The Power of Listening: Lending an Ear to the Partner during Dyadic Coping Conversations
Abstract
Although active, responsive listening is widely assumed to be essential for well-functioning intimate relationships, the manner in which this important behavior might promote closeness remains unknown. To test the prediction that listening may be especially influential when partners disclose experiences of stress, we instructed 365 heterosexual couples to hold two 8-min conversations in which each partner discussed a stressful personal experience while the other partner was asked to respond as he or she ordinarily would. We coded expressions of stress and listening behavior at 10-s intervals during these conversations, applied actor-partner multilevel models to compute a variable capturing the covariation between one partner's stress expression and the other partner's listening behavior, and then used that variable in regression analyses to predict observed dyadic coping behaviors, self-reports of the quality of dyadic coping in general, and self-reports of relationship satisfaction. Attentive listening while the other partner expressed stress was significantly linked with better dyadic coping behaviors and higher relationship satisfaction. Partners displaying less attentive listening during the partner's stress expression also engaged in more problem-oriented coping and more negative dyadic coping. Because attentive listening during disclosure of stress covaries in expected ways with support provision and judgments of relationship quality, appreciating the context-specific effects of active listening merits careful consideration as an intervention target in couple therapy and in relationship education programs. (PsycINFO Database Record
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Presence and active listening in romantic relationships are associated with better coping during conflict and increased satisfaction.
“Presence and active listening in romantic relationships have been associated with better coping during conflict and increased satisfaction [79].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 64
- Authors
- Kuhn, R., Bradbury, T. N., Nussbeck, F. W., & Bodenmann, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- Venue
- Journal of Family Psychology
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 762-772
- ISSN
- 0893-3200 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1293
- OpenAlex
- W2807407369
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 8.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Family Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
- KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
- Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF: CRSI11_133004/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
- Keywords
- attentive listening, couple communication, dyadic coping, relationship satisfaction, problem-focused coping, negative coping, couple therapy, relationship education, intimate relationships, support provision
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Sexual Partners, Spouses, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review