Romantic attachment, dyadic coping, and parental adjustment across the transition to parenthood

Abstract

This study explored the mediating role of common dyadic coping (common DC) on the longitudinal associations between attachment‐related anxiety and avoidance and parental adjustment to the first year postpartum. A total of 92 Portuguese couples completed self‐report questionnaires of romantic attachment, common DC, parenting stress, and parental confidence. Results showed that more avoidant parents (at mid‐pregnancy) engaged less in common DC (at 6 weeks postpartum), which consequently increased their partner's parenting stress (only in mothers) and decreased their partner's parental confidence (in both parents) at 6–9 months postpartum. Anxious attachment did not predict parents' adjustment directly or indirectly. Interventions aimed at preventing adjustment difficulties to early parenthood in more avoidant parents should focus on enhancing their common DC strategies soon after childbirth.

Full text

ARTICLE
Romantic attachment, dyadic coping, and parental
adjustment across the transition to parenthood
Stephanie Alves
1
|AnneMilek
2
| Guy Bodenmann
2
| Ana Fonseca
1
|
Maria C. Canavarro
1
| Marco Pereira
1
1
Faculty of Psychology and Educational
Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra,
Portugal
2
University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Correspondence
Stephanie Alves, Faculdade de Psicologia e
Ciências da Educação da Universidade de
Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, Coimbra
3000-315, Portugal.
Email: stephanie.alves@student.fpce.uc.pt
Funding information
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
(FCT), Grant/Award Numbers:
IF/00402/2014, SFRH/BD/102717/2014,
SFRH/BPD/93996/2013
Abstract
This study explored the mediating role of common dyadic
coping (common DC) on the longitudinal associations
between attachment-related anxiety and avoidance and
parental adjustment to the first year postpartum. A total of
92 Portuguese couples completed self-report question-
naires of romantic attachment, common DC, parenting
stress, and parental confidence. Results showed that more
avoidant parents (at mid-pregnancy) engaged less in com-
mon DC (at 6 weeks postpartum), which consequently
increased their partner's parenting stress (only in mothers)
and decreased their partner's parental confidence (in both
parents) at 6–9 months postpartum. Anxious attachment
did not predict parents' adjustment directly or indirectly.
Interventions aimed at preventing adjustment difficulties to
early parenthood in more avoidant parents should focus on
enhancing their common DC strategies soon after childbirth.
KEYWORDS
attachment, common dyadic coping, interdependence, parental
confidence, parenting stress, transition to parenthood
1|INTRODUCTION
Increased attention has been given to couples' parenting stress and parental confidence during the
first year postpartum, a time characterized by challenges and reorganizations in couples' lives
(Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Nyström & Öhrling, 2004). Parenting stress reflects parents' perceptions of
difficulties in adjusting to their parenting role, problems with children who are perceived as difficult,
and stress due to dysfunctional interactions with their child (Abidin, 1995). In contrast, parental
Received: 25 June 2018 Revised: 21 November 2018 Accepted: 5 April 2019
DOI: 10.1111/pere.12278
286 © 2019 IARR Personal Relationships. 2019;26:286–309.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere

confidence, also framed as perceived parenting self-efficacy or a sense of competence (Crncec,
Barnett, & Matthey, 2010), reflects parents' confidence in their parental role (i.e., recognizing their
child's needs and performing caretaking tasks) (Badr, 2005).
Over the course of the child's first year, parents' perceived levels of parenting stress tend to
decrease (Vismara et al., 2016), whereas parenting confidence tends to increase (Biehle &
Mickelson, 2011; Hudson, Elek, & Fleck, 2001). However, the presence of certain risk factors, such
as insecure attachment, may undermine parents' positive adjustment (Jones, Cassidy, & Shaver,
2015). Given the well-known negative repercussions of high parenting stress and low parental confi-
dence on parental and child outcomes (Crnic & Low, 2002; Jones & Prinz, 2005), it is important to
better understand how insecure attachment is associated with parenting stress and parental confidence
during the first year postpartum. Romantic attachment is likely to influence how each partner inter-
acts with one another after childbirth (Howard, 2010; Simpson & Rholes, 2018) and is linked to
common dyadic coping (common DC), the skill of coping together as a couple with a shared external
stressor (Bodenmann, 2005; Bodenmann, Falconier, & Randall, 2017). Hence, the current study aims
to explore whether common DC mediates the association between insecure attachment and parenting
stress or parental confidence.
1.1 |Romantic attachment and early parental adjustment
Adult romantic attachment is widely conceptualized along two dimensions: anxiety
(i.e., representations of the self as unworthy of love and care), which is associated with intense
worries about being underappreciated and possibly abandoned by romantic partners and with a strong
desire for closeness and security in romantic relationships, and avoidance (i.e., representations of the
other as unresponsive), which is related to discomfort with emotional intimacy, dependency, and
closeness with romantic partners. Individuals who score low on both dimensions are considered to
have more secure representations in their romantic relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998;
Simpson & Rholes, 2012). According to the Attachment Diathesis-Stress Process Model (Simpson &
Rholes, 2018), attachment insecurity is likely to become more pronounced during the transition to
parenthood (in response to stress-inducing events) and operates as a diathesis that influences attach-
ment behaviors and perceptions of the partner, which in turn lead to negative interpersonal and intra-
personal outcomes. Consistent with this, attachment representations have been linked to parenting
appraisals, behaviors, and emotions (Jones et al., 2015). In particular, more avoidant parents face
challenges after childbirth regarding being sensitive and responsive toward their baby's needs, and
they usually strive to maintain distance from others' distress to keep their attachment system
deactivated (Rholes, Simpson, & Friedman, 2006). Research shows that parents with high scores on
avoidance reported more difficulties in adjusting to parenthood (Kazmierczak, 2015), reported higher
parenting stress (Rholes et al., 2006; Trillingsgaard, Elklit, Shevlin, & Maimburg, 2011), and lacked
knowledge of child development (Howard, 2010). They also reported lower parental satisfaction
(Rholes et al., 2006) and less perceived parenting self-efficacy (Kohlhoff & Barnett, 2013) during
the first year after childbirth. Similar associations have been found for the anxiety dimension, with
general adjustment to motherhood (Kazmierczak, 2015), mothers' parenting stress (Mazzeschi,
Pazzagli, Radi, Raspa, & Buratta, 2015; Trillingsgaard et al., 2011), fathers' parenting stress
(Howard, 2010; Schoppe-Sullivan, Settle, Lee, & Dush, 2016), and parenting efficacy (Howard,
2010), as well as parents' satisfaction with parenting (Calvo & Bianco, 2015). Recent studies have
yielded growing evidence for the potential mediating role of couples' characteristics in the influence
of romantic attachment on parental adjustment. For example, Kazmierczak (2015) found that more
ALVES ET AL.287

insecurely attached parents during pregnancy perceived their partners as less empathic toward them
after childbirth, which negatively affected their adjustment to parenthood. Schoppe-Sullivan et al.
(2016) reported that expectant fathers' attachment-related anxiety (but not avoidance) predicted their
parenting stress and satisfaction at 9 months postpartum by means of their perceptions of supportive
coparenting at 3 months postpartum. Another study conducted with parents of young children (up to
6 years old) showed that mothers and fathers with higher scores on attachment-related avoidance and
anxiety reported less dyadic adjustment, which in turn was associated with less parenting self-
efficacy (Calvo & Bianco, 2015). A promising dyadic mediator that has not yet been studied during
the transition to parenthood is common DC.
1.2 |Common DC and the transition to parenthood
After having a baby, couples need to adapt to the changes in their relationship as a couple
(e.g., decreased physical intimacy) and with others (e.g., own parents, friends, coworkers), negotiate
their parenting responsibilities, and establish new household routines (Cowan & Cowan, 2000; St
John, Cameron, & McVeigh, 2005). Moreover, women and their partners may experience some
changes in different ways (e.g., unlike their partners, women face several physical changes), which
could be a source of increased stress for the couple (e.g., one partner's stress could spill over on the
other and then impact both; Westman, 2011). The birth of a child is therefore an example of a dyadic
stressor as it concerns the couple directly (McGoldrick & Carter, 2003), and both partners' coping
efforts are triggered not only to manage one's own stress but also to respond to the other's needs
(partner-oriented behaviors) and shared concerns (couple-oriented behaviors). This interdependent
process of coping (DC), activated when one partner communicates stress to the other, is the core
tenet of the systemic-transactional model (STM; Bodenmann, 2005), which posits that stressors
always directly or indirectly affect both members of the couple (Bodenmann et al., 2017;
Bodenmann, Randall, & Falconier, 2016).
Common DC is a specific form of DC that occurs when both partners share the same stressor
(“we-stress”appraisals) and cope with it together—rather than only supporting each other—in a
complementary or symmetrical way (joint coping efforts). It includes strategies such as joint problem
solving and information seeking, sharing of feelings, joint reframing of the situation, and mutual
commitment. The experience of the transition to parenthood as a “we-stress”period rather than
exclusively an individual transition for mothers and fathers is likely to reinforce the belief that
mothers and fathers are a team when facing potential stressors, which is in line with core assumptions
of the theory of resilience and relational load (TRRL; Afifi, Merrill, & Davis, 2016). The TRRL, a
framework similar to the STM, posits that, when relational partners have a strong communal orienta-
tion toward life's stressors (i.e., “the ability to think of one's relationship(s) as a cohesive unit when
managing stress and approaching life”; p. 669), they are motivated to invest in their relationships,
thus enhancing their positive emotional reserves. Consequently, this emotional capital promotes
secure-based appraisals and behaviors during times of stress, which in turn foster resilience and effi-
cacy, reduce perceived and physiological stress, and enhance health.
Accordingly, it matters significantly how effectively parents cope together with the multiple peri-
and postnatal common stressors (e.g., sleep deprivation, less social contact and leisure time, compli-
cated schedules and time demands, potential disagreements with family of origin), and couples who
display common DC strategies should report fewer adjustment problems. A recent study supports this
assumption by demonstrating that common DC was associated with better dyadic adjustment in the
last trimester of pregnancy (Molgora, Acquati, Fenaroli, & Saita, 2019).
288 ALVES ET AL.

