Immigration Stress and Relationship Satisfaction in Latino Couples: The Role of Dyadic Coping

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 8, 2013, pp. 813-843

813

© 2013 Guilford Publications, Inc.

Address correspondence to Mariana K. Falconier, PhD, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 7054 Haycock Rd, Suite 202C, Falls Church, VA 22043; E-mail: [email protected]

IMMIGRATION STRESSFALCONIER et al.

IMMIGRATION STRESS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN LATINO COUPLES: THE ROLE OF DYADIC COPING

MARIANA K. FALCONIERVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

FRIDTJOF NUSSBECKUniversity of Bielefeld, Germany

GUY BODENMANNUniversity of Zürich

This study examined (a) the relationship of Latino partners’ overall immigration stress and each of its different dimensions with their relationship satisfaction and (b) whether a partner’s support (supportive dyadic coping) and the couple’s con-joint efforts to cope with stress (common dyadic coping) can moderate those re-lationships. An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny, 1996) was used to analyze self-report data collected from 104 Latino immigrant couples in the U.S. Structural equation modeling results suggest that common dyadic coping and the supportive dyadic coping provided by the male partner can attenuate the negative association of various aspects of Latinas’ immigration stress mostly with her relationship satisfaction and to some extent with her male partner’s as well. By contrast, common dyadic coping and the female partner’s supportive dyadic coping do not play any moderating role in the relationship between most dimen-sions of the male immigration stress and either partner’s relationship satisfaction. Limitations, research, and clinical implications are discussed.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census data Latinos have become the first minority in the country with a population of 50.5 million peo-

814 FALCONIER ET AL.

ple (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). First generation immigrants, who still constitute a large proportion (37.4%) of Latinos living in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009), are likely to cope with signifi-cant levels of stress associated with the demands of immigration. Latino immigrants as well as other immigrant groups experience stress when dealing with discrimination, material, and emotional losses, not feeling at home, missing the family left in their countries, occupational challenges, difficulties accessing services in the new country, and, obviously, cultural differences including language barriers (Aroian, Norris, Tran, & Schapper-Morris, 1998; Goodkind, Gonzáles, Malcoe, & Espinosa, 2008).

The research on the effects of immigration related stressors on La-tinos has focused almost exclusively on the effects of acculturative stress on the individual. This line of research has linked accultura-tive stress to poor physical health (Caplan, 2007; Finch & Vega, 2003) and various negative psychological outcomes such as depression, anxiety, drinking, substance abuse, and eating disorders (Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano Vaeth, & Harris, 2007; Caplan, 2007; Revollo, Qureshi, Collazos, Valero, & Casas, 2011; Sarmiento & Car-demil, 2009; Torres, 2010). Despite its contributions, the exclusive focus on acculturative stress, which refers to the stress generated by the problems resulting from conflicts between the immigrant and the host cultures (Berry, 2006), has left out other immigration relat-ed stressors (e.g., missing family) that do not stem from the contact with a different culture.

The few studies that have actually focused on the stress associ-ated with various aspects of the immigration experience (e.g., Ar-oian, Kaskiri, & Templin, 2008; Aroian, Norris, González de Chávez Fernández, & García Averasturi, 2008), instead of examining accul-turative stress only, suggest that factors such as not feeling at home, a sense of loss, discrimination, language and occupational chal-lenges, and novelty can have different associations with individual psychological distress. However, given that contextual factors (e.g., cultural similarities and differences between the immigrant group and the host country or geographical distance between the country of origin and the receiving country) may contribute to exacerbate certain dimensions of immigration stress, results have been incon-sistent across studies. For example, one study (Aroian, Kaskiri, et al., 2008) with Arab immigrant women related depression with all immigration stress dimensions except for occupational challenges. Differently, another study linked psychological distress with novel-

IMMIGRATION STRESS 815

ty in both men and women but with loss, occupation, and language difficulties only in women and not feeling at home only in men (Ao-rian, Norris, et al., 2008). Interestingly, even though this is the only study that has examined different dimensions of immigration stress in a Latino immigrant population, these immigrants were living in the Canary Islands, Spain, a country whose similarities in values and language to Latin American countries limits the possibilities of extending the findings of that study to Latino immigrants living in the U.S.

In addition to the absence of research on the various dimensions of immigration stress in the Latino immigrant population in the U.S., most important perhaps it is the extent to which the focus on the individual in the acculturation stress studies and in the immigra-tion stress research has ignored the potential effects of immigration stress on Latino couples’ relationships. With the exception of two studies, which found a positive association of acculturative stress with interpartner violence (Caetano et al., 2007) and decreased rela-tionship satisfaction (Negy, Hammon, Reig-Ferrer, & Carper, 2010), there has been, to our knowledge, no other study published in Eng-lish on Latino or other immigrant populations that examined the extent to which couples’ functioning may be affected by immigra-tion stress. And even these two studies were limited in that they both focused only on acculturative stress and they either failed to incorporate both actor and partner effects (Negy et al., 2010) or to just focus on immigrant couples (Caetano et al., 2007). As noted by Padilla and Borrero (2006) “the ways in which Hispanics can be re-silient to the negative consequences of stress in their lives generally, and more specifically in their marital relationships is in need of in-vestigation” (p. 301).

The relative lack of research on the effects of immigration stress on couples’ relationships contrasts with the couples’ stress literature that has long conceptualized and documented the adverse effects of one partner’s stress on both the relationship and the other part-ner’s emotional well-being (for an overview see Randall & Boden-mann, 2009; Story & Bradbury, 2004). According to the systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 2005), a model for understand-ing coping processes in the context of intimate relationships, “one cannot examine one partner’s stress appraisals or coping efforts without considering the effects on the other partner and the mar-riage” (Bodenmann, 2005, p. 36). Findings from studies on breast cancer (Badr, Carmack, Kashy, Cristofanilli, & Revenson, 2010; Kay-


ser, Watson, & Andrade, 2007), economic problems (Falconier & Ep-stein, 2010), and chronic daily stressors (Bodenmann, Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007) indicate that each partner’s experience of stress contributes to the other partner’s stress and declines in relationship satisfaction (for a review see Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). When both partners experience similar stress as it might be the case with immigrant Latino couples, it is possible that each partner’s satisfac-tion with their relationship may be even more negatively affected. Findings from the couples’ stress research literature and the two studies that have linked acculturative stress in Latinos with inter-partner violence and lower marital satisfaction in women suggest that immigration stress may significantly contribute to declines in relationship satisfaction in immigrant Latino couples. The present study is the first to examine the association of overall immigration stress and its different aspects (missing family, occupational and language challenges, discrimination, novelty, sense of loss, not feel-ing at home) with relationship satisfaction in couples applying an Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny, 1996). Such an approach allows for the examination of both actor and partner effects and the control for partners’ interdependence.

