Personal Relationships, 14 (2007), 551569. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 2007 IARR. 1350-4126=07

Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage

GUY BODENMANN, a THOMAS LEDERMANN, a AND

THOMAS N. BRADBURY b
a
University of Fribourg, Switzerland and bUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Abstract
Using data from 198 couples, this study examines whether associations between stress occurring outside of the dyad
and key indicators of relationship functioning are mediated by stress arising within the dyad. Findings suggest that
relationship satisfaction and sexual activity are governed by hassles and problems experienced within the dyad that
are in turn related to stress arising outside the dyad. Associations between external stress and relationship functioning are stronger for daily hassles than for critical life events. Higher levels of daily stress predicted less sexual activity for maritally dissatisfied women and more sexual activity for maritally dissatisfied men. Self-reports of stress
covaried with self-reported indexes of satisfaction and sexuality, suggesting that contextual influences are broadly
influential in intimate relationships.

Theorists have expanded the long-standing

view that interpersonal processes are a primary
cause of marital outcomes, in recognition of
the possibility that interpersonal processes
themselves are associated reciprocally with
the stressful events and chronic stressors to
which couples are exposed. Drawing from
earlier models highlighting the influence of
minor hassles (e.g., Burr & Klein, 1994) and
major life events (e.g., McCubbin & Patterson,
1983), these formulations aim to articulate
how these contextual influences intersect with
specific interactional processes and individual
difference variables to produce changes in
satisfaction and relationship stability. Karney
and Bradburys (1995; Bradbury & Karney,
2004) theoretical framework, derived from
their meta-analysis of the large literature on
marriage, posits that distress and dissolution

Guy Bodenmann, Institute for Family Research and Counseling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland;
Thomas Ledermann, Institute for Family Research and
Counseling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland;
Thomas N. Bradbury, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Correspondence should be addressed to Guy Bodenmann,
University of Fribourg, Institute for Family Research and
Counseling, Rue de Faucigny 2, CH-1700 Fribourg,
Switzerland, e-mail: joseguy.bodenmann@unifr.ch.

emerge from the combination of: (a) enduring

vulnerabilities (e.g., problematic personality
traits such as neuroticism, turbulent family of
origin), (b) stressful events (e.g., major life
events, stressful circumstances, normative
transitions), and (c) poor adaptive processes
(e.g., inability to empathize with and support
the partner; defensive, hostile, and disengaged
problem-solving skills). This perspective assumes that marital quality fluctuates downward
as acute life events compromise these adaptive
processes, and these fluctuations are expected
to be especially large when chronic stress is
high (Karney, Story, & Bradbury, 2005).
Bodenmanns (2000, 2005) model further
specifies the role of internal stress (e.g., negative communication patterns and dyadic conflicts, health problems of one partner) and
external stress (e.g., work stress, financial
stress, stress resulting from the family of origin
and living in impoverished neighborhoods) in
marriage. This framework assumes that
chronic minor stresses, which originate outside the relationship and increase the likelihood of marital tension and conflict, are
particularly deleterious for marriage because
they erode relationship quality slowly and
often outside of conscious awareness. This
model hypothesizes that chronic external stress

551

552

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

affects marital satisfaction via four mediating

processes: (a) decreasing the time that partners
spend together, which in turn results in a reduction of shared experiences, weakening feelings
of togetherness, decreasing self-disclosure,
and jeopardizing dyadic coping; (b) decreasing
the quality of communication by eliciting less
positive interaction and more negative interaction and withdrawal; (c) increasing the risk of
psychological and physical problems, such as
sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and mood
disturbances; and (d) increasing the likelihood
that problematic personality traits will be expressed between partners (e.g., in the form of
rigidity, anxiety, and hostility). These frameworks provide the conceptual basis for the
present work, which tests the premise that
minor and major stresses arising outside the
dyad serves as an exogenous variable that covaries with internal stressors within the dyad,
which then mediates the effects of external
stressors on endogenous variables, including
partners global evaluations of the marriage
and sexual intimacy.

tionship, characterized by satisfaction with the

quality and frequency of sex and by the
absence of sexual dysfunction, with greater
feelings of love (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick,
2002), marital happiness (e.g., Brezsnyak &
Whisman, 2004), and lower levels of marital
conflict (Metz & Epstein, 2002). Studies also
show that stress within the dyad, in the form of
marital tension and conflict, covaries with
lower sexual satisfaction and greater likelihood of sexual dysfunction (e.g., Hurlbert,
Apt, Hurlbert, & Pierce, 2000). Surprisingly,
Morokoff and Gillilland (1993) showed that
desired frequency of sexual intercourse increased with daily hassles for husbands and for
wives. Although we would not expect a positive association between hassles and sexual
desire, it is consistent with McCarthys
(2003) view that sexual activity may often
serve to reduce tension as couples contend
with stressors in everyday life or marriage.
Acute life events in the past 6 months, in
contrast, were unrelated to sexual functioning
(after controlling for age) in the Morokoff and
Gillilland study, though unemployed men
experienced more difficulties in sexual performance compared to employed men.

Brief review of research

Research addressing relationship quality and
sexual functioning is beginning to shed light
on the interplay between stress and marital
functioning. Thus, several studies show a significant association between higher levels of
stress and lower levels of relationship satisfaction (e.g., Bodenmann, 2000, 2005; Cohan &
Bradbury, 1997; Harper, Schaalje, & Sandberg,
2000; for a review, see Story & Bradbury,
2004); however, it seems that marital satisfaction is linked more closely to daily hassles than
to critical life events (see Williams, 1995). A
5-year longitudinal study by Bodenmann and
Cina (2006) extends this work by showing that
daily hassles are among the most important
predictors of divorce. Recent studies also
begin to outline the role that distal forms of
stress (e.g., poverty) play in expressions in
warmth and hostility (Cutrona et al., 2003)
and how different forms of stress can interact
to hasten the rate at which marriages deteriorate (Karney et al., 2005).
Stress is also likely to affect physical intimacy. Research links a satisfying sexual rela-

Goals of the present study

The accumulated evidence suggests that the
ecological niche in which couples reside is
associated with the level of satisfaction they
experience and the quality of the communication and physical intimacy they display. At the
same time, a few important shortcomings of
these studies are apparent. First, most of the
studies fail to differentiate between minor
forms of stress, such as daily hassles (see
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and major stress,
or they assess only one of these forms of stress.
Second, studies focusing on everyday stress
and daily hassles often do not distinguish
explicitly between stress that is internal and
external to the dyad, which is likely to inflate
correlations with marital processes and outcomes. Third, research examines the association between stress and marriage most often in
relation to such outcomes as marital satisfaction or marital communication. Relatively few
studies examine sexuality, either by itself or in

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

553

conjunction with other marital outcomes.

Fourth, several of these studies assess individual spouses without corresponding data from
their partners. As a result, studies have not
examined dyadic effects systematically, and
we know little about the reciprocal effects of
the stress experienced by one partner on the
marital satisfaction and sexuality of the other.
The present report builds on the growing
theoretical interest in stress and marriage,
and the empirical literature that supports this
interest, while also addressing important limitations in existing studies. Specifically, we distinguish between (a) stress that is external
versus internal to the couple, (b) critical life
events and daily hassles, (c) actor and partner
effects, and (d) a range of different facets of
marital quality, including marital satisfaction,
and various indexes of sexual functioning
(sexual satisfaction, activity, and dysfunction)
in testing the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1.
As shown in Figure 1, we
test the hypothesis that external stress predicts
more hassles and higher tension within the
dyad, which in turn predicts lower relationship
functioning (i.e., marital satisfaction and sexual functioning). That is, we predict that experiences of internal stress within the dyad
mediate, at least partially, the relationship
between external stress and relationship
functioning.

