The Relationship of Dyadic Adjustment of Pregnant Women with Conflict Resolution Responses in the Covid-19 Isolation Period

Öz

Aim: To examine the relationship between dyadic adjustment of pregnant women and conflict resolution reactions during the stressful Covid-19 isolation period. Method: The research was designed as cross-sectional and correlational. The research was carried out in the pregnant outpatient clinic of a medical school hospital in Konya city center between May 25 and August 2021. In the study, 469 pregnant women were included. The data were collected using the Personal Information Form, the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS), and the The Responses to Dissatisfaction in Close Relationships Accommodation Instrument (EVLN-Accomodation Instrument). Results: Conflict resolution reactions of pregnant women who work in any income-generating job during the Covid-19 isolation period, with a decrease in their income level during the pandemic process, with a poor perception of income level, and with a low dyadic adjustment score were adversely affected by 23% (F = 24.490, p < 0.001). It was found that the conflict resolution reactions towards their partners (perceived reaction of the EVLN-partner) decreased in pregnant women who were primary school graduates, with three or more children, and with a moderate/poor relationship with their partner during the pandemic period (p < 0.05). Conclusion: During the pandemic period, working in any income-generating job, low income level, poor perception of income level, and low dyadic adjustment scores are important determinants of conflict resolution reactions of pregnant women.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Covid-19 isolation process
• conflict resolution response
• dyadic adjustment
• pregnancy
• stress

Covid-19 İzolasyon Sürecinde Gebelerin Çift Uyumunun Çatışma Çözme Tepkileri ile ilişkisi

Öz

Amaç: Araştırma, stresli Covid-19 izolasyon sürecinde gebelerin çift uyumunun, çatışma çözme tepkileri ile ilişkisini incelemek amacıyla planlanmıştır. Yöntem: Araştırma, kesitsel ve ilişki arayıcı tipte dizayn edilmiştir. Çalışma, 25 Mayıs-Ağustos 2021 tarihleri arasında, Konya il merkezinde bulunan bir tıp fakültesi hastanesinin gebe polikliniğinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmaya 469 gebe alınmıştır. Veriler, kişisel bilgi formu, “Yenilenmiş Çift Uyum Ölçeği” (YÇUÖ) ve “İkili İlişkilerde Çatışma Çözme Tepkileri Ölçeği” (İİÇÇTÖ) kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Bulgular: Covid-19 izolasyon sürecinde, herhangi gelir getiren bir işte çalışan, pandemi sürecinde gelir düzeyinde azalma olan, gelir düzeyi algısının kötü olan, çift uyum puanı düşük olan gebelerin %23 oranında (F = 24,490, p < 0.001) çatışma çözme tepkileri olumsuz etkilenmektedir. İlköğretim mezunu olan, üç ve üzeri çocuğu olan, pandemi sürecinde partneriyle ilişkisi orta ve kötü olan gebelerin partnerine yönelik çatışma çözme tepkilerinin (İİÇÇTÖ-partnerinde algıladığı tepki) azaldığı belirlenmiştir (p < 0.05)
Sonuç: Pandemi sürecinde; gebenin gelir getiren bir işte çalışması, gelir düzeyinin azalması, gelir düzeyi algısının kötü olması, çift uyum puanının düşük olması gebelerin çatışma çözme tepkilerinin önemli bir belirleyicisidir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Covid-19 izolasyon süreci
• çatışma çözme tepkisi
• çift uyumu
• gebelik
• stres