Considering the potential negative effects of overall immigration stress and each of its different aspects on couples’ relationships, this study also seeks to examine whether dyadic coping can protect partners’ relationship satisfaction from such effects. According to the systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 2005), dyadic cop-ing refers to the positive and negative strategies that couples use to cope with stress together as a unit. Positive strategies include supportive, delegated, and common dyadic coping. Supportive Dy-adic Coping (SDC) describes one partner’s efforts to assist the other partner cope with his or her stress by providing emotional (e.g., empathic understanding) and/or problem-focused support (e.g., practical advice). Delegated Dyadic Coping (DDC) involves a part-ner’s attempts to assist the other partner by taking on his or her tasks and duties. Common Dyadic Coping (CDD) describes partners’ conjoint efforts to cope with stress by engaging in “joint problem solving, joint information seeking, sharing of feelings, mutual com-mitment, or relaxing together” (Bodenmann, 2005, p. 38). Negative dyadic coping refers to partners’ strategies that can be characterized as hostile (minimizing, withdrawing, blaming), ambivalent (help-ing unwillingly or showing it is not necessary), and/or superficial (helping insincerely). Only supportive and common dyadic cop-


ing have been found consistently to be associated with relationship satisfaction and reduced verbal aggression (Bodenmann, Meuwly, Bradbury, Gmelch, & Ledermann, 2010; Papp & Witt, 2010). Despite these positive associations and even though from a systemic-trans-actional perspective positive dyadic coping should attenuate the effects of stress on couple’s functioning, only two studies have ac-tually examined this possibility. One of these studies (Bodenmann, Atkins, Shär, & Poffet, 2010) used data from female college students and did not find overall dyadic coping to moderate the relation be-tween the partners’ daily hassles and their sexual activity. Nonethe-less, the other study (Bodenmann, Meuwly, et al., 2010), which also collected data from only one partner, found that supportive and common dyadic coping did moderate the association between daily stress and verbal aggression, adding to the evidence that those two forms of dyadic coping may be particularly beneficial to couples’ functioning.

It is possible that supportive and common dyadic coping can serve to attenuate the possible negative link between each Latino partner’s immigration stress and their relationship satisfaction. La-tinos’ strong family orientation, commonly referred to as familismo (Lugo Steidel & Contreras, 2003), values family interdependence and loyalty and views the family as a source of emotional and in-strumental support. Providing support to a stressed partner and en-gaging in conjoint coping efforts when both partners are experienc-ing stress seems to be consistent with Latinos’ familismo. Thus, we would expect common dyadic coping to be particularly important in Latino couples.

In brief, the purpose of the present study with Latino couples is to examine (a) whether and to what extent overall immigration stress is associated with each partner’s relationship satisfaction, (b) whether this association exists for each aspect of immigrations stress (missing family, novelty, discrimination, not feeling at home, sense of loss, language barrier, occupational challenge), and (c) whether supportive and common dyadic coping moderate the relationship of overall immigration stress and each aspect of immigration stress with each partner’s relationship satisfaction. Given that the litera-ture has reported all of the dimensions of immigration stress con-sidered in this study to affect both male and female Latino immi-grants and other immigrant groups (e.g., Aorian, Norris, et al., 2008; Caetano et al., 2007; Goodkind et al., 2008; Revollo et al., 2011) and that results have been inconsistent in previous studies (e.g., Aroian,


Kaskiri, et al., 2008; Aroian, Norris, et al., 2008), no specific hypoth-eses are formulated for each immigration stress dimension. Instead, this study adopts an exploratory approach in order to understand whether only some immigration stress dimensions are related to re-lationship satisfaction and dyadic coping.

Due to sample size restrictions, this study examined two models, one for supportive dyadic coping (Figure 1) and another one for common dyadic coping (Figure 2) testing the following hypotheses:

1. Each partner’s immigration stress (overall and by type) will be negatively associated with one’s own (actor effect) and the partner’s (partner effect) relationship satisfaction (Figures 1 and 2).

2. The association of each partner’s immigration stress (overall and by type) with one’s own and the partner’s relationship satisfaction will be moderated by the other partner’s support-ive dyadic coping. The partner’s supportive dyadic coping will attenuate the negative association between immigration stress (overall and by type) and relationship satisfaction (Fig-ure 1).

FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model 1. FIS = Female Immigration Stress; MIS = Male Immigration Stress; MSDC = Male Supportive Dyadic Coping; FSDC = Female Supportive Dyadic Coping; FRS = Female Relationship Satisfaction; MRS = Male Relationship Satisfaction. The covariance between MSDC and FSDC were not depicted for clarity of presentation.


3. The association of each partner’s immigration stress (overall and by type) with one’s own and the partner’s relationship satisfaction will be moderated by the couple’s common dy-adic coping. Common dyadic coping will attenuate the nega-tive association between immigration stress and relationship satisfaction (Figure 2).

4. There will be positive, direct associations in immigration stress (overall and by type), supportive dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction between partners (Figures 1 and 2).

METHOD

SAMPLE

The sample consisted of 107 immigrant Latino couples residing in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. These community couples were recruited through flyers and presentations in churches, festi-vals, medical, and therapists’ offices, and community agencies. In-clusion criteria were self-identification as Latino/a, being at least 18

FIGURE 2. Conceptual Model 2. FIS = Female Immigration Stress; MIS = Male Immigration Stress; CDC = Common Dyadic Coping; FRS = Female Relationship Satisfaction; MRS = Male Relationship Satisfaction.


years old, and having lived with the current partner for at least one year. Given the focus on immigrant couples in the present study, seven of the original 114 couples had to be excluded since at least one of the partners was not foreign born or had immigrated to the U.S. before the age of 10.

On average men were 40.64 years old (SD = 8.68) and women were 39.43 years old (SD = 7.7). The mean length of residence in the U.S. was 14.32 years (SD = 8.03; range 1 to 35 years) for men and 12.37 years (SD = 7.43; range 1 to 32 years) for women. Partici-pants had emigrated from various countries including El Salvador (32.7%), Peru (13.9%), Mexico (12%), Guatemala (11.1%), and other Latin American countries (30.3%). Even though the sample is not representative of the Latino population in the U.S. (64.5% Mexican, 3.2% Salvadoran, 2.0% Guatemalan, 1.0% Peruvian; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009), it is representative of the Latino population living in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area (e.g., Montgomery County: 9.4% Mexican, 32.2% Salvadoran, 7.2% Guatemalan, 6.3% Peruvian; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The educational level ranged from 27.9% of men and 30.7% of women not having completed high school to 21.2% of men and 24% of women having graduated at least from college. Most men (84.6%) and women (61.5%) were employed, and partners’ combined income was over $50,000 for 47.1% of cou-ples, between $20,000 and $49,999 for 31.7%, and below $19,999 for 14.4%. Thirty-two percent of the couples had at least one partner re-porting the presence of another household member contributing to the household income. The majority of both men (72.1%) and wom-en (80.8%) were Catholic, whereas only 15.3% of men and 14.4% of women were affiliated to other Christian religions, 1.9% of men and 1 % of women reported to be Jewish, and 7.7% of men and 3.8% of women did not have any religious affiliation. Twenty-eight couples (26.9%) were cohabiting whereas 76 couples (73.1%) were married. On average couples had been living together for 12.09 years (SD = 7.66) and had 1.84 (SD = 1.22) children younger than 21 years old living in the household.

PROCEDURE

Couples interested in participating in the study received a package with consent forms, instructions, and a set of self-report question-naires. Partners were instructed to sign the consent form, complete


their individual assessments separately and without consulting with each other, and return all the materials back by mail or in per-son. Once both partners’ signed consent forms and questionnaires were received by the researchers, a $25 gift card was mailed to each partner. Participants were assigned a three-digit identification num-ber and all identifying contact information was kept confidential and not included in the database.

INSTRUMENTS

Participants completed a set of self-report questionnaires and a de-mographic information form. Except for the demographic form that was developed in Spanish, all of the assessment instruments were originally in English. These instruments were first translated into Spanish by a native speaker and then back-translated into English so that both English versions could be compared and the translation could be adjusted accordingly.

