The Relationship between Trait Mindfulness and Dyadic ...
Transcript of The Relationship between Trait Mindfulness and Dyadic ...
1
The Relationship between Trait Mindfulness and Dyadic Coping for Young Adult Romantic
Couples
Jade H. M. Fitzgerald
BPsych (Hons)
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of
Clinical Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Australia
October 2019
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 2
Statement of Originality
This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other
degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another
person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of
my thesis, when deposited in the University Library*, being made available for loan and
photocopying subject to the copyright Act 1968. *Unless an Embargo has been approved for
a determined period.
Acknowledgement of Collaboration
I hereby certify that the work embodied in this thesis has been done in collaboration
with other researchers. I have included as part of the thesis a statement clearly outlining the
extent of collaboration, with whom and under what auspices.
22/10/2019
Jade Fitzgerald Date
22/10/2019
Ross Wilkinson Date
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 3
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Associate Professor Ross
Wilkinson for his guidance, direction and support while completing this research. I would
also like to thank Professor Scott Brown and Dr Sally Hunt for their useful and insightful
feedback on my research proposals. I acknowledge the efforts of Breanna Georgiadis for her
role in recruiting participants for this research and I thank her for her uplifting humour and
‘can-do’ attitude. Similarly, I would like to thank my post graduate cohort for creating a
sense of comradery which made my post graduate experience memorable and enjoyable.
Finally, I must thank my partner Blake and wonderful family and friends. Their unconditional
support, patience and faith in my ability has been invaluable.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 4
Table of Contents
Title page………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Declarations……………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………… 3
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….. 4
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………... 6
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………… 6
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………… 6
Statement of collaboration………………………………………………………………… 7
Manuscript Title Page……………………………………………………………………... 8
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………... 10
Method.……………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Research Design…………………………………………………………………... 15
Participants………………………………………………………………………... 15
Procedure………………………………………………………………………….. 16
Measures………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………… 19
Results……………………………………………………………………………………... 20
Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………… 20
Correlations……………………………………………………………………….. 21
Dyadic Analysis…………………………………………………………………… 21
Exploratory Analysis……………………………………………………………… 22
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Trait Mindfulness and Dyadic Coping………………………………………….… 23
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 5
Correlations between Key Variables……………………………………………… 28
Strengths and Limitations…………………………………………………………. 29
Research Applications and Areas for Future Research…………………………… 30
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………… 32
References…………………………………………………………………………………. 33
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s Alphas for key variables……... 43
Table 2. Zero Order Correlations between key variables according to gender……..... 44
List of Figures
Figure 1. A visual representation of the APIM……………………………………..... 45
Figure 2. APIM diagram for Total Mindfulness and Positive Dyadic Coping……...... 46
Figure 3. APIM diagram for Total Mindfulness and Negative Dyadic Coping……… 47
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Author guidelines for the Journal of Personal Relationships…………. 48
Appendix B - University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee approval 53
Appendix C - Information flyer…………………..…………………………………... 54
Appendix D - Dyadic Coping Inventory…………………………………………… 55
Appendix E - Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire – Newcastle Short Form……. 57
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 7
Statement of Collaborations
Dr Ross Wilkinson conceptualised the design of this research, contributed to the
statistical analysis and provided critical feedback through reviewing drafts and the final
thesis. Breanna Georgiadis contributed to data collection.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 8
Unsubmitted manuscript formatted for the Journal of Personal Relationships
See Appendix A for submission guidelines.
The Relationship between Trait Mindfulness and Dyadic Coping for Young Adult Romantic
Couples
Jade Fitzgerald, Breanna Georgiadis & Ross Wilkinson
School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Newcastle, Australia
Corresponding Author
Dr Ross Wilkinson
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (02) 4921 6947
Word count: 7,014
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 9
Abstract
Despite a well-established link between trait mindfulness and positive relationship
outcomes for romantic couples, it is not clear which processes within a relationship are
impacted by mindfulness. The current study examines the relationship between mindfulness
and dyadic coping as a possible mechanism by which mindfulness impacts romantic
relationships. A cross-sectional correlational design was utilised with a sample of seventy-
four young adult couples facing everyday stressors. Data was analysed using the Actor
Partner Interdependence Model (Kenny, Kashy & Cook, 2006). Results indicated a small but
unexpected gender-based link; mindfulness was positively linked to positive dyadic coping
styles for women only. These results suggest that mindfulness may be linked to different
relationship processes for men and women.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 10
The Relationship between Trait Mindfulness and Dyadic Coping for Young Adult
Romantic Couples
The study of mindfulness is a rapidly growing field in psychological literature and
public popularity. Originating in Buddhist tradition, Western research has operationalised the
concept of mindfulness as a state of mind, or sense of awareness that comes from paying
attention to the present moment nonjudgmentally, with curiosity and acceptance (Kabat-Zinn,
2003; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006).
Within academic literature mindfulness is differentiated between a state (i.e., present
moment awareness achieved through deliberate mindfulness meditation) and a trait (i.e., a
personality disposition wherein an individual acts in a mindful way in everyday life; Gehart,
2012). This research focuses on trait mindfulness. It has been argued that some individuals
naturally have a more mindful disposition or are higher in trait mindfulness than others (Baer,
Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer & Toney, 2006). Baer et al. (2006; 2008) conceptualised trait
mindfulness as a multifaceted construct with five facets; observe (noticing internal and
external stimuli), describe (verbally labelling emotions), act with awareness (being present in
the current moment), non-judgement (exercising a nonevaluative approach to experiences)
and non-react (not becoming emerged in internal emotional experiences). Trait mindfulness
has been linked to higher levels of emotional intelligence and self-regulation (Baer et al.,
2006; Keng & Tong, 2016). Trait mindfulness has also been found to influence how
individuals cope with stress (Hicks et al., 2019). Individuals who are higher in trait
mindfulness are more likely to use adaptive problem-solving coping styles, less likely to use
maladaptive coping strategies and have been found to catastrophise less (Garland, 2007;
Palmer & Rodger, 2009; Weinstein, Brown & Ryan, 2009).
Relatively recently, the literature has begun to examine the role that mindfulness
plays in relationships. In addition to positive benefits on an individual level, research has
indicated that mindfulness is associated with positive benefits for interpersonal relationships,
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 11
particularly romantic relationships (Kozlowski, 2013; Pratscher, Rose, Markovitz, &
Bettencourt, 2018). Higher rates of mindfulness have been linked to higher rates of self-
reported relationship satisfaction in both research environments (Burpee & Langer, 2005;
Kozlowski, 2013; Lenger, Gordon, & Nguyen, 2017), and clinical settings (Carson, Carson,
Gil, & Baucom, 2004). Research in this field has influenced the development of mindfulness-
based couples therapy (Carson et al., 2004) and supported the integration of elements of
mindfulness within traditional couples therapy (Gambrel & Keeling, 2010; Gehart, 2012).
Despite the well documented positive benefits of mindfulness within romantic
relationships, relatively little is understood about how mindfulness actually impacts
relationship processes (Adair, Boulton, & Algoe, 2018). Some preliminary research outlined
below has attempted to address this gap in the literature and explored some of the different
processes within romantic relationship that may be linked to mindfulness. For example, Adair
et al. (2018) found that partners who scored higher on a measure of trait mindfulness
perceived their partner as more responsive and reported higher levels of relationship
satisfaction. They reasoned that as trait mindfulness is associated with higher levels of
attentiveness and present moment awareness, a mindful person is more likely to notice their
partner’s subtle supportive behaviours. Therefore, a mindful partner would feel more
supported within their relationship. Additionally, Iida and Shapiro’s (2017) research indicated
that trait mindfulness may support positive relationship outcomes by impacting different
relationship processes for men and women. Their research showed that men who were higher
in trait mindfulness felt more loved in their relationship, while women who were higher in
trait mindfulness experienced less anxiety about their relationship.
It has also been suggested that trait mindfulness fosters positive relationship outcomes
by decreasing instances of negative relationship behaviour. For example, Barnes, Brown,
Krusemark, Campbell and Rogge (2007) reasoned that higher levels of mindfulness
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 12
supported lower levels of hostility in romantic relationships. Their results indicated a
significant negative correlation between trait mindfulness and verbal aggression. It was also
reported that male partners perceived less anger and hostility during arguments if their
partners were high in trait mindfulness. Similarly, Wachs and Cordova (2007) reported that
couples who scored higher on measures of trait mindfulness exhibited lower levels of anger
and hostility in their relationship. Pakenham and Samios (2013) deduced that results such as
these suggest that mindfulness fosters less impulsive responding and more acceptance, which
fosters more adaptive responses to relationship stressors.
Dyadic Coping and Romantic Relationships
Within the couples and relationship literature, coping styles have recently been
conceptualised and measured according to Bodenmann’s Systematic Transactional Model of
Dyadic Coping (Bodenmann, 2005; Falconier, Jackson, Hilpert & Bodenmann, 2015). Here,
dyadic coping refers to the way in which a couple (or dyad) support each other through
stressful events (Bodenmann, 2005; Falconier et al., 2015). In his model, Bodenmann (2005)
made a distinction between positive and negative dyadic coping styles.
