individual and relationship well-being have been well documented in prior research (Cao et al., 2017; Frost & Meyer, 2009). Dyadic coping may also be uniquely important for same-sex couples as they do not receive as much support from extended family, friends and institutions as different-sex couples do (Reczek, 2020; Solomon et al., 2004).

Additionally, most prior studies have assessed gender differences in dyadic coping among marriages comprised of a man and a woman, providing a limited view of the gender dynamics around dyadic coping. In this study, we apply a gender-as-relational perspective (Springer et al., 2012; Thomeer et al., 2020) to suggest that men and women may receive and provide support differently across gendered relational contexts (e.g., men interacting with women, men interacting with men, women interacting with men, and women interacting with women). Specifically, we examine perceived dyadic coping and marital quality from both spouses’ perspectives among midlife married same-sex and different-sex couples. Midlife is a period of life characterized by unique stressors; for example, aging couples face a considerable amount of caregiving responsibilities, the emergence of health concerns, and a number of life transitions (e.g., deaths of parents; Umberson & Thomeer, 2020). Spousal support may be particularly important during this life stage.

In the present study, we address three primary research questions. First, do men and women in same- and different-sex marriages receive and provide different forms of dyadic coping (i.e., positive, negative, and common dyadic coping, described in detail below)? Second, how are actor- and partner-reported dyadic coping associated with marital quality? And third, do these associations between dyadic coping and marital quality vary by actor gender, partner gender and/or gender composition of the dyad? Using dyadic data from a sample of midlife same-sex and different-sex married couples (N = 838 individuals, 419 couples), this study advances understanding of gendered relationship dynamics and marital well-being by including same- and different-sex spouses and the perspectives and experiences of both members of a couple.

Background

Dyadic coping and marital quality

Spouses live in a shared context wherein one partner’s personal experience of stress may cross over to influence the other (Behler et al., 2019; Bodenmann et al., 2011; Neff & Karney, 2004). Spouses also share common stressors such as stress related to housework and household financial problems. Stress transmission between partners or the joint experiences of stress may elicit dyadic coping, through which one spouse provides support to the other or both members work together to cope with stress (Bodenmann et al., 2006, 2011).

Dyadic coping efforts differ from individual coping as dyadic coping emphasizes how couples assist each other in dealing with adversity in the context of relationships. Dyadic coping may occur in different forms (Bodenmann et al., 2011; Falconier et al., 2015). Partners may provide positive dyadic coping by giving advice concerning the other person’s problems (problem-focused dyadic coping), showing understanding (emotion-focused dyadic coping), and taking on the other partner’s responsibilities (delegated dyadic coping). They may also provide negative dyadic coping through hostile, ambivalent, or superficial reactions such as downplaying their spouse’s distress and avoiding communication. In addition to one partner providing support to the other, common dyadic coping, a collaborative style, may occur when both partners work toward managing stress together. Given that the forms of dyadic coping may unfold differently for men and women across same- and different-sex relationships, identifying different forms of dyadic coping received and provided by spouses and comparing the distinct effects of each form of dyadic coping on marital quality would help us better understand what form of dyadic coping is particularly important and for whom.

Working as a team to cope with stress and perceiving one’s partner as supportive have beneficial effects on marital functioning. Dyadic coping may influence martial quality by buffering the negative impact of stress on marriage and promoting intimacy, trust, and understanding in marriage (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Landis et al., 2013). Many studies show that dyadic coping is strongly associated with relationship quality and individual well-being (Bodenmann et al., 2011; Falconier et al., 2015; Landis et al., 2013). While all forms of dyadic coping are significantly correlated with relationship quality, common dyadic coping appears to have more beneficial effects on relationship well-being than other forms of dyadic coping (Falconier et al., 2015). Compared to providing coping support, receiving coping support from one’s partner, and sharing coping behaviors between partners are more important predictors of relationship satisfaction (Falconier et al., 2015). Evidence on gender differences in dyadic coping and relationship well-being have been mixed: some studies note gendered patterns in dyadic coping and relationship quality (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Herzberg, 2013; Papp & Witt, 2010), whereas others show dyadic coping impacts men’s and women’s relationship satisfaction similarly (Falconier et al., 2015; Rusu et al., 2020). Studies reporting gender differences suggest that, relative to women, men tend to pay less attention to their partner’s behaviors so that their marital quality is less affected by their spouse’s dyadic coping efforts (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Herzberg, 2013).

Despite the importance of dyadic coping for marital relationships, there is limited scholarship assessing whether dyadic coping patterns and the association of coping patterns with marital quality observed among different-sex couples apply to same-sex couples. It is possible that same-sex couples are better at coping with stress together than are different-sex couples as same-sex couples are more likely to be on the same page about stress appraisals and communication (Rostosky & Riggle, 2017). Past experiences of stigma and discrimination may have also equipped same-sex couples with more coping skills. It is also possible that same-sex couples do not differ much from different-sex couples in dyadic coping given previous research suggesting similarity in relationship quality, stability and functioning between same- and different-sex couples (Joyner et al., 2019; Manning et al., 2016).

Moreover, it is important to take both partners’ perspectives into account when evaluating the impact of marital dynamics (Garcia & Umberson, 2019). One’s negative coping behaviors may adversely affect one’s own marital quality (actor effect), but also have an adverse effect on their partner’s relationship satisfaction (partner effect). Dyadic approaches are needed to identify how different forms of dyadic coping received and provided by each partner influence recipients’ well-being. More importantly, gender differences found in actor and partner effects of dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction among different-sex married couples may operate differently for same-sex couples.

