MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6906987411 · doi:10.20381/ruor-28933

Stress and Romantic Partner Support in Contexts of Acute and Chronic Stress

2023· article· en· W6906987411 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)RomanceStress (linguistics)Social supportEmpirical researchFocus (optics)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Stress is an inevitable aspect of life that, and if not well managed, can be detrimental to an individual's wellbeing (Yaribeygi et al., 2017) as well as their romantic relationship's wellbeing (Shrout, 2021). Despite the possible negative impact of stress on a romantic relationship, romantic partners consist of one of the most important sources of support from an individual's social circle in times of stress (Taylor, 2012). Various studies have shown that providing or receiving effective support from a partner can help to reduce the stress that one may experience in response to a stressful context and is also associated with relationship and individual benefits (Berli et al., 2021; Graham & Barnow, 2013; Selcuk & Ong, 2013; Overall et al., 2010). The means through which support is sought or provided, however, may tend to vary according to the context as well as according to individual tendencies, such as romantic attachment and caregiving tendencies (Simpson & Rholes, 2017). The present thesis comprises two novel and independent, yet complementary, studies that contribute to the literature on stress and support in couples by exploring some of the links between stress and support provision between romantic partners in different contexts, one of acute stress and one of chronic stress. The present thesis is composed of four sections: a general introduction, two empirical studies, and a general discussion. The general introduction presents the focus of the thesis, defines the study variables, provides relevant theoretical and empirical context pertaining to the focus of the thesis, and specifies the main objectives and hypotheses of the thesis. The general discussion will present a comprehensive summary and consolidation of the results of both studies. Study materials (i.e., ethics approval notices and consent forms) are included in the appendices. This thesis was written in accordance with the APA 7th manual, and/or in accordance with the journal to which the manuscripts were submitted. The purpose of the first study was to examine the impact of experimentally induced stress (i.e., acute stress) on support seeking and support providing desires between romantic partners in a in-laboratory fictitious stressful scenario. Additionally, we aimed to explore the moderating role of each partner's combined romantic attachment and caregiving (into two variables called hyperactivation and deactivation) on the association between stress and desire to seek or provide support from the romantic partner. The first sample consisted of 109 English-speaking Canadian mixed-sex couples who had been involved in a romantic relationship with their partner for at least 12 months at the time of participation. We conducted series of two-way moderation analyses to examine our hypotheses. Results indicated that support seekers with higher stress or higher hyperactivation reported a greater desire to be with their partner during the stressful procedure, while those with higher deactivation reported a lower desire to be with their partner. Support providers with higher hyperactivation also reported a greater desire to accompany their partner. Support providers who perceived their partner as more stressed reported a lower desire to be with them when their partner reported greater deactivation and a greater desire to be with them when their partner reported lower deactivation. Such results highlight that there may be variability in support providers or seekers desires according to their attachment and caregiving. The second study investigated longitudinal associations between parenting stress measured at two time points separated by 5 years (i.e., chronic stress), and the moderating effect of coparenting support in this association in biparental families. The sample consisted of 82 mixed-sex couples who are parents. We used a moderated Actor-Partner path analysis model to test our hypotheses. Our results revealed that greater parenting stress in each parent was related to their partner's greater parenting stress at each time point, but only to their own greater parenting stress about 5 years later. The association between fathers' parenting stress at both time points was weaker in fathers who reported greater perceived coparenting support. This study highlights that coparenting support may act as a buffer to parenting stress. Taken together, these studies provide a complementary overview of couples' experiences of stress and support in contexts of acute and chronic stress. While the first study focuses on how stress levels may be associated with romantic partner's desires for support seeking or providing, the second focuses on how romantic partner's perception of support quality is associated with their stress levels. Using cutting-edge actor-partner analyses and couple data in each study, as well as a laboratory paradigm in the first study and longitudinal data in the second study consist of important analytical and methodological strengths to these studies. The results highlight some of the variability in support seeking or providing tendencies in response to stress as well as in longitudinal experiences of stress. These results also add support to some of the theories that inform clinical conceptualizations of couple difficulties and intervention avenues for couples experiencing general relationship difficulties or those experiencing difficulties relating to coparenting specifically.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,414
Écart entre enseignants0,363 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Même sujetAttachment and Relationship DynamicsTravaux en français237 207