Hypothesis 2.
We predict that actor effects
(i.e., the association between the stress that
one person reports and his or her marital
functioning) will be greater in magnitude than
parallel partner effects (i.e., the association
between the stress that one person reports
and his or her partners marital functioning).
More importantly, based on findings suggesting that wives report more stress than husbands (e.g., Bodenmann, 2000; Cohan &
Bradbury, 1997) and that wives changes in
satisfaction appear to be more responsive to
stress than those of husbands (e.g., Karney
et al., 2005), we predict that the daily hassles
and stress that wives experience within the
marriage will be predicted more reliably by
husbands external stress than the opposite
effect.
Hypothesis 3.
Although external critical
life events may exert negative effects on marital quality (see Karney et al., 2005; Neff &
Karney, 2004), we assume that negative
effects of external daily hassles on marital
quality will be stronger (Bodenmann, 2005;
Williams, 1995). This hypothesis is consistent
with Bodenmanns contention that daily hassles are particularly pernicious because they
extract a small but persisting cost on individuals and their relationship, often outside of
explicit awareness.

a3w

External stress
women

Internal daily
stress women

a1w

p1w

E1w

Endogenous
variables women

a2w

E2w

p2w
RE2

RE1
p1m

External stress
men

a1m

p2m

E1m

Internal daily
stress men

a2m

Endogenous
variables men

E2m

a3m

Figure 1. ActorPartner Mediator Model with external stress as exogenous variables, internal
daily stress as mediators, and relationship functioning as endogenous variables.

554

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

Hypothesis 4.
Following Morokoff and
Gillilland (1993), we predict that higher levels
of daily hassles will predict higher levels of
sexual activity. As it is possible that satisfied
and dissatisfied couples will vary in their
capacity to manage the effects of daily stress
on their sexual interactions, we will examine
whether relationship satisfaction moderates
this association. Specifically, we predict that
higher levels of daily hassles will covary with
higher levels of sexual activity of satisfied
couples, as they are likely to possess not only
the interactional skills needed to discuss and
defuse daily stress but also the propensity to
engage in sexual activity when the daily hassles in their lives subside, however temporarily. Among dissatisfied couples, in contrast,
we predict that the association between daily
hassles and sexual activity will be weaker or
possibly in the opposite direction as daily
stress will not be negotiated as well and sexual
interaction will become less likely.

2.39, p , .05; men M 35.8 (SD 17.1)

versus M 39.4 (SD 17.9), t(77) 2.51,
p , .05; and reported a shorter relationship
duration, M 6.58 (SD 5.41) versus M
14.09 (SD 7.25), t(101) 7.50, p , .001.
Nonetheless, married and unmarried participants did not significantly differ on any of
the variables of interest, with the exception
of sexual activity (assessed with five items
rated on 5-point scales: 1 never; 5 very
often; see below), where unmarried participants of both genders reported a higher frequency: women M 18.1 (SD 3.5) versus
M 16.5 (SD 3.9), t(91) 2.47, p , .05;
men t(86) 3.13, p , .01.

Method
Participants
Three hundred ninety-six individuals residing
in the German-speaking part of Switzerland
participated in the study, representing a convenience sample of 198 intact heterosexual
couples. Among the women, 21% were 20
30 years, 54% were 3140 years, and 25% were
41 years or older. Among the men, 14% were
2030 years, 48% were 3140 years, and 38%
were 41 or older. Although a few participants
ended their formal education with elementary
school (10% of the women, 7% of the men),
most earned a terminal high school degree
(48% women, 47% of the men) or a college
or university degree (42% women, 46% men).
Average relationship duration was 12.4 years
(SD 7.5; range 1.136.5 years), 75% of
the couples (n 148) were married, and 70.4%
had children (M 1.6; SD 1.29; range
15). It is important to recognize that a significant minority of the couples were not married.
Comparison of married couples with not-married
couples showed that unmarried participants
were younger, women M 33.1 (SD
16.3) versus M 37.1 (SD 16.8), t(68)

Procedure and measures

As insufficient resources were available to conduct a random-digit telephone survey of couples, couples instead volunteered to participate
in response to community-wide newspaper
advertisements placed in the German-speaking
region of Switzerland. Couples contacting the
laboratory about the study were mailed a packet
of questionnaires that included separate and distinct materials for each partner, together with
instructions to complete the questionnaires
independently and to return the forms to the
institute within 2 weeks. We did not pay couples for their participation as it is unusual in
Switzerland to pay participants for their participation in this kind of research. In addition to
providing demographic information (age, sex,
education, marital status, relationship duration,
relationship satisfaction, type of residence,
number of children, occupation, and employment status), participants completed the following measures.
Hassles Scale.
We administered a shortened
and adapted version of the original Hassles
Scale (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus,
1981), consisting of 37 of the original 117
items. We rephrased terms that seemed redundant (e.g., we relabeled hassles associated with
planning meals and caring for pet as hassles with task sharing in household; we relabeled hassles over smoking too much and
use of alcohol as hassles with unhealthy
behaviors). Participants rated all items on

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

5-point scales (1 not at all stressful, 5 very

stressful). The items reflected a range of daily
hassles (i.e., irritating, frustrating, or distressing
demands in everyday transactions) that participants rated with reference to the previous
month. Factor analysis of these responses
yielded one factor representing stress external
to the dyad (29 items, e.g., troublesome neighbors, social obligations, financial problems,
problems getting along with fellow workers,
customers or clients giving you a hard time,
not liking current work duties, too many interruptions, having to wait, too many things to do;
internal consistency as measured by Cronbachs
a .86) and a second representing stress
internal to the dyad (8 items, e.g., problems
with your partner, overload with family responsibilities, time pressures in the family, demands
of task sharing in household, different goals,
annoying habits of the partner; Cronbachs a
.75). The mean score for external daily stress
was 53.7 (SD 12.1, range 30110) for
women and 50.5 (SD 11.7, range 2993)
for men, t(188) 2.80, p , .01. Mean scores
of internal daily stress were 16.1 (SD 5.0,
range 839) for women and 14.4 (SD 4.3,
range 828) for men, t(188) 4.59, p , .001.
Life Events Questionnaire.
The Life Events
Questionnaire (Bodenmann, 2000), based upon
the Social Readjustment Scale of Holmes and
Rahe (1967) and the Life Experiences Survey
by Sarason, Johnson, and Siegel (1978), assesses 27 potentially stressful life events in different domains such as personal injuries (severe
illness, handicap), experiences of loss (death of
a loved one), work-related events (unemployment, loss of work), and social conflicts (severe
marital distress, severe social tensions with relatives, friends, neighbors or colleagues at work)
within the past 12 months. Participants indicated the degree of stress caused by these life
events on a 3-point scale (1 somewhat stressful, 2 stressful, 3 very stressful). The total
score of the scale used in this study was the
combined measure of the occurrence of critical
life events multiplied by their stress impact
(Cronbachs a .67). In this version, we
included only external major stressors (i.e.,
unemployment, death of a friend, changing
place of domicile) that did not involve the mar-