Gender and coping with stress in different-sex marriages

Experiences of and responses to stress are gendered. Compared to men, women tend to report more stressors and rate minor daily stressors as more negative and unmanageable (Matud, 2004). There is also a gender difference in behavioral responses to stress: while men are more likely to respond with externalizing behaviors such as drinking, smoking, and substance use; women are more likely to react with internalizing behaviors such as depressive symptoms (Rosenfield et al., 2005).

Although women consistently report higher levels of stress, they are also more likely to use positive coping strategies to reduce the negative impacts of stressful events (Matud, 2004; Tamres et al., 2002). For example, in the face of stress and adversity within marriages, women are more likely to engage in communication and support provision (Umberson et al., 2016) while men tend to avoid communication and withdraw from the situation (Fincham, 2003). Past research attributes this gendered dynamic to the construction, enactment, and maintenance of gender norms in social systems, including marriage (Umberson et al., 2015b). The broader gender discourse constructs women as “emotion experts” (Curran et al., 2015) – they are socialized to monitor and attend to others’ emotional needs and well-being. To enact their socially constructed feminine role, women may strive to be more emotionally available and supportive in intimate relationships (Neff & Karney, 2004). In contrast, men are constructed as “rational problem-solvers” – they are expected to avoid care work to perform hegemonic masculinity (Courtenay, 2000). Bringing cultural ideas about men and masculinity to intimate relationships, men are not as well-equipped to recognize their spouse’s emotional needs and provide emotional support. As a result, men may downplay stressful situations and respond with avoidance and withdrawal rather than actively engaging in stress-reducing support in marriages (Fincham, 2003; Umberson et al., 2016). This has implications for both men’s and women’s marital satisfaction as prior research suggests that husbands’ negative dyadic coping is strongly related to both partners’ appraisals of marital quality (Bodenmann et al., 2006).

Gender-as-relational and dyadic coping

Most studies on coping and marital quality have relied on data collected from different-sex couples and worked from the assumption that a marriage is comprised of a man and woman. Yet recent studies and a gender-as-relational framework suggest that dyadic coping processes may play out differently for men married to men, men married to women, women married to women, and women married to women. A gender-as-relational perspective (Springer et al., 2012; Thomeer et al., 2020) argues that gender is dynamic and relational. The enactment of gender is shaped by not only individual experiences of gender, but also dependent on whether they are interacting with a man or a woman. Previous empirical evidence supports this perspective; compared to different-sex couples, men and women in same-sex relationships are less likely to subscribe to traditional gender norms, resulting in less power inequality in relationships (Pollitt et al., 2018). Same-sex couples are more likely to communicate effectively (Rostosky & Riggle, 2017), divide housework equally (Goldberg, 2013), provide support when their spouse is distressed (Thomeer et al., 2021), and work as a team to monitor each other’s health (Reczek & Umberson, 2012). Similarly, same-sex couples may draw on gender similarities rather than differences when coping with stress together as cultural ideas of gender emphasize similarities among women and among men (Reczek & Umberson, 2012). For example, women married to women may have shared experiences of gender-based stress and discrimination which helps them understand each other’s perspective better. In contrast, women and men do not share the same gendered experiences or views and this may undermine mutual understanding in different-sex marriages.

Additionally, from the perspective of resilience, same-sex couples may have developed stronger dyadic coping skills through their shared experiences of minority stress. Although sexual minorities experience more stress and discrimination on a daily basis, they are often more resilient to adversity (Selvidge et al., 2008). One’s spouse can be an important source of social support to buffer the negative effects of minority stress (Donnelly et al., 2019; Randall et al., 2017). Shared experiences of marginalization may bond partners together and help them cope with future stressful encounters (Rostosky & Riggle, 2017). Therefore, same-sex couples may be more willing to work with each other to manage stressful situations and minimize the cross-over or spill-over of stress in relationships.

Empirical studies also suggest possible gender differences in the linkage between dyadic coping and marital quality. Dyadic coping appears to be more strongly associated with wives’ well-being than husbands’ as women are considered more relationship oriented and more emotionally invested in intimate relationships (Papp & Witt, 2010). However, comparing men and women in same-versus different-sex marriages may disrupt the observed gender patterns found in previous studies given that marital dynamics are different in relationship contexts where men and women interact with partners of their own gender.

In the current study, we examine a set of dyadic coping strategies (positive, negative, and common dyadic coping) from both partners’ perspectives in the context of same and different-sex marriages. First, we ask: how do respondent-perceived provision and receipt of positive, negative, and common dyadic coping vary by actor gender, partner gender and/or gender composition of the dyad? In our second and third research questions, we ask: how are actor and partner reported dyadic coping associated with marital quality and do these associations vary by actor gender, partner gender, and dyad gender?

Methods

Data and sample

We used the 2014-2015 data from the Health and Relationships Project (HARP). HARP was designed to assess how mid-life (aged 35–65) same-sex and different-sex spouses influence each other’s health and well-being. (Umberson, 2022). The study sample includes 419 couples (838 individuals) who were cisgender men or women, and legally married between 2004 and 2012. HARP data are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37404.v2.

We chose Massachusetts as the study site because it was the first state in the United States to legally recognize same-sex marriage (in 2004). We matched same-sex and different-sex couples on age, relationship length, and place of residence to ensure the comparability of the two groups. First, we used Massachusetts Registry of Vital Records to identify and recruit same-sex couples who met the age requirements and had been married for a minimum of 3 years. We mailed invitation letters to respondents’ residence addresses. We also asked participants to refer their same- and different-sex married friends who met our study requirements. We recruited 70% of same-sex couples through vital statistics records, and 30% through referrals. In addition, we used publicly available Massachusetts city lists that provide demographic data on city residents to recruit different-sex married couples. We chose different-sex married couples who resided in neighborhoods with relatively large numbers of same-sex couple study participants and mailed recruitment letters. In the final sample, 40% of different-sex couples were recruited through city lists, and 60% were recruited through referrals. 52% of different-sex couples, 62% of female same-sex couples, and 55% of male same-sex couples resided outside of Massachusetts. We paid each respondent $50 for participation.