Positive dyadic coping occurs when one partner helps the other partner to cope with
stress, through strategies such as expressing empathic understanding, communicating their
genuine support for their partner, and helping them with daily tasks (Bodenmann, 2005).
These positive coping styles have been shown to strongly predict higher rates of relationship
satisfaction (Falconier et al., 2015; Herzberg, 2013). In addition, positive dyadic coping has
been linked to higher rates of empathy (Levesque, Lafontaine, Caron, Flesch, & Bjornson,
2014), emotional awareness, effective emotional regulation (Zeidner, Kloda, & Matthews,
2013) and emotional intelligence (Levesque et al., 2014).
Negative dyadic coping occurs when one individual attempts to help their partner
cope with stress, however the individual is discouraging, sarcastic, insincere or openly
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 13
disinterested in their partner’s problems (Bodenmann, 2005). Negative dyadic coping is
associated with relationship dissatisfaction (Levesque et al., 2014) and has been linked to
higher levels of verbal aggression within relationships (Bodenmann, Meuwly, Bradbury,
Gmelch, & Ledermann, 2010).
Summary
Research has found that trait mindfulness is linked to more adaptive coping styles for
the individual (Palmer & Rodger, 2009; Weinstein et al., 2009). Research also indicates that
individuals who adopt positive dyadic coping styles within romantic relationships, generally
have adaptive coping styles at an individual level (Papp & Witt, 2010; Randall, Hilpert,
Jimenez-Arista, Walsh, & Bodenmann, 2016). Both trait mindfulness and positive dyadic
coping styles are associated with some of the mechanisms that are understood to support
healthy relationships i.e., emotional regulation, emotional literacy and emotional support
(Kappen, Karremans, Burk, & Buyukcan-Tetik, 2018; Leuchtmann et al., 2018).
In a commentary, Karremans, Schellekens and Kappen (2017) explored a link
between mindfulness and coping between couples. Karremans et al. (2017) suggested that
mindfulness may influence the way in which couples cope with stress, which in turn
influences relationship outcomes. Drawing on previous literature, Karremans et al. (2017)
reasoned that as mindfulness is linked to more adaptive coping styles, heightened awareness
and emotional regulation skills on an individual level (Bishop et al., 2004; Goldin & Gross,
2010), a mindful individual is more likely to be aware of their own stress and effectively
communicate this to their partner. Additionally, Karremans et al. (2017) argued that as
mindful individuals have higher levels of awareness, they are theoretically more likely to
notice the stress reactions and emotions of their partner.
Pakenham and Samios (2013) found that higher levels of trait mindfulness were
associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression for couples coping with multiple
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 14
sclerosis. The authors interpreted this finding as an indication that trait mindfulness supported
couples to cope with the stress, however their research did not specifically examine coping
strategies.
While theoretical commentary in this field supports the general interpretations made
by Karremans et al. (2017) and Pakenham and Samios (2013) (Adair et al., 2018; Kozlowski,
2013), researchers agree that this remains an under explored field of mindfulness literature, as
the mechanisms through which mindfulness influences coping within romantic relationships
have not been thoroughly investigated (Karremans et al., 2017; Lenger et al., 2017).
Aims and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study is to examine a possible link between trait mindfulness and
the dyadic coping styles of romantic couples, therefore, exploring the possibility that dyadic
coping may be one of the mechanisms through which trait mindfulness impacts relationship
processes. While hypothetically plausible, to our knowledge this relationship has not been
empirically investigated. o address this gap in the literature, the aim of the current research is
to explore if trait mindfulness is linked to coping styles at a dyadic level. This will be
assessed by examining trait mindfulness and the dyadic coping styles of couples in a romantic
relationship. Building on Karremans’s et al. (2017) theoretical commentary in conjunction
with results from research such as Barnes et al. (2007).
It is hypothesised that: higher levels of total trait mindfulness will be significantly and
positively related to positive dyadic coping in couples (hypothesis 1). Conversely, we also
hypothesise that higher levels of trait mindfulness will be significantly and negatively related
to negative dyadic coping in couples (hypothesis 2). Additional exploratory analysis will
assess these hypotheses further by examining the relationship between the individual facets of
trait mindfulness with positive and negative dyadic coping.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 15
Method
Research Design
In order to assess the relationship between mindfulness and dyadic coping amongst
romantic couples, this research employed a cross-sectional correlational design, utilising
quantitative, self-report data. The independent variable of this research is trait mindfulness,
which is operationalised through the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire – Newcastle
Short Form (FFMQ-NSF: R. Wilkinson, personal communication, October 22, 2018).
Positive and negative dyadic coping are the dependent variables of this research and are
operationalised by the relevant scale scores from the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI:
Bodenmann, 2008).
In order to effectively explore mindfulness and dyadic coping processes within
romantic couples, this research utilised a standard, reciprocal dyadic design with
distinguishable dyads (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Therefore, both members of a couple
participated in the research and each participant’s data was linked to the data of their
romantic partner. Members of the couples were differentiated by gender.
Participants
The data from 148 participants, or 74 opposite sex romantic couples were used for
this research. Notably, there were several cases where only one member of a couple
completed the assessment measures, that data was not included in this study. . Analysis
carried out via the statistical program APIMPower (Ackerman & Kenny, 2016) indicated that
this sample size held a power of 85% to detect effect sizes of .25 and above. This sample size
is similar to other studies which utilised dyadic data and found meaningful effect sizes
(Burke, Randall, Corkery, Young & Butler, 2012; Iida & Shapiro, 2017).
Three key inclusion criteria were imposed in order to control for confounding factors
and ensure that relevant data was collected. Firstly, all couples must have been in a romantic
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 16
relationship for at least six months. This relationship length criterion is commonly employed
in couple research in order to ensure a level of interdependence between dyad members
(Falconier et al., 2015; Randall, Totenhagen, Walsh, Adams, & Tao, 2017). Secondly, all
participants were required to be aged between 18 and 29 years as the nature of stress in
relationships changes with the age of couples (Breitenstein, Milek, Nussbeck, Davila, &
Bodenmann, 2018). Thirdly, only couples who did not have children were eligible to
participate, as children have been found to influence the nature of stress in romantic
relationships (Miller & Sollie, 1986; Weigel, Bennett, & Ballard–Reisch, 2003).
Of the 148 participants in this study the mean age was 23.92 years (SD=3.31). The
most common relationship type was dating (60.8%), followed by de facto (18.9%), married
(10.8%) and engaged (9.5%). Most couples in this sample had been in a relationship for
between 2 and 5 years (31.1%), while roughly half of the sample had been in a relationship
for between 1 and 2 years (25.7%), or over 5 years (24.3%), the remainder of the couples had
been in a relationship for between six months and one year (18.9%).
Procedure
This study was conducted in Australia and approved by the University of Newcastle
Human Research Ethics Committee (see Appendix B for a copy of the ethics approval).
Convenience and purposive sampling were employed in this research. Participants were
primarily recruited through social media (i.e., Facebook) and word of mouth. As an incentive
to partake in the study, all participants could elect to go into a draw to win a $200 gift card. A
copy of the information flyer circulated online can be found in Appendix C.
All participants completed a 20 to 30-minute online survey which featured the FFMQ-
NSF (R. Wilkinson, personal communication, October 22, 2018) and the DCI (Bodenmann,
2008) on internet enabled devices. To encourage honest responses and ensure confidentiality,
participants were instructed to complete the survey without their partner present. The first
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 17
member of a couple to complete the survey was asked to enter a six-character code of their
choosing. These participants were asked to keep note of this code and give it to their partner,
as it was be used to link their data together. When the second member of the couple
completed the survey they entered this same code.
Measures
This project is part of a larger study about wellbeing and relationships. However, this
report will only discuss those measures which are relevant to this project; demographic items,
the DCI (Bodenmann, 2008) and the FFMQ-NSF (R. Wilkinson, personal communication,
October 22, 2018). To control for fatigue, order and practice effects, items were randomly
ordered and both measures featured reverse scored items. Demographic items included
questions to assess age, gender, length and status of romantic relationship (i.e., dating, de
facto, married).
Dyadic coping.
Dyadic coping was measured with the DCI (Bodenmann, 2008), a 37-item
multifaceted self-report questionnaire which assesses the participant’s response to stress, their
perception of their partner’s response to stress, and their response to stress together as a
couple (see Appendix D for a copy of the inventory). Participants respond via a five-point
semantic differential format anchored by “Never/ Very rarely” and “Very often”. The DCI is
widely used in dyadic research and has been validated on samples which are demographically
similar to the participants of the current study (Levesque et al., 2014; Randall et al., 2017;
Regan et al., 2014). Validation studies reflect acceptable concurrent validity (Randall et al.,
2016; Xu, Hilpert, Randall, Li, & Bodenmann, 2016) and internal reliability (Levesque et al.,
2014: α = .69 - .85).