555

riage directly in order to avoid redundancy

between the independent and dependent variables studied here. Prior longitudinal studies
with married couples have shown that measures
of this type can yield valid data (e.g., Cohan &
Bradbury, 1997; Neff & Karney, 2004). The
mean scores of this combined scale were 10.0
(SD 6.4, range 129) for women and 7.9
(SD 5.4, range 135) for men, t(182)
4.34, p , .001.
Partnership Questionnaire.
The Partnership Questionnaire (Partnerschaftsfragebogen,
or PFB; Hahlweg, 1996), a 31-item measure of
marital satisfaction, consists of three subscales: quarrelling (item examples: my partner
blames me for things that I have done in the
past; my partner criticizes me in a sarcastic
way; my partner shouts at me during arguments; a .91), affection (item examples:
my partner makes me feel that I am physically
attractive for him or her; my partner is affectionate toward me; a .90), and togetherness
(item examples: my partner shares his/her
thoughts and feelings with me; my partner tells
me what he or she had experienced during the
day; a .84). Items are rated on a 4-point
scale with 0 never and 3 very often. In
this study, we used only the affection and
togetherness scales in forming an index of
marital satisfaction (a .93). Due to medium
correlations between quarrelling and internal
daily stress (r .41 for women, r .48 for
men), we excluded the subscale quarrelling
in order to avoid redundancy with internal
daily stress. In this study, men reported an
average score of 61.6 on the PFB and women
of 61.3, t(189) 0.32, ns, indicating nondistressed couples, with considerable variation
(for men, SD 15.4; range: 1590; for women,
SD 15, range: 1090).
Sexual satisfaction subscale of the Marital
Satisfaction Inventory.
The Marital Satisfaction Inventory (Snyder, 1981; German translation by Klann, Hahlweg, & Hank, 1992) is
a 150-item truefalse self-report questionnaire
designed to assess the nature and extent of marital distress along 11 key dimensions (e.g.,
effective communication, marital aggression,
sexual dissatisfaction, agreement on finances,

556

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

and conflict over child rearing). In this study,

we used only the 19-item scale measuring
sexual dissatisfaction, examples, my partner
sometimes shows too little enthusiasm for
sex; my partner has too little regard sometimes for my sexual satisfaction: women,
M 8.2, SD 3.0, range 012; men,
M 7.7, SD 3.3, range 012; t(187)
2.69, p , .01. We recoded this scale so that
higher scores indicated higher satisfaction.
The internal consistency of the scale was .82.

measure was 22.6 (SD 13.7, range 673)

for women and 14.0 (SD 9.2, range 277)
for men, t(181) 7.16, p , .001.

Sexual Activity Scale.

Designed for this
study, this scale assesses the typical frequency
of sexual behaviors with five items administered on a 5-point scale (1 never, 2 rarely,
3 from time to time, 4 frequently, 5 very
often). Behaviors assessed include petting,
partner stimulation (massages), oral sex, and
sexual intercourse. The internal consistency of
the scale was a .86. The mean score was
17.0 (SD 3.81, range 725) for women
and 16.4 (SD 3.75, range 525) for men,
t(187) 2.83, p , .01.
Sexual Dysfunction Scale.
Following the
diagnostic categories of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed.
(DSMIV; American Psychiatric Association,
1994), men and women rated several potential
sexual problems, indicating (a) how often they
experienced these problems in the relationship
(5-point scale: never, rarely, from time to time,
often, very often) and (b) how much pain these
problems caused (4-point scale: no pain, moderate pain, high pain, very high pain). Women
rated sexual desire problems (hypoactive sexual desire), sexual aversion problems, sexual
arousal problems, orgasmic problems, dyspareunia, and vaginismus; men rated sexual desire
problems (hypoactive sexual desire), sexual
aversion problems, erectile problems, orgasmic problems, premature ejaculation, and sexual pain problems. In this study, we used
a combined measure encompassing the frequency of the sexual problems and the selfperceived pain. Cronbachs alpha of this
variable was less than optimal (.68 for women
and .60 for men), suggesting that these dysfunctions do not represent a common underlying
construct. The average score on the combined

Symptom Check List.

Derogatis (1992)
developed Symptom Check List (SCL90R),
a 90-item instrument to assess a broad range of
psychological problems and symptoms of psychopathology. This instrument permits evaluation of a variety of concepts, including
somatization, obsessivecompulsive problems,
interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety
and hostility. Users can employ three global
scores in research as well as clinical practice.
In this study, we used the global severity index
to control for a general bias in the perception
of the participants with regard to neuroticism.
Participants rated this on a 5-point scale (0
not at all, 4 extremely). The reliability of
this scale was a .96. The mean score was
49.8 (SD 40.4, range 0233) for women
and 30.0 (SD 25.6, range 0145) for men,
t(189) 6.47, p , .001.
Results
Bivariate correlations among measures
Intercorrelations among the study variables are
shown in Table 1. Several associations are
noteworthy. First, relationship satisfaction,
sexual satisfaction, and sexual activity intercorrelate reliably. Second, sexual dysfunction
appears to be a distinct variable, with low levels of association with other sexual functioning variables and a nonsignificant association
between partners. Third, factor analysis of the
hassles measure produced distinguishable
indexes of hassles that are internal and external
to the dyad. These two variables correlate
among men and among women, as we would
expect (rs .60 and .63, respectively), yet the
between-partner correlations are higher for
internal hassles (r .46) than for external
hassles (r .11), thus helping to validate the
distinction we are drawing between them.
Fourth, acute life events covary reliably with
the external stress measure, yet these measures
share less than 20% of their variance, suggesting that these are not redundant measures.
Fifth, higher levels of marital satisfaction do

2.26***
2.08
2.20**
2.15*
.02
.03
2.16*
.00
.63***
1.00***

557

Note. SCL90R Symptom Check List. N 198 men and 198 women. We present correlations between the dyad members in bold along the diagonal.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001 (one tailed).

2.25***
2.14*
2.17**
2.17**
.07
2.01
2.02
.07
.73***
.62***
2.29***
2.37***
2.35***
.41***
.65***
.61***
.30***
.25***
.00
2.07
2.23***
2.28***
2.24***
.33***
.63***
.11
.36***
.48***
.00
2.06
1. Marital satisfaction
2. Sexual satisfaction
3. Sexual activity
4. Sexual dysfunctions
5. Internal daily stress
6. External daily stress
7. Critical life events
8. SCL90R total score
9. Age
10. Duration of relationship

.64***
.68***
.73***
2.12*
2.35***
2.07
2.15*
2.21**
2.22**
2.31***

.56***
.64***
.63***
2.22**
2.45***
2.23***
2.23***
2.30***
2.09
2.13*

.74***
.63***
.65***
2.10
2.27***
2.04
2.16*
2.14*
2.14*
2.22**

2.15*
2.44***
2.27***
.03
.27***
.19**
.29***
.42***
.09
.01

2.45***
2.49***
2.45***
.43***
.46***
.60***
.36***
.48***
.09
.06

2.13*
2.20**
2.03
.17*
.44***
.34***
.39***
.30***
2.11
2.11

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Variables

Table 1. Intercorrelations among study variables, for women (above diagonal) and men (below diagonal) and dyads (along the diagonal)

