Trait Emotional Intelligence and Relationship Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Dyadic Coping

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables Within and Between Females and Males.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
1.	Duration	–
Females
2.	TEI	−.09	(.85)
3.	PDC	−.17	.30	(.77)
4.	NDC	.11	−.16	−.34	(.72)
5.	CDC	−.29	.30	.52	−.22	(.75)
6.	SAT	−.32	.30	.39	−.30	.51	(.90)
7.	O	−.18	.25	.23	−.09	.23	.00	(.61)
8.	C	.01	.36	.01	−.12	−.01	.06	.02	(.72)
9.	E	−.02	.36	.07	−.04	.11	.13	.24	−.02	(.82)
10.	A	.15	.33	.31	−.21	.20	.07	.15	.14	−.02	(.40)
11.	N	−.07	−.51	−.15	−.04	−.05	−.05	−.09	−.11	−.29	−.20	(.80)
Males
12.	TEI	−.12	.17	.02	−.11	.20	.33	−.02	.10	.12	−.04	.08	(.88)
13.	PDC	−.35	.07	.25	−.19	.21	.32	.06	.03	.06	.03	.14	.36	(.76)
14.	NDC	.15	−.10	−.26	.27	−.19	−.31	−.07	.04	.10	−.12	.12	−.18	−.36	(.72)
15.	CDC	−.15	.13	.37	−.02	.43	.33	.19	−.07	.16	.21	−.02	.27	.42	−.25	(.74)
16.	SAT	−.29	.17	.40	−.24	.45	.64	.08	.05	−.00	.09	.02	.39	.42	−.33	.53	(.91)
17.	O	−.15	.08	−.07	.03	.17	.24	.06	.01	.01	.07	.07	.37	.33	−.09	.16	.16	(.73)
18.	C	.13	−.01	−.13	−.02	−.07	−.09	−.08	.04	.00	−.08	.06	.23	−.07	−.02	−.15	−.12	.07	(.62)
19.	E	−.13	−.00	.06	−.02	.14	.06	.03	.07	−.06	−.01	−.06	.24	.25	−.16	.17	.21	.26	−.06	(.75)
20.	A	−.00	−.02	−.01	−.08	.07	.08	.03	.02	−.09	−.16	−.02	.42	.29	−.25	.23	.20	.05	.14	−.05	(.51)
21.	N	.10	−.03	−.06	.17	−.15	−.20	.07	−.03	−.10	.09	−.13	−.54	−.22	.16	−.23	−.38	−.06	−.01	−.07	−.14	(.70)
	M	9.44	5.38	3.90	1.52	3.47	4.11	5.36	5.42	5.04	5.64	4.26	5.24	3.93	1.76	3.43	4.11	5.29	5.25	4.63	5.23	3.49
	SD	10.88	0.62	0.66	0.59	0.76	0.75	1.11	1.17	1.40	0.89	1.47	0.70	0.49	0.64	0.71	0.75	1.24	1.05	1.30	1.00	1.35

Note. Duration = relationship duration in years, TEI = trait emotional intelligence, PDC = positive dyadic coping, NDC = negative dyadic coping, CDC = common dyadic coping, SAT = relationship satisfaction; O = openness to experience; C = conscientiousness; E = extraversion; A = agreeableness; N = neuroticisms; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Cronbach’s alpha is shown in brackets. Correlations in italics are significant at p < .05, correlations in bold face are significant at p < .01, and underlined correlations are significant at p < .001 (2-tailed).

Figure 1. Conceptual Depiction of the TEI-Relationship Satisfaction Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Plot a) and of the TEI-Dyadic Coping-Relationship Satisfaction Actor-Partner Mediator Model (Plot b). Note. For simplicity, effects are supposed to be equal for males and females and subscripts M and F for individual paths (e.g., a_M and a_F) were therefore omitted.

Table 2. Path Coefficients and Model-Fit for the Trait Emotional Intelligence-Relationship Satisfaction APIMs and for the Trait Emotional Intelligence-Dyadic Coping-Relationship Satisfaction APMeMs Depicted in Figure 1.

		Correlated uniqueness and standardized path coefficients										R^2SAT		Fit statistic
Model	Mediator	r4	r5	path a	path b	path c	path d	path e	path f	path g	path h	females	males	df	robust χ^2	p-value
Models include total TEI as exogenous variable
APIM	n.a.	.55***	–	.29***	.18***	−.26**	–	–	–	–	–	.22***	.23***	3	1.72	.63
APMeM	PDC	.49***	.23**	.23***	.12*	−.16*	.30***	−.03	−.24***	.23***	.22**	.32***	.34***	8	8.05	.43
	CDC	.48***	.36***	.19***	.10*	−.17*	.25**	.11	−.18*	.35***	.15**	.37***	.39***	8	8.11	.42
	NDC	.51***	.24**	.25***	.15*	−.22**	−.15*	−.06	.10	−.19***	−.15***	.29***	.29***	8	2.47	.96
Models include residualized TEI (i.e., overlap with the Big Five factors was partialled out prior to the analyses) as exogenous variable
APIM	n.a.	.58***	–	.19**	.16**	−.27**	–	–	–	–	–	.17**	.16**	3	2.27	.52
APMeM	PDC	.49***	.19*	.16**	.13*	−.14*	.10	.04	−.26***	.28***	.22***	.31***	.30***	8	7.00	.54
	CDC	.48***	.40***	.13**	.13**	−.15*	.14*	.01	−.20**	.39***	.16***	.37***	.37***	8	7.23	.51
	NDC	.52***	.25**	.19***	.16**	−.21**	−.01	−.02	.12	−.23***	−.18***	.28***	.26***	8	3.93	.86
Models include reduced TEI (i.e., six TEIQue-SF items organized under the well-being factor were excluded) as exogenous variable
APIM	n.a.	.55***	–	.27***	.19***	−.27**	–	–	–	–	–	.22***	.22***	3	1.09	.78
APMeM	PDC	.48***	.22**	.20***	.14*	−.16*	.29***	−.02	−.25***	.24***	.21***	.32***	.33***	8	6.63	.58
	CDC	.48***	.36***	.17**	.12*	−.17**	.24***	.11	−.19*	.36***	.14**	.37***	.39***	8	7.54	.48
	NDC	.51***	.24**	.23***	.16**	−.23**	−.15**	−.04	.11	−.19***	−.16**	.29***	.29***	8	1.85	.99

