Next Article in Journal
Disconnected: What Can We Learn from Individuals with Very Low Nature Connection?
Previous Article in Journal
Mississippi Farmers’ Interest in and Experience with Farm to School
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 13
10.3390/ijerph19138026
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Supportive, Delegated, and Common Dyadic Coping Mediates the Association between Adult Attachment Representation and Relationship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Approach

by
Anna Wendołowska
1,*,
Małgorzata Steć
2 and
Dorota Czyżowska
1
1
Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, 30-060 Kraków, Poland
2
Institute of Psychology, Jesuit University Ignatianum, 26 Kopernika Street, 31-501 Kraków, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(13), 8026; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138026
Submission received: 13 April 2022 / Revised: 22 June 2022 / Accepted: 28 June 2022 / Published: 30 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Health-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to examine intrapersonal (actor) and interpersonal (partner) associations between attachment, assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview, and satisfaction with the relationship, as well as to establish the possibility of the mediatory effect of supportive, delegated, and common dyadic coping on the aforementioned associations. A dyadic approach has been introduced, using the actor–partner interdependence mediation model and data from 114 heterosexual couples, aged 26 to 60. It has been shown that one’s own secure attachment can be perceived as the predictor of one’s own relationship satisfaction in women and men and the predictor of a partner’s relationship satisfaction in men. The findings support the partially mediating role of dyadic coping in the association between attachment and relationship satisfaction and are a significant contribution to the issue of dyadic coping in general. Adults’ secure representations of their childhood experiences may be effective in using their partners as a secure base and also in serving as a secure base themselves, but it is not the sole influence on the quality of the couple’s experience together. The we-ness phenomenon and resulting clinical implications were discussed.

1. Introduction

Romantic relationships are significant for personal and family well-being [1,2,3]. Low marital quality is associated with negative stress-related outcomes, including high blood pressure [4], poor immune system [5], mortality [6], and mental health problems [7,8], whereas a good relationship quality plays the role of a protective factor [9].
Romantic relationship quality can be reflected by various indicators, such as relationship satisfaction [10,11], commitment [12,13], emotional experience [14], conflict resolution [15], love and closeness [16], tenderness, communication [17], and so on. According to Plopa and Rostowski [18], harmonious development of marriage is determined by high intimacy between the spouses, their self-realization through marital roles and tasks, similarity in fulfilling life goals, and low disappointment. The level of satisfaction with the relationship is the result of effective communication, negotiation, and compromise on the principles of coexistence: needs, goals, values, and lifestyle.
To support healthy relationships, it is important to understand the predictors of relationship quality for individuals and their partners. Attachment is repeatedly identified as key predictor of relationship quality [19,20,21,22], relationship satisfaction [23,24], commitment [25,26], intimacy [27,28], sexual satisfaction [29,30], marital adjustment [31], and relationship stability [32,33]. There is also a link between attachment insecurities and poor coping skills [34,35], more perceived conflict [36], negative affect [37], pessimistic attribution [38], and relationship distress [39].
Some findings provide evidence that both one’s own and partner’s attachment patterns are relevant to relationship satisfaction [40]; however, studies report inconsistent results. Hamidi [41] found a positive relationship between secure attachment and marital satisfaction, Kamel Abbasi et al. [42] found that marital satisfaction was negatively linked with insecure attachment and positively linked with secure attachment, but Mohammadi et al. [43] found no relationship between secure attachment style and marital satisfaction. While some results indicated that the link between insecure attachment and relationship satisfaction was not moderated by gender [44], there is also evidence that it may be gender-specific [45]. When controlling for attachment, females presented lower levels of marital satisfaction then males [22]. Relationship satisfaction was positively associated with secure attachment and negatively with avoidant attachment for males and females, but ambivalent attachment was linked to low satisfaction only for females [46]. Preoccupied attachment had stronger negative effects on perceived relationship quality for females than other attachment patterns [47]. In other studies, men who are high in avoidance and men and women who are high in anxiety reported lower relationship quality [48], but secure attachment was only positively linked with male satisfaction [45,49]. Additionally, the perception of partner’s avoidance was associated with relationship satisfaction more for females than for males [25].
Four main attachment categories were identified: secure, insecure ambivalent/anxious, insecure avoidant, and disorganized [50]. Sensitivity, responsiveness, and availability of parents promote attachment security, which is the basis of emotional self-control and a protective factor in stressful situations [51]. Repeated infant experiences of parental rejection and neglect foster avoidant attachment, characterized by discomfort with intimacy, mistrust of others, and suppressed emotional expression [52]. Incoherent or inconsistent care from attachment figures fosters ambivalent attachment, characterized by chronic self-doubt and fear of abandonment [53]. Infant’s perceptions of their caregivers as “frightened or frightening,” lead to the fourth attachment category, disorganization [54], which is to protect against difficult content that is pushed into the unconscious. It exhibits conflicted behaviors that indicate inability to maintain one coherent attachment strategy in the face of distress [55]. Attachment theory was originally designed to explain the emotional bond between infants and their primary caregivers; however, attachment representations, through the internalizing of the attachment figure [56], exert their influence beyond childhood experiences and are strongly predictive of other close relationships later in life [53,57,58,59]. Early attachment relationships are the basis of emotional regulation skills and provide a template to form subsequent relationships in model-consistent and model-confirming ways, resulting in relatively stable attachment orientations over time [53,56,60,61]. Interpersonal representations of secure attachment are internalized by those raised in secure family environments, which favor the development of responsive and supportive attachment figure qualities that can be activated in future healthy adult relationships.

Dyadic Coping as a Mediator between Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction

Dyadic coping (DC) is a transactional process that involves both members of the dyad. The partners send verbal or non-verbal signals to communicate stress to one another, and induce response to cope together [62,63]. Positive dyadic coping refers to one partner’s support-seeking followed by another partner’s emotional and instrumental help (supportive DC) or taking over certain tasks and duties in order to reduce his or her stress (delegated DC). Positive dyadic coping may also involve shared problem-solving and mutual consolation (common DC). Negative dyadic coping is manifested by superficial, ambivalent, or hostile behaviors in response to the partner’s stress [64].
DC is closely linked to couples’ relationship functioning [64,65,66]. Coping in a relationship is an interdependent process. Relationship satisfaction, quality, and stability largely depend on whether both partners are able and willing to provide effective and sensitive care to one another [67]. In the romantic context, partners constantly alternate from support seekers to support providers, which is particularly difficult for people with an insecure attachment [68]. Avoidant individuals disengage their attempts to seek proximity and suppress their need for support; they tend to avoid conflicts by distancing and becoming task-focused [22]. Ambivalent individuals, in fear of abandonment, are overly focused on relationship and the partner, often provide ineffective help, and do not appreciate the received support [67,69].
Positive DC was related to lower stress, better relationship functioning, and higher couple satisfaction in the face of daily hassles [63], traumatic experiences [70], and chronic stress [71]. Negative DC was associated with detrimental outcomes [72,73]. Associations between dyadic coping and relationship quality were also true for cross-partner perceptions of relationship quality [71,74].

2. Aim of the Study

Our study makes several contributions to the literature. Research indicates that DC mediates the individual coping efforts and is a stronger predictor of relationship satisfaction than individual coping [75]; it also mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and marital quality [76]. However, assessment of the mediating role of DC in the link between adult attachment and relationship satisfaction has yielded inconsistent findings. To this date, one other study has examined the role of DC as a possible mediator of the relationship between attachment and relationship satisfaction [77], but did not find any significant mediation effects. General DC partially mediated the association between insecure attachment and marital satisfaction, but the study sample was limited to a student population and only used data from one partner [78]; common DC was a mediator between insecure attachment and parental adjustment to the first year postpartum [79], and also between insecure attachment and quality of life in an ovarian cancer patient population [80]. Our findings expand this line of research by (1) assessing current states of mind with respect to attachment versus self-reported attachment measures, (2) using a community sample versus student samples, (3) implementing dyadic data instead of individual data, and (4) testing the separately mediating role of positive DC forms instead of total DC or total positive DC.
Our first goal was to examine whether a person’s secure attachment predicts his or her own relationship satisfaction (actor effect) and his or her partner’s relationship satisfaction (partner effect). Based on the results of the research to date [16,20,81], we expect significant positive effects of one’s own secure attachment on one’s own relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 1a (H1a)) and significant positive effects of one’s own secure attachment on a partner’s relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 1b (H1b)).
Our second goal was to test whether selected forms of positive dyadic coping—supportive DC, delegating DC, and common DC—mediate the actor and partner effects of attachment on relationship satisfaction. We tested both forms of supportive and delegated DC: self-perception and other-perception. Given the evidence that attachment security is associated with a higher dyadic coping [78,82] and that dyadic coping influences relationship satisfaction [73,83], it was hypothesized that positive dyadic coping (self- and other-perceived delegated DC, self- and other-perceived supportive DC, and common DC) as mediator would better explain the process through which secure attachment and relationship satisfaction are related (Hypothesis 2a–e (H2a–e)). Experience of availability and responsiveness from primary attachment figures during childhood may influence the ability to accept and provide support within close adult relationships [84].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

A total of 114 Polish heterosexual couples participated in the study (N = 228 individuals). On average, men were 32.83 years old (SD = 10.29) and women were 31.52 years old (SD = 10.20). In terms of education, 45.2% of men and 46% of women had completed secondary school education, whereas 35.7% of men and 53.7% of women held a high school degree. Most of the men (85.2%) were employed, 7.8% were students, 3.5% were unemployed and 1.4% were retired; 69.6% of women were employed, 22.6% were university students, and 3.5% were unemployed. All couples had been together in a committed relationship for a least a year, and shared a household; 59% had no children, 13.9% had 1 child, and 23.3% had 2 and more children. Most of the couples (44.3%) had been in their current relationship for up to 5 years, 21.7% for up to 10 years, and 12.2% for more than 30 years. 34% of the couples were in an informal relationship and 63.4% were married. Only 7.1% of men and 8.8% of women rated their financial situation as bad; 65.2% of men and 60.6% of women rated it as good or very good.

