Reward- and Punishment-Sensitive Relational Mechanisms: Gender Asymmetries in Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24193/subbtref.71.1.12Keywords:
dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction, Actor–Partner Interdependence Model, gender asymmetry, reward sensitivity, punishment sensitivityAbstract
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND – Relationship satisfaction is not merely an individual experience but a phenomenon that emerges through partners’ interactions, in which the coping behaviours of both individuals play a crucial role.
GOALS – The present study aimed to explore how different dimensions of dyadic coping are associated with relationship satisfaction through intrapersonal (actor) and interpersonal (partner) effects, and whether these associations exhibit gender asymmetry.
METHODS – The sample consisted of 184 heterosexual couples (N = 368; 184 women and 184 men). Women’s ages ranged from 18 to 75 years (M = 32.94, SD = 12.78), while men’s ages were between 18 and 85 years (M = 35.62, SD = 13.50). Dyadic coping was assessed using relevant subscales of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI-H), and relationship satisfaction was measured with the Hungarian version of the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS-H). The hypotheses were tested within the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) using structural equation modeling.
RESULTS – The results showed that for both men and women, positive forms of dyadic coping were positively associated with individuals’ own relationship satisfaction, whereas negative coping was negatively associated with the same. Common dyadic coping and its positive evaluation were significantly related to the satisfaction of both partners. With regard to partner effects, a gender asymmetry emerged: men’s positive coping was more strongly associated with their female partners’ relationship satisfaction, whereas negative coping was particularly strongly related to men’s own satisfaction. These findings may reflect differentiated functioning of reward- and punishment-sensitive relational mechanisms: women’s relationship satisfaction appears to be more responsive to reinforcing and validating interactions, whereas men’s satisfaction seems to be more strongly affected by critical and rejecting behaviours.
CONCLUSIONS – The study contributes to a deeper understanding of gender-specific patterns in dyadic coping and offers practical implications for the targeted design of dyadically oriented couple therapy interventions.
References
AlGOE, Sara B. – GABLE, Shelly L. – MAISEL, Natalya C. (2010): It’s the Little Things: Everyday Gratitude as a Booster Shot for Romantic Relationships. In: Personal Relationships. 17, 2. 217–233
BODENMANN, Guy (1997): Dyadic Coping: A Systemic-Transactional View of Stress and Coping among Couples: Theory and Empirical Findings. In: European Review of Applied Psychology. 47, 2. 137–140.
(2005). Dyadic Coping and Its Significance for Marital Functioning. In: Revenson, Tracey A. – Kayser, Karen – Bodenmann, Guy (eds.): Couples Coping with Stress: Emerging Perspectives on Dyadic Coping. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association. 33–49.
(2008). Dyadisches coping inventar: Test manual [Dyadic Coping Inventory: Test Manual]. Huber.
BODENMANN, Guy – PIHET, Sandrine – KAYSER, Karen (2006): The Relationship between Dyadic Coping and Marital Quality: A 2-Year Longitudinal Study. In: Journal of Family Psychology. 20, 3. 485–493.
BODENMANN, Guy – RANDALL, Ashley. K – FALCONIER, Mariana K. (2016): Coping in Couples: The Systemic-Transactional Model (STM). In: Falconier, Mariana K. – Randall, Ashley K. – Bodenmann, Guy (eds.): Couples Coping with Stress: A Cross-cultural Perspective. New York – London, Routledge. 5–22.
BOLGER, Niall – DELONGIS, Anita – KESSLER, Ronald C. – WETHINGTON, Elaine (1989): The Contagion of Stress across Multiple Roles. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51, 1. 175–183.
CAMPBELL, Sarah B. – RENSHAW, Keith D. – KLEIN, Sarah R. (2017): Sex Differences in Associations of Hostile and Non-hostile Criticism with Relationship Quality. In: The Journal of Psychology. 151, 4. 416–430.
COOK, William L. – KENNY, David A. (2005): The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model: A Model of Bidirectional Effects in Developmental Studies. In: International Journal of Behavioral Development. 29, 2. 101–109.
CROSS, Susan E. – MADSON, Laura (1997): Models of the Self: Self-construals and Gender. In: Psychological Bulletin. 122, 1. 5–37.
EAGLY, Alice H. – WOOD, Wendy (2012): Social Role Theory. In: Van Lange, Paula A. M. – Kruglanski, Arie W. – Higgins, E. Tory (eds.): The Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Sage. 458–476.
FALCONIER, M. K. – JACKSON, J. B. – HILPERT, P. – BODENMANN, G. (2015). Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 42, 28–46.
FOLKMAN, Susan (2013): Stress: Appraisal and Coping. In: Gellman, Marc D. – Turner, John Rick (eds.): Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. New York (NY), Springer. 1913–1915.
GOTTMAN, John M. (1991): Predicting the Longitudinal Course of Marriages. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family Therapy. 17, 1. 3–7.
(1995). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: And How You Can Make Yours Last. Simon & Schuster.
GOTTMAN, John M. – LEVENSON, Robert W. (1992): Marital Processes Predictive of Later Dissolution: Behavior, Physiology, and Health. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63, 2. 221–233.