Coping behaviours assessed by the DCI are grouped into positive or negative styles of
coping. The scores from positive dyadic coping items (e.g., “I show empathy and
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 18
understanding to my partner”) were aggregated to form a total positive dyadic coping score, a
higher score on this variable reflects higher rates of positive dyadic coping. Likewise, the
scores from the negative dyadic coping items (e.g., “I blame my partner for not coping well
enough with stress”) were also aggregated to form a total negative dyadic coping score, a
higher score on this variable reflects higher rates of negative dyadic coping. These two
aggregated scores were utilised as the outcome measures for this research. Aggregating the
positive and negative items of the DCI into total scores is widely practiced and acceptable
within this field (Falconier & Kuhn, 2019; Pankrath et al., 2018; Randall et al., 2017). For the
current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for positive dyadic coping was .79 for women
and .80 for men, while for negative dyadic coping it was .71 for women and .70 for men. The
DCI also produces a total dyadic coping score, an aggregation of all positive and negative
subscales (Falconier & Kuhn, 2019). While this score was not utilised as an outcome measure
in this research, it was calculated in order to compare the dyadic coping scores of our sample
against norms from other samples.
Mindfulness.
Trait mindfulness was assessed through the FFMQ-NSF (R. Wilkinson, personal
communication, October 22nd, 2018; see Appendix E for a copy of the questionnaire). All 20
items in this measure are drawn from Baer et al.’s (2006) original 39-item Five Facet
Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).
The FFMQ has been extensively utilised in the mindfulness literature (Park, Reilly-
Spong, & Gross, 2013). Numerous validation studies reflect sound reliability and validity
(Bayer et al., 2008; Park et al., 2013). However, there is some criticism regarding the factor
loadings of the five facets (Williams, Dalgleish, Karl, & Kuyken, 2014). A number of shorter
versions of the FFMQ have been created to address this criticism and reduce fatigue effects
(Medvedev, Titkova, Siegert, Hwang, & Krägeloh, 2018; Tran, Glück, & Nader, 2013).
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 19
These shortened versions have been used in research designs similar to the current study and
were found to have acceptable validity (Hou, Wong, Lo, Mak, & Ma, 2014; Medvedev et al.,
2018) and reliability (Tran et al., 2013: α = .62 - .79).
The FFMQ-NSF consists of four items to assess each facet of trait mindfulness;
observe, acting with awareness, describe, non-reactivity and non-judgement. Participants
rated each item using a 5-point semantic differential format, anchored by “Very rarely” and
“Always true”. This scale produces a score between one and five for each facet of
mindfulness, and a total mindfulness score for each participant. The total mindfulness score is
averaged from four of the five facet scores. Observe is not used to compute the total
mindfulness score as its loading is impacted by the participant’s meditation experience, see
Baer et al. (2006) for an in-depth discussion on the factor loading of observe. The total
mindfulness score represents the independent variable in this research, while the scores for
the individual facets of mindfulness are operationalised as the independent variable in
exploratory analysis.
An initial validation study reported the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the total and
individual facets of the FFMQ-NSF to range between .74 and .88 (R. Wilkinson, personal
communication, October 22nd, 2018). In the current study Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficients for the FFMQ-NSF ranged between .78 and .84.
Analysis
Analysis was conducted according to the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model
(APIM; Kenny et al., 2006). The APIM is commonly used in dyadic research as it accounts
for the nonindependence of dyadic data (Kenny et al., 2006). The APIM examines the
influence of a participant’s independent variable score on their own dependent variable score,
which is called an actor effect. The model also examines the influence of a participant’s
independent variable score on their partner’s dependent variable score, which is called a
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 20
partner effect. These effects are presented as a regression coefficient. Please refer to Figure 1
for a visual representation of the model.
Results
Below are the primary results for this study, beginning with descriptive statistics and
notable correlations between variables. Data which informs the two key hypotheses of this
research are presented via the results of APIM analyses. Two separate APIM’s are presented,
one examining the relationship between trait mindfulness and positive dyadic coping, and one
examining the relationship between trait mindfulness and negative dyadic coping. The
significant results from exploratory analysis which utilised APIM are also presented.
Data gathered from 74 couples met all relevant statistical assumptions, with the
exception of negative dyadic coping, which did not fit a normal distribution. Thus, caution is
advised when interpreting results for this variable. Univariate outliers were managed through
Winsorising in accordance with procedures outlined by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013). No
multivariate outliers were identified. Missing data caused by one member of a couple not
completing the survey was managed by a listwise approach as outlined by Kang (2013).
APIM analysis was completed by first organising data according to the procedures outlined
by Stas, Kenny, Mayer, and Loeys (2018), then data was uploaded to the online statistical
analysis application APIM_SEM (Stas et al., 2018). APIM_SEM is specifically designed to
fit the APIM and utilises bootstrapping methods and structural equation modelling.
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for key variables as
sorted by gender are reported in Table 1. When compared against norms for the DCI (Gmelch
et al., 2008), the total dyadic coping score for females was slightly above average, while the
total dyadic coping score for males was within the average range. The mean total mindfulness
scores for both men and women were comparable to norms from an Australian sample (R.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 21
Wilkinson, personal communication, July 18, 2019). Independent samples t-tests did not
indicate any significant differences between male and female scores on key variables.
Correlations
Zero order correlations between key variables are presented in Table 2. Relevant to
our research hypothesis, there was a small positive correlation between total mindfulness and
positive dyadic coping scores for females (r = .29, p = .01). There were no significant
correlations observed between total mindfulness scores and any dyadic coping variables for
males. A moderate positive correlation was observed between male and female positive
dyadic coping scores (r = .40, p < .001), and a large positive correlation was observed for the
negative dyadic coping scores between males and females (r = .51, p < .001). Notably, these
correlations provide support for Kenny et al.’s (2006, p.26) assumption of nonindependence
and validate the need for targeted dyadic analysis. Other prominent correlations include the
strong negative correlation between positive and negative dyadic coping scores for males (r =
-.54, p < .001) and females (r = -.65, p < .001) alike. There was no significant correlation
observed between male and female total mindfulness scores (r = .10, p = .37).
Dyadic Analysis
Hypothesis 1: Total mindfulness and positive dyadic coping.
APIM analysis revealed a small significant positive actor effect between females’
total mindfulness scores and their positive dyadic coping scores (β = .28, p = .01; see Figure
2). Conversely, analysis did not indicate a significant actor effect between male’s total
mindfulness scores and their positive dyadic coping scores (β = -.12, p = .31). There were no
significant partner effects for women (β = .06, p = .61) or men (β = .18, p = .12) for the
variables of total mindfulness and positive dyadic coping. These results indicate that females
who had higher trait mindfulness scores also recorded higher positive dyadic coping scores.
Hypothesis 2: Total mindfulness and negative dyadic coping.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 22
APIM analysis did not indicate any significant effects between total mindfulness
scores and negative dyadic coping for men or women (see Figure 3). The negative actor
effect between male’s total mindfulness scores and negative dyadic coping scores was not
significant (β = -.17, p = .14). The negative actor effect between female’s total mindfulness
scores and negative dyadic coping scores was also not significant (β = -.19, p = .10). There
were no significant partner effects for women (β = .02, p = .28) or men (β = .08, p = .51) for
the variables of total mindfulness and negative dyadic coping. These results do not support a
relationship between total mindfulness and negative dyadic coping.
Exploratory Analysis
Additional APIM analysis was conducted in order to determine if particular facets of
trait mindfulness were associated with dyadic coping. The relationship between each facet of
trait mindfulness and both positive and negative dyadic coping was assessed. Only the
significant effects are reported.
Facets of trait mindfulness and positive dyadic coping.
Similar to the trend observed for positive dyadic coping, analysis indicated small to
moderate significant positive actor effects between the trait mindfulness facets of describe,
non-react and positive dyadic coping for females (β = .39, p =.002; β = .25, p =.03).
Reflecting that females who scored higher on the mindfulness facets of describe and non-
react tended to have higher positive dyadic coping scores.
Notably, analysis revealed a small significant positive partner effect between female’s
scores on the trait mindfulness facet describe and male’s positive dyadic coping scores (β =
.22, p = .047). This highlights that for females, higher scores on the mindfulness facet of
describe were associated with their male partner’s higher positive dyadic coping scores.
Conversely, for males there was a small significant negative actor effect between
scores for the trait mindfulness facet of describe and positive dyadic coping scores (β = -.23,
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 23
p =.04). This result shows that for males, lower scores on the mindfulness facet of describe
was associated with higher positive dyadic coping scores.
Facets of trait mindfulness and negative dyadic coping.