Immigration Stress. The Demands of Immigration Scale (DIS; Ar-oian et al., 1998) was used to measure stress associated with the immigrant status. In the present study, respondents had to rate the frequency with which they experienced 23 different immigration stress events on a three-point Likert-type scale: 0 = never, 1 = some-times, 2 = very often. The DIS has six different subscales, each of them corresponding to a different dimension of immigration stress: Loss (e.g., I feel sad when I think of special places back home), Nov-elty (e.g., I am always facing new situations and circumstances), Oc-cupation (e.g., The work credentials I had in my original country are not accepted), Language (e.g., I have difficulty doing ordinary things because of a language barrier), Discrimination (e.g., As an immigrant, I am treated as a second-class citizen), and Not at Home (e.g., I do not feel that this is my true home). Considering Latinos’ strong family orientation and the fact that the DIS did not include any specific item referring to the family left in the country of origin, a Missing Family subscale was added. This subscale included one of the items from the Loss subscale (I miss the people I left behind in my original country) and four new items (e.g., I wish I could speak with my family in my country more often). Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that the newly formulated items load on a single scale. The internal consistency for the new scale was .73 for men and


.76 for women. The internal consistency for the total scale including the Missing Family subscale was .93 for both men and women (all other consistencies can be found in Table 1). The DIS has been used in various studies of immigration with the total score as an indica-tor of overall immigration stress and the score of each subscale as an indicator of each immigration stress dimension (for a review see Aroian et al., 2008) and has been reported to have a total internal consistency ranging from .91 to .94 with a test-retest reliability after three weeks ranging from .89 to .92 (Aroian et al., 1998).

Dyadic Coping. Supportive and common dyadic coping were as-sessed using the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008). The DCI is a 37-item self-report questionnaire with ten dif-ferent subscales: Stress Communication by oneself and by partner, Supportive Dyadic Coping by oneself and by partner, Delegated Dyadic Coping by oneself and by partner, Negative Dyadic Coping by Oneself and by partner, Common Dyadic Coping, and Overall Evaluation of Dyadic Coping. All items are rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = very rarely to 5 = very often. The DCI has been used extensively in various studies (for a review see Bodenmann, 2008) and the convergent and factorial structure of its subscales have been confirmed in Swiss, German, French, Ital-ian, and Latino population (Bodenmann, 2008; Donato et al., 2009; Falconier, Nussbeck, & Bodenmann, 2013; Ledermann et al., 2010). In the Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale, respondents are asked to rate their partner’s tendency to provide both problem-focused (e.g., analyzing the situation) and emotion-focused (e.g., showing empathy, listening) support. In this study the internal consistency was .89 for both, males and females. In the Common Dyadic Coping subscale partners are asked about the couple’s joint efforts to deal with stressors affecting both partners. Three of the items describe emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., relaxing together) whereas the other two items involve problem-focused coping efforts (e.g., searching for solutions together). Both partners’ responses were av-eraged so that both of their perceptions of common coping could be captured. The t-tests for paired samples did not indicate any statis-tically-significant differences between males’ and females’ percep-tions of common coping, MD = .34, t (91) = .68, p = .50. The internal consistency of this subscale was .94 for men and .92 for women.

Relationship Satisfaction. The Dyadic Satisfaction subscale from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) was used to measure


TABL

E 1.

Mea

ns, S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns, T

-tes

ts, a

nd In

tern

al C

onsi

sten

cy

(N =

104

fem

ales

and

104

mal

es)

Vari

able

Mea

nSD

Mea

n D

iffer

ence

SD (M

ean

Diff

.)T

P!

Ove

rall

Imm

igra

tion

Stre

ssFe

mal

es19

.89

9.22

1.64

8.64

1.51

.136

.93

Mal

es18

.25

9.41

93Im

mig

ratio

n St

ress

Dim

ensi

ons

Mis

sing

Fam

ilyFe

mal

es1.

07.5

2.0

7.5

81.

07.2

9.7

6M

ales

1.06

.47

.73

Nov

elty

Fem

ales

.72

.48

–.01

.55

.23

.82

.63

Mal

es.7

3.4

6.6

6N

ot a

t Hom

e Fe

mal

es.9

5.5

71.

04.6

61.

50.1

4.7

3M

ales

.84

.46

.78

Lang

uage

Fe

mal

es1.

00.6

2.0

9.6

11.

42.1

6.7

9

Mal

es.9

1.6

2.8

5O

ccup

atio

n Fe

mal

es.7

0.5

2.0

6.5

4.9

6.3

4.7

0M

ales

.64

.52

.76

Dis

crim

inat

ion

Fem

ales

.85

.50

–.04

.63

-.60

.55

.72

Mal

es.9

0.5

0.7

7Lo

ss

Fem

ales

1.11

.51

.12

.56

2.03

.05

.82

Mal

es.9

9.4

9.7

9C

omm

on D

yadi

c C

opin

g3.

50.9

5.9

3Su

ppor

tive

Dya

dic

Cop

ing

Fem

ales

3.61

.96

.29

1.06

2.63

.01

.89

Mal

es3.

461.

03.8

9Re

latio

nshi

p Sa

tisfa

ctio

nFe

mal

es37

.02

9.30

.99

6.23

1.31

.20

.86

Mal

es38

.03

8.22

.86


relationship satisfaction. This subscale includes 10 Likert-type items measuring the respondents’ satisfaction with their relationship (e.g., How often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well?). The other three subscales from the DAS were excluded as they have been found to confound the measure-ment of relationship satisfaction with behaviors that contribute to satisfaction (Kurdek, 1992). The DAS is an instrument that has been used widely in couples’ research (for a review see Graham, Liu, & Jeziorski, 2006). In the present sample the internal consistency of the dyadic satisfaction subscale was .86 for both men and women.

ANALYTIC STRATEGY

T-tests for paired samples were conducted to assess gender differ-ences on immigration stress (overall and by subscale), supportive and common dyadic coping as well as relationship satisfaction. In principle, dyadic data can be analyzed relying on Multilevel (ML) models or Structural Equation Models (SEM) or a combination of both. In this contribution, we use the SEM approach because this approach allows for examining relationships between variables free from measurement error, testing the goodness of fit of the base models (see below) and testing the measurement structure of all study variables simultaneously.

First, two base models, one for overall immigration stress and one for all the different dimensions of immigration stress, were tested. In these models, no assumptions were made about the structural model part; instead all factors were allowed to correlate. These models served to identify, if the measurement structure concern-ing the test-halves fit to the data (see below). Factors in these two models included immigration stress (overall or subscales), support-ive and common dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction. Fac-tor loadings were restricted to 1 in these and all remaining models for reasons of parsimony. Then, the base models were incorporated into the two structural models depicted in Figures 1 and 2, one for common coping and one for supportive coping. Model fit for all models was assessed by the chi-square ("2) statistic and given the "2-test’s sensitivity to sample size the recommended ratio of no more than 3:1 for the "2 to df ratio was used (Kline, 1998). Addition-ally, the three fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999)


were used to evaluate model fit: Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Residual of Approximation (RMSEA). The following cut-off values were used to assess acceptable model fit: CFI > .90, SRMR < .08, and RMSEA < .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We will report 95% confidence intervals (95% C.I.) for the bootstrapped model parameters. Setting the C.I. to 95% allows for an error rate of 2.5% at each side of the distribution. All analyses were conducted using Mplus 6.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010).

Base Models. The immigration stress, supportive and common dy-adic coping, and relationship satisfaction scales were split into two homogeneous test-halves in order to obtain two indicators for each of the scale (for a discussion of creating test-halves as indicators of latent variables see Bandalos, 2002). This procedure involved the following steps: First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was run for each latent construct, including each of the immigration stress dimensions, for men and women separately and including each of the scale items as the observed variables; second, those items were rank-ordered with respect to their factor loadings; third, the 1st item was assigned to test-half 1; the 2nd and 3rd items to test-half 2; the 4th and 5th item to test-half 1 again and so on. In most cases the rank-ordering for the item was stable across gender. In the few cases where the rank order was not stable, the differences in the loading coefficients between the items with differing rank ordering were marginal and therefore, these items were assigned arbitrarily to test-half 1 or 2. Nonetheless, the item assignment to the test halves was identical across gender.

