Affiliation:
1. Competence Center for Gynecopsychiatry Outpatient Clinic Wil, Psychiatry St. Gallen St. Gallen Switzerland
2. Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy Witten/Herdecke University Witten Germany
3. Department of Psychology University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
4. Department of Psychology University of California Los Angeles California USA
Abstract
AbstractIntroductionMany adolescents are in their first romantic relationship; at the same time, depressive symptoms generally increase during this developmental stage. In adults, equity of support in romantic relationships is associated with less depressive symptoms—especially in female partners, who are generally on “the losing side” of support transactions with male partners. This study examines whether equity of dyadic coping is associated with depressive symptoms in adolescent mixed‐gender couples. We disentangle equity of positive and negative dyadic coping, as differential effects might arise.MethodsSelf‐report data on dyadic coping and depressive symptoms were gathered from 124 mixed‐gender couples aged between 16 and 21 years living in Switzerland between 2011 and 2013. Equity of dyadic coping was quantified by calculating the difference between received dyadic coping and provided dyadic coping for each partner separately. These difference scores and the overall level of dyadic coping were used to predict depressive symptoms in both partners using an Actor‐Partner‐Interdependence Model.ResultsFor female adolescents, we found the expected curvilinear association between equity of negative dyadic coping behaviors and depressive symptoms (actor effect). Additionally, the female perception of equity of positive dyadic coping was correlated with less depressive symptoms in male partners (partner effect). For male adolescents, receiving more positive dyadic coping than they provided was associated with more depressive symptoms (actor effect).DiscussionIn female partners, results resembled those in adult mixed‐gender couples. In male partners, results changed depending on the direction of inequity—possibly due to gender role development.