1.3 |Common DC as a link between romantic attachment and early parental
adjustment
Whether a partner engages in mutual coping behaviors might vary according to the degree of inse-
cure attachment toward the romantic partner. According to attachment theory, the interdependence
and enhanced interpersonal cohesion required to communally manage stressful demands should
threaten core concerns in more avoidant individuals (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Persons with
higher avoidance typically strive to maintain distance (behaviorally and cognitively) from a stress-
inducing event; they avoid expressing distress to their partner, seeking support from him or her, or
approaching their distressed partner to provide support in times of need (Feeney & Collins, 2001;
Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992; Simpson, Rholes, Oriña, & Grich, 2002). Hence, these individ-
uals may not perceive common DC strategies as helpful in alleviating distress because of negative
expectations about their partner's availability (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). The results regarding
attachment-related anxiety are less consistent. When managing their own stress, more anxious indi-
viduals may either intensify the expression of distress or restrain approach tendencies in order to
avoid rejection (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). When dealing with their distressed partners, these indi-
viduals could engage in a variety of partner-oriented behaviors (e.g., positive and negative supportive
behaviors; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001), which are therefore difficult to predict
(Simpson et al., 2002).
Either because they distance themselves from stress-inducing events or because they direct their
attention toward their own attachment-related concerns, more insecure individuals may be
unavailable to engage in joint coping efforts to deal with a shared stressor. Emerging evidence shows
that insecure romantic attachment is associated with less common DC among university students
(only avoidance; Levesque, Lafontaine, & Bureau, 2017) and couples living together (both anxiety
and avoidance; Batinic & Kamenov, 2017). Because both partners are actively engaged in common
DC, it can be expected that both the more anxious/avoidant person (i.e., actor effect) and his or her
partner report, the less common DC (i.e., interpersonal or partner effects). Research addressing the
links between common DC and parental variables is relatively recent. For example, Zemp, Milek,
Cummings, and Bodenmann (2017) found that common DC was associated with decreases in cop-
arenting conflict among parents of children aged between 2 and 12 years, suggesting that common
DC is an important resource for successful coparenting. In turn, in the context of the transition to par-
enthood, several studies showed the benefits of coparental support with regard to parenting stress
and parenting self-efficacy (Biehle & Mickelson, 2011; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2016), but the extent
to which common DC was associated with such indicators of parental adjustment remains an open
question. When couples are facing daily life stressors, namely, stressors originating outside the cou-
ple's relationship not directly related to child care (e.g., changes in close relationships, work–family
conflict), common DC strategies become particularly relevant (Zemp et al., 2017). Considering that
common DC has been associated with positive individual and dyadic adjustment (Staff, Didymus, &
Backhouse, 2017), which in turn have been linked to less parenting stress and more parental confi-
dence during the transition to parenthood (Mazzeschi et al., 2015; Pinto, Figueiredo, Pinheiro, &
Canário, 2016), common DC may have important implications for parental adjustment as well. This
might be even more the case in dealing with major stressors (such as the birth of a child) as common
DC was the best predictor of relationship adjustment and health in couples coping with another
shared major stressor in the context of illness (Rottmann et al., 2015).
Overall, shared concerns about child care and mutual solidarity within couples appear to be
important for couples' satisfaction and confidence in the parental role during the first year postpartum
(Nyström & Öhrling, 2004). Common to both the STM and TRRL approaches is that a “we-stress”
ALVES ET AL.289

or communal appraisal (“we are in this together”) would lead couples to become more committed in
their relationships, which further creates resources that help to manage stress (e.g., engagement in
common DC behaviors). Furthermore, as common DC likely fosters a sense of we-ness, mutual
trust, and commitment within couples (Bodenmann et al., 2016), this should in turn strengthen a
communal orientation toward stress and contribute to relationship maintenance (Afifi et al., 2016),
boosting a process of feedback loops. For example, as research on TRRL has shown (Afifi et al.,
2018), a stronger communal orientation and more maintenance behaviors were associated with less
perceived stress related to the child's diabetes among fathers and mothers, respectively.
Considering the STM and TRRL frameworks together, it is reasonable to assume that the way
couples cope together with a shared stressful event such as the birth of a child affects the degree to
which parents view themselves as more or less confident in their role as parents, as well as the stress
experienced in their new roles. In addition, because the main goal of common DC is to reduce part-
ners' shared stress and maintain the well-being of both partners (Bodenmann et al., 2016), it is plausi-
ble that one partner's perception of common DC is associated with one's own parental adjustment
(actor effects) and with the parental adjustment of the partner (partner effects).
1.4 |This study
Several studies have examined the associations between attachment representations and couples' per-
ceived parenting stress and confidence during the transition to parenthood, with some of them having
identified potential dyadic mediators of these relationships. Recent studies conducted in the general
population have identified associations between romantic attachment and common DC, as well as
between common DC and parent-related variables (e.g., coparenting). However, by examining these
associations in isolation, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between
these variables in an integrative way. In addition, the role of common DC, which has particular rele-
vance during the transition to parenthood, remains overlooked in perinatal research. Because existing
evidence supports that common DC is modifiable through tailored interventions (Bodenmann &
Shantinath, 2004), examining this dyadic process may have relevant implications for couple-based
perinatal prevention strategies.
This study has two main objectives. First, we assess changes in parenting stress and parental con-
fidence from 6 weeks postpartum to 6–9 months postpartum in both mothers and fathers. We expect
significant declines in parents' perceived parenting stress and increases in parents' perceived parental
confidence over time. We choose to focus on these two components of parental adjustment because
they affect several aspects of the family's functioning, with high parenting stress and low parental
confidence often contributing to negative early parent–child interactions and impaired cognitive and
socioemotional functioning of the child (Crnic & Low, 2002; Jones & Prinz, 2005). Accordingly, the
identification of modifiable factors that may influence these indicators of parents' adjustment would
be beneficial not only to promote partners' parental adjustment but also the well-being of the whole
family. Second, we examine the mediating role of common DC on the longitudinal associations
between anxious and avoidant attachment and parental adjustment, accounting for both actor and
partner effects. Grounded in the Attachment Diathesis-Stress Process Model (Simpson & Rholes,
2018) and STM (Bodenmann, 2005), we hypothesize that more anxious or avoidant parents (at mid-
pregnancy) will be less likely to engage in common DC (at 6 weeks postpartum) and therefore will
be more likely to experience high levels of parenting stress and low levels of parental confidence
(at 6–9 months postpartum; see Figure 1). We also expect partner effects between attachment-related
anxiety and avoidance and common DC, as well as between common DC and parental adjustment.
290 ALVES ET AL.

