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


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.


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


Correlations between Key Variables……………………………………………… 28

Strengths and Limitations…………………………………………………………. 29

Research Applications and Areas for Future Research…………………………… 30

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………… 32

References…………………………………………………………………………………. 33


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


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.


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


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.


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,


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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.


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,


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


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


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


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,


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.


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002


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),


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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.655726


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pere


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.

https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/page/journal/14756811/homepage/mail%20to:[email protected]

http://www.apastyle.org/


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

http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/illustration.asp


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.

http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp

http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp

http://www.wileyopenaccess.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/details/content/12f25db4c87/Copyright--License.html

http://www.wileyopenaccess.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/details/content/12f25db4c87/Copyright--License.html

http://www.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/go/funderstatement

http://olabout.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/WileyCDA/Section/id-815641.html


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.

http://authorservices.wiley.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/bauthor/


Appendix B: University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee Approval


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].


Appendix D: Dyadic Coping Inventory


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

the relationship between trait mindfulness and dyadic

Documents