Cited by 64Attachment and Relationship DynamicsFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics

The Power of Listening: Lending an Ear to the Partner during Dyadic Coping Conversations

Kuhn, Rebekka, Bradbury, Thomas N., Nussbeck, Fridtjof W., Bodenmann, Guy·2018·Journal of Family Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1037/fam0000421

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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