We anticipate stronger associations between attachment-related avoidance and common DC due to
the more consistent links found for this dimension in the literature on support-related processes
within couples (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001; Levesque et al., 2017; Simpson
et al., 1992; Simpson et al., 2002). Anxious individuals tend to have ambivalent attitudes toward
their romantic partners, whereas avoidant individuals are less dependent on and committed to their
partner (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), which allows us to more accurately predict the direction of the
association between avoidance and common DC.
Finally, along with the paucity of studies on couples during the transition to parenthood, prior
empirical evidence does not provide strong support for gender differences in the proposed mediation
models. The link between attachment-related anxiety and avoidance and common DC appears to
occur for both genders (Batinic & Kamenov, 2017), whereas two distinct predictions can be made
for the link between common DC and parental adjustment. On the one hand, considering the shared
challenges of the early postpartum period, it can be expected that common DC will have similar
importance for the parental adjustment of both mothers and fathers (Molgora et al., 2019). On the
other hand, the strong sociocultural context regarding gender norms surrounding motherhood and
fatherhood may reinforce traditional gender roles after childbirth (Katz-Wise, Priess, & Hyde, 2010;
Yavorsky, Dush, & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2015), which could therefore translate into differences
regarding the impact of common DC on mothers and fathers. Hence, we do not propose specific
hypotheses regarding the role of parental gender in the hypothesized models and instead adopt an
exploratory approach.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual diagram of the proposed Actor–Partner Interdependence Mediation Model. Note:
Anxiety and avoidance as independent variables at Time 1, common DC at Time 2 as mediators, and parental
adjustment at Time 3 as dependent variables. Common DC at Time 1 and parental adjustment at Time 2 were included
in the model for control purposes. Partners' predictors and error disturbances for the mediators and outcome variables
were allowed to covary but were omitted from the figure for the sake of clarity. Two separate models were conducted
for each outcome: Parenting stress and parental confidence. Common DC, common dyadic coping; f, fathers; m,
mothers; Time 1, second trimester of pregnancy; Time 2, 6 weeks postpartum; Time 3, 6–9 months postpartum
ALVES ET AL.291

2|METHOD
2.1 |Participants
A total of 92 different-gender couples participated in the study. The majority of couples lived
together (married: 70.7%; cohabitating: 26.1%; in a relationship but not living together: 3.2%) and
had a committed relationship for an average of 7.40 years (SD = 4.23, range = 11 months—
17 years). Most couples were having their first child (68.5%); couples who had children before this
pregnancy had, on average, one child (SD = 0.41, range = 1–3). Mothers' mean age was 31.78 years
(SD = 4.77, range = 20–41), and fathers' mean age was 33.51 years (SD = 5.18, range = 20–45). A
total of 66% of the mothers and 42.2% of the fathers had a university degree, χ
2
(2) = 13.93,
p= .001, φ
c
= 0.28. Most couples were currently working (mothers: 84.6%; fathers: 90%). Mothers
reported prior psychological problems (38.5 vs. 4.4%; χ
2
(1) = 30.97, p< .001, φ
c
= 0.41) and treat-
ment (27.5 vs. 12.1%; χ
2
(1) = 6.79, p< .01, φ
c
= 0.19) significantly more often than fathers did.
The majority of pregnancies was planned (88%) and desired (97.8%) and occurred without gesta-
tional complications (77.2%). Among the babies (47 male; 45 female), most were born without com-
plications (71.7%).
2.2 |Procedure
Data collection occurred between November 2015 and September 2017 in one Portuguese maternity
hospital (Maternity Daniel de Matos; Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra [MDM-CHUC,
EPE]) upon approval by the Research Ethics Committees of the Faculty of Psychology and Educa-
tional Sciences of the University of Coimbra and one university hospital (CHUC, EPE). Couples
were eligible if (a) the woman was in the second trimester of a singleton pregnancy with no compli-
cations with the baby (e.g., fetal anomalies or other medical problems) or other adverse clinical
events; (b) couples were formally married, cohabiting, or dating; and (c) both partners were at least
18 years old and (d) could read and understand Portuguese.
At the end of an obstetric appointment, eligible women (and their partners if available) were intro-
duced to the study by their obstetrician and were asked for permission to be contacted by the
researchers. After this initial approach, the researchers provided more information about the study
aims and assured the confidentiality of the data. At this time (second trimester of pregnancy—T1),
couples willing to participate signed informed consent and were given a copy accompanied by a set
of questionnaires to complete at home (clear instructions were given about the need to answer inde-
pendent of their partners). They were asked to return the questionnaires directly to the researcher at
the following obstetrical appointment. The follow-up assessments occurred at 6 weeks (T2) and at
the end of 6 months (T3) postpartum, when the couples were mailed one set of questionnaires for
each partner along with a prestamped envelope in which to return the questionnaires after comple-
tion. Reminder text messages were sent to all couples who did not reply within 2–3 weeks at each
assessment point. Couples participated voluntarily without receiving money or other compensation
for their collaboration.
At T1, we approached 611 women/couples; 52 refused to participate, and 8 failed to meet the
inclusion criteria (e.g., not in a romantic relationship). Of the remaining 551 couples, 335 returned
questionnaires (participation rate: 60.8%); 303 couples were included at this time (32 were excluded
because the couples did not met the inclusion criteria or the questionnaires were completed only by
the women). At T2, we were able to mail questionnaires to 290 couples (5 couples suffered a perina-
tal loss, and we did not have information about the delivery of 8 couples). Data from both partners
292 ALVES ET AL.

were obtained from 138 couples (participation rate: 47.6%). All 138 couples (except 1 couple who
demonstrated unwillingness to continue in the study after completion of T2) were contacted at T3;
92 couples returned the questionnaires answered by both partners (participation rate: 67.2%). On
average, couples returned the T3 questionnaires when their children were between 6 and 7 months
old (78.3%; M= 6.83, SD = 0.85, range = 5.5–9.0).
1
2.3 |Measures
The following self-report questionnaires were completed by each partner.
2.3.1 |Attachment representations
The Portuguese version (PV) of the Experience in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures
(Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011; PV: Moreira, Martins, Gouveia, & Canavarro,
2015) was used to assess anxious (three items; e.g., “I often worry that this person doesn't really care
for me”) and avoidant (six items; e.g., “I don't feel comfortable opening up to this person”) attach-
ment representations at T1. The nine items are rated on a 7-point response scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree to 7 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more anxious or avoidant representations.
In the original questionnaire, participants are asked to answer the same nine items for four types of
intimate relationships (i.e., with mother, father, romantic partner, and best friend). In this study, only
the romantic partner domain was used. In this sample, Cronbach's alpha for anxiety was .95 for
mothers and .96 for fathers and for avoidance was .71 for mothers and .70 for fathers.
2.3.2 |Dyadic coping
Participants completed the common DC subscale of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (Bodenmann,
2008; PV: Vedes, Nussbeck, Bodenmann, Lind, & Ferreira, 2013) at T1 and T2. This was used to
assess couple-oriented behaviors in which couples engage to cope jointly with stress. This subscale
contains five items (“We try to cope with the problem together and search for ascertained solutions,”
“We engage in a serious discussion about the problem and think through what has to be done,”“We
help one another to put the problem in perspective and see it in a new light,”“We help each other
relax with such things like massage, taking a bath together, or listening to music together,”and “We
are affectionate to each other, make love and try that way to cope with stress”) answered on a 5-point
response scale ranging from 1 (very rarely)to5(very often). The total score consists of the mean of
the five items, with a higher score reflecting higher engagement in common DC behaviors. In this
sample, Cronbach's alpha at T1 was .89 for mothers and .84 for fathers and at T2 was .91 for mothers
and .89 for fathers.
1
We compared couples who completed the three assessment points and those who did not with regard to sociodemographic
and obstetric data, as well as baseline common DC and attachment-related avoidance and anxiety. Fathers from couples who
participated at all assessment times were less likely to have prior children (before this pregnancy), χ
2
(1) = 4.64, p= .031,
φ
c
= 0.13. For mothers, we found that those who dropped out had significantly more pregnancy complications (χ
2
(1) = 7.58,
p= .006, φ
c
= 0.16) and less frequent planned pregnancy (χ
2
(1) = 6.19, p= .013, φ
c
= 0.15) than those who completed the
study. Mothers and fathers from couples who participated at all assessments reported significantly higher scores on common
DC at T1 (mothers: t
287
= 3.16, p= .001, d= 0.41; fathers: t
285
= 3.94, p< .001, d= 0.50) than mothers and fathers who did
not complete the study. No significant differences were found in the remaining variables.
ALVES ET AL.293

2.3.3 |Parental adjustment
Parental adjustment was operationalized in terms of parenting stress and parental confidence.
Parenting stress
Participants completed the Parenting Stress Index—Short Form (Abidin, 1995; PV: Santos, 2011) at
T2 and T3. This questionnaire assesses the stress associated with the parenting role (Parental Dis-
tress), the child (Difficult Child), and the parent–child relationship (Parent–Child Dysfunctional
Interaction). It includes 36 items (e.g., “I often have the feeling that I cannot handle things very
well”) answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). A
global index of parenting stress can be computed through the sum of all items, with higher scores
indicating a greater perception of parenting stress. In this study, we only used the total score. In this
sample, Cronbach's alpha at T2 was .93 for mothers and .94 for fathers and at T3 was .91 for mothers
and .93 for fathers.
Parental confidence
Participants completed the Maternal Confidence Questionnaire (Badr, 2005; PV: Nazaré, Fonseca, &
Canavarro, 2011) at T2 and T3. This instrument was used to assess the overall perceived confidence
associated with the parental role, caretaking tasks, and knowledge of the infant's needs and motiva-
tions. The PV contains 13 items (e.g., “I know how to take care of my baby better than anyone else”)
answered on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (never)to5(always). The total score of this
scale, calculated by computing the mean of the items, was used in this study. Higher scores denote a
higher perception of parental confidence. In this sample, Cronbach's alpha at T2 was .83 for mothers
and .88 for fathers and at T3 was .81 for mothers and .88 for fathers.
2.4 |Data analysis
Descriptive statistics and bivariate Pearson correlations were computed for the main study variables
using IBM SPSS, version 23 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Armonk, NY). Differences
between mothers and fathers, as well as changes over time, were assessed through paired ttests.
Effect sizes were interpreted as follows: small: d≥0.20, φ
c
≥0.10, r≥.10, R
2
≥0.02; medium:
d≥0.50, φ
c
≥0.30, r≥.30, R
2
≥0.13; and large: d≥0.80, φ
c
≥0.50, r≥.50, R
2
≥0.26
(Cohen, 1988).
Using Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017), we tested our model with an extended version of
the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) to assess mediation in dyadic data (Ledermann,
Macho, & Kenny, 2011; see Figure 1). The APIM allows the simultaneous estimation of the degree
to which a person's independent variables influence the person's own individual outcome (actor
effects) and the degree to which they influence the partner's outcomes (partner effects). Actor and
partner effects are represented in Figure 1 by solid and dashed black arrows, respectively. Within this
approach, the predictor variables of both partners and the error disturbances for the mediators and
outcome variables are correlated, accounting for the interdependence of both partners' scores within
couples (not shown in Figure 1 to maintain clarity). In this study, dyadic interdependence was esti-
mated through Pearson's bivariate correlations between mothers' and fathers' scores.
In this study, mediation is evident when the effect of mothers' and fathers' anxious and/or
avoidant attachment at T1 on mothers' or fathers' parental adjustment at T3 can be explained by a
significant indirect effect via one's own or the partner's common DC at T2. Two models were
independently tested for each outcome: parenting stress and parental confidence. Statistically
294 ALVES ET AL.

