Reasons for facebook usage: Data from 46 countries

Seventy-nine percent of internet users use Facebook, and on average they access Facebook eight times a day (Greenwood et al., 2016). To put these numbers into perspective, according to Clement (2019), around 30% of the world\u2019s population uses this Online Social Network (OSN) site. Despite the constantly growing body of academic research on Facebook (Chou et al., 2009; Back et al., 2010; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; McAndrew and Jeong, 2012; Wilson et al., 2012; Krasnova et al., 2017), there remains limited research regarding the motivation behind Facebook use across different cultures. Our main goal was to collect data from a large cross-cultural sample of Facebook users to examine the roles of sex, age, and, most importantly, cultural differences underlying Facebook use

Couples’ Functioning during Weekdays and Weekends at the Time of COVID-19

The present study was aimed at analyzing differences between weekdays and weekends in psychological well-being, relationship satisfaction, and dyadic coping, as well as their associations, before and during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. Individuals in a couple's relationship completed an online questionnaire before (N = 76) and during (N = 50) the COVID-19 lockdown. With regard to the first aim, participants in the COVID condition reported greater psychological well-being during weekends than during weekdays. In addition, participants showed greater relationship satisfaction during weekdays than during weekends, independently of the COVID-19 condition. As for the dyadic coping process, only in the Pre-COVID group, individuals communicated their stress more frequently during weekdays than during weekends. Finally, regardless of the COVID condition, they reported higher positive and common dyadic coping responses during weekends than during weekdays. As for the second aim, a positive effect of common dyadic coping responses on both psychological well-being and relationship satisfaction emerged during weekdays and weekends. Positive dyadic coping positively predicted relationship satisfaction during weekdays and weekends. Higher negative dyadic coping was associated with lower psychological well-being (in the Pre-COVID group only) and lower relationship satisfaction during weekends

The Paradoxical Influence of Stress on the Intensity of Romantic Feelings Towards the Partner

According to Brehm’s emotional intensity theory (EIT), the strength of feelings of romantic affect towards a romantic partner should vary as a cubic function of increasing levels of relationship stress (i.e., deterrence to feelings of romantic affect). The study tested this hypothesis in a true experiment with 80 young adults actually engaged in a romantic relationship, by systematically manipulating stress, through a recall procedure, across four distinct levels of intensity (control vs. low vs. moderate vs. high levels of manipulated stress). As predicted by emotional intensity theory, feelings of romantic affect were strong in the control condition, reduced in the low stress condition (low deterrence), maintained intense in the moderate stress condition (moderate deterrence), and reduced, again, in the high stress condition (high deterrence). Findings and both theoretical and practical implications for professionals and future research are discussed, with special emphasis on how to promote partners’ everyday adjustments to stress and emotional intensity regulation

Yes, I can (with you)! Dyadic coping and self-management outcomes in cardiovascular disease: The mediating role of health self-efficacy

Cardiac patients show alarming levels of nonadherence to medications. It is important to consider also patient activation levels. Furthermore, the partner could have a supporting role in these processes. The aim of this study was to investigate the mediating role of patient health self-efficacy (HSE) in the link between dyadic coping (DC) and two self-management outcomes (i.e. medication adherence and patient activation) across the first 6 months of cardiac disease. One hundred couples completed two self-report questionnaires during the hospitalisation for cardiac disease and 6 months after discharge. A longitudinal and dyadic research design was adopted. Cross-sectional analyses at T0 revealed that patient-provided and perceived positive DC and common DC are positively associated with HSE, which in turn is positively associated with medication adherence. HSE mediated the association between patient positive and common DC styles, with the only exception of Patient-provided positive DC, and patient activation. Conversely, patient-provided and perceived negative DC are negatively associated with HSE, which in turns is positively associated with medication adherence and patient activation. Prospective analyses showed that only patient-perceived negative DC at discharge is negatively associated with HSE at T1, which in turns is positively associated with patient activation over time. These results suggest to consider patient perceived and provided DC as antecedents of self-management outcomes via patient HSE. Furthermore, our results recommend to pay particular attention to negative DC, whose negative consequences are manifested also over time, planning interventions targeting partners' awareness of their own DC style

Partners' internal stress and well‐being : The role of dyadic coping and problem resolution

