Dyadic coping, the process through which couples manage stress together, is important for relationship well-being. However, very few studies have considered dyadic coping and its link with marital quality in same-sex marriages. We analyze dyadic data from a sample of midlife same- and different-sex married couples (N = 838 individuals, 418 couples) to assess gender differences in various forms of dyadic coping (i.e., received and provided positive and negative dyadic coping as well as common/collaborative dyadic coping) and the associations of dyadic coping with marital quality. Results suggest that women married to women are more likely to receive positive support and less likely to receive negative support compared to women married to men. Both men and women in same-sex marriages are more likely to cope with stress collaboratively than their counterparts in different-sex marriages. All forms of dyadic coping are equally important for the marital quality of men and women in same- and different-sex marriages.
BehlerR.DonnellyR.UmbersonD. (2019). Psychological distress transmission in same-sex and different-sex marriages. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 60(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146518813097
BodenmannG.MeuwlyN.KayserK. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being: A comparison. European Psychologist, 16(4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068
4.
BodenmannG.PihetS.KayserK. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485
5.
BolgerN.LaurenceauJ.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
6.
BreitensteinC. J.MilekA.NussbeckF. W.DavilaJ.BodenmannG. (2018). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction in late adolescent couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(5), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517698049
7.
CaoH.ZhouN.FineM.LiangY.LiJ.Mills-KoonceW. R. (2017). Sexual minority stress and same-sex relationship well-being: A meta-analysis of research prior to the U.S. Nationwide Legalization of same-sex marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 79(5), 1258–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12415
8.
CollinsP. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
9.
ConnellR. W.MesserschmidtJ. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
10.
CookW. L.KennyD. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405
11.
CourtenayW. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their in¯uence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science, 17(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.1.1.4
12.
CurranM. A.McDanielB. T.PollittA. M.TotenhagenC. J. (2015). Gender, emotion work, and relationship quality: A daily diary study. Sex Roles, 73(3–4), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0495-8
13.
DonnellyR.RobinsonB. A.UmbersonD. (2019). Can spouses buffer the impact of discrimination on depressive symptoms? An examination of same-sex and different-sex marriages. Society and Mental Health, 9(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869318800157
14.
FalconierM. K.JacksonJ. B.HilpertP.BodenmannG. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002
15.
FalconierM. K.KuhnR. (2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571
16.
FinchamF. D. (2003). Marital conflict: Correlates, structure, and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01215
17.
FrostD. M.LeBlancA. J.de VriesB.Alston-StepnitzE.StephensonR.WoodyattC. (2017). Couple-level minority stress: An examination of same-sex couples’ unique experiences. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146517736754
18.
FrostD. M.MeyerI. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012844
19.
FunkJ. L.RoggeR. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
20.
GarciaM. A.UmbersonD. (2019). Marital strain and psychological distress in same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(5), 1253–1268. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12582
21.
GoldbergA. E. (2013). Doing” and “undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12009
22.
HerzbergP. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.655726
23.
HomanP. (2019). Structural sexism and health in the United States: A new perspective on health inequality and the gender system. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 486–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419848723
24.
JoynerK.ManningW.PrinceB. (2019). The qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples in young adulthood: Qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(2), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12535
25.
LandisM.Peter-WightM.MartinM.BodenmannG. (2013). Dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of older spouses in long-term marriage. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000077
26.
ManningW. D.BrownS. L.StykesJ. B. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex cohabiting couple relationship stability. Demography, 53(4), 937–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0490-x
MayerK. H.BradfordJ. B.MakadonH. J.StallR.GoldhammerH.LandersS. (2008). Sexual and gender minority health: What we know and what needs to Be done. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 989–995. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.127811
29.
MelroseK. L.BrownG. D. A.WoodA. M. (2015). When is received social support related to perceived support and well-being? When it is needed. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.047
30.
NeffL. A.KarneyB. R. (2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255984
31.
PappL. M.WittN. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020836
32.
PollittA. M.RobinsonB. A.UmbersonD. (2018). Gender conformity, perceptions of shared power, and marital quality in same- and different-sex marriages. Gender & Society, 32(1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217742110
33.
RandallA. K.TaoC.TotenhagenC. J.WalshK. J.CooperA. N. (2017). Associations between sexual orientation discrimination and depression among same-sex couples: Moderating effects of dyadic coping. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 16(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2016.1253520
34.
ReczekC. (2020). Sexual-and gender-minority families: A 2010 to 2020 decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 300–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12607
35.
ReczekC.UmbersonD. (2012). Gender, health behavior, and intimate relationships: Lesbian, gay, and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1783–1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.011
36.
RosenfieldS.LennonM. C.WhiteH. R. (2005). The self and mental health: Self-salience and the emergence of internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650504600402
37.
RostoskyS. S.RiggleE. D. B. (2017). Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016). Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000216
38.
RusuP. P.NussbeckF. W.LeuchtmannL.BodenmannG. (2020). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal study disentangling timely stable from yearly fluctuations. Plos One, 15(4), Article e0231133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231133
39.
SelvidgeM. M. D.MatthewsC. R.BridgesS. K. (2008). The relationship of minority stress and flexible coping to psychological well being in Lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(3), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360802345255
40.
SolomonS. E.RothblumE. D.BalsamK. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.275
41.
SpringerK. W.HankivskyO.BatesL. M. (2012). Gender and health: Relational, intersectional, and biosocial approaches. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1661–1666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.001
42.
StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release (15). StataCorp LLC.
43.
TamresL. K.JanickiD.HelgesonV. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_1
44.
ThomeerM. B.PollittA. M.UmbersonD. (2021). Support in response to a spouse’s distress: Comparing women and men in same-sex and different-sex marriages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(5), 1513–1534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521998453
45.
ThomeerM. B.ReczekC.UmbersonD. (2015). Gendered emotion work around physical health problems in mid- and later-life marriages. Journal of Aging Studies, 32, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.12.001
46.
ThomeerM. B.UmbersonD.ReczekC. (2020). The gender-as-relational approach for theorizing about romantic relationships of sexual and gender minority mid- to later-life adults. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(2), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12368
47.
UmbersonD. (2022). Health and relationships Project, United States, 2014-2015. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37404.v2
48.
UmbersonD.ThomeerM. B. (2020). Family matters: Research on family ties and health, 2010 to 2020. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12640
49.
UmbersonD.ThomeerM. B.KroegerR. A.LodgeA. C.XuM. (2015a). Challenges and opportunities for research on same-sex relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12155
50.
UmbersonD.ThomeerM. B.KroegerR. A.ReczekC.DonnellyR. (2016). Instrumental- and emotion-focused care work during physical health events: Comparing gay, Lesbian, and heterosexual marriages. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw133
51.
UmbersonD.ThomeerM. B.LodgeA. C. (2015b). Intimacy and emotion work in Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12178
52.
UmbersonD.ThomeerM. B.PollittA. M.MernitzS. E. (2020). The psychological toll of emotion work in same-sex and different-sex marital dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(4), 1141–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12686
53.
WestT. V.PoppD.KennyD. A. (2008). A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311199
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