significant direct effects of the independent variables on the outcomes are not necessarily required
for mediation (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In all models, baseline levels of the mediators (common
DC at T1) and the outcomes (parental adjustment at T2) were controlled for in the analyses
(Figure 1). Sociodemographic, obstetric, and psychological variables significantly associated with
the outcome variables were only retained if they significantly contributed to the model. To test
for the significance of indirect effects, maximum likelihood bootstrap procedures using 1,000
samples were performed (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). This strategy generates 95% bias-corrected and
accelerated confidence intervals (CI) of the indirect effects, which are considered significant if
zero does not fall within the lower and upper CIs. Missing data were handled using the Full
Information Maximum Likelihood (i.e., parameters were estimated considering all available data)
in Mplus.
Following the recommendations of Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006), all the independent vari-
ables and mediators were centered around the grand mean and unstandardized path coefficients,
and their SEs were reported. Because we did not expect specific associations for mothers and
fathers, to reduce the models' complexity, we successively constrained the mother's and father's
actor effects and partner effects, respectively, to be equal across genders. If the observed change
in model fit (chi-square difference test for nested models; Δχ
2
) did not decrease significantly, we
present the more parsimonious models. In addition, we assessed the overall model fit based on
the following criteria: a nonsignificant chi-square statistic (p> .05), a comparative fit index (CFI)
above 0.95, a standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) below 0.08, and a root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA) below 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1998). For all analyses, the
level of significance was set at p< .05.
3|RESULTS
3.1 |Descriptive statistics and correlations
Means, SDs, paired ttests, and intercorrelations for the main study variables are presented in
Table 1. The average levels of anxious and avoidant attachment were relatively low considering
the maximum score of each subscale (= 7), with fathers reporting higher scores on avoidance
than mothers, t
87
=−2.74, p= .007, d= 0.41. The mean scores of common DC were high (pos-
sible range 1–5) but decreased significantly over time for both mothers, t
91
= 2.03, p= .045,
d= 0.30, and fathers, t
90
= 4.17, p< .001, d= 0.61. Levels of parenting stress were relatively
low (possible range 36–180), and scores of parental confidence were high (possible range 1–5),
with mothers perceiving themselves as more confident compared to fathers, at both assessment
times (T2: t
89
= 6.34, p< .001, d= 0.94; T3: t
87
= 5.59, p< .001, d= 0.83). Over time, mean
scores of parenting stress decreased (mothers: t
91
= 3.82, p< .001, d= 0.56; fathers: t
90
= 1.96,
p= .054, d= 0.29), and mean scores of parental confidence increased (mothers: t
90
=−6.13,
p< .001, d= 0.90; fathers: t
87
=−6.55, p< .001, d= 0.98). The intercorrelations between the
study variables are presented in Table 1. Significant small to strong correlations were found
between partners, underlining the interdependence within couples. We found significant associa-
tions between mother's parenting stress at T3 and history of psychiatric/psychological problems
(r= .28, p< .01), history of psychiatric/psychological treatment (r= .35, p< .01), and preg-
nancy complications (r=−.24, p< .05); father's parenting stress at T3 and desired pregnancy
(r=−.28, p< .01); and mother's parental confidence at T3 and age (r=−.22, p< .05), educa-
tion (r=−.34, p< .01), and history of psychiatric/psychological treatment (r=−.21, p< .05).
ALVES ET AL.295

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between study variables
Descriptives Correlations
Mothers Fathers Diff
m-f
M(SD)M(SD)t12345678
1. Anxiety (T1) 2.33 (1.85) 2.60 (2.03) −1.11 0.27* 0.41*** −0.27* −0.22* 0.42*** 0.27* −0.30** −0.33**
2. Avoidance (T1) 1.39 (0.63) 1.60 (0.73) −2.74** 0.38*** 0.42*** −0.59*** −0.61*** 0.65*** 0.57*** −0.55*** −0.60***
3. Common DC (T1) 4.16 (0.68) 4.14 (0.65) 0.36 −0.14 −0.40*** 0.59*** 0.68*** −0.51*** −0.60*** 0.54*** 0.53***
4. Common DC (T2) 4.00 (0.79) 3.89 (0.75) 1.32 −0.14 −0.39*** 0.55*** 0.49*** −0.59*** −0.50*** 0.68*** 0.52***
5. Parenting stress (T2) 63.29 (17.52) 62.30 (17.80) 0.52 0.23* 0.44*** −0.34** −0.43*** 0.47*** 0.66*** −0.56*** −0.38***
6. Parenting stress (T3) 57.82 (13.73) 59.43 (15.96) −1.14 0.21* 0.38*** −0.38*** −0.36*** 0.65*** 0.60*** −0.53*** −0.61***
7. Parental confidence (T2) 4.39 (0.37) 4.01 (0.53) 6.34*** −0.16 −0.22* 0.24* 0.35** −0.58*** −0.37*** 0.28** 0.75***
8. Parental confidence (T3) 4.54 (0.29) 4.26 (0.47) 5.59*** −0.20 −0.24* 0.26* 0.37*** −0.44*** −0.59*** 0.74*** 0.30**
Note: Correlations for mothers are presented below the diagonal and for fathers above the diagonal. Correlations within couples are showed in bold on the diagonal.
Abbreviations: Common DC, common dyadic coping; T1, second trimester of pregnancy; T2, 6 weeks postpartum; T3, 6–9 months postpartum.
*p< .05.; **p< .01.; ***p< .001.
296 ALVES ET AL.

None of these variables was retained in the subsequent analyses as they did not significantly con-
tribute to the models.
2
3.2 |Mediation analyses
3.2.1 |Indirect effects of common DC on the associations between romantic
attachment and parenting stress
Selection of the model
First, we assessed several models to select the most parsimonious one by constraining each pair of
actor effects and partner effects separately and examining significant changes in the model fit. When
we fixed the pair of path coefficients to be equal across genders, model fit did not decrease signifi-
cantly, except when we equalized the actor effects of common DC at T1 on parenting stress at T3
(Δχ
2
= 7.024, Δdf =1,p= .008) and the partner effects of parenting stress at T2 (Δχ
2
= 7.348,
Δdf =1,p= .007) and common DC at T2 (Δχ
2
= 3.731, Δdf =1,p= .053) on parenting stress at
T3. In contrast to the findings for mothers (B=−3.40, p= .121), common DC at T1 significantly
predicted fathers' parenting stress at T3 (B=−9.43, p< .001). Unlike fathers (B= 0.02, p= .821),
mothers' parenting stress at T2 was significantly related to their partner's parenting stress at T3
(B= 0.26, p< .001). Finally, unlike mothers (B=−0.42, p= .789), fathers' common DC at T2 was
FIGURE 2 Statistical diagram of the proposed Actor–Partner Interdependence Mediation Model considering
parenting stress as the outcome. Note: Path values represent unstandardized maximum likelihood estimates. For clarity,
the correlations and effects of the covariates (common DC at Time 1 and parenting stress at Time 2) were omitted. The
total effect of anxiety and avoidance on parenting stress at T3 (before inclusion of the mediators) is described in
parentheses, and the direct effect (after inclusion of the mediators) is represented by the value outside parentheses.
Common DC, common dyadic coping; f, fathers; m, mothers; Time 1, second trimester of pregnancy; Time 2, 6 weeks
postpartum; Time 3, 6–9 months postpartum. *p< .05; **p< .01
2
We tested whether the mediational models yielded different results when controlling for potential covariates (i.e., age,
education, desired pregnancy, pregnancy complications, history of psychiatric/psychological problems, and history of
psychiatric/psychological treatment). The analyses yielded similar results.
ALVES ET AL.297