Kaynakça

1. 1. "TC Sağlık Bakanlığı, COVID-19 Bilgilendirme Platformu”. Genel Koronavirüs Tablosu. https://covid19.saglik.gov.tr/ Erişim tarihi: 7 Şubat 2021 .
2. 2. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912-20.
3. 3. Jackson JK, Weiss MA, Schwarzenberg AB, Nelson RM, Sutter KM, Sutherland MD. Congressional Research Service, Global Economic Effects of COVID-19. Updated July 9, 2021. https://crsreports.congress.gov R46270. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R46270.pdf.
4. 4. Kahraman A, Erdoğan B, Hüroğlu G. Yakın ilişkilerde bağlanma, ilişki doyumu ve çatışma çözme tepkileri: COVID-19 izolasyon süreci. Çukur CŞ, Yalçınkaya Alkar Ö, editörler. Pandemi Psikolojisi. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2020. p.34-44.
5. 5. Wang B, Li R, Lu Z, Huang Y. Does comorbidity increase the risk of patients with COVID-19: evidence from meta-analysis. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12(7):6049-6057. doi:10.18632/aging.103000
6. 6. Burtscher J, Burtscher M, Millet GP. (Indoor) isolation, stress, and physical inactivity: Vicious circles accelerated by COVID-19? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(8):1544-5.
7. 7. Hossain MM, Sultana A, Purohit N. Mental health outcomes of quarantine and isolation for infection prevention: a systematic umbrella review of the global evidence. Epidemiol Health. 2020;42:e2020038.
8. 8. Flora J, Segrin C. Relationship Development in Dating Couples: Implications for Relational Satisfaction and Loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2000;17(6):811-25.

