Search

In dyadic interaction, a verbal focus on one individual ("you-talk," "I-talk"), rather than on the couple ("we-talk") has predominantly been linked to dysfunctional relationship processes. However, context differences in these links have not yet been systematically examined. Is it functional to asymmetrically focus on one partner during support interactions but problematic during conflict? Does a high level of couple-focus represent a resource across contexts? In this preregistered study, we investigated dyad-level pronoun use (we-/I-/you-talk) and their link to situational relationship functioning (SRF) across three interaction tasks (one conflict, two dyadic coping tasks) within couples (N = 365). More specifically, we examined associations of couple-means, i.e. pronoun use as a shared resource/vulnerability between partners, and couple-differences, i.e. functional/dysfunctional asymmetric pronoun use with observed interaction positivity and relationship climate. Results revealed both context differences and similarities. Asymmetric partner-focus (i.e. you-talk) was dysfunctional in conflict, whereas asymmetric partner- and self-focus (i.e., you-talk/I-talk; focus on the stressed partner) were functional in dyadic coping. Beyond asymmetry, you-talk (couple-mean) showed consistent negative associations with SRF in all tasks studied. We-talk (couple-mean) was positively linked to SRF, but only in conflict interactions. In conflict, couple-focus thus represented a shared resource that can buffer from dysfunctional conflict interaction characterized by partner-focus. In line with conceptual frameworks, the dyadic coping results emphasize the importance of focusing on the partner in need. The study corroborates the prospect of pronoun use as a context-specific indicator of relationship functioning. Gender differences, implications for future research and possible interventions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Romantic partners have different attitudes on what love is and what it means to be in a romantic relationship. These attitudes are conceptualized as love styles that relate to relationship-maintenance behaviors and relationship satisfaction. Specifically, love styles could be associated with how partners cope with stress (dyadic coping), which in turn may be associated with relationship satisfaction. Using self-report data from 92 heterosexual couples, findings showed that: (a) eros and agape love styles have positive direct effects on dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction, whereas ludus has a negative direct effect on dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction and (b) dyadic coping partially mediated the association between love styles and relationship satisfaction. Overall, associations were stronger for women than for men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although prevention of relationship distress and dissolution has potential to strengthen the well-being of partners and any children they are raising, dissemination of prevention programs can be limited because couples face many barriers to in-person participation. An alternative strategy, providing couples with an instructional DVD, is tested in the present study, in which 330 Caucasian couples (N = 660 participants; mean age: men 41.4 years, women 40.0 years) were randomly assigned to a DVD group without any further support, a DVD group with technical telephone coaching, or a wait-list control group. Couples completed questionnaires at pretest, posttest, and 3 and 6 months after completion of the intervention. Self-report measures of dyadic coping, communication quality, ineffective arguing, and relationship satisfaction were used to test whether the intervention groups improved in comparison with the control group. Women in both intervention groups increased in dyadic coping, reduced conflict behavior, and were more satisfied with their relationship 6 months after the intervention. Effects for men were mixed. Participants with poorer skills reported stronger improvement. Intimate relationships can, within limits, be positively influenced by a self-directed approach. Effective dissemination of principles underlying successful relationships can be facilitated through the use of emerging low-cost tools and technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to examine the efficacy of an evidence-based relationship distress prevention program, the Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET), in dual well-earning couples and to investigate whether effects vary by (a) hours of professional contact and (b) mode of delivery (face to face vs. self-learning DVD). N = 159 couples were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 intervention conditions: (1) standard CCET (15 hours face to face), (2) compact CCET (12 hr face to face), (3) short CCET (self-learning DVD + 8 hr face to face), or (4) wait-list control group. Relationship satisfaction and dyadic coping skills were assessed by means of questionnaires completed prior to and 2 weeks after completion of the treatment, at 3-month follow-up, and at 6-month follow-up. Baseline latent change models for 2 factors showed that the CCET enhanced relationship satisfaction and dyadic coping skills in couples relative to the wait-list control group, albeit effects were small. The standard format of the CCET was not more effective than the compact or the short format indicating that reduced amount of professional contact did not decrease the treatment's efficacy and that the self-learning DVD successfully replaced the psycho-educational part of the program. Since dual earner couples usually face multiple stressors, it is a promising finding that they can strengthen their relationship with a relatively short time investment. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]