10

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

covary with lower levels of internal daily

stress (r 2.35 for men; r 2.45 for
women). This does suggest a modest degree
of confounding between these measures. In
sum, the study variables are generally performing as expected and further multivariate
analyses are warranted. As relationship duration was not highly correlated with any dependent variable, we did not control for it. It is,
however, conceivable that personal vulnerability creates a general bias with regard to participants ratings of stress as well as their
evaluation of marital functioning. Intercorrelations among the study variables and the
SCL90R total score ranged between j.29j
(marital satisfaction) and j.65j (internal daily
stress) in women and between j.14j (sexual
activity) and j.48j (external and internal daily
stress) in men. To control for this effect, we
partialled out overall psychological distress
(SCL90R total score) from all self-report
data.
Statistical analyses: Investigating mediation
with dyadic data
We tested hypotheses using the ActorPartner
Mediator Model (see Campbell, Simpson,
Kashy, & Fletcher, 2001; Fletcher & Thomas,
2000; Ledermann & Bodenmann, 2006),
which allows for the analysis of mediator
effects in studies using dyadic data. This
model is an extended version of the widely
used ActorPartner Interdependence Model
(APIM) proposed by Kenny and colleagues
(e.g., Kenny, 1996; Kenny & Cook, 1999),
which takes into account the interdependence
of data collected from dyadic partners. The
classic APIM yields an estimation of the effect
of ones own independent variable on ones
own dependent variable (actor effect) and on
the partners dependent variable (partner
effect). Using manifest variables, the APIM
is a saturated model with 0 df. The Actor
Partner Mediator Model outlined in Figure 1
consists of six pairwise variables (three per
partner), including two manifest exogenous
(independent) variables, two manifest mediator
variables, and two manifest endogenous
(dependent) variables. The path models used
in this study with direct actor effects (horizontal

558

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

arrows) between the exogenous and endogenous variables have 2 df; we can assume that
direct partner effects (diagonal arrows) between exogenous and endogenous variables
are statistically irrelevant. If the path models
with 2 df fit the data well, then this assumption
is verified. The assumption of complete mediation isassuming good model fitsupported if the direct effects between external
stress and the marital variables are not significant. Partial mediation can be inferred in the
association between the exogenous and endogeneous variables if one or both of these direct
effects are significant.
We used the z statistic to evaluate the mediation effects between the exogenous and
endogenous variables, with

significant, however, the relationship between

the exogenous and endogenous variables is
completely mediated by internal stress.
We tested differences between parameters
(e.g., actor vs. partner effects) within one
model by means of model comparisons comparing the default model with a nested model
assuming equal parameters. We will assume
that parameters are statistically different when
the chi-square difference test is significant.
We tested differences between coefficients
across different models by computing the
95% confidence limits using Fishers Z transformation. We can say that a substantial difference exists if the confidence interval of one
effect excludes the coefficient of another effect.

^
^b
a
^ a^b^
r

^ denotes the estimated indirect

^b
where a
effect between X (exogenous variable) and Y
(endogenous variable) through M (mediator),
^ a^b^ represents the estimated standard
and r
error of the indirect effect. The standard error
will be estimated by Sobels (1982) approximate formula that MacKinnon and his colleagues (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman,
West, & Sheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Warsi, &
Dwyer, 1995) recommend:
^ a^b^
r

r
^2 r
^2 r
^ 2^ 1 b
^2
a
b

^
a

^ denote the estimated structural

^ and b
where a
coefficients of the path X / M, and M / Y,
^ 2b^ are the estimated var^ 2a^ and r
respectively, r
^
^ and b.
iances of a
The hypothesis holds that internal daily
stress mediates the relation between exogenous variables (represented here as external
stress) and endogenous variables (represented
by marital functioning variables) when (a) the
models show an adequate fit, (b) the direct
effects constituting a mediation effect are significant, and (c) the mediation effect is significant using Equations 1 and 2. When the
direct actor effects between external stress
(exogenous variable) and marital functioning variables (endogenous variables) are not

ActorPartner Models with external daily

stress as exogenous variables
The estimated maximum likelihood coefficients of the ActorPartner Mediator Models
with external daily stress as exogenous variables and internal daily stress as the mediator
are shown in Table 2. To evaluate the fit of
a particular structural model, we use chisquare, the comparative fit index (CFI),
root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the fit criteria proposed by
Hu and Bentler (1999), who suggest a cutoff ..95 for CFI and ,.06 for RMSEA.
According to Browne and Cudeck (1993),
RMSEA values , .08 indicate an acceptable
fit, and values , .05 indicate a good fit. As
readers can see in Table 2 (bottom), all models
with daily stress fit the data well. These findings, which indicate that the relations between
external daily stress and marital functioning
are at least partially mediated by internal daily
stress, are consistent with Hypothesis 1.
Association between external daily stress and
internal daily stress.
As shown at the top
left side of Table 2, actor effects relating
external daily stress and internal daily stress
were statistically significant, for women and
for men. As partner effects were not significant and as womens actor effect were significantly higher than the partner effect from men
to women (v2Diff 9:45, p .002), we found
that actor effects were more important than the

External stress / internal daily stress

Actor effects
Women, a 1w
Men, a 1m
Partner effects
Men / women, p 1w
Women / men, p 1m
Internal daily stress / endogenous variable
Actor effects
Women, a 2w
Men, a 2m
Partner effects
Men / women, p 2w
Women / men, p 2m
External stress / endogenous variable
Actor effects
Women, a 3w
Men, a 3m
Correlations
Between exogenous variables, R
Between error terms 1, R E1
Between error terms 2, R E2
Explained variances
R 2w internal daily stress women (%)
R 2m internal daily stress men (%)
R 2w endogenous variable women (%)

Source

2.33***
2.35***
2.13*
2.23***

.04
.04
.02
.31***
.55***

2.31***
2.33***
2.23***
2.26***

.05
.20**
.01
.31***
.52***
16
24
14

.10
.00

.10
.00

16
24
19

.38***
.49***

Sexual
satisfaction

.38***
.49***

Marital
satisfaction

16
24
14

.01
.31***
.60***

.06
.15*

2.20**
2.22**

2.27***
2.25***

.10
.00

.38***
.49***

Sexual
activity

Models with external daily stress

16
24
7

.02
.31***
Fixed at 0

.03
2.08

.12
2.04

.19**
.14*

.10
.00

.38***
.49***

Sexual
dysfunction

16
8
18

.34***
.27***
.52***

Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0

2.24***
2.27***

2.29***
2.22***

.23***
2.08

.25***
.29***

Marital
satisfaction

16
8
14

.34***
.27***
.55***

Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0

2.13*
2.23***

2.31***
2.33***

.23***
2.08

.25***
.29***

Sexual
satisfaction

16
8
14

.34***
.27***
.60***

Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0

2.21**
2.23**

2.25***
2.18**

.23***
2.08

.25***
.29***

Sexual
activity

Models with acute life events

(continued)

16
8
7

.34***
.27***
Fixed at 0

Fixed at 0
Fixed at 0

.12
2.03

.20**
.11

.23***
2.08

.25***
.29***

Sexual
dysfunction

Table 2. Actor and partner effects (maximum likelihood estimates), correlations, and model fits for the ActorPartner Mediator Model with internal
daily stress as mediator and the overall distress (Symptom Check List [SCL90R]) as covariables

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

559

Note. Due to a poor model fit, the estimates of the model with critical life events and sexual satisfaction cannot be interpreted. The SCL90R total score was partialed out from all manifest
variables.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001 (one tailed).

