Chapman University

Chapman University Digital Commons

Psychology Faculty Articles and Research Psychology

2006

Coping Processes of Couples Experiencing

Infertility
Brennan Peterson
Chapman University, [email protected]

Christopher R. Newton
London Health Sciences Center, Ontario

Karen H. Rosen
Virginia Tech

Robert S. Shulman
Virginia Tech

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/psychology_articles

Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Health Psychology Commons, Marriage
and Family Therapy and Counseling Commons, and the Obstetrics and Gynecology Commons

Recommended Citation
Peterson, B.D., Newton, C.R., Rosen, K.H., & Schulman, R.S. (2006). Coping processes of couples experiencing infertility. Family
Relations, Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 55, 227-239.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00372.x

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Psychology Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
Coping Processes of Couples Experiencing Infertility
Comments
This is the accepted version of the following article:

Peterson, B.D., Newton, C.R., Rosen, K.H., & Schulman, R.S. (2006). Coping processes of couples
experiencing infertility. Family Relations, Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 55, 227-239.

,
which has been published in final form at DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00372.x.

Copyright
Wiley

This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/psychology_articles/1

 Coping Processes of Couples Experiencing Infertility

Brennan D. Peterson, Ph.D.

Chapman University

Christopher R. Newton, Ph.D.

London Health Sciences Center, Ontario

Karen H. Rosen, Ed.D.

Virginia Tech University

Robert S. Schulman, Ph.D.

Virginia Tech University

Brennan D. Peterson, Ph.D. Chapman University, One University Drive, Department of

Psychology, Orange, CA, 92866. 714-744-7915. [email protected].

Christopher R. Newton, Ph.D. London Health Sciences Centre. Division of Reproductive

Endocrinology and Infertility, 339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario, N6A 5A5, Canada.
519-685-8300 x 32477. [email protected].

Karen H. Rosen, Ed.D. Virginia Tech, Marriage and Family Therapy Program, Northern Virginia
Graduate Center, 7054 Haycock Road, Falls Church, VA, 22043. 703-538-8461.
[email protected].

Robert S. Schulman, Ph.D. Virginia Tech, Department of Statistics, 212 Hutcheson Hall,
Blacksburg, VA, 24061. 540-231-5497. [email protected].

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brennan Peterson, Ph.D.,

Chapman University, Department of Psychology, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866.
Phone 714-744-7915, Fax 714-997-6780. Email [email protected]

1
 While the majority of people enter marriage and expect someday to have biological

children, many couples will unexpectedly experience difficulty in conceiving and carrying to

term their own biological child. The latest national estimates, based on data collected in 2002,

indicate that nearly 4.3 million married women or their partners have impaired fecundity—

defined as difficulty in conceiving or carrying to live birth a child, or infertility lasting 36 months

or longer (Chandra, Martinez, Mosher, Abma, & Jones, 2005). These couples represent

approximately 15% of the 28.3 million married couples in which the wives are between the ages

of 15 and 44 (Chandra, Martinez, Mosher, Abma, & Jones, 2005).

As recently as the mid 1980’s, researchers proposed that infertility had psychological

causes as opposed to psychological consequences (Greil, 1997). Furthermore, the prevailing

belief was that females were primarily responsible for infertility (ascribed to unconscious

resistance to motherhood), and thus women became the main participants and focus of infertility

research. However, medical technologies have shown that both males and females contribute

equally to infertility and that emotional factors only represent 5% of infertility cases (Robinson

& Stewart, 1996; Seibel & Taymor, 1982). Consequently, the experience of infertility is truly

one that couples share.

In an effort to better understand how infertility impacts both men and women, researchers

have called for studies which examine the emotional responses of both members of the couple as

they jointly cope with the experience of infertility as opposed to focusing solely on women’s

responses to infertility (Greil, 1997). The current study examined how couples cope with the

experience of infertility and how their coping patterns were related to their adjustment to

infertility.

Coping With Infertility

2
 When a couple is faced with the experience of infertility, it is commonly interpreted as a

stressor that needs to be managed. According to Lazarus and Folkman’s stress and coping theory

(1984), cognitive or behavioral coping strategies are used to manage stress, and stress occurs as

events in the environment are perceived by an individual to exceed his or her resources. Couples

experiencing infertility commonly face severe strains on their emotional, social, and financial

resources, and thus, they are likely to use coping strategies at some point during the experience.