Although the study sample cannot be used to represent the national U.S. married same-sex and different-sex population, the demographic characteristics (e.g., age, household income, relationship duration, and children under 18 in household) of this sample were similar to estimates for midlife married couples using national representative data such as the 2015 American Community Survey (Donnelly et al., 2019). Overall, the study sample was more highly educated and less racially and ethnically diverse than estimates from nationally representative survey. Nevertheless, the differences in characteristics such as race and education between same-sex and different-sex couples in this sample were largely comparable to descriptive findings for married couples based on nationally representative data (Behler et al., 2019).

Measures

Marital quality

The key dependent variable in this study is marital quality. We constructed this measure based on the Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Respondents were asked to rate the degree of happiness of their relationship and responses range from extremely unhappy (1) to perfect (7). Respondents were also asked to indicate how true the following statement is for their relationship with their spouses: “I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my spouses”. Response options vary from 1 (not at all true) to 6 (completely true). Two other questions were also used in the measure of marital quality: “How rewarding is your relationship with your spouse?”, and “in general, how satisfied are you with your relationship”. Each question had four response options ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (completely). Responses to the 4 questions were summed and standardized (alpha = .92; range, 4–25).

Dyadic coping inventory

The measure of dyadic coping was adapted from the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; (Bodenmann, 2008). The original DCI has 37 items, with multiple subscales designed to capture what couples do when one or both spouses feel stressed. Researchers have tested the validity and reliability of DCI measure across different subgroups and social contexts (Breitenstein et al., 2018; Falconier et al., 2015). Due to time limitations, it was not possible to include the full DCI in the 45-minute baseline survey. We selected specific items from the original DCI based on face validity as well as consultation with researchers who have used the DCI in their research. In the current study, we considered three dimensions of dyadic coping tapping into respondents’ appraisal of their own positive, negative, and common coping efforts as well as the positive and negative dyadic coping efforts received from their spouse. Therefore, we obtained reports from each respondent on coping support provided to one’s spouse and on support received from one’s spouse. Reports on positive coping support received from one’s spouse were based on 4 items (scale 1–5): “when you are feeling stressed, (1) your spouse expresses that they are on your side; (2) your spouse helps you to see stressful situations in a different light; (3) your spouse listens to you and gives you the opportunity to communicate what really bothers you; and (4) your spouse takes on things that you normally do in order to help you out”. Responses to the four items were summed and standardized (alpha = .79; range, 4–20). The measure of negative coping responses received from one’s spouse was based on 4 questions (scale 1–5): “when you are feeling stressed, (1) your spouse blames you for not coping well enough with stress; (2) your spouse does not take your stress seriously; (3) when you are stressed, your spouse tends to withdraw; (4) when you are stressed, there is not much your spouse can do to make you feel better”. Responses to the four items were summed and standardized (alpha = .70; range, 4–20). Similarly, we created respondent-provided positive and negative coping support to their partners. In addition, we measured common dyadic coping based on three questions. Respondents were asked to indicate “what you and your spouse do when you are both feeling stressed (scale 1–5): (1) we try to cope with the problem together and search for solutions; (2) we engage in a serious discussion about the problem and think through what has to be done; and (3) we help one another to put the problem in perspective and see it in a new light.” Responses to the three items were summed and standardized (alpha = .92; range, 3–15).

Controls

We controlled for the respondent’s age, education, race, employment status, relationship duration, and children in household in all models. Because this sample is relatively highly educated with more than 80% respondents identifying as college graduates, we created a dichotomized measure to capture whether the respondent has a postgraduate degree. Race was a binary variable with non-Hispanic white coded as “1”. Employment status referred to whether the respondent is employed outside the home. Relationship duration was measured as the total number of years cohabiting combined with total years married, due to limited access to same-sex marriage in the U.S. history. Children in household was a binary variable with “1” indicating “yes.”

Analyses

To examine how dyadic coping varies by actor gender, partner gender, and whether they were in a same-sex or different-sex marriage, we used mixed effects multilevel modeling. Our non-independent dyadic data contained indistinguishable (same-sex couples) and distinguishable (different-sex couples) dyads. We treated all dyads as indistinguishable by setting the residual dyad variance to be equal and estimating one shared dyad covariance per couple (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). We used the factorial method (West et al., 2008) to compare respondent received and provided positive, negative, and common dyadic coping across gendered relational contexts. Specifically, we included actor gender, partner gender, and an interaction term between the two variables. This specification allowed us to apply a gender-as-relational framework by treating gender as a relational variable (West et al., 2008). We then used the Actor- Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005) to test how actor- and partner-reports of dyadic coping are associated with marital quality and compare the relative effects of different forms of dyadic coping. To examine whether there are gender differences in actor and partner effect of dyadic coping on marital quality, we created interactions among actor gender, partner gender, and dyadic coping. All covariates discussed above were included in the models. Analyses were conducted in Stata 15 (StataCorp, 2017).

Results

Descriptive results

Table 1 shows descriptive data for the sample. The average age of the respondents in this sample was 48 years old. On average, the respondents had been with their partners for 15 years. The sample was highly educated and predominantly White (i.e., 86.11% non-Hispanic White, 3.57% Hispanic, 3.57% non-Hispanic Black, 2.51% non-Hispanic Asian, 0.13% non-Hispanic Native American, and 3.31% non-Hispanic other). More than 80% of respondents worked full- or part-time. While more than 70% of different-sex couples reported living with children, only 13% of men married to men and 40% of women married to women reported having children in the household. We used one-way ANOVA post hoc tests to determine the significant difference between each pair of group means.

