Interpersonal coping styles and couple relationship quality: Similarity versus complementarity hypotheses

This study employs a dyadic approach and examines how two partners’ interpersonal coping styles may independently and jointly predict their relationship quality. Hypotheses were derived on the basis of dyadic coping theory focusing on how similar versus complementary styles of interpersonal coping may be useful in explaining couples’ relationship quality. On the basis of attachment theory and self-determination theory, three interpersonal coping styles were included: dismissive, adaptive, and anxious/expressive. Data were collected from 123 romantic couples. Actor–partner interdependence models revealed that interpersonal coping styles were related to self-perceived (actor effect) and partner-perceived (partner effect) relationship quality. Furthermore, results also showed that relationship quality was predicted by the interactions between self’s and partner’s interpersonal coping styles. Findings suggest that future research should focus on understanding interpersonal coping behaviors of both partners in a relationship, especially the complex interactions between two partners’ characteristics and their effects on relationship outcomes. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Individuals often turn to their significant others for support as a primary way of dealing with stressful events or emotional distress. Among different social relationships, romantic partners are regarded as the most important coping resources during adulthood (Carbery & Buhrmester, 1998; Cutrona, 1996). For two reasons, we argue that research on how individuals involve (or do not involve) their romantic partner during the coping process is vital toward understanding their relationship functioning (Bodenmann, 2005; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009; Reis & Shaver, 1988). First, relationship quality is the result of a dynamic process in which two partners mutually disclose personal vulnerabilities, thoughts, and feelings in times of stress, and the emotional exchanges forge the foundation for intimacy and closeness (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Second, romantic partners who are subjected to overwhelming external stressors may also suffer from the “spillover” effects and experience more relationship distress, even though the relationship itself may not be the source of stress to begin with (Bodenmann, 2005). Thus, building upon past frameworks (e.g., Bodenmann, 2005; Reis & Shaver, 1988), the current study’s overarching goal is to examine the interplay between adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal coping styles and relationship quality among romantic couples. Specifically, this study employs a dyadic approach and focuses on how two partners’ interpersonal coping styles may independently and jointly predict their relationship quality. *Correspondence to: Chong Man Chow, Psychology Department, University of W E-mail: [email protected] Deceased. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Interpersonal Coping and Relationship Quality: Past Theory and Research Although researchers have long proposed that the ways individuals involve their partner in the coping process have a profound impact on their relationship quality (e.g., Coyne & Smith, 1991; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993; Reis & Shaver, 1988), it was not until recently that the dyadic coping model has emerged to systematically describe the coping process in couple relationships (Bodenmann, 2005; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). According to this model, the coping process in a couple relationship triggers one partner’s support-seeking followed by either positive or negative behaviors from another partner. Positive dyadic coping involves one partner’s support-seeking followed by another partner’s validation, emotional support, and instrumental help. Positive dyadic coping may also involve joint problem solving and mutual consolation. In contrast, negative dyadic coping involves one partner’s support-seeking followed by another partner’s denial of the problem, criticism, avoidance, and sarcasm. Instead of focusing on individual coping strategies (e.g., behavioral disengagement and denial), the dyadic coping model suggests that the positive and negative behavioral exchanges are inherently “dyadic” because both partners are involved in the coping process. The dyadic coping model proposes that dyadic coping is closely linked to couples’ relationship functioning (Bodenmann, 2005; Wunderer & Schneewind, 2008). Consistent with this isconsin Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd., CF 8, Oshkosh WI 54901, USA. Received 3 March 2013, Accepted 25 December 2013 176 Chong Man Chow et al. suggestion, past studies showed that couples who demonstrated higher positive dyadic coping and lower negative dyadic coping were also more satisfied with their relationship (Bodenmann, 2005). In a meta-analysis, Bodenmann (2005) found that the overall effect size between dyadic coping and marital satisfaction was indeed large (d=1.3). Similar patterns of associations were also found in behavioral observation studies (Bodenmann, 1995; Papp & Witt, 2010). Furthermore, research on different populations, including couples copingwith traumatic experience (Kramer, Ceschi, Van der Linden, & Bodenmann, 2005), chronic stress (Badr, Carmack, Kashy, Cristofanilli, & Revenson, 2010), and daily hassles (Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006), have consistently shown that higher positive dyadic coping and lower negative dyadic coping were related to better functioning couple relationships. Finally, studies also found that the links between dyadic coping and relationship quality were not limited to within-person perceptions but were also true for cross-partner perceptions of relationship quality (Badr et al., 2010; Papp & Witt, 2010). Summarizing across studies, the dyadic coping model is a useful framework for understanding the link between coping and couple relationship functioning. Despite that, two major limitations still reside within this body of literature. First, although the conceptualization of dyadic coping encompasses both support-seeking and perceived support from partner, the dimension of positive versus negative dyadic coping is mainly defined by perceived support from the partner. In other words, dyadic coping is mainly driven by positive or negative responses from the partner, instead of different forms of stress disclosure or coping behaviors. We argue that this approach may oversimplify interpersonal dynamics that play out during the coping process, especially on the support-seeker’s side. For instance, broader interpersonal orientations, including the behavioral tendencies of avoiding social support and suppressing attachment needs, or the other extreme, seeking excessive support and closeness, have been largely neglected in existing dyadic coping research. Therefore, more research is needed to focus on both adaptive and maladaptive forms of support-seeking/stress disclosure. Second, although the dyadic coping model is inherently dyadic, complex interpersonal dynamics have not been fully explored in this body of research. Indeed, a separate line of coping research has argued for the importance of examining interactions between two partners’ individual coping behaviors and their relationship outcomes (Badr, 2004; Revenson, 2003). Specifically, researchers suggest that relationship functioning depends on whether coping behaviors of two partners are congruent (Revenson, 2003). Congruence in couples’ coping may involve either similar or complementary patterns (Revenson, 2003). First, similarity in couples’ coping styles may reflect coordination and mutual reinforcement in a relationship that is assumed to lead to better relationship adjustment. Second, complementary coping styles can be congruent when the negative effects of one partner’s maladaptive style (e.g., avoidance) on adjustment to stress are buffered by another partner’s adaptive style (e.g., low in avoidance or high in problem-focused coping). Badr (2004) further argued that the similarity hypothesis is plausible only when positive coping styles are considered. In contrast, the complementarity hypothesis is more appropriate when Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. negative coping styles are considered. Although Revenson’s (2003) theory does not directly discuss dyadic coping but instead focuses on individual coping behaviors, we argue that the central ideas are important and plausible to be extended to research on dyadic coping. Unfortunately, the similarity and complementarity hypotheses (Revenson, 2003) have not been widely studied in the literature of dyadic coping. To our knowledge, only one existing study has examined whether couples who are more similar (or dissimilar) in their dyadic coping would affect their relationship satisfaction (Bodenmann, Meuwly, & Kayser, 2011). Consistent with Revenson’s (2003) theory, this study found that couples who are more similar in their positive and negative dyadic coping experienced better relationship quality. We argue, however, that the results should be interpreted cautiously. That is, this study has failed to simultaneously consider the absolute levels of the couples’ dyadic coping. Therefore, couples who were similarly high or low in positive dyadic coping might still be considered “congruent,” even though they were qualitatively different, making the interpretation of the findings rather ambiguous. Furthermore, another important aspect of congruence, the complementarity hypothesis, has received little attention in the dyadic coping literature. Therefore, little is known about whether the effects of positive dyadic coping (e.g., supportseeking) on relationship quality would be impeded by another partner’s negative dyadic coping (e.g., criticism), or whether the effects of negative dyadic coping on relationship quality would be buffered by another partner’s positive dyadic coping. In order to address these questions, we argue that there is a need for research that investigates how two partners’ dyadic coping may interactively predict their relationship quality.