Dyadic Coping and Spousal Support: The Moderating Role of Psychological Flexibility

Dyadic Coping and Spousal Support: The Moderating Role of Psychological Flexibility | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Dyadic Coping and Spousal Support: The Moderating Role of Psychological Flexibility Idil Eren Kurt, Sezen Ateş Yaman This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6411626/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Marriage is a dynamic process that requires mutual commitment, support, and adjustment, often challenged by stressors such as financial difficulties, work stress, family responsibilities, and mismatched personal expectations. How couples cope with stress significantly impacts both individual well-being and relationship quality. The aim of this study is to investigate the moderating role of psychological flexibility in the relationship between perceived spousal support and dyadic coping. The study was carried out with 587 married participants (347 women, 240 men) living in Turkey. The Spousal Support Scale, Dyadic Coping Inventory, and the Psychological Flexibility Scale were utilized as data collection instruments. Correlation analysis, structural equation modeling, and regression analysis using the bootstrap method were employed for data analysis. The correlation analysis indicated positive associations between spousal support, psychological flexibility, and dyadic coping. Additionally, the analyses demonstrated that psychological flexibility moderates the association in spousal support and dyadic coping. This study emphasizes the significance of fostering psychological flexibility to improve relationship dynamics and enhance the ability to cope with stress in couples. Dyadic coping psychological flexibility spousal support Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Marriage is a dynamic process where two individuals come together to share a life, requiring mutual commitment, support, and adjustment. However, couples may face various stress factors during the marriage process (Randall & Bodenmann, 2009 ). Factors such as financial difficulties, work stress, family responsibilities, and mismatched personal expectations can increase stress in marriage. In this context, how couples manage with stress plays a critical role in both individual well-being and relationship quality (Revenson et al., 2005 ). The levels of psychological flexibility (PF) and spousal support (SS) are key determinants in reducing the effects of stress on marriage and maintaining a harmonious relationship. The ways in which couples cope with stress have been a significant topic in psychological research. Bodenmann ( 2005 ) emphasizes through the Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) that coping with stress as a couple is an interactive process. This model involves both partners interacting and engaging in joint coping efforts in a stressful situation. While individuals initially use personal coping strategies, when these prove insufficient, couples’ coping strategies are activated (Bodenmann, 2005 ). Partners use problem focused and emotion focused coping strategies driven by mutual interdependence, shared worries, and collaborative aims. Dyadic coping (DC) does not substitute for individual coping but complements it (Bodenmann, 2000 ). However, DC is not viewed as an altruistic behavior, as the partner's satisfaction and well-being influence the individual's fulfilment, well-being, and relationship quality (Bodenmann, 1995 ; 2005 ). This process contributes to the development of a "we-ness" feeling between partners, promoting elements of positive relationships such as mutual trust, closeness, and commitment (Topcu-Uzer et al., 2021 ). Research on DC has mainly concentrated on two concepts: first, how couples manage stress in particular life situations (e.g., chronic illness) (Bertschi et al., 2021 ; Meier et al., 2019 ; Traa et al., 2015 ); second, the relationship between DC skills and overall relationship satisfaction and predictors (Happ et al., 2023 ). DC has a strong effect on relationship satisfaction (Falconier et al., 2015 ; Martos et al., 2021 ) and is an important factor in predicting relationship outcomes (Bodenmann, 2005 ; Bodenmann et al., 2011 ). Couples' ability to cope with stress through DC can significantly influence relationship satisfaction, depending on factors such as gender, age, and relationship length (Falconier, et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, it is directly related to variables such as marriage functioning and relationship quality (Bodenmann, 2005 ; Falconier et al., 2015 ; Rusu et al., 2020 ). Sub dimensions of DC include stress communication, supportive DC, delegated DC, negative DC and common DC. Supportive DC refers to couples coping together and mutually with stressful situations. This is not limited to one partner supporting the other; both partners develop strategies together to cope with stress. This process helps couples cope with challenging situations in a healthier way through effective communication and empathy (Bodenmann, 2005 ). Supportive DC is a relational process that involves the contribution of both parties. On the other hand, SS refers to the emotional, practical, and informational support received from one’s partner when dealing with stressful situations. This support functions as an external resource helping individuals overcome the challenges they face in life (Davilla & Sullivan, 2010 ). This concept emphasizes support received individually from one’s partner. SS plays a crucial role in the coping process and differs from support provided by other people (e.g., friends, relatives, neighbors). The spouse is typically the primary and most important source of support during stressful situations, which makes SS unique compared to other types of social support (Bodenmann et al. 2006 ). Research has shown that SS can be more effective than other sources of social support (Davilla & Sullivan, 2010 ). This can be explained by the emotional bond in marriage and the time shared between partners (Çağ & Yıldırım, 2013 ). SS can help reduce perceived stress and protect individuals’ physical and mental health (Çağ & Yıldırım, 2013 ; Xiong et al., 2022 ). Studies show that strong SS positively impacts DC, helping couples cope with stress in a healthier way (Falconier et al., 2015 ). Couples who use higher levels of SS and positive DC strategies when managing stress tend to have higher relationship satisfaction and overall quality of life (Badr, Carmack, & Krebs, 2010). One of the protective factors against stress is PF which refers to the ability of individuals to separate themselves from challenging thoughts and feelings and act in accordance with what is important to them (Hayes et al., 2006 ). According to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), PF consists of six interrelated components: acceptance, cognitive defusion, present moment awareness, self-as-context, values, and committed action. The acceptance dimension of the Hexaflex involves experiencing experiences with awareness and curiosity, rather than attempting to change them. In ACT, the core issue is not the thoughts, feelings, or experiences themselves, but focusing on changing, controlling, or avoiding them rather than allowing them (Hayes, 2004 ). Present moment awareness dimension refers to experiencing the present moment without judgment or interpretation. The focus on the present moment helps facilitate flexibility (Hayes et al., 2011 ). Cognitive defusion is defined as creating distance between the individual and their thoughts. When a person realizes that thoughts are just passing ideas and not the reality itself, they are less likely to let thoughts control their life (Hayes et al., 2010 ). Values refer to the processes of finding what a good and meaningful life means for the individual and acting in accordance with it (Hayes et al., 2011 ). Committed action expresses the determination to make changes in line with values, even when it is difficult or uncomfortable (Soo et al., 2011 ). The self-as-context aspect refers to the observation of one’s internal processes related to feelings, thoughts, and sensations (Harris, 2019 ). In summary, ACT aims to achieve PF through these six processes. Moreover, PF is not only about coping with a specific problem or situation, but rather focuses on acquiring skills that can be effective across various life domains. Due to its inclusive nature, it includes skills that help overcome challenges encountered in different life areas, extending beyond individual problems to include relationships and other social interactions (Şahin & Hamarta, 2024 ). In this context, approaches supporting the development of PF are particularly effective in addressing critical relationship issues (Daks & Rokke, 2020; Hayes et al., 2023 rük et al., 2023; Sandoz et al., 2015 ). Considering the undeniable importance of romantic relationships for individuals, using the skill set defined as PF in this domain can provide various benefits. PF plays an effective role in many areas of life, and its examination within the context of romantic relationships is particularly important (Şahin & Hamarta, 2024 ). Furthermore, PF is one of the factors that can affect marital interactions and coping with stressful situations (Bolluk-Ugur & Cakmak-Tolan, 2024). As outlined in the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model (VSA), the enduring traits ( enduring vulnerabilities ) that each individual brings into the relationship, the stressors they are exposed to ( stressors ), and the adaptive processes applied by the couple together determine relationship satisfaction and stability. In this model, PF can be seen both as an enduring individual trait and as an adaptation skill. Having a flexible disposition can be considered a protective trait (low vulnerability) in VSA terms; furthermore, being able to respond flexibly when facing stress can be viewed as an adaptive process (Karney & Bradbury, 1995 ). The model proposes that individuals bring both strengths and weaknesses into their close relationships. Daks and Rogge (2000) argue that PF is a lasting strength individuals contribute to family dynamics. As an intrapersonal factor, PF can reduce the negative effects of stressful events, fostering more empathetic and supportive interactions at all levels of the family system, including the couple subsystem. Recent research has highlighted the critical function of PF in couples' adaptation to stress. For example, a study conducted on married couples dealing with cancer (Ma et al., 2025 ) examined how stress caused by the illness affects relationship satisfaction. The study found that the stress brought by the illness reduced PF, and the decline in flexibility negatively impacted which, in turn, negatively impacts relationship satisfaction by undermining self-esteem. The researchers found that PF and the related coping skills were vital in influencing the impact of stress on the relationship outcomes. Similarly, family-level studies have also shown that flexibility is a protective factor within the hierarchical structure of the VSA model. Individual flexibility, DC skills, and social network support have been found to contribute to family adaptation (Van Schoors et al., 2019 ). When everything is taken into account, PF emerges as a critical moderating and facilitating factor in the relationship between SS and DC. Essentially, PF can be thought of as the "immune system" of the relationship. Couples with higher PF may tackle new challenges and situations from various perspectives, employing new strategies to cope with unforeseen circumstances. This can help resolve conflicts effectively and enhance marital satisfaction (Seyyedjafari et al., 2025 ). In addition, a crucial element in coping is SS, which plays a key function in the process of coping with stress together by strengthening emotional bonds between partners. It’s important to note that individuals perceive and respond to SS in diverse ways. An individual with PF may view the support from their partner in a more positive light and utilize it effectively to manage stress. The present study Drawing on the insights from the relevant theoretical framework, we examined the impact of perceived spousal support on the levels of dyadic coping in married individuals and the moderating function of psychological flexibility in this relationship. We expect this research to contribute to marriage and family studies, particularly regarding the effects of psychological flexibility and spousal support in coping with stress. We tested three hypotheses in the study: (Hypothesis-1) Perceived spousal support positively affects dyadic coping levels. (Hypothesis-2) Psychological flexibility positively affects dyadic coping levels. (Hypothesis-3) Psychological flexibility acts as a moderator in the relationship between spousal support and dyadic coping. Method Research design This descriptive study utilized a relational model to examine the relationship between spousal support, psychological flexibility, and dyadic coping levels in married individuals. It also investigated whether psychological flexibility moderates the relationship between spousal support and dyadic coping. The participants In this study, 587 married individuals (347 women, 59%; 240 men, 41%) were reached using a convenience sampling method. The participants' ages ranged from 25 to 58 years (mean: 37.05, SD: 7.10). The education levels of the participants were as follows: 50 individuals (8.5%) had a high school education or lower, and 537 individuals (91.5%) had a bachelor's degree or higher. Among the participants, 215 individuals (36.6%) had been married for 0–5 years, 142 individuals (24.2%) had been married for 6–10 years, and 230 individuals (39.2%) had been married for 11 years or more. Additionally, 148 participants (25.2%) had no children, 190 participants (32.4%) had 1 child, 196 participants (33.4%) had 2 children, and 53 participants (9%) had 3 or more children. Measures Spousal Support Scale (SSS) . The Spousal Support Scale was developed by Yıldırım ( 2004 ) to determine the level of perceived SS in married individuals. The scale consists of 27 items. It is a 3-point Likert scale (3 = Completely agree, 2 = Somewhat agree, 1 = Disagree), with three items being reverse-coded for scoring. The highest possible score from the scale is 81, and the lowest is 27. A higher score indicates a high level of perceived SS, while a lower score indicates a low level of perceived SS. The exploratory factor analysis conducted to evaluate the construct validity of the SSS revealed that the scale is composed of four factors: emotional, material assistance and informational, appreciation, and social interest support. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the scale was found to be .95, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was .89. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the model fit indices fell within the acceptable range (χ 2 /df = 3.45; NFI = .91; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .03). In this study, the reliability analysis showed a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of .96. Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). The Dyadic Coping Inventory, developed by Bodenmann (2008) to measure DC and stress communication in romantic relationships, was adapted into Turkish by Kurt and Akbaş ( 2019 ). The DCI consists of 37 items. The inventory is a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always), with seven items reverse-scored. The inventory includes 12 sub dimensions, which are stress communication, supportive DC, delegated DC, negative DC, and common DC, separately for the individual and their partner. Supportive DC is categorized as emotion-focused and problem-focused, and similarly, common DC is also divided into emotion-focused and problem-focused. High scores on the scale indicate a high level of DC. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the total score was found to be .92 for women and .93 for men. External validity scores for individuals' perceptions of their own DC behaviors ranged from .82 to .84, and external validity scores for individuals' perceptions of their partner's DC behaviors ranged from .86 to .88. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fit indices of the scale were within acceptable range (χ 2 /df = 4.08; NFI = .88; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .07). In this study, the reliability analysis showed a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of .95. Psychological Flexibility Scale (PFS). The Psychological Flexibility Scale was developed by Francis, Dawson, and Golijani-Moghaddam ( 2016 ). The adaptation to Turkish was done by Karakuş and Akbay ( 2020 ). The scale, developed for adults, is a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree), with eleven reverse-scored items. It has five subscales: values and value-congruent behavior, present moment awareness, acceptance, contextual self, and defusion. High scores on each subscale indicate higher PF. The overall Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the scale was .79, with the Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the subscales ranging from .59 to .84. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the fit indices of the scale were within the valid range (χ 2 /df = 2.80; NFI = .84; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .07). In this study, the reliability analysis showed a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of .77. Personal Information Form The form was used to gather demographic details of the participants and created by researchers. It contained questions about gender, age, educational background, length of marriage, and number of children. Data analysis Prior to performing the analysis, the data distribution was checked, and the skewness and kurtosis values were evaluated. The data were found to follow a normal distribution. The relationships between PF, SS, and DC were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation analysis. Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with AMOS 24 to verify whether the factor structures of the measurement tools were supported by the collected data. A regression analysis using the bootstrap technique was subsequently conducted to investigate the moderating role of PF in the relationship between SS and DC. The bootstrap method is regarded as providing more dependable results than conventional techniques (Hayes, 2018 ). To test the research model, moderator variable analysis was conducted using the SPSS Process Macro as recommended by Hayes ( 2018 ). The bootstrapping technique was used to evaluate the moderator effects, with a 95% confidence interval and 5,000 resampling iterations. Data analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0, AMOS Graphics 24, and the Process v4.2 macro programs. Findings Correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationships between dyadic coping, psychological flexibility, and spousal support. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 1 . Table 1 Correlation values and descriptive statistics between variables 1 2 3 1- Psychological Flexibility - 2- Spousal Support .21 ** - 3-Dyadic Coping .24 ** .62 ** - Arithmetic Mean 131.44 69.18 132.12 Standard Deviation 17.37 12.23 22.83 Skewness .019 -1.26 .39 Kurtosis .22 .81 .22 **p < .01 As shown in Table 1 , DC has significant positive relationships with SS (r = .62, p < .01) and PF (r = .24, p < .01). Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was identified between SS and PF (r = .21, p < .01). Moderation analysis using the bootstrap method was performed to examine the predictive impact of participants' SS and PF on their DC levels and to examine whether PF moderates the relationship between SS and DC. The moderation analysis was performed using the Hayes Process macro (Hayes, 2018 ). Using the Process v4.2 macro, 5,000 resampling iterations were conducted with Model 1 and a 95% confidence interval. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Regression analysis results showing moderating effects Variables β Sh t LLCI ULCI Constant 123.83* 51.56 240.16 122.81 124.84 SS 1.39* .04 32.64 1.31 1.47 PF .15* .02 5.28 .09 0.21 SS X PF .00* .00 3.50 .00 0.01 SS = Spousal support; PF = Psychological flexibility *p < .001 As shown in Table 2 , SS (β = 1.39, p < .001) and PF (β = .15, p < .001) have significant positive predictive effects on DC. Additionally, it was revealed that PF moderates the relationship between SS and DC (β = .00, p < .001). Furthermore, adding the interaction between SS and PF resulted in a significant increase in R² (F = 12.26, R² change = .006). The effects of SS on DC at different levels of PF are presented in Table 3 . SS and PF explain 69% of DC (F = 423.35, R² = .68, p < .001). According to Tabachnick and Fidell ( 2013 ), R² values of 50% or higher indicate a substantial proportion of the variance is explained. SS and PF explain 69% of DC (F = 423.35, R² = .68, p < .001), indicating that a significant portion of the variance in the dependent variable has been explained. Table 3 The effects of spousal support on dyadic coping at different levels of psychological flexibility Level β Sh t LLCI ULCI Low 1.25* .05 23.08 1.14 1.36 Medium 1.39* .04 32.64 1.31 1.47 High 1.53* .06 24.80 1.41 1.65 Table 3 shows the effects of SS on DC at different levels of PF. As seen, the effect increases as PF increases. Since PF has a significant moderating effect, a slope analysis was conducted to determine the conditions (low, medium, high) under which SS is effective in the relationship between SS and DC. The results of the slope analysis are presented in Fig. 2 . The slope analysis results reveal that the effect of SS on DC varies according to the level of PF. When the level of PF is low, the effect of SS on DC is at its lowest (β = 1.25, p < .001). When PF is at a moderate level, this effect increases (β = 1.39, p < .001), and when PF is high, the effect reaches its maximum (β = 1.53, p < .001). These findings indicate that SS serves as a stronger coping resource when PF is higher. Discussion This study explored the relationships between SS, DC, and PF. The findings indicated that both SS and PF predict DC. Moreover, it was concluded that PF moderates the relationship between SS and DC. One of the main findings in the study is that SS is a positive predictor of DC. This result confirms the H 1 hypothesis. When the literature is reviewed, for most adults, an intimate relationship with a partner is one of the strongest support sources for coping with both major and minor life stresses and is considered the most important social relationship (Cutrona, 1996 ; Kessler et al., 2023 : Roth et al., 2025 ; Roth et al., 2024 ). Spouses can provide support in various ways, and they play an important role in providing emotional support, especially during stressful events. Support from other sources does not fully compensate for the lack of SS (Brazeau & Lewis, 2021 ; Günaydın, & Kayral, 2024 ).). SS strengthens the process of coping together. Emotional, practical, and informational support between spouses positively affects DC processes and allows couples to develop healthier coping strategies (Bodenmann, 2005 ). SS helps couples act more harmoniously during the coping process, increasing relationship satisfaction and improving overall life quality. The findings of this study support this situation, revealing that perceived SS is an important factor in the coping process. The study confirms the positive predictive effect of PF on DC, thus supporting the H 2 hypothesis. PF refers to the capacity to distance oneself from one's current perspective and consider alternative viewpoints (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010 ), enables individuals to cope more effectively together during stressful situations. Those with high PF tend to experience less anxiety and depression and develop more adaptive coping strategies (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010 ). Theoretical (Bodenmann et al., 2016 ) and empirical studies (Badr et al., 2008) have shown the importance of DC variables in managing both major stress sources, such as illness (Van et al., 2019), and minor stress sources, such as daily life stress (Ledermann & Bradbury, 2007 ). In this context, individuals who are more PF can handle these stressors more effectively, leading to better communication, closeness, and problem-solving skills (Barraca et al., 2024; Silverman et al., 2023). On the other hand, low PF—such as avoidance of experiences or being stuck in rigid thought patterns—is associated with relationship dissatisfaction and a lack of support (Barraca et al., 2024). In particular, flexibility dimensions such as being value-driven, accepting the present moment, and maintaining cognitive and emotional flexibility enhance couples' resilience in the face of stress. Various studies on ACT-based couple therapy have found that PF significantly improves couples' relationship dynamics, fostering healthier interactions and a greater ability to cope with stress together (Akhavan Bitaghsir et al., 2017 ; Pirani et al., 2017). This study emphasizes that PF plays a crucial role in helping couples cope more harmoniously during stressful situations, ultimately contributing to healthier and more resilient relationships. The final finding of the study is that PF plays a moderating role in the relationship between SS and DC. This result not only confirms the H 3 hypothesis but also highlights the significance of PF in enhancing relationship dynamics, particularly in coping with stress (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010 ). DC involves how spouses respond to and manage each other's stress when facing an external stress factor (Falconier & Kuhn, 2019 ). Individuals who perceive support from their spouses also experience higher levels of DC. This connection suggests that the presence of SS, in combination with PF, can have a more pronounced impact on stress management. Factors such as better understanding and supporting each other's stress lead to improved coping skills. As outlined in the introduction, the VSA model suggests that when a stressful or challenging experience arises, two person in a mutual relationship