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

Following 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

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

Mete: il sistema di codifica delle tecniche del mediatore

Il sistema di codifica MEdiator’s TEchniques (METE) ha lo scopo di analizzare le tecniche di conduzione degli incontri dei mediatori familiari, al fine di facilitare la comunicazione tra i genitori e rendere gli accordi praticabili. Attraverso il sistema di codifica METE è possibile codificare i vari interventi del mediatore così da avere un’idea più chiara delle tecniche utilizzate durante gli incontri. Sono stati presi in esame 4 primi incontri (o colloqui informativi) e 6 secondi incontri, che rientrano in quella che viene definita la fase della valutazione alla mediabilità, ovvero se presentano i criteri necessari per intraprendere il percorso di mediazione. Gli incontri sono stati trascritti e sono stati codificati i soli interventi del mediatore e, eventualmente, del co-mediatore. L’obiettivo è stato quello di verificare se questo sistema di codifica elaborato nel nostro studio presenti categorie abbastanza chiare e non interpretabili, da poter essere compreso da tutti, e valutare se effettivamente ci fosse accordo tra i due valutatori, ai fini dell’analisi dei dati. Per valutare l’accordo tra le codifiche espresse da più valutatori si è utilizzato il coefficiente statistico K di Cohen. Il confronto tra le codifiche effettuate da due valutatori si è reso necessario per valutare la concordanza, e quindi il grado di accordo che si osserva fra due codifiche e tra due valutatori che codificano gli interventi del mediatore. Dall’analisi del K di Cohen i risultati ha evidenziato una coerenza tra i codificatori pari a .63, è emerso, dunque, che essa è associata ad una fascia intermedia secondo cui ci sarebbe una buona concordanza. Quindi, possiamo affermare che i risultati confermano che il modello di codifica presentato sia riproducibile e che le tecniche utilizzate siano affidabili. Il sistema METE, dunque, ci permette di tracciare delle linee guida sulle funzioni del mediatore all’interno degli incontri di mediazione, e ci permette di definire l’efficacia dell’intervento

German and Italian validation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory–Sexual Minority Stress (DCI-SMS) scale

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (hereafter people with minoritized sexual orientation and/or gender identities) have limited legal rights and access to resources because of their marginalized status in society. These limitations are associated with notable health disparities and increase experiences of minority stress. For those in a romantic relationship, being able to communicate and cope with one’s partner—dyadic coping—can help buffer stress’ deleterious effects on well-being. Given the promise of understanding how dyadic coping can mitigate experiences of sexual minority stress, the Dyadic Coping Inventory—Sexual Minority Stress (DCI-SMS) was recently created and validated with those living in the United States to assess how partners cope with sexual minority stress. Answering a global call to expand psychological science beyond a U.S. centric perspective, the purpose of this study was to validate the DCI-SMS in German and Italian using samples from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis results, along with tests of convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance, suggest that the DCI-SMS is a valid measure of stress communication and dyadic coping behaviors for those in a same-gender relationship in the countries sampled. Important future directions include examining its efficacy in other countries, such as those with more adverse sociopolitical climates for people with minoritized sexual orientation and/or gender identities in a same-gender relationship. Limitations and future directions for research and clinical practice are presented

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