3.2. Procedures

Participants were recruited in various places using traditional methods such as leaflets, advertisements, and email. To participate in the study, both partners had to be at least 25 years old and in their current committed relationship for at least 1 year. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study. Partners were interviewed separately by an interviewer trained to conduct the AAI. The interviews were audio-recorded. After the interview, each partner completed a set of self-report questionnaires. All participants were remunerated with cinema tickets for their time and effort. The transcripts were subsequently coded by a certified coder, trained in the AAI coding system [82]. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (the Ethics Committee at the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University; KE/01/102018) and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

3.3. Measures

Relationship satisfaction. The Matched Marriage Questionnaire (KDM-2) [83] examines the level of relationship satisfaction (in the perception of both partners) in four dimensions: intimacy (e.g., “I like the nature of my partner”), self-realization (e.g., “On a basis of my marital experiences I think that we can find the fulfilment of our life only in marriage”), similarity (e.g., “Acting together and achieving common plans bring me satisfaction”, disappointment (e.g., “I regret my independence and freedom from the premarital stage”. The questionnaire consists of 32 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The total scores of the subscales give the overall level of satisfaction with the relationship. The tool has satisfactory psychometric properties. Its internal consistency is Cronbach’s α = 0.89.
Dyadic Coping. Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) [54] in Polish validation [84], is a tool with high reliability and psychometric validity; it examines communication between the partners and various forms of DC: supportive, delegative, negative, and common DC. The questionnaire consists of 37 statements which the subject rates on a 5-point scale from 1 (“very rarely”) to 5 (“very often”). In our study, self-perceived supportive DC (e.g., I show my partner compassion and understanding), other-perceived supportive DC (e.g., My partner helps me to see stressful situations in a different light), self-perceived delegated DC (e.g., I take on things that my partner would normally do in order to help him/her out), other-perceived delegated DC (e.g., When I am too busy, my partner helps me out), and common DC (e.g., Both of us try to face problems together and find specific solutions together) were used. The internal consistencies of the subscales are, respectively, α = 0.78, 0.83, 0.78, 0.84, 0.83.
Attachment. Attachment can be conceptualized categorically [65,66] or dimensionally [67], for both theoretical and methodological reasons [66,68]. We decided to use the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) [69] in our study, as it is likely to capture individual’s potential capacities for caregiving, including highly specific aspects of emotional attunement and emotional regulation in dyads [70,71]. The AAI has been used in research on close relationships [65,72,73], and it continues to be the primary method of assessing adult attachment, despite the time-consuming training and coding of attachment interviews [70]. The AAI [82] is a well-known, semi-structured, one-hour interview for the assessment of current state of mind with respect to attachment. It probes adults about their early attachment experiences [85]. After transcription and coding of the AAI by a certified coder, according to the manual (Hesse, 2016), an attachment representation classification is given. The standard system for coding the AAI recommends classifying individuals categorically as having a secure (F), preoccupied (E), dismissing (Ds), or disorganized (U) state of mind. Those categories share conceptual overlap with secure, anxious-ambivalent, avoidant, and disorganized attachment in childhood, respectively. In organized attachment representations, there is one coherent mental strategy regarding attachment figures, either secure (F) or insecure (E, Ds). In disorganized (U) attachment representations, different, often contradicting, mental strategies are used.
Demographic questionnaire was used to collect demographic data, including age, gender, length of relationship, type of relationship (formal or informal), number of children, employment status, education level, and financial situation, which was rated from “poor” to “very good”.

3.4. Analysis Strategies

Individual differences in terms of attachment were assessed categorically, using the adult attachment interview (AAI). The intra-rater reliability was computed through Cohen’s kappa coefficient (k) [85] to verify the degree to which one rater’s coding of the same transcript remained constant at two different times. In this study, we realized the second coding for a sample of 50% of the transcripts after 2 years. The interpretation of kappa values was based on the Landis and Koch guidelines: values < 0 as indicating no agreement and 0–0.20 as slight, 0.21–0.40 as fair, 0.41–0.60 as moderate, 0.61–0.80 as substantial, and 0.81–1 as almost perfect agreement [86].
Preliminary analyses used IBM SPSS Statistics 26 statistical package (Armonk, NY, USA) delivered by Predictive Solutions (PS IMAGO PRO Academic package). The means with standard deviation were calculated for all continuous variables. The t-test for paired samples was used to analyze differences between men and women, and the t-test for independent samples was used to test differences between the groups of secure and insecure individuals. To avoid the problem of dependence between the partners’ observations, each analysis was performed separately for men and women. For dyadic and correlation analysis the AAI attachment categories were converted to a dichotomous variable, so that either a participant was insecure (0) or secure (1).
Taking into account the interdependence of the dyadic data, subsequent analyses were completed using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) [87] and the actor–partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM) [88]. Using standard statistical methods with dyadic data negatively influences tests of significance because of biased standard errors and loss of degrees of freedom [89]. The APIM approach allows simultaneous estimation of effects for both members of the dyad while controlling for the interdependence between them [89]. In the basic APIM, two predictor variables (i.e., male’s attachment and female’s attachment) and two outcome variables (i.e., male’s relationship satisfaction and female’s relationship satisfaction) are included. The effect of each individual’s attachment on his or her own relationship satisfaction is represented by the actor effects; the effect of each individual’s attachment on his or her partner’s relationship satisfaction is represented by the partner effects [88]. The APIMeM is similar to APIM; however, apart from two predictors and two outcome variables, two mediators are included: one mediator for each member of a dyad (Figure 1).
In APIMeM, potentially four direct effects can be mediated [88]: (1) the actor effect of the male’s attachment on his satisfaction (a3M), (2) the actor effect of the female’s attachment on her satisfaction (a3W), (3) the partner effect of the male’s attachment on the female’s satisfaction (p3W), (4) the partner effect of the female’s attachment on the male’s satisfaction (p3M). Each of these direct effects possibly has two indirect effects: (1) an actor–actor indirect effect in which the actor effect is mediated by the actor mediator (e.g., the effect of male’s attachment on his relationship satisfaction mediated by his DC; a1Ma2M); (2) a partner–partner effect in which the actor effect is mediated by the partner mediator (e.g., the effect of male’s attachment on his relationship satisfaction mediated by female’s DC; p1Wp2M); (3) a partner–actor effect in which the partner effect is mediated by the actor mediator (e.g., the effect of male’s attachment on female’s relationship satisfaction mediated by male’s DC; a1Mp2W); (4) an actor–partner effect in which the partner effect is mediated by the partner mediator (e.g., the effect of male’s attachment on female’s relationship satisfaction mediated by female’s DC; p1Wa2W). Overall, there are eight possible indirect effects. We tested a model with the effects constrained to be equal across gender, which reduces the number of possible indirect effects from eight to four. If the test of distinguishability, including three equal means, and three equal variances is not statistically significant, dyad members can be treated as indistinguishable. The combined mediation test involved comparing a model with the four indirect effects to a model without the indirect effects. If the test is significant, it provides evidence of mediation. We examined whether positive forms of DC (self- and other-perceived supportive DC, self- and other-perceived delegated DC, and common DC) significantly mediated the association between attachment and relationship satisfaction. Separate analyses were completed for each of the selected positive forms of DC. A total of five APIMeMs were completed.
All APIM analyses were performed using lavaan, an R-package for structural equation modeling (SEM) [90]. The Monte Carlo method, or parametric bootstrap, with 40,000 trials was used for the indirect effects. To test for significance of the indirect effects, we estimated the bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. All tests were performed at the 0.05 significance level. The hypothesized models were evaluated using goodness-of-fit indices that included the chi-square, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; acceptable fit < 0.08), and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR; acceptable fit < 0.08), supplementing with either Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; acceptable fit > 0.95) or Comparative Fit Index (CFI; acceptable fit > 0.95) [91].