11
8.969
4
.062
.975
.079
21
11.004
4
.027
.967
.094
16
5.169
4
.270
.994
.039
1
1.656
3
.647
1.000
.000
12
0.536
2
.765
1.000
.000
21
2.035
2
.362
1.000
.009
19
0.144
2
930
1.000
.000
R 2m endogenous variable men (%)
v2
df
p
Comparative fit index
Root mean square error of approximation

Sexual
activity
Sexual
satisfaction
Source

Marital
satisfaction

Sexual
satisfaction

Sexual
activity

Sexual
dysfunction

Marital
satisfaction

Models with acute life events

Models with external daily stress

Table 2. (continued)

1
8.511
5
.130
.958
.060

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

Sexual
dysfunction

560

corresponding partner effects. This suggests

that internal daily stress may be affected more
by ones own external daily stress than by the
partners external daily stress.
Association between internal daily stress
and relationship functioning.
Actor effects
were consistent in demonstrating that higher
levels of internal daily stress covaried with
lower levels of marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and sexual activity, and with higher
levels of sexual dysfunction, for men and for
women. With the exception of the sexual dysfunction variable, we found significant partner effects between internal daily stress and
relationship functioning. Specifically, to the
extent that one spouse reported more daily
stress and tension in the relationship, the partner was more likely to report lower levels of
marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and
sexual activity. As a group, these findings
are in line with our first hypothesis that daily
stress and tension within the dyad, as reported
both by ones self and the partner, covary with
poorer relationship functioning.
Association between external daily stress and
relationship functioning.
With respect to
direct actor effects between external daily
stress and indexes of relationship functioning variables, we found no significant
associations for women, but two significant
associationsinvolving marital satisfaction
and sexual activityfor men. These direct
associations were positive, indicating that
men who reported higher levels of external
daily stress also reported higher levels of
marital satisfaction and sexual activity. This
finding has to be considered in the context of
the mediator model analyses because the correlations between external daily stress and the
two outcome variables sexual activity and
marital satisfaction are negative (see Table 1).
Among men, these positive direct effects are
substantially lower than the effects between
external daily stress and internal daily stress
and between internal daily stress and the two
outcome variables marital satisfaction and
sexual activity (see Table 2). It is noteworthy
that these effects may not be separate and
distinct as the bivariate correlation between

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

marital satisfaction and sexual activity is .74

for women and .73 for men (see Table 1).
Tests of mediation.
To evaluate mediation
effects, Equations 1 and 2 were used to test for
significance. In the ActorPartner Mediator
Model tested here, we can distinguish eight
indirect effects (two actoractor, two actor
partner, two partneractor, and two partner
partner). In Table 3 we present the estimated
indirect effects, standard errors, and the results
of the z statistics for the mediation effects consisting of two significant direct effects. In all
four models with external daily stress as exogenous variables, both indirect effects involving
two actor effects were significant. There was
one exception, however: In the model with sexual dysfunction, we found no significant actor
actor effect for men, which was mainly due to
a weak actor effect from internal daily stress
to sexual dysfunctions in men. Apart from the
model with sexual dysfunction, both actor
partner indirect effects were substantial. The
other four mediator effects including partner
effects between external and internal daily
stress were not significant in all four models
with external daily stress as exogenous variables.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, these findings suggest that couples experiencing higher
levels of external daily stress also experience
higher levels of stress and tension within the
dyad and, in turn, lower levels of relationship
and sexual satisfaction, sexual activity, and (to
a moderate extent) more sexual dysfunctions.
With respect to the distinction between partial
and complete mediation, the findings suggest
that the relations between external daily stress
and sexual satisfaction and between external
daily stress and sexual dysfunction are completely mediated, whereas the associations
between external daily stress and marital satisfaction and sexual activity are partially mediated by internal daily stress due to substantial
direct actor effects between the exogenous and
endogenous variables in men.
ActorPartner Models with acute life events
as exogenous variables
The analyses just described were repeated
using acute life events as the exogenous vari-

561

ables, to test the prediction that acute life

events are less consequential than daily hassles
in predicting daily stress within the relationship (Hypothesis 3). The first model analyses
reveal poor fits for all models with direct paths
between the exogenous and endogenous variables (RMSEA ranged between .081 and .132),
except for the model with sexual dysfunctions
as endogenous variables, v2(3) 2.06, p
.561; CFI 1.000, RMSEA .000. Because
the two direct effects between the exogenous
and endogenous variables were small in all four
models, they were excluded. The model without direct effects between the exogenous and
endogenous variables counts 4 df and assumes
that the relations between acute life events and
the marital outcome variables are completely
mediated by internal daily stress. Poor fits were
obtained for the model that included sexual satisfaction and thus we do not discuss this model
further. In contrast, we obtained good fits for
the models that included marital satisfaction
and sexual activitywith respect to RMSEA
an acceptable fit resulted for the model that included sexual dysfunction (see Table 2, bottom).
Association between acute life events and
internal daily stress.
As shown in Table 2,
in the remaining three models, all actor effects
were substantially weaker than corresponding
effects between external daily stress and internal daily stress (.25 vs. .38 for women and .29
vs. .49 for men; see Table 2). Given the 95%
confidence limits of the actor effects between
external and internal daily stress (.27 and .55 for
women, and .40 and .68 for men), the effects
between critical life events and internal daily
stress were significantly lower than those
obtained between external daily stress and internal daily stress. (This was also true for men but
not for women when using the 95% confidence
limit of the coefficients between critical events
and internal daily stress, which were .12 and .40
for women and .16 and .44 for men.)
Partner effects were also apparent, though
only in the case of acute life events reported by
men and internal daily stress reported by
women. The confidence limits of .10 and .38
for the effect from men to women and 2.22
and .06 for the effect from women to men support Hypothesis 2: The association between

562

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

Table 3. Mediation effects for the ActorPartner Mediator Models (APMeM) with external
stress as exogenous variables, internal daily stress as mediators, and marital functioning as
endogenous variables
Effect

IE

SE

APMeM with external daily stress and marital satisfaction

Xw / Mw / Yw A / A
20.200
0.058
23.465
Xw / Mw / Ym A / P
20.167
0.053
23.161
Xm / Mm / Yw A / P
20.174
0.057
23.065
Xm / Mm / Ym A / A
20.242
0.065
23.737
APMeM with external daily stress and sexual satisfaction
Xw / Mw / Yw A / A
21.061
0.302
23.512
Xw / Mw / Ym A / P
20.867
0.298
22.911
Xm / Mm / Yw A / P
20.485
0.275
21.763
Xm / Mm / Ym A / A
21.497
0.378
23.960
APMeM with external daily stress and sexual activity
Xw / Mw / Yw A / A
21.152
0.371
23.109
Xw / Mw / Ym A / P
20.964
0.363
22.657
Xm / Mm / Yw A / P
20.984
0.372
22.648
Xm / Mm / Ym A / A
21.274
0.430
22.960
APMeM with external daily stress and sexual dysfunction
Xw / Mw / Yw A / A
2.707
1.238
2.187
Xw / Mw / Ym A / P
20.358
0.790
20.453
Xm / Mm / Yw A / P
1.965
1.282
1.532
Xm / Mm / Ym A / A
1.649
1.014
1.625
APMeM with critical life events and marital satisfaction
Xw / Mw / Yw A / A
20.007
0.002
22.743
Xw / Mw / Ym A / P
20.006
0.002
22.602
Xm / Mw / Yw P / A
20.007
0.003
22.537
Xm / Mw / Ym P / P
20.007
0.003
22.424
Xm / Mm / Yw A / P
20.007
0.003
22.550
Xm / Mm / Ym A / A
20.007
0.003
22.425
APMeM with critical life events and sexual activity
Xw / Mw / Yw A / A
20.038
0.015
22.506
Xw / Mw / Ym A / P
20.036
0.016
22.301
Xm / Mw / Yw P / A
20.040
0.017
22.330
Xm / Mw / Ym P / P
20.038
0.017
22.163
Xm / Mm / Yw A / P
20.042
0.018
22.326
Xm / Mm / Ym A / A
20.037
0.018
22.059
APMeM with critical life events and sexual dysfunctions
Xw / Mw / Yw A / A
0.103
0.048
2.150
Xm / Mw / Yw P / A
0.109
0.053
2.038

p (two
tailed)