APIM analysis indicated small significant negative actor effects between the trait
mindfulness facet of non-react and negative dyadic coping for both males (β = -.26, p = .03)
and females (β = -.26, p = .02). These results reflect that both men and women who scored
higher on the trait mindfulness facet of non-react also scored lower on measures of negative
dyadic coping.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to explore the potential relationship between trait
mindfulness and dyadic stress coping for romantic couples. Results did not provide strong
support for the hypothesis that higher trait mindfulness would be positively linked to positive
dyadic coping styles. Rather, analysis revealed an unexpected gender trend such that there
was a small positive link between trait mindfulness and positive dyadic coping styles for
women, but not for men. Exploratory analysis revealed that the trait mindfulness facets of
describe and non-react were positively linked to positive dyadic coping for women. Our
primary analysis did not provide support for our secondary hypothesis that trait mindfulness
would be negatively linked to negative dyadic coping styles. However, exploratory analysis
revealed a small negative relationship between the mindfulness facet of non-react and
negative dyadic coping, which provided some partial support for the hypothesis. Falling in
line with existing literature there were moderate to strong correlations between the dyadic
coping styles of partners within a romantic couple, while couple’s trait mindfulness levels
were not related. The discussion below will explore these results in more detail, consider the
theoretical implications of this research and review avenues for future research in this field.
Trait Mindfulness and Dyadic Coping
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 24
Our analysis found numerous small to moderate actor effects, and one partner effect
between mindfulness and dyadic coping variables. Within the dyadic coping literature which
utilises APIM analysis, it is common to detect more actor effects than partner effects (Zeidner
et al., 2013). Furthermore, the size of significant effects was smaller than expected, thus did
not provide robust support for our hypotheses. However, these small effect sizes are still
comparable to other research in this field (Donato et al., 2015; Herzberg, 2013; Levesque et
al., 2014; Martos, Szabó, Koren & Sallay, 2019; Pakenham & Samios, 2013).
Trait mindfulness and positive dyadic coping.
Our primary analysis revealed a small actor effect between trait mindfulness and
positive dyadic coping for women, but there were no significant effects detected for men.
While these results do not imply causality, they may reflect that women who are higher in
trait mindfulness tend to utilise more positive dyadic coping styles than women who are not
as mindful. Given that this effect was only observed for women and not men, there is only
partial support for our hypothesis, and partial support for Karreman et al.’s (2017) theoretical
commentary on the link between mindfulness and coping in relationships.
Gender and positive dyadic coping.
The gender difference observed for relationships with positive dyadic coping styles
may be interpreted within the context of broader societal, albeit stereotypical, gender norms
for stress and coping. For example, on an individual level when faced with stress, research
reflects that women are generally more emotion focused and verbally communicate their
stress more frequently than men do (Falconier, Nussbeck & Bodenmann,2013; Gabriel,
Untras, Lavner, Koleck & Luminet 2016; Ptacek, Smith & Dodge, 1994). While men tend to
respond to stress from an incremental or problem-solving approach (Badr 2004; Falconier et
al., 2013; Gabriel et al., 2016; Ptacek et al., 1994). These gendered coping responses have
also been observed in dyadic contexts. For example, women are more likely than men to
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 25
frequently verbally communicate their stress to their partner (Donato, Iafrate, Barni &
Bertoni, 2009; Falconier & Kuhn 2019).
Karremans et al. (2017) hypothesised that trait mindfulness would foster better coping
within romantic relationships because mindfulness is associated with emotional awareness
and effective communication of these emotions. Perhaps the aspects of coping that the
construct of trait mindfulness is most closely aligned to are the emotion focused styles which
are more commonly observed in women.
Given our results, it is plausible to consider that while men and women do not
significantly differ on levels of trait mindfulness or positive dyadic coping, it is women who
draw on their mindful traits more when coping in a dyadic context. This may be because in
Western culture, it is generally more socially acceptable for women to be aware of and talk
about their emotions in response to stress than it is for men (Chaplin, 2015; Parkins, 2012).
Thus it is hypothesised, men may be just as mindful as their female partners, however due to
social constructs of gender they draw on other individual dispositions (i.e., problem solving)
to support their approaches to positive dyadic coping as it is more socially acceptable.
This interpretation can be applied to the results of exploratory analysis which
highlighted that for women, the trait mindfulness facets of describe and non-react were
significantly related to higher positive dyadic coping scores. Conceptually these two
mindfulness facets are conducive to effective communication, emotional intelligence and
emotional regulation which are known to support positive dyadic coping (Rusu, Bodenmann
& Kayser, 2019; Zaidner et al., 2013).
As hypothesised above, these facets of mindfulness may be linked to positive dyadic
outcomes for women as they are conceptually similar to the coping styles which are socially
acceptable for women to engage in. For example, the facet of describe which focuses on
accurately verbally communicating feelings and opinions is theoretically more similar to
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 26
emotion based coping styles as opposed to problem solving approaches to stress coping. The
facet of non-react assesses the ability to not immediately respond to distressing or negative
emotions, or be overcome by these emotions. Wider research has reported differences
between the ways in which men and women process and respond to negative emotions
(Lungu, Potvin, Tikàsz & Mendrek, 2015; McRae, Ochsner, Mauss, Gabrieli & Gross, 2008).
Notably, exploring the relationship between the trait mindfulness facet of describe and
positive dyadic coping produced the only partner effect observed in this study. Analysis
indicated that women who had higher levels of the mindfulness facet describe also had
partners who reported higher levels of positive dyadic coping styles. Theoretically, this
finding complements a similar gender-based partner effect reported by Barnes et al. (2007)
who found that if a female partner was higher in trait mindfulness, her male counterpart
perceived less anger and hostility in conflict discussions. It is reasonable to infer that a
woman who calmly and accurately describes her own emotions would improve her partner’s
understanding of a problem at hand and foster a positive dyadic coping response, such as
joint problem solving. This commentary is supported by the previous findings that effective
communication of emotions facilitates better dyadic coping styles (Leuchtmann et al., 2018;
Zeidner, et al., 13), and women communicate stress more regularly than men (Falconier &
Khun 2019).
Unexpectedly, there was a negative relationship between the trait mindfulness facet of
describe and positive dyadic coping for males. Interestingly there was no significant
relationship between describe and negative dyadic coping for males. Viewed together these
results may reflect that for males the mindfulness facet of describe may not be conducive to
positive dyadic coping styles, however it is also not conducive to negative dyadic coping
styles. Following the commentary on gender norms above, this result may reflect that
expressing emotions in words may not facilitate positive dyadic coping for men. Perhaps,
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 27
active problem solving as opposed to an emotion based verbal approach may be linked to the
use of positive dyadic coping styles for men. Regardless of the inferences that may be
deduced from this result, this finding does highlight that there are additional factors aside
from trait mindfulness which may be linked to dyadic coping, particularly for males.
While we did not anticipate any gender trends, when considered alongside the
research of Iida and Shapiro (2017) our results suggest that trait mindfulness may be linked to
different relationship processes for men and women. Furthermore, our results highlight that
dyadic coping may be influenced by both micro level concepts (i.e., approach to stress coping
individually) and macro level concepts (i.e., gender norms).
Trait mindfulness and negative dyadic coping.
Primary analysis did not find any significant relationships between total mindfulness
and negative dyadic coping. This non-significant result may be a product of the nature of the
negative dyadic coping data, or the power associated with the smaller sample size used for
this research. Alternatively, this result may be an accurate reflection of the relationship
between negative dyadic coping styles and mindfulness for couples facing everyday stress.
Given that the impact of trait mindfulness in relationships changes in the context of a
significant stressor (i.e., chronic illness; Pakenham & Samios, 2013), the role of mindfulness
in negative dyadic coping may differ depending on the nature of the stressor.
Notably, the small negative actor effect observed between the trait mindfulness facet
of non-react and negative dyadic coping for men and women does provide some support for
our secondary hypothesis. This result supports commentary on impulsive responding by
Pakenham and Samios (2013) and may reflect that a partner who does not express an
immediate emotional reaction to stressors may engage in less negative dyadic coping styles
within their relationship.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 28
Viewed together these results reflect that while overall trait mindfulness may not be
strongly related to negative dyadic coping, an individual’s ability not to immediately react to
stress may play a roll. Nevertheless, these results and interpretations should still be
considered with caution due to the low quality of the negative dyadic coping data.
Correlations between Key Variables
Trait mindfulness.
Our results did not reflect a relationship between the levels of trait mindfulness for
men and women in a romantic relationship. This result is consistent with previous studies
which also did not report significant correlations between levels of trait mindfulness within
romantic couples (Brown, Krusemark, Campbell & Rogge, 2007; Pakenham and Samios,
2013). This follows a broader trend in romantic relationship literature, where it is reported
that romantic couples do not share similarities in personality traits (Lou, 2017; Watson et al.,
2004). Watson et al. (2004) interprets this general trend as an indication that individuals
prioritise similarities in factors such as political or religious affiliations over similarities in
personality dispositions when searching for a romantic partner.
Dyadic coping.
Our results reflected strong positive correlations between the dyadic coping styles of
men and women in romantic relationships. This correlation is consistent with findings
reported within the couples dyadic coping literature (Papp & Witt 2010; Tuskeviciute,
Snyder, Stadler & Shrout, 2018). The size of our correlations was in some cases larger than
those reported in other studies (Holahan et al., 2007). This may provide support for Iafrate,
Bertoni, Donato and Finkenauer’s (2012) finding that couples aged in their 20s reported more
similarities in their dyadic coping styles than older cohorts of couples did.