Table 1.

Descriptive Data for Sample by Gender Composition of the Couple.

	Total sample	Men with men	Men with women	Women with men	Women with women
	Mean (S.D.)	Mean (S.D.)	Mean (S.D.)	Mean (S.D.)	Mean (S.D.)
Marital quality (4–25)	20.32 (3.82)	20.67 (3.70)^c	19.59 (4.19)	19.40 (4.44)^a,d	20.65 (3.43)^c
Dyadic coping
Received positive DC (4–20)	14.74 (3.03)	14.70 (3.00)	14.02 (3.08)^d	14.06 (3.19)^d	15.28 (2.88)^b,c
Received negative DC (4–20)	7.88 (2.70)	7.77 (2.52)	8.27 (2.88)	8.50 (3.01)^d	7.58 (2.59)^c
Provided positive DC (4–20)	14.45 (2.22)	14.73 (2.03)^b,c	14.02 (2.28)^a	14.06 (2.25)^a	14.55 (2.29)
Provided negative DC (4–20)	7.79 (2.57)	7.58 (2.40)	8.30 (2.64)	8.11 (2.67)	7.65 (2.61)
Common DC (3–15)	12.05 (2.46)	12.19 (2.41)^b	11.26 (2.45)^a,d	11.52 (2.48)^d	12.42 (2.41)^b,c
Demographic characteristics
Age (35–65)	48.20 (8.42)	49.74 (8.45)^b,c,d	46.47 (8.08)^a,c,d	45.02 (7.55)^a,b,d	48.96 (8.41)^a,b,c
Race (% white)	86.18	87.26^b	82.61^a	80.87	88.54
Education (% postgraduate)	50.80	48.99^b,d	37.60^a,c,d	49.16^b,d	57.47^a,b,c
Work status (% working)	82.76	83.94^c	81.52^c,d	75.18^a,b,d	85.19^b,c
Relationship duration (3.5–45)	15.08 (7.95)	16.26 (7.78)^g	15.87 (8.19)^g	15.87 (8.19)^g	13.70 (7.67)^e,f
Children in household (% yes)	41.83	12.21^f,g	71.11^e,g	71.11^e,g	40.44^e,f
N	838	248	124	124	342

Note: S.D. = Standardized Deviation. Ranges of continuous variables are in parentheses. DC = Dyadic Coping. Significant differences from post-hoc pairwise comparison following analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction are reported (p < .05).

^aSignificantly different from men with men;

^bSignificantly different from men with women;

^cSignificantly different from women with men;

^dSignificantly different from women with women;

^eSignificantly different from male same-sex couples;

^fSignificantly different from different-sex couples;

^gSignificantly different from female same-sex couples.

Dyadic coping in same- and different-sex marriages

We first asked, how do perceptions of received and provided positive and negative dyadic coping as well as common dyadic coping vary across gendered relational contexts? We regressed respondent received positive dyadic coping on actor gender, partner gender, and dyad gender (Table 2). Results in the first column suggested that actor gender and partner gender interacted to influence received positive support. That is, compared to different-sex couples, same-sex couples reported more received positive dyadic coping from their spouses (difference = 0.42, p < .05). The second column presented results for received negative dyadic coping: men and women in different-sex marriages as well as women in same-sex marriages did not differ from men in same-sex marriages. When it comes to provided positive and negative dyadic coping, the three groups (men with women, women with men, and women with women) did not differ much from the reference group (men with men). The last column presented the results for common dyadic coping. There was a significant partner gender effect, such that men with women were less likely to engage in common coping efforts compared to men with men (difference = −0.30, p < .05). The dyad gender effect was also significant, that is, compared to different-sex couples, same-sex couples reported significantly more common dyadic coping (difference = 0.61, p < .01).

Table 2.

Standardized Estimates from Multilevel Regression Models Testing Dyadic Coping Regressed on Relationship Type (n = 419 Marriages).

	Received positive DC	Received negative DC	Provided positive DC	Provided negative DC	Common DC
Actor gender (ref: male)	−0.08	0.16	−0.17	0.07	−0.19
Actor gender (ref: male)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.13)
Partner gender (ref: male)	−0.09	0.07	−0.22	0.16	−0.30*
Partner gender (ref: male)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.13)
Actor gender* partner gender	0.42*	−0.34	0.35	−0.26	0.61**
Actor gender* partner gender	(0.19)	(0.20)	(0.19)	(0.20)	(0.20)
Age	−0.00	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01
Age	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Education (postgraduate degree)	0.02	−0.08	−0.12	0.06	−0.01
Education (postgraduate degree)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)
Race (ref: nonwhite)	−0.09	0.00	−0.33**	0.02	−0.01
Race (ref: nonwhite)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)
Children in household (ref: yes)	−0.24**	0.17	−0.18	0.19*	−0.10
Children in household (ref: yes)	(0.09)	(0.10)	(0.09)	(0.10)	(0.10)
Relationship duration	−0.00	−0.00	−0.01**	0.00	−0.00
Relationship duration	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Employment status (ref: not working)	−0.05	−0.12	0.06	−0.09	0.02
Employment status (ref: not working)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.08)
Constant	0.26	0.18	0.34	0.12	−0.15
Constant	(0.29)	(0.29)	(0.29)	(0.29)	(0.29)

Note: DC = Dyadic Coping. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Based on models from Table 2, Figure 1(a) to 1(c) summarize results from the assessment of group variation in dyadic coping by graphing predicted values of received and provided positive, negative, and common dyadic coping for each group. Rotating the reference group showed additional group differences. Beginning with received positive dyadic coping (Figure 1(a)), women with women were predicted to receive significantly more positive dyadic coping than all the other three groups. The left panel of Figure 1(b) showed that relative to women with women, women with men reported receiving more negative support from their partners. We also observed additional group differences in common dyadic coping (Figure 1(c)): both women and men in different-sex marriages were significantly less likely to cope collectively as a team than women in same-sex marriages.