Couples' experiences of daily stress can be detrimental for partners' individual and relational well-being, specifically their identity as a couple, their relational satisfaction, and their life satisfaction. Grounded in the Systemic Transactional Model, this study aimed at analyzing factors that may safeguard partners and their relationship from detrimental effects of internal stress (i.e., stress that originates inside the relationship). We examined the buffering effect of partners' positive dyadic coping and internal problem resolution. Daily diary data were collected across 7 days from 82 heterosexual couples. Multilevel dyadic analyses showed that internal stress was negatively associated with partners' individual and relational well-being. Positive dyadic coping moderated the association between partners' internal stress and couple satisfaction for both partners, but not life satisfaction and couple identity. Moreover, for partners who reported a resolution to the internal problem, the negative associations of internal stress with life satisfaction, couple satisfaction, and couple identity were significantly lower than for those who did not resolve the internal problem. This study confirms the negative role of internal stress on well-being, shows the associations between internal stress and couple identity, and highlights the protective role of dyadic coping and internal problem resolution in couples' daily lives

Partners' internal stress and well‐being: The role of dyadic coping and problem resolution

Couples’ experiences of daily stress can be detrimental for partners’ individual and relational well-being, specifically their identity as a couple, their relational satisfaction, and their life satisfaction. Grounded in the Systemic Transactional Model, the present study aimed at analyzing factors that may safeguard partners and their relationship from detrimental effects of internal stress (i.e., stress that originates inside the relationship). We examined the buffering effect of partners’ positive dyadic coping and internal problem resolution. Daily diary data were collected across seven days from 82 heterosexual couples. Multilevel dyadic analyses showed that internal stress was negatively associated with partners’ individual and relational well-being. Positive dyadic coping moderated the association between partners’ internal stress and couple satisfaction for both partners, but not life satisfaction and couple identity. Moreover, for partners who reported a resolution to the internal problem the negative associations of internal stress with life satisfaction, couple satisfaction, and couple identity were significantly lower than for those who did not resolve the internal problem. The present study confirms the negative role of internal stress on well-being, shows the associations between internal stress and couple identity, and highlights the protective role of dyadic coping and internal problem resolution in couples’ daily lives

“Cardiotoxic” and “cardioprotective” partner support for patient activation and distress: Are two better than one?

Objective: The study aimed to test whether the presence of a partner was always beneficial to people with cardiac disease and how different types of partner behaviors promoted or hindered their activation and distress.Background: Cardiac disease challenges not only patients but also their partners, whose support is not always effective. Method: A cross-sectional dyadic research design, in which both partners completed a self-report questionnaire during hospitalization, was adopted. The associations between partner support and patient outcomes were tested using stepwise regression analysis. Results: The mere presence of a partner was not associated with distress or activation of a person with cardiac illness. On the contrary, the quality of partner support is differently linked with outcomes of person with cardiac illness; in particular, partner support for activation is significantly associated with lower levels of depression, anxiety, and somatization of person with cardiac disease, whereas overprotection is significantly associated with lower levels of activation. Conclusion: Partner support may be a double-edged sword:Partners may be a powerful ally in illness management but also a barrier to it when partner support is ineffective. Implications: This study highlights the importance of integrating partners in cardiac recovery programs and provides suggestions for the design of couple-based interventions

COVID-19 and Social Distancing: A Cross-Cultural Study of Interpersonal Distance Preferences and Touch Behaviors Before and During the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the introduction of unprecedented safety measures, one of them being physical distancing recommendations. Here, we assessed whether the pandemic has led to long-term effects on two important physical distancing aspects, namely interpersonal distance preferences and interpersonal touch behaviors. We analyzed nearly 14,000 individual cases from two large, cross-cultural surveys – the first conducted 2 years prior to the pandemic and the second during a relatively stable period of a decreased infection rate in May-June 2021. Preferred interpersonal distances increased by 54% globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. This increase was observable across all types of relationships, all countries, and was more pronounced in individuals with higher self-reported vulnerability to diseases. Unexpectedly, participants reported a higher incidence of interpersonal touch behaviors during than before the pandemic. We discuss our results in the context of prosocial and self-protection motivations that potentially promote different social behaviors

Coping with global uncertainty: Perceptions of COVID-19 psychological distress, relationship quality, and dyadic coping for romantic partners across 27 countries

Article first published online: August 26, 2021Following the global outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020, individuals report psychological distress associated with the “new normal”—social distancing, financial hardships, and increased responsibilities while working from home. Given the interpersonal nature of stress and coping responses between romantic partners, based on the systemic transactional model this study posits that perceived partner dyadic coping may be an important moderator between experiences of COVID-19 psychological distress and relationship quality. To examine these associations, self-report data from 14,020 people across 27 countries were collected during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–July, 2020). It was hypothesized that higher symptoms of psychological distress would be reported post-COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 restrictions (Hypothesis 1), reports of post-COVID-19 psychological distress would be negatively associated with relationship quality (Hypothesis 2), and perceived partner DC would moderate these associations (Hypothesis 3). While hypotheses were generally supported, results also showed interesting between-country variability. Limitations and future directions are presented