Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
Using data from 198 couples, this study examines whether associations between stress occurring outside of the dyad
and key indicators of relationship functioning are mediated by stress arising within the dyad. Findings suggest that
relationship satisfaction and sexual activity are governed by hassles and problems experienced within the dyad that
are in turn related to stress arising outside the dyad. Associations between external stress and relationship functioning are stronger for daily hassles than for critical life events. Higher levels of daily stress predicted less sexual activity for maritally dissatisfied women and more sexual activity for maritally dissatisfied men. Self-reports of stress
covaried with self-reported indexes of satisfaction and sexuality, suggesting that contextual influences are broadly
influential in intimate relationships.
Guy Bodenmann, Institute for Family Research and Counseling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland;
Thomas Ledermann, Institute for Family Research and
Counseling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland;
Thomas N. Bradbury, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Correspondence should be addressed to Guy Bodenmann,
University of Fribourg, Institute for Family Research and
Counseling, Rue de Faucigny 2, CH-1700 Fribourg,
Switzerland, e-mail: joseguy.bodenmann@unifr.ch.
551
552
553
Hypothesis 2.
We predict that actor effects
(i.e., the association between the stress that
one person reports and his or her marital
functioning) will be greater in magnitude than
parallel partner effects (i.e., the association
between the stress that one person reports
and his or her partners marital functioning).
More importantly, based on findings suggesting that wives report more stress than husbands (e.g., Bodenmann, 2000; Cohan &
Bradbury, 1997) and that wives changes in
satisfaction appear to be more responsive to
stress than those of husbands (e.g., Karney
et al., 2005), we predict that the daily hassles
and stress that wives experience within the
marriage will be predicted more reliably by
husbands external stress than the opposite
effect.
Hypothesis 3.
Although external critical
life events may exert negative effects on marital quality (see Karney et al., 2005; Neff &
Karney, 2004), we assume that negative
effects of external daily hassles on marital
quality will be stronger (Bodenmann, 2005;
Williams, 1995). This hypothesis is consistent
with Bodenmanns contention that daily hassles are particularly pernicious because they
extract a small but persisting cost on individuals and their relationship, often outside of
explicit awareness.
a3w
External stress
women
Internal daily
stress women
a1w
p1w
E1w
Endogenous
variables women
a2w
E2w
p2w
RE2
RE1
p1m
External stress
men
a1m
p2m
E1m
Internal daily
stress men
a2m
Endogenous
variables men
E2m
a3m
Figure 1. ActorPartner Mediator Model with external stress as exogenous variables, internal
daily stress as mediators, and relationship functioning as endogenous variables.
554
Hypothesis 4.
Following Morokoff and
Gillilland (1993), we predict that higher levels
of daily hassles will predict higher levels of
sexual activity. As it is possible that satisfied
and dissatisfied couples will vary in their
capacity to manage the effects of daily stress
on their sexual interactions, we will examine
whether relationship satisfaction moderates
this association. Specifically, we predict that
higher levels of daily hassles will covary with
higher levels of sexual activity of satisfied
couples, as they are likely to possess not only
the interactional skills needed to discuss and
defuse daily stress but also the propensity to
engage in sexual activity when the daily hassles in their lives subside, however temporarily. Among dissatisfied couples, in contrast,
we predict that the association between daily
hassles and sexual activity will be weaker or
possibly in the opposite direction as daily
stress will not be negotiated as well and sexual
interaction will become less likely.
Method
Participants
Three hundred ninety-six individuals residing
in the German-speaking part of Switzerland
participated in the study, representing a convenience sample of 198 intact heterosexual
couples. Among the women, 21% were 20
30 years, 54% were 3140 years, and 25% were
41 years or older. Among the men, 14% were
2030 years, 48% were 3140 years, and 38%
were 41 or older. Although a few participants
ended their formal education with elementary
school (10% of the women, 7% of the men),
most earned a terminal high school degree
(48% women, 47% of the men) or a college
or university degree (42% women, 46% men).