Figure 1.

(a) Predicted Standard Scores of Positive Dyadic Coping by Group (based on Table 2). Note: Estimates are net of controls for age, relationship duration, education, employment status, and children in household. Significant differences (p < .05) across groups are marked. ^a = significantly different from men with men; ^b = significantly different from men with women; ^c = significantly different from women with men; ^d = significantly different from women with women. (b) Predicted Standard Scores of Negative Dyadic Coping by Group (based on Table 2). Note: Estimates are net of controls for age, race, education, employment status, relationship duration, and children in household. Significant differences (p < .05) across groups are marked. ^a = significantly different from men with men; ^b = significantly different from men with women; ^c = significantly different from women with men; ^d = significantly different from women with women. (c)Predicted Standard Scores of Common Dyadic Coping by Group (based on Table 2). Note: Estimates are net of controls for age, race, education, employment status, relationship duration, and children in household. Significant differences (p < .05) across groups are marked. ^a = significantly different from men with men; ^b = significantly different from men with women; ^c = significantly different from women with men; ^d = significantly different from women with women.

Dyadic coping and marital quality

We then asked how actor and partner positive, negative, and common dyadic coping were associated with marital quality. Results in Table 3 suggested that actor and partner reported received (b = 0.49, p < .001; b = 0.20, p < .001, respectively) and provided positive (b = 0.23, p < .001; b = 0.11, p < .001, respectively) dyadic coping were positively associated with marital quality, whereas actor and partner reported received (b = −0.44, p < .001; b = −0.22, p < .001, respectively) and provided negative (b = −0.38, p < .001; b = −0.20, p < .001, respectively) dyadic coping were negatively associated with marital quality. Both actor and partner common dyadic coping (b = 0.44, p < .001; b = 0.20, p < .001, respectively) were positively associated with marital quality, as expected. Further analyses (shown in Supplemental Materials) indicated that these associations did not vary significantly for men and women in same- and different-sex marriages. This finding was supported by a prior meta-analysis showing no gender differences in actor and partner effects of dyadic coping on marital quality (Falconier et al., 2015). Although patterns of dyadic coping behaviors were gendered, the associations between different forms of dyadic coping and marital quality worked similarly for men and women in same- and different-sex marriages.

Table 3.

Standardized Estimates from Multilevel Regression Models Testing Marital Quality Regressed on Dyadic Coping (n = 419 Marriages).

	Received positive DC		Received negative DC		Provided positive DC		Provided negative DC		Common DC
Actor report	0.43***	0.49***	−0.41***	−0.44***	0.18***	0.23***	−0.33***	−0.38***	0.42***	0.44***
Actor report	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Partner report		0.20***		−0.22***		0.11***		−0.20***		0.20***
Partner report		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.03)
Actor gender (ref: male)	−0.08	−0.12*	−0.03	−0.05	−0.02	−0.02	−0.04	−0.04	−0.08	−0.09
Actor gender (ref: male)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)
Partner gender (ref: male)	0.03	−0.01	0.04	0.03	0.09	0.10	0.10	0.08	0.08	0.05
Partner gender (ref: male)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)
Age	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	−0.00
Age	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Education (postgraduate degree)	0.04	0.03	0.03	−0.01	0.07	0.07	0.08	0.06	0.06	0.04
Education (postgraduate degree)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.05)
Race (ref: nonwhite)	0.15	0.11	0.09	0.08	0.13	0.13	0.08	0.10	0.09	0.07
Race (ref: nonwhite)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)
Children in household (ref: yes)	−0.20*	−0.12	−0.25**	−0.18*	−0.28**	−0.25**	−0.26**	−0.19*	−0.25**	−0.19*
Children in household (ref: yes)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)
Relationship duration	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	−0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	−0.00	−0.00	0.00
Relationship duration	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Employment status (ref: not working)	0.09	0.08	0.02	0.05	0.05	0.06	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.08
Employment status (ref: not working)	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)
Constant	−0.20	−0.14	0.04	0.03	−0.13	−0.19	0.01	−0.07	0.04	0.09
Constant	(0.24)	(0.23)	(0.24)	(0.23)	(0.27)	(0.27)	(0.25)	(0.25)	(0.24)	(0.24)

Note: DC = Dyadic Coping. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

To compare the distinct effects of different forms of dyadic coping, we then estimated a model with marital quality regressed on actor and partner provided and received positive dyadic coping. Model 1 in Table 4 showed that the effects of provided positive dyadic coping became non-significant when we considered received and provided positive support together. This result indicated that receiving positive dyadic coping – as reported by both partners – was more important for marital quality than providing positive support. Model 2 in Table 4 assessed the effects of received positive dyadic coping relative to common dyadic coping. The results depicted the importance of both forms of coping behaviors on marital quality. Together these results echoed findings in prior research: receiving supportive dyadic coping from partners and sharing dyadic coping behaviors are stronger predictors of marital quality than is providing support (Rusu et al., 2020).

Table 4.

Standardized Estimates from Multilevel Regression Models Testing Marital Quality Regressed on Provided and Received Positive DC and Common DC (n = 419 Marriages).