9. 9. Segrin C, Powell H, Givertz M, Brackin A. Symptoms of depression, relational quality, and loneliness in dating relationships. Personal Relationships. 2003;10:25-36.
10. 10. Lawrence E, Rothman AD, Cobb RJ, Rothman MT, Bradbury TN. Marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22(1):41-50.
11. 11. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic Coping and Its Significance for Marital Functioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002.
12. 12. Molgora S, Acquati C, Fenaroli V, Saita E. Dyadic coping and marital adjustment during pregnancy: A cross-sectional study of Italian couples expecting their first child. Int J Psychol. 2019;54(2):277-85.
13. 13. Chen YH, Huang JP, Au HK, Chen YH. High risk of depression, anxiety, and poor quality of life among experienced fathers, but not mothers: A prospective longitudinal study. J Affect Disord. 2019;242:39-47.
14. 14. Claxton A, Perry-Jenkins M. No Fun Anymore: Leisure and Marital Quality Across the Transition to Parenthood. J Marriage Fam. 2008;70(1):28-43.
15. 15. Neff LA, Karney BR. How Does Context Affect Intimate Relationships? Linking External Stress and Cognitive Processes within Marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2004;30(2):134-48.
16. 16. Williamson HC, Karney BR, Bradbury TN. Financial strain and stressful events predict newlyweds' negative communication independent of relationship satisfaction. J Fam Psychol. 2013;27(1):65-75.
17. 17. Bodenmann G. The influence of stress and coping on close relationships: A two-year longitudinal study. Swiss Journal of Psychology / Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Revue Suisse de Psychologie. 1997;56(3):156-64.
18. 18. Neff LA, Karney BR. Acknowledging the Elephant in the Room: How Stressful Environmental Contexts Shape Relationship Dynamics. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;13:107-10.
19. 19. Tesser A, Beach SR. Life events, relationship quality, and depression: an investigation of judgment discontinuity in vivo. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(1):36-52.
20. 20. Dashraath P, Wong JJL, Su LL, See KC, Fisher D. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Pregnancy: Responding to a Rapidly Evolving Situation. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(1):191-2.
21. 21. Yahya AS, Khawaja S, Chukwuma J. Association of COVID-19 With Intimate Partner Violence. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2020;22(3).
22. 22. Unal O, Akgun S. The Relationship between Humor Style, Marital Adjustment and Marital Satisfaction in Close Relationships. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi. 2019;7(15).
23. 23. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91
24. 24. Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976;38(1):15-28.
25. 25. Busby D, Christensen C, Crane D, Larson J. A Revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for Use with Distressed and Nondistressed Couples: Construct Hierarchy and Multidimensional Scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 1995;21:289-308.
26. 26. Gündoğdu A. Relationship between self-construals and marital quality [M.S. - Master of Science]. Middle East Technical University.2007:1-76.
27. 27. Bayraktaroglu HT, Cakici ET. Psychometric Properties of Revised Form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale in a Sample from North Cyprus. International Journal of Educational Sciences. 2017;19(2-3):113-9.
28. 28. Rusbult CE, Zembrodt IM, Gunn LK. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;43(6):1230-42.
29. 29. Rusbult CE, Verette J, Whitney GA, Slovik LF, Lipkus I. Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;60(1):53-78.
30. 30. Kilpatrick SD, Bissonnette VL, Rusbult CE. Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples. Personal Relationships. 2002;9(4):369-93.
31. 31. Taluy N. The Responses to Dissatisfaction in Close Relationships-Accommodation Instrument: A Validity and Reliability Testing Study. Psikoloji Çalışmaları / Studies in Psychology. 2018;38(1):33-51.
32. 32. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson, 2013.
33. 33. Öner DŞ. Evli bireylerin evlilik çatışması, çatışma çözüm stilleri ve evlilik uyumlarının incelenmesi. T.C. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Aile Eğitimi Ve Danışmanlığı Anabilim Dalı Aile Eğitimi Ve Danışmanlığı Programı Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İzmir 2013.
34. 34. Collins RL. Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 2011;64(3-4):290-8.
35. 35. Ökten Ş. Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve İktidar: Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesinin Toplumsal Cinsiyet Düzeni. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 2009. 2(8): 302- 312.
36. 36. Çelik BU, Etiler N. Sağlık sektöründe kadın emeğinin toplumsal cinsiyet açısından analizi. Çalışma ve Toplum. 2011; 0(29):191-215
37. 37. Ervasti H, Venetoklis T. Unemployment and Subjective Well-being. Acta Sociologica. 2010;53(2):119-39.
38. 38. Karney BR, Story LB, Bradbury TN. Marriages in Context: Interactions Between Chronic and Acute Stress Among Newlyweds. Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping. Decade of behavior. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2005. p. 13-32.
39. 39. Story LB, Bradbury TN. Understanding marriage and stress: essential questions and challenges. Clin Psychol Rev. 2004;23(8):1139-62.
40. 40. Repetti R, Wang S-w, Saxbe D. Bringing It All Back HomeHow Outside Stressors Shape Families' Everyday Lives. Current Directions in Psychological Science - CURR DIRECTIONS PSYCHOL SCI. 2009;18:106-11.
41. 41. Karney BR, Neff LA. Couples and stress: How demands outside a relationship affect intimacy within the relationship. The Oxford handbook of close relationships. Oxford library of psychology. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 664-84.
42. 42. Lehman DR, Lang EL, Wortman CB, Sorenson SB. Long-term effects of sudden bereavement: Marital and parent-child relationships and children's reactions. Journal of Family Psychology. 1989;2(3):344-67.
43. 43. Gritz ER, Wellisch DK, Siau J, Wang H-j. Long-term effects of testicular cancer on marital relationships. Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry. 1990;31(3):301-12.
44. 44. Cohan CL, Cole SW. Life course transitions and natural disaster: Marriage, birth, and divorce following Hurricane Hugo. Journal of Family Psychology. 2002;16(1):14-25.
45. 45. Manne S, Badr H. Intimacy and relationship processes in couples' psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Cancer. 2008;112(11 Suppl):2541-55.
46. 46. Manne S, Ostroff J, Rini C, Fox K, Goldstein L, Grana G. The interpersonal process model of intimacy: the role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. J Fam Psychol. 2004;18(4):589-99.
47. 47. Reis HT. Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing theme for the study of relationships and well-being. Interdisciplinary research on close relationships: The case for integration. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2012. p. 27-52.
48. 48. Reis HT. Relationship well-being: The central role of perceived partner responsiveness. Human bonding: The science of affectional ties. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2013. p. 283-307.
49. 49. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. The role of attachment security in adolescent and adult close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 66–89). 2013. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
50. 50. Slatcher RB, Schoebi D. Protective Processes Underlying the Links between Marital Quality and Physical Health. Current opinion in psychology. 2017;13:148-52.
51. 51. Schulz MS, Cowan PA, Cowan CP, Brennan RT. Coming home upset: Gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into couple interactions. J Fam Psychol. 2004;18(1):250-63.
52. 52. Manne S, Kashy DA, Zaider T, Lee D, Kim IY, Heckman C, et al. Interpersonal processes and intimacy among men with localized prostate cancer and their partners. J Fam Psychol. 2018;32(5):664-75