More broadly, these correlations may indicate that one partner within a romantic
couple mirrors the coping style of the other partner (Tuskeviciute et al., 2018). For example,
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 29
if one partner responds to a stressor in a hostile or agitated way, their partner may be more
likely to also respond with hostility as opposed to a calm problem-solving approach. An
alternative explanation for these correlations is the suggestion that romantic partners have
pre-existing similarities in their individual coping styles, which then influences their dyadic
coping (Tuskeviciute, 2018; Watson et al., 2004).
Strengths and Limitations
To our knowledge this is the first study to explore a link between trait mindfulness
and dyadic coping amongst romantic couples. Our analysis did reveal some significant
effects, however the relatively small sample size used in this research may have limited the
power required to detect more significant results. Although while this sample may be
perceived as relatively small, it is still comparable to the sample sizes of other studies in the
field of dyadic coping research (Burke et al., 2012; Iida & Shapiro, 2017). In addition, due to
the nature of our cross-sectional nonexperimental research design, no causal inferences can
be made from the results. However, the finding of some albeit small effect sizes does indicate
a previously unreported gender related link between trait mindfulness and dyadic coping,
which future research could explore in more detail.
A notable limitation of not just the current study, but of the entire field of dyadic
coping is a lack of representation of same sex, gender diverse and non-binary couples. In the
case of the current research this was attributed to difficulties recruiting same sex, gender
diverse and non-binary couples. Future research could invest more resources into recruitment
avenues or establish a minimum quota for non-heterosexual or non-cisgender participants to
address this limitation.
Finally, this research was focussed on the experience of younger couples who did not
have children, it is possible that the demographic constraints of our sample may limit how our
results may be generalised to other populations. However, the demographic of our sample
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 30
also acts as a strength of this research as it provides data on the dyadic coping styles of young
adults in the context of everyday stressors, an under researched cohort within the dyadic
coping literature (Falconier & Kuhn 2019). Furthermore, the homogenous nature of our
sample adds an additional control against external variables such as the nature of stress, or
life stage which impacts dyadic coping styles (Falconier & Kuhn 2019; Sallay, Martos,
Chatfield & Dúll, 2019).
Research Applications and Areas for Future Research
Theoretical applications and future research.
Despite our results not providing comprehensive support for our hypothesis, the
results from this research still address a gap in the literature by providing insight into the
avenues through which mindfulness does (and does not) interact with dyadic coping styles. In
a comprehensive literature review of dyadic coping Falconier and Khun (2019) asserted that
more research is required in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of dyadic coping
processes. Our results suggest that for women, mindfulness may represent a small factor that
plays a role in dyadic coping. Our non-significant results, particularly for men further support
Falconier and Khun’s (2019) assertion and suggest that Karremans et al.’s (2017)
hypothesised link between mindfulness and coping for couples may be influenced by gender.
The theoretical considerations raised by our research creates avenues for future
studies in this field. Given that trait mindfulness did not appear to be strongly linked to
positive dyadic coping styles, future research may still work from Karremans et al.’s (2017)
hypothesis but explore other relationship processes in which trait mindfulness may play a
role. Future research in this field would ideally feature an experimental design to allow for
deductions on the causality or direction of the link between mindfulness and relationship
processes.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 31
Secondly, our results indicated a gender trend and revealed traits which may be linked
to positive dyadic coping for females, however our results did not provide insight into which
traits or factors may be linked to positive dyadic coping for males. This creates an avenue for
future research. For example, as males stereotypically rely on problem solving based
approaches to stress (Falconier et al., 2013; Ptacek et al., 1994), future studies may explore a
possible link between problem solving and positive dyadic coping. The gender trend also
raises interesting theoretical considerations for same sex couples. Future research featuring
same sex couples may provide additional insight into the interaction between gender,
mindfulness and coping styles in relationships, but also contribute to the understanding of
dyadic coping in same sex relationships, an underexplored area within the dyadic coping
literature (Falconier & Kuhn, 2019). Finally, the gender trend found in this research suggests
that men and women draw on their mindful traits differently. Given the current popularity of
mindfulness-based interventions in psychology, further research is warranted to explore these
differences and the different contexts in which they may occur.
Clinical applications.
Given the nature of this study, our results do not have the capacity to influence current
clinical treatment programs. However, future studies that build upon our findings may have
the capacity to inform therapeutic treatment for couples such as Couples Coping
Enhancement Training (CCET; Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004), Coping Oriented Couples
Therapy (COCT; Bodenmann et al., 2008) and Mindfulness-Based Relationship
Enhancement (MBRE; Carson et al., 2004).
For example, psychoeducational components of CCET and COCT aim to increase
mutual understanding and acceptance by demonstrating to clients that individual factors
impact how couples cope with stress (Bodeman & Randall, 2012). Our research in
conjunction with future experimental research, may provide additional examples of such
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 32
individual factors (i.e., trait mindfulness) which may be integrated into psychoeducational
material. Furthermore, CCET has a component focused on enhancing positive dyadic coping
skills (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004). If future experimental studies replicated our
findings, mindfulness-based strategies, which can enhance trait mindfulness (Shapiro, Brown,
Thoresen & Plante, 2011) may be integrated into this phase of therapy for female clients as a
means to further promote positive dyadic coping.
MBRE utilises concepts of mindfulness-based stress reduction to improve relationship
outcomes for romantic couples (Carson et al., 2004). Future research into the notion that
gender may impact the role that mindfulness plays within romantic relationships has the
capacity to improve MBRE interventions. Future research which builds on the findings of this
study in particular may have important implications for aspects MBRE which feature dyadic
communication exercises (Carson et al., 2004).
Conclusion
This research found a small gender-based link between trait mindfulness and positive
dyadic coping styles. This suggests that while there is a small relationship, dyadic coping is
likely not a key relationship process through which mindfulness influences romantic
relationships. Our research highlights that there are likely more factors which interact with
mindfulness, coping and relationship processes for romantic couples. This complements
previous commentary which asserts that the connection between mindfulness and romantic
relationships is an under explored issue, despite the popularity of mindfulness and coping
based clinical interventions for couples (Adair et al., 2018; Karremans et al., 2017; Lenger et
al., 2017). The current research was a novel exploration into trait mindfulness and dyadic
coping, which has raised theoretical considerations and established avenues for future
research in this field.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 33
References
Ackerman, R. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2016). APIMPowerR: An interactive tool for actor-
partner interdependence model power analysis [Computer software]. Retrieved from
https://robert-a-ackerman.shinyapps.io/APIMPowerRdis/
Adair, K. C., Boulton, A. J., & Algoe, S. B. (2018). The effect of mindfulness on relationship
satisfaction via perceived responsiveness: Findings from a dyadic study of
heterosexual romantic partners. Mindfulness, 9(2), 597-609. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-
0801-3
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45. doi:
10.1177/1073191105283504
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., . . . Williams, J.
M. G. (2008). Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in
Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329-342.
doi:10.1177/1073191107313003
Badr, H. (2004). Coping in marital dyads: A contextual perspective on the role of gender and
health. Personal Relationships, 11(2), 197-211. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2004.00078.x
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The role
of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship
stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 482-500. doi:10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2007.00033.x
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., . . . Devins,
G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed pperational definition. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 34
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In
Revenson, T. A., Kayser, K. E., & Bodenmann, G. E. (Eds.), Couples coping with
stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping. (pp. 33 – 49). Retrieved from:
http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/sp-3.31.1b/ovidweb.cgi
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches coping inventar: Testmanual [Dyadic coping inventory:
Test manual]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Bradbury, T. N., Gmelch, S., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Stress,
anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of
individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3),
408-424. doi:10.1177/0265407510361616
Bodenmann, G., Plancherel, B., Beach, S. R., Widmer, K., Gabriel, B., Meuwly, N., ... &
Schramm, E. (2008). Effects of coping-oriented couples therapy on depression: A
randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(6), 944-
954. doi: 10.1037/a0013467
Bodenmann, G., & Randall, A. K. (2012). Common factors in the enhancement of dyadic
coping. Behavior Therapy, 43(1), 88-98. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.04.003
Bodenmann, G., Randall, A., & Falconier, M. (2016). Coping in Couples: The Systemic
Transactional Model (STM). In Falconier, M. K., Randall, A. K. & Bodenmann, G.