	Model 1	Model 2
Provided positive DC (actor report)	−0.05
Provided positive DC (actor report)	(0.03)
Provided positive DC (partner report)	−0.05
Provided positive DC (partner report)	(0.03)
Received positive DC (actor report)	0.52***	0.33***
Received positive DC (actor report)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Received positive DC (partner report)	0.23***	0.08*
Received positive DC (partner report)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Common DC (actor report)	0.25***
Common DC (actor report)		(0.03)
Common DC (partner report)		0.13***
Common DC (partner report)		(0.03)
Actor gender (ref: male)	−0.13*	−0.12*
Actor gender (ref: male)	(0.06)	(0.05)
Partner gender (ref: male)	−0.02	0.01
Partner gender (ref: male)	(0.06)	(0.05)
Age	0.00	−0.00
Age	(0.00)	(0.00)
Education (postgraduate degree)	0.03	0.03
Education (postgraduate degree)	(0.05)	(0.05)
Race (ref: nonwhite)	0.10	0.10
Race (ref: nonwhite)	(0.08)	(0.07)
Children in household (ref: yes)	−0.12	−0.12
Children in household (ref: yes)	(0.08)	(0.07)
Relationship duration	−0.00	0.00
Relationship duration	(0.00)	(0.00)
Employment status (ref: not working)	0.08	0.09
Employment status (ref: not working)	(0.06)	(0.06)
Constant	−0.10	−0.03
Constant	(0.23)	(0.22)

Note: DC = Dyadic Coping. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

Throughout the life course, spouses are a central source of emotional closeness for each other and play a particularly important role in helping each other to cope with stress (Umberson & Thomeer, 2020). Although the patterns of stress, dyadic coping and marital quality have been well-examined in heterosexual marriages, the ways in which same-sex spouses manage stress together and the impact of dyadic coping on relationship well-being is sorely lacking. We expected that the strongly gendered patterns of stress and coping in relation to marital quality in different-sex couples would play out differently for same-sex couples. Applying a gender-as-relational framework, we provide special insights into gendered dyadic coping patterns and marital well-being by comparing men and women in same-sex versus different-sex marriages. We highlight two important insights from the current study. First, the gendered patterns of dyadic coping behaviors observed in different-sex marriages may unfold differently for men and women in same-sex marriages. Second, despite the divergent patterns of dyadic coping behaviors among men and women in same- and different-sex marriages, dyadic coping is equally important for men’s and women’s marital quality in both same- and different-sex marriages. Below, we discuss these two major themes.

First, we consider how perceptions of received and provided forms of dyadic coping (i.e., positive, negative, and common dyadic coping) vary across gendered relational contexts (e.g., men married to women, men married to men, women married to men, women married to women). We find significant gender differences: while men and women in same- and different-sex marriages do not differ much in reports of provided negative dyadic coping, women married to men report more received negative dyadic coping compared to women married to women. These findings align with prior work on gendered patterns of marital communication showing that men are more likely than women to respond with withdrawal and avoidance when facing marital difficulties (Donnelly et al., 2019; Landis et al., 2013). This draws attention to the broader cultural discourses of gender in shaping marital dynamics. As men are constructed as rational and emotionally unavailable in intimate relationships, they may enact these gender scripts with superficial effort or reluctance to help. The provision of negative support may be a social process through which men in different-sex marriages perform and reinforce cultural ideals of masculinity, but this process is not apparent in same-sex unions.

Both men and women in same-sex marriages report more engagement in common/collaborative coping efforts than their counterparts in different-sex marriages. Compared to women in different-sex marriages, women in same-sex marriages report receiving more positive coping support from their partners and they are also more likely to cope in collaboration with their spouses. One possible explanation is that women with women share common experiences of gender and sexual minority status related to discrimination and marginalization, and are thus more likely to be on the same page about stress appraisals and communication. It is also possible that same-sex female couples’ experiences of discrimination and stress enable them to develop more resilience and better coping skills. This is in line with prior studies finding that racial and sexual minorities are more likely to use positive coping strategies to deal with stress and thus experience fewer negative effects of discrimination (Selvidge et al., 2008). The mutual understanding of stressful situations may create a close bond between same-sex female spouses, which helps them better navigate and manage stress and provide support to each other. In contrast, socially structured gender discourses emphasize differences between men and women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Women and men in different-sex marriages do not share similar gender related experiences and responses to stress, and they are more likely to draw on understandings of gender differences rather than similarities when coping with stress. The gendered notion of nurturing wives and emotionally inept husbands may discourage men and women in different-sex marriages from coping with stress as cooperatively as spouses in same-sex marriages do. This idea is supported by research suggesting that same-sex couples often work in a collaborative way to regulate each other’s health behaviors while it is usually the woman in different-sex marriages who takes an active lead in influencing the other’s health (Reczek & Umberson, 2012).

Notably, men in same-sex marriages report higher levels of common dyadic coping than men in different-sex marriages. This finding fits well with the gender-as-relational perspective that emphasizes marital dynamics may vary not only by the actor’s gender, but also the partner’s gender and the gender composition of the dyad. Men partnered with men may be less restricted by hegemonic masculinity and more likely to challenge the traditional views that structure how men provide support to spouses (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Courtenay, 2000; Thomeer et al., 2015). Shared experiences of sexual minority stress may have also prepared same-sex male spouses to work toward managing stress in a cooperative way to alleviate the negative impact of these incidents. Taken together, our results suggest that dyadic coping processes are co-constructed by both partners’ gendered experiences. The findings that both men and women in same-sex marriages are more likely to work with their spouses to cope with stress challenge the gendered pattern of dyadic coping behaviors found in different-sex marriages. This suggests that same-sex relationships may be a relational site where men and women question traditional gender norms and “do” or “undo” gender differently.