Structural Models. In order to examine whether supportive and common dyadic coping played a moderating role between immi-gration stress and relationship satisfaction, latent interaction effects between latent variables were specified using the LMS-approach implemented in Mplus (in order to reduce the computational com-plexity “integration = montecarlo” was specified). Goodness-of-fit coefficients cannot be reported for the latent interaction models since Mplus does not provide these. As noted earlier, due to sample size limitations, for overall immigration stress and each immigra-tion stress dimension, two structural models were tested, one with the couple’s common dyadic coping and another one with each partner’s supportive dyadic coping as the moderating variables.


RESULTS

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND T-TESTS

The relationship of demographic variables (length of stay, number of children, age, income, education level, and length of relationship) with immigration stress, supportive and common dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction were assessed through Pearson bivari-ate correlations. Results indicated that only length of stay in the U.S. is negatively and modestly associated with immigration stress for both men (r = -.34) and women (r = -.29). T-tests for paired sam-ples did not indicate statistically-significant differences between the partners for almost any of the variables of interest in this study (see Table 1). The only significant gender differences were found in the IMS Loss subscale and in the DCI Supportive Dyadic Coping. Women reported significantly higher levels of loss than their part-ners did (MD = .12, t = 2.03, p = .05) and men reported higher levels of supportive dyadic coping by their partners than women did (MD = .29, t = 2.63, p = .01). However, the gender difference in the IMS Loss subscale disappeared when length of stay was controlled for. This is consistent with the results of the t-tests for paired samples that indicated that on average men in this sample had stayed sig-nificantly more years in the U.S. than women (MD = 1.97 years, t = 2.945, p = .004).

BASE MODELS

As noted earlier, two base models with correlated latent variables for both partners were tested. The first model that included over-all immigration stress, supportive dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction fit the data acceptably: "2 (63) = 107.22, p <.01; "2/df = 1.70; CFI = .96; SRMR = .10; RMSEA = .08; C.I.RMSEA (90%) = .05, .11. Even though the SRMR did not reach the cut-off value of .08, the "2/df ratio and the CFI and RMSEA values are indicative of acceptable model fit. In the second model instead of the overall immigration stress, the different dimensions of immi-gration stress were included: missing family, novelty, not at home, language, occupation, discrimination, and loss. This second model fit the data acceptably: "2 = 746.42; df = 513; p <.01; "2/df = 1.46; CFI = .90; SRMR = .07; RMSEA = .07; C.I.RMSEA (90%) = .06–.08).


TABL

E 2.

Cor

rela

tions

Am

ong

Imm

igra

tion

Tota

l Sca

le a

nd S

ubsc

ales

, Sup

port

ive

Dya

dic

Cop

ing,

Com

mon

Dya

dic

Cop

ing,

and

Rel

atio

nshi

p Sa

tis-

fact

ion

for

Men

and

Wom

en (N

= 1

04 fe

mal

es a

nd 1

04 m

ales

)

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

1. F

Imm

igra

tion

Stre

ss-

2. M

Imm

igra

tion

Stre

ss.4

5-

3. F

Mis

sing

Fam

ily-

--

4. M

Mis

sing

Fam

ily-

-.4

1-

5. F

Nov

elty

--

.70

.08

-6.

M N

ovel

ty-

-.3

0.5

8.5

2-

7. F

Not

at H

ome

--

.86

.41

.73

.53

-8.

M N

ot a

t Hom

e-

-.2

7.7

7.2

9.6

3.4

6-

9. F

Lan

guag

e-

-.8

1.2

5.8

9.5

3.7

5.2

9-

10. M

Lan

guag

e-

-.4

8.6

547

.73

.56

.73

.60

-11

. F O

ccup

atio

n-

-.6

5.2

3.8

1.4

9.6

5.1

7.7

6.5

0-

12. M

Occ

upat

ion

--

.28

.67

.48

.85

.29

.62

.39

.68

.55

-13

. F D

iscr

imin

atio

n-

-.6

5.2

3.6

8.2

5.6

8.2

9.5

9.4

0.6

7.2

0-

14. M

Dis

crim

inat

ion

--

.28

.63

.23

.64

.38

.67

.42

.73

.27

.68

.29

-15

. F L

oss

--

.92

.29

.67

.09

.78

.24

.55

.22

.48

.17

.69

.31

-16

. M L

oss

--

.39

.83

.13

.47

.35

.67

.20

.52

.11

.53

.29

.46

.44

-17

. MSD

C–.

11.0

5.0

4.2

0–.

16.0

0–.

05.1

1–.

05.0

7–.

26–.

13–.

03.1

2–.

14.0

4-

18. F

SDC

.19

.14

.34

.20

.13

.05

.18

.16

.24

.20

–.06

–.09

.20

.20

.20

.17

.83

-19

. CD

C–.

11.1

4–.

03.2

1–.

11–.

01–.

12.0

6–.

04.1

1–.

22.0

2.0

2.1

7–.

01.2

3.7

1.6

5-

20. F

RS–.

36–.

07–.

26.0

1–.

35.0

3–.

22.0

1–.

19–.

09–.

52.1

6–.

21–.

03–.

31.0

5.7

2.5

4.7

4-

21. M

RS–.

17–.

13–.

14–.

05–.

15–.

06–.

11–.

04–.

00.0

3–.

18–.

23–.

12–.

11–.

23–.

07.5

8.4

7.6

6.8

8

Not

e. F

= F

emal

e; M

= M

ale;

FSD

C =

Fem

ale

Supp

ortiv

e D

yadi

c C

opin

g; M

SDC

= M

ale

Supp

ortiv

e D

yadi

c C

opin

g; C

DC

= C

omm

on D

yadi

c C

opin

g; F

RS: F

emal

e Re

latio

nshi

p Sa

tisfa

ctio

n; M

RS =

Mal

e Re

latio

nshi

p Sa

tisfa

ctio

n.

Coe

f!ci

ents

prin

ted

in b

old

type

diff

er s

igni

!can

tly fr

om 0

(95%

C.I.

).


Table 2 presents the correlations between the latent variables in the unrestricted models (one for overall immigration stress, one for its subscales). As hypothesized, positive correlations across partners were found for relationship satisfaction (.88), supportive dyadic coping (.83), overall immigration stress (.45), and stress associated with missing family (.41), novelty (.52), not feeling at home (.46), language (.60), occupation (.55), and discrimination (.29). Common dyadic coping was positively correlated with both the male (.71) and the female (.65) supportive dyadic coping. Correlations among subscales were all positive and significant for both genders, falling into the range of .42 <= r <= .86 for males and the range of .56 <= r <= .93 for females.

STRUCTURAL MODEL

Overall Immigration Stress and Common Dyadic Coping. The first structural model that was examined included common dyadic cop-ing as a moderator in the prediction of each partner’s relationship satisfaction by each partner’s immigrant stress. As depicted in the

TABLE 3. Structural Models for Overall Immigration Stress with Common Dyadic Coping and Supportive Dyadic Coping: Unstandardized Regression Coef!cients, Variances of De-pendent Variables and Regression Residuals, and Correlation of the Regression Residuals

(N = 104 females and 104 males)

Common Dyadic Coping

FIS MIS CDCFIS # CDC

MIS # CDC Res. Var. Var.

Res. Corr.

FRS –.68a .16p .55m .75 –.53 .16 .57 .18

MRS .11p –.46a .57m .05 –.03 .23 .49

Supportive Dyadic Coping

FIS MIS FSDC MSDCFIS #

MSDCMIS # FSDC Res. Var. Var.

Res. Corr.

