MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906987411 · doi:10.20381/ruor-28933

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

2023· article· en· W6906987411 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)RomanceStress (linguistics)Social supportEmpirical researchFocus (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207