Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy

2019 Edition
| Editors: Jay L. Lebow, Anthony L. Chambers, Douglas C. Breunlin

Dyadic Coping Inventory

  • Guy Bodenmann
  • Laura Jimenez AristaEmail author
  • Kelsey J. Walsh
  • Ashley K. Randall
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49425-8_678

Name and Type of Measure

The Dyadic Coping Inventory is a self-report questionnaire that measures stress management in couples.




The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI*) is a widely used (Falconier et al. 2016) self-report questionnaire developed by Bodenmann (2008) to assess partners’ stress expression and dyadic coping behaviors as conceptualized in the Systemic-Transactional Model (STM; Bodenmann 1995, 2005). According to the STM, dyadic coping is viewed as a stress management process within the couple, which goes above and beyond social support received from others, where the communication of one partner’s stress, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and common or joint dyadic coping are differentiated.

Supportive dyadic copingincludes behaviors such as showing empathy and understanding, showing solidarity with the partner, helping the partner to reframe the situation, helping the partner to calm down, helping the partner...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 34–49.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual. [Dyadic coping inventory]. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  4. Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being. European Psychologist, 16, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donato, S., Iafrate, R., Barni, D., Bertoni, A., Bodenmann, G., & Gagliardi, S. (2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of Bodenmann’s “Dyadic Coping Questionnaire” in an Italian sample. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16, 25–47.Google Scholar
  7. Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Dyadic coping in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of the dyadic coping inventory. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 26, 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J., Hilpert, J., & Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Falconier, M., Randall, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Couples coping with stress – A cultural perspective. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping. Axiety, Stress, & Coping: An International Journal, 26, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S., Rossier, J., Bertni, A., & Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics of the dyadic coping inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M.-F., Caron, A., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2014). Validation of the English version of the dyadic coping inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martos, T., Sallay, V., Nistor, M., & Jozsa, P. (2012). Dyadic coping and well-being – the Hungarian version of the dyadic coping inventory. Psychiatria Hungarica: A Magyar Pszichiatriai Tarsasag Tudomanyos Folyoirata, 27(6), 446–458.Google Scholar
  14. Meuwly, N., Feinstein, B. A., Davila, J., Nunez, D. G., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Relationship quality among Swiss women in opposite-sex versus same-sex romantic relationships. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nussbeck, F. N. & Jackson, J. B. (2016). Measuring Dyadic Coping Across Cultures. In M. K. Falconier, A. K. Randall, & G. Bodenmann (eds.), Couples Coping with Stress. A Cross-cultural Perspective (pp. 36–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551–559.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Walsh, K. J., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic coping in the U.S.: Psychometric properties and validity for use of the English version of the dyadic coping inventory. Current Psychology, 35, 570–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Randall, A. K., Totenhagen, C. J., Walsh, K. J., Adams, C. B., & Tao, C. (2017). Coping with workplace minority stress: Associations between dyadic coping and anxiety among women in same-sex relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 21, 70–87.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000218CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruffieux, M., Nussbeck, F. N., & Bodenmann, G. (2014). Long-term prediction of relationship satisfaction and stability by stress, coping, communication, and well-being. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rusu, P., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic coping in an eastern European context: Validity and measurement invariance of the Romanian version of dyadic coping inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development., 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175616664009
  22. 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(3), 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu, F., Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Li, Q., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Validation of the dyadic coping inventory with Chinese couples: Factorial structure, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Psychological Assessment. Advanced online publication, 28, e127.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000329CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Bodenmann
    • 1
  • Laura Jimenez Arista
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kelsey J. Walsh
    • 3
  • Ashley K. Randall
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, University of ZurichBinzmuehlestrasseSwitzerland
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  3. 3.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Counseling and Counseling PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Heather Pederson
    • 1
  • Diana Semmelhack
    • 2
  1. 1.Council for RelationshipsPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Midwestern UniversityDowners GroveUSA