significantly related to their partner's parenting stress at T3 (B=−4.59, p= .027). Therefore, these
three pairs of path coefficients were allowed to vary freely across genders, whereas the remaining
paths were fixed as equal for mothers and fathers. Our final model fit the data well: χ
2
= 9.063,
df = 19, p= .972; RMSEA = 0.000; SRMR = 0.028; CFI = 1.000.
Direct effects
The paths displayed in Figure 2 show that higher attachment-related avoidance at T1 was associated
with a decrease in one's own common DC from T1 to T2 in a model explaining 39 and 50% of the
common DC variance for mothers and fathers, respectively (accounting for the baseline levels of
common DC). The partner effects between attachment-related avoidance and common DC at T2 were
not statistically significant, as well as the actor and partner effects between attachment-related anxi-
ety and common DC at T2. The actor effects of common DC at T2 on parenting stress at T3 were not
statistically significant, whereas fathers' common DC at T2 significantly predicted declines in
mothers' parenting stress from T2 to T3. The independent variables and mediators considered (con-
trolling for the baseline levels of the outcomes) accounted for a high proportion of variance in parent-
ing stress for mothers (47%) and fathers (64%), respectively. Overall, higher attachment-related
avoidance at T1 predicted declines in common DC, and father's higher common DC at T2 was a sig-
nificant predictor of mother's decreases in parenting stress.
TABLE 2 Indirect effects of common dyadic coping (Time 2) on the associations between attachment-related
avoidance (Time 1) and parental adjustment (Time 3)
IE IE (SE)p95% CI (LLCI/ULCI)
PS
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
m
!PS
m
−0.57 (0.50) .259 [−1.95, 0.16]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
m
!PS
m
−0.14 (0.22) .529 [−0.91, 0.11]
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
f
!PS
m
0.34 (0.43) .423 [−0.33, 1.40]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
f
!PS
m
1.41 (0.71) .046 [0.33, 3.20]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
f
!PS
f
−0.57 (0.50) .259 [−1.95, 0.16]
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
f
!PS
f
−0.14 (0.22) .529 [−0.91, 0.11]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
m
!PS
f
0.03 (0.18) .860 [−0.19, 0.61]
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
m
!PS
f
0.13 (0.48) .788 [−0.88, 1.17]
PC
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
m
!PC
m
0.01 (0.01) .512 [−0.01, 0.03]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
m
!PC
m
0.00 (0.00) .621 [−0.00, 0.02]
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
f
!PC
m
−0.01 (0.01) .263 [−0.03, 0.00]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
f
!PC
m
−0.03 (0.01) .033 [−0.06, −0.01]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
f
!PC
f
0.04 (0.02) .059 [0.01, 0.10]
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
f
!PC
f
0.01 (0.01) .361 [−0.01, 0.05]
Avoidance
f
!Common DC
m
!PC
f
−0.01 (0.01) .263 [−0.03, 0.00]
Avoidance
m
!Common DC
m
!PC
f
−0.03 (0.01) .033 [−0.06, −0.01]
Note: Unstandardized maximum likelihood estimates for IE are displayed. Significant IE are in bold.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; common DC = common dyadic coping; f, fathers; IE, indirect effects; LLCI/ULCI, lower and
upper CI; m, mothers; PC, parental confidence; PS, parenting stress.
298 ALVES ET AL.

Indirect effects
A significant indirect effect of fathers' avoidance on mothers' parenting stress via fathers' common
DC was observed (Table 2). This finding suggests that more avoidant fathers (at pregnancy) were
less likely to engage in collaborative ways of coping (from pregnancy to 6 weeks postpartum), which
in turn increased their partner's levels of parenting stress (from 6 weeks to 6–9 months postpartum).
The described pattern of mediation was not found for attachment-related anxiety (Table 3), which
did not significantly predict the mediators or the outcomes (total and direct effects).
3.2.2 |Indirect effects of common DC on the associations between romantic
attachment and parental confidence
Selection of the model
We replicated the steps above to identify the best-fitting model regarding parental confidence. All
paths could be equalized across gender without significant declines in model fit, with the exception
of three pairs of paths: the actor paths between common DC at T2 and parental confidence at T3
(Δχ
2
= 4.071, Δdf =1,p= .044) and between attachment-related avoidance and the outcome
(Δχ
2
= 8.353, Δdf =1,p= .004) and the partner paths between attachment-related avoidance and
parental confidence at T2 (Δχ
2
= 14.699, Δdf =1,p< .001). In contrast to the findings for mothers
TABLE 3 Indirect effects of common dyadic coping (Time 2) on the associations between attachment-related
anxiety (Time 1) and parental adjustment (Time 3)
IE IE (SE)p95% CI (LLCI/ULCI)
PS
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
m
!PS
m
0.04 (0.07) .612 [−0.04, 0.33]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
m
!PS
m
−0.05 (0.07) .522 [−0.31, 0.03]
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
f
!PS
m
0.12 (0.14) .399 [−0.09, 0.45]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
f
!PS
m
−0.09 (0.15) .548 [−0.58, 0.11]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
f
!PS
f
0.04 (0.07) .612 [−0.04, 0.33]
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
f
!PS
f
−0.05 (0.07) .522 [−0.31, 0.03]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
m
!PS
f
0.01 (0.06) .853 [−0.07, 0.20]
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
m
!PS
f
−0.01 (0.05) .878 [−0.23, 0.06]
PC
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
m
!PC
m
0.00 (0.00) .709 [−0.01, 0.00]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
m
!PC
m
0.00 (0.00) .686 [−0.00, 0.01]
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
f
!PC
m
−0.00 (0.00) .312 [−0.01, 0.00]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
f
!PC
m
0.00 (0.00) .475 [−0.00, 0.01]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
f
!PC
f
−0.00 (0.01) .524 [−0.02, 0.00]
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
f
!PC
f
0.00 (0.00) .389 [−0.00, 0.02]
Anxiety
f
!Common DC
m
!PC
f
−0.00 (0.00) .312 [−0.01, 0.00]
Anxiety
m
!Common DC
m
!PC
f
0.00 (0.00) .475 [−0.00, 0.01]
Note: Unstandardized maximum likelihood estimates for IE are displayed.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; common DC, common dyadic coping; f, fathers; IE, indirect effects; LLCI/ULCI, lower and
upper CI; m, mothers; PC, parental confidence; PS, parenting stress.
ALVES ET AL.299

(B=−0.02, p= .506), common DC at T2 significantly predicted fathers' parental confidence at T3
(B=−0.14, p= .033). Attachment-related avoidance was significantly associated with fathers'
parental confidence at T3 (B=−0.17, p= .004) but not with mothers' parental confidence
(B= 0.01, p= .798). Finally, fathers' avoidance was positively associated with mothers' parental
confidence at T2 (B= 0.14, p= .026), whereas mothers' avoidance was negatively associated with
fathers' parental confidence at T2 (B=−0.15, p= .022). Therefore, these three pairs of paths were
allowed to vary freely across gender, whereas the remaining paths were fixed to be equal for mothers
and fathers. The final model fit the data well: χ
2
= 16.466, df = 19, p= .626; RMSEA = 0.000;
SRMR = 0.071; CFI = 1.000.
Direct effects
Figure 3 replicates the significant and negative actor effects between attachment-related avoidance
and common DC at T2 and the nonsignificant actor and partner effects between the variables
described in our first model (namely, regarding attachment-related anxiety). Taking into account the
covariates included in the model (baseline levels of common DC), the explained variance in common
DC at T2 was relatively high (mothers: 38%; fathers: 49%). As previously stated, the actor effects of
common DC at T2 on parental confidence at T3 were only significant for fathers, suggesting that
higher engagement in common DC reduced fathers' own parental confidence from T2 to T3. The
partner effects of common DC were significant and positive, indicating that, for both mothers and
fathers, the more engaged they were in common DC, the more confident their partners felt as parents
in the long term. The final model (accounting for the baseline levels of the outcomes) explained a
high proportion of variance in parental confidence (mothers: 67%; fathers: 59%). Overall, higher
FIGURE 3 Statistical diagram of the proposed Actor–Partner Interdependence Mediation Model considering
parental confidence as the outcome. Note: Path values represent unstandardized maximum likelihood estimates. For
clarity, the correlations and effects of the covariates (common DC at Time 1 and parental confidence at Time 2) were
omitted. The total effect of anxiety and avoidance on parental confidence at T3 (before inclusion of the mediators) is
described in parentheses, and the direct effect (after inclusion of the mediators) is represented by the value outside
parentheses. Common DC, common dyadic coping; f, fathers; m, mothers; Time 1, second trimester of pregnancy;
Time 2, 6 weeks postpartum; Time 3, 6–9 months postpartum. *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001
300 ALVES ET AL.