(eds). Couples Coping with Stress: A cross-cultural perspective. (pp. 5-22). Retrieved
from:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guy_Bodenmann/publication/318169672_
SystemicTransactional_Model_of_Dyadic_Coping/links/59e1d20b0f7e9b97fbe72f6c/
Systemic-Transactional-Model-of-Dyadic-Coping.pdf
Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The couples coping enhancement training
(CCET): A new approach to prevention of marital distress based upon stress and
coping. Family Relations, 53(5), 477-484. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 35
Breitenstein, C. J., Milek, A., Nussbeck, F. W., Davila, J., & Bodenmann, G. (2018). Stress,
dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction in late adolescent couples. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 35(5), 770-790. doi:10.1177/0265407517698049
Burke, T. J., Randall, A. K., Corkery, S. A., Young, V. J., & Butler, E. A. (2012). “You’re
going to eat that?” Relationship processes and conflict among mixed-weight couples.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(8), 1109-1130
Burpee, L. C., & Langer, E. J. (2005). Mindfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Adult
Development, 12(1), 43-51. doi:10.1007/s10804-005-1281-6
Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Mindfulness-based
relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy, 35(3), 471-494. doi:10.1016/S0005-
7894(04)80028-5
Chaplin T. M. (2015). Gender and emotion expression: A developmental contextual
perspective. Emotion Review : Journal of the International Society for Research on
Emotion, 7(1), 14–21. doi: 10.1177/1754073914544408
Donato, S., Iafrate, R., Barni, D., & Bertoni, A. (2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The
factorial structure of Bodenmann’s “Dyadic Coping Questionnaire” in an Italian
sample. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16(1), 25-47.
Donato, S., Parise, M., Iafrate, R., Bertoni, A., Finkenauer, C., & Bodenmann, G. (2015).
Dyadic coping responses and partners' perceptions for couple satisfaction: An actor-
partner interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
32(5), 580-600. doi:10.1177/0265407514541071
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.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 36
Falconier, M. K., & Kuhn, R. (2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and
a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(571).
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571
Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Dyadic coping in Latino couples:
Validity of the Spanish version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Anxiety, Stress &
Coping, 26(4), 447-466. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2012.699045
Gabriel, B., Untas, A., Lavner, J. A., Koleck, M., & Luminet, O. (2016). Gender typical
patterns and the link between alexithymia, dyadic coping and psychological
symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 266-271. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.029
Gambrel, L. E., & Keeling, M. L. (2010). Relational aspects of mindfulness: Implications for
the practice of marriage and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 32(4),
412-426. doi:10.1007/s10591-010-9129-z
Garland, E. L. (2007). The meaning of mindfulness: A second-order cybernetics of stress,
metacognition, and coping. Complementary Health Practice Review, 12, 15–30. doi:
10.1177/1533210107301740
Gehart, D. R. (2012). Mindfulness and Acceptance in Couple and Family Therapy. Retrieved
from
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Sk3BdI0NHbIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR
5&dq=gehart+2012+mindfulness&ots=BSuHLgLDt7&sig=Ec-
g_q6La2Q9F3us3IStWqjt7GE#v=onepage&q=gehart%202012%20mindfulness&f=fa
lse
Gmelch, S., Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Ledermann, T., Steffen-Sozinova, O., & Striegl, K.
(2008). Dyadisches coping inventar (DCI): ein fragebogen zur erfassung des
partnerschaftlichen Umgangs mit Stress. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 20(2),
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 37
185-202. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42049591/Dyadisches_Coping_I
nventar_DCI_Ein_Fra20160204-30232-x62x1f.pdf?response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DDyadisches_Coping_Inventar_DCI_Ein_Fra
ge.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-
Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20191007%2Fus-east-
1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191007T041159Z&X-Amz-
Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Signature=9c2466710379170e83e581ef7576ca143a905596cfa3f0e1d42c40e499241d
0b
Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (mbsr) on
emotion regulation in social anxiety disorder. Emotion, 10(1), 83-91. doi:
10.1037/a0018441
Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic
coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An
International Journal, 26(2), 136-153. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2012.655726
Hicks, A., Siwik, C., Phillips, K., Zimmaro, L. A., Salmon, P., Burke, N., ... & Sephton, S. E.
(2019). Dispositional mindfulness is associated with lower basal sympathetic arousal
and less psychological stress. International Journal of Stress Management. Advance
online publication. doi: 0.1037/str0000124
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Moerkbak, M. L., Cronkite, R. C., Holahan, C. K., & Kenney,
B. A. (2007). Spousal similarity in coping and depressive symptoms over 10 years.
Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 551-559. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.551
Hou, J., Wong, S. Y.-S., Lo, H. H.-M., Mak, W. W.-S., & Ma, H. S.-W. (2014). Validation of
a Chinese version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Hong Kong and
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 38
development of a short form. Assessment, 21(3), 363-371. doi:
10.1177/1073191113485121
Iafrate, R., Bertoni, A., Donato, S., & Finkenauer, C. (2012). Perceived similarity and
understanding in dyadic coping among young and mature couples. Personal
Relationships, 19(3), 401-419. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01369.x
Iida, M., & Shapiro, A. F. (2017). The role of mindfulness in daily relationship process:
examining daily conflicts and relationship mood. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1559-1568. doi:
10.1007/s12671-017-0727-9
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144-156. doi:
10.1093/clipsy.bpg016
Kang H. (2013). The prevention and handling of the missing data. Korean Journal of
Anesthesiology, 64(5), 402–406. doi:10.4097/kjae.2013.64.5.402
Kappen, G., Karremans, J. C., Burk, W. J., & Buyukcan-Tetik, A. (2018). On the association
between mindfulness and romantic relationship satisfaction: the role of partner
acceptance. Mindfulness, 9(1), 1-14. doi:10.1007/s12671-018-0902-7
Karremans, J. C., Schellekens, M. P. J., & Kappen, G. (2017). Bridging the sciences of
mindfulness and romantic relationships:A theoretical model and research agenda.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(1), 29-49.
doi:10.1177/1088868315615450
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic analysis. New York: Guilford
Press.
Kozlowski, A. (2013). Mindful mating: exploring the connection between mindfulness and
relationship satisfaction. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 28(1-2), 92-104.
doi:10.1080/14681994.2012.748889
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 39
Lenger, K. A., Gordon, C. L., & Nguyen, S. P. (2017). Intra-individual and cross-partner
associations between the five facets of mindfulness and relationship satisfaction.
Mindfulness, 8(1), 171-180. doi:10.1007/s12671-016-0590-0
Leuchtmann, L., Zemp, M., Milek, A., Nussbeck, F. W., Brandstätter, V., & Bodenmann, G.
(2018). Role of clarity of other's feelings for dyadic coping. Personal Relationships,
25(1), 38-49. doi:10.1111/pere.12226
Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M.-F., Caron, A., Flesch, J. L., & Bjornson, S. (2014). Dyadic
empathy, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A dyadic model. Europe’s
Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 118–134. doi:10.5964/ejop.v10i1.697
Luo, S. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and
consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8), 1- 14. dio:
10.1111/spc3.12337
Lungu, O., Potvin, S., Tikàsz, A., & Mendrek, A. (2015). Sex differences in effective fronto-
limbic connectivity during negative emotion processing. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
62(1), 180-188. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.08.012
Martos, T., Szabó, E., Koren, R., & Sallay, V. (2019). Dyadic coping in personal projects of
romantic partners: assessment and associations with relationship satisfaction. Current
Psychology, 38(1), 1- 14. doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00222-z
McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., Mauss, I. B., Gabrieli, J. J. D., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Gender
differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations,11(2), 143-162. doi:10.1177/1368430207088035
Medvedev, O. N., Titkova, E. A., Siegert, R. J., Hwang, Y.-S., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2018).
Evaluating short versions of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire using rasch
analysis. Mindfulness, 9(5), 1411-1422. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0881-0
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 40
Miller, B. C., & Sollie, D. L. (1986). Normal stresses during the transition to parenthood. In
R. H. Moos (Ed.), Coping with Life Crises: An Integrated Approach (pp. 129-138).
Boston, MA: Springer US
Pakenham, K. I., & Samios, C. (2013). Couples coping with multiple sclerosis: a dyadic
perspective on the roles of mindfulness and acceptance. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 36(4), 389-400. doi:10.1007/s10865-012-9434-0
Palmer, A., & Rodger, S. (2009). Mindfulness, stress, and coping among university students.
Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy/ Revue canadienne de
counseling et de psychothérapie, 43(3), 198–212. doi:
10.1080/02673843.2016.1175361
Pankrath, A., Weisflog, G., Mehnert, A., Niederwieser, D., Dohner, H., Honig, K., . . . Ernst,
J. (2018). The relation between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction in couples
dealing with haematological cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care, 27(1), 1-11.
doi: 10.1111/ecc.12595
Parkins R (2012) Gender and emotional expressiveness: An analysis of prosodic features in
emotional expression. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural
Communication 5(1): 46–54. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/64d7/b995dac7ac1cc27e54d93cb1fa4f3f339450.pdf
Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners' individual coping strategies and dyadic
coping: implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology,
24(5), 551-559. doi:10.1037/a0020836
Park, T., Reilly-Spong, M., & Gross, C. R. (2013). Mindfulness: a systematic review of
instruments to measure an emergent patient-reported outcome (PRO). Quality of Life
Research, 22(10), 2639-2659. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0395-8
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 41
Pratscher, S. D., Rose, A. J., Markovitz, L., & Bettencourt, A. (2018). Interpersonal
mindfulness: Investigating mindfulness in interpersonal interactions, co-rumination,
and friendship quality. Mindfulness, 9(4), 1206-1215. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0859-
y
Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., & Dodge, K. L. (1994). Gender differences in coping with stress:
When stressor and appraisals do not differ. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20(4), 421-430. doi: 10.1177/0146167294204009
Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Walsh, K. J., & Bodenmann, G. (2016).
