Cargando…

Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature

The present review on dyadic coping (DC) aims at providing a critical integration of both the conceptual and empirical DC literature and overcoming the limitations of past reviews by (a) describing, comparing, and integrating all the DC models, (b) presenting and integrating findings from studies ba...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Falconier, Mariana Karin, Kuhn, Rebekka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6443825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30971968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571
_version_ 1783407902622482432
author Falconier, Mariana Karin
Kuhn, Rebekka
author_facet Falconier, Mariana Karin
Kuhn, Rebekka
author_sort Falconier, Mariana Karin
collection PubMed
description The present review on dyadic coping (DC) aims at providing a critical integration of both the conceptual and empirical DC literature and overcoming the limitations of past reviews by (a) describing, comparing, and integrating all the DC models, (b) presenting and integrating findings from studies based on DC models, and (c) suggesting directions for further research. The DC models identified and compared include: The congruence model (Revenson, 1994), the relationship-focused model (Coyne and Smith, 1991; O'Brien and DeLongis, 1996), the communal coping model (Lyons et al., 1998), the systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 1995, 1997), the relational-cultural model (Kayser et al., 2007), and the developmental-contextual coping model (Berg and Upchurch, 2007). After discussing each DC model, we advance a conceptual integration of all models, which serves as the framework to organize the review of the empirical literature. This integration includes the following DC dimensions: (a) Stress Communication, (b) Positive DC by One Partner (supportive DC, empathic responding, delegated DC, active engagement), (c) Positive Conjoint DC (common, collaborative, communal, mutual responsiveness); (d) Negative DC by One Partner (protective buffering, overprotection, and hostility/ambivalence), and (e) Negative Conjoint DC (common negative DC, disengaged avoidance). Developmental, relational, and contextual variables are included as factors shaping DC. To be included in the empirical review, articles had to be published in or a peer-reviewed journal in English and/or German before 2017 and include an original empirical study guided by one of the DC models. The review included 139 studies and, with the exception of the congruence model whose findings were discussed separately, findings were presented for overall DC and each of the dimensions identified in the conceptual integration. Findings were grouped also according to whether the stressor related or not to a medical or mental health condition. Demographic and cultural factors affecting DC were discussed. Overall, the empirical review suggests that in Western couples, positive individual, and conjoint DC forms, taken together or separately, have individual and relational benefits for couples coping with stress in general and/or mental health or medical stressors. Research on DC can be expanded to include other populations and stressors and use improved designs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6443825
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64438252019-04-10 Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature Falconier, Mariana Karin Kuhn, Rebekka Front Psychol Psychology The present review on dyadic coping (DC) aims at providing a critical integration of both the conceptual and empirical DC literature and overcoming the limitations of past reviews by (a) describing, comparing, and integrating all the DC models, (b) presenting and integrating findings from studies based on DC models, and (c) suggesting directions for further research. The DC models identified and compared include: The congruence model (Revenson, 1994), the relationship-focused model (Coyne and Smith, 1991; O'Brien and DeLongis, 1996), the communal coping model (Lyons et al., 1998), the systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 1995, 1997), the relational-cultural model (Kayser et al., 2007), and the developmental-contextual coping model (Berg and Upchurch, 2007). After discussing each DC model, we advance a conceptual integration of all models, which serves as the framework to organize the review of the empirical literature. This integration includes the following DC dimensions: (a) Stress Communication, (b) Positive DC by One Partner (supportive DC, empathic responding, delegated DC, active engagement), (c) Positive Conjoint DC (common, collaborative, communal, mutual responsiveness); (d) Negative DC by One Partner (protective buffering, overprotection, and hostility/ambivalence), and (e) Negative Conjoint DC (common negative DC, disengaged avoidance). Developmental, relational, and contextual variables are included as factors shaping DC. To be included in the empirical review, articles had to be published in or a peer-reviewed journal in English and/or German before 2017 and include an original empirical study guided by one of the DC models. The review included 139 studies and, with the exception of the congruence model whose findings were discussed separately, findings were presented for overall DC and each of the dimensions identified in the conceptual integration. Findings were grouped also according to whether the stressor related or not to a medical or mental health condition. Demographic and cultural factors affecting DC were discussed. Overall, the empirical review suggests that in Western couples, positive individual, and conjoint DC forms, taken together or separately, have individual and relational benefits for couples coping with stress in general and/or mental health or medical stressors. Research on DC can be expanded to include other populations and stressors and use improved designs. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-03-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6443825/ /pubmed/30971968 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571 Text en Copyright © 2019 Falconier and Kuhn. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Falconier, Mariana Karin
Kuhn, Rebekka
Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature
title Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature
title_full Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature
title_fullStr Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature
title_full_unstemmed Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature
title_short Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature
title_sort dyadic coping in couples: a conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6443825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30971968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571
work_keys_str_mv AT falconiermarianakarin dyadiccopingincouplesaconceptualintegrationandareviewoftheempiricalliterature
AT kuhnrebekka dyadiccopingincouplesaconceptualintegrationandareviewoftheempiricalliterature