attachment-related avoidance at T1 predicted declines in common DC, the actor effects of common
DC were significant for fathers (predicting declines in parental confidence), and the partner effects of
common DC were significant for both parents (predicting increases in parental confidence).
Indirect effects
As presented in Table 2, we found a significant indirect partner effect of one's own avoidance on the
partner's parental confidence via one's own common DC. This finding suggests that both more
avoidant mothers and fathers were significantly less likely to engage in common DC over time, and
less engagement in common DC predicted declines in the partner's parental confidence. In addition,
the within-person mediation found for fathers showed that more avoidant fathers engaged less in
common DC and, consequently, reported significant increases in their parental confidence. Con-
cerning the role of attachment-related anxiety, there was no evidence of mediation (Table 3) for sig-
nificant total or for direct effects (Figure 3).
3
4|DISCUSSION
This prospective longitudinal study examined the changes in both mothers' and fathers' parental
adjustment over time and the mediating role of common DC on the associations between anxious
and avoidant attachment and parenting stress and parental confidence. The main findings of this
study generally confirmed our two hypotheses: (a) Perceived parenting stress declined and perceived
parental confidence increased across the first year postpartum, and (b) more avoidant (but not anx-
ious) parents at mid-pregnancy engaged less in common DC from pregnancy to 6 weeks postpartum,
which increased their partners' parenting stress (only in mothers) and decreased their partners' paren-
tal confidence (in both parents).
Overall, the parents in this study appeared to be generally well adjusted to their parenting role and
showed low stress and good confidence in their parenting skills, particularly between 6 and 9 months
postpartum. This may be because the sample consisted of low-risk couples, and prior research shows
that parents tend to experience less stress (Vismara et al., 2016) and feel more competent (Biehle &
Mickelson, 2011; Hudson et al., 2001) in parenting over time. We found that mothers who are youn-
ger and less educated perceived more confidence in their maternal role, which is consistent with pre-
vious studies (Biehle & Mickelson, 2011; Bryanton, Gagnon, Hatem, & Johnston, 2008; Leerkes &
Burney, 2007), whereas others have found inverse or nonsignificant relationships (Matthies et al.,
2017; Ngai, Chan, & Ip, 2010). We also observed that mother's parenting stress was negatively
related to pregnancy complications, which seems particularly counterintuitive. We hypothesized that
mothers with specific pregnancy-related challenges (e.g., infections, gestational diabetes) may have
developed adaptive coping strategies that helped them better navigate the transition to parenthood; as
a result, they were less likely to present high levels of parenting stress in the long-term.
The mediational models showed that the partner's perception of common DC at 6 weeks postpar-
tum accounted for the influence of one's own romantic avoidant attachment at mid-pregnancy on the
partner's parental adjustment at 6–9 months postpartum. Regarding the first path of our model, in line
with our expectations and prior findings (Batinic & Kamenov, 2017; Levesque et al., 2017), more
avoidant parents were less likely to engage in joint coping efforts. However, contrary to the antici-
pated partner effects, we found only actor effects, indicating that each partner's perception of com-
mon DC depends more on his or her own, rather than the partner's, avoidant attachment. This finding
3
We recalculated the mediational models using data of all couples retained at T2 (N= 138). The direction, sizes, and
significance of the direct and indirect effects did not change.
ALVES ET AL.301

might suggest that the impact of the other's attachment does not work exclusively but may depend on
other factors, such as one's own (more or less) secure attachment, an interaction effect that has previ-
ously been demonstrated in studies conducted with couples (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). The wea-
ker associations between attachment-related anxiety and common DC compared to the associations
between avoidance and common DC were as hypothesized and possibly reflect the ambivalent atti-
tudes that more anxious individuals hold toward their romantic partners (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2016). On the one hand, when both partners face a shared stressor, higher engagement in couple-
oriented behaviors (i.e., those that promote the desired proximity) may be expected; on the other
hand, their self-focus and doubts about the partner's availability may constrain individuals to engage
in a symmetrically or complementary process of coping (i.e., helping each other to reduce stress or
resolving the problem jointly). As a result, it could be difficult to establish a consistent and predict-
able pattern of behaviors. A similar line of thinking could justify why, in our study, mothers and
fathers' anxious attachment was not directly associated with their parenting stress or parental confi-
dence, despite opposing evidence found in previous studies (Howard, 2010; Mazzeschi et al., 2015).
Alternatively, because of our low-risk sample and the increased proximity and interdependence
between partners during the course of a pregnancy (Cowan & Cowan, 2000), it could be possible
that, on average, these individuals might not have perceived the multiple demands of pregnancy as
particularly distressing as they value closeness in romantic relationships. In such circumstances,
attachment concerns are less likely to become activated and, consequently, to influence individuals'
appraisals, behaviors, and emotions.
Regarding the second path of our model, lower engagement in common DC seemed to account
for increases in parenting stress and declines in parental confidence, as expected, but in an interactive
way. That is, with regard to parenting stress, the more fathers had avoidant attachment, the less they
engaged in common DC and, consequently, the more parenting stress the mothers perceived. We did
not find similar effects for fathers' parenting stress, which suggests differences within couples regard-
ing the role of joint coping efforts on perceived parenting stress. This finding could reflect the socio-
cultural context present in many westernized countries (including in Portugal), in which a high
proportion of families are full-time dual earners (Matias, Andrade, & Fontaine, 2012; Yavorsky
et al., 2015), and changes toward father's participation in child care and family life are increasing
(Cabrera, Volling, & Barr, 2018; Wall et al., 2017), but mothers remain the primary caregivers and
are more often responsible for infant care and household tasks than fathers (Matias et al., 2012;
Yavorsky et al., 2015). Joint handling of everyday stressors most likely reduces mothers' greater fam-
ily and household responsibilities and hence attenuates the maternal strain often associated with child
care (Nyström & Öhrling, 2004). Perhaps for these reasons, for mothers with more avoidant partners,
motherhood may be perceived as particularly stressful because their partners engage less in common
DC. Although previous studies conducted with families with type I diabetes showed that feeling
communally oriented toward one's partner reduced fathers', but not mothers', perceived parenting
stress (Afifi et al., 2018), for women transitioning to first- or second-time parenthood, a communal
approach to stressors (at least at the behavioral level) seems to play an important role. This explana-
tion may also account for why these mothers also feel less confident in their role.
We found that less common DC perceived by more avoidant mothers played a crucial role in
fathers' parental confidence. The importance of feeling confident as a parent during the first year
postpartum has been described by both mothers and fathers (Nyström & Öhrling, 2004). How-
ever, mothers feel generally more confident compared to fathers, a result that our study replicated
and that can also be explained by their greater involvement in child care (Biehle & Mickelson,
2011; Hudson et al., 2001). This is consonant with the larger societal norms and expectations
302 ALVES ET AL.

around the roles of mothers and fathers (Cabrera et al., 2018). Accordingly, mothers are social-
ized to assume a predominant caring role, whereas fathers are mostly the support provider (Katz-
Wise et al., 2010; Yavorsky et al., 2015). Hence, the role allocation is likely to exclude fathers
from many of the relevant concerns surrounding family life—particularly child care. Our findings
suggest that, when mothers are willing to engage in collaborative strategies when dealing with
daily demands, fathers become more involved in the family's everyday concerns and are perhaps
better equipped to manage their insecurities. Fathers might feel that they are “part of a team,”
which has been shown to be of particular relevance for fathers of young children (Afifi et al.,
2018). Consequently, this should foster their own sense of competence in their parenting skills.
This reasoning is supported by previous studies demonstrating that fathers' greater involvement in
child-care activities and perceptions of their partner's support of their parenting were associated
with higher paternal parenting efficacy at 6 months postpartum (Leerkes & Burney, 2007) and
greater paternal parenting satisfaction at 9 months postpartum (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2016),
respectively.
Our findings suggest that a strong motivation to avoid emotional closeness and cohesion (high
avoidance) produces challenges for engagement in common DC, putting both mothers and fathers at
high risk of less perceived confidence as parents in the long term. Interestingly, the indirect effects
between avoidant attachment and parental adjustment via common DC emerged across partners,
suggesting the presence of crossover effects within couples (i.e., the negative experiences of one
partner affect the other partner; Westman, 2011), simultaneously controlling for within-person
effects. The stronger impact of partner effects above actor effects supports the salient
interdependence within Portuguese couples in general (Vedes et al., 2016) and, in particular, the
“we-experience”nature of the period following the birth of a child.
Finally, a somewhat surprising result was the within-person mediation found for fathers,
which challenged our earlier interpretation. We found that more avoidant fathers engaged less in
common DC, which in turn increased their own parental confidence. This is an unexpected result
and should be interpreted with caution because the bivariate correlations show the inverse link.
Nevertheless, this finding seems to be associated with the tendency toward more traditional gen-
der roles after the birth of a child, as previously addressed. Fathers' engagement in more or less
complementary roles regarding support provision may conflict with societal beliefs surrounding
fatherhood: Fathers are still viewed as the support providers and women as the support recipients
(Brown, 1986; Rehel, 2013), and they generally assume a “protector role”toward women
(Darwin et al., 2017), self-disclosing fewer needs of support to their partners than women
(Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Levy-Shiff, 1999). Accordingly, fathers may see engagement in com-
mon DC as a sign of their incompetence in managing demanding situations independently as
suggested in prior studies with Latino couples (Falconier, Nussbeck, & Bodenmann, 2013). The
centrality of the breadwinner role is still present for many fathers (Kazmierczak & Karasiewicz,
2019), including for some Portuguese men (Matias et al., 2012; Vedes et al., 2016), supporting
this line of thought. As a result, engaging in less common DC might lead to a sense of “Ican
handle potential stressors if my partner is not available,”which could consequently strengthen
the extent to which they feel confident in undertaking their parenting chores. On a related note, it
may be that more avoidant fathers perceive common DC as undesirable as they value indepen-
dence and distance from their partner and consequently benefit more (in terms of perceived
parental confidence) by engaging less in common DC. Additional research is warranted to both
replicate and fully understand these findings.
ALVES ET AL.303