A second important theme in our findings concerns actor and partner effects of various forms of dyadic coping on marital quality. We find that both spouses’ supportive and non-supportive responses to stress matter for marital quality. In addition, we compare the differential effects of provided and received positive coping efforts as well as common dyadic coping efforts. We find that receiving positive support from spouses and coping with stress together are more important for marital quality compared to providing support. This finding aligns with prior studies suggesting that marital satisfaction is more dependent on perceptions of one’s partner’s positive support than one’s own dyadic coping efforts (Falconier et al., 2015; Landis et al., 2013; Rusu et al., 2020). Providing support can be stressful and may take a toll on psychological well-being (Umberson et al., 2020) while subjectively feeling supported is consistently found to be beneficial for coping with stress (Melrose et al., 2015). Taken together, these findings point to the importance of considering various aspects of dyadic coping, both partners’ perspectives and experiences, and same-sex as well as different-sex relationships.

We do not find any meaningful gender differences in actor and partner effects of dyadic coping on marital quality. All forms of dyadic coping are strongly linked with marital quality for both men and women in same- and different-sex marriages in similar ways. Previous findings on this issue have been mixed: although some studies suggest that partner’s coping behaviors are more central to women’s relationship quality (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Papp & Witt, 2010), others indicate that dyadic coping is equally critical for men and women’s appraisals of marital quality (Breitenstein et al., 2018; Falconier et al., 2015). In the current study, despite the gendered pattern in provision and receipt of coping efforts, no gender variation in the association between dyadic coping and marital quality is found. Thus, it seems that the impacts of positive and negative dyadic coping on marital quality are similar for men and women, regardless of gendered relational context. These findings underscore the importance of considering gendered patterns of relationship dynamics across same- and different-sex couples—patterns that often differ—even though, all else being equal, the overall impact of those relationship dynamics on marital quality may be similar across groups.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations of the study should be noted. First, the study includes a non-random sample of highly educated, middle-class, predominantly White and cisgender couples, which limits the generalizability of findings in this study to the U.S. married population. Future research will benefit from an intersectional perspective (Collins, 2002) and consider how marital dynamics may be different depending on race, education, and class. By adopting an intersectionality perspective, researchers understand social processes in the context of power relations embedded in social statuses (Homan, 2019). Our sample may be disadvantaged due to divergence from heteronormative expectations, but relative to others with different racial, class, or marital status background, they enjoy privileges. We recognize that power and advantage may shape gender dynamics of coping within marriages and encourage future research with an intersectional lens to advance our understanding of this issue.

Second, this study uses cross-sectional data and thus does not address the temporal ordering of dyadic coping and marital quality. It is possible that better marital quality leads to increased dyadic coping. Although this study highlights the importance of dyadic coping for marital quality, we do not examine the long-term consequences of dyadic coping on individual well-being and relationship functioning. It would be useful for future research to link gendered relational context and dyadic coping processes with longer-term outcomes such as cognitive health and relationship stability.

Finally, past research has pointed to the importance of dyadic coping in tempering the impact of stress on individual and relationship well-being. Although we compared distinct effects of different dimensions of dyadic coping, we did not assess how they might exacerbate or mitigate the impact of extra-dyadic (occurred outside of the intimate relationship) and intra-dyadic (occurred within the intimate relationship) stress on individual or relationship outcome. We recommend future research consider different sources of stress and examine what form of coping strategy is beneficial for men and women coping with stress in both same- and different-sex marriages. We do not find any gender difference in the association between dyadic coping and marital quality in the current study, but future scholarship should investigate whether and how dyadic coping may shape men and women’s physical and psychological well-being differently.

Conclusion

Our findings yield new insights into gendered dyadic coping processes: while women married to women receive the most positive coping support from their partners, women married to men receive the most negative dyadic coping. Unlike men and women in same-sex marriages, men and women in different-sex marriages are less likely to work toward coping with stress together. These new findings complicate prior work on gender differences in marital support based on a heterosexual context and underscore the knowledge gained from considering not only the respondent’s gender but also the spouse’s gender and the gender composition of the dyad (Thomeer et al., 2020; Umberson et al., 2015a). Although dyadic coping behaviors are gendered, the beneficial effects of supportive and common dyadic coping as well as the detrimental effects of negative dyadic coping on relationship quality are equally important for men and women in same- and different-sex marriages. These findings emphasize the importance of dyadic coping for the marital quality of men and women in both same-sex and different-sex marriages. This can be an avenue through which couples work together to strengthen relationship well-being.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Dyadic coping and marital quality in same-sex and different-sex marriages

Supplemental Material for Dyadic coping and marital quality in same-sex and different-sex marriages by Yiwen Wang and Debra Umberson 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: This research was supported by grant, P30AG066614, awarded to the Center on Aging and Population Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin by the National Institute on Aging, and by grant, P2CHD042849, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

ORCID iD

Yiwen Wang

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 at: . The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: yiwenwang@utexas.edu.

Supplemental material

Supplement material for this article is available in online.

References

Behler

Donnelly

Umberson

(2019). Psychological distress transmission in same-sex and different-sex marriages. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 60(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146518813097

Bodenmann

(2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual [dyadic coping inventory: Test manual]. Bern: Huber.

Bodenmann

Meuwly

Kayser

(2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being: A comparison. European Psychologist, 16(4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068

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://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485

Bolger

Laurenceau

J.-P.

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

Breitenstein

C. J.

Milek

Nussbeck

F. W.

Davila

Bodenmann

(2018). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction in late adolescent couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(5), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517698049

Cao

Zhou

Fine

Liang

Mills-Koonce

W. R.

(2017). Sexual minority stress and same-sex relationship well-being: A meta-analysis of research prior to the U.S. Nationwide Legalization of same-sex marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 79(5), 1258–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12415

Collins

P. H.

(2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

10.