95% confidence
interval

.001
.002
.002
.000

20.31 to 20.09
20.27 to 20.06
20.29 to 20.06
20.37 to 20.12

.000
.004
.078
.000

21.65 to 20.47
21.45 to 20.28
21.02 to 0.05
22.24 to 20.76

.002
.008
.008
.003

21.88 to 20.43
21.68 to 20.25
21.71 to 20.26
22.12 to 20.43

.029
.651
.125
.104

0.28 to
21.91 to
20.55 to
20.34 to

5.13
1.19
4.48
3.64

.006
.009
.011
.015
.011
.015

20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to
20.01 to

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

.012
.021
.020
.031
.020
.040

20.07 to 20.01
20.07 to 20.01
20.07 to 20.01
20.07 to 0.00
20.08 to 20.01
20.07 to 0.00

.032
.042

0.01 to
0.00 to

0.20
0.21

Note. In this table, we present mediation effects only for those models in which both direct effects were significant. IE
indirect effect; w women; m men; A actor effect; P partner effect. Equation 1 was used to compute z scores;
standard error was estimated by means of Equation 2. The formula used to compute normal 95% confidence interval is
^
^
^ ^cb^ .
cb61:96
r

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

womens internal daily stress and mens acute

life events is stronger than the association
between mens internal daily stress and womens acute life events.
As noted, Hypothesis 3 predicts that external daily hassles would account for more variation in internal daily stress than would acute
life events. Partially consistent with this prediction, the results summarized in Table 2
show that external daily stress accounted for
16% of the variation in womens internal daily
stress and 24% of the variation in mens internal daily stress; corresponding figures for
acute life events were 16% and 8%, respectively. Given that partners are more similar
in their reports of acute life events (r .39)
than their reports of external daily hassles (r
.11; see Table 1), this pattern of results is consistent with the notion that acute life events are
more likely to be shared experiences and hence
are more likely to be recognized mutually, producing less turmoil within the dyad in turn.
Daily external hassles, in contrast, are more
likely to be unshared experiences that are managed at the individual level and thus may
evoke greater tension in the partners.
Association between internal daily stress and
relationship functioning.
Actor effects relating internal daily stress to marital satisfaction,
sexual activity, and sexual dysfunction were
comparable in magnitude to corresponding
effects found in the models with external daily
stress except the associations between mens
internal stress and mens marital satisfaction
and sexual activity that appeared to be weaker
in the model with acute life events than the
parallel associations obtained in the model with
external daily stress (2.22 vs. 2.33, and 2.18
vs. 2.25). Partner effects relating internal daily
stress to marital satisfaction were also evident
for men and for women. The differences in the
magnitude of the effects in the models with
external daily stress and the models with critical
events derived from the different model specification (one with direct actor effects between
external stress and marital functioning having 2
df, the other without direct actor effects
between the exogenous and endogenous variables having 4 df) and the substantial direct actor
effects between external daily stress and marital

563

satisfaction and between external daily stress

and sexual activity in men. As in the first set
of analyses, there were no partner effects relating internal daily stress to sexual dysfunction,
for men or for women.
Tests of mediation.
As above, Equations 1
and 2 were used to test mediation effects. In all
three models, both actoractor mediation
effects were significant, with the exception
of the model with acute events, where only
womens actoractor indirect effects were substantial (Table 3). In the model with marital
satisfaction and sexual activity, six of the eight
mediation effects were significant. Nonsignificant mediation effects involved the effect
from womens life events to mens internal
stress. In the model with sexual dysfunction,
only the association between mens critical
events and mens sexual dysfunction via womens internal stress was significant.
Marital satisfaction as a moderator of the
association between daily external hassles
and sexual activity.
In an effort to build
upon Morokoff and Gillillands (1993) finding
that daily hassles and sexual activity would
covary positively, in Hypothesis 4 we predicted that this association would be moderated by marital satisfaction. We tested the
ActorPartner Moderator Model (Campbell,
Simpson, Kashy, & Rholes, 2001; Ledermann &
Bodenmann, 2006) in which mens and womens sexual activity were predicted by marital
satisfaction and external hassles of both partners,
together with the interaction between satisfaction and hassles for each partner. To avoid multicollinearity, the predictors (external daily stress)
and moderators (marital satisfaction) were centered as recommended by Aiken and West
(1991) among others. This ActorPartner Moderator Model fit the data well (v2 13.06, df
9, p , .16; CFI .991, RMSEA .048). Significant actor and partner effects were obtained
for womens marital satisfaction (.50, p , .001;
.28, p , .001, respectively) and for mens marital satisfaction (.56, p , .001; .33, p , .001,
respectively). Most importantly, the actor effects
relating the interaction of daily hassles and marital satisfaction to sexual activity were significant for women (.10, p , .05) and for men

564

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

(2.13, p , .01); corresponding partner effects

were nonsignificant.
Following Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken
(2003), Figure 2 presents these interactions by
showing the associations between daily hassles and sexual activity for individuals 1 SD
above the mean, at the mean, and 1 SD below
the mean in marital satisfaction. The figures

for women (top) and for men (bottom) show

that the moderating effects of satisfaction on
the association between daily hassles and
sexual activity take different forms for women
and for men. Among the most satisfied
women, sexual activity does not appear to vary
much as a function of daily hassles. In contrast,
among women who are at or 1 SD below the

Wife's sexual activity

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-2

Wife's external stress centered

low marital satisfaction

medium marital satisfaction

high marital satisfaction

Husband's sexual activity

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-2

Husband's external stress centered

low marital satisfaction

medium marital satisfaction

high marital satisfaction

Figure 2. Association between external daily stress and sexual activity as moderated by level of
marital satisfaction, for women (top) and for men (bottom).
Note. This model was tested using two measures of external stress (i.e., external daily hassles and
acute life events), one mediator (daily stress and tension arising within the relationship), and four
variables hypothesized to reflect relationship functioning (i.e., marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual activity, and sexual dysfunction).

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

satisfaction mean, sexual activity tends to

decline with increasing levels of daily hassles.
This pattern of results is not surprising, in the
sense that stress does not appear to have adverse
effects on womens sexual activity when their
satisfaction is high and that higher levels of
stress appear to covary with lower levels of
sexual activity when their satisfaction is lower.
Among men as a group, as with women, the
sexual activity of relatively satisfied men does
not appear to vary much as a function of their
daily hassles. For men who are at or 1 SD
below the mean in marital satisfaction, sexual
activity tends to increase as daily hassles
increase. Thus, the sexual activity of satisfied
men, like that of maritally satisfied women,
appears to be relatively independent of daily
hassles. But unlike the pattern obtained for
women, higher levels of daily hassles correspond with higher levels of sexual activity when
men are at or below the sample mean in satisfaction, and this association appears to be stronger among those men with lower satisfaction.
In short, our most basic prediction in
Hypothesis 4that higher levels of daily hassles will covary with higher levels of sexual
activitywas supported. In contrast, our predictions about the moderating role of marital
satisfaction were only partly correct: Levels of
sexual activity in the face of daily hassles were
not higher among the most satisfied couples,
and sexual activity declined with increases in
daily hassles only for relatively distressed
women but not for relatively distressed men.
Discussion
This study evaluated the associations among
stressors arising outside of marriage (in the form
of acute life events and daily stress), stressors
arising within the relationship (in the form of
daily relationship stresses and strains), and relationship functioning (indexed by marital
satisfaction and sexual variables). We tested
mediational hypotheses using the ActorPartner
Mediator Model proposed by Ledermann and
Bodenmann (2006), which extends the APIM
(e.g., Kenny, 1996) often used with dyadic data.
In undertaking this study, we aimed to test
recent theoretical statements that assert that intimate relationships cannot be understood with-