4. Results

We tested normality by examining skewness and kurtosis for all continuous variables (delegated DC self and other-perception, supportive DC self- and other-perception, common DC, and relationship satisfaction) separately for men and women. The result showed that the skewness is not larger than 0.89, and the kurtosis is not larger than 2.91. The value of skewness is smaller than 2 and the value of kurtosis is smaller than 7, suggesting that these data were approximately normally distributed [92].
Intra-rater reliability for the four-way AAI classification (F, E, DS, and U) was calculated for a sample of 50% of the transcripts and the result was 82.3%, showing an almost perfect agreement level (k > 0.81%) [86]. We examined the generalized attachment categories (AAI) of both sexes and our results did not reveal a significant difference between them in terms of four-way AAI classification (χ2 (3) = 2.14, p = 0.54). The distribution of AAI categories in our sample (women: 52.2% F, 26% Ds, 18.3% E, and 3.5% U; men: 53.9% F, 30% Ds, 13% E, and 2.6% U) was overlapping to those considered in other studies [93,94]. For further analyses, the AAI four categories were converted to a dichotomous secure–insecure variable.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for tested continuous variables and gender differences. There were no significant differences between men and women in terms of supportive, delegated, and common DC and relationships satisfaction.
T-test was used to compare dichotomous attachment groups (secure and insecure), separately for women and men, for relationship satisfaction, and positive forms of DC (delegated DC, supportive DC, and common DC) (Table 2). Secure individuals of both sexes had significantly higher scores of relationship satisfaction and all forms of positive DC compared to insecure partners.
Both in the case of men and women, there were few moderate and strong correlations between the studied variables (Table 3). The strongest correlations in women we observe between secure attachment and relationship satisfaction, common DC, and self- and other-perceived delegated DC. Secure attachment in men is associated with their relationship satisfaction, common DC, and self-perceived delegated DC.

4.1. Secure Attachment as a Predictor of Relationship Satisfaction

We continued using attachment as a secure–insecure dichotomous variable for further dyadic APIM and APIMeM analysis. The minimum sample size to detect the actor and partner effects for an APIM analysis given a desired level of power of 0.80 and alpha of 0.05 is 81 dyads [95], making our sample of 114 dyads acceptable for the APIM analysis. At first, we examined actor and partner effects of secure attachment on relationship satisfaction using an actor–partner interdependence model [96]. The actor effect for women and men, and the partner effect for men, were found to be statistically significant (Figure 2). Secure attachment predicts higher relationship satisfaction in men and women (confirmed H1a). Female security of attachment predicts higher relationship satisfaction in their male partners (partially confirmed H1b). The basic actor–partner interdependence model is a saturated model (i.e., df = 0). We tested also whether participants’ age, financial status, and length of the relationship moderated the actor and partner effects. None of the tested covariates appeared to be significant for the attachment effects on relationship satisfaction.

Dyadic Coping as Mediator of a Relationship between Secure Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction

We tested separately five models with different mediators: self-perceived supportive DC, other-perceived supportive DC, self-perceived delegated DC, other-perceived delegated DC, and common DC. Thus, attachment was considered predictor, relationship satisfaction as outcome, and dyadic five different forms of DC were used as mediators.
First, we tested a model including self-perceived supportive DC as mediator (Table 4). As the test of distinguishability was not statistically significant (χ2 (12) = 10.57, p = 0.566, RMSEA = 0.000), the dyad members were treated as if they were indistinguishable, and we examined the estimates of the model with cross-gender equality constraints. The combined mediation test was significant (χ2 (2) = 26.82, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.329), providing evidence of mediation. Two of four indirect effects were significant, with the exception of the indirect partner–partner effect and indirect actor–partner effect. One’s own attachment predicted own relationship satisfaction through own self-perceived supportive DC. Partner’s attachment predicted own relationship satisfaction through own self-perceived supportive DC. Moreover, when controlling for the indirect effects, the direct partner effect became nonsignificant (Hypothesis 2a). We compared the size of the indirect actor and partner effects with the size of the corresponding total effects. Regarding the actor effect, the overall indirect effect (0.11) accounted for 37% of the total effect (0.30). Regarding the partner effect, the overall indirect effect (0.19) accounted for 64% of the total effect (0.17). The fit of the constrained model was very good (χ2 (4) = 5.40, TLI = 0.96, the CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.039, RMSEA = 0.055).
Second, we tested whether other-perceived supportive DC mediated the effects of attachment on relationship satisfaction (Table 5). As the test of distinguishability was not statistically significant (χ2 (12) = 7.15, p = 0.848, RMSEA = 0.000), we examined the model that included cross-gender equality constraints. The combined mediation test was significant (χ2 (2) = 37.25, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.391), providing evidence of mediation. Four out of four indirect effects were significant. Both, own, and the partner’s attachment predicted own and the partner’s relationship satisfaction through own and the partner’s other-perceived supportive DC. When controlling for the indirect effects, the direct partner effect became nonsignificant (Hypothesis 2b). We compared the size of the indirect actor and partner effects with the size of the corresponding total effects. Regarding the actor effect, the overall indirect effect (0.13) accounted for 31% of the total effect (0.43). With regard to the partner effect, the overall indirect effect (0.23) accounted for 79% of the total effect (0.17). The constrained model achieved a very good fit (χ2 (4)= 6.48, TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.049, RMSEA = 0.074).
Third, we tested whether self-perceived delegated DC mediated the effects of attachment on relationship satisfaction (Table 6). The test of distinguishability was not statistically significant (χ2 (12) = 5.30, p = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.000), so the model that included cross-gender equality constraints was examined. The combined mediation test was significant (χ2 (3) = 48.20, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.362), providing evidence of mediation. Partner–partner and partner–actor indirect effect were insignificant. Own attachment predicted own relationship satisfaction through own self-perceived delegated DC. Partner’s attachment predicted own relationship satisfaction through the partner’s self-perceived delegated DC. When controlling for the indirect effects, the direct actor and partner effects became nonsignificant (Hypothesis 2c). Regarding the actor effect, the overall indirect effect (0.13) accounted for 30% of the total effect (0.43). Regarding the partner effects, the overall indirect effect (0.23) accounted for 74% of the total effect (0.12). The fit values of the constrained model for the TLI and RMSEA were slightly worse than the normative values specified by Hu and Bentler (1999): (χ2 (4)= 12.09, TLI = 0.80, CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.067, RMSEA = 0.133).
Next, we included other-perceived delegated DC as mediator (Table 7). We examined the model that included cross-gender equality constraints, as the test of distinguishability was not statistically significant (χ2 (12) = 10.78, p = 0.548, RMSEA = 0.000). The combined mediation test was significant (χ2 (3) = 17.53, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.260), providing evidence of mediation. Partner–partner and partner–actor indirect effect appeared to be insignificant. Own attachment predicted own relationship satisfaction through own other-perceived delegated DC. Partner’s attachment predicted own relationship satisfaction through the partner’s other-perceived delegated DC. When controlling for the indirect effects, the direct actor and partner effects became nonsignificant (Hypothesis 2d). Comparing the size of the indirect actor and partner effects with the size of the corresponding total effects, we observe that with regard to the actor effect, the overall indirect effect (0.05) accounted for 12% of the total effect (0.43). Regarding the partner effects, the overall indirect effect (0.09) accounted for 35% of the total effect (0.12). Again, the constrained model achieved a slightly worse fit (χ2 (4) = 12.99, TLI = 0.75, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.069, RMSEA = 0.073).
The last tested model included common DC as mediator (Table 8). The test of distinguishability was not statistically significant (χ2 (12) = 14.01, p = 0.300, RMSEA = 0.038). We examined the model that included cross-gender equality constraints. The combined mediation test was significant (χ2 (2) = 34.50, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.376), providing evidence of mediation. Out of four possible indirect effects, only actor–actor indirect effect appeared significant. Own attachment predicted own (but not the partner) relationship satisfaction through common DC. When controlling for the indirect effects, the direct partner effect became nonsignificant (Hypothesis 2e). Comparing the size of the indirect actor and partner effects with the size of the corresponding total effects, we observe that with regard to the actor effect, the overall indirect effect (0.18) accounted for 43% of the total effect (0.43). Regarding the partner effects, although actor–partner and partner–actor indirect effects appeared to be insignificant, the total indirect effect (0.36) was significant and accounted for 53% of the total effect (0.12). The constrained model fit very well to the data (χ2 (4) = 4.59, TLI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.044, RMSEA = 0.036).

5. Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine intrapersonal (actor) and interpersonal (partner) associations between attachment and relationship satisfaction and to explore whether these associations were mediated by self-perceived supportive DC, other-perceived supportive DC, self-perceived delegated DC, other-perceived delegated DC, and common DC. A dyadic approach to data analysis was implemented to simultaneously estimate actor and partner effects. We examined the generalized attachment categories (AAI) of both sexes and our results did not reveal a significant difference between them in terms of four-way AAI classification, which is in line with other research [94,97].
Secure individuals of both sexes had significantly higher levels of relationship satisfaction and higher scores in all forms of positive DC compared to insecure ones; secure attachment, relationship satisfaction, and dyadic coping correlated significantly. As hypothesized, own secure attachment predicted own relationship satisfaction in men and women (Hypothesis 1a), and it also predicted partner’s relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 1b), but the latter was true for men only. This is partially in line with other studies that found actor and partner effects for attachment and relationship quality [20,35,81,98]. Secure individuals report higher relationship quality, as well as those whose with secure partners, both as assessed by the AAI [99] and by the self-report measures [16,20,81]. In a stable romantic relationship, the partners serve each other as secure base and play the role of a primary source of physical and emotional safety [100]. Secure partners tend to be available and responsive to fulfil each other’s attachment needs, enhancing satisfaction with the relationship [101]. Insecure attachment has been associated with lower trust and confidence [46], which may result in negative responses to the partner’s stress and can confirm their core concerns and thus negatively affect relationship satisfaction [69]. In our study however, the partner effect of male’s attachment on female’s relationship satisfaction was not significant. It was expected that an insecure partner would impact females’ satisfaction [20,36]; however, in most studies, the partner effect of attachment on relationship satisfaction was weaker compared to the actor level [35,102,103]. Further, in one study, having a high-anxiety or -avoidance husband did not have an impact on the marital adjustment of securely attached wives [11]. One possible explanation would be that as women more often find meaning in daily sacrifices and family work [104,105], they are focused on the durability of the relationship, care for relationship harmony [106], and are more able to forgive [107]. In other studies, women generally report higher life satisfaction than men [108]. There might be other factors for females that can foster their life satisfaction [16], like for example other-oriented attitude as opposed to more self-oriented men [109] or wider network of social support [110].
As hypothesized, our findings provide support for the partially mediating role of DC in the association between attachment and relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 2a–e). In terms of the actor effects, secure attachment was positively associated with relationship satisfaction through a self- and other-perceived supportive DC, self- and other-perceived delegated DC, and common DC (actor–actor effects), and through other-perceived supportive DC by partner (partner–partner effect). Total indirect actor effect size of common DC was larger than the other tested positive DC behaviors, but still smaller than the direct effect. In all five tested models, direct actor effects remained significant, which confirms strong effect of attachment on relationship satisfaction. Regarding the partner effects, the partner’s secure attachment was associated with own higher relationship satisfaction through the partner’s self-perceived supportive DC, own self-perceived delegated DC, and by both: own and the partner’s other-perceived supportive DC. In all five tested models, partner indirect effects were greater than the corresponding direct effects. The total indirect partner effect size of other-perceived supportive DC (78% of the total effect), self-perceived delegated DC (74% of the total effect), and self-perceived supportive DC (64% of the total effect) was larger than the total indirect partner effect size of common DC (53% of the total effect) and other-perceived delegated DC (35% of the total effect). There is a close link between an individual’s attachment disposition and their ability to regulate their emotions [53] and cope during stressful events [111]. Secure individuals tend to cope with stress by engaging in problem-solving and by getting support from attachment figures [101]. Securely attached individuals’ tendency to be available and responsive may explain readiness to provide emotional and instrumental help to the partner, to engage in tasks that usually belong to the partner, to relieve him/her in face of stress, and also to recognize and appreciate the partner’s support.
It was interesting to test which form of the five tested positive DCs serve to amplify the relationship between attachment and relationship satisfaction the most. On the basis of previous research, common DC is the strongest predictor of relationship satisfaction [68,69,70]. Many studies also point to the role of a supportive DC, both self- and other-perceived, on relationship functioning [70,71,72]. Few studies have so far focused on delegated DC, which is taking over tasks upon request to relieve the partner’s stress [48]. The more delegated DC the partners provided to the patient coping with breast cancer, the fewer depressive symptoms they experienced. The more delegated DC patients provided to the partner, the more depressive symptoms they experienced. The partners of the patients experienced also more depressive symptoms the more supportive DC the patient provided to them [73]. In our study, self and other-supportive DC serves “best” to explain the process through which attachment and relationship satisfaction are related. Supportive DC refers to one partner’s attempts to help the other partner in their coping efforts by focusing on the problem (e.g., giving advice) or emotions (e.g., showing compassion). Attachment influences relationship satisfaction by promoting DC supportive behavior as components of a secure base [112].
Studies suggest that individuals who provide support to a stressed partner report increased well-being [113], relationship satisfaction [109,114,115,116,117], and stability [118]. DC also enhances relationship functioning [119], constructive conflict resolution [120], and buffers the negative effects of stress [121]. In terms of health conditions, use of supportive DC decreases distress [71,122] and depression symptoms [123]; one study found that in women with breast cancer, higher supportive DC offered by their partners increased their depressive symptoms [124]. Subjective perception of a supportive partner seems even more important form relationship satisfaction than providing support [125,126].
The important role of self-perceived delegated DC should also be emphasized. It is a specific form of support that differs from supportive DC. Individual not only offers a support to his/her partner, but also takes over tasks and responsibilities to relieve the partner’s stress upon request. In our study, the effect size of self-perceived delegated DC (0.23) was the same as of other-perceived supportive DC. It has been suggested to be rather small [127]; however, satisfaction with the relationship is a multidimensional concept that might be affected by multiple factors [1], so the predictive power of each single factor is necessarily limited. Delegated DC, compared to other DC dimensions, was less often the focus of researchers. Generally, delegated DC is positively linked to individual positive coping strategies [128,129], constructive conflict resolution, and relationship satisfaction [115,116,120,130] and negatively associated with couple communication [117] and satisfaction with the relationship [128]. In couples coping with illness, delegated DC provided by the patients to their partners might negatively impact the patients’ quality of life [131] and increase their depressive symptoms [124]. As research shows, the ability to replace a partner in his/her duties is a complex competence that requires tact, good communication, skills, and empathy. Delegated DC has been included only in the Systemic–Transactional Model studies [62], and its measurement instrument, the DCI [132]. Its role may be underestimated due to the communication component, being part of the stress communication scale in the DCI, and the fact that in several DCI validations [117,130,133], items from the stress communications scale referring to delegated DC (e.g., I ask my partner to do things for me when I have too much to do) have been deleted to achieve better fit. It would be worth taking a closer look at the delegated DC subscale and conducting further in-depth analyses.
This study presents some limitations. First, a national convenience sample was used, which could have resulted in a biased sample selection towards lengthier and happier relationships, which is true in probably most of the research on close relationships. Second, to our best knowledge, there is only one Polish-speaking AAI certified coder, and we necessarily had to rely on double-coding instead of two independent coders’ assessments. Third, other results were only based on self-report measures. Fourth, the correlational nature of this study precludes making inferences about causation in the observed associations. Fifth, a relatively small group of respondents does not allow for the analysis of more complex models and a broader generalization of conclusions. Finally, the assessment of dyadic coping was tied to general daily hassles, not any specific stressful event, and thus all generalizations must be treated with caution to avoid random possible relationships between variables. Behavioral observations, daily diaries, or physiological measurements with different samples, as well as longitudinal designs, could be used in future studies to further establish the link between attachment, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction in a romantic context.