FRS –.63a .05p .10a .45p - - .23 .57 .22

MRS –.12p –.25a .07p .36a - - .30 .49

Note. FRS = Female relationship satisfaction; MRS = Male relationship satisfaction; FIS = Female immigration stress; MIS= Male immigration stress; CDC = Common dyadic coping. FIS/MIS CDC = interaction term; FSDC = Female supportive dyadic coping; MSDC = Male supportive dyadic coping. FIS/MIS # FSDC/MSDC = interaction terms; Res. Var. = Residual (unexplained) variance of the dependent variable; Var. = Variance (unconditional) of the dependent variable; Res. Cor. = Correlation of the residual terms of the dependent variables. a actor effects; p partner effects m main effects; Only unstandardized regression coef!cients are presented since there is no statistical theory allowing for standardized regression coef!cients with the LMS approach. (–) indicates models with convergence problems, so results are presented without interaction terms. Parameters printed in bold type differ signi!cantly from 0 (95% C.I.).


upper part of Table 3, female relationship satisfaction is statistically predicted by female overall immigration stress (FIS; actor effect, an-notated a), male overall immigration stress (MIS, partner effect; p), common dyadic coping (CDC; main effect, m), and the interaction between female (FIS ´ CDC) or male (MIS ´ CDC) overall immigra-tion stress and common dyadic coping. The last three columns pres-ent the residual variance of female relationship satisfaction, the to-tal variance of female relationship satisfaction and the correlation of the residuals for female and male relationship satisfaction residuals. Male relationship satisfaction is statistically predicted by the same set of variables, however, the effect of female overall immigration stress is a partner effect (p) and male overall immigration stress is an actor effect (a).

As hypothesized (Figure 3), the female relationship satisfac-tion was negatively associated with her own overall immigration stress (total score) (-.68) but not with the male overall immigration stress (.16). The female relationship satisfaction was also positively related to common dyadic coping (.55). The association between women’s own immigration stress and their relationship satisfaction was moderated by the couple’s common dyadic coping (.75): Rela-

FIGURE 3. Interactive Effect of Immigration Stress and Common Dyadic Coping on Relationship Satisfaction for Females. For clarity of presentation the partner's immigration stress was set to 0 (mean of the latent variable in the structural models). low CDC = low common dyadic coping (CDC = –1); high CDC = high common dyadic coping (CDC = 1).


tionship satisfaction of female partners in couples with good com-mon coping is less strongly negatively associated to their overall immigration stress (and may even become positively associated if the scores on common dyadic coping are higher than 4.5). There is no moderating effect of common dyadic coping on the association between the male overall immigration stress and the female rela-tionship satisfaction (Figure 4). In contrast to female partners, only one significant association can be found for male partners. Their relationship satisfaction is positively associated with the couple’s common dyadic coping (.57; Figure 4).

Dividing the residual variances by the total variances of the fe-male and male relationship satisfaction, respectively, provides an estimate of the unexplained variance in the statistical model. The inverse yields the proportion of explained variance. Around 72% of the latent variance of female relationship satisfaction can be ex-plained by the association with overall immigrant stress and com-mon dyadic coping. For male partners, around 53% of the variance of relationship satisfaction can be explained. The residual correla-tions of relationship satisfaction of r = .18 shows that both partners relationship satisfactions are associated beyond the association with the predictor variables in the model.

FIGURE 4. Interactive Effect of Immigration Stress and Common Dyadic Coping on Relationship Satisfaction for Males. For clarity of presentation the partner’s immigration stress was set to 0 (mean of the latent variable in the structural models). Low CDC = low common dyadic coping (CDC = -1); high CDC = high common dyadic coping (CDC = 1).


TABL

E 4.

Str

uctu

ral M

odel

s fo

r Im

mig

ratio

n St

ress

Dim

ensi

ons

with

Com

mon

Dya

dic

Cop

ing:

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

Regr

essi

on C

oef!

cien

ts, V

aria

nces

of

Dep

ende

nt V

aria

bles

, and

Reg

ress

ion

Resi

dual

s, a

nd C

orre

latio

n of

the

Regr

essi

on R

esid

uals

(N =

104

fem

ales

and

104

mal

es)

FIS

MIS

CD

CFI

S #

CD

CM

IS #

CD

CRe

s. V

ar.

Var.

Res.

Cor

r.M

issi

ng F

amily

FRS

–.50

–.06

.58

.58

–.17

.18

.57

.17

MRS

–.07

–.31

.54

.09

–.00

.25

.49

Nov

elty

FRS

–1.1

2.8

3.5

2.9

6–.

87.0

7.5

7.1

2M

RS–.

33.1

8.4

9.5

3–.

70.2

2.4

9N

ot a

t hom

eFR

S–.

25.1

3.5

5.4

8–.

40.1

9.5

7.1

8M

RS–.

08.0

1.4

9.0

5–.

29.2

5.4

9La

ngua

geFR

S–.

32–.

01.6

0.6

2–.

51.1

9.5

7.1

5M

RS–.

03.0

2.5

3.5

9–.

66.2

0.4

9O

ccup

atio

nFR

S–1

.30

.47

.44

.88

–.71

.05

.57

.16

MRS

–.01

–.27

.51

.35

–.32

.24

.49

Dis

crim

inat

ion

FRS

–.40

–.21

.65

.48

.04

.19

.57

.17

MRS

–.13

–.33

.55

.10

.02

.24

.49

Loss

FRS

–.33

–.01

.58

.57

–.32

.14

.57

.11

MRS

–.14

–.22

.52

.44

–.38

.19

.49

Not

e. F

RS =

Fem

ale

rela

tions

hip

satis

fact

ion;

MRS

= M

ale

rela

tions

hip

satis

fact

ion;

FIS

= F

emal

e im

mig

ratio

n st

ress

; MIS

= M

ale

imm

igra

tion

stre

ss; C

DC

= C

omm

on d

yadi

c co

ping

. FIS

/MIS

# C

DC

= in

tera

ctio

n te

rm; R

es. V

ar. =

Res

idua

l (un

expl

aine

d) v

aria

nce

of th

e de

pend

ent v

aria

ble;

Var

= V

aria

nce

(unc

ondi

tiona

l) of

the

depe

nden

t var

iabl

e;

Res.

Cor

. = C

orre

latio

n of

the

resi

dual

term

s of

the

depe

nden

t var

iabl

es. O

nly

unst

anda

rdiz

ed re

gres

sion

coe

f!ci

ents

are

pre

sent

ed s

ince

ther

e is

no

stat

istic

al th

eory

al

low

ing

for s

tand

ardi

zed

regr

essi

on c

oef!

cien

ts w

ith th

e LM

S ap

proa

ch. P

aram

eter

s pr

inte

d in

bol

d ty

pe d

iffer

sig

ni!c

antly

from

0 (9

5% C

.I.).


Overall Immigration Stress and Supportive Dyadic Coping. The sec-ond part of Table 3 presents the associations between relationship satisfaction, overall immigration stress and supportive dyadic cop-ing. Since both partners can provide supportive dyadic coping, also two variables have to be considered. Supportive dyadic coping by one partner was analyzed to have a moderating impact on the as-sociation between the other partner’s immigration stress and each partner’s relationship satisfaction. Estimation problems, which were not resolved even after additional iterations, prevented us from arriving to final results in the models that included overall immigration stress. Even though the interaction effect could not be estimated, in models without the interaction term the female rela-tionship satisfaction was significantly (-.63) related in a negative direction to her overall immigration stress and in a positive direc-tion to her partner’s supportive dyadic coping toward her (.45). No significant associations were found between the male overall im-migration stress or supportive dyadic coping with either partner’s relationship satisfaction.

