The Direct and Indirect Effects of Family Stress and Coping Resources on Marital Satisfaction and Couple Burnout for Dual-Earner Couples

Abstract

Guided by the multisystem assessment of stress and health (MASH) model, this study examined the direct and indirect effects of family stress and coping resources (i.e., supportive listening and flexibility) on adaptation (i.e., marital satisfaction and couple burnout) for dual-earner couples. These relationships were tested dyadically using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) and the actor-partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM). Data from 180 dual-earner couples were collected online using a commercial survey administration company, Qualtrics. Direct effects concerning the role of family stress on adaptation indicated that spouses’ family stress was negatively associated with their own marital satisfaction; wives’ family stress was negatively associated with their partners’ marital satisfaction. In addition, spouses’ family stress was negatively associated with their partners’ couple burnout. Direct effects concerning the role of family stress on coping resources showed significant associations. Specifically, spouses who experienced more family stress reported less of their partners’ supportive listening. Spouses who experienced more family stress reported less of their own and their partners’ self-reported supportive listening. Moreover, spouses’ family stress was negatively associated with their own flexibility; wives’ family stress was negatively associated with their partners’ flexibility. Direct effects concerning the role of coping resources on adaptation revealed the following relations. First, spouses’ perceptions of their own and their partners’ supportive listening were positively associated with their own and their spouses’ marital satisfaction. Second, spouses’ reports of their partners’ supportive listening were negatively associated with their partners’ couple burnout, and spouses’ reports of their own supportive listening were associated with decreases in their own and their partners’ couple burnout. Third, spouses’ family stress was positively associated with their own and their partners’ marital satisfaction. Fourth, spouses’ family stress was negatively associated with their own and their partners’ couple burnout. Finally, indirect effects showed that the coping resources, supportive listening and flexibility, played a significant role in husbands’ and wives’ family stress and adaptation. First, spouses’ family stress was negatively associated with their own reports of their partners’ supportive listening, which in turn was negatively associated with their own reports of marital satisfaction. Second, husbands’ family stress was negatively associated with their wives’ self-reported supportive listening, which in turn was negatively associated with their own and their wives’ marital satisfaction. Third, spouses’ family stress was negatively associated with their reports of their partners’ supportive listening, which in turn was negatively associated with their partners’ couple burnout. Fourth, husbands’ family stress was negatively associated with their wives’ perceptions of their own supportive listening, which in turn was negatively associated with their own and their wives’ couple burnout. Fifth, wives’ family stress was negatively associated with their own and their partners’ flexibility, which in turn was positively associated with their own and their partners’ marital satisfaction. Last, wives’ family stress was negatively associated with their own and their partners’ flexibility, which in turn was negatively associated with their partners’ couple burnout. Contributions of the current study, study limitations, and directions for future research are presented. Overall, this study highlighted the importance of assessing communication when couples cope with family stress. Researchers and counselors can utilize this study to better understand how coping resources can enable more positive adaptation.