Average relationship duration was 12.4 years
(SD 7.5; range 1.136.5 years), 75% of
the couples (n 148) were married, and 70.4%
had children (M 1.6; SD 1.29; range
15). It is important to recognize that a significant minority of the couples were not married.
Comparison of married couples with not-married
couples showed that unmarried participants
were younger, women M 33.1 (SD
16.3) versus M 37.1 (SD 16.8), t(68)
555
556
2.26***
2.08
2.20**
2.15*
.02
.03
2.16*
.00
.63***
1.00***
557
Note. SCL90R Symptom Check List. N 198 men and 198 women. We present correlations between the dyad members in bold along the diagonal.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001 (one tailed).
2.25***
2.14*
2.17**
2.17**
.07
2.01
2.02
.07
.73***
.62***
2.29***
2.37***
2.35***
.41***
.65***
.61***
.30***
.25***
.00
2.07
2.23***
2.28***
2.24***
.33***
.63***
.11
.36***
.48***
.00
2.06
1. Marital satisfaction
2. Sexual satisfaction
3. Sexual activity
4. Sexual dysfunctions
5. Internal daily stress
6. External daily stress
7. Critical life events
8. SCL90R total score
9. Age
10. Duration of relationship
.64***
.68***
.73***
2.12*
2.35***
2.07
2.15*
2.21**
2.22**
2.31***
.56***
.64***
.63***
2.22**
2.45***
2.23***
2.23***
2.30***
2.09
2.13*
.74***
.63***
.65***
2.10
2.27***
2.04
2.16*
2.14*
2.14*
2.22**
2.15*
2.44***
2.27***
.03
.27***
.19**
.29***
.42***
.09
.01
2.45***
2.49***
2.45***
.43***
.46***
.60***
.36***
.48***
.09
.06
2.13*
2.20**
2.03
.17*
.44***
.34***
.39***
.30***
2.11
2.11
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Variables
Table 1. Intercorrelations among study variables, for women (above diagonal) and men (below diagonal) and dyads (along the diagonal)
10
558
arrows) between the exogenous and endogenous variables have 2 df; we can assume that
direct partner effects (diagonal arrows) between exogenous and endogenous variables
are statistically irrelevant. If the path models
with 2 df fit the data well, then this assumption
is verified. The assumption of complete mediation isassuming good model fitsupported if the direct effects between external
stress and the marital variables are not significant. Partial mediation can be inferred in the
association between the exogenous and endogeneous variables if one or both of these direct
effects are significant.
We used the z statistic to evaluate the mediation effects between the exogenous and
endogenous variables, with
^
^b
a
^ a^b^
r
r
^2 r
^2 r
^ 2^ 1 b
^2
a
b
^
a
Source
2.33***
2.35***
2.13*
2.23***
.04
.04
.02
.31***
.55***
2.31***
2.33***
2.23***
2.26***
.05
.20**
.01
.31***
.52***
16
24
14
.10
.00
.10
.00
16
24
19
.38***
.49***
Sexual
satisfaction
.38***
.49***
Marital
satisfaction
16
24
14
.01
.31***
.60***
.06
.15*
2.20**
2.22**
2.27***
2.25***
.10
.00
.38***
.49***
Sexual
activity
16
24
7
.02
.31***
Fixed at 0
.03
2.08
.12
2.04
.19**
.14*
.10
.00
.38***
.49***
Sexual
dysfunction
16
8
18
.34***
.27***
.52***
Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0
2.24***
2.27***
2.29***
2.22***
.23***
2.08
.25***
.29***
Marital
satisfaction
16
8
14
.34***
.27***
.55***
Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0
2.13*
2.23***
2.31***
2.33***
.23***
2.08
.25***
.29***
Sexual
satisfaction
16
8
14
.34***
.27***
.60***
Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0
2.21**
2.23**
2.25***
2.18**
.23***
2.08
.25***
.29***
Sexual
activity
(continued)
16
8
7
.34***
.27***
Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0
.12
2.03
.20**
.11
.23***
2.08
.25***
.29***
Sexual
dysfunction
Table 2. Actor and partner effects (maximum likelihood estimates), correlations, and model fits for the ActorPartner Mediator Model with internal
daily stress as mediator and the overall distress (Symptom Check List [SCL90R]) as covariables
Note. Due to a poor model fit, the estimates of the model with critical life events and sexual satisfaction cannot be interpreted. The SCL90R total score was partialed out from all manifest
variables.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001 (one tailed).