Immigration Stress Dimensions and Common Dyadic Coping. In ad-ditional analyses, seven separate models were estimated to exam-ine the relationship between each immigration stress dimension and relationship satisfaction and whether common dyadic coping moderates these associations. Detailed results are presented in Ta-ble 4. For sake of clarity of presentation only an overview of the results is provided: Female relationship satisfaction was associated negatively with her own novelty (-1.12) and loss (-.33) dimensions and positively with the novelty dimension of the male immigra-tion stress (.83). Common dyadic coping attenuated significantly the negative relationship of the female novelty (.96), not at home (.48), occupation (.88), discrimination (.48), and loss (.57) stress di-mensions with her own relationship satisfaction. Common dyadic coping moderated in the same direction the negative association of female novelty (.53), language (.59), and loss (.44) with the male re-lationship satisfaction. Common dyadic coping also moderated the relationship between some dimensions of male immigration stress and each partner’s relationship satisfaction but in the opposite di-rection: Common dyadic coping exacerbated the negative associa-tion of male novelty (males: -.70; females: -.87) and loss (males: -.38; females: -.32) with each partner’s relationship satisfaction, of male language stress with his own relationship satisfaction (-.66), and of


TABL

E 5.

Str

uctu

ral M

odel

s fo

r Im

mig

ratio

n St

ress

Dim

ensi

ons

with

Sup

port

ive

Dya

dic

Cop

ing:

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

Regr

essi

on C

oef!

cien

ts, V

aria

nces

of

Dep

ende

nt V

aria

bles

and

Reg

ress

ion

Resi

dual

s, a

nd C

orre

latio

n of

the

Regr

essi

on R

esid

uals

(N =

104

fem

ales

and

104

mal

es)

FIS

MIS

FSD

CM

SDC

FIS

# M

SDC

MIS

# F

SDC

Res.

Var

.Va

r.Re

s. C

orr.

Mis

sing

Fam

ilyFR

S–.

76.0

1.3

1.3

5.6

3–.

24.1

3.5

7.1

4M

RS–.

45–.

10.2

6.2

5.4

6–.

29.2

5.4

9N

ovel

tyFR

S–1

.16

.65

.36

.27

.88

–.22

.08

.57

.11

MRS

–.57

.44

.30

.20

.97

–1.2

0.1

7.4

9N

ot a

t Hom

eFR

S–.

38.0

7.0

4.5

2.4

5–.

14.1

8.5

7.1

9M

RS–.

22.0

2.1

1.3

4.2

2–.

31.2

8.4

9La

ngua

geFR

S–.

34–.

120.

16.4

9.6

2–.

16.1

7.5

7.1

8M

RS–.

05–.

040.

16.3

5.5

8–.

42.2

6.4

9O

ccup

atio

nFR

S–.

85.5

6.0

6.4

3-

-.1

957

.24

MRS

.09

–.28

–.01

.42

--

.31

.49

Dis

crim

inat

ion

FRS

–.41

–.14

.11

.51

.51

.10

.18

.57

.18

MRS

–.22

–.26

.16

.33

.33

.09

.27

.49

Loss

FRS

–.43

.25

.18

.36

0.46

–.37

.15

.57

.14

MRS

–.30

.05

.22

.21

0.38

–.55

.22

.49

Not

e. F

RS =

Fem

ale

rela

tions

hip

satis

fact

ion;

MRS

= M

ale

rela

tions

hip

satis

fact

ion;

FIS

= F

emal

e im

mig

ratio

n st

ress

; MIS

= M

ale

imm

igra

tion

stre

ss; F

SDC

= F

emal

e su

ppor

tive

dyad

ic c

opin

g; M

SDC

= M

ale

supp

ortiv

e dy

adic

cop

ing.

FIS

/MIS

# F

SDC

/MSD

C =

inte

ract

ion

term

s; R

es. V

ar. =

Res

idua

l (un

expl

aine

d) v

aria

nce

of th

e de

pend

ent v

aria

ble;

Var

= V

aria

nce

(unc

ondi

tiona

l) of

the

depe

nden

t var

iabl

e; R

es. C

or. =

Cor

rela

tion

of th

e re

sidu

al te

rms

of th

e de

pend

ent v

aria

bles

. Onl

y un

stan

dard

ized

re

gres

sion

coe

f!ci

ents

are

pre

sent

ed s

ince

ther

e is

no

stat

istic

al th

eory

allo

win

g fo

r sta

ndar

dize

d re

gres

sion

coe

f!ci

ents

with

the

LMS

appr

oach

. (–)

indi

cate

s m

odel

s w

ith

conv

erge

nce

prob

lem

s, s

o re

sults

are

pre

sent

ed w

ithou

t int

erac

tion

term

s. P

aram

eter

s pr

inte

d in

bol

d ty

pe d

iffer

sig

ni!c

antly

from

0. (

95%

C.I.

)


the male occupation stress with the female relationship satisfaction (-.71). This set of negative effects still remained even when the in-teraction of female immigration stress and common dyadic coping was removed from each of the models. Overall, the interaction ef-fects predicting female relationship satisfaction of common dyadic coping and female immigration stress dimensions of novelty, not at home, occupation, discrimination and loss are of comparable forms as depicted in Figure 3. However, for novelty, occupation, and loss also changes in male immigration stress should be considered.

Immigration Stress Dimensions and Supportive Dyadic Coping. Table 5 presents the associations of each dimension of immigration stress, relationship satisfaction, and supportive dyadic coping as a mod-erator. For sake of clarity, only an overview of the results is pro-vided. Female stress associated with missing family (-.76), novelty (-1.16), occupation (-.85), and loss (-.43) had a significant negative association with her own relationship satisfaction and there was no evidence of partner effects. None of the male dimensions of im-migration stress had either actor or partner effects on relationship satisfaction. The male supportive dyadic coping moderated in a positive direction the negative relationship between the male and female relationship satisfaction with the female immigration stress associated with novelty (males: .88; females: .97), language (males: .62; females: .58), and loss (males: 0.46; females: .38). In addition, the male supportive dyadic coping ameliorated the negative asso-ciation between the female stress related to missing family and dis-crimination and her own relationship satisfaction. The female sup-portive dyadic coping had no significant, independent association with either partner’s relationship satisfaction and it even exacerbat-ed the negative relationship of the male immigration stress associ-ated with language (-.42) and his own relationship satisfaction and the negative association of the male stress associated with loss with each partner’s relationship satisfaction (males: -.37; females: -.55). Comparing the interactions between dimensions of immigration stress and supportive dyadic coping to the interactions depicted in Figure 3, we conclude that the interactions of female missing fam-ily, novelty, language, discrimination, and loss with male supportive dyadic coping are of comparable form.


DISCUSSION

Findings from this study suggest that both Latino men and wom-en experience comparable levels of relationship satisfaction and overall immigration stress. This is also true when stress associated with experiencing a novelty, discrimination, not feeling at home, language and occupational challenges, and missing family are con-sidered and despite the fact that men have resided on average two years longer than women in the U.S. Gender differences in length of stay in the U.S. were not associated with significant gender differ-ences (except for the sense of loss dimension of immigration stress) in immigration stress probably due to the fact that length of stay in the U.S. has only a modest relationship with either partner’s overall immigration stress. This modest association also suggests that both partners in Latino immigrant couples continue to experience stress associated with their condition even years, and sometimes decades, after they have immigrated to the U.S. In fact, couples in our sample reported sometimes experiencing stress when they had been resid-ing 13 years on average in the U.S. It is possible that immigrants experience stress differently over time, perhaps as anxiety and fear at first and more as frustration, sadness, and/or anger after some years. Nonetheless, length of stay in the U.S. was not associated with dyadic coping or relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the associations found between immigration stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction are not affected by the time that individu-als have been living in the U.S.