Coping strategies such as avoidance of the problem and accepting personal responsibility for

one’s infertility are commonly associated with increased distress, while coping strategies such as

seeking social support and engaging in active problem solving tend to decrease distress (Jordan

& Revenson, 1999).

While understanding the relationship between coping and infertility stress is critical in

understanding how a couple copes with the experience of infertility, most studies examining the

issue have used the individual as the unit of analysis, and have focused more on females than

males (Abbey, Andrews, & Halman, 1991; Hynes, Callan, Terry, & Gallois, 1992; McQuillan,

Greil, White, & Jacob, 2003). Fewer studies have examined how couples cope with the

experience of infertility (Berghuis & Stanton, 2002; Peterson, 2003). Since infertility is

recognized as a shared experience, it is important to study the interactions of partners and

explore how each partner’s coping with infertility may impact his or her partner’s adjustment.

Systems Theory and the Couple as a Unit of Analysis

The present study’s emphasis on the couples’ efforts to cope with infertility, and the

implications of various coping patterns amongst couples was primarily guided by the family

systems theoretical framework. Based on general systems theory, this framework postulates that

individual behaviors of men and women are best understood in the context of their mutual

interactions and systemic relationships (Bertalanffy, 1968). Thus, the focus on behavior shifts

3
from an individual perspective to one that examines the greater system or context that surrounds

the individual (e.g., the couple’s relationship). Although some studies have taken a systemic

focus in examining coping with infertility (Levin, Sher, & Theodos, 1997), researchers have

called for additional studies using this framework (Greil, 1997). From a system’s perspective, the

couple’s relationship provides a powerful system of mutual influence and mutual interaction that

more fully explains their coping processes and reactions to the experience of infertility than

considering the man’s and woman’s reports independently. Previous studies have shown support

for using a family systems approach to guide infertility research (Andrews, Abbey, & Halman,

1991; Peterson, 2003; Ulbrich, Coyle, & Llabre, 1990).

Based on family systems theory, a partner’s adjustment to infertility is likely impacted by

the systemic nature of the couple relationship. For example, one partner may cope with

infertility stress by avoiding the realities of the problem in an effort to minimize emotional pain.

While this coping style may be beneficial to the individual, it may prove detrimental to the

partner if he or she feels left to face the problem alone (Beaurepaire, Jones, Thiering, Sanders, &

Tennant, 1994). For example, in two studies, Stanton, Tennen, Affleck, and Mendola (1991,

1992) discovered that wives who use more self-controlling coping strategies had partners with

higher levels of distress. They also found that wives who seek social support have partners who

report lower levels of psychological distress. More recently, Peterson (2003) found that when

couples agreed on the amounts of infertility stress they were experiencing, they reported higher

levels of marital satisfaction and decreased levels of depression. Specifically, Berghuis and

Stanton (2002) found a strong between-partner relationship with coping and the reduction of

depressive symptoms in couples who received a negative pregnancy result after an insemination

attempt. The study revealed that a husband’s use of positive coping strategies compensated for

4
his partner’s lack of coping, which, in turn, seemed to help keep her depressive symptoms

relatively low and constant over time.

Coping’s Relationship to Infertility Stress, Marital Adjustment, and Depression

The primary purpose of coping with infertility is to manage the emotional and/or

behavioral reactions the couple experiences once a diagnosis of infertility is given. For example,

couples will use coping strategies such as avoidance of the problem to deal with the unexpected

news of infertility, their perceived loss of having a child, or the difficulty they may have in

relating to friends with young children. Coping may also be used to reduce infertility stress for

the purpose of repairing rifts to the marital relationship or avoiding feelings of depression

associated with the multiple losses they perceive. This study attempted to better understand

these relationships – namely, how the coping patterns of each partner in a couple were associated

with his or her partner’s levels of infertility stress, marital adjustment, and depression.