565

out reference to the contexts in which couples

reside and specifically argue for distinguishing
between stressors that are external and internal
to the intimate dyad (see Bodenmann, 2000,
2005; Neff & Karney, 2004). Data were collected from both partners in 198 couples in
established relationships, and actor and partner
effects were analyzed in all models.
Results support previous findings indicating that stress might play an important role
in understanding marital functioning. Three
sets of associations support this claim. First,
whether measured as daily hassles or acute life
events, partners reporting higher levels of
stress arising outside the dyad also reported
higher levels of stress and tension within the
dyad. Partner effects were also evident, particularly for womens outcomes, indicating
that external stress reported by men covaried
more strongly with wives experience of daily
relationship tension than vice versa. Second,
spouses experiencing more stress as arising
within the relationship tended to have lower
levels of marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and sexual activity, and higher levels of
sexual dysfunction, and they tended to have
partners with lower levels of marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and sexual activity,
though not a higher level of sexual dysfunction. Third, in the models suggesting partial
mediation, men reporting more daily hassles
external to the relationship reported more marital satisfaction and more sexual activity.
These two latter results were relatively
weak though reliable, and they permitted tests
of internal stress as a mediator of associations
between either form of external stress and relationship outcomes. In general, results provided
support for the mediational framework outlined in Figure 1 and represented by Hypothesis 1. At least with the cross-sectional design
used here, it seems that internal stress mediates
the association between two forms of contextual variablesexternal daily hassles and critical life eventsand key aspects of marital
functioning such as marital satisfaction and
sexuality. We can infer that different goals of
the partners, divergent needs, and annoying
habits (operationalized here as stress arising
within the dyad) often become harmful for
the relationship when partners are stressed by

566

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

external circumstances; when external stresses

are reduced, these same relationship issues become less salient to partners and their relationship functioning can improve (Bodenmann,
2000; Neff & Karney, 2004). Of course, analyses of samples in which couples are under
unusually high levels of external stress might
yield different results. It is possible that the
levels of external stress studied here were not
sufficiently destabilizing or detrimental to the
marital interaction behaviors couples would
typically use to manage stressful events and
circumstances.
Three additional findings merit detailed
discussion. First, consistent with Hypothesis
2, the results of this study demonstrate that
various indexes of external stress are not all
associated to the same degree with relationship
functioning. In particular, associations between
external daily stress and tension experienced
within the dyad were stronger than those
involving acute life events (cf. Bodenmann,
2000; Morokoff & Gillilland, 1993; Williams,
1995). Why might this be? First, almost by definition, partners experience the accumulation of
everyday stress more frequently, and this can
exert a greater influence on the equilibrium that
couples seek to establish. Second, spouses may
find it easier to attribute their internal stresses to
salient life events than to more subtle and ordinary daily hassles. Couples may in turn invoke
distinct coping efforts that will allow them to
manage and resolve these acute events. Third,
external daily hassles may elicit less empathy
and understanding from the partner, as the partner might not be aware of these hassles, their
objectively rated intensity is typically low, and
the impact of this kind of stress is likely to be
underestimated. The present findings are therefore in line with the transactional stress theory
of Lazarus and Folkman (1984), which maintains that even an event that is objectively rated
as trivial (such as missing the bus, coming late
to an appointment, being criticized by a superior) may cause a great deal of stress that can
spill over to affect ones work life and social
relationships. At least two design modifications
are needed to understand these associations
more fully. First, external daily stress, measured
as a proximal variable, may have covaried more
highly than acute life events with internal stress

because acute life events were assessed over

a 12-month period and were likely to be a less
salient influence on couples. Second, diary data
on the environmental challenges and interpersonal processes implicated here would help to
pinpoint the ways in which stress operates on
intimate relationships.
Despite evidence that wives reported higher
mean levels of all forms of stress in this study
(acute life events Cohens d 0.32, external
daily hassles Cohens d 0.20, internal daily
hassles Cohens d 0.33), husbands did not
appear to pay a price for this: Partner effects
relating wives internal daily stress to husbands marital satisfaction (2.26), sexual satisfaction (2.23), and sexual activity (2.22)
were comparable to parallel effects relating
husbands internal stress to these same variable for wives (2.23, 2.13, and 2.20, respectively, for models involving external daily
stress). We can speculate that wives may be
particularly good at absorbing and not radiating the stress that husbands encounter outside
the relationship and that wives are particularly
adept at identifying moments at which support
efforts are most needed. This possibility is
consistent with recent research showing that
whereas men and women are quite similar in
delivering social support to one another in
laboratory settings (e.g., Pasch & Bradbury,
1998), women outpace men in how responsive they are to the partners need for support
(Neff & Karney, 2005). Understanding whether the burden of absorbing the partners
stress and providing better support than they
receive is detrimental for the long-term health
of women (e.g., in the form of depression) is
beyond the scope of this study, though future
studies might benefit from investigating longer
term health outcomes in relation to mens
daily stress and womens interpersonal responses to this stress.
A third key finding provided support for the
idea that higher levels of stress can enhance
couple functioning (Hypothesis 4). Higher levels of external daily stress did predict higher
levels of stress within the dyad but to a lesser
degree daily stress also predicted higher levels
of satisfaction and sexual activity for men. The
positive association between daily stress and
sexual activity is consistent with an earlier

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

study by Morokoff and Gillilland (1993;

also see McCarthy, 2003), though here we
demonstrated that the nature of this association
varies as a function of marital satisfaction. We
hypothesized that satisfied couples, by virtue
of being more resilient to stress and more
responsive to one another, would engage in
more sexual activity to the extent that external
daily stresses provided them with opportunities to interact and provide one another with
validation and compassion. This idea was not
supported, as levels of sexual activity were
about the same in satisfied men and women,
regardless of their reported levels of daily
stress (see Figure 2). Relatively dissatisfied
spouses, on the other hand, were expected to
report lower levels of sexual activity when
stress was high than when it was low. This
aspect of Hypothesis 4 was supported, though
only for women. For relatively dissatisfied
men, the opposite pattern was obtained: Those
reporting higher levels of daily hassles
reported higher levels of sexual activity, much
like we anticipated for satisfied spouses.
Though we must resort to speculation on this
point, this result suggests that the daily hassles
experienced by men who are relatively dissatisfied might provide opportunities for couples
to join together against a common adversary,
and this increased contact may promote sexual
interaction. On the basis of these moments of
heightened interaction, partners might recognize the inherent strengths of their relationship
and thus enjoy higher levels of satisfaction and
sexual activity. The results shown in Figure 2
suggest that a different process operates when
distressed women experience high levels of
daily hassles. Men may be at least as supportive as women, and these supportive acts may
bring the couple closer together but not eventuate in sexual interaction. Alternatively, men
may not be particularly adept at providing support to their distressed and stressed partner,
opportunities for supportive exchanges may
be lost and, accordingly, these wives report
less sexual activity than their equally stressed
counterparts who are in more satisfying relationships. An observational study of social
support behaviors in couples provides support
for this latter interpretation, in that wives display more positive support to the extent that