The main goal of this study was to investigate the association be-tween Latino partners’ immigration stress and their relationship satisfaction and whether supportive and common dyadic could moderate such associations. As hypothesized, overall immigration stress was found to be negatively associated with relationship sat-isfaction but only for women. Latinas’ overall immigration stress was negatively related to their own relationship satisfaction but it did not seem to be associated with their male partner’s. Within im-migration stress, it was missing family, adjusting to new situations in the U.S., feeling a sense of loss, and experiencing occupational challenges that was associated with declines in Latinas’ relation-ship satisfaction whereas language and discrimination did not have such a relationship. It is possible that for Latinas those dimensions


of immigration stress contribute to forming negative, pessimistic views about their lives and circumstances, including their couple’s relationship. It is also likely that, similar to what happens with oth-er sources of stress (e.g., economic stress; Falconier & Epstein, 2010), immigration stress affects their relationship satisfaction more indi-rectly by creating changes in the interactions with their partners. The immigration stress might increase hostile interaction with their partners, which in turn might create dissatisfaction with their cou-ple’s relationship. It is also possible that women dissatisfied with their couple’s relationship might be more affected by immigration stressors. The cross-sectional nature of the data used in this study prevents us from ruling out this possibility.

In contrast to women, Latino men’s immigration stress did not seem to be negatively related to either partner’s relationship sat-isfaction. This result suggests that Latino men may be coping with their own immigration stress in ways that do not seem to spill over into their couple’s relationship. This possibility seems consistent with traditional gender role attitudes found among Latino immi-grants in the U.S. (Falconier, 2013) by which women perform ex-pressive functions and men are encouraged to keep their emotions and stress to themselves.

In terms of the role of dyadic coping in moderating the relation-ship between immigration stress and relationship satisfaction, re-sults from the present study suggest that common and supportive dyadic coping may be playing such a role but mostly regarding women’s immigration stress. The couples’ conjoint efforts to cope with stress together were moderating the negative associations be-tween almost all of the different dimensions of the female immi-gration stress and her relationship satisfaction. Similarly, although there is no main effect of either partner’s immigration stress on the male’s relationship satisfaction, the interaction of common dyadic coping and some of the female immigration stress dimensions (nov-elty, language barriers, and sense of loss) were positively related to the male relationship satisfaction. By contrast, the interaction of the male immigration stress with common dyadic coping was not asso-ciated with higher relationship satisfaction in either partner. More-over, the interaction of the male immigration stress dimensions of novelty and loss with common dyadic coping was associated with declines in both partners’ relationship satisfaction.

Similar to common dyadic coping, it depends on the partner’s gender whether partner’s support to cope with stress has a benefi-


cial effect on relationship satisfaction. The emotional- and problem-focused support provided by the male partner was positively re-lated to Latinas’ relationship satisfaction and it also seemed to buf-fer the negative association between many aspects of the woman’s immigration stress and each partner’s relationship satisfaction. Re-sults suggest that when immigrant Latinas miss their families and experience novelty, language challenges, a sense of loss, and dis-crimination, the support they receive from their male partners may ameliorate the negative association of those dimensions of immi-gration stress with their own relationship satisfaction. Similarly, the interaction of the female stress associated with novelty, language, and a sense of loss with the support offered by her male partner is associated with increases in the male relationship satisfaction as well. Unlike women, Latino men do not seem to benefit from their partner’s support to cope with stress. Moreover, they even seem to be less satisfied with their couple’s relationship when they are experiencing stress related to a sense of loss and language barri-ers and their female partners try to help them cope with that stress by providing emotional and practical support. In short, a partner’s support in coping only seems to protect both partners’ relationship satisfaction from immigration stress in cases where the woman ex-periences that stress; but it may have no effect, or even sometimes a negative effect, if the man experiences such stress.

Taken together this set of results suggests that common dyadic coping and the male supportive dyadic coping can attenuate not only the negative relationship between many of the dimensions of Latinas’ immigration stress and her relationship satisfaction but also the association between some dimensions of her immigration stress and her male partner’s relationship. By contrast, despite the posi-tive association between common dyadic coping and both partners’ relationship satisfaction, common dyadic coping and the female partner’s supportive dyadic coping may have no relationship or even exacerbate the negative relationship of Latino man’s immigra-tion stress with either partner’s relationship satisfaction. These gen-der differences might be related to differences between men’s and women’s degree of interpersonal orientation and coping strategies. Women have been argued to have a more interpersonal, interdepen-dent orientation whereas men tend to be more independent and self-reliant (Cross & Madson, 1997). These differences are also consistent with differences in coping strategies since women have been found to seek more social support than men do to deal with stress (for a


review see Tamres, Janicki, & Helgelson, 2002). This could explain why for women the male partner’s support as well as any conjoint couple’s efforts to deal with immigration stress may be viewed posi-tively and even favored and why such strategies may prevent immi-gration stress from affecting the couple’s relationship. The fact that women in this study provide more coping support to their partners than men do supports this argument. Unlike women, men might not view such common and supportive dyadic coping as helpful but perhaps more as an indicator of their inability to cope with stressful situations independently. They might feel comfortable in supporting their female partners in dealing with their immigration stress but they might not experience supportive and common dyadic coping effective in dealing with their own immigration stress.

In addition, this gender difference in coping styles might be exac-erbated by the traditional gender role orientation that can be found among immigrant Latinos in the U.S. (Falconier, 2013; Warner & Leidy, 2008). Even when women contribute to the family income, in many Latino families men are considered to be the head of the household, the main breadwinner, and the final decision maker about family matters (Falicov, 1998) and therefore, men’s self-re-liance and acting independently are promoted. While Latino men may not find common and supportive dyadic coping effective strat-egies to deal with their own immigration stress, Latino women may. Latinos raise women according to the standards of marianismo that emphasizes that women’s major role is to take care of their family’s emotional needs by being caring and nurturing mothers, daughters, and wives (Falicov, 1998). Given that Latinas are raised to value in-terpersonal connectedness, a partner’s supportive coping as well as the couple’s common coping might be particularly effective for them in dealing with their immigration stress.

It is important to note that no specific pattern emerged regarding each immigration stress dimension and either its association with relationship satisfaction or its interaction with dyadic coping. In-stead, as it was earlier explained, differences seemed to be linked to gender. However, levels of immigration stress, supportive dy-adic coping, and relationship satisfaction were associated in both partners, consistent with the partners’ interdependence that was expected to be found. By using an APIM approach this interdepen-dence could be examined and controlled for, which reaffirms the need to continue applying this approach in couples’ research.


LIMITATIONS

Findings from the present study should be considered with caution as the data and the sample have some limitations. The data used in this study is cross-sectional and prevents drawing any causal con-clusion. The hypothesis of this study presented immigration stress as influencing relationship satisfaction but it is also possible that relationship satisfaction might be affecting the level of stress ex-perienced by immigrants or biases their report of stress. The data also derived from self-report measures, which are limited by social desirability bias. This may have limited some Latino men in par-ticular that, given their traditional gender role orientation, might have been less inclined to self-disclose on sensitive and private top-ics such as those related to their couple’s functioning. In addition, even though partners were instructed to complete their assessment separately, consultation between them cannot be ruled out as they answered the questionnaires without any supervision.

Regarding the sample used in this study, its small size re-duced the power of the statistical analyses. The small sample size and high correlations between the supportive dyadic cop-ing subscales caused estimation problems. However, we still found some significant results that fit the pattern implied by the common dyadic coping models. The pattern of results remained the same if only one partner’s supportive dyadic coping was en-tered in the models, ruling out statistical artifacts due to the high correlations between both partners’ supportive dyadic coping. More importantly, the small sample size limited the ability to in-clude both types of dyadic coping simultaneously within the same model. The composition of the sample may also limit the external validity of the findings. Even though the sample may be representa-tive of the Latino population in the Washington, D.C. area in terms of country of origin distribution, it is not of the U.S. Latino popula-tion.

