Falconier Mariana Karin, Kuhn Rebekka
Department of Family Science, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 26;10:571. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571. eCollection 2019.
The present review on dyadic coping (DC) aims at providing a critical integration of both the conceptual and empirical DC literature and overcoming the limitations of past reviews by (a) describing, comparing, and integrating all the DC models, (b) presenting and integrating findings from studies based on DC models, and (c) suggesting directions for further research. The DC models identified and compared include: The congruence model (Revenson, 1994), the relationship-focused model (Coyne and Smith, 1991; O'Brien and DeLongis, 1996), the communal coping model (Lyons et al., 1998), the systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 1995, 1997), the relational-cultural model (Kayser et al., 2007), and the developmental-contextual coping model (Berg and Upchurch, 2007). After discussing each DC model, we advance a conceptual integration of all models, which serves as the framework to organize the review of the empirical literature. This integration includes the following DC dimensions: (a) Stress Communication, (b) Positive DC by One Partner (supportive DC, empathic responding, delegated DC, active engagement), (c) Positive Conjoint DC (common, collaborative, communal, mutual responsiveness); (d) Negative DC by One Partner (protective buffering, overprotection, and hostility/ambivalence), and (e) Negative Conjoint DC (common negative DC, disengaged avoidance). Developmental, relational, and contextual variables are included as factors shaping DC. To be included in the empirical review, articles had to be published in or a peer-reviewed journal in English and/or German before 2017 and include an original empirical study guided by one of the DC models. The review included 139 studies and, with the exception of the congruence model whose findings were discussed separately, findings were presented for overall DC and each of the dimensions identified in the conceptual integration. Findings were grouped also according to whether the stressor related or not to a medical or mental health condition. Demographic and cultural factors affecting DC were discussed. Overall, the empirical review suggests that in Western couples, positive individual, and conjoint DC forms, taken together or separately, have individual and relational benefits for couples coping with stress in general and/or mental health or medical stressors. Research on DC can be expanded to include other populations and stressors and use improved designs.
本关于二元应对（DC）的综述旨在对DC的概念性和实证性文献进行批判性整合，并克服以往综述的局限性，具体包括：（a）描述、比较和整合所有DC模型；（b）呈现并整合基于DC模型的研究结果；（c）提出进一步研究的方向。所识别和比较的DC模型包括：一致性模型（Revenson，1994）、关系聚焦模型（Coyne和Smith，1991；O'Brien和DeLongis，1996）、共同应对模型（Lyons等人，1998）、系统-交互模型（Bodenmann，1995，1997）、关系-文化模型（Kayser等人，2007）以及发展-情境应对模型（Berg和Upchurch，2007）。在讨论每个DC模型之后，我们对所有模型进行了概念性整合，以此作为组织实证文献综述的框架。这种整合包括以下DC维度：（a）压力沟通；（b）一方的积极DC（支持性DC、共情回应、委托DC、积极参与）；（c）积极联合DC（共同、协作、共同、相互响应）；（d）一方的消极DC（保护性缓冲、过度保护以及敌意/矛盾情绪）；（e）消极联合DC（共同消极DC、脱离性回避）。发展、关系和情境变量被纳入作为塑造DC的因素。要纳入实证综述，文章必须在2017年之前发表于英文和/或德文的同行评审期刊，并且包括一项以DC模型之一为指导的原创实证研究。该综述纳入了139项研究，除了其研究结果被单独讨论的一致性模型外，还呈现了总体DC以及概念性整合中所确定的每个维度的研究结果。研究结果还根据应激源是否与医疗或心理健康状况相关进行了分组。讨论了影响DC的人口统计学和文化因素。总体而言，实证综述表明，在西方夫妻中，积极的个体和联合DC形式，无论是综合起来还是单独来看，对于夫妻应对一般压力和/或心理健康或医疗应激源都具有个体和关系层面的益处。DC的研究可以扩展到包括其他人群和应激源，并采用改进的设计。