When couples are diagnosed with infertility, they commonly report encountering a

number of stressors. These stressors can include, but are not limited to, stress related to their

sexual functioning, stress related to the endurance and quality of their relationship, and stress

related to changes in their social and family networks (Newton, Sherrard, & Glavac, 1999). Men

and women may perceive the severity of these stressors differently. Andrews, Abbey, & Halman

(1992) found that for men, the stress of infertility was not different from other stressors that they

face. Their partners, on the other hand, reported infertility stress to be highly distressing and

fundamentally different from the other stressors they experienced because infertility stress posed

a special threat to their sexual identity and sense of self. In another study, Freeman et al. (1985)

reported that, while 50% percent of women consider infertility the most distressing experience of

their lives, only 15% of men answered similarly. Although we know that infertility is a stressful

5
event for couples, how men and women’s mutual coping patterns impact each individual member

of the couple’s infertility stress remains largely unknown.

When examining marital adjustment among couples experiencing infertility, anecdotal

and clinical reports propose that couples go through a variety of reactions including anger, grief,

and conflict, and that the experience of infertility has the risk of tearing one’s marriage apart.

However, the majority of empirical studies found that couples experiencing infertility reported

normal levels of marital adjustment when compared to standardized norms or when compared to

couples presumed to be fertile (Greil, 1997). These high reports of marital adjustment may be

because only couples who have strong marriages chose to pursue advanced reproductive

treatments, and most data on couples experiencing infertility are collected at advanced

reproductive treatment centers. However, a couple’s patterns of coping with infertility could also

contribute to strong marital relationships. This study attempted to see whether or not the coping

patterns of couples experiencing infertility were related to increases or decreases in marital

adjustment.

Studies examining the relationship between infertility and depression have focused

primarily on women’s reports of depression. In general, studies find elevated levels of

depression among women experiencing infertility. However, the level of depression reported in

these studies varies. For example, Downey and McKinney (1992) characterize women

experiencing infertility as distressed, but not impaired. Other studies have found a stronger

relationship between infertility and depression. Domar, Seibel, Broome, Friedman, &

Zuttermeister (1992) found that 37% of women experiencing infertility reported depression

scores in the clinically significant range and concluded that “depression is a very common and

significant problem in the infertile population” (p. 1161). Because depression has rarely been

6
studied using the couple as the unit of analysis, the current study examined how the coping

patterns of one partner are related to the reports of depression of his or her partner.

In the current study, we defined coping as a couple phenomenon and considered

husbands’ and wives’ use of various strategies along eight core domains. Such an approach is

similar to the conceptualization developed by Levin et al. (1997). We were particularly interested

in how couple coping patterns would affect important outcomes such as infertility stress,

depression, and marital adjustment.

The following research questions guided the present study. First, amongst couples

experiencing infertility, to what extent are the coping strategies of each partner related to the

other partner’s individual reports of infertility stress, marital adjustment, and depression?

Second, are there specific coping strategies that may be beneficial to one partner which result in

distress to the other partner?

Method

Sample and Procedures

The sample for this study was comprised of men and women experiencing infertility who

were referred to a university-affiliated teaching hospital for assisted reproductive treatment

(ART) in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected over a 7-year time period (1995-2001).

Participants were eligible for the study if they were receiving in vitro fertilization (IVF); both

partners completed the self-report measures. Three months prior to treatment, prospective

participants were mailed a series of self-report measures including the Ways of Coping

Questionnaire (WCQ), Fertility Problem Inventory (FPI), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), and

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Couples were asked to complete the instruments separately

and to return them by mail before making a pretreatment appointment with the program staff

(Newton, et. al, 1999).

7
 Only those couples medically accepted for IVF participation were sent questionnaires,

and, because completion of psychological screening and counseling was integral to treatment

participation, information was obtained from almost all participants (approximately 95%).

However, because no record was actually kept of the number of questionnaires disseminated, the

exact response rate is not available. In order to be included in the study, both partners had to

have completed information on each of the four data collection measures (WCQ, FPI, DAS,

BDI). The original sample consisted of 506 males and 520 females, and, following listwise

deletion of missing data, the final sample consisted of 420 couples (n=420 males and n=420

females).

Males were slightly older than females with a mean age of 33.9 (SD=5.4) compared to

32.5 (SD=4.4) for females (t = -5.8, p < .001). The mean duration of infertility for the couples

was 3.3 years. Eighty percent of infertility diagnoses were attributable to females (e.g., tubal

factors, endometriosis), 12% of diagnoses were idiopathic (i.e., unexplained), and 8% were

attributable to males (e.g., low sperm count). All of the study participants were referred to the

clinic for in vitro fertilization. None of the couples had any children in their present relationship.