must rely on their internal resources (e.g., PF) and interpersonal skills (e.g., interaction, support, caring, empathy) to cope with the stress (Daks & Rogge, 2000). The dynamic interaction between personal resources and interpersonal processes is crucial (Karney & Bradbury, 1995 ). PF, as one of these internal resources, plays a significant role in enabling individuals to respond more adaptively to stress. By being psychologically flexible, individuals can shift their responses to stressors, integrating both personal coping strategies and relational support systems. This flexibility is essential in managing stress in a way that promotes both individual well-being and relational harmony (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010 ). Psychologically flexible individuals are better equipped to navigate stressful situations with less emotional reactivity, which allows them to remain open to their partner's needs and offer effective support. As couples face challenges together, their ability to adjust and respond flexibly not only helps them manage stress, but it also deepens their emotional connection and strengthens their relationship. In this process, high PF enables spouses to be more sensitive to each other's emotional needs and adapt successfully to threatening conditions (Taghizadeh, 2014). PF increases individuals' capacity to develop alternative perspectives and act flexibly when dealing with challenging situations (McCracken, 2011). Moreover, PF allows partners to be more resilient, maintaining a sense of connection and mutual support during stressful events, which ultimately leads to healthier and more fulfilling relationships (Daks & Rokke, 2020). In this context, how spouses respond to each other's stress and how they manage it may differ based on their level of PF. One of the components of PF is acceptance. Spouses with high levels of acceptance are more open to the support they receive from their partners and cope with stress more effectively. Furthermore, acceptance enables couples to navigate difficult situations with less judgment and more empathy, which can positively influence their emotional well-being and relationship satisfaction (Hayes et al., 2011 ). Acceptance and a supportive attitude can make the coping process healthier, which strengthens trust and bonds between spouses. This result reveals that PF plays an important role in enhancing the impact of SS on DC. Limitations and Recommendations This study has some limitations. The sample consists of married individuals. Data obtained from couples in a similar study could provide more comprehensive findings. Dyadic analyses could further enrich these findings. Whether participants have children was not a controlled factor in this study. In future similar studies, the effect of having children can provide important data. Data on the variables were collected only through quantitative measurement tools. In another study, data obtained through interviews with a selected group from the sample could support and strengthen the quantitative findings Drawing from the research findings, several recommendations are provided for practitioners and researchers. One of the variables examined in the study, PF, is a factor that enhances individuals' capacity to cope with stress. In the context of working with couples, awareness of their own emotions and thoughts can be raised, and interventions aimed at increasing PF can be implemented. Techniques that help spouses manage their emotional responses (e.g., acceptance, mindfulness, values) can be taught. Present study is cross-sectional research. Longitudinal studies can be conducted to examine the long-term effects of SS and PF on DC. This would make it possible to observe how these factors evolve over time and their changes in relationships. Studies can be conducted to explore how the effects of SS and PF on DC change at different stages of marriage (e.g., newlyweds, long-term marriages, divorced couples). This could offer a deeper insight into how marital dynamics evolve over time. The role of conflict management strategies in couples' stress coping processes can also be explored. How couples manage conflicts in stressful situations and how PF and SS interact during this process can be examined in more depth. Conclusion In conclusion, this research demonstrates that SS and PF are important predictors in the process of DC and that PF plays a moderating role in these relationships. Understanding these dynamics in marriages can enable the development of strategies to help couples cope with stress in a healthier way. Increasing the support that spouses provide each other and their personal levels of PF can strengthen their stress coping skills and improve overall quality of life. These findings highlight the importance of factors such as SS and PF in marriage therapy and couples counseling. Declarations Data Availability: The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Funding The authors received no specific funds for the present study. Author’ contributions: Corresponding author contributed to the conceptualization, investigation, analysis, methodology, and writing of the original draft. The other author contributed to recruiting participants, curating the data, and assisting with the conceptualization and writing of the manuscript. Ethical approval The study data were collected online (Google Forms) from married individuals who participated voluntarily in Spring 2024. Participants were informed about the study in writing, and their consent was obtained. The research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and was accepted and registered by the Ethics Committee of XXXX University (E-75137396-604.01-1045075). Informed Consent: It was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study. Conflicts of Interest: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author confirms that there are no conflicts of interest. References Akhavan Bitaghsir, A., Pirani, Z., & Ziapour, A. (2017). The role of psychological flexibility in relationship improvement: A case study on couple therapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 27 (4), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2023.2234352 Badr, H., & Carmack Taylor, C. L. (2008). Effects of relationship maintenance on psychological distress and dyadic adjustment among couples coping with lung cancer. Health Psychology, 5, 616-627. https://doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.616 Badr, H. (2022). Couple relationships and cancer. In J. L. Steel & B. I. Carr (Eds.), Psychological aspects of cancer: A guide to emotional and psychological consequences of cancer, their causes, and their management (2nd ed., pp. 41–51). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85702-8_3 Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55 (1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x Bertschi, I. C., Meier, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2021). Disability as an interpersonal experience: A systematic review on dyadic challenges and dyadic coping when one partner has a chronic physical or sensory impairment. Frontiers in psychology , 12 , 624609. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624609 Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie . https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-14234-001 Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und coping bei paaren . Hogrefe. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In M. J. Inderbitzin (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on marital relationships (pp. 56-78). Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002 Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: a 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of family psychology , 20 (3), 485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485 Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being. European Psychologist . 16 (4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068 Bodenmann, G., Randall, A. K., & Falconier, M. K. (2016). Coping in couples: the systemic transactional model (STM). In Couples coping with stress (pp. 5-22). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068 Bolluk-Uğur, G., & Çakmak-Tolan, Ö. (2024). The examination of mediating role of mindfulness in the relation between marriage role expectations, forgiveness and marital adjustment. Current Psychology , 43 (48), 36566-36585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07031-z Brazeau, H., & Lewis, N. A. (2021). Within-couple health behavior trajectories: The role of spousal support and strain. Health Psychology , 40 (2), 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001050 Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological bulletin , 98 (2), 310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications . Çağ, P. & Yıldırım, I. (2013). Evlilik Doyumunu Yordayan İlişkisel ve Kişisel Değişkenler . Turkish Psychological Counseling & Guidance Journal , 4 (39), 13–23. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/200058 Daks, J. S., & Rogge, R. D. (2020). Examining the correlates of psychological flexibility in romantic relationship and family dynamics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science , 18 , 214-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.010 Davilla, J. & Sullivan, K. T., (2010). Support Processes in Intimate Relationships. Oxford University Press: New York. Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. L., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42 , 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002 Falconier, M. K., & Kuhn, R. (2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in psychology , 10 , 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571 Francis, A. W., Dawson, D. L., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2016). The development and validation of the Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy processes (CompACT). Journal of contextual behavioral science , 5 (3), 134-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.05.003 Günaydın, H. D., & Kayral, I. E. (2024). A model into relations between spousal support, financial satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues , 45 (3), 723-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-023-09908-w Harris, R. (2019). ACT made simple: An easy-to-read primer on acceptance and commitment therapy . New Harbinger Publications. Happ, Z., Bodó-Varga, Z., Bandi, S. A., Kiss, E. C., Nagy, L., & Csókási, K. (2023). How codependency affects dyadic coping, relationship perception and life satisfaction. Current Psychology , 42 (18), 15688-15695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02875-9 Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy, 35(4), 639–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80013-3 Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcome. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44 , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 Hayes, S. A., Orsillo, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2010). Changes in proposed mechanisms of action during an acceptance-based behavior therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(3), 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat. 2009.11.006 Hayes L, Boyd CP & Sewell J (2011). Acceptance and commitment therapy for the treatment of adolescent depression: a pilot study in a psychiatric outpatient setting. Mindfulness, 2:86–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0046-5 Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2011). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change . Guilford press. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2011). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change . Guilford press. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication monographs , 85 (1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100 Hayes, S. C., Hofmann, S. G., & Ciarrochi, J. (2023). The idionomic future of cognitive behavioral therapy: What stands out from criticisms of ACT development. Behavior Therapy , 54 (6), 1036-1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2023.07.011 Karakuş, S., & Akbay, S. E. (2020). Psikolojik esneklik ölçeği: Uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 16 (1), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.665406 Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological bulletin , 118 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30 (1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001 Kessler, M., Bradbury, T. N., Brandstätter, V., Martin, M., Nussbeck, F. W., Backes, S., Peter-Wight, M., Sutter-Stickel, D., Subiaz T. & Bodenmann, G. (2023). Common dyadic coping buffers low commitment. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12933 Körük, S., Aykaç, B., & Vapurlu, S. (2023). The Mediating Role of Psychological Flexibility in the Relationship between Job Satisfaction–Job-related Emotional Exhaustion and Dyadic Marital Adjustment. Marriage & Family Review , 59 (7), 480-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2023.2234352 Kurt, İ. E., & Akbaş, T. (2019). Stresle Çift Olarak Baş Etme Envanteri’nin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches , 13 (19), 636-655. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.547217 Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Relationship satisfaction and health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24 (2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000342 Ma, H., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Cariola, L., & Gillanders, D. (2025). Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions in Improving Relationship Functioning Among Couples Coping With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Psycho‐Oncology , 34 (1), e70080. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.70080 Martos, T., Szabó, E., Koren, R., & Sallay, V. (2021). Dyadic coping in personal projects of romantic partners: Assessment and associations with relationship satisfaction. Current Psychology , 40 , 2956-2969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00222-z McCracken, L. M. (2011). The role of acceptance in managing marital conflict. Journal of Family Therapy, 24 (4), 1-20. McCracken, L. M., Badinlou, F., Buhrman, M., & Brocki, K. C. (2021). The role of psychological flexibility in the context of COVID-19: Associations with depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 19, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.11.003 Meier, F., Cairo Notari, S., Bodenmann, G., Revenson, T. A., & Favez, N. (2019). We are in this together—Aren't we? Congruence of common dyadic coping and psychological distress of couples facing breast cancer. Psycho‐oncology , 28 (12), 2374-2381. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5238 Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical psychology review , 29 (2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004 Revenson, T. A., Kayser, K. E., & Bodenmann, G. E. (2005). Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. xvi-209). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-000 Roth, M., Good, N., Ledermann, T., Landolt, S. A., Weitkamp, K., & Bodenmann, G. (2024). Building happier bonds: gratitude as a mediator between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction in romantic couples. Frontiers in Psychology , 15 , 1452397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1452397 Roth, M., Landolt, S. A., Nussbeck, F. W., Weitkamp, K., & Bodenmann, G. (2025). Positive Outcomes of Long-Term Relationship Satisfaction Trajectories in Stable Romantic Couples: A 10-Year Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology , 10 (1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-024-00201-1 Rusu, P. P., Nussbeck, F. W., Leuchtmann, L., & Bodenmann, G. (2020). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal study disentangling timely stable from yearly fluctuations. PloS one , 15 (4), e0231133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231133 Sabetroo, M., Zahrakar, K., & Asadpour, E. (2023). Predicting marriage burnout based on mindfulness, psychological flexibility and coping styles. Journal of Family Relations Studies , 3 (10), 44-53. https://doi.org/10.22098/jfrs.2023.12497.1111 Sandoz, E. K., Moyer, D. N., & Armelie, A. P. (2015). Psychological flexibility as a framework for understanding and improving family reintegration following military deployment. Journal of marital and family therapy , 41 (4), 495-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12086 Seyyedjafari, J., Borjali, A., Isamorad, A., Sohrabi, F., & Motamedi, A. (2025). Investigating the effect of psychological flexibility and religious orientation on marital satisfaction based on the mediating role of self-compassion. Razavi International Journal of Medicine, 13 (1), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.30483/rijm.2025.254545.1343 Soo, C., Tate, R. L., & Lane-Brown, A. (2011). A systematic review of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for managing anxiety: Applicability for people with acquired brain injury? Brain impairment , 12 (1), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.1375/brim.12.1.54 Şahin, S. B., & Hamarta, E. (2024). Development of the Psychological Flexibility in Romantic Relationships Scale (PFRRS): A Validity and Reliability Study. Research on Education and Psychology , 8 (2), 330-359. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1557924 Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th Edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Topcu-Uzer, C., Randall, A. K., Vedes, A. M., Reid, D., & Bodenmann, G. (2021). We-ness questionnaire: Development and validation. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy , 20 (3), 256-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2020.1805082 Traa, M. J., De Vries, J., Bodenmann, G., & Den Oudsten, B. L. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship functioning in couples coping with cancer: a systematic review. British journal of health psychology , 20 (1), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12094 Van Schoors, M., De Paepe, A. L., Lemiere, J., Morez, A., Norga, K., Lambrecht, K., ... & Verhofstadt, L. L. (2019). Family adjustment when facing pediatric cancer: The role of parental psychological flexibility, dyadic coping, and network support. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 2740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02740 Xiong, L., Zhou, C., Yan, L., Zhao, P., Deng, M., & Hu, Y. (2022). The impact of avoidant attachment on marital satisfaction of Chinese married people: Multiple mediating effect of spousal support and coping tendency. Acta psychologica , 228 , 103640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103640 Yıldırım, İ. (2004). Eş destek ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal , 3 (22), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.17066/pdrd.95605 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6411626","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":455443895,"identity":"52ae048d-c742-47d8-ae07-de3298665dad","order_by":0,"name":"Idil Eren Kurt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Cukurova University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Idil","middleName":"Eren","lastName":"Kurt","suffix":""},{"id":455443896,"identity":"2fa1efbb-87a5-4ef8-8cc5-9cd55270012d","order_by":1,"name":"Sezen Ateş Yaman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of National Education","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sezen","middleName":"Ateş","lastName":"Yaman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-09 11:53:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6411626/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6411626/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82702033,"identity":"39d80e0b-44e3-4f18-855b-048697a5fbac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-14 09:41:11","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":50569,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6411626/v1/4c7557bec6c87877917168ac.png"},{"id":82702034,"identity":"8d06570a-d5ac-4c95-a3dc-7d24b2c2c734","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-14 09:41:11","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":189937,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGraphical representation of the moderating effect of psychological flexibility\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6411626/v1/f50ac5852c94d4cd9046255d.png"},{"id":82702531,"identity":"df6a2b4f-3471-40e6-b574-5703df98f303","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-14 09:49:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":773978,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6411626/v1/3cc72f24-8f23-420f-b264-98da73d5fa0c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Dyadic Coping and Spousal Support: The Moderating Role of Psychological Flexibility","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMarriage is a dynamic process where two individuals come together to share a life, requiring mutual commitment, support, and adjustment. However, couples may face various stress factors during the marriage process (Randall \u0026amp; Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Factors such as financial difficulties, work stress, family responsibilities, and mismatched personal expectations can increase stress in marriage. In this context, how couples manage with stress plays a critical role in both individual well-being and relationship quality (Revenson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The levels of psychological flexibility (PF) and spousal support (SS) are key determinants in reducing the effects of stress on marriage and maintaining a harmonious relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ways in which couples cope with stress have been a significant topic in psychological research. Bodenmann (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes through the Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) that coping with stress as a couple is an interactive process. This model involves both partners interacting and engaging in joint coping efforts in a stressful situation. While individuals initially use personal coping strategies, when these prove insufficient, couples\u0026rsquo; coping strategies are activated (Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Partners use problem focused and emotion focused coping strategies driven by mutual interdependence, shared worries, and collaborative aims. Dyadic coping (DC) does not substitute for individual coping but complements it (Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). However, DC is not viewed as an altruistic behavior, as the partner's satisfaction and well-being influence the individual's fulfilment, well-being, and relationship quality (Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). This process contributes to the development of a \"we-ness\" feeling between partners, promoting elements of positive relationships such as mutual trust, closeness, and commitment (Topcu-Uzer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on DC has mainly concentrated on two concepts: first, how couples manage stress in particular life situations (e.g., chronic illness) (Bertschi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Meier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Traa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e); second, the relationship between DC skills and overall relationship satisfaction and predictors (Happ et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). DC has a strong effect on relationship satisfaction (Falconier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Martos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and is an important factor in predicting relationship outcomes (Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Bodenmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Couples' ability to cope with stress through DC can significantly influence relationship satisfaction, depending on factors such as gender, age, and relationship length (Falconier, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, it is directly related to variables such as marriage functioning and relationship quality (Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Falconier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Rusu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSub dimensions of DC include stress communication, supportive DC, delegated DC, negative DC and common DC. Supportive DC refers to couples coping together and mutually with stressful situations. This is not limited to one partner supporting the other; both partners develop strategies together to cope with stress. This process helps couples cope with challenging situations in a healthier way through effective communication and empathy (Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Supportive DC is a relational process that involves the contribution of both parties. On the other hand, SS refers to the emotional, practical, and informational support received from one\u0026rsquo;s partner when dealing with stressful situations. This support functions as an external resource helping individuals overcome the challenges they face in life (Davilla \u0026amp; Sullivan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This concept emphasizes support received individually from one\u0026rsquo;s partner.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSS plays a crucial role in the coping process and differs from support provided by other people (e.g., friends, relatives, neighbors). The spouse is typically the primary and most important source of support during stressful situations, which makes SS unique compared to other types of social support (Bodenmann et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Research has shown that SS can be more effective than other sources of social support (Davilla \u0026amp; Sullivan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This can be explained by the emotional bond in marriage and the time shared between partners (\u0026Ccedil;ağ \u0026amp; Yıldırım, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). SS can help reduce perceived stress and protect individuals\u0026rsquo; physical and mental health (\u0026Ccedil;ağ \u0026amp; Yıldırım, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Xiong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Studies show that strong SS positively impacts DC, helping couples cope with stress in a healthier way (Falconier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Couples who use higher levels of SS and positive DC strategies when managing stress tend to have higher relationship satisfaction and overall quality of life (Badr, Carmack, \u0026amp; Krebs, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the protective factors against stress is PF which refers to the ability of individuals to separate themselves from challenging thoughts and feelings and act in accordance with what is important to them (Hayes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). According to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), PF consists of six interrelated components: acceptance, cognitive defusion, present moment awareness, self-as-context, values, and committed action. The acceptance dimension of the Hexaflex involves experiencing experiences with awareness and curiosity, rather than attempting to change them. In ACT, the core issue is not the thoughts, feelings, or experiences themselves, but focusing on changing, controlling, or avoiding them rather than allowing them (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Present moment awareness dimension refers to experiencing the present moment without judgment or interpretation. The focus on the present moment helps facilitate flexibility (Hayes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Cognitive defusion is defined as creating distance between the individual and their thoughts. When a person realizes that thoughts are just passing ideas and not the reality itself, they are less likely to let thoughts control their life (Hayes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Values refer to the processes of finding what a good and meaningful life means for the individual and acting in accordance with it (Hayes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Committed action expresses the determination to make changes in line with values, even when it is difficult or uncomfortable (Soo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The self-as-context aspect refers to the observation of one\u0026rsquo;s internal processes related to feelings, thoughts, and sensations (Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In summary, ACT aims to achieve PF through these six processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, PF is not only about coping with a specific problem or situation, but rather focuses on acquiring skills that can be effective across various life domains. Due to its inclusive nature, it includes skills that help overcome challenges encountered in different life areas, extending beyond individual problems to include relationships and other social interactions (Şahin \u0026amp; Hamarta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, approaches supporting the development of PF are particularly effective in addressing critical relationship issues (Daks \u0026amp; Rokke, 2020; Hayes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003er\u0026uuml;k et al., 2023; Sandoz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Considering the undeniable importance of romantic relationships for individuals, using the skill set defined as PF in this domain can provide various benefits. PF plays an effective role in many areas of life, and its examination within the context of romantic relationships is particularly important (Şahin \u0026amp; Hamarta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, PF is one of the factors that can affect marital interactions and coping with stressful situations (Bolluk-Ugur \u0026amp; Cakmak-Tolan, 2024). As outlined in the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model (VSA), the enduring traits (\u003cem\u003eenduring vulnerabilities\u003c/em\u003e) that each individual brings into the relationship, the stressors they are exposed to (\u003cem\u003estressors\u003c/em\u003e), and the adaptive processes applied by the couple together determine relationship satisfaction and stability. In this model, PF can be seen both as an enduring individual trait and as an adaptation skill. Having a flexible disposition can be considered a \u003cem\u003eprotective trait\u003c/em\u003e (low vulnerability) in VSA terms; furthermore, being able to respond flexibly when facing stress can be viewed as an \u003cem\u003eadaptive process\u003c/em\u003e (Karney \u0026amp; Bradbury, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). The model proposes that individuals bring both strengths and weaknesses into their close relationships. Daks and Rogge (2000) argue that PF is a lasting strength individuals contribute to family dynamics. As an intrapersonal factor, PF can reduce the negative effects of stressful events, fostering more empathetic and supportive interactions at all levels of the family system, including the couple subsystem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent research has highlighted the critical function of PF in couples' adaptation to stress. For example, a study conducted on married couples dealing with cancer (Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) examined how stress caused by the illness affects relationship satisfaction. The study found that the stress brought by the illness reduced PF, and the decline in flexibility negatively impacted which, in turn, negatively impacts relationship satisfaction by undermining self-esteem. The researchers found that PF and the related coping skills were vital in influencing the impact of stress on the relationship outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, family-level studies have also shown that flexibility is a protective factor within the hierarchical structure of the VSA model. Individual flexibility, DC skills, and social network support have been found to contribute to family adaptation (Van Schoors et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). When everything is taken into account, PF emerges as a critical moderating and facilitating factor in the relationship between SS and DC. Essentially, PF can be thought of as the \"immune system\" of the relationship. Couples with higher PF may tackle new challenges and situations from various perspectives, employing new strategies to cope with unforeseen circumstances. This can help resolve conflicts effectively and enhance marital satisfaction (Seyyedjafari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, a crucial element in coping is SS, which plays a key function in the process of coping with stress together by strengthening emotional bonds between partners. It\u0026rsquo;s important to note that individuals perceive and respond to SS in diverse ways. An individual with PF may view the support from their partner in a more positive light and utilize it effectively to manage stress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe present study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on the insights from the relevant theoretical framework, we examined the impact of perceived spousal support on the levels of dyadic coping in married individuals and the moderating function of psychological flexibility in this relationship. We expect this research to contribute to marriage and family studies, particularly regarding the effects of psychological flexibility and spousal support in coping with stress. We tested three hypotheses in the study:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Hypothesis-1) Perceived spousal support positively affects dyadic coping levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Hypothesis-2) Psychological flexibility positively affects dyadic coping levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Hypothesis-3) Psychological flexibility acts as a moderator in the relationship between spousal support and dyadic coping.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis descriptive study utilized a relational model to examine the relationship between spousal support, psychological flexibility, and dyadic coping levels in married individuals. It also investigated whether psychological flexibility moderates the relationship between spousal support and dyadic coping.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe participants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, 587 married individuals (347 women, 59%; 240 men, 41%) were reached using a convenience sampling method. The participants' ages ranged from 25 to 58 years (mean: 37.05, SD: 7.10). The education levels of the participants were as follows: 50 individuals (8.5%) had a high school education or lower, and 537 individuals (91.5%) had a bachelor's degree or higher. Among the participants, 215 individuals (36.6%) had been married for 0\u0026ndash;5 years, 142 individuals (24.2%) had been married for 6\u0026ndash;10 years, and 230 individuals (39.2%) had been married for 11 years or more. Additionally, 148 participants (25.2%) had no children, 190 participants (32.4%) had 1 child, 196 participants (33.4%) had 2 children, and 53 participants (9%) had 3 or more children.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSpousal Support Scale (SSS)\u003c/em\u003e. The Spousal Support Scale was developed by Yıldırım (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) to determine the level of perceived SS in married individuals. The scale consists of 27 items. It is a 3-point Likert scale (3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Completely agree, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Somewhat agree, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Disagree), with three items being reverse-coded for scoring. The highest possible score from the scale is 81, and the lowest is 27. A higher score indicates a high level of perceived SS, while a lower score indicates a low level of perceived SS. The exploratory factor analysis conducted to evaluate the construct validity of the SSS revealed that the scale is composed of four factors: emotional, material assistance and informational, appreciation, and social interest support. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the scale was found to be .95, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was .89. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the model fit indices fell within the acceptable range (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.45; NFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06; SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03). In this study, the reliability analysis showed a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of .96.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDyadic Coping Inventory (DCI).\u003c/em\u003e The Dyadic Coping Inventory, developed by Bodenmann (2008) to measure DC and stress communication in romantic relationships, was adapted into Turkish by Kurt and Akbaş (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The DCI consists of 37 items. The inventory is a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Never, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Always), with seven items reverse-scored. The inventory includes 12 sub dimensions, which are stress communication, supportive DC, delegated DC, negative DC, and common DC, separately for the individual and their partner. Supportive DC is categorized as emotion-focused and problem-focused, and similarly, common DC is also divided into emotion-focused and problem-focused. High scores on the scale indicate a high level of DC. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the total score was found to be .92 for women and .93 for men. External validity scores for individuals' perceptions of their own DC behaviors ranged from .82 to .84, and external validity scores for individuals' perceptions of their partner's DC behaviors ranged from .86 to .88. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fit indices of the scale were within acceptable range (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.08; NFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.90; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08; SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07). In this study, the reliability analysis showed a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of .95.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ePsychological Flexibility Scale (PFS).\u003c/em\u003e The Psychological Flexibility Scale was developed by Francis, Dawson, and Golijani-Moghaddam (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The adaptation to Turkish was done by Karakuş and Akbay (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The scale, developed for adults, is a 7-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly disagree, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly agree), with eleven reverse-scored items. It has five subscales: values and value-congruent behavior, present moment awareness, acceptance, contextual self, and defusion. High scores on each subscale indicate higher PF. The overall Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the scale was .79, with the Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the subscales ranging from .59 to .84. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the fit indices of the scale were within the valid range (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.80; NFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.90; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05; SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07). In this study, the reliability analysis showed a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of .77.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003ePersonal Information Form\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe form was used to gather demographic details of the participants and created by researchers. It contained questions about gender, age, educational background, length of marriage, and number of children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior to performing the analysis, the data distribution was checked, and the skewness and kurtosis values were evaluated. The data were found to follow a normal distribution. The relationships between PF, SS, and DC were analyzed using Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation analysis. Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with AMOS 24 to verify whether the factor structures of the measurement tools were supported by the collected data. A regression analysis using the bootstrap technique was subsequently conducted to investigate the moderating role of PF in the relationship between SS and DC. The bootstrap method is regarded as providing more dependable results than conventional techniques (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). To test the research model, moderator variable analysis was conducted using the SPSS Process Macro as recommended by Hayes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The bootstrapping technique was used to evaluate the moderator effects, with a 95% confidence interval and 5,000 resampling iterations. Data analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0, AMOS Graphics 24, and the Process v4.2 macro programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFindings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis was conducted to determine the relationships between dyadic coping, psychological flexibility, and spousal support. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation values and descriptive statistics between variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1- Psychological Flexibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2- Spousal Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.21\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3-Dyadic Coping\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.24\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.62\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArithmetic Mean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e131.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e132.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, DC has significant positive relationships with SS (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.62, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01) and PF (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.24, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was identified between SS and PF (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.21, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModeration analysis using the bootstrap method was performed to examine the predictive impact of participants' SS and PF on their DC levels and to examine whether PF moderates the relationship between SS and DC. The moderation analysis was performed using the Hayes Process macro (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Using the Process v4.2 macro, 5,000 resampling iterations were conducted with Model 1 and a 95% confidence interval. The results of the analysis are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression analysis results showing moderating effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLLCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e123.83*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e240.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e122.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e124.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.39*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.15*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSS X PF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.00*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eSS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Spousal support; PF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Psychological flexibility\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e*p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, SS (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.39, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and PF (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) have significant positive predictive effects on DC. Additionally, it was revealed that PF moderates the relationship between SS and DC (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.00, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Furthermore, adding the interaction between SS and PF resulted in a significant increase in R\u0026sup2; (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.26, R\u0026sup2; change\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006). The effects of SS on DC at different levels of PF are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. SS and PF explain 69% of DC (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;423.35, R\u0026sup2; = .68, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Tabachnick and Fidell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), R\u0026sup2; values of 50% or higher indicate a substantial proportion of the variance is explained. SS and PF explain 69% of DC (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;423.35, R\u0026sup2; = .68, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), indicating that a significant portion of the variance in the dependent variable has been explained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effects of spousal support on dyadic coping at different levels of psychological flexibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLLCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.39*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.53*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the effects of SS on DC at different levels of PF. As seen, the effect increases as PF increases. Since PF has a significant moderating effect, a slope analysis was conducted to determine the conditions (low, medium, high) under which SS is effective in the relationship between SS and DC. The results of the slope analysis are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe slope analysis results reveal that the effect of SS on DC varies according to the level of PF. When the level of PF is low, the effect of SS on DC is at its lowest (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.25, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). When PF is at a moderate level, this effect increases (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.39, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), and when PF is high, the effect reaches its maximum (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.53, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). These findings indicate that SS serves as a stronger coping resource when PF is higher.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the relationships between SS, DC, and PF. The findings indicated that both SS and PF predict DC. Moreover, it was concluded that PF moderates the relationship between SS and DC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the main findings in the study is that SS is a positive predictor of DC. This result confirms the H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e hypothesis. When the literature is reviewed, for most adults, an intimate relationship with a partner is one of the strongest support sources for coping with both major and minor life stresses and is considered the most important social relationship (Cutrona, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Kessler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e: Roth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Roth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Spouses can provide support in various ways, and they play an important role in providing emotional support, especially during stressful events. Support from other sources does not fully compensate for the lack of SS (Brazeau \u0026amp; Lewis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; G\u0026uuml;naydın, \u0026amp; Kayral, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).). SS strengthens the process of coping together. Emotional, practical, and informational support between spouses positively affects DC processes and allows couples to develop healthier coping strategies (Bodenmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). SS helps couples act more harmoniously during the coping process, increasing relationship satisfaction and improving overall life quality. The findings of this study support this situation, revealing that perceived SS is an important factor in the coping process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study confirms the positive predictive effect of PF on DC, thus supporting the H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e hypothesis. PF refers to the capacity to distance oneself from one's current perspective and consider alternative viewpoints (Kashdan \u0026amp; Rottenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), enables individuals to cope more effectively together during stressful situations. Those with high PF tend to experience less anxiety and depression and develop more adaptive coping strategies (Kashdan \u0026amp; Rottenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Theoretical (Bodenmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and empirical studies (Badr et al., 2008) have shown the importance of DC variables in managing both major stress sources, such as illness (Van et al., 2019), and minor stress sources, such as daily life stress (Ledermann \u0026amp; Bradbury, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, individuals who are more PF can handle these stressors more effectively, leading to better communication, closeness, and problem-solving skills (Barraca et al., 2024; Silverman et al., 2023). On the other hand, low PF\u0026mdash;such as avoidance of experiences or being stuck in rigid thought patterns\u0026mdash;is associated with relationship dissatisfaction and a lack of support (Barraca et al., 2024). In particular, flexibility dimensions such as being value-driven, accepting the present moment, and maintaining cognitive and emotional flexibility enhance couples' resilience in the face of stress. Various studies on ACT-based couple therapy have found that PF significantly improves couples' relationship dynamics, fostering healthier interactions and a greater ability to cope with stress together (Akhavan Bitaghsir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Pirani et al., 2017). This study emphasizes that PF plays a crucial role in helping couples cope more harmoniously during stressful situations, ultimately contributing to healthier and more resilient relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final finding of the study is that PF plays a moderating role in the relationship between SS and DC. This result not only confirms the H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e hypothesis but also highlights the significance of PF in enhancing relationship dynamics, particularly in coping with stress (Kashdan \u0026amp; Rottenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). DC involves how spouses respond to and manage each other's stress when facing an external stress factor (Falconier \u0026amp; Kuhn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals who perceive support from their spouses also experience higher levels of DC. This connection suggests that the presence of SS, in combination with PF, can have a more pronounced impact on stress management. Factors such as better understanding and supporting each other's stress lead to improved coping skills. As outlined in the introduction, the VSA model suggests that when a stressful or challenging experience arises, two person in a mutual relationship must rely on their internal resources (e.g., PF) and interpersonal skills (e.g., interaction, support, caring, empathy) to cope with the stress (Daks \u0026amp; Rogge, 2000). The dynamic interaction between personal resources and interpersonal processes is crucial (Karney \u0026amp; Bradbury, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). PF, as one of these internal resources, plays a significant role in enabling individuals to respond more adaptively to stress. By being psychologically flexible, individuals can shift their responses to stressors, integrating both personal coping strategies and relational support systems. This flexibility is essential in managing stress in a way that promotes both individual well-being and relational harmony (Kashdan \u0026amp; Rottenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychologically flexible individuals are better equipped to navigate stressful situations with less emotional reactivity, which allows them to remain open to their partner's needs and offer effective support. As couples face challenges together, their ability to adjust and respond flexibly not only helps them manage stress, but it also deepens their emotional connection and strengthens their relationship. In this process, high PF enables spouses to be more sensitive to each other's emotional needs and adapt successfully to threatening conditions (Taghizadeh, 2014). PF increases individuals' capacity to develop alternative perspectives and act flexibly when dealing with challenging situations (McCracken, 2011). Moreover, PF allows partners to be more resilient, maintaining a sense of connection and mutual support during stressful events, which ultimately leads to healthier and more fulfilling relationships (Daks \u0026amp; Rokke, 2020). In this context, how spouses respond to each other's stress and how they manage it may differ based on their level of PF. One of the components of PF is acceptance. Spouses with high levels of acceptance are more open to the support they receive from their partners and cope with stress more effectively. Furthermore, acceptance enables couples to navigate difficult situations with less judgment and more empathy, which can positively influence their emotional well-being and relationship satisfaction (Hayes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Acceptance and a supportive attitude can make the coping process healthier, which strengthens trust and bonds between spouses. This result reveals that PF plays an important role in enhancing the impact of SS on DC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLimitations and Recommendations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations. The sample consists of married individuals. Data obtained from couples in a similar study could provide more comprehensive findings. Dyadic analyses could further enrich these findings. Whether participants have children was not a controlled factor in this study. In future similar studies, the effect of having children can provide important data. Data on the variables were collected only through quantitative measurement tools. In another study, data obtained through interviews with a selected group from the sample could support and strengthen the quantitative findings\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing from the research findings, several recommendations are provided for practitioners and researchers. One of the variables examined in the study, PF, is a factor that enhances individuals' capacity to cope with stress. In the context of working with couples, awareness of their own emotions and thoughts can be raised, and interventions aimed at increasing PF can be implemented. Techniques that help spouses manage their emotional responses (e.g., acceptance, mindfulness, values) can be taught. Present study is cross-sectional research. Longitudinal studies can be conducted to examine the long-term effects of SS and PF on DC. This would make it possible to observe how these factors evolve over time and their changes in relationships. Studies can be conducted to explore how the effects of SS and PF on DC change at different stages of marriage (e.g., newlyweds, long-term marriages, divorced couples). This could offer a deeper insight into how marital dynamics evolve over time. The role of conflict management strategies in couples' stress coping processes can also be explored. How couples manage conflicts in stressful situations and how PF and SS interact during this process can be examined in more depth.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this research demonstrates that SS and PF are important predictors in the process of DC and that PF plays a moderating role in these relationships. Understanding these dynamics in marriages can enable the development of strategies to help couples cope with stress in a healthier way. Increasing the support that spouses provide each other and their personal levels of PF can strengthen their stress coping skills and improve overall quality of life. These findings highlight the importance of factors such as SS and PF in marriage therapy and couples counseling.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e The authors received no specific funds for the present study.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo; contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eCorresponding author contributed to the conceptualization, investigation, analysis, methodology, and writing of the original draft. The other author contributed to recruiting participants, curating the data, and assisting with the conceptualization and writing of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe study data were collected online (Google Forms) from married individuals who participated voluntarily in Spring 2024. Participants were informed about the study in writing, and their consent was obtained. The research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and was accepted and registered by the Ethics Committee of XXXX University (E-75137396-604.01-1045075).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eIt was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of Interest:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eOn behalf of all authors, the corresponding author confirms that there are no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkhavan Bitaghsir, A., Pirani, Z., \u0026amp; Ziapour, A. (2017). The role of psychological flexibility in relationship improvement: A case study on couple therapy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychotherapy Integration, 27\u003c/em\u003e(4), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2023.2234352 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBadr, H., \u0026amp; Carmack Taylor, C. L. (2008). Effects of relationship maintenance on psychological distress and dyadic adjustment among couples coping with lung cancer. \u003cem\u003eHealth Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e5, \u003c/em\u003e616-627. https://doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.616 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBadr, H. (2022). Couple relationships and cancer. In J. L. Steel \u0026amp; B. I. Carr (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePsychological aspects of cancer: A guide to emotional and psychological consequences of cancer, their causes, and their management\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed., pp. 41\u0026ndash;51). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85702-8_3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. \u003cem\u003eChild Development, 55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBertschi, I. C., Meier, F., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2021). Disability as an interpersonal experience: A systematic review on dyadic challenges and dyadic coping when one partner has a chronic physical or sensory impairment. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e, 624609. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624609\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. \u003cem\u003eSwiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift f\u0026uuml;r Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie\u003c/em\u003e. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-14234-001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodenmann, G. (2000). \u003cem\u003eStress und coping bei paaren\u003c/em\u003e. Hogrefe.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In M. J. Inderbitzin (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eTheoretical perspectives on marital relationships\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 56-78). Wiley \u0026amp; Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodenmann, G., Pihet, S., \u0026amp; Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: a 2-year longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of family psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., \u0026amp; Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 255\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodenmann, G., Randall, A. K., \u0026amp; Falconier, M. K. (2016). Coping in couples: the systemic transactional model (STM). In \u003cem\u003eCouples coping with stress\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 5-22). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolluk-Uğur, G., \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;akmak-Tolan, \u0026Ouml;. (2024). The examination of mediating role of mindfulness in the relation between marriage role expectations, forgiveness and marital adjustment. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(48), 36566-36585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07031-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrazeau, H., \u0026amp; Lewis, N. A. (2021). Within-couple health behavior trajectories: The role of spousal support and strain. \u003cem\u003eHealth Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001050\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, S., \u0026amp; Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. \u003cem\u003ePsychological bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e98\u003c/em\u003e(2), 310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. \u003cem\u003eThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ccedil;ağ, P. \u0026amp; Yıldırım, I. (2013). Evlilik Doyumunu Yordayan İlişkisel ve Kişisel Değişkenler\u003cem\u003e. Turkish Psychological Counseling \u0026amp; Guidance Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e (39), 13\u0026ndash;23. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/200058 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaks, J. S., \u0026amp; Rogge, R. D. (2020). Examining the correlates of psychological flexibility in romantic relationship and family dynamics: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Contextual Behavioral Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e, 214-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavilla, J. \u0026amp; Sullivan, K. T., (2010). Support Processes in Intimate Relationships. Oxford University Press: New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFalconier, M. K., Jackson, J. L., Hilpert, P., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review, 42\u003c/em\u003e, 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFalconier, M. K., \u0026amp; Kuhn, R. (2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrancis, A. W., Dawson, D. L., \u0026amp; Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2016). The development and validation of the Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy processes (CompACT). \u003cem\u003eJournal of contextual behavioral science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 134-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.05.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;naydın, H. D., \u0026amp; Kayral, I. E. (2024). A model into relations between spousal support, financial satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family and Economic Issues\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 723-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-023-09908-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, R. (2019). \u003cem\u003eACT made simple: An easy-to-read primer on acceptance and commitment therapy\u003c/em\u003e. New Harbinger Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHapp, Z., Bod\u0026oacute;-Varga, Z., Bandi, S. A., Kiss, E. C., Nagy, L., \u0026amp; Cs\u0026oacute;k\u0026aacute;si, K. (2023). How codependency affects dyadic coping, relationship perception and life satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(18), 15688-15695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02875-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy, 35(4), 639\u0026ndash;665. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80013-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., \u0026amp; Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcome. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research and Therapy, 44\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, S. A., Orsillo, S. M., \u0026amp; Roemer, L. (2010). Changes in proposed mechanisms of action during an acceptance-based behavior therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(3), 238\u0026ndash;245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat. 2009.11.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes L, Boyd CP \u0026amp; Sewell J (2011). Acceptance and commitment therapy for the treatment of adolescent depression: a pilot study in a psychiatric outpatient setting. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness,\u003c/em\u003e 2:86\u0026ndash;94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0046-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., \u0026amp; Wilson, K. G. (2011). \u003cem\u003eAcceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., \u0026amp; Wilson, K. G. (2011). \u003cem\u003eAcceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. \u003cem\u003eCommunication monographs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, S. C., Hofmann, S. G., \u0026amp; Ciarrochi, J. (2023). The idionomic future of cognitive behavioral therapy: What stands out from criticisms of ACT development. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1036-1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2023.07.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarakuş, S., \u0026amp; Akbay, S. E. (2020). Psikolojik esneklik \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği: Uyarlama, ge\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\u0026uuml;venirlik \u0026ccedil;alışması. \u003cem\u003eMersin \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Eğitim Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.665406\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarney, B. R., \u0026amp; Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. \u003cem\u003ePsychological bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e118\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKashdan, T. B., \u0026amp; Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review, 30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKessler, M., Bradbury, T. N., Brandst\u0026auml;tter, V., Martin, M., Nussbeck, F. W., Backes, S., Peter-Wight, M., Sutter-Stickel, D., Subiaz T. \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2023). Common dyadic coping buffers low commitment. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12933\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;r\u0026uuml;k, S., Ayka\u0026ccedil;, B., \u0026amp; Vapurlu, S. (2023). The Mediating Role of Psychological Flexibility in the Relationship between Job Satisfaction\u0026ndash;Job-related Emotional Exhaustion and Dyadic Marital Adjustment. \u003cem\u003eMarriage \u0026amp; Family Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(7), 480-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2023.2234352\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKurt, İ. E., \u0026amp; Akbaş, T. (2019). Stresle \u0026Ccedil;ift Olarak Baş Etme Envanteri\u0026rsquo;nin T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;e\u0026rsquo;ye Uyarlanması. \u003cem\u003eOPUS International Journal of Society Researches\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(19), 636-655. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.547217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLedermann, T., \u0026amp; Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Relationship satisfaction and health. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000342\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa, H., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Cariola, L., \u0026amp; Gillanders, D. (2025). Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions in Improving Relationship Functioning Among Couples Coping With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. \u003cem\u003ePsycho‐Oncology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), e70080. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.70080 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartos, T., Szab\u0026oacute;, E., Koren, R., \u0026amp; Sallay, V. (2021). Dyadic coping in personal projects of romantic partners: Assessment and associations with relationship satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 2956-2969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00222-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCracken, L. M. (2011). The role of acceptance in managing marital conflict. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Therapy, 24\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1-20. McCracken, L. M., Badinlou, F., Buhrman, M., \u0026amp; Brocki, K. C. (2021). The role of psychological flexibility in the context of COVID-19: Associations with depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 19, 28\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.11.003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeier, F., Cairo Notari, S., Bodenmann, G., Revenson, T. A., \u0026amp; Favez, N. (2019). We are in this together\u0026mdash;Aren\u0026apos;t we? Congruence of common dyadic coping and psychological distress of couples facing breast cancer. \u003cem\u003ePsycho‐oncology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(12), 2374-2381. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRandall, A. K., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eClinical psychology review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRevenson, T. A., Kayser, K. E., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. E. (2005). \u003cem\u003eCouples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping\u003c/em\u003e (pp. xvi-209). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-000\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoth, M., Good, N., Ledermann, T., Landolt, S. A., Weitkamp, K., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2024). Building happier bonds: gratitude as a mediator between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction in romantic couples. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e, 1452397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1452397\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoth, M., Landolt, S. A., Nussbeck, F. W., Weitkamp, K., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2025). Positive Outcomes of Long-Term Relationship Satisfaction Trajectories in Stable Romantic Couples: A 10-Year Longitudinal Study. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Applied Positive Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-024-00201-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRusu, P. P., Nussbeck, F. W., Leuchtmann, L., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2020). Stress, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal study disentangling timely stable from yearly fluctuations. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), e0231133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231133 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSabetroo, M., Zahrakar, K., \u0026amp; Asadpour, E. (2023). Predicting marriage burnout based on mindfulness, psychological flexibility and coping styles. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Relations Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(10), 44-53. https://doi.org/10.22098/jfrs.2023.12497.1111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSandoz, E. K., Moyer, D. N., \u0026amp; Armelie, A. P. (2015). Psychological flexibility as a framework for understanding and improving family reintegration following military deployment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of marital and family therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 495-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12086\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeyyedjafari, J., Borjali, A., Isamorad, A., Sohrabi, F., \u0026amp; Motamedi, A. (2025). Investigating the effect of psychological flexibility and religious orientation on marital satisfaction based on the mediating role of self-compassion. \u003cem\u003eRazavi International Journal of Medicine, 13\u003c/em\u003e (1), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.30483/rijm.2025.254545.1343\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoo, C., Tate, R. L., \u0026amp; Lane-Brown, A. (2011). A systematic review of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for managing anxiety: Applicability for people with acquired brain injury? \u003cem\u003eBrain impairment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.1375/brim.12.1.54\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eŞahin, S. B., \u0026amp; Hamarta, E. (2024). Development of the Psychological Flexibility in Romantic Relationships Scale (PFRRS): A Validity and Reliability Study. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Education and Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 330-359. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1557924\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th Edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTopcu-Uzer, C., Randall, A. K., Vedes, A. M., Reid, D., \u0026amp; Bodenmann, G. (2021). We-ness questionnaire: Development and validation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Couple \u0026amp; Relationship Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 256-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2020.1805082\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTraa, M. J., De Vries, J., Bodenmann, G., \u0026amp; Den Oudsten, B. L. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship functioning in couples coping with cancer: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eBritish journal of health psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12094\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Schoors, M., De Paepe, A. L., Lemiere, J., Morez, A., Norga, K., Lambrecht, K., ... \u0026amp; Verhofstadt, L. L. (2019). Family adjustment when facing pediatric cancer: The role of parental psychological flexibility, dyadic coping, and network support. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 10\u003c/em\u003e, 2740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02740\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiong, L., Zhou, C., Yan, L., Zhao, P., Deng, M., \u0026amp; Hu, Y. (2022). The impact of avoidant attachment on marital satisfaction of Chinese married people: Multiple mediating effect of spousal support and coping tendency. \u003cem\u003eActa psychologica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e228\u003c/em\u003e, 103640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103640\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYıldırım, İ. (2004). Eş destek \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eğinin geliştirilmesi. \u003cem\u003eTurkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(22), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.17066/pdrd.95605 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Dyadic coping, psychological flexibility, spousal support","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6411626/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6411626/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMarriage is a dynamic process that requires mutual commitment, support, and adjustment, often challenged by stressors such as financial difficulties, work stress, family responsibilities, and mismatched personal expectations. How couples cope with stress significantly impacts both individual well-being and relationship quality. The aim of this study is to investigate the moderating role of psychological flexibility in the relationship between perceived spousal support and dyadic coping. The study was carried out with 587 married participants (347 women, 240 men) living in Turkey. The Spousal Support Scale, Dyadic Coping Inventory, and the Psychological Flexibility Scale were utilized as data collection instruments. Correlation analysis, structural equation modeling, and regression analysis using the bootstrap method were employed for data analysis. The correlation analysis indicated positive associations between spousal support, psychological flexibility, and dyadic coping. Additionally, the analyses demonstrated that psychological flexibility moderates the association in spousal support and dyadic coping. This study emphasizes the significance of fostering psychological flexibility to improve relationship dynamics and enhance the ability to cope with stress in couples.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Dyadic Coping and Spousal Support: The Moderating Role of Psychological Flexibility","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-14 09:41:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6411626/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"22587ce6-d1b9-49c5-b44e-8173e36f767d","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 14th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-14T09:41:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-14 09:41:07","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6411626","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6411626","identity":"rs-6411626","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}