4.1 |Strengths and limitations
This study contributes to existing perinatal research by providing an initial understanding of the
unexplored links between romantic attachment and common DC, as well as between this dyadic pro-
cess and parenting stress and parental confidence. Specifically, examining the relationships between
these variables together in a mediational model provides a comprehensive picture of potential mecha-
nisms explaining the effects of romantic attachment avoidance on early parental adjustment and thus
adds evidence to the Attachment Diathesis-Stress Process Model (Simpson & Rholes, 2018). Other
important strengths of this study are its prospective longitudinal design, which allowed examining
one possible way in which attachment and dyadic processes may operate together to influence cou-
ples' adjustment in the long term. Importantly, it considered the nonindependence of the observations
over time by controlling for the scores of the variables assessed at previous times, which allowed us
to obtain rigorous estimates. The consideration of the couple as the unit of analysis, which models
the interdependence within couples, was particularly important because the indirect effects tested in
this study occurred especially across partners rather than within persons and support the relevance of
including both parents in attachment and parenting research (Jones et al., 2015).
The limitations of this study included the use of self-report questionnaires only, which are suscep-
tible to shared method variance. However, this limitation was partly addressed by the undertaken
APIM approach (i.e., the partner's scores were used to predict individuals' outcomes). Concerns also
arise regarding the validity of self-report questionnaires. Because they assess subjective perceptions
regarding interactions with the romantic partner and the child, despite its importance, they are some-
times inaccurate and do not always relate to more objective records (Jones & Prinz, 2005; Yavorsky
et al., 2015). This potential lack of accuracy could be an additional reason for the unexpected associ-
ation between fathers' common DC and their parental confidence (e.g., given the expected role of
fathers as the breadwinner, they may be less accurate in assessing their engagement in common DC,
as well as their own knowledge and abilities concerning child care, whose perceptions are likely
to align with fatherhood ideologies). It would be interesting to replicate this study with
experimental/observational methods, including biomarkers of parenting stress. Likewise, including
measures that assess gender role attitudes would allow further research to test the explanations that
we advanced for the obtained gender differences. In addition, attachment was only assessed during
pregnancy; however, because attachment representations tend to be relatively stable across the first
2 years of parenthood (Stern et al., 2018), our findings are valuable indicators. Another limitation
was the reduced sample size and high proportion of dropouts, which may have reduced the power to
detect small to moderate effects in complex models (e.g., for attachment-related anxiety dimension).
This can be explained by the lack of financial compensation for participation and the dyadic nature
of the study, which required willingness to participate from both partners. In addition, because part-
ners with higher engagement in common DC at baseline were those who participated for a longer
time, this limited the generalizability of our findings to couples with better common DC strategies.
However, lower retention rates in longitudinal studies and sampling bias are current methodological
concerns in dyadic research, in which couples with positive relationships are more willing to partici-
pate. In future studies, researchers should make efforts to improve the participation of a larger and
more diverse sample of couples, for example, by reinforcing confidentiality issues, maintaining con-
tact with each partner, conducting separate data collection interviews and through diverse settings,
and normalizing marital conflicts and challenges (Wittenborn, Dolbin-MacNab, & Keiley, 2013).
The replication of this study with couples exposed to different types and degrees of stress
(e.g., couples facing high-risk pregnancies) also constitutes a direction for future research. Moreover,
although our model assumed that romantic attachment led to common DC, which in turn led to
304 ALVES ET AL.

parenting stress and parental confidence, the possibility of alternative models (e.g., parental adjust-
ment acting as a mediator between romantic attachment and common DC) should be considered. The
causal paths among these variables are likely to be bidirectional, influencing each other over time,
and future studies would shed some light on other plausible causal influences.
4.2 |Conclusion
More avoidant romantic attachment constrains the use of adaptive collaborative ways of coping in
couples dealing with early parenthood-related stressors, which impacts both partners' parental adjust-
ment. By identifying modifiable targets through which more avoidance influences parents' adjust-
ment, such as less engagement in common DC, it is possible to inform perinatal prevention strategies
with concrete targets in a couple's relationship. Thus, the assessment of romantic attachment dynam-
ics should be integrated into existing perinatal screening procedures to identify the mothers and
fathers who could benefit most from common DC-enhancing interventions. Health professionals
who provide training in collaborative ways to address parental stress together as a couple (e.g., by
strengthening couples' DC skills) may have to use specific strategies to support couples with more
avoidant partners. Moreover, our results highlight the importance of paying attention to each partner's
cultural beliefs and values around parenting as a differential impact emerges regarding the role of
common DC on fathers' parental confidence as a function of their own and of their spouses' percep-
tions of common DC.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is part of the research project “A web-based cognitive-behavioural intervention to prevent
postpartum depression: A dyadic and multidimensional approach,”developed within the research
group Relationships, Development & Health of the R&D Unit Center for Research in Neuropsychol-
ogy and Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,
University of Coimbra. Stephanie Alves is supported by a PhD Scholarship from the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) (SFRH/BD/102717/2014). Ana Fonseca is supported
by a Postdoctoral Scholarship from FCT (SFRH/BPD/93996/2013). Marco Pereira is an FCT
researcher (IF/00402/2014). The authors thank the Director of the Obstetrics Service A—Maternity,
Daniel de Matos (CHUC, EPE); the obstetricians; the nurses; and other relevant professionals who
enabled the sample collection, as well as all the couples who participated in the study.
REFERENCES
Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting stress index: Professional manual (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Afifi, T., Granger, D., Ersig, A., Tsalikian, E., Shahnazi, A., Davis, S., …Scranton, A. (2018). Testing the theory of
resilience and relational load (TRRL) in families with type I diabetes. Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10410236.2018.1461585
Afifi, T., Merrill, A. F., & Davis, S. (2016). The theory of resilience and relational load. Personal Relationships,23,
663–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12159
Badr, L. K. (2005). Further psychometric testing and use of the maternal confidence questionnaire. Issues in Compre-
hensive Pediatric Nursing,28, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01460860500227572
Batinic, L., & Kamenov, Z. (2017). Actor and partner effects of attachment on young couples' dyadic coping. In
K. A. Moore & P. Buchwald (Eds.), Stress and anxiety: Coping and resilience (pp. 43–53). Berlin, Germany:
Logos Verlag Berlin.
ALVES ET AL.305

Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2011). Personal and co-parent predictors of parenting efficacy across the transition
to parenthood. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,30, 985–1010. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.
9.985
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, &
G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches coping inventar (DCI). Testmanual. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Bodenmann, G., Falconier, M., & Randall, A. K. (2017). Systemic-transactional model of dyadic coping. In J. Lebow,
A. Chambers, & D. C. Breunlin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy (pp. S. 1–S. 7). Cham, Switzer-
land: Springer International.
Bodenmann, G., Randall, A. K., & Falconier, M. K. (2016). Coping in couples: The systemic transactional model
(STM). In M. K. Falconier, A. K. Randall, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: A cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The couples coping enhancement training (CCET): A new approach to
prevention of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations,53, 477–484. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative
overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Brown, M. A. (1986). Marital support during pregnancy. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing,
15, 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.1986.tb01427.x
Bryanton, J., Gagnon, A. J., Hatem, M., & Johnston, C. (2008). Predictors of early parenting self-efficacy. Results
of a prospective cohort study. Nursing Research,57,252–259. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNR.0000313490.
56788.cd
Cabrera, N. J., Volling, B. L., & Barr, R. (2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children's
development. Child Development Perspectives,12, 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12275
Calvo, V., & Bianco, F. (2015). Influence of adult attachment insecurities on parenting self-esteem: The mediating role
of dyadic adjustment. Frontiers in Psychology,6,1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01461
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and care-
giving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78, 1053–1073. https://doi.org/10.
1037//0022-3514.78.6.1053
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2000). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crncec, R., Barnett, B., & Matthey, S. (2010). Review of scales of parenting confidence. Journal of Nursing Measure-
ment,18, 210–240. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.18.3.210
Crnic, K., & Low, C. (2002). Everyday stresses and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Prac-
tical issues in parenting (Vol. 5, pp. 243–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Darwin, Z., Galdas, P., Hinchliff, S., Littlewood, E., McMillan, D., McGowan, L., …on behalf of the Born and Bred
in Yorkshire (BaBY) team. (2017). Fathers' views and experiences of their own mental health during pregnancy
and the first postnatal year: A qualitative interview study of men participating in the UKBorn and Bred in York-
shire (BaBY) cohort. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth,17, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1229-4
Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Immigration stress and relationship satisfaction in Latino
couples: The role of dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,32, 813–843. https://doi.org/10.
1521/jscp.2013.32.8.813
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoreti-
cal perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80, 972–994. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.
80.6.972
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships–
relationship structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psycho-
logical Assessment,23, 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898
306 ALVES ET AL.