Note. APIM = actor partner interdependence model (for a conceptual depiction see Figure 1, plot a); APMeM = actor-partner mediator model (for a conceptual depiction see Figure 1, plot b); PDC = positive dyadic coping, CDC = common dyadic coping, NDC = negative dyadic coping, TEI = trait emotional intelligence, SAT = relationship satisfaction; path a = actor effect _{TEI → SAT}; path b = partner effect _{TEI → SAT}; path c = effect _{relationship duration → SAT}; path d = actor effect _{TEI → dyadic coping}; path e = partner effect _{TEI → dyadic coping}; path f = effect _{relationship duration → dyadic coping}; path g = actor effect _{dyadic coping → SAT}; path h = partner effect _{dyadic coping → SAT}; r₄ = correlated uniqueness _{SAT, SAT}; r₅ = correlated uniqueness _{dyadic coping, dyadic coping} (the correlations r₁ to r₃ between male’s TEI, female’s TEI, and relationship duration are given in Table 1). In all models, the respective actor effects, partner effects, and effects of relationship duration were fixed to be equal across both sexes. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3. Unstandardized Total and Specific Indirect Effects and Bootstrapped 95% BC-Confidence Intervals for the Trait Emotional Intelligence -Dyadic Coping-Relationship Satisfaction Actor-Partner Mediator Models Shown in Figure 1 (Plot b) and in Table 2.

	Indirect TEI-SAT actor effects			Indirect TEI-SAT partner effects
Mediator	Total indirect effect	Actor-actor effect	Partner-partner effect	Total indirect effect	Actor-partner effect	Partner-actor effect
Models include total TEI as exogenous variable
PDC	.064 [.014, .114]	.070 [.029, .111]	−.006 [−.039, .020]	.059 [.011, .108]	.065 [.024, .107]	−.006 [−.033, .021]
CDC	.102 [.044, .160]	.087 [.038, .135]	.015 (−.006, .036]	.073 [.015, .131]	.036 [.004, .067]	.037 [−.008, .083]
NDC	.038 [.001, .075]	.028 [−.001, .057]	.010 [−.009, .028]	.035 [−.003, .073]	.023 [−.003, .048]	.012 [−.009, .033]
Models include residualized TEI (i.e., overlap with the Big Five factors was partialled out prior to the analyses) as exogenous variable
PDC	.035 [−.011, .080]	.027 [−.012, .065]	.008 [−.020, .037]	.032 [−.013, .076]	.021 [−.010, .053]	.010 [−.026, .046]
CDC	.056 [−.002, .114]	.055 [.007, .104]	.001 [−.021, .023]	.025 [−.034, .085]	.023 [−.002, .048]	.002 [−.048, .052]
NDC	.007 [−.029, .044]	.005 [−.023, .033]	.003 [−.016, .022]	.007 [−.028, .042]	.004 [−.018, .026]	.003 [−.020, .027]
Models include reduced TEI (i.e., six TEIQue-SF items organized under the well-being factor were excluded) as exogenous variable
PDC	.065 [.017, .113]	.070 [.029, .111]	−.005 [−.028, .019]	.055 [.008, .101]	.060 [.020, .100]	−.006 [−.033, .022]
CDC	.101 [.043, .159]	.085 [.037, .134]	.016 [−.006, .037]	.074 [.014, .133]	.034 [.003, .065]	.040 [−.007, .087]
NDC	.036 [.000, .072]	.030 [.001, .058]	.006 [−.011, .024]	.032 [−.005, .068]	.024 [−.001, .049]	.008 [−.012, .028]

Note. PDC = positive dyadic coping; CDC = common dyadic coping; NDC = negative dyadic coping; TEI = trait emotional intelligence; SAT = relationship satisfaction. Actor–actor effect = indirect effect via path d (actor effect _{TEI → dyadic coping}) and path g (actor effect _{dyadic coping → SAT}); Partner–partner effect = indirect effect via path e (partner effect _{TEI → dyadic coping}) and path h (partner effect _{dyadic coping → SAT}); Actor–partner effect = indirect effect via path d (actor effect _{TEI → dyadic coping}) and path h (partner effect _{dyadic coping → SAT}); Partner-actor effect = indirect effect via path e (partner effect _{TEI → dyadic coping}) and path g (actor effect _{dyadic coping → SAT}). Estimates of the upper and lower levels of the 95% BC-CI’s were based on 10,000 bootstrap resamples; significant effects (i.e., the 95%-BC-CI precludes zero) are printed in bold.