GROSS, James J. (2015): Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects. In: Psychological Inquiry. 26, 1. 1–26.
HENDRICK, Susan S. (1988): A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family. 50, 1. 93–98.
HERZBERG, Philipp Yorck (2013): Coping in Relationships: The Interplay between Individual and Dyadic Coping and Their Effects on Relationship Satisfaction. In: Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 26, 2. 136–153.
KENNY, David A. – KASHY, Deborah A. – COOK, William L. (2006): Dyadic Data Analysis. The Guilford Press.
KIECOLT-GLASER, Janice K. – NEWTON, Tamara L. (2001): Marriage and Health: His and Hers. In: Psychological Bulletin. 127, 4. 472–503.
LANDIS, Marion – PETER-WIGHT, Melanie – MARTIN, Mike – BODENMANN, Guy (2013): Dyadic Coping and Marital Satisfaction of Older Spouses in Long-Term Marriage. In: GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry. 26, 1. 39–48.
LAZARUS, Richard S. – FOLKMAN, Susan (1984): Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, Springer.
MAHALIK, James R. – BURNS, Shaun M. – SYZDEK, Matthew (2007): Masculinity and Perceived Normative Health Behaviors as Predictors of Men’s Health Behaviors. In: Social Science & Medicine (1982). 64, 11. 2201–2209.
MARTOS, Júlia – SALLAY, Viola – SZABÓ, Evelin – TÓTH-VAJNA, Rita – MARTOS, Tamás (2018): Diádikus stressz és megküzdés – elméleti modellek és alkalmazások. In: Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika. 19, 1. 33–54.
MARTOS, Tamás – SALLAY, Viola – NISTOR, Mihaela – JÓZSA, Péter (2012): Párkapcsolati megküzdés és jóllét – a Páros Megküzdés Kérdőív magyar változata. In: Psychiatria Hungarica. 27, 6. 446–458.
MARTOS, Tamás – SALLAY, Viola – SZABÓ, Tünde – LAKATOS, Csilla – TÓTH-VAJNA, Rita (2014): A Kapcsolati Elégedettség Skála magyar változatának (RAS-H) pszichometriai jellemzői. In: Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika. 15, 3. 245–258.
MÉSZÁROS, Veronika – ABARI, Kálmán – POLONYI, Tünde – LØVSETH, Lise Tevik – ÁDÁM, Szilvia (2020): A munka–család konfliktus interkulturális jellemzői: A rizikó- és protektív faktorok elemzése, különös tekintettel a karrierre. In: Polonyi, Tamás – Abari, Kálmán – Kiss, Tamás (eds.): Válságok megelőzése és kezelése. Budapest, Oriold és Társa. 143–162.
NEFF, Lisa A. – KARNEY, Benjamin R. (2009): Stress and Reactivity to Daily Relationship Experiences: How Stress Hinders Adaptive Processes in Marriage. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 97, 3. 435–450.
OVERALL, Nicola C. – FLETCHER, Garth J. O. – SIMPSON, Jeffry A. (2006): Regulation Processes in Intimate Relationships: The Role of Ideal Standards. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 91, 4. 662–685.
PAPP, Lauren M. – WITT, Nicole L. (2010): Romantic Partners’ Individual Coping Strategies and Dyadic Coping: Implications for Relationship Functioning. In: Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43). 24, 5. 551–559.
RANDALL, Ashley K. – BODENMANN, Guy (2009): The Role of Stress on Close Relationships and Marital Satisfaction. In: Clinical Psychology Review. 29, 2. 105–115.
(2017). Stress and Its Associations with Relationship Satisfaction. In: Current Opinion in Psychology. 13. 96–106.
RANDS, Marylyn – LEVINGER, George – MELLINGER, Glenn D. (1981): Patterns of Conflict Resolution and Marital Satisfaction. In: Journal of Family Issues. 2, 3. 297–321.
REGAN, Tim W. – LAMBERT, Sylvie D. – KELLY, Brian – MCELDUFF, Patrick – GIRGIS, Afaf – KAYSER, Karen – TURNER, Jane (2014): Cross-sectional Relationships between Dyadic Coping and Anxiety, Depression, and Relationship Satisfaction for Patients with Prostate Cancer and Their Spouses. In: Patient Education and Counseling. 96, 1. 120–127.
ROBLES, Theodore F. – SLATCHER, Richard B. – TROMBELLO, Joseph M. – MCGINN, Meghan M. (2014): Marital Quality and Health: A Meta-analytic Review. In: Psychological Bulletin. 140, 1. 140–187.
RUSBULT, Caryl E. – MARTZ, John M. – AGNEW, Christopher R. (1998): The Investment Model Scale: Measuring Commitment Level, Satisfaction Level, Quality of Alternatives, and Investment Size. In: Personal Relationships. 5, 4. 357–387.
VAJDA, Dóra – RÓZSA, Sándor (2018): Diádikus adatelemzés: Actor–Partner Interdependence Model. In: Alkalmazott Pszichológia. 18, 3. 99–123.
WHISMAN, Mark A. – BAUCOM, Donald H. (2012): Intimate Relationships and Psychopathology. In: Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 15, 1. 4–13.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Theologia Reformata Transylvanica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