Howard, K. S. (2010). Paternal attachment, parenting beliefs and children's attachment. Early Child Development and
Care,180, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903415031
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods,3, 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Hudson, D. B., Elek, S. M., & Fleck, M. O. (2001). First-time mothers' and fathers' transition to parenthood: Infant care
self-efficacy, parenting satisfaction, and infant sex. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing,24,31–43. https://
doi.org/10.1080/014608601300035580
Jones, J. D., Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2015). Parents' self-reported attachment styles: A review of links with parent-
ing behaviors, emotions, and cognitions. Personality and Social Psychology Review,19,44–76. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1088868314541858
Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review.
Clinical Psychology Review,25, 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004
Katz-Wise, S. L., Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition to parent-
hood. Developmental Psychology,46,18–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017820
Kazmierczak, M. (2015). Couple empathy –The mediator of attachment styles for partners adjusting to parenthood.
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology,33,15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2014.974148
Kazmierczak, M., & Karasiewicz, K. (2019). Making space for a new role –Gender differences in identity changes in
couples transitioning to parenthood. Journal of Gender Studies,28, 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.
2018.1441015
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kohlhoff, J., & Barnett, B. (2013). Parenting self-efficacy: Links with maternal depression, infant behaviour and adult
attachment. Early Human Development,89, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2013.01.008
Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner
interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling,18, 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.
607099
Leerkes, E. M., & Burney, R. V. (2007). The development of parenting efficacy among new mothers and fathers.
Infancy,12,45–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007.tb00233.x
Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Bureau, J.-F. (2017). The mediating effects of emotion regulation and dyadic cop-
ing on the relationship between romantic attachment and non-suicidal self-injury. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence,46, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0547-6
Levy-Shiff, R. (1999). Fathers' cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and support resources as correlates of
adjustment to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology,13, 554–567. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.
13.4.554
Matias, M., Andrade, C., & Fontaine, A. M. (2012). The interplay of gender, work and family in Portuguese families.
Work, Organization, Labour and Globalization,6,11–26. https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.6.1.0011
Matthies, L. M., Wallwiener, S., Müller, M., Doster, A., Plewniok, K., Feller, S., …Reck, C. (2017). Maternal self-
confidence during the first four months postpartum and its association with anxiety and early infant regulatory
problems. Infant Behavior and Development,49, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2017.09.011
Mazzeschi, C., Pazzagli, C., Radi, G., Raspa, V., & Buratta, L. (2015). Antecedents of maternal parenting stress: The
role of attachment style, prenatal attachment, and dyadic adjustment in first-time mothers. Frontiers in Psychology,
6,1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01443
McGoldrick, M., & Carter, B. (2003). The family life cycle. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing
diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 375–398). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Molgora, S., Acquati, C., Fenaroli, V., & Saita, E. (2019). Dyadic coping and marital adjustment during pregnancy: A
cross-sectional study of Italian couples expecting their first child. International Journal of Psychology,54,
277–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12476
Moreira, H., Martins, T., Gouveia, M. J., & Canavarro, M. C. (2015). Assessing adult attachment across different con-
texts: Validation of the Portuguese version of the experiences in close relationships-relationship structures ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,97,22–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.950377
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
ALVES ET AL.307

Nazaré, B., Fonseca, A., & Canavarro, M. C. (2011). Avaliação da confiança parental: Versão Portuguesa do Maternal
Confidence Questionnaire. In A. S. Ferreira, A. Verhaeghe, D. R. Silva, L. S. Almeida, R. Lima, & S. Fraga (Eds.),
Proceedings from the VIII Congresso Ibero-americano de Avaliação Psicológica/XV Conferência Internacional de
Avaliação Psicológica: Formas e Contextos (pp. 1949–1960). Lisboa, Portugal: Sociedade Portuguesa de
Psicologia.
Ngai, F.-W., Chan, S. W.-C., & Ip, W.-Y. (2010). Predictors and correlates of maternal role competence and satisfac-
tion. Nursing Research,59, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181dbb9ee
Nyström, K., & Öhrling, K. (2004). Parenthood experiences during the child's first year: Literature review. Journal of
Advanced Nursing,46, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.02991.x
Pinto, T. M., Figueiredo, B., Pinheiro, L. L., & Canário, C. (2016). Fathers' parenting self-efficacy during the transition
to parenthood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology,34, 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.
2016.1178853
Rehel, E. M. (2013). When dad stays home too: Paternity leave, gender, and parenting. Gender & Society,28,
110–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503900
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Friedman, M. (2006). Avoidant attachment and the experience of parenting. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205280910
Rottmann, N., Hansen, D. G., Larsen, P. V., Nicolaisen, A., Flyger, H., Johansen, C., & Hagedoorn, M. (2015). Dyadic
coping within couples dealing with breast cancer: A longitudinal, population-based study. Health Psychology,34,
486–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000218
Santos, S. (2011, July). Versão Portuguesa do Parenting Stress Index (PSI) - Forma reduzida: Estudo com uma
amostra de mães de crianças com idade inferior a 5 anos. Paper presented at the VIII Congresso Iberoamericano
de Avaliação Psicológica/XV Conferência Internacional de Avaliação Psicológica, Lisboa, Portugal.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Settle, T., Lee, J.-K., & Dush, C. M. K. (2016). Supportive coparenting relationships as a
haven of psychological safety at the transition to parenthood. Research in Human Development,13,32–48. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2016.1141281
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and rec-
ommendations. Psychological Methods,7, 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. In
P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 279–328). Burlington, MA:
Academic Press.
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2018). Adult attachment orientations and well-being during the transition to parent-
hood. Current Opinion in Psychology,25,47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.019
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an
anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62,
434–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and
support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28, 598–608. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167202288004
St John, W., Cameron, C., & McVeigh, C. (2005). Meeting the challenge of new fatherhood during the early weeks.
Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing,34, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0884217505274699
Staff, H. R., Didymus, F. F., & Backhouse, S. H. (2017). The antecedents and outcomes of dyadic coping in close per-
sonal relationships: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping,30, 498–520. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2017.1329931
Stern, J. A., Fraley, R. C., Jones, J. D., Gross, J. T., Shaver, P. R., & Cassidy, J. (2018). Developmental processes
across the first two years of parenthood: Stability and change in adult attachment style. Developmental Psychology,
54, 975–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000481
Trillingsgaard, T., Elklit, A., Shevlin, M., & Maimburg, R. D. (2011). Adult attachment at the transition to mother-
hood: Predicting worry, health care utility and relationship functioning. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psy-
chology,29, 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2011.611937
308 ALVES ET AL.

Vedes, A., Nussbeck, F. W., Bodenmann, G., Lind, W., & Ferreira, A. (2013). Psychometric properties and validity of
the dyadic coping inventory in Portuguese. Swiss Journal of Psychology,72, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1024/
1421-0185/a000108
Vedes, A., Pedro, M. F., Patrão, I. M., Albuquerque, S. M., Ramalho, S. C., Pereira, M. D., …Ribeiro, M. T. (2016).
Dyadic coping in Portuguese couples. In M. K. Falconier, A. K. Randall, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping
with stress: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Vismara, L., Rollè, L., Agostini, F., Sechi, C., Fenaroli, V., Molgora, S., …Tambelli, R. (2016). Perinatal parenting
stress, anxiety, and depression outcomes in first-time mothers and fathers: A 3- to 6-months postpartum follow-up
study. Frontiers in Psychology,7,1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00938
Wall, K., Cunha, V., Atalaia, S., Rodrigues, L., Correia, R., Correia, S. V., & Rosa, R. (2017). White paper: Men and
gender equality in Portugal. Lisboa, Portugal: Instituto de Ciências Sociais - Universidade de Lisboa, Comissão
para a Igualdade no Trabalho e no Emprego.
Westman, M. (2011). The impact of stress on the individual, the dyad and the team. Stress and Health,27, 177–180.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1419
Wittenborn, A. K., Dolbin-MacNab, M. L., & Keiley, M. K. (2013). Dyadic research in marriage and family therapy:
Methodological considerations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,39,5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2012.00306.x
Yavorsky, J. E., Dush, C. M. K., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2015). The production of inequality: The gender division
of labor across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family,77, 662–679. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jomf.12189
Zemp, M., Milek, A., Cummings, E. M., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Longitudinal interrelations between dyadic coping
and coparenting conflict in couples. Journal of Child and Family Studies,26, 2276–2290. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10826-017-0742-4
How to cite this article: Alves S, Milek A, Bodenmann G, Fonseca A, Canavarro MC,
Pereira M. Romantic attachment, dyadic coping, and parental adjustment across the transition
to parenthood. Pers Relationship. 2019;26:286–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12278
ALVES ET AL.309