RESEARCH AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Further research should reexamine the moderation model tested in this study with longitudinal data collected from a larger sample. Ide-ally, further studies should include various immigrant populations


so that cultural comparisons in coping with immigration stress can be made. Given the scarcity of research on immigrant couples and the negative association between immigration stress and relation-ship satisfaction, it is important to continue analyzing mediating and moderating mechanisms of influence as well as any possible protective mechanisms that may help couples deal with this type of stress. Further research should also seek to examine each partner’s acculturation attitudes (e.g., assimilation, integration, separation, or marginalization) (Berry, 2006) since they may affect immigra-tion stress levels and their effect on relationship functioning. For example, assimilation strategies have been associated with lower stress levels in immigrants (for a review see Berry, 2006). Similar-ly, future studies should examine the ways in which immigration stress is experienced over time (e.g., fear, anxiety, frustration, sad-ness). It is also important that research on immigration stress and relationship functioning in couples continue using approaches that reflect partners’ interdependencies so that differential effects can be uncovered.

Findings from the present study provide some important pre-liminary information to clinicians working with Latino immigrant couples. Therapists should be aware of the potential negative asso-ciation of Latinas’ immigration stress with both partners’ relation-ship satisfaction and the potential benefits and challenges of dyadic coping for the couple. Considering that common and supportive dyadic coping might buffer the harmful impact of the woman’s im-migration stress on both partners’ relationship satisfaction, but that it might have the opposite effect regarding the man’s immigration stress, practitioners should always assess the effect of such coping strategies on the couple’s relationship when working with Latino partners. Suggestions for use of dyadic coping strategies should be accompanied by discussions on how each partner views receiving support from the partner and the becoming involved in conjoint efforts to cope with stress. Such discussions might increase the ben-efits of dyadic coping for both partners and ensure that therapists recommend culturally-appropriate coping strategies.

CONCLUSION

This was the first study that using an APIM approach examined the impact of immigration stress and its different dimensions on


couples’ relationship satisfaction and the potential moderating role of dyadic coping. Results indicated that even though both Latino men and women experience similar levels of immigrations stress, there are significant gender differences in its association with part-ners’ relationship satisfaction and the role of common and support-ive dyadic coping in that association. These findings, which offer some preliminary important information for practitioners working with the Latino immigrant population, need to be replicated with Latino couples living in other foreign countries as well as with other immigrant populations.

REFERENCESAroian, K. J., Kaskiri, E. A., & Templin, T. N. (2008). Psychometric evaluation of the

Arabic language version of the demands of immigration scale. International Journal of Testing, 8, 2–13.

Aorian, K. J., Norris, A. E., González de Chávez Fernández, M. A., & García Averas-turi, L. M. (2008). Gender differences in psychological distress among Latin American immigrants to the Canary Islands. Sex Roles, 59, 107–118.

Aroian, K. J., Norris, A. E., Tran, T. V., & Schappler-Morris, N. (1998). Development and psychometric evaluation of the demands of immigration scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 6, 175–194.

Badr, H., Carmack, C. L., Kashy, D. A., Cristofanilli, M., & Revenson, T. A. (2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychology, 29, 169–180.

Baucom, B. R., McFarland, P. T., & Christensen, A. (2010). Gender, topic, and time in observed demand-withdraw interaction in cross- and same-sex couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 233–242.

Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parcelling on goodness-of-fit and param-eter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Model-ing, 9, 78–102.

Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In P.T.P. Wong, & L.C.J. Wong (Eds.), Hand-book of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 287–298). New York: Springer.

Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance in marital functioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches coping inventar (DCI). Testmanual [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern, Göttingen: Huber & Hogrefe.

Bodenmann, G., Atkins, D. C., Shär, M., & Poffet, V. (2010). The association between daily stress and sexual activity. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 271–279.

Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfac-tion in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551–569.

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Bradbury, T. N., Gmelch, S., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating ef-


fects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 27, 408–424.

Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic cop-ing and marital quality: A two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psy-chology, 20, 485–493.

Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano Vaeth, P. A., & Harris, T. R. (2007). Ac-culturation stress, drinking, and intimate partner violence among Hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1431–1447.

Caplan, S. (2007). Latinos, acculturation, and acculturative stress: A dimensional concept analysis. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 8, 93–106.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

Donato, S., Iafrate, R., Barni, D., Bertoni, A., Bodenmann, G., & Gagliardi, S. (2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of Bodenmann’s dyadic coping questionnaire in an Italian sample. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16, 25–47.

Falconier, M. K. (2013). Traditional gender role orientation and dyadic coping in immigrant Latino couples: Effects on couple functioning. Family Relations, 62, 269-283. doi:10.1111/fare.12002.

Falconier, M. K., & Epstein, N. B. (2010). Relationship satisfaction in Argentinean couples under economic strain: Mediating factors and gender differences in a dyadic stress model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 781–799.

Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Dyadic coping in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Anx-iety, Stress, & Coping, 26, 446-466. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2012.699045

Falicov, J. C. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York: Guilford.

Finch, B. K., & Vega, W. A. (2003). Acculturation stress, social support, and self-rated health among Latinos in California. Journal of Immigrant Health, 5, 109–117.

Goodkind, J. R., Gonzáles, M., Malcoe, L. H., & Espinosa, J. (2008). The Hispanic women’s social stress scale: Understanding the multiple social stressors of U.S.- and Mexico-born Hispanic women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci-ences, 30, 200–229. DOI: 10.1177/0739986308316178.

Graham, J. M., Liu, Y. J., & Jeziorski, J. L. (2006). The dyadic adjustment scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 701–717.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equa-tion Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2010). Overview of race and Hispanic origin. Retrieved March, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/.

Kayser, K., Watson, L. E., & Andrade, J. T. (2007). Cancer as a “we-disease”: Examin-ing the process of coping from a relational perspective. Families, Systems, & Health, 25, 404–418.

Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.


Kurdek, L. A. (1992). Dimensionality of the dyadic adjustment scale: Evidence from heterosexual and homosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 22–35.

Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S., Rossier, J., et al. (2010). Psychometrics of the dyadic coping inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 201–212, doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000024.

Lugo Steidel, A. G., & Contreras, J. M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312-330. doi: 10.1177/0739986303256912

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide. Sixth edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Negy, C., Hammons, M. E., Reig-Ferrer, A., & Carper, T. M. (2010). The importance of addressing acculturative stress in marital therapy with Hispanic immi-grant women. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10, 5–21.

Padilla, A. M., & Borrero, N. E. (2006). The effects of acculturative stress on the His-panic family. In P.T.P. Wong, & L.C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 299–317). New York: Springer.

Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Fam-ily Psychology, 24, 551-559. doi: 10.1037/a00208.36.

Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 105–115.

Revollo, H. W., Qureshi, A., Collazos, F., Valero, S., & Casas, M. (2011). Acculturative stress as a risk factor of depression and anxiety in the Latin American immi-grant population. International Review of Psychiatry, 23, 84–92.

Sarmiento, I. A., & Cardemil, E. V. (2009). Family functioning and depression in low-income Latino couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35, 432–445. DOW: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00139.x.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Mueller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1139–1162.

Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Hegelson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behav-ior: A meta-analytic review and examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 2–30.

Torres, L. (2010). Predicting levels of Latino depression: Acculturation, accultura-tive stress, and coping. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 256–263. DOI: 10.1037/a0017357.

Warner, B., & Leidy, C. (2008). Latino women’s perception of gender equity in household labor and its relation to marital satisfaction. Human Service Educa-tion, 28, 110–121.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American factfinder american community survey. Re-trieved May 11, 2011, from http://factfinder.census.gov/

Immigration Stress and Relationship Satisfaction in Latino Couples: The Role of Dyadic Coping

Documents