6. Conclusions

The current study focused on the role of adult attachment representation and dyadic coping in shaping relationship satisfaction. Most of the recent studies have utilized the self-report measures [134], but it also appears that the generalized representations originating in childhood do play a role in influencing DC behavior in adult romantic relationships [112]. Many past studies focused on individual and intrapersonal analytic strategies. The dyadic approach, which was implemented in this study, considers the couple as the unit of analysis, which provides understanding of the dyadic complexity of the couple system. The APIM [135] allows consideration of the reciprocal influence of each partner on their own and their partner’s outcome simultaneously.
Attachment is a lifespan phenomenon, not only in the developmental context, but also in the context of close relationships, explaining the influence of attachment representations on secure base behavior towards a romantic partner [136,137]. Adult attachment representations, however, are not the sole influences on attachment behavior within romantic relationships. The current partner and romantic relationship experiences, particularly in time of stress or need, play a role in fostering the feeling of we-ness and intimacy [138]. Adults’ secure attachment representations of their childhood experiences may be effective in using their partners as a secure base and also in serving as a secure base themselves, which should result in a substantial difference in the quality of the couple’s experience together [112]. It seems that the main characteristics of adult attachment state of mind, such as integration of early experience, competence to evaluate and explain experience, and an overall valuing of attachment and coherency in the expression of needs and emotions can contribute to the development of higher dyadic coping competencies. Individuals with overly insecure or disorganized attachment patterns interact with others in overly distancing or demanding ways [139,140], which may increase risk of interpersonal conflicts, reduce the availability of support [141,142], and experience close relationships as stressful and unsatisfying [143].
The findings bear theoretical implications informing clinical interventions. Attachment strategies provide understanding whether and how distressed people express their need for support from their partners [21]. In conflict, insecure people tend to blame their partners for their low satisfaction [102,144]. In this study, the partner association between attachment and satisfaction was weaker than the actor association and became insignificant when controlling for dyadic coping. Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy aims at replacing insecure attachment strategies with the secure primary attachment strategy [145]. Enhancement of attachment security of the partners may bring benefits in terms of better emotional co-regulation, proximity-seeking behaviors, intimacy between partners, and more effective coping strategies [53]. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training [146] helps couples improve their emotional communication about daily hassles and implement dyadic coping strategies to change their negative responses for a positive transformation of self- and the other-perception.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W., M.S. and D.C.; methodology, A.W.; validation, A.W. and D.C.; formal analysis, A.W.; data curation, A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W.; writing—review and editing, M.S. and D.C.; visualization, A.W.; supervision, D.C.; project administration, A.W.; funding acquisition, A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, grant number DSC 221.3110.21.2018; N12/MNS/000007; N12/MNW/000022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University (KE/01/102018; 13.05.2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bradbury, T.N.; Fincham, F.D.; Beach, S.R.H. Research on the Nature and Determinants of Marital Satisfaction: A Decade in Review. J. Marriage Fam. 2000, 62, 964–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Joel, D.; Garcia-Falgueras, A.; Swaab, D. The Complex Relationships between Sex and the Brain. Neuroscientist 2020, 26, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Slatcher, R.B.; Selcuk, E. A Social Psychological Perspective on the Links Between Close Relationships and Health. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 26, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Holt-Lunstad, J.; Birmingham, W.; Jones, B.Q. Is There Something Unique about Marriage? The Relative Impact of Marital Status, Relationship Quality, and Network Social Support on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Mental Health. Ann. Behav. Med. 2008, 35, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Uecker, J.E. Marriage and Mental Health among Young Adults. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2012, 53, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. The Psychological Impact of Quarantine and How to Reduce It: Rapid Review of the Evidence. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ahmad, A.; Rahman, I.; Agarwal, M. Factors Influencing Mental Health During COVID-19 Outbreak: An Exploratory Survey among Indian Population. J. Health Sci. 2020, 10, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Teo, A.R.; Choi, H.; Valenstein, M. Social Relationships and Depression: Ten-Year Follow-Up from a Nationally Representative Study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Pieh, C.; O’Rourke, T.; Budimir, S.; Probst, T. Relationship Quality and Mental Health during COVID-19 Lockdown. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Woodhouse, S.S.; Dykas, M.J.; Cassidy, J. Perceptions of Secure Base Provision within the Family. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2009, 11, 47–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Siegel, A.; Levin, Y.; Solomon, Z. The Role of Attachment of Each Partner on Marital Adjustment. J. Fam. Issues 2019, 40, 415–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Spielmann, S.S.; Gere, J.; Cantarella, I.A.; Roberson, J.; Brindley, S.L. Relationship Quality and Accuracy of Detecting a Romantic Partner’s Fear of Being Single. J. Res. Personal. 2020, 87, 103967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tran, S.; Simpson, J.A. Prorelationship Maintenance Behaviors: The Joint Roles of Attachment and Commitment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 97, 685–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Feeney, J.A. Adult Attachment, Emotional Control, and Marital Satisfaction. Personal. Relatsh. 1999, 6, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Creasey, G.; Hesson-McInnis, M. Affective Responses, Cognitive Appraisals, and Conflict Tactics in Late Adolescent Romantic Relationships: Associations with Attachment Orientations. J. Couns. Psychol. 2001, 48, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cooper, A.N.; Totenhagen, C.J.; McDaniel, B.T.; Curran, M.A. Volatility in Daily Relationship Quality: The Roles of Attachment and Gender. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 2018, 35, 348–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hahlweg, K. Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik; Hogrefe Verlag für Psychologie: Göttingen, Germany; Bern, Switzerland; Toronto, ON, Canada; Seattle, WA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  18. Plopa, M.; Rostowski, J. Kwestionariusz Dobranego Małżeństwa [The Matched Marriage Questionnaire]. In Więzi w Małżeństwie i Rodzinie. Metody Badań; Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls: Kraków, Poland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. Feeney, J.A. Adult Romantic Attachment: Developments in the Study of Couple Relationships. In Handbook of Attachment; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 435–463. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mondor, J.; McDuff, P.; Lussier, Y.; Wright, J. Couples in Therapy: Actor-Partner Analyses of the Relationships Between Adult Romantic Attachment and Marital Satisfaction. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 2011, 39, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shaver, P.R.; Mikulincer, M.; Gross, J.T.; Stern, J.A.; Cassidy, J. A Lifespan Perspective on Attachment and Care for Others: Empathy, Altruism, and Prosocial Behavior. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 878–916. [Google Scholar]
  22. Butzer, B.; Campbell, L. Adult Attachment, Sexual Satisfaction, and Relationship Satisfaction: A Study of Married Couples. Personal. Relatsh. 2008, 15, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Knies, K.; Bodalski, E.A.; Flory, K. Romantic Relationships in Adults with ADHD: The Effect of Partner Attachment Style on Relationship Quality. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 2021, 38, 42–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vollmann, M.; Sprang, S.; van den Brink, F. Adult Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Gratitude toward the Partner. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 2019, 36, 3875–3886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Molero, F.; Shaver, P.R.; Fernández, I.; Alonso-Arbiol, I.; Recio, P. Long-Term Partners’ Relationship Satisfaction and Their Perceptions of Each Other’s Attachment Insecurities: Perception Partners Attachment Insecurities. Personal. Relatsh. 2016, 23, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moors, A.C.; Ryan, W.; Chopik, W.J. Multiple Loves: The Effects of Attachment with Multiple Concurrent Romantic Partners on Relational Functioning. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019, 147, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Constant, E.; Christophe, V.; Bodenmann, G.; Nandrino, J.-L. Attachment Orientation and Relational Intimacy: The Mediating Role of Emotional Competences. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 1374–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Karantzas, G.C.; Feeney, J.A.; Goncalves, C.V.; McCabe, M.P. Towards an Integrative Attachment-Based Model of Relationship Functioning. Br. J. Psychol. 2014, 105, 413–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mark, K.P.; Vowels, L.M.; Murray, S.H. The Impact of Attachment Style on Sexual Satisfaction and Sexual Desire in a Sexually Diverse Sample. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2018, 44, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Valdez, C.M.; Leonhardt, N.D.; Busby, D.M. Sexual Passion and Attachment: Sexual Passion Style as a Mediator between Attachment Insecurity and Sexual Satisfaction in Committed Relationships. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2021, 47, 614–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lopez, J.L.; Riggs, S.A.; Pollard, S.E.; Hook, J.N. Religious Commitment, Adult Attachment, and Marital Adjustment in Newly Married Couples. J. Fam. Psychol. 2011, 25, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Duemmler, S.L.; Kobak, R. The Development of Commitment and Attachment in Dating Relationships: Attachment Security as Relationship Construct. J. Adolesc. 2001, 24, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Conradi, H.J.; Noordhof, A.; Kamphuis, J.H. Satisfying and Stable Couple Relationships: Attachment Similarity across Partners Can Partially Buffer the Negative Effects of Attachment Insecurity. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2021, 47, 682–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Feeney, J.A.; Hohaus, L. Attachment and Spousal Caregiving. Personal. Relatsh. 2001, 8, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Li, T.; Chan, D.K.-S. How Anxious and Avoidant Attachment Affect Romantic Relationship Quality Differently: A Meta-Analytic Review: Adult Attachment and Relationship Quality. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 406–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brassard, A.; Lussier, Y.; Shaver, P.R. Attachment, Perceived Conflict, and Couple Satisfaction: Test of a Mediational Dyadic Model. Fam. Relat. 2009, 58, 634–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Molero, F.; Shaver, P.R.; Fernández, I.; Recio, P. Attachment Insecurities, Life Satisfaction, and Relationship Satisfaction from a Dyadic Perspective: The Role of Positive and Negative Affect: Attachment Insecurities and Life Satisfaction. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 47, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kimmes, J.G.; Durtschi, J.A.; Clifford, C.E.; Knapp, D.J.; Fincham, F.D. The Role of Pessimistic Attributions in the Association Between Anxious Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction: Attachment and Attributions. Fam. Relat. 2015, 64, 547–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Feeney, J.; Fitzgerald, J. Attachment, Conflict and Relationship Quality: Laboratory-Based and Clinical Insights. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 25, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Kirkpatrick, L.A.; Davis, K.E. Attachment Style, Gender, and Relationship Stability: A Longitudinal Analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 66, 502–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hamidi, F. A Study on the Relationship between Attachment Styles and Marital Satisfaction in Married of Teacher Training University. J. Fam. Res. 2007, 3, 443–453. [Google Scholar]
  42. Abbasi, A.R.K.; Tabatabaei, S.M.; Sharbaf, H.A.; Karshki, H. Relationship of Attachment Styles and Emotional Intelligence With Marital Satisfaction. Iran. J. Psychiatry Behav. Sci. 2016, 10, e2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Mohammadi, K.; Samavi, A.; Ghazavi, Z. The Relationship Between Attachment Styles and Lifestyle With Marital Satisfaction. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2016, 18, e23839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. O’hadi, J.; Brown, B.; Trub, L.; Rosenthal, L. I Just Text to Say I Love You: Partner Similarity in Texting and Relationship Satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 78, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Feeney, J.A.; Noller, P.; Callan, V.J. Attachment Style, Communication and Satisfaction in the Early Years of Marriage. In Attachment Processes in Adulthood; Bartholomew, K., Perlman, D., Eds.; Jessica Kingsley Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 269–308. [Google Scholar]
  46. Simpson, J.A. Influence of Attachment Styles on Romantic Relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 971–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vigl, J.; Strauss, H.; Talamini, F.; Zentner, M. Relationship Satisfaction in the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-National Examination of Situational, Dispositional, and Relationship Factors. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Tucker, J.S.; Anders, S.L. Attachment Style, Interpersonal Perception Accuracy, and Relationship Satisfaction in Dating Couples. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 25, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Collins, N.L.; Read, S.J. Adult Attachment, Working Models, and Relationship Quality in Dating Couples. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ainsworth, M.D.S.; Bell, S.M. Attachment, Exploration, and Separation: Illustrated by the Behavior of One-Year-Olds in a Strange Situation. In The Life Cycle; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1970; pp. 49–67. [Google Scholar]
  51. Waters, E.; Crowell, J.; Elliott, M.; Corcoran, D.; Treboux, D. Bowlby’s Secure Base Theory and the Social/Personality Psychology of Attachment Styles: Work(s) in Progress. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2002, 4, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Johnson, S.M. The Attachment Perspective on the Bonds of Love: A Prototype for Relationship Change. In The Emotionally Focused Casebook: New Directions in Treating Couples; Furrow, J., Bradley, B., Johnson, S., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 31–58. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bowlby, J. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1988; ISBN 0-465-07597-5. [Google Scholar]
  54. Main, M.; Hesse, E. Parents’ Unresolved Traumatic Experiences Are Related to Infant Disorganized Attachment Status: Is Frightened and/or Frightening Parental Behavior the Linking Mechanism? In Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention; Greenberg, M.T., Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E.M., Eds.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1990; pp. 161–182. [Google Scholar]
  55. Main, M.; Solomon, J. Procedure for Identifying Infants as Disorganized/Disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention; Greenberg, M.T., Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E.M., Eds.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1990; pp. 121–160. [Google Scholar]
  56. Cassidy, J. Emotion Regulation: Influences of Attachment Relationships. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 1994, 59, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ainsworth, M.S. Epilogue. In Attachment in the Preschool Years; Greenberg, M.T., Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E.M., Eds.; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1990; pp. 463–488. [Google Scholar]
  58. Taylor, P.J.; Rietzschel, J.; Danquah, A.; Berry, K. The Role of Attachment Style, Attachment to Therapist, and Working Alliance in Response to Psychological Therapy. Psychol. Psychother. Theory Res. Pract. 2015, 88, 240–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Waters, E.; Cummings, E.M. A Secure Base from Which to Explore Close Relationships. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Campbell, L.; Stanton, S.C. Adult Attachment and Trust in Romantic Relationships. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 25, 148–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Shaver, P.R.; Mikulincer, M. Attachment Theory and Research: Core Concepts, Basic Principles, Conceptual Bridges. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles; Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 650–677. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bodenmann, G. A Systemic-Transactional Conceptualization of Stress and Coping in Couples. Swiss J. Psychol. Schweiz. Z. Für Psychol. Rev. Suisse Psychol. 1995, 54, 34–49. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bodenmann, G.; Pihet, S.; Kayser, K. The Relationship between Dyadic Coping and Marital Quality: A 2-Year Longitudinal Study. J. Fam. Psychol. 2006, 20, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping and Its Significance for Marital Functioning. In Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping.; Revenson, T.A., Kayser, K., Bodenmann, G., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 33–49. ISBN 978-1-59147-204-9. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wunderer, E.; Schneewind, K.A. The Relationship between Marital Standards, Dyadic Coping and Marital Satisfaction. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 38, 462–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Iafrate, R.; Bertoni, A.; Donato, S.; Finkenauer, C. Perceived Similarity and Understanding in Dyadic Coping among Young and Mature Couples. Personal. Relatsh. 2012, 19, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Collins, N.L.; Feeney, B.C. A Safe Haven: An Attachment Theory Perspective on Support Seeking and Caregiving in Intimate Relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78, 1053–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kardatzke, K.N. Perceived Stress, Adult Attachment, Dyadic Coping, and Marital Satisfaction of Counseling Graduate Students. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  69. Overall, N.C.; Simpson, J.A. Attachment and Dyadic Regulation Processes. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2015, 1, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Kramer, U.; Ceschi, G.; Van der Linden, M.; Bodenmann, G. Individual and Dyadic Coping Strategies in the Aftermath of a Traumatic Experience. Swiss J. Psychol. 2005, 64, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Badr, H.; Carmack, C.L.; Kashy, D.A.; Cristofanilli, M.; Revenson, T.A. Dyadic Coping in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Health Psychol. 2010, 29, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Falconier, M.K.; Randall, A.K.; Bodenmann, G. Couples Coping with Stress: A Cross-Cultural Perspective; Routledge: Zurich, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hilpert, P.; Randall, A.K.; Sorokowski, P.; Atkins, D.C.; Sorokowska, A.; Ahmadi, K.; Aghraibeh, A.M.; Aryeetey, R.; Bertoni, A.; Bettache, K.; et al. The Associations of Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction Vary between and within Nations: A 35-Nation Study. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Papp, L.M.; Witt, N.L. Romantic Partners’ Individual Coping Strategies and Dyadic Coping: Implications for Relationship Functioning. J. Fam. Psychol. 2010, 24, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Herzberg, P.Y. Coping in Relationships: The Interplay between Individual and Dyadic Coping and Their Effects on Relationship Satisfaction. Anxiety Stress Coping 2013, 26, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zeidner, M.; Kloda, I.; Matthews, G. Does Dyadic Coping Mediate the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Marital Quality? J. Fam. Psychol. 2013, 27, 795–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Levey, S.B. The Effects of Dyadic Coping on the Relationship Between Attachment Style and Relationship Satisfaction; New York University: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  78. Fuenfhausen, K.K.; Cashwell, C.S. Attachment, Stress, Dyadic Coping, and Marital Satisfaction of Counseling Graduate Students. Fam. J. 2013, 21, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Alves, S.; Milek, A.; Bodenmann, G.; Fonseca, A.; Canavarro, M.C.; Pereira, M. Romantic Attachment, Dyadic Coping, and Parental Adjustment across the Transition to Parenthood. Personal. Relatsh. 2019, 26, 286–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Crangle, C.J.; Torbit, L.A.; Ferguson, S.E.; Hart, T.L. Dyadic Coping Mediates the Effects of Attachment on Quality of Life among Couples Facing Ovarian Cancer. J. Behav. Med. 2020, 43, 564–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Campbell, L.; Simpson, J.A.; Boldry, J.; Kashy, D.A. Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships: The Role of Attachment Anxiety. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 88, 510–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Felnhofer, A.; Kernreiter, J.; Klier, C.; Huscsava, M.M.; Fiala, C.; Zeiler, M. Anonymous Birth: Biographical Knowledge and Dyadic Coping in Adoptive Mothers and Fathers. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Parise, M.; Pagani, A.F.; Donato, S.; Sedikides, C. Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Satisfaction at the Dyadic Level. Personal. Relatsh. 2019, 26, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zimmermann, P. Attachment Representations and Characteristics of Friendship Relations during Adolescence. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2004, 88, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cohen, J. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. An Application of Hierarchical Kappa-Type Statistics in the Assessment of Majority Agreement among Multiple Observers. Biometrics 1977, 33, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kenny, D.A. Models of Non-Independence in Dyadic Research. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 1996, 13, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ledermann, T.; Macho, S.; Kenny, D.A. Assessing Mediation in Dyadic Data Using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2011, 18, 595–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kenny, D.A.; Kashy, D.A.; Cook, W.L. Methodology in the social sciences. In Dyadic Data Analysis; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-1-57230-986-9. [Google Scholar]