While data on the participants’ racial and socioeconomic status were not collected, couples were

predominantly White, representing the Canadian population at that time. Prior to 1996,

treatment costs were paid by the Ontario government. However, since that time, treatment costs

are paid only for couples with bilateral fallopian tube blockage.

Measures

Coping with infertility. The Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) is a 50-item scale

that was used to assess the coping strategies of couples experiencing infertility in this study

(Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). The instrument includes eight

subscales: (a) escape/avoidance (e.g., wished the situation would somehow go away or be over

8
with); (b) confrontive coping (e.g., I did something I didn’t think would work, but at least I was

doing something); (c) self-controlling (e.g., I tried to keep my feelings from interfering with

other things too much); (d) accepting responsibility (e.g., criticized or lectured myself, realized I

brought the problem on myself); (e) planful problem solving (e.g., I made a plan of action and

followed it); (f) seeking social support (e.g., talked to someone to find our more about the

situation); (g) distancing (e.g., made light of the situation, went on as if nothing had happened);

(h) and positive reappraisal (e.g., changed or grew as a person in a good way). Participant

responses are recorded on a four-item Likert scale ranging from 0 (does not apply) to 3 (used a

great deal). The Chronbach’s alpha reliability estimate for the current study was .82. The

creators of the WCQ claim it contains concurrent, construct, and face validity, although they fail

to provide direct evidence to support these claims (Hess, 1992). The mean scores (with standard

deviations in parentheses) for females and males respectively along each coping domain were

confrontive coping 4.3 (2.7), 3.0 (2.6), distancing 5.2 (3.1), 5.6 (2.9), self-controlling 7.6 (3.8),

6.6 (3.9), seeking social support 9.9 (3.9), 7.0 (4.1), accepting responsibility 2.1 (2.3), 1.3 (2.0),

escape avoidance 7.0 (4.4), 4.5 (3.5), planful problem-solving 7.1 (3.4), 6.1 (3.5), and positive

reappraisal 7.1 (4.1), 6.0 (4.3).

Infertility stress. The Fertility Problem Inventory (FPI) is a 46 item questionnaire that measures

an individual’s level of infertility stress (Newton et al., 1999). The instrument is scored using a

6-point Likert scale and produces a global infertility stress score in addition to five sub-scores on

scales measuring social infertility stress, sexual infertility stress, relationship infertility stress, an

individual’s need for parenthood, and an individual’s feelings about living a childfree lifestyle.

Higher scores on each scale indicate increased levels of infertility stress. The FPI demonstrates

discriminant validity (the degree to which each sub-scale measures something different) as

intercorrelations were low to moderate in size (Newton et al., 1999). The FPI also demonstrates

9
convergent validity as it had moderate correlations in the expected direction with measures of

depression, anxiety, and marital adjustment (Newton et al., 1999). The Chronbach’s alpha

reliability estimate for the current study was .78. The mean global infertility stress scores and

standard deviations for females and males were 128.9 (35.1) and 114.0 (29.0).

Marital adjustment. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) is a 32-item scale developed by

Spanier and designed to measure the overall marital adjustment couples have within their

relationship (Spanier, 1976). The DAS produces a global score in addition to scores on four sub-

scales: satisfaction, cohesion, consensus, and affectional expression. The instrument is widely

viewed as one of the best measures of a marital adjustment. Scores 100 or above indicate well-

adjusted marital relationships. Many studies have confirmed the concurrent and predictive

validity of the DAS as lower scores are related to increased probability for domestic violence,

higher depression, and poor communication (Stuart, 1992). Studies of alpha reliability by

researchers have indicated good internal consistency for the total measure with scores as high as

.90 or above (Stuart). The Chronbach’s alpha reliability estimate for the current study was .87.

The mean marital adjustment for females and males respectively (with standard deviations in

parentheses) was 120.0 (12.7), and 120.0 (11.9), well above the 100 clinical cut-off indicated by

Spanier.

