Dyadic Association Between New Parents' Mindfulness and Relationship Satisfaction: Mediating Role of Perceived Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition to parenthood is marked by increased potential stressors and relationship satisfaction declines among new parents. Recently, it has been suggested that people with greater mindfulness perceived their environment as less stressful during difficult times in life, which in turn, is associated with greater relationship satisfaction. Accordingly, this dyadic diary study evaluated if perceived stress explains the link between new parents' mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. A total of 78 new parent couples ( N = 156 participants; M = 6 months postpartum) provided ecologically valid perceived stress and relationship satisfaction data by responding to a questionnaire on their smartphones, between 7 p.m. and midnight, for 14 consecutive days. Data were analyzed using Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM). Results revealed that parents with higher mindfulness reported lower perceived stress, which in turn was associated with them reporting higher relationship satisfaction. In addition, one’s mindfulness was directly positively associated with their partner’s relationship satisfaction. Lastly, when all partner effects between mindfulness, perceived stress and relationship satisfaction were tested together without defining specific partner paths, one’s mindfulness was positively associated with their partners’ relationship satisfaction. Our findings extend current knowledge on the dyadic association between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction during the transition to parenthood by highlighting perceived stress as a key variable underlying this relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".