Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of WashingtonSeattle, DC, USA; Department of Psychology, University of ZurichZurich, Switzerland
  • 2 Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA
  • 3 Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw Wroclaw, Poland
  • 4 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington Seattle, DC, USA
  • 5 Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran
  • 6 Department of Psychology, College of Education, King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • 7 School of Public Health, University of Ghana Legon, Ghana
  • 8 Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan Milan, Italy
  • 9 Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China
  • 10 Department of Psychology, University of Zurich Zurich, Switzerland
  • 11 Graduate Program in Morphological Sciences, Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de Janeiro, Brazil; Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience Unit, D'Or Institute for Research and EducationRio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • 12 Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia
  • 13 Laboratory of Evolution of Human Behavior, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte Natal, Brazil
  • 14 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Languages History and Geography, Ankara University Ankara, Turkey
  • 15 Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra Coimbra, Portugal
  • 16 Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • 17 Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • 18 Department of Psychology, King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • 19 Department of Psychology, Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico
  • 20 Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Izmir University of Economics Izmir, Turkey
  • 21 Department of Psychology, Saint Mary's University Halifax, NS, Canada
  • 22 Department of Psychology, Akdeniz University Antalya, Turkey
  • 23 Department of Anthropology, Cumhuriyet University Sivas, Turkey
  • 24 Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw Warsaw, Poland
  • 25 Department of Public Health, Medical School, Federal University of Uberlândia Uberlândia, Brazil
  • 26 Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia
  • 27 Department of Clinical Services, Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital Benin-City, Nigeria
  • 28 Department of Organization and Human Resources Management, Central University of Finance and Economics Beijing, China
  • 29 Department of Psychology, University of Nairobi Nairobi, Kenya
  • 30 Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada
  • 31 Department of Anatomy, Baskent University Ankara, Turkey
  • 32 Department of Social Psychology, University of Granada Granada, Spain
  • 33 Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs Pécs, Hungary
  • 34 Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Razi University Kermanshah, Iran
  • 35 Institute of Psychology, University of Science and Culture Tehran, Iran
  • 36 Department of Psychology, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • 37 Faculty of Computing and Management Science, Makerere University Business School Kampala, Uganda
  • 38 Department of Pure & Applied Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin University Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria
  • 39 School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok, Malaysia
  • 40 Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria
  • 41 Department of Anthropology, Istanbul University Istanbul, Turkey
  • 42 Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Madeira Funchal, Portugal
  • 43 Institute of Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi Karachi, Pakistan
  • 44 Department of Psychological Sciences, Constantine The Philosopher University in Nitra Nitra, Slovakia
  • 45 Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • 46 Department of Psychology, South-West University "Neofit Rilski" Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria
  • 47 Department of Psychology, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
  • 48 Faculty of Sports and Health Education, Indonesia University of Education Bandung, Indonesia
  • 49 Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia
  • 50 Institute of Psychology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • 51 Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Bangalore, India
  • 52 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Guwahati, India
  • 53 Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel
  • 54 Department of Psychology, University of ZurichZurich, Switzerland; Department of Education for Students, Guangdong Construction PolytechnicGuangdong, China
  • 55 Department of Child & Family Studies, Kyung Hee University Seoul, South Korea
Front Psychol, 2016;7:1106.
PMID: 27551269 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Theories about how couples help each other to cope with stress, such as the systemic transactional model of dyadic coping, suggest that the cultural context in which couples live influences how their coping behavior affects their relationship satisfaction. In contrast to the theoretical assumptions, a recent meta-analysis provides evidence that neither culture, nor gender, influences the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction, at least based on their samples of couples living in North America and West Europe. Thus, it is an open questions whether the theoretical assumptions of cultural influences are false or whether cultural influences on couple behavior just occur in cultures outside of the Western world.

METHOD: In order to examine the cultural influence, using a sample of married individuals (N = 7973) from 35 nations, we used multilevel modeling to test whether the positive association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies across nations and whether gender might moderate the association.

RESULTS: RESULTS reveal that the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies between nations. In addition, results show that in some nations the association is higher for men and in other nations it is higher for women.

CONCLUSIONS: Cultural and gender differences across the globe influence how couples' coping behavior affects relationship outcomes. This crucial finding indicates that couple relationship education programs and interventions need to be culturally adapted, as skill trainings such as dyadic coping lead to differential effects on relationship satisfaction based on the culture in which couples live.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.