11
8.969
4
.062
.975
.079
21
11.004
4
.027
.967
.094
16
5.169
4
.270
.994
.039
1
1.656
3
.647
1.000
.000
12
0.536
2
.765
1.000
.000
21
2.035
2
.362
1.000
.009
19
0.144
2
930
1.000
.000
R 2m endogenous variable men (%)
v2
df
p
Comparative fit index
Root mean square error of approximation
Sexual
activity
Sexual
satisfaction
Source
Marital
satisfaction
Sexual
satisfaction
Sexual
activity
Sexual
dysfunction
Marital
satisfaction
Table 2. (continued)
1
8.511
5
.130
.958
.060
560
561
562
Table 3. Mediation effects for the ActorPartner Mediator Models (APMeM) with external
stress as exogenous variables, internal daily stress as mediators, and marital functioning as
endogenous variables
Effect
IE
SE
p (two
tailed)
95% confidence
interval
.001
.002
.002
.000
20.31 to 20.09
20.27 to 20.06
20.29 to 20.06
20.37 to 20.12
.000
.004
.078
.000
21.65 to 20.47
21.45 to 20.28
21.02 to 0.05
22.24 to 20.76
.002
.008
.008
.003
21.88 to 20.43
21.68 to 20.25
21.71 to 20.26
22.12 to 20.43
.029
.651
.125
.104
0.28 to
21.91 to
20.55 to
20.34 to
5.13
1.19
4.48
3.64
.006
.009
.011
.015
.011
.015
20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.012
.021
.020
.031
.020
.040
20.07 to 20.01
20.07 to 20.01
20.07 to 20.01
20.07 to 0.00
20.08 to 20.01
20.07 to 0.00
.032
.042
0.01 to
0.00 to
0.20
0.21
Note. In this table, we present mediation effects only for those models in which both direct effects were significant. IE
indirect effect; w women; m men; A actor effect; P partner effect. Equation 1 was used to compute z scores;
standard error was estimated by means of Equation 2. The formula used to compute normal 95% confidence interval is
^
^
^ ^cb^ .
cb61:96
r
563
564
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-2
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-2
Figure 2. Association between external daily stress and sexual activity as moderated by level of
marital satisfaction, for women (top) and for men (bottom).
Note. This model was tested using two measures of external stress (i.e., external daily hassles and
acute life events), one mediator (daily stress and tension arising within the relationship), and four
variables hypothesized to reflect relationship functioning (i.e., marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual activity, and sexual dysfunction).
565
566
567
568
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression
testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
569
research: Two extensions of the ActorPartner Interdependence Model]. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie,
37, 2740.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M.,
West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7,
83104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A
simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 4162.
McCarthy, B. (2003). Marital sex as it ought to be. Journal
of Family Psychotherapy, 14, 112.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family
stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage and Family Review,
6, 737.
Metz, M. E., & Epstein, N. (2002). Assessing the role of
relationship conflict in sexual dysfunction. Journal of
Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 139164.
Morokoff, P. J., & Gillilland, R. (1993). Stress, sexual
functioning, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex
Research, 30, 4353.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context
affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress
and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134148.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in
social support: A question of skill or responsiveness?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
7990.
Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support,
conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,
219230.
Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender,
negative affectivity, and observed social support
behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4, 361378.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978).
Assessing the impact of life changes: Development
of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 46, 932946.
Snyder, D. K. (1981). Marital satisfaction inventory (MSI)
manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for
indirect effects in structural equation models. In S.
Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290
312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding
marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 11391162.
Williams, L. M. (1995). Associations of stressful life
events and marital quality. Psychological Reports,
76, 11151122.