Dyadic coping in the U.S.: Psychometric properties and validity for use of the English
version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Current Psychology, 35(4), 570-582.
doi:10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0
Randall, A. K., Totenhagen, C. J., Walsh, K. J., Adams, C., & Tao, C. (2017). Coping with
workplace minority stress: Associations between dyadic coping and anxiety among
women in same-sex relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 21(1), 70-87.
doi:10.1080/10894160.2016.1142353
Regan, T. W., Lambert, S. D., Kelly, B., McElduff, P., Girgis, A., Kayser, K., & Turner, J.
(2014). Cross-sectional relationships between dyadic coping and anxiety, depression,
and relationship satisfaction for patients with prostate cancer and their spouses.
Patient Education and Counseling, 96(1), 120-127. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.04.010
Rusu, P. P., Bodenmann, G., & Kayser, K. (2019). Cognitive emotion regulation and positive
dyadic outcomes in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
36(1), 359-376. doi:10.1177/0265407517751664
Sallay, V., Martos, T., Chatfield, S. L., & Dúll, A. (2019). Strategies of dyadic coping and
self–regulation in the family homes of chronically ill persons: A qualitative research
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 42
study using the emotional map of the home interview method. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 1-14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00403
Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K. W., Thoresen, C., & Plante, T. G. (2011). The moderation of
mindfulness‐based stress reduction effects by trait mindfulness: results from a
randomized controlled trial. Journal of clinical psychology, 67(3), 267-277. doi:
10.1002/jclp.20761
Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of
mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373-386. doi:10.1002/jclp.20237
Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A., & Loeys, T. (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A
user‐friendly app for actor–partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships,
25(1), 103-119. doi: 10.1111/pere.12230
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston,
Massachusetts: Pearson.
Tran, U. S., Glück, T. M., & Nader, I. W. (2013). Investigating the Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire (FFMQ): Construction of a short form and evidence of a two-factor
higher order ttructure of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(9), 951-965.
doi:10.1002/jclp.21996
Tuskeviciute, R., Snyder, K. A., Stadler, G., & Shrout, P. E. (2018). Coping concordance in
couples. Personal Relationships, 25(3), 351-373. doi:10.1111/pere.12248
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness and emotion
repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4),
464-481. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x
Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004).
Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 43
couples. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 1029–1068. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-
3506.2004.00289.x
Weigel, D. J., Bennett, K. K., & Ballard–Reisch, D. S. (2003). Family influences on
commitment: Examining the family of origin correlates of relationship commitment
attitudes. Personal Relationships, 10(4), 453-474. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-
6811.2003.00060.x
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method examination of the
effects of mindfulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-being. Journal
of Research in Personality, 43, 374–385. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.008
Williams, M. J., Dalgleish, T., Karl, A., & Kuyken, W. (2014). Examining the factor
structures of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire and the self-compassion scale.
Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 407- 418. doi:10.1037/a0035566
Xu, F., Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Li, Q., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Validation of the Dyadic
Coping Inventory with Chinese couples: Factorial structure, measurement invariance,
and construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 28(8), 127-140.
doi:10.1037/pas0000329
Zeidner, M., Kloda, I., & Matthews, G. (2013). Does dyadic coping mediate the relationship
between emotional intelligence (EI) and marital quality? Journal of Family
Psychology, 27(5), 795-805. doi: 10.1037/a0034009
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 44
Table 1
Means, standard deviations and Chronbach Alphas for key variables.
Females Males
Variable scores M SD α M SD α
Total Mindfulness 3.00 .57 .87 3.15 .53 .77
Total Dyadic Coping 145.57 18.38 .92 143.64 18.51 .93
Positive Dyadic Coping 17.74 2.87 .79 17.61 2.34 .80
Negative Dyadic Coping 7.05 2.52 .71 7.62 2.31 .70
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 45
Table 2
Zero Order Correlations between key variables according to gender
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
1. Total Trait Mindfulness score (M) -
2. Total Trait Mindfulness score (W) .10 -
3. Positive Dyadic Coping Styles (M) -.10 .17 -
4. Positive Dyadic Coping Styles (W) .09 .29* .40** -
5. Negative Dyadic Coping Styles (M) -.16 .06 -.54** -.43** -
6. Negative Dyadic Coping Styles (W) -.14 -.20 -.28* -.65** .51**
Note. M = Males; F = Females
* p < .05, ** p < .001
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 46
Figure 1. A visual representation of the APIM. In this figure the total mindfulness score is the
independent variable and the positive dyadic coping score is the dependent variable.
Horizontal arrows represent an actor effect, while diagonal arrows represent a partner effect.
The vertical line represents the correlation between the independent variables, while the
curved line represents the correlations between residuals.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 47
Figure 2. APIM diagram for total mindfulness and positive dyadic coping. Beta coefficients
are presented for the actor effects on the horizontal arrows, and for the partner effects on the
diagonal arrows. The correlation between the mindfulness scores of men and women is
presented on the vertical arrow, while the correlation between residuals is presented on the
curved arrow.
* p < .05, ** p <.01
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 48
Figure 3. APIM diagram for total mindfulness and negative dyadic coping. Beta coefficients
are presented for the actor effects on the horizontal arrows, and for the partner effects on the
diagonal arrows. The correlation between the mindfulness scores of men and women is
presented on the vertical arrow, while the correlation between residuals is presented on the
curved arrow.
* p < .05. ** p <.01
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 49
Appendix A: Journal of Personal Relationships – Submission Guidelines
Author Guidelines
Instructions for Contributors
Effective with 2016 volume, this journal will be published in an online-only format. Print
subscription and single issue sales are available from Wiley's Print-on-Demand Partner. To
order online, click through to the ordering portal from the journal's subscribe and renew page
on WOL.
Scope and Mission:
Personal Relationships, an official journal of the International Association for Relationship
Research (IARR), was first published in 1994 and is an international, interdisciplinary journal
that promotes scholarship in the field of personal relationships using a wide variety of
methodologies and throughout a broad range of disciplines, including psychology, sociology,
communication studies, anthropology, family studies, child development, social work, and
gerontology. The subject matter and approach of Personal Relationships will be of interest to
researchers, teachers, and practitioners. Manuscripts examining a wide range of personal
relationships, including those between romantic or intimate partners, spouses, parents and
children, siblings, classmates, coworkers, neighbors, and friends are welcome. Typically
published work focuses on attributes of individual partners in personal relationships (e.g.,
personality factors or social positions as influences on relationship outcomes) at all stages of
the life course, interactive relationship processes (i.e., behavioral, affective, or cognitive), the
internal structure of dyads and networks (e.g., size, density, hierarchy, solidarity,
homogeneity), personal relationships in social contexts (e.g., families, work-places, historical
periods, cultures), and the consequences of personal relationships. In addition to original
quantitative research, qualitative research, theoretical or methodological contributions,
integrative reviews, meta-analyses, comparative or historical studies, and critical assessments
of the status of the field are welcome as submissions.
Manuscript Submission and Review:
Manuscripts must be submitted via a web-based system called ScholarOne Manuscripts
operated by ScholarOne. Authors should enter the site at
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pere and register with the system, at which point a login ID
and password will be emailed to authors to access the system (including future manuscript
submissions and revised manuscripts). Manuscripts can then be uploaded through an easy,
step-by-step process (full instructions for uploading files are provided on the website). The
ScholarOne Manuscripts system also serves as the center for editorial staff to communicate
with authors, editors, and reviewers electronically throughout the review process.
After receiving a submission, the manuscript will be assigned to one of the Associate Editors,
or the Editor, to serve as the action editor. Manuscripts will be reviewed by at least two
scholars, at least one of whom is a member of the editorial board. Because the International
Association for Relationship Research is committed to the mentoring and education of new
scholars who are choosing to study relationship issues, a graduate student, postdoctoral
fellow, or non-tenure track faculty member may, at the discretion of the action editor, be
included as an additional reviewer. If you would like to discuss your paper prior to
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 50
submission or seek advice on the submission process, please contact the Editor, Professor
Deborah A. Kashy, at the following email address: [email protected]. Initial editorial
decisions will generally be made within three months of receiving the manuscript. Authors of
manuscripts that have been accepted for publication may be asked by the editorial staff to
make additional minor edits to their manuscript prior to entering the copy editing process to
ensure that the manuscript complies with APA format.
Manuscript Preparation and Style:
Submissions should be written in English and follow APA style guidelines (see Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition, or
http://www.apastyle.org). The entire manuscript should be double-spaced and typed in a 12-
point font with 1 inch (2.54 cm) margins all around. Pages should be numbered consecutively
starting with the title page and include a page header, and paragraphs should be indented 5-
characters. Words should not be hyphenated at the ends of lines, text should be left justified,
and endnotes should be numbered consecutively and used sparingly. Paragraphs should be
longer than a single sentence, levels of headings appropriate and consistent, abbreviations
explained the first time they are used, Greek symbols identified, and non-Greek symbols
displayed in italics. Authors should take care to use unbiased language.
When initially submitted, the title page should include a title (no longer than 12 words), a
running head, and the authors' names and institutional affiliations. The abstract, which should
start on a separate page, should be no longer than 120 words. Also on a separate page, the
authors' note should include all authors' complete departmental affiliations, changes of
affiliation since manuscript was written (if any), any other information (e.g.,
acknowledgements, credits, grant support), and contact information for all of the authors. The
text of the manuscript should be followed by the references (starting on a separate page),
appendices (if any), footnotes (listed together on a separate page), tables (each on a separate
page), figure captions (all on one page), and figures (each on a separate page), respectively.
Bibliographic citations in the text should include the names of authors and year of
publication. Where authors' names are included in parentheses, they should be joined by an
ampersand (e.g., Branje, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2005; Cate, Levin, & Richmond, 2002;
Frijns, Finke-nauer, Vermulst, & Engels, 2005; Solomon, Knobloch, & Fitzpatrick, 2004).
After the first citation of works with more than two authors, only the name of the first author
should be included (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2005).
Where actual quotations are used, page references must be included in the citation (e.g., Boon
& McLeod, 2001, p. 464). Where more than one citation is used, citations must be in
alphabetical order by first author (see earlier example). Every reference cited in the text must
be included in the reference list; every reference in the reference list must also be cited in the
text.
Examples of reference style:
Journal
Blieszner, R. (2006). A lifetime of caring: Close relationships in old age. Personal
Relationships, 13, 1–18.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 51
Book
Bedford, V. H., & Turner, B. F. (Eds.). (2006). Men in relationships: A new look from a life
course perspective. New York: Springer.
Chapter in an Edited Book
Ueno, K., & Adams, R. G. (2006). Adult friendship: A decade review. In P. Noller & J.
Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms, and processes (pp. 151–169). Hove,
England: Psychology Press.
Tables must appear as a set, each double-spaced on a separate sheet, numbered consecutively
with an Arabic numeral and given an italicized short title (e.g., Table 3. Marital outcomes for
premarital cohabitors and noncohabitors). Every column must have a heading and all
vertical rules should be omitted where possible. All tables must be cited in the text.
Each figure must be numbered consecutively with an Arabic numeral and must include a
brief title (e.g., Figure 1. Knowledge Structures and the Development of Relationships).
Titles must be doublespaced and included together on a separate sheet preceding the figures
themselves. All tables and details must be clearly printed and large enough to remain legible
at a 50% reduction. All figures must be cited in the text. Please submit digital artwork for all
figures saved as Portable Document Format (PDF) or Tagged Image Format (TIFF) files.
Line art should be saved as PDF files at 600 dots per inch (dpi) or better at final size. Tone
art, or photographic images, should be saved as TIFF files with a resolution of 300 dpi at
final size. For combination figures, or artwork that contains both photographs and labeling,
we recommend saving figures as PDF files with a resolution of 600 dpi or better at final size.
More detailed information on the submission of electronic artwork can be found at
http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/illustration.asp.
In addition to following APA style guidelines, authors should prepare their manuscript in
keeping with Personal Relationships editorial philosophy. They should explain discipline-
specific concepts and theories adequately enough for scholars from other disciplines to
understand them, avoid idioms not universally understood, mention the country where the
study was conducted, describe the context in which the study was conducted or the
characteristics of the population from which the sample was drawn, justify the use of a
convenience sample, and properly limit generalization. In addition to a discussion of the
implications of their findings for theory and future research, authors should comment on any
practical implications of the reported findings. In their discussion of the limitations of their
study design, authors should take care to speculate about how the context in which the study
was conducted or the population studied might have affected results.
Copyright and Originality:
It is a condition of publication that all manuscripts submitted to Personal Relationships have
not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere either in
English or in any other language. Government authors whose articles were created in the
course of their employment must certify to that fact in lieu of copyright transfer. Authors are
responsible for obtaining written permission from the copyright owners to reprint any
previously published material included in their articles.
If your paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author for the
paper will receive an email prompting them to log in to Wiley Author Services, where via the
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 52
Wiley Author Licensing Service (WALS) they will be able to complete the license agreement
on behalf of all authors of the paper.
For authors signing the copyright transfer agreement:
If the OnlineOpen option is not selected, the corresponding author will be presented with the
copyright transfer agreement (CTA) to sign. The terms and conditions of the CTA can be
previewed in the samples associated with the Copyright FAQs: CTA Terms and Conditions
http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp.
For authors choosing OnlineOpen:
If the OnlineOpen option is selected, the corresponding author will have a choice of the
following Creative Commons License Open Access Agreements (OAA):
• Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License OAA
• Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs License OAA
To preview the terms and conditions of these open access agreements please visit the
Copyright FAQs hosted on Wiley Author Services
http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp and
visit
http://www.wileyopenaccess.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/details/content/12f25db4c87/Co
pyright--License.html.
If you select the OnlineOpen option and your research is funded by The Wellcome Trust or
members of the Research Councils UK (RCUK), you will be given the opportunity to publish
your article under a CC-BY license supporting you in complying with Wellcome Trust and
Research Councils UK requirements. For more information on this policy and the journal's
compliant self-archiving policy, please visit
http://www.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/go/funderstatement.
For RCUK and Wellcome Trust authors, click on the link below to preview the terms and
conditions of this license: Creative Commons Attribution License OAA.
Copyediting and Page Proofs:
The publisher reserves the right to copyedit manuscripts to conform to journal style.
Authors will receive an e-mail notification with a link and instructions for accessing HTML
page proofs online. Page proofs should be carefully proofread for any copyediting or
typesetting errors. Online guidelines are provided within the system. No special software is
required, all common browsers are supported. Authors should also make sure that any
renumbered tables, figures, or references match text citations and that figure legends
correspond with text citations and actual figures. Proofs must be returned within 48 hours of
receipt of the email. Return of proofs via e-mail is possible in the event that the online system
cannot be used or accessed.
NEW: Online production tracking is now available for your article through Wiley's
Author Services.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 53
Author Services enables authors to track their article - once it has been accepted - through the
production process to publication online and in print. Authors can check the status of their
articles online and choose to receive automated e-mails at key stages of production. The
author will receive an e-mail with a unique link that enables them to register and have their
article automatically added to the system. Please ensure that a complete e-mail address is
provided when submitting the manuscript. Visit
http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/ for more details on online
production tracking and for a wealth of resources including FAQs and tips on article
preparation, submission and more.
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 54
Appendix B: University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee Approval
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 55
Appendix C: Information Flyer
Associate Professor Ross Wilkinson School of Psychology University of Newcastle [email protected] Phone 02 49216947
How do relationships help young couples cope with stress?
We are conducting an online survey looking at how relationships help young couples cope with stress in their lives. If you are between 18 and 30 years of age and have been in a relationship with your current partner for more than 6 months and would both be willing to participate then check out our survey. It takes about 30 minutes to complete and you could win a $200 gift card! Got to https://is.gd/c7InKS to find out more.
Complaints about this research
This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval No. H-2016-0136. Should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research, or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted, it may be given to the researcher, or, if an independent person is preferred, to the Human Research Ethics Officer, Research Office, The Chancellery, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia, telephone (02) 49216333, email [email protected].
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 56
Appendix D: Dyadic Coping Inventory
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 57
MINDFULNESS AND DYADIC COPING IN RELATIONSHIPS 58
Appendix E: Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire – Newcastle Short Form
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire - Newcastle Short Form (FFMQ-NSF)
Item Scale Orig. Item no.
1. When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted.* A 5
2. I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into words. D 7
3. I watch my feelings without getting lost in them. NR 9
4. It’s hard for me to find the words to describe what I’m thinking.* D 12
5. I am easily distracted.* A 13
6. I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face.
O 15.
7. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.*
A 18.
8. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I “step back” and am aware of the thought or image without getting taken over by it.
NR 19.
9. I have trouble thinking of the right words to express how I feel about things*
D 16.
10. I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars passing.
O 20.
11. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I feel calm soon after.
NR 24.
12. I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m thinking.* NJ 25.
13. I notice the smells and aromas of things. O 26.
14. I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them.*
NJ 30.
15. I notice visual elements in art or nature, such as colors, shapes, textures, or patterns of light and shadow.
O 31.
16. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I just notice them and let them go.
NR 33.
17. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I judge myself as good or bad, depending what the thought/image is about.*
NJ 35.
18. I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail.
D 37.
19. I find myself doing things without paying attention.* A 38.
20. I disapprove of myself when I have irrational ideas.* NJ 39.
* = reversed coded