  90. Mueller, R.O.; Hancock, G.R. Structural Equation Modeling. In The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences; Hancock, G.R., Stapleton, L.M., Mueller, R.O., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-138-80013-7. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. West, S.G.; Finch, J.F.; Curran, P.J. Structural Equation Models with Nonnormal Variables: Problems and Remedies. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Hoyle, R.H., Ed.; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 56–75. [Google Scholar]
  93. Main, M.; Goldwyn, R.; Hesse, E. Adult Attachment Scoring and Classification Systems, Version 7.1.; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; van IJzendoorn, M.H. The First 10,000 Adult Attachment Interviews: Distributions of Adult Attachment Representations in Clinical and Non-Clinical Groups. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2009, 11, 223–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ackerman, R.A.; Ledermann, T.; Kenny, D.A. APIMPower: An Interactive Tool for Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Power Analysis. 2016. Available online: https://robert-a-ackerman.shinyapps.io/APIMPowerRdis/ (accessed on 20 February 2022).
  96. Kenny, D.A.; Cook, W. Partner Effects in Relationship Research: Conceptual Issues, Analytic Difficulties, and Illustrations. Personal. Relatsh. 1999, 6, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fearon, R.P.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; van IJzendoorn, M.H.; Lapsley, A.-M.; Roisman, G.I. The Significance of Insecure Attachment and Disorganization in the Development of Children’s Externalizing Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Study. Child Dev. 2010, 81, 435–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ramos, K.; Langer, S.L.; Todd, M.; Romano, J.M.; Ghosh, N.; Keefe, F.J.; Baucom, D.H.; Syrjala, K.L.; Porter, L.S. Attachment Style, Partner Communication, and Physical Well-Being among Couples Coping with Cancer. Personal. Relatsh. 2020, 27, 526–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cohn, D.A.; Silver, D.H.; Cowan, C.P.; Cowan, P.A.; Pearson, J. Working Models of Childhood Attachment and Couple Relationships. J. Fam. Issues 1992, 13, 432–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hazan, C.; Zeifman, D. Pair Bonds as Attachments: Evaluating the Evidence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 336–354. [Google Scholar]
  101. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. Adult Attachment and Affect Regulation. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 503–531. [Google Scholar]
  102. Candel, O.-S.; Turliuc, M.N. Insecure Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of Actor and Partner Associations. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019, 147, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hadden, B.W.; Smith, C.V.; Webster, G.D. Relationship Duration Moderates Associations Between Attachment and Relationship Quality: Meta-Analytic Support for the Temporal Adult Romantic Attachment Model. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2014, 18, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cantillon, S.; Hutton, M. Exploring Self-Sacrifice, Role Captivity and Motherhood. In Thriving Mothers: Depriving Mothers; Levasseur, K., Paterson, S., Turnbull, L., Eds.; Demeter Press: Bradford, ON, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  105. Gordon, A.; Cross, E.; Ascigil, E.; Balzarini, R.N.; Luerssen, A.; Muise, A. Feeling Appreciated Buffers against the Negative Effects of Unequal Division of Household Labor on Relationship Satisfaction. Psychol. Sci. 2022, in press.
  106. Kerr, M.; Bowen, M. Family Evaluation; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  107. Fincham, F.D.; Paleari, F.G.; Regalia, C. Forgiveness in Marriage: The Role of Relationship Quality, Attributions, and Empathy. Personal. Relatsh. 2002, 9, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Joshanloo, M.; Jovanović, V. The Relationship between Gender and Life Satisfaction: Analysis across Demographic Groups and Global Regions. Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2020, 23, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lafontaine, M.-F.; Péloquin, K.; Levesque, C.; Azzi, S.; Daigle, M.-P.; Brassard, A. Beyond the Simple Association Between Romantic Attachment Insecurity and Dyadic Coping: An Examination of Romantic Perfectionism as a Mediator. J. Relatsh. Res. 2019, 10, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Pilar Matud, M.; Bethencourt, J.M.; Ibáñez, I. Relevance of Gender Roles in Life Satisfaction in Adult People. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 70, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. The Attachment Behavioral System In Adulthood: Activation, Psychodynamics, And Interpersonal Processes. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 35, pp. 53–152. ISBN 978-0-12-015235-3. [Google Scholar]
  112. Crowell, J.A.; Treboux, D.; Gao, Y.; Fyffe, C.; Pan, H.; Waters, E. Assessing Secure Base Behavior in Adulthood: Development of a Measure, Links to Adult Attachment Representations and Relations to Couples’ Communication and Reports of Relationships. Dev. Psychol. 2002, 38, 679–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rusu, P.P.; Hilpert, P.; Beach, S.R.H.; Turliuc, M.N.; Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping Mediates the Association of Sanctification with Marital Satisfaction and Well-Being. J. Fam. Psychol. 2015, 29, 843–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Levesque, C.; Lafontaine, M.-F.; Caron, A.; Fitzpatrick, J. Validation of the English Version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2014, 47, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Yokotani, K.; Kurosawa, T. A Pilot Examination of Dyadic Coping Inventory among Japanese Married Couples. Psychologia 2015, 58, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Randall, A.K.; Hilpert, P.; Jimenez-Arista, L.E.; Walsh, K.J.; Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping in the U.S.: Psychometric Properties and Validity for Use of the English Version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Curr. Psychol. 2016, 35, 570–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ledermann, T.; Bodenmann, G.; Gagliardi, S.; Charvoz, L.; Verardi, S.; Rossier, J.; Bertoni, A.; Iafrate, R. Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Three Language Groups. Swiss J. Psychol. 2010, 69, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Widmer, K.; Cina, A.; Charvoz, L.; Shantinath, S.; Bodenmann, G. A Model Dyadic-Coping Intervention. In Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping; Revenson, T.A., Kayser, K., Bodenmann, G., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 159–174. ISBN 978-1-59147-204-9. [Google Scholar]
  119. Johnson, M.D.; Horne, R.M.; Galovan, A.M. The Developmental Course of Supportive Dyadic Coping in Couples. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 52, 2031–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Vedes, A.; Nussbeck, F.W.; Bodenmann, G.; Lind, W.; Ferreira, A. Psychometric Properties and Validity of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese. Swiss J. Psychol. 2013, 72, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Falconier, M.K.; Nussbeck, F.; Bodenmann, G. Immigration Stress and Relationship Satisfaction in Latino Couples: The Role of Dyadic Coping. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2013, 32, 813–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Checton, M.G.; Magsamen-Conrad, K.; Venetis, M.K.; Greene, K. A Dyadic Approach: Applying a Developmental-Conceptual Model to Couples Coping With Chronic Illness. Health Educ. Behav. 2015, 42, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Bodenmann, G.; Charvoz, L.; Widmer, K.; Bradbury, T.N. Differences in Individual and Dyadic Coping Among Low and High Depressed, Partially Remitted, and Nondepressed Persons. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2004, 26, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Rottmann, N.; Hansen, D.G.; Larsen, P.V.; Nicolaisen, A.; Flyger, H.; Johansen, C.; Hagedoorn, M. Dyadic Coping within Couples Dealing with Breast Cancer: A Longitudinal, Population-Based Study. Health Psychol. 2015, 34, 486–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Landis, M.; Peter-Wight, M.; Martin, M.; Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping and Marital Satisfaction of Older Spouses in Long-Term Marriage. GeroPsych 2013, 26, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Lambert, J.E.; Hasbun, A.; Engh, R.; Holzer, J. Veteran PTSS and Spouse Relationship Quality: The Importance of Dyadic Coping. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2015, 7, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Cohen, S.; Schulz, M.S.; Weiss, E.; Waldinger, R.J. Eye of the Beholder: The Individual and Dyadic Contributions of Empathic Accuracy and Perceived Empathic Effort to Relationship Satisfaction. J. Fam. Psychol. 2012, 26, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Falconier, M.K.; Jackson, J.B.; Hilpert, P.; Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 42, 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rusu, P.P.; Hilpert, P.; Turliuc, M.N.; Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping in an Eastern European Context: Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Romanian Version of Dyadic Coping Inventory. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2016, 49, 274–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Falconier, M.K.; Nussbeck, F.; Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping in Latino Couples: Validity of the Spanish Version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Anxiety Stress Coping 2013, 26, 447–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Meier, C.; Bodenmann, G.; Mörgeli, H.; Jenewein, J. Dyadic Coping, Quality of Life, and Psychological Distress among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients and Their Partners. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2011, 6, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Falconier, M.K.; Kuhn, R. Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Wendołowska, A.M.; Czyżowska, D.; Bodenmann, G. Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the Polish Version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 1159–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Nissen, K.G. Correlates of Self-Rated Attachment in Patients with Cancer and Their Caregivers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Correlates of Self-Rated Attachment and Psychosocial Variables. Psychooncology 2016, 25, 1017–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Cook, W.L.; Kenny, D.A. The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model: A Model of Bidirectional Effects in Developmental Studies. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2005, 29, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ainsworth, M.S. Attachments beyond Infancy. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 709–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Waters, E.; Merrick, S.; Treboux, D.; Crowell, J.; Albersheim, L. Attachment Security in Infancy and Early Adulthood: A Twenty-Year Longitudinal Study. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 684–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Bodenmann, G.; Shantinath, S.D. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET): A New Approach to Prevention of Marital Distress Based upon Stress and Coping. Fam. Relat. 2004, 53, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kobak, R.R.; Sceery, A. Attachment in Late Adolescence: Working Models, Affect Regulation, and Representations of Self and Others. Child Dev. 1988, 59, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Dykas, M.J.; Cassidy, J. Attachment and the Processing of Social Information across the Life Span: Theory and Evidence. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 137, 19–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Pietromonaco, P.R.; Beck, L.A. Attachment Processes in Adult Romantic Relationships. In APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal Relations; Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., Simpson, J.A., Dovidio, J.F., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 33–64. ISBN 978-1-4338-1703-8. [Google Scholar]
  142. Weinfield, N.S.; Sroufe, L.A.; Egeland, B.; Carlson, E. Individual Differences in Infant-Caregiver Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Aspects of Security. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 78–101. [Google Scholar]
  143. Dagan, O.; Facompré, C.R.; Bernard, K. Adult Attachment Representations and Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 236, 274–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Hart, J.; Shaver, P.R.; Goldenberg, J.L. Attachment, Self-Esteem, Worldviews, and Terror Management: Evidence for a Tripartite Security System. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 88, 999–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Johnson, S.M. The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-1-136-91606-9. [Google Scholar]
  146. Bodenmann, G. Dyadic Coping: A Systemic-Transactional View of Stress and Coping among Couples: Theory and Empirical Findings. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. 1997, 47, 137–141. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 08026 g001 550
Figure 1. Actor–partner interdependence mediation model. Rectangles = predictor and outcome variables; circles = error terms (e1–4); curved double-headed arrows = covariances; a = actor effect; p = partner effect; W = women; M = men. Models were computed separately for five dyadic coping (DC) scales (self-perceived supportive DC and other-perceived supportive DC, self-perceived delegated DC, other-perceived delegated DC, and common DC) as mediators.
Figure 1. Actor–partner interdependence mediation model. Rectangles = predictor and outcome variables; circles = error terms (e1–4); curved double-headed arrows = covariances; a = actor effect; p = partner effect; W = women; M = men. Models were computed separately for five dyadic coping (DC) scales (self-perceived supportive DC and other-perceived supportive DC, self-perceived delegated DC, other-perceived delegated DC, and common DC) as mediators.
Ijerph 19 08026 g001
Ijerph 19 08026 g002 550
Figure 2. Secure attachment and relationship satisfaction (Model 1). Rectangles = independent and dependent variables; two circles = latent error terms (e1, e2: residual errors on satisfaction for males and females, respectively); the arrows = the actor and partner effects. The curved double-headed arrows on the left = covariances between the independent variables; the curved double-headed arrow on the right = correlation between the two error terms; * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Secure attachment and relationship satisfaction (Model 1). Rectangles = independent and dependent variables; two circles = latent error terms (e1, e2: residual errors on satisfaction for males and females, respectively); the arrows = the actor and partner effects. The curved double-headed arrows on the left = covariances between the independent variables; the curved double-headed arrow on the right = correlation between the two error terms; * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Ijerph 19 08026 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and gender differences.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and gender differences.
MSDt-Testp
Supportive DC self15.922.291.910.52
15.392.49
Delegated DC self4.100.840.290.77
4.070.83
Supportive DC other19.183.88−0.200.84
19.263.89
Delegated DC other6.542.040.280.78
6.471.78
Common DC19.403.830.480.63
19.223.73
Relationship satisfaction125.7615.19−0.160.87
126.0114.72
Women’s scores are in the upper row.
Table
Table 2. Differences between secure and insecure individuals.
Table 2. Differences between secure and insecure individuals.
WomenMen
Mt-TestMt-Test
Supportive DC self15.19−3.41 ***14.58−3.35 ***
16.5816.08
Delegated DC self3.70−5.26 ***3.65−5.52 ***
4.454.42
Supportive DC other17.56−4.59 ***17.65−4.35 ***
20.6320.61
Delegated DC other5.81−3.83 ***6.12−1.99 *
7.206.77
Common DC17.50−5.69 ***16.94−7.17 ***
21.1221.13
Relationship satisfaction117.11−6.84 ***119.42−4.78 ***
133.55131.53
* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. Insecure individuals’ scores are in the upper row.
Table
Table 3. Intercorrelations between the variables for women (_A) and men (_P).
Table 3. Intercorrelations between the variables for women (_A) and men (_P).
1234567891011121314
1Attachment_A1
2SDC self_A0.31 **1
3DDC self_A0.45 **0.35 **1
4SDC other_A0.40 **0.42 **0.57 **1
5DDC other_A0.34 **0.40 **0.23 **0.38 **1
6CDC_A0.47 **0.52 **0.78 **0.36 **0.70 **1
7Satisfaction_A0.54 **0.35 **0.53 **0.42 **0.58 **0.66 **1
8Attachment_P0.40 **0.23 *0.170.23 *0.31 **0.23 *0.27 **1
9SDC self_P0.36 **0.24 **0.25 **0.28 **0.41 **0.35 **0.34 **0.30 **1
10DDC self_P0.29 **0.26 **0.31 **0.140.33 **0.34 **0.32 **0.46 **0.52 **1
11SDC other_P0.31 **0.35 **0.22 *0.23 *0.35 **0.31 **0.29 **0.38 **0.59 **0.68 **1
12DDC other_P0.040.170.170.000.120.150.070.18 *0.39 **0.43 **0.46 **1
13CDC_P0.32 **0.32 **0.31 **0.23 *0.41 **0.41 **0.35 **0.56 **0.55 **0.80 **0.70 **0.46 **1
14Satisfaction_P0.31 **0.120.36 **0.36 **0.42 **0.29 **0.39 **0.41 **0.33 **0.41 **0.42 **0.140.42 **1
Correlations between spouses are shown in bold diagonal font; n = 114 dyads; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. DC—dyadic coping, SDC—supportive DC, DDC—delegated DC, CDC—common DC.
Table
Table 4. Effects of self-perceived supportive DC mediation.
Table 4. Effects of self-perceived supportive DC mediation.
EffectEstimate95% CIStandardizedPercent Total
Actor
Total1.841.16 to 2.660.30 ***
Direct1.160.48 to 1.930.19 ***63
Total indirect0.680.31 to 1.090.11 ***37
Actor–actor indirect0.570.29 to 0.950.09 ***31
Partner–partner indirect0.11−0.07 to 0.320.026
Partner
Total1.060.43 to 1.830.17 **
Direct0.38−0.22 to 1.120.0636
Total indirect0.680.29 to 1.050.18 ***64
Actor–partner indirect0.11−0.07 to 0.300.0210
Partner–actor indirect0.570.26 to 0.900.09 ***54
** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Effects of other-perceived supportive DC mediation.
Table 5. Effects of other-perceived supportive DC mediation.
EffectEstimate95% CIStandardizedPercent Total
Actor
Total12.809.38 to 16.570.43 ***
Direct8.795.76 to 12.240.29 ***69
Total indirect4.012.41 to 6.120.13 ***31
Actor–actor indirect3.441.74 to 5.460.11 ***27
Partner–partner indirect0.570.04 to 1.720.02 *5
Partner
Total3.680.30 to 7.340.12 *
Direct0.79−2.78 to 4.550.0322
Total indirect2.891.06 to 5.130.23 **78
Actor–partner indirect1.110.15 to 2.280.04 *30
Partner–actor indirect1.780.52 to 3.570.06 ***48
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. Effects of self-perceived delegated DC mediation.
Table 6. Effects of self-perceived delegated DC mediation.
EffectEstimate95% CIStandardizedPercent Total
Actor
Total12.809.26 to 16.170.43 ***
Direct9.025.54 to 13.030.30 ***70
Total indirect3.792.10 to 5.750.13 ***30
Actor–actor indirect3.481.88 to 5.350.11 ***27
Partner–partner indirect0.31−0.35 to 0.910.012
Partner
Total3.680.61 to 7.280.12 *
Direct0.972.43 to 4.790.0326
Total indirect2.720.89 to 4.390.23 ***74
Actor–partner indirect2.240.67 to 3.900.07 **61
Partner–actor indirect0.48−0.52 to 1.550.0213
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 7. Effects of other-perceived delegated DC mediation.
Table 7. Effects of other-perceived delegated DC mediation.
EffectEstimate95% CIStandardizedPercent Total
Actor
Total12.809.12 to 16.380.43 ***
Direct11.307.60 to 15.070.38 ***88
Total indirect1.510.39 to 2.800.05 **12
Actor–actor indirect1.320.28 to 2.880.04 *10
Partner–partner indirect1.18−0.52 to 0.990.0061
Partner
Total3.680.34 to 7.310.12 *
Direct2.39−0.86 to 6.060.0865
Total indirect1.290.14 to 2.320.09 *35
Actor–partner indirect1.070.17 to 2.240.04 *29
Partner–actor indirect0.22−0.86 to 1.160.0086
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 8. Effects of common DC mediation.
Table 8. Effects of common DC mediation.
EffectEstimate95% CIStandardizedPercent Total
Actor
Total12.809.19 to 16.370.43 ***
Direct7.273.69 to 11.060.24 ***57
Total indirect5.543.46 to 8.220.18 ***43
Actor–actor indirect5.363.23 to 7.970.18 ***42
Partner–partner indirect0.18−0.16 to 0.760.0061
Partner
Total3.680.64 to 7.260.12 *
Direct1.72−2.10 to 5.390.0647
Total indirect1.96−0.02 to 4.080.36 *53
Actor–partner indirect1.02−0.81 to 2.930.0328
Partner–actor indirect0.940.33 to 2.310.0326
* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wendołowska, A.; Steć, M.; Czyżowska, D. Supportive, Delegated, and Common Dyadic Coping Mediates the Association between Adult Attachment Representation and Relationship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138026

AMA Style

Wendołowska A, Steć M, Czyżowska D. Supportive, Delegated, and Common Dyadic Coping Mediates the Association between Adult Attachment Representation and Relationship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(13):8026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wendołowska, Anna, Małgorzata Steć, and Dorota Czyżowska. 2022. "Supportive, Delegated, and Common Dyadic Coping Mediates the Association between Adult Attachment Representation and Relationship Satisfaction: A Dyadic Approach" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13: 8026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138026

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop