Abstract
Within relationship research, a great deal of attention is given to emphasizing the interpersonal context related to daily stress and its association with relationship well-being. However, apart from the interpersonal context in which stress may occur, one must consider individual, sociocultural, and systemic factors associated with these daily experiences. Taking an intersectional focus, this systematic review aimed to critically examine the extant research on daily stress and romantic relationship quality from the past two decades, answering three guiding questions: (RQ1) From whose vantage point has the research been conducted? (RQ2) What types of questions have been valued? (RQ3) Whose voices have been included (and excluded)? Using a scoping review methodology, we identified 23 articles meeting inclusion criteria (empirical studies that used daily methodologies, focused on romantic relationships, and examined associations between stress or stressors and relationship quality). Findings revealed most of this research was conducted by researchers in Psychology and Family Studies (or related disciplines) working in the U.S. (RQ1). Studies were quantitative and largely dyadic, often adopting theoretical perspectives without particular theorizing on context and identity (RQ2). Samples were predominantly White, U.S.-based, and comprised of different-sex couples (RQ3). In addition, studies typically did not report (or excluded from analyses) demographics related to cisnormativity/cissexism, heteronormativity/heterosexism, ableism, and placeism/Western industrialized rich democratic samples. Finally, even though studies often included participants from different age groups, races, and social classes, minority and underserved identities were under-represented. We conclude with specific recommendations for future research aimed to remedy these limitations to advance further the decolonization of the research on daily stress and relationship quality.
Stress, the physiological or psychological reaction to external or internal demands, is an unfortunately ubiquitous experience (APA, 2022). Stress can occur because of major life events (e.g., coping with a chronic illness) or the minor stressors that occur in daily life (i.e., daily hassles; DeLongis et al., 1988). Hence, it is unsurprising that it is one of the most researched constructs in relationship science, with ample evidence documenting its toxic effects on people’s well-being, mental health, physical health, and relationship quality (see Randall & Bodenmann, 2017; Thoits, 2010). Traditional models of stress tend to focus on intrapersonal stress-related processes (i.e., individuals’ antecedents and consequences of stress). For example, one of the most influential models in the field, the Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), is mainly concerned with one’s own evaluation of the stressors in terms of both primary (does this stressor pose a threat?) and secondary appraisals (do I have the required resources for addressing this stressor?). These predominantly intraindividual processes are argued to affect one’s stress experience (subjective response to the stressor; e.g., tension, anxiety, health concerns) and coping (strategies used to reduce stress; e.g., active coping, denial, reappraisal).
Nevertheless, even historical theories on stress and coping acknowledged the interpersonal context is critical to the stress experience and that people often recruit their social environment for coping (e.g., Carver et al., 1989). The relationship one has with their romantic partner is considered one of the most significant social ties, robustly linked to mental and physical well-being, at least as conceptualized by scholars in the U.S. (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017; Whisman & Baucom, 2012). Given that romantic relationships are often adversely affected by external stressors (e.g., Randall & Bodenmann, 2017), several stress models have been developed to clarify the role of stress in an interpersonal context. For example, Bodenmann’s Systemic Transactional Model of Dyadic Coping (Bodenmann et al., 2016) highlights the interdependence between partners’ stress and resources, thus delineating a set of dyadic transactions unfolding in the face of a stressor wherein partners communicate their stress and collectively appraise the challenge and their available resources, a process referred to as dyadic coping. An additional central model in the study of stress and relationships is the stress spillover model (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2004), describing the ways stressors external to the relationship (e.g., job demands) tend to deplete partners’ regulatory capacity, and thus spillover to engender stress within the relationship (e.g., Buck & Neff, 2012). Yet another influential model to understand the interplay between romantic relationships and stress processes is the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). This model posits that partners’ contextual (e.g., minority status) and personal (e.g., neuroticism) vulnerabilities interact with stressful events to determine whether couples will adopt adaptive (e.g., support) versus maladaptive (e.g., hostility, withdrawal) dyadic coping processes. More recently, Lavee (2013) proposed a Process Model of Couple Stress Management that sought to bring together many of the interdisciplinary theories and models to a single, comprehensive model focusing on interactive stress management between partners. This model is comprised of coping and support, situated within and informed by multiple ecological contexts. In the Process Model of Couple Stress Management, coping and support processes are conceptualized as being shaped by the couples’ distance regulation, enduring vulnerabilities, personal traits, and relationship quality.
Across these models and theories, and related empirical research, it is clear that stress experienced by one or both partners has the potential to diminish relationship quality (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2009; Randall & Bodenmann, 2017; Totenhagen et al., 2013). Yet it is also clear that context matters. For example, the interpersonal context is central in understanding how stress may impact both partners’ perceptions of relationship quality and how partners’ support and coping may ameliorate or exacerbate these effects (e.g., Bodenmann et al., 2011). Beyond the interpersonal context, personal, cultural, and structural contexts matter as well. While it is clear that stress can tax a relationship, different types of stress are experienced by people with different social locations and identities; indeed, Thoits (2010) argues that a major theme in the findings from the study of stress is “that differential exposure to stressful experiences is one of the central ways that gender, racial-ethnic, marital status, and social class inequalities” are produced (p. S44).
In addition, although stress can have a more stable and chronic quality (Pearlin et al., 1981), it often fluctuates on daily basis with some days more stressful than others. Therefore, the use of daily methodologies to study the experiences and consequences of stress within the context of peoples’ daily lives has received increased empirical attention over the years. The extant literature suggests that daily hassles (e.g., work stress) influence perceptions of relationship quality for both the individuals experiencing the daily stress and their partners (Neff & Karney, 2007; Totenhagen, Butler, et al., 2012; Totenhagen et al., 2013). However, some individuals experience (and cope with) additional stressors on a daily basis beyond those considered to be general hassles of daily living, such as discrimination and harassment based on their traditionally marginalized identities (Lewis et al., 2003; Meyer, 2003). Originally defined by Crenshaw in 1989, intersectionality is a framework that helps to draw attention to the lived experiences of individuals of different and intersecting identities, guiding how researchers collect data and interpret findings (Choo & Ferree, 2010; Few-Demo & Allen, 2020). Consistent with the goals of the special issue, the purpose of this review is to use an intersectional lens to review the past two decades of research on daily stress and relationship quality (2002–2021), using the following three research questions (RQ) as a guide: RQ1) from whose vantage point has the research been conducted, RQ2) what types of questions have been valued, and RQ3) who has been included versus excluded in this research (Cole, 2009; Syed et al., 2018).
The salience of daily stress and daily methodologies in relationship research
Stress in the context of romantic relationships is often conceptualized using dichotomies (Randall & Bodenmann, 2009); stressors can be categorized as being major or minor and separately as being chronic or acute. Major stressors are often critical life events (e.g., unemployment, having a child, the death of a significant other), while minor stressors are more frequent events that occur throughout one’s daily life (e.g., traffic, deadlines at work, having a cold). Alternatively, chronic and acute stressors vary in duration/frequency, such that chronic stress is ongoing (e.g., financial strain, a long commute, chronic illness), while acute stress is of shorter duration or occurs infrequently (e.g., car problems, moving homes, a short-term illness).
These different categorizations of stress have implications for how stress tends to affect individuals and their relationship. For instance, major chronic stressors (e.g., poverty) often have a greater negative impact on couples’ well-being (Karney et al., 2005) than do acute major stressors (e.g., temporary loss of a job). Chronic major stressors may be particularly difficult for couples to navigate because their constancy, or lack of salience, does not cause couples to activate their coping resources. Conversely, when partners cope with experiences together, acute major stressors have even been shown to increase relationship satisfaction (Randall & Bodenmann, 2009).
In contrast to these major stressors, one might speculate that minor stressors, such as daily hassles, would have little effect on one’s relationship quality. However, they have also been shown to have pernicious effects on relationship well-being, particularly when they are chronic. The repeated nature of these stressors and the tendency for individuals to discount such stressors as being important increases the likelihood that daily stressors can and will cause long-term damage to individual and couple well-being (Tesser & Beach, 1998). These same qualities of daily hassles also limit researchers’ ability to effectively study the influence of daily stressors in cross-sectional and panel survey designs as their ubiquity and tendency to be overlooked make them particularly susceptible to recall bias.
To help address some of the concerns noted above, methodologies such as daily diaries, experience sampling, and ecological momentary assessments (EMA) are ideal for researchers interested in studying these stressors as they minimize recall bias and are better able to capture small daily life events (Bolger et al., 2003; Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). By assessing daily stress and hassles, measured across days or weeks, researchers can gain insight into how small, seemingly inconsequential events can have deleterious effects on one’s perceptions of relationship quality. Furthermore, such high-resolution monitoring of stress allows one to examine the lasting and significant impact of these daily experiences on both individual and couple well-being. As with nearly all constructs of interest in the social sciences, daily stress and hassles are going to vary from person-to-person; for example, commutes to and from work can only be stressful for those who commute. Importantly, individual identity is likely to introduce daily sources of stress that are unique to individuals who may hold such identities. For instance, daily encounters with anti-gay marriage messages during an election cycle in which gay marriage is on the ballot is likely to be stressful only or primarily to LGBTQ individuals (Frost & Fingerhut, 2016).
The current manuscript reviews research from the past two decades focusing on the effects of different types of daily stressors on romantic partners’ relationships. To this end, we specifically targeted papers that inquired about partners' stress experiences repeatedly in their natural environment. Specifically, daily diaries, experience sampling, and EMA are methods suited for capturing even small, less noticeable stressors, with high ecological validity (e.g., Stone et al., 2004). While laboratory stress paradigms are also used to examine the effect of minor mundane stress (e.g., Bodenmann et al., 2015; Meuwly et al., 2012), such paradigms are inherently characterized by less ecological validity, and thus may less accurately reflect partners’ lived day-to-day experiences. For this reason, we opted to exclude such laboratory-based studies from our review.
Applying an intersectional lens to the study of daily stress
Every individual holds varying identities that shape their lived experiences. Historically, however, research has largely focused on a single axis of identity, which has ignored how multiple, and sometimes marginalized, identities may simultaneously interact to shape one’s experiences within existing social justice structures (Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1989). Coined by Crenshaw in 1989, intersectionality refers to the acknowledgment of how the intersection of individuals’ identities or statuses, such as gender and race, may interact to yield specific outcomes especially for those traditionally marginalized and oppressed 1 . In addition to this focus on intersecting identities, intersectionality also places emphasis on critically analyzing systems of power and privilege that shape experiences and perpetuate inequities (Cooke & Few-Demo, 2021; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). For example, how may the lived experiences of someone self-identifying as Black and nonbinary differ from another person self-identifying as an Asian woman, particularly as applied to experiences of daily stress? And what are the systems of power and privilege that shape their experiences? Following this example, it is important that scholars move beyond “universal” definitions of stress and consider aspects related to one’s social context (APA, 2017) and individual identities (e.g., VSA; Totenhagen et al., 2017). Doing so can help to elucidate the multiplicative experiences of stress, which may shed light on mechanisms associated with health disparities for specific groups (APA, 2017). Specifically, identifying as part of a marginalized group, such as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color or individuals who identify as sexually and gender diverse, may increase experiences of proximal (e.g., identity concealment) and distal (e.g., discrimination) stressors (Meyer, 2003). As such, moving beyond a “traditional” one-size-fits-all approach to studying stress acknowledges individuals’ identities, some of which may increase stress exposure and the need to cope with such experiences, particularly in the context of one’s relationship.
Guiding Coding Scheme for RQ3 Demographics.
Note. The scheme was adapted to develop items tailored to each of the eight demographics/identities focused on in the present review. Here, “majority” refers to groups traditionally overrepresented in research in social and behavioral sciences, whereas “nonmajority” refers to traditionally underrepresented or underserved groups in research. Details of coding specific to each demographic can be found in the codebook available in Supplemental Appendix A of the online supplement.
The present study
Bearing in mind ideas associated with decolonization and intersectionality noted above, the purpose of our review was to conduct a systematic scoping review of empirical research conducted in the past two decades (2002-2021) focused on associations between daily stress and relationship quality in romantic couples, measured using daily methodologies (Laurenceau & Bolger, 2005). Following recommendations from Bermúdez et al. (2016) and Cole (2009), we engaged in a reflective practice wherein we critically evaluated the literature on daily stress and relationship quality. In doing so, consistent with the goals of the special issue, we applied an intersectionality lens to critically examine all empirical research on this topic published in the past two decades. Rather than summarize the results from the research, we used the three key questions adapted by Syed and colleagues (2018) to shift the focus toward understanding the social structures, viewpoints, and voices underlying and representing this research.
Our objectives were to review and reflect on the vantage points represented (RQ1), the types of questions that have been valued (RQ2), and the voices that are heard and those that are missing (RQ3) in the research on daily stress and relationship quality. This was done with the goal of identifying recommendations for future research that will ensure a more diverse and intersectionality-informed relationship science specific to the study of daily stress and relationship quality. We applied a broad definition of relationship quality, focused on examining feelings about the relationship (as opposed to relationship behaviors or interactions). In his review of stress processes in couples, Lavee (2013) highlights complex patterns of findings, such as some research documenting how stress may strengthen relationships in some situations. He summarizes that “stress may have a differential effect on various aspects of the relationship. Therefore, conceptualizing and measuring marital quality as a unidimensional outcome variable may obscure important differential influences of stress” on couples (p. 163–164). Consequently, and given evidence that a variety of relationship quality components demonstrate significant within-person daily variability (Totenhagen et al., 2016), we include studies focusing on general relationship quality as well as those examining specific components of relationship quality, such as satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, love (Fletcher et al., 2000).
Positionality of the authors
In constructing the authorship team for this intersectionality-informed review, we sought to include authors who were experienced in the content area of daily stress and relationships while also representing diversity in backgrounds and identities. Here, we provide each author’s statement of positionality summarizing background information as relevant to the topic of the present study.
The first author identifies as a White, cisgender female who is married to a man and has two children. She grew up in the U.S. Midwest, was a first-generation university student, earned a PhD in Family Studies and Human Development, and now lives in the Southern U.S., working as an Associate Professor in Human Development and Family Studies at a large public university. The second author identifies as a Greek, White, cisgender female, lesbian adult, who is married without children and currently residing in the Southwestern portion of the U.S. She is middle-class, holds a PhD in Family Studies and Human Development, and is an Associate Professor in Counseling and Counseling Psychology at a large public university. The third author identifies as an Israeli modern orthodox Jewish, cisgender male who is married to a woman and has three children. He lives in Israel, is middle-class, holds a PhD in Clinical Psychology, and is working as an Assistant Professor in the Psychology department at a large public university. The fourth author is a first-generation graduate student from Turkey who is currently residing in the Southwest U.S. She identifies as a Middle Eastern, cisgender female who is married to a man and has no children. She holds M.A in Social Psychology from a small private university and is currently a doctoral student in Human Development and Family Sciences at a large public university. The fifth author identifies as a White, cisgender female American who is married to a cisgender man and lives with their two children. She holds a BS in Psychology and a PhD in Social Psychology and works as an Associate Professor in Human Development and Family Sciences at a large public university.
Collectively, the authors of the present study are diverse in age, gender (though all are cisgender), educational training, geographic location, and sexual orientation. This diversity in backgrounds and demographics was purposeful in effort to ensure multiple perspectives and lenses were represented in the selection of manuscripts, coding, and interpretation of results. Commonalities include that we are all primarily quantitatively trained and have all published research in the area of daily stress and/or relationship quality using daily methodologies. Further, though we represent multiple fields, we all were trained in Family Studies and Human Development or Psychology; other fields which also publish research on stress and relationship quality (e.g., Communication) were not represented in the authorship team. Given similarities in training and methodology, although we attempted to use inclusive practices throughout all steps of the review, this likely shaped our selection of inclusion criteria, coding schemes, and interpretations; readers should be mindful of how our positionality, including our diversities and similarities, influenced the study and interpretations.
Method
Given the RQs and goals of identifying “gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge,” (Colquhoun et al., 2014, pp. 1293–1294) we applied a scoping review methodology. Specifically, we followed five recommended stages for scoping reviews, including (1) identifying the RQs, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Colquhoun et al., 2014).
The three RQs, noted above, representing vantage points, the types of questions that have been valued, and the voices that have been heard versus those that are missing, were applied to our specific topic of daily stress and romantic relationship quality (stage 1). To identify relevant studies (stage 2), we conducted a systematic search of the empirical literature from 2002 to present (2021). The first author performed a search in EBSCOhost on August 13th, 2021. For a maximally inclusive approach, we selected all databases available through EBSCOhost from the first author’s university which, among others, included relevant databases for the science of relationships such as APA PsycInfo, Communication Source, SocINDEX, and Academic Search Premier. We limited our results to articles published in scholarly (peer reviewed) journals to represent the published empirical work on daily stress and relationship quality. Search terms were specified to focus on papers (1) using daily methodologies, (2) examining some aspect of stress or stressors, (3) focusing on romantic relationships, and (4) those examining relationship quality. Thus, within EBSCOhost, we selected Boolean search and included the search terms (daily OR day) AND (diary OR journaling OR EMA OR “momentary assessment” OR “experience sampling” OR “ambulatory assessment”) AND (stress* OR stressors OR hassles) AND (“close relations*” OR “romantic relations*” OR dating OR married OR cohabit* OR couples OR “intimate relations*” OR dyads OR partners) AND (“relationship quality” OR “relationship satisfaction” OR “relationship functioning” OR “marital quality” OR “marital satisfaction” OR “marital functioning” OR commit* OR satisfaction OR “dyadic adjustment” OR “marital adjustment”).
The initial set of results yielded 92 distinct articles. Upon review, the fourth author noted some articles that fit our criteria but were not represented in the results. The first author determined that one of the databases (e-journals) had coded journal articles as “periodicals” rather than as scholarly articles and excluded them from the search results. Thus, the first author re-ran the search on September 2nd, 2021, in e-journals only to surface articles that had been previously missed and identified 4 additional unique results (N = 96). See details in the PRISMA diagram (Figure 1). PRISMA diagram: Scoping Review of Stress and Relationship Quality. 1Some records were excluded for more than one reason; thus, total records excluded for all reasons will add up to greater than 73.
We selected studies for inclusion (stage 3) from these 96 results. Given our focus on reviewing empirical work examining links between daily stress and relationship quality in romantic couples using daily or EMA methodologies, articles were excluded if they (1) did not use daily methodologies to study stress (assessment of daily stress at least once per day for at least 3 days), (2) did not focus on romantic relationships, (3) did not examine stress or stressors as associated with relationship quality (broadly defined; e.g., perceived relationship quality components as outlined by Fletcher et al., 2000 [satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, love] or other general assessments of relationship quality such as dyadic adjustment), or (4) if it was not an empirical study. Specific to our third criterion, we targeted articles examining stress as the independent variable and relationship quality as the dependent variable, but articles were retained as long as they examined links between daily stress and relationship quality (e.g., stress as a mediator or moderator linking another construct to relationship quality). We excluded studies that had daily stress strictly as a covariate in an analysis focused on the association between another variable (e.g., social support) and relationship quality given that many, if not most, articles that do this do not include daily stress or similar constructs in their key words and are therefore difficult to identify widely in the literature. The first and fourth author reviewed all articles for inclusion/exclusion. Seventy-three articles were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria (most commonly because they did not examine stress or stressors as associated with relationship quality), leaving a final sample of N = 23 articles.
Review and synthesis of the literature
With these 23 articles selected, we began the process of charting the data (stage 4). A coding scheme and codebook were developed by the first author and then reviewed and edited by all coauthors through an iterative process. In developing and testing the coding scheme, a variety of items were developed to target aspects of each of the three guiding RQs. All authors participated in the coding process. The first five articles were coded by multiple coders, and codes were compared for similarities and discrepancies. Weekly team meetings of the authors were held to discuss and resolve discrepancies and refine and clarify the coding scheme until agreement was achieved. Following this, the remaining articles were equitably assigned to the authors and weekly meetings continued where any coding questions were discussed and resolved as a group until all coding was complete. In the following sections, we outline the information coded specific to each guiding question (full codebook available in Supplemental Appendix A of online supplement).
RQ1: From whose vantage point has the research been conducted?
To assess the vantage points represented in the research being conducted, we coded information about authors of the study and funding that supported the research, where available. Collectively, we sought data that would provide information about the author’s positionality, including the field they are in, their geographic location, and career stage. We coded first whether a positionality statement was included in the research and, when available in the manuscript, the department the authors were affiliated with at the time of publication. After logging each author’s geographic location (country) at the time of publication, we adapted a coding scheme used by Williamson et al. (2022) to categorize whether all authors were located in the U.S., another English-speaking country, Africa, Asia, Europe, Israel, Latin America, the Middle East, or whether there were authors in multiple countries. These data were chosen to provide information on the disciplinary and geographic diversity of the authors who have generated existing research on daily stress and relationship quality. When available, we also collected information on the first author’s career stage (i.e., student, post-doc, assistant professor, associate or full professor, or other) and funding information (i.e., internal/university funding, private agency funding, state funding, or federal/national funding). Funding information was collected to provide additional information on the vantage points beyond the researchers conducting empirical work, to also include agencies or institutions who are funding the work on daily stress and relationship quality.
None of the 23 manuscripts included positionality statements provided by the authors. In coding, we found that career stage of authors was not reported in 17 of 23 manuscripts. To provide a richer understanding of the vantage points of authors, therefore, we supplemented our coding with a survey of first authors. The 23 manuscripts included in the present review represented the work of 16 different first authors. These first authors were invited to complete a survey designed to gather additional demographic data, which could help provide context as to the vantage points represented by authors publishing work on daily stress and relationship quality. Participants had to be (a) over the age of 18 years of age and (b) have an included publication in the review, per the inclusion criteria noted above. IRB approval was granted in January 2022 by the 2nd author’s institution.
Participants were sent an email invitation that contained the article citation included in the review, and a link to the demographic survey housed on Qualtrics that was expected to take no more than 5 minutes to complete. Participants were asked demographic questions related to their country of origin, primary language, race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Additionally, they were asked what field/department they were trained in for their highest terminal degree as well as questions regarding the following at the time of the article’s publication: department, career stage, geographical location, and funding to support the research.
RQ2: What types of questions have been valued?
In charting the data on the types of questions that have been valued in the research on daily stress and relationship quality, we focused on methodology and theories/models/perspectives used in the empirical work. We first coded information about how daily stress was conceptualized in the paper including whether it was: stress (e.g., psychological experience of stress), stressors (e.g., checklists of stressful events), or both; and general stress (e.g., daily hassles), stress specific to a single demographic or identity (e.g., sexual minority stress, financial stress, etc.), or stress specific to multiple demographics/identities examined as interacting. We also coded how stress was operationalized (i.e., the stress scale that was used) as well as the daily relationship quality constructs that were measured. Specific to study design, we coded whether the data were quantitative or qualitative, self-report or other (e.g., observational or physiological), and collected from individuals, dyads, or both (e.g., some participants participated without a partner, and some participated with a partner). Finally, we coded the number of assessments per day and number of days sampled. This information on the methodology was selected to reflect the types of questions that are valued specific to the types of stress being studied and the methodological approaches that are valued in studying daily stress and relationship quality.
To provide broader reflection of the types of questions valued, we also coded the theories or perspectives used to guide RQs or hypotheses in the manuscripts, as the theories chosen will represent what aspects of social, personal, or relational processes are focused on and therefore valued over others. Finally, we adapted an item from Williamson and colleagues’ (2022) work on the diversity of samples used to study intimate relationships that categorized the role of the sample characteristics in the RQs and design of the paper. Papers were coded as “basic science” when there was no special consideration to sample characteristics in the RQs or design (e.g., they may have a diverse sample, but the focus is on advancing general knowledge about relationships). Papers were coded as “generalizability” when the focus was on replicating prior patterns of results in a different sample. For example, a paper may indicate that prior research on different-sex couples has found a certain pattern of results in the links between daily stress and relationship quality, but it is unclear if these patterns hold for same-sex couples too; thus, the focus is on generalizability of prior findings. Finally, papers were coded as “population specific” when the research focused on a question about a specific population with the goal of learning more about how this group operates in their romantic relationship or in comparison to another group (e.g., papers examining the effects of minority stress on relationship quality in same-sex couples).
RQ3: Who has been Included in the research versus who has been left out?
Specific to our third RQ, we charted data on the sample characteristics of the studies as related to each of the eight categories of our adapted intersectionality wheel (i.e., ageism, classism, gender/gender-based oppression, cisnormativity/cissexism, placeism/geographic location, race/ethnicity, heteronormativity/heterosexism, and ableism). For each, we recorded available demographic details and then assigned an overall code regarding the overall approach of the paper specific to that aspect of identity. In developing the scheme for the overall code, we adapted ideas by Few-Demo and colleagues (2016) in their review of queer theory and intersectionality and how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)-parent families have been integrated into family theory curriculum. Although their focus was more pedagogical and centered on LGBT-parent families specifically, we felt it provided a like structure for the integration and representation of the voices of traditionally underrepresented or underserved groups in social and behavioral sciences. Specifically, they outlined five phases of integration: (1) exclusion of LGBT-parent families, (2) compensatory addition of LGBT-parent families, (3) LGBT-parent families as disadvantaged, (4) queer and intersectionality scholarship, and (5) continuing paradigm shift.
In applying an intersectional lens to the empirical work on diverse demographics and identities in daily stress and relationship quality, we focused particularly on exclusion, compensatory addition, and intersectional scholarship. Although an item was tailored for each of the eight adapted intersectionality wheel components, they all followed the same general structure (see Table 1). Collectively, in charting data regarding who is included versus excluded in the research on daily stress and relationship quality, we collected information both about the sample demographics as well as the role of those sample demographics in the study to tap both the diversity of the sample as well as the intersectionality of the approaches. This concluded the coding process; stage 5 of the scoping review (collating, summarizing, and reporting the results) is presented next in the Results section.
Results
Twenty-three articles focusing on daily stress and relationship quality (broadly defined) were identified as meeting inclusion criteria (for a complete list, please see Supplemental Appendix B in the online supplement). Below we summarize the results guided by the three RQs.
Q1: From whose vantage point has the research been conducted?
Despite attempts of authors (e.g., Roberts et al., 2020) and journal editors encouraging the use of positionality statements (Curran & Randall, 2021), none of the 23 articles included authors’ positionality statements. Nine manuscripts (39.13%) were written or led by authors affiliated with Family Studies and Human Development (or the like), followed by Psychology (n = 6, 26.09%). Surprisingly, none of the authors were affiliated with Communication, and 4 (17.39%) did not list the first author’s affiliation.
Summary Statistics for RQ1: From Whose Vantage Point is the Research being Conducted?
Note. These data represent information available in and coded directly from the manuscripts. Supplementary data from the author survey are presented in the text.
Specific to the author survey, ten of 16 possible unique first-authors completed the survey in early February 2022. These 10 individuals authored 15 of the publications included in the review. 2 Of these 10 authors, the majority reported the U.S. as their country of origin (n = 4); the following countries had one author represented each, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Most authors (n = 5) reported English as their primary language, and one author reported Chinese, one reported French, one reported German, one reported Hebrew, and one reported Italian. Most authors identified as White (European Origin [n = 7]), one as Asian or of Asian descent, one as Latin American/Native (European Origin), and one as South Asian. Additionally, the majority reported being female/cisgender female (n = 7), and three reported being male/cisgender male. Most identified as heterosexual (n = 9) with one author identifying as gay.
A majority of authors who responded to the author survey reported their highest terminal degree/training in psychology. Specifically, four authors reported being trained in social psychology, two in clinical psychology, one reported clinical psychology for children/adolescents and couples/families, and one reported psychology. Two authors reported being trained in family studies and human development or a related field (i.e., family social science). At the time of publication for these 15 manuscripts, most authors reported being an assistant professor at the time (n = 5 manuscripts); the remaining manuscripts were published when the authors were an associate or full professor (n = 3), a research scientist (n = 3), a post-doctoral fellow (n = 2), and a student (n = 2).
In addition to the demographic questions above, we gave authors the opportunity to comment on how their co-authors may have added diverse perspectives to the publication referenced in the email invitation. Authors reported diversity regarding their co-authors’ gender (male and female; no mention of gender identification outside the binary), methodological training (e.g., qualitative and quantitative), field (e.g., counseling and counseling psychology, consumer sciences, human development and family studies, psychology, and social work), location (e.g., North American or European, originating from China or New Zealand), and career stage. A limitation to these data is they are based on the first authors’ reports, and not from the co-authors themselves.
Q2: What types of questions have been valued?
Summary Statistics from RQ2: What Types of Questions are Valued?
aOne paper collected 35 days of data, and another collected two waves of 14 days of data.
bOne paper collected data 4 times/day (used 2 assessments – end of workday and end of day - in analyses), and one paper collected data 4 times/day from the main participant and 1 time/day for the partner.
Q3: Who has been included in the research versus who has been left out?
Summary Statistics for RQ3: Who is Included in the Research Versus Who is Left Out?
For classism, three papers (13.04%) did not provide any information about the sample’s education or income (1). Six papers (26.09%) were comprised of samples entirely middle/high income and/or highly educated (2). Nearly half (n = 11, 47.83%) included participants of lower income and/or education in the sample but did not include income and/or education in analyses (3a), whereas three (13.04%) included participants of lower income and/or education and included income and/or education in analyses as a covariate or control (3b). In sum, although there is some diversity with respect to education and/or income in who is included in research, no papers focused on the experiences of daily stress which may be unique to participants of lower socioeconomic demographics (3c, 4a, 4b, or 5).
Regarding gender/gender-based oppression, most studies (n = 16, 69.57%), included both men and women, and similarities or differences based on gender were explored (3c). An additional four papers (17.39%) sampled both men and women but did not include gender in analyses (3a), whereas two (8.70%) included gender primarily as a covariate or control variable (3b). Only one paper (4.35%) sampled participants of only one gender (women; Milek et al., 2015), but with a focus on broad relationship processes not specific or related to gender (2). This reflects a pattern in the literature on daily stress suggesting that both men and women are included in the research and most papers do examine whether there are gender differences in the patterns of findings; however, papers largely did not reflect on social structures and norms underlying gender differences or gender-based oppression specifically.
For cisnormativity/cissexism, in nearly all papers (n = 21, 91.30%), the sample gender identity was unknown or not reported (code of 1). Typically, there was an assumption that all participants were cisgender (e.g., numbers of men and women were reported, with no mention of gender identity). One paper did report gender identity but used an analytic sample entirely of cisgender participants (code of 2; Totenhagen, Wilmarth, et al., 2018). Another paper included two (of three) gender minority participants who had a male or female partner also participate in the study (i.e., the dyad could be categorized as “distinguishable” for analytic purposes), and also explored similarities or differences based on gender (3c; Neff et al., 2021).
For placeism/Western Industrialized Rich Democratic (WEIRD) samples, most papers (n = 21, 91.30%) had participants all from a single Western industrialized nation (2). The other two papers (8.70%) used a sample of participants from a non-Western or non-industrialized nation and with a focus on broad relationship processes (i.e., not specific to their identity or context; 4a). More specifically 13 papers (56.52%) used samples from the U.S., four (17.39%) used samples from European Countries, four (17.39%) used samples from Israel, and two (8.70%) used samples from Asian countries. No papers used samples from multiple countries. In sum, although there is some diversity with respect to the countries represented in the literature on daily stress and relationship quality, most represented participants from Western industrialized nations, and those that used participants from non-Western nations tended to focus on broad relationship processes independent of context.
For racism, eight papers (34.78%) provided no details about race or ethnicity of participants; notably, all of these papers used samples outside of the U.S. (four from Europe, two from Asia, and two Israeli samples). The majority of papers (n = 12, 52.17%) included participants of different races/ethnicities and reported information on race and/or ethnicity as related to sample demographics but did not include race or ethnicity in analyses (3a), whereas one (4.35%) did include race/ethnicity as a covariate or control (3b; Totenhagen et al., 2017), and one (4.35%) examined similarities or differences based on race/ethnicity (3c; Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007). One paper (4.35%) placed emphasis on intersecting identities related to race/ethnicity (5; Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2011). It should be noted that although, as reported above, many papers did include participants of different races or ethnicities, most of these samples were comprised of 70–95% White participants. In sum, for over a third of published papers on daily stress and relationship quality, the racial or ethnic demographics of participants were unknown, and of the rest, most participants were White.
For heteronormativity/heterosexism, the vast majority of papers (n = 17, 73.91%) did not provide information about participants’ sexual orientation. In many of these papers, there was a presumption that all participants were heterosexual, but individuals’ sexual orientation was not actually reported (e.g., sample entirely of married men and their wives described as “heterosexual couples”). In two papers (8.70%) sexual minority participants were included in the sample, but sexual orientation was not included in analyses (3b). Four papers focused specifically on sexual minority individuals; of these, one (4.35%) focused on broad relationship processes (not specific to their sexual orientation; 4a) whereas three (13.04%) did focus specifically on their identity related to their sexual minority status (4b).
Finally, specific to ableism, nearly all papers (n = 22, 95.65%) did not report any information regarding the sample’s ability or disability status. One paper (Campbell & Renshaw, 2019) involved a sample purposely specific to participants with a disability and their experiences related to that disability (4b). This paper focused on the experiences of military veterans with at least subclinical levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and their partners.
Discussion
Applying an intersectional lens, the goal of this scoping review was to critically examine the past two decades of research literature related to daily stress and relationship quality using daily methodologies. Implementing a scoping review methodology to conduct a systematic review aimed at identifying gaps in this area (Colquhoun et al., 2014), we centered our examination on answering three questions: RQ1) From whose vantage point has the research been conducted, RQ2) what questions have been valued, and RQ3) who has been included and excluded in this research? In the sections that follow, we discuss the patterns of results for each RQ, strengths and limitations of the present review, and future directions for closing gaps identified through this review.
RQ1: From whose vantage point is the research on daily stress and relationship quality being conducted?
Despite being common in qualitative research (e.g., Bourke, 2014), author(s)’ use of positionality statements in quantitative research focused on romantic relationships has largely been nonexistent. The purpose of positionality statements is to “make transparent how the identities of the authors relate to the topic” (Roberts et al., 2020, p. 1305). According to Holmes (2020), the author(s)’ inclusion of positionality is a reflective practice that allows readers to gain an understanding of the researchers’ lens (e.g., theoretical or personal beliefs), potential influences on the research (e.g., age, race, gender, career status), and factors that may have influenced the research process. Notably, none of the 23 articles included positionality statements.
To interpret the vantage points from which research on daily stress and relationship quality has been conducted from the past two decades, we focused on reporting information from each publication on the first author’s primary affiliation, author(s)’ geographical region, career stage, and source of funding. We focused our reporting on first authors given the tradition in many social and behavioral sciences whereby earlier order in authorship reflects greater contributions, with the first author serving as lead (e.g., APA, 2010). The majority of articles included in this review were written by authors whose training background and primary affiliations at the time of publication were in Psychology or Family Studies and Human Development (or the like). Perhaps most surprising was the lack of representation from communication scholars. Given communication scholars have studied related topics (e.g., Alberts et al., 2005; Young et al., 2013), this could be an artifact of the inclusion criteria. For example, because we focused our definition of relationship quality on feelings rather than behaviors, papers focusing on how daily stress is associated with positive and negative interactions between partners were excluded. Further, it should be noted that we focused specifically on first authors, yet coauthors may have represented additional diversity in training and affiliation. For example, authors who responded to the survey and noted how their coauthors may have represented diverse perspectives reported having coauthors from a variety of fields (e.g., counseling and counseling psychology, consumer sciences, social work).
Related to author(s)’ geographical region, of the 18 articles that reported this information, an overwhelming majority (61%) were published by authors in the U.S., followed by Israel (22%). These data were also in line with authors’ self-reported country of origin, whereby 60% of the authors reported being from the U.S. and 50% reported English as their primary language. Only one article was written by scholars outside a Western context (Hong Kong; Li & Fung, 2013), which limits our ability to discern how couples’ daily stress experiences operate outside this context.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that conducting daily dairy research can be costly, in terms of human and financial resources. Indeed, authors have written about such issues related to daily diary designs, yet the discussions largely surround the types of RQs that can be asked, participant burden, and associations with the type of data collected and associated analyses (see Bolger et al., 2003; Iida et al., 2012). For example, Iida and colleagues (2012) note that due to recent technological advancements, the use of electronic formats (e.g., handheld devices) compared to traditional pen-and-paper data collection methods can ease in data interpretation; yet the implicit assumption is that researcher and participants alike will have access to such devices. Funding is also likely to influence whether research teams are able to gain access to traditionally underrepresented populations that may not be accessible from researchers’ typical networks and recruiting techniques.
While participant compensation is never required, it can certainly help bolster participant responses and limit attrition. Participant compensation varies widely, which is dependent on several factors that include the study design, funding allocation, and within-country practices. All but six articles included a mention of funding (the other six did not include this data), which helped compensate participants. For example, in a recent two-wave study by Neff and colleagues (2021) supported by university research funds, participants were able to receive up to $20 (U.S. currency) Amazon gift card for completing the baseline and daily diary, and an additional $10 gift card per couple if they and their partner completed the study. Additionally, participants could enter a lottery to win one of six $100 Amazon gift cards. Notably, compensation rates were increased at Wave 2.
In sum, based on our analysis of the articles included in this review, research on daily stress and relationship quality has largely been conducted by authors trained or working in Psychology and Family Studies departments, living in the U.S., who have access to funding. Further, in the author survey, the overwhelming majority of first authors identified as being female/cisgender female, White or of European Origin, and heterosexual. Such limitations undoubtedly reflect the types of questions that have historically been represented and valued on this topic. That is, the relative lack of diversity in authors may also lead to a lack of diversity in the lenses brought into the research, the types of RQs examined, and the populations studied, as described in the sections that follow.
RQ2: What types of questions are valued?
Daily diary designs have several strengths to help researchers understand individuals’ and couples’ lived experiences. For example, such designs allow for the examination of how certain processes unfold over time or how individuals respond to certain events (Bolger et al., 2003); however, most involve the former. All 23 included articles collected quantitative self-report data. Utilizing quantitative data allows researchers to ask several questions about the association between daily stress and relationship quality. Specifically, as Bolger et al. (2003) note, analysis of daily diary data allows researchers to ask: (1) What is a person’s typical experience, (2) What is the time course of a person’s experience, and (3) What processes underlie the changes? While the question of “how” people may differ across these dimensions may be assessed, these types of within-person and within-group experiences are often done at the aggregate level, which negates each person’s unique, individual experience. Indeed, strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research methodology have been addressed (e.g., Choy, 2014). Similar to what was noted above, limitations in the use of quantitative data include the lack of understanding of human perceptions and beliefs, whereas the use of qualitative data can help researchers understand behaviors, values and assumptions associated with their experience of how daily stress may be associated with perceived relationship quality.
Most articles in the present review collected dyadic data, compared to three that collected data from one partner (Benlian, 2020; Li & Fung, 2013; Milek et al., 2015). Two studies included in the review targeted dyads in their sample yet retained individual partner data (Neff et al., 2021; Righetti et al., 2016). Despite the strengths of collecting dyadic data to understand partners’ interdependent relational processes (Kenny et al., 2006), there may be systematic differences and sample biases present in dyadic samples in which both partners are required to participate versus samples of individuals who are in relationships participating without a partner. For example, those participating in dyadic research with their partner report higher levels of relationship well-being (Barton et al., 2020) and stability (Park et al., 2021) than individuals participating without their partners. Park and colleagues (2021) suggest that “relationship dynamics may indeed be different among couples not participating in a study as a dyad, highlighting the need to interpret findings in relationship research with reference to the population (not) examined” (p. 6). As such, specific attention should be given to acknowledging who may choose to participate in such studies, versus whose voices are missing.
Despite variability in the types of stressors that individuals and couples can experience that may impact their relationship quality - from common stressors to specific stressors associated with one’s identity (for a review, see Randall & Bodenmann, 2017) – most articles (48%) measured general stressors using a variant of the daily hassles measure (DeLongis, 1985). To our surprise, only a few studies measured specific stressors such as level of financial stress (Totenhagen, Wilmarth, et al., 2018), security-related stress (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007, 2011), and occupational stress (Benlian, 2020), although multiple studies focused on experiences of minority stress because of one’s sexual orientation and relationship quality (Totenhagen et al., 2017) or both general daily stress and sexual minority stress (Frost & Fingerhut, 2016; Totenhagen et al., 2017). Lastly, as noted by Fletcher and colleagues (2000) while relationship quality can include various dimensions of relationship factors (e.g., intimacy, commitment, satisfaction), researchers most commonly focused on satisfaction (e.g., Frost & Fingerhut, 2016) and intimacy/closeness (e.g., Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007). To measure these constructs, some authors (e.g., Li & Fung, 2013; Totenhagen, Wilmarth, et al., 2018) relied on validated measures adapted for use in a daily context (e.g., PRQC; Fletcher et al., 2000 and RAS; Hendrick, 1988), whereas others used single-item measures or other brief assessments developed for the study at hand (e.g., Debrot et al., 2018; Totenhagen, Serido, et al., 2012). Authors cited the need for brevity in relying on single-item or newly-developed brief scales as a means to reduce participants burden and fatigue common in daily diary research (Bolger et al., 2003). Still, these findings highlight the lack of existing measures designed to measure tenets of relationship quality that have been validated for use within a daily context.
Lastly, the use of theories, models, or frameworks help guide the researcher to be able to predict, interpret and understand human behavior (for a discussion see Lavee & Dollahite, 1991). Several articles relied on interdependence theory to guide their RQ (e.g., Totenhagen, Serido, et al., 2012; Totenhagen, Wimarth, et al., 2018), which is perhaps not surprising given its focus on the exchange of rewards and costs between partners (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and the dyadic nature of the data described above. Further, several articles cited stress spillover as their primary framework (Campbell & Renshaw, 2019; Hilpert et al., 2018; Totenhagen et al., 2017), which complements the use of daily diary design in understanding how the experience of one partner’s stress can impact their own and their partner’s experiences. Specific to stress processes in couples, Lavee (2013) summarized that nearly all models include a focus on (1) sources of stress, (2) outcomes of stress, and (3) factors that explain how the two are connected. Consistent with these frameworks, most studies included in the present review examined whether daily stress (independent variable) predicted lower relationship quality (dependent variable). Many papers sought to understand the mechanisms linking stress to relationship quality (i.e., mediation), or the conditions under which these constructs were linked (i.e., moderation). For example, in a sample of different-sex newlywed couples recruited in the U.S. who identified themselves as primarily White (75–77%) and Hispanic/Latino (15%), Buck and Neff (2012) found that experiencing external daily stress was associated with self-regulatory depletion for couple members, which in turn was associated with decreased satisfaction. Similarly, in a sample of co-residing couples (different-sex, 89% married) recruited from the German speaking area of Switzerland and who had at least one child younger than 8 years, Debrot and colleagues (2018) found that stress impeded individuals’ ability to detach from work, which explained decreases in relationship quality. In addition to these examples of mediational analyses, others focused on possible “buffers” or “exacerbators” (i.e., moderators) of the effects of stress on relationship quality, finding that partner support may help to protect relationship quality for married heterosexual Chinese dual-earning couples with at least one child (Hilpert et al., 2018), whereas internalized homophobia for individuals in same-gender couples in the U.S. may exacerbate spillover of daily stress onto relationship quality (Totenhagen, Randall, et al., 2018). Although most papers conceptualized stress as the independent variable and relationship quality as the dependent variable, there were some exceptions. For example, some studies examined stress as a possible mediating mechanism linking negative interactions (Li & Fung, 2013) or divergent interests between partners (Righetti et al., 2016) to relationship quality.
Although spillover and interdependence are both good fits for hypothesizing how external (outside the relationship) and internal (inside the relationship) stress may impact individuals and their partners, neither place central focus on contexts, identities, or social structures that may influence the types of chronic or other daily stressors to which people are exposed and the tools and resources they may have available to respond to those stressors. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the majority of papers were coded as focusing on basic science (60.87%) or generalizability (13.04%) rather than population-specific processes linking daily stress and relationship quality. Other theories commonly used in the study of stress and relationships which do place more emphasis on inequalities and contexts, such as the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model (VSA; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), can be adapted to study daily stress. For example, one study (Totenhagen, Randall, et al., 2018) applied the VSA model to examine how high levels of internalized homophobia – a type of minority stress wherein sexual minority individuals internalize society’s negative messages about their sexuality (Meyer, 1995) – may amplify the negative effects of general (non-minority related) daily stress on same-sex couples’ relationships.
In addition, a focus on specific cultural contexts and on theories which center those cultural contexts would add to our understanding of how daily stress and satisfaction are associated in those contexts. Such a focus would also further basic science by making clear the limitations and strengths of current dominant theories. For instance, the Sociocultural Family Stress Model (SFSM) focuses on both shared sociocultural contexts of African American families as well as sources of variability within and across those families (McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018). With regard to the study of daily stressors, SFSM encourages family researchers to simultaneously consider both the normative (e.g., work stress) and unique stressors (e.g., historic and contemporary racism, solo status) of African American families within their greater sociocultural context. We will have a limited understanding of daily stress and relationship well-being if we do not fully embrace the shared and unique aspects of daily stress for different groups both within and between larger cultural contexts. In sum, supplementing commonly used theoretical perspectives (e.g., interdependence theory) and models (e.g., spillover model) in studying daily stress with those that help to center social structures and identities as contexts in which stressors are experienced (e.g., intersectionality, SFSM, VSA) may help to strengthen a valuing of RQs that tap more diverse and intersectional questions.
RQ3: Who is included in the research versus who is left out?
In reviewing the existing literature examining links between daily stress and relationship quality using daily or other intensive longitudinal methodologies, a third question we sought to answer is whose voices are represented in the research and whose are missing? We applied an intersectional lens to eight demographics highlighted in the adapted intersectionality wheel to evaluate ageism, classism, gender/gender-based oppression, cisnormativity/cissexism, placeism, racism, heteronormativity/heterosexism, and ableism in the literature as related to who has been included (and excluded) from research and how researchers conceptualize questions about identity. Here, we highlight patterns of findings for these eight demographics.
Unknown voices
For three components of the intersectionality wheel – cisnormativity/cissexism, heteronormativity/heterosexism, and ableism - the largest portion of the literature on daily stress and relationship quality did not report these demographic details. This pattern suggests that when it comes to gender identity, sexual orientation, and ability/disability status, the extent to which diverse voices are represented in the literature is unknown.
Specific to cisnormativity/cissexism, only two articles reported any details about participants’ gender identity. In one of these papers, the authors reported that of 132 couples, there were two in which “one partner did not identify as male or female (i.e., agender or nonbinary),” and that given the small numbers, these participants were dropped from analyses (Totenhagen, Wilmarth, et al., 2018, p. 530). In the other paper (Neff et al., 2021), of 200 eligible participants, three identified a nonbinary gender identity; two of these participants who had cisgender partners (one man, one woman) and could therefore be identified as distinguishable like the remaining dyads in the paper (all male-female/heterosexual) were retained in analyses. In the remaining 21 articles (91.30%), although numbers or percentages of men or women/males or females were typically reported, there were no details reported on the actual gender identities of the participants, indicating a presumption of cisnormativity. Because most researchers assume cisgender identities of participants, it is truly unknown whether the voices of those who may identify with other gender identities are represented in the research on daily stress and relationship quality, although in the two manuscripts that reported numbers of agender or nonbinary participants, gender minority participants accounted for less than 2% of the sample and were subsequently dropped from analyses due to small numbers or collapsed with other groups. It may, therefore, be important for researchers to purposely oversample individuals with diverse gender identities (e.g., nonbinary or trans* individuals) or, alternatively, focus explicitly on studying samples of diverse gender identity individuals and the unique types of daily stress they may experience to understand associations between experiences of stress and relationship quality.
Similar to the pattern of results for cisnormativity/cissexism, for heteronormativity/heterosexism, most of the articles (n = 17, 3.91%) did not report information about individuals’ sexual orientation, typically because heterosexuality was presumed. That is, couples were described as “heterosexual” based on the sample being comprised of men paired with women. It is possible, and likely, however, that not all participants would have self-identified as heterosexual had they been given the opportunity to report their sexual orientation. Indeed, most people who self-identify as bisexual are in different-sex relationships (Herek et al., 2010). Presumptions of a person’s sexual orientation as heterosexual, gay, or lesbian based on the gender of that person’s partner contributes to bisexual invisibility. Prior research demonstrates both individual (e.g., mental health, substance use, and sexual health; Feinstein & Dyar, 2017) and relational (e.g., interpersonal violence; Walters et al., 2013) disparities for bisexual individuals, with unique stressors such as stigma, harassment, and binegativity contributing to such outcomes (Balsam & Mohr, 2007; Feinstein & Dyar, 2017), yet how daily experience of stressors may be associated with relationship quality in the different- and same-sex relationships of bisexual individuals remains unknown.
Finally, specific to ableism, with only a single exception (Campbell & Renshaw, 2019), no papers disclosed information relevant to participants’ ability or disability status. The American Psychological Association (APA, 2021) suggests an inclusive and broad definition of disabilities to include physical, psychological, intellectual, and socioemotional impairments. The World Health Organization (2011) estimates that about 15% of the world’s population lives with a disability and suggests many of the disparities they face are likely due to obstacles they face in their everyday lives. These findings suggest that measuring daily stress and stressors experienced by participants with varying ability statuses and/or their partners is a ripe area for study. Given the percentage of individuals living with a disability, it is likely their voices are present in the research on daily stress and relationship quality. Yet, the lack of reporting on participants’ ability or disability statuses limits understanding of the extent to which their voices are represented as well as the unique daily obstacles and stressors they may experience along with their relational consequences.
Excluded voices
There was one intersectional demographic for which exclusion was the dominant pattern: placeism. Of the 23 papers reviewed, all but two focused on WEIRD nations to the exclusion of participants living their daily lives outside of these WEIRD contexts, as a large portion of the world does (Henrich et al., 2010). Henrich and colleagues note that the reliance on American undergraduates, in particular, is problematic given that they are “some of the most psychologically unusual people on earth” (p. 29). The majority of the papers reviewed in the present study did not rely on undergraduate samples – only one paper used a sample entirely composed of undergraduates, and three other papers reported students comprising between 60-65% of the sample. Interestingly, the only paper using a 100% sample of undergraduates was also one of the only two papers from a non-WEIRD region, which was focused on those living in Hong Kong (Li & Fung, 2013). Thus, it appears that the study of daily stress and relationship quality has not, by and large, relied on samples of undergraduates from U.S. institutions to extrapolate their experiences of daily stress as applicable to the stress and relationships of people in other demographics.
Yet, it is also clear that most research on daily stress and relationship quality has not included participants from non-Western or non-industrialized nations. This pattern is likely due in large part to most of the scholars who are conducting this research being located in Western and industrialized nations; nearly half (n = 11) of papers had all authors located in the U.S., four from Israel, and two from other European nations – only one manuscript was written from authors in a non-Western country (Li & Fung, 2013). Likewise, of the 23 papers included in the present review, slightly more than half (n =13) used samples from the U.S., four used samples from Israel, four used samples from other European nations, and two used samples from Asian countries.
Compensatory addition of underrepresented voices
For four of the demographics – ageism, classism, racism, and gender/gender-based oppression – the dominant pattern was compensatory addition. In applying a lens of intersectionality to the integration of LGBT-parent families into family theory curricula, Few-Demo and colleagues (2016) described “compensatory addition” as a recognition that these families had been absent from the discourse and a move toward incorporating examples from these families into curricula (p. 77). Applied to the present review, compensatory addition indicates studies where elevation of underrepresented or minority voices may not have been a central focus, but diverse participants were “allowed” to participate.
For ageism, classism, and racism, the dominant pattern was for underrepresented or diverse voices to be present in the sample, but for constructs related to these demographics to be absent from analyses (code of 3a). For ageism, underrepresented voices were considered to be those of middle-to later adulthood, ages 36 and older (APA, 2020), given that most of the literature on intimate relationships has focused on younger samples. For example, in a comprehensive review studying the diversity of samples in intimate relationships research, Williamson et al., (2022) found that only 16% of studies had samples with average ages of 40 or higher, even though they represent nearly half of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). For classism, underrepresented voices were considered those to be participants of lower education (e.g., high school diploma or less) or lower income, given that lower socioeconomic status participants are also underrepresented in research on intimate relationships (Williamson et al., 2022). For racism, underrepresented groups were considered to be those from any other race or ethnicity than White or of European descent. Most papers in the present study did not exclude participants from underrepresented groups as related to age, class, or race/ethnicity. Instead, most papers permitted participants from diverse groups and reported sample demographics such as means and standard deviations related to age, income and/or education levels, and percentages of different races or ethnicities present in the research. However, constructs such as age, income, education, race, or ethnicity were not typically included in analyses to explore similarities or differences for participants.
It should be noted that although participants from underrepresented groups specific to age, class, and race/ethnicity were included, most often they were a small minority of the participants in the article – a pattern which matches the broader literature on intimate relationships (Williamson et al., 2022). By including them in samples but not examining similarities or differences across age, class, and race/ethnicity groups, researchers may be under the impression that their results are generalizable because they contain some diversity in their sample. Yet because underrepresented groups are most often in the minority, in terms of numbers, and because important distinctions in their lived daily experiences are not explored, their voices are likely masked by those of the majority groups in the research.
For gender/gender-based oppression, the predominant pattern was for articles to include samples of both men and women, often in similar or equal proportions (e.g., both members of different-sex dyads) and to explore similarities or differences between men and women (code of 3c). Although similarities and differences were typically explored, often by including gender as a moderator in analyses or using gender as a distinguishing construct across dyads, researchers usually did not have a priori hypotheses regarding gender differences. Hence, these analyses were descriptive in nature and did not include theorizing or rationale to help explain why self-identified men and women may experience stress and relationship quality differently. In examining gender differences – particularly with the goal of understanding gender-based oppression, researchers may consider biological differences or social structures and norms reinforcing gendered cognition and behaviors. Lack of attention to such variables may prevent researchers from further investigating the importance of gender privilege and gender-based oppression in their findings.
Approaching intersectionality – exemplars
Although none of the intersectional demographics were coded as predominantly focusing on underrepresented voices (codes of 4a or 4b) or intersectional scholarship examining intersections across two or more demographics/identities (code of 5), there were exemplars of studies demonstrating these approaches. Two studies were coded as 4a on placeism for focusing specifically on non-Western couples, including 84 married Chinese couples (Hilpert et al., 2018) and 100 students at a Hong Kong university in a “serious” relationship of at least 1 month or more (Li & Fung, 2013). Both studies help to elevate voices of underrepresented (i.e., non-Western) voices, with a focus on understanding broad relationship processes thought to be generalizable. Indeed, Hilpert and colleagues (2018) did find evidence of generalizability for Chinese couples in that their findings on stress and dyadic coping as associated with relationship satisfaction demonstrated similar patterns as those based on Western samples (Falconier et al., 2016).
Heteronormativity/heterosexism was one area where several studies were coded as either 4a or 4b given their explicit focus on same-sex couples. For example, Totenhagen and colleagues (2012) examined how general daily stressors were associated with relationship quality, depending on perceived closeness between partners, in a sample of same-sex couples. Whereas this study focused on generalizability of broad relationship processes not specific to individuals with sexual minority identities, three other papers focused more explicitly on unique stressors (e.g., negative campaign messages, sexual minority stress) experienced by same-sex couples on a daily basis and how this stress was associated with their relational well-being (Frost & Fingerhut, 2016; Totenhagen et al., 2017; C. J. Totenhagen, A. K. Randall, et al., 2018). All of these papers elevate the voices of sexual minority individuals by focusing explicitly on these samples, but the latter three focus on their sexual orientation as central to the types of daily stress they may experience.
Likewise, one paper focused explicitly on experiences relevant to ableism. Notably, this was the only paper coded as anything other than 1 (unknown/not reported) for ableism. Campbell & Renshaw (2019) sampled 64 military veterans with at least subclinical levels of PTSD and their civilian romantic partners. Each night for 14 days, veterans reported their PTSD symptoms, the partners reported their accommodating behaviors that day, and both partners reported feelings of intimacy. These authors found that accommodation by the partner was negatively associated with intimacy – particularly for the partners of veterans – and that these effects were stronger on days when veterans had lower (vs. higher) levels of daily PTSD symptoms. By centering the experiences of these veterans with PTSD and their partners, a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of daily stress for these couples given their unique circumstances can be achieved. Moreover, Campbell and Renshaw (2019) suggested important clinical implications, including that accommodating behaviors by a partner may be “a potential impediment to relationship intimacy, particularly when veterans have less severe symptoms,” (p. 908). The daily methodology used in this study was important in providing a more nuanced understanding of PTSD as fluctuating in severity from day-to-day and accommodating behavior being more or less harmful for intimacy depending on that day’s severity of symptoms.
Notably, only one paper of the 23 received a code of 5 – intersectional scholarship - across any of categories. This study was coded as intersectional scholarship specific to race/ethnicity given its focus on the daily lives of Jews and Arabs in Israel with different cultural orientations (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2011). As summarized by the authors, in Israel, Jews are the majority socio-ethnic group and Arabs the largest minority socio-ethnic group, and according to the authors, both groups are often treated as monocultural within their socio-ethnic groups with Israeli Jews being labeled as idiocentric, emphasizing independence in terms of the self, and Israeli Arabs being labeled as allocentric, emphasizing interdependence in terms of the self. However, as they demonstrate, cultural orientation varies within these two socio-ethnic groups substantially (28% of Jewish couples were classified as allocentric; 39% of Arab couples were classified as idiocentric). The authors examined several questions regarding whether cultural orientation and majority/minority status as well as gender would be differentially related to family, self, role, and security-based daily stressors and whether those stressors would, in turn, differentially influence mood and relationship closeness. Although the authors did identify some differences based on these categories, their findings regarding relationship closeness were remarkably consistent; daily family, self, and role stressors were negatively associated with daily relationship closeness whereas daily security stress was not, and this did not vary by group membership (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2011).
Strengths and limitations
We acknowledge that this scoping review was limited to empirical manuscripts that examined some type of stress or stressor, measured daily for at least 3 days, with some aspect of relationship quality as the outcome variable. Using a broad definition of relationship quality (i.e., general relationship quality such as dyadic adjustment, or relationship quality components as defined by Fletcher et al., 2000), we sought to focus our examination on papers examining how daily stress or stressors influence how people feel about their relationships, rather than how they behave in their relationships. Doing so helped to ensure a focused review of papers examining the same (or similar) phenomena. Despite this strength permitting a critical and focused review, our exclusion of articles that examined relationship behaviors (rather than feelings/quality) may also have excluded research examining links between daily stress or stressors and other individual and relational constructs. For example, there were papers initially identified in our literature searches examining stress related to parenting children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) which were excluded from the present review because they examined how this stress was associated with positive and negative marital interactions within the parents’ relationship (e.g., Hartley et al., 2016; Hartley et al., 2018). Likewise, some papers examined links between marital interactions and health for participants with chronic illnesses (e.g., Martire et al., 2018). It may be interesting for future researchers to apply an intersectional lens in reviewing the literature on daily stress and relationship behaviors or interactions, particularly as it seems there may be better representation of participants and families of different ability/disability statuses than found in the present review focusing on relationship quality.
Further, given the burgeoning research using daily methodologies in recent decades, as well as the benefits of daily methodologies in reducing recall bias and providing ecologically-valid measurements of participants’ experiences as they unfold (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013; Laurenceau & Bolger, 2005), articles were excluded for not utilizing a daily methodology (i.e., assessments collected at least once per day for 3 days). While we did not exclude qualitative papers from inclusion and used search terms such as “journaling” to surface qualitative research which may have used daily methodologies such as written diaries, none of the final articles included used qualitative methodologies. Given the time-intensive nature of daily research for participants and the experience of participation fatigue (Bolger et al., 2003), there may be challenges in collecting qualitative data and retaining participants across multiple days. Given the rich nuance that qualitative data can provide in helping to explain the lived experiences underlying findings from quantitatively-collected data, however, this may be a fruitful methodology to explore in the study of daily stress and relationship quality.
Summary and implications for future directions
In summary, using an intersectional lens, we reviewed the extant literature from the past two decades (2002–2021) using daily methodologies to examine links between daily stress and relationship quality. In answering the question of whose vantage points have been represented (RQ1), the limited information available about authors suggested that the largest portion of research on daily stress and relationship quality has been conducted by researchers working in the U.S. and those who are trained in or currently working in Psychology or Family Studies (or the like). Recognizing that our focus on relationship quality as an outcome may have excluded research from other fields that focus on associations with individual well-being (e.g., clinical or counseling psychology) or interactions between partners (e.g., communication), we nevertheless encourage interdisciplinary collaborations to help bring diverse perspectives to this area. Further, international collaborations – particularly with and among those in non-Western contexts and outside the Global North – are needed to bring attention to defining and assessing daily stressors experienced in other regions and highlight diverse strengths and resiliencies couples in these areas may bring in coping with daily stress.
In examining the types of questions that have been valued in the study of daily stress and relationship quality (RQ2), we found that all studies included in our review collected quantitative data, which is likely an artifact for how we conceptualized these constructs. Further, most studies collected data from both members of dyads, and about half examined general daily stress or hassles. Given the traditionally deductive and hypothesis-testing paradigm used in quantitative research, it may be fruitful for researchers to apply qualitative methodologies using daily diaries (e.g., written journals); doing so may bring to light previously unexamined types of daily stress, mechanisms linking stress and relationship quality, or potential moderators highlighting both challenges and resiliencies couples may bring in coping with daily stress. Given the heavy reliance on dyadic samples, it is also likely there is sample bias in the research on daily stress such that those who participate may be more satisfied and stable (Barton et al., 2020; Park et al., 2021) than those who opted not to participate with their partner. Future researchers may choose to recruit one member of the dyad or use comparative samples of individuals participating without their partners and those participating with their partners, to increase the likelihood of couples who are not highly satisfied with their partner being represented in the research on daily stress and relationship quality. Researchers are also encouraged to supplement commonly used theories and models to study daily stress in relationships (e.g., interdependence theory and spillover) with additional frameworks which center the role of context and identity such as intersectionality (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989) or queer theory (e.g., Few-Demo et al., 2016). Doing so will focus the types of questions valued and examined by increasing diversity in the experiences and samples examined, as well as placing emphasis on existing social structures that may explain inequalities (Cole, 2009).
Finally, our results as related to who has been included (vs. excluded) in this research (RQ3) largely mirror the patterns identified by Williamson and colleagues (2022) in their comprehensive review of the diversity of samples in the study of intimate relationships; for example, samples were predominantly White, U.S. based, and comprised of different-sex couples. Beyond sample diversity, we focused our examination around eight identities/demographics (ageism, classism, placeism/WEIRD samples, gender and gender-based oppression, cisnormativity/cissexism, heteronormativity/heterosexism, racism, and ableism) and how researchers included each in their study. Adapting a scheme developed by Few-Demo and colleagues (2016), articles were coded based on the extent to which the identity status was reported (1), whether diverse voices were excluded from the research (2), compensatory addition of diverse voices (3), explicit focus on a traditionally underrepresented group (focused on a single identity; (4), and intersectional scholarship placing emphasis on intersecting demographics or identities (5).
For cisnormativity/cissexism, heteronormativity/heterosexism, and ableism, the majority of the papers in the present review did not report demographic details related to these identities (code of 1). Here, we offer two suggestions. First, we encourage authors to collect and report details related on related demographics so that it is clear the extent to which diversity in these demographics are present in samples (i.e., whose voices are represented and whose are excluded). However, many times these data may be collected but too few participants of certain identities are in the sample and subsequently excluded from analyses (e.g., code of 2). Thus, beyond data collection and reporting of these demographics, it may be important to purposely over-sample diverse voices within each demographic (e.g., gender minority participants such as trans* or nonbinary identities) to ensure their voices are represented. Exclusion (code of 2) was the dominant code for research as related to placeism/WEIRD samples, with most papers relying on American or other Western samples. As previously discussed, this is likely an artifact of the location of the researchers performing this work, as most authors were also from these Western locations and collected data from participants in their areas. A clear implication of this review’s findings is that to better understand the types of daily stress and stressors experienced by individuals around the world, holding various identities beyond those living in Western and industrialized regions, it will be important for scholars and related publication outlets to seek and publish more research from scholars residing in non-Western regions.
Compensatory addition (code of 3) was the most common code for ageism, classism, racism, and gender/gender-based oppression. As previously discussed, this typically meant that participants from minority, underserved, or marginalized backgrounds and identities were not specifically excluded from the research, but they were still often in the minority in terms of numbers. While compensatory addition (i.e., inclusion) is an important step forward for research on daily stress and relationship quality, as long as underrepresented groups are in the minority of samples, assumptions will be that findings from larger/dominant groups apply to underrepresented groups as well, yet it is unclear if these assumptions are accurate. Thus, it is important to not just include diverse and underrepresented voices, but future research should seek to elevate (e.g., code of 4) and understand the extent to which prior results are generalizable across groups and what types of daily stressors might be unique and/or have unique ties to relationship quality.
Finally, we encourage future researchers to examine diversity not only as “siloed” aspects of identity wherein the impact of each demographic or identity is examined and interpreted separately, but to move toward examining intersecting demographics and identities. Crenshaw (1991) offers a poignant example in her work on violence against women of color: “… the experiences of women of color are frequently the product of intersecting patterns of racism and sexism… Because of their intersectional identity as both women and of color within discourses [feminism or antiracism] that are shaped to respond to one or the other, women of color are marginalized within both,” (p. 1243-1244). A lens of intersectionality also brings to light how identities may be salient to and interpreted in different contexts. For example, we found eight papers provided no details about race or ethnicity of participants, but further examination revealed that all of these papers used samples outside of the U.S. This pattern suggests that how race and ethnicity have been defined and conceptualized within the U.S. (e.g., collecting data on the number of people identifying as Asian American, Black or African American, White, etc.) is likely not a globally shared conceptualization and more representative of the U.S. sociohistorical structures. Instead of considering how these U.S.-based conceptualizations of race are also examined in research on couples in other countries, it may be more important to consider salient racial and ethnic identities as situated within context (i.e., intersectionality around placeism and racism). For example, Ben-Ari and Lavee (2011) examined security-related stress and relationship quality for Jews and Arabs in Israel given their majority (Jews) and minority (Arabs) status within their geographical context. Such efforts to move toward intersectional perspectives will also help researchers studying daily stress and relationship quality to move toward inclusive scholarship, where findings are placed in context of intersecting identities/demographics and the social structures that shape individuals’ experiences. This work will be essential in understanding and breaking down inequities (Cole, 2009) while decolonizing the research (Bermúdez et al., 2016) on daily stress and relationship quality.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Daily stress and relationship quality: A two-decade scoping review from an intersectional lens
Supplemental Material for Daily stress and relationship quality: A two-decade scoping review from an intersectional lens by Casey J. Totenhagen, Ashley K. Randall, Eran Bar-Kalifa, Oyku Ciftci, and Marci Gleason in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Open research statement
As part of IARR's encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This project was not pre-registered. Data for this project, specifically the results of the article coding, are available by email request from the first author at
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