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

11.

Courtenay

W. H.

(2000). Constructions of masculinity and their in¯uence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science, 17(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.1.1.4

12.

Curran

M. A.

McDaniel

B. T.

Pollitt

A. M.

Totenhagen

C. J.

(2015). Gender, emotion work, and relationship quality: A daily diary study. Sex Roles, 73(3–4), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0495-8

13.

Donnelly

Robinson

B. A.

Umberson

(2019). Can spouses buffer the impact of discrimination on depressive symptoms? An examination of same-sex and different-sex marriages. Society and Mental Health, 9(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869318800157

14.

Falconier

M. K.

Jackson

J. B.

Hilpert

Bodenmann

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

15.

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://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571

16.

Fincham

F. D.

(2003). Marital conflict: Correlates, structure, and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01215

17.

Frost

D. M.

LeBlanc

A. J.

de Vries

Alston-Stepnitz

Stephenson

Woodyatt

(2017). Couple-level minority stress: An examination of same-sex couples’ unique experiences. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146517736754

18.

Frost

D. M.

Meyer

I. H.

(2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012844

19.

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

20.

Garcia

M. A.

Umberson

(2019). Marital strain and psychological distress in same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(5), 1253–1268. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12582

21.

Goldberg

A. E.

(2013). Doing” and “undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12009

22.

Herzberg

(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

23.

Homan

(2019). Structural sexism and health in the United States: A new perspective on health inequality and the gender system. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 486–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419848723

24.

Joyner

Manning

Prince

(2019). The qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples in young adulthood: Qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(2), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12535

25.

Landis

Peter-Wight

Martin

Bodenmann

(2013). Dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of older spouses in long-term marriage. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000077

26.

Manning

W. D.

Brown

S. L.

Stykes

J. B.

(2016). Same-sex and different-sex cohabiting couple relationship stability. Demography, 53(4), 937–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0490-x

27.

Matud

M. P.

(2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1401–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010

28.

Mayer

K. H.

Bradford

J. B.

Makadon

H. J.

Stall

Goldhammer

Landers

(2008). Sexual and gender minority health: What we know and what needs to Be done. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 989–995. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.127811

29.

Melrose

K. L.

Brown

G. D. A.

Wood

A. M.

(2015). When is received social support related to perceived support and well-being? When it is needed. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.047

30.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

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

31.

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

32.

Pollitt

A. M.

Robinson

B. A.

Umberson

(2018). Gender conformity, perceptions of shared power, and marital quality in same- and different-sex marriages. Gender & Society, 32(1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217742110

33.

Randall

A. K.

Tao

Totenhagen

C. J.

Walsh

K. J.

Cooper

A. N.

(2017). Associations between sexual orientation discrimination and depression among same-sex couples: Moderating effects of dyadic coping. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 16(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2016.1253520

34.

Reczek

(2020). Sexual-and gender-minority families: A 2010 to 2020 decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 300–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12607

35.

Reczek

Umberson

(2012). Gender, health behavior, and intimate relationships: Lesbian, gay, and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1783–1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.011

36.

Rosenfield

Lennon

M. C.

White

H. R.

(2005). The self and mental health: Self-salience and the emergence of internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650504600402

37.

Rostosky

S. S.

Riggle

E. D. B.

(2017). Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016). Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000216

38.

Rusu

P. P.

Nussbeck

F. W.

Leuchtmann

Bodenmann

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

39.

Selvidge

M. M. D.

Matthews

C. R.

Bridges

S. K.

(2008). The relationship of minority stress and flexible coping to psychological well being in Lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(3), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360802345255

40.

Solomon

S. E.

Rothblum

E. D.

Balsam

K. F.

(2004). Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.275

41.

Springer

K. W.

Hankivsky

Bates

L. M.

(2012). Gender and health: Relational, intersectional, and biosocial approaches. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1661–1666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.001

42.

StataCorp . (2017). Stata statistical software: Release (15). StataCorp LLC.

43.

Tamres

L. K.

Janicki

Helgeson

V. S.

(2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_1

44.

Thomeer

M. B.

Pollitt

A. M.

Umberson

(2021). Support in response to a spouse’s distress: Comparing women and men in same-sex and different-sex marriages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(5), 1513–1534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521998453

45.

Thomeer

M. B.

Reczek

Umberson

(2015). Gendered emotion work around physical health problems in mid- and later-life marriages. Journal of Aging Studies, 32, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.12.001

46.

Thomeer

M. B.

Umberson

Reczek

(2020). The gender-as-relational approach for theorizing about romantic relationships of sexual and gender minority mid- to later-life adults. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(2), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12368

47.

Umberson

(2022). Health and relationships Project, United States, 2014-2015. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37404.v2

48.

Umberson

Thomeer

M. B.

(2020). Family matters: Research on family ties and health, 2010 to 2020. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12640

49.

Umberson

Thomeer

M. B.

Kroeger

R. A.

Lodge

A. C.

(2015a). Challenges and opportunities for research on same-sex relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12155

50.

Umberson

Thomeer

M. B.

Kroeger

R. A.

Reczek

Donnelly

(2016). Instrumental- and emotion-focused care work during physical health events: Comparing gay, Lesbian, and heterosexual marriages. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw133

51.

Umberson

Thomeer

M. B.

Lodge

A. C.

(2015b). Intimacy and emotion work in Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12178

52.

Umberson

Thomeer

M. B.

Pollitt

A. M.

Mernitz

S. E.

(2020). The psychological toll of emotion work in same-sex and different-sex marital dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(4), 1141–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12686

53.

West

T. V.

Popp

Kenny

D. A.

(2008). A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311199

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

0.19 MB