567

the husband is higher in negative affectivity;

men, however, display less positive support as
wives negative affectivity increases (Pasch,
Bradbury, & Davila, 1997). To explore these
possibilities in greater detail, we need further
research that tracks daily stress, supportive
interactions, and sexual interaction among satisfied and dissatisfied men and women.
Among similar lines, the relatively weak
pattern of results relating stress and sexual dysfunction suggests the need for further study on
this association (cf. Bodenmann, Ledermann,
Blattner-Bolliger, & Galluzzo, 2006; Morokoff & Gilliland, 1993). To the extent that they
are a relatively stable feature of an individuals
sexual life, sexual dysfunctions may be somewhat independent of contextual influences.
Interpretation of the present results must be
qualified by several factors. First, the crosssectional nature of this study makes causal
inferences impossible. Second, we can make
no claims about how individuals or couples
might respond to across-time fluctuations in
daily hassles or life events. Third, the use of
a convenience sample limits generalizability
to the larger population of couples. Fourth,
we have no independent assessment of stress,
which leaves open the possibility that individual differences in personality factors are contributing to the effects observed here. It is
noteworthy, however, that intradyadic correlations were high for internal stress (.46) and
critical life events (.39) but rather low for
external daily stress (.11), suggesting that no
general bias could be observed. Fifth, the hassles and life events that were assessed here
may vary dramatically between respondents;
unemployment, for example, is not a uniform
experience, and apart from the impact ratings
collected here, these variations were not well
measured. Other studies have profitably distinguished, for example, between chronic and
acute stressors (e.g., Karney et al., 2005), but
that distinction could not be pursued here
because duration of stress exposure was not
assessed. Sixth, though we do not expect
cultural contexts to moderate associations
between stress and relationship functioning,
at least within Westernized societies, additional data are needed to establish the generalizability of the present findings. Prior

568

G. Bodenmann, T. Ledermann, and T. N. Bradbury

studies on this topic conducted with European

and U.S. samples have yielded comparable
findings (e.g., Bodenmann, 2005; Story &
Bradbury, 2004).
Notwithstanding these limitations, the present
study links variation in key marital variables
marital satisfaction and sexual functioning
with spouses experiences of daily hassles in
the relationship, which in turn covary with daily
hassles and, to a lesser degree, the acute life
events they encounter outside the relationship.
Evidence that higher levels of stress sometimes
corresponded with better marital functioning
indicates that more complex models are needed
to specify the mechanisms that might underlie
these associations and to explore their implications for preventive intervention. Although
scholars often view modification of couples
interactional processes as the surest route to
preventing adverse marital outcomes, further
analysis of couples ecological niches may
reveal that protecting the emotional climate
within a marriage from the harmful effects
of external stressors is a compelling alternative (e.g., Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004;
Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). The most immediate practical implication of this study is that
coping and stress management may prove to
be a useful target in intervention programs
designed to prevent and treat relationship distress. Enhancing traditional communication
and problem-solving skills may be insufficient
for strengthening the marital dyad, as our findings suggest that ineffective management of
daily hassles may produce relationship conflicts and tension within the relationship.
Addressing external sources of conflict (e.g.,
see the Couples Coping Enhancement Training
program; Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004), has
the potential to redirect partners change efforts
away from one another so that they focus at
least as much on the environmental circumstances that are affecting them.

Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren

[Stress and coping in couples]. Gottingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance
for marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, &
G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 3350). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping
among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective
longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 7189.
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., Blattner-Bolliger, D., &
Galluzzo, C. (2006). The associations among everyday
stress, critical life events and sexual problems. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194, 494501.
Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The Couples
Coping Enhancement Training (CCET): A new
approach to prevention of marital distress based upon
stress and coping. Family Relations, 53, 477484.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Preventing
marital dysfunction: Review and analysis. In F. D.
Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of
marriage: Basic issues and applications (pp. 375
401). New York: Guilford.
Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Understanding
and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 862879.
Brezsnyak, M., & Whisman, M. A. (2004). Sexual desire
and relationship functioning: The effects of marital
satisfaction and power. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 30, 199217.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136
162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burr, W. R., & Klein, S. (Eds.). (1994). Managing family
stress. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G.
J. O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of
ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447462.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W.
S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and
behavior in a stressful situation: An application of
the ActorPartner Interdependence Model. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 821843.
Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life
events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course
of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 114128.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Abraham, W. T., Gardner,
K. A., Melby, J. N., Bryant, C., et al. (2003). Neighborhood context and financial strain as predictors of
marital interaction and marital quality in African
American couples. Personal Relationships, 10,
389409.
Derogatis, L. R. (1992). SCL90R, administration, scoring & procedures manual-II for the R(evised) version
and other instruments of the Psychopathology Rating
Scale Series. Townson, MD: Clinical Psychometric
Research.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression
testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Stress, sex, and satisfaction

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Thomas, G. (2000). Behavior and online cognition in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 7, 111130.
Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik (FPD) [Partnership questionnaire]. Gottingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.
Harper, J. M., Schaalje, B. G., & Sandberg, J. G. (2000).
Daily hassles, intimacy, and marital quality in later life
marriages. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28,
118.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2002). Linking romantic
love with sex: Development of the perceptions of love
and sex scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 361378.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 11, 213218.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for the fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 155.
Hurlbert, D. F., Apt, C., Hurlbert, M. K., & Pierce, A. P.
(2000). Sexual compatibility and the sexual desiremotivation relation in females with hypoactive sexual
desire disorder. Behavior Modification, 24, 325347.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S.
(1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurements: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life
events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal
course of marital quality and stability: A review of
theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 334.
Karney, B. R., Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2005).
Marriages in context: Interactions between chronic
and acute stress among newlyweds. In T. A. Revenson,
K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping
with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping
(pp. 1332). Washington, DC: APA.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in
dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279294.
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationship, 6,
433448.
Klann, N., Hahlweg, K., & Hank, G. (1992). Deutsche
Validierung des Marital Satisfaction Inventory
(MSI) von Snyder (1981). System Familie, 5, 1021.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal,
and coping. New York: Springer.
Ledermann, T., & Bodenmann, G. (2006). Moderatorund Mediatoreffekte bei dyadischen Daten: Zwei
Erweiterungen des Akteur-Partner-InterdependenzModells [Moderator and mediator effects in dyadic

569
research: Two extensions of the ActorPartner Interdependence Model]. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie,
37, 2740.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M.,
West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7,
83104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A
simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 4162.
McCarthy, B. (2003). Marital sex as it ought to be. Journal
of Family Psychotherapy, 14, 112.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family
stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage and Family Review,
6, 737.
Metz, M. E., & Epstein, N. (2002). Assessing the role of
relationship conflict in sexual dysfunction. Journal of
Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 139164.
Morokoff, P. J., & Gillilland, R. (1993). Stress, sexual
functioning, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex
Research, 30, 4353.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context
affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress
and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134148.
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in
social support: A question of skill or responsiveness?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
7990.
Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support,
conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,
219230.
Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender,
negative affectivity, and observed social support
behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4, 361378.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978).
Assessing the impact of life changes: Development
of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 46, 932946.
Snyder, D. K. (1981). Marital satisfaction inventory (MSI)
manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for
indirect effects in structural equation models. In S.
Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290
312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding
marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 11391162.
Williams, L. M. (1995). Associations of stressful life
events and marital quality. Psychological Reports,
76, 11151122.