Depression. The Beck Depression Inventory IA and II were used to assess the severity of

depression among study participants (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). Because both the BDI-IA

and the BDI-II were used to assess depression in the current sample, a conversion of scores

(provided by Beck et al., 1996) was used to harmonize the scores from the two instruments.

Higher scores on the BDI indicate the presence of depressive symptoms: scores from 0-13

indicate minimal depression, 14-19 mild depression, 20-28 moderate depression, and 29-63

severe depression. The coefficient alpha estimates of reliability for outpatient samples was .92

10
and test-retest reliability coefficient over a one-week period was .93 (Arbisi, 2001). The

concurrent validity–or the degree to which results correlate with other measures–appears strong

as the BDI-II correlates with other measures of depression and also has moderate correlations

with ratings of anxiety (Arbisi). The mean depression scores for females and males (with

standard deviations in parentheses) were 6.3 (7.3) and 4.0 (5.2) respectively.

Data Analysis

In order to examine the coping patterns of couples experiencing infertility, we analyzed

the data using Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). Multivariate analysis

allowed us to examine whether groups of couples coping with infertility differed on more than

one dependent variable. In addition, the use of multivariate analysis helped us see the data in

multivariate perspectives, as groups that vary from each other on important characteristics (e.g.,

infertility stress) are likely to differ from each other on other interrelated characteristics (e.g.,

depression) (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Couples were divided into four groups using median

split procedures for each coping dimension according to both partners’ high and low scores. For

each coping scale, the median score was determined for both males and females. Individual

scores above the median were classified as high in terms of the frequency with which a coping

strategy was used, and scores below the median were classified as low in terms of the frequency

of use. Each couple was then categorized according to the coping patterns of both individuals in

the couple and was placed in one of four groups: a) High/High, b) Low/Low, c) F-high/M-low,

d) F-low/M-high. Couples were classified in this way for each of the eight coping processes.

This approach was used by Levin et al. (1997), who examined the effects of intracouple coping

concordance on psychological and marital distress in infertility patients.

In order to ascertain if the coping patterns of one member of a couple would impact the

infertility stress, marital adjustment, or depression of his or her partner, a 2x4 factorial
11
MANCOVA using gender and groups as the independent variables were conducted for each of

the eight coping subscales. The dependent variables were infertility stress, marital adjustment,

and depression. For the MANCOVA, coping was used as a covariate in each analysis to control

for variations in individual coping and more appropriately assess the nature of the couple

pairings. Tabachnick & Fidell (2001) note that when choosing a covariate, “one wants to select

covariates that adjust the dependent variable for predictable, but unwanted sources of variability”

(p. 302). They further state that “covariates are chosen because of their known association with

the dependent variable” (p. 19). Thus, individual coping scores for each coping process were

used as a covariate to control for the correlations that previously existed between men, women,

and the dependent variables. Without the use of coping as a covariate in each analysis, a

couple’s report of infertility stress, marital adjustment, and depression would be inflated by the

individual correlations that previously existed between coping and the dependent variables.

Results

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance

To examine the relationship between coping, infertility stress, marital adjustment, and

depression, eight separate MANCOVA analyses were conducted. Each analysis used the

dependent variables of infertility stress (global), marital adjustment (total), and depression

(total), and each used the two independent variables of coping group (with four levels) and

gender (with two levels). Furthermore, each MANCOVA used the individual coping scores

from that scale as the covariate. The analyses were conducted on 8 coping processes. This paper

reports the findings of the 3 coping processes that produced significant results.

The MANCOVA analyses showed significant main effects for groups, gender, or both.

However, the interactions between groups and gender were not significant in any of the analyses.

For the MANCOVA analyses, overall mean scores were examined for couples in each of the

12
grouping variables. Follow-up univariate tests of the general linear model were then performed.

We examined differences between couples in their reports of infertility stress, marital

adjustment, and depression using Bonferroni post-hoc analyses (seeTtable 1). Specific gender

differences between men and women in the four couple groupings were also examined using

follow-up Univariate Analyses of Variance and are reported in the text, but not in the tables.

Summary of MANCOVA Analyses

The MANCOVA analyses examining couples’ use of distancing found significant main

effects for group (Wilks’ Λ = .97, p < .01) and for gender (Wilks’ Λ = .92, p < .001). Univariate

follow-up tests indicated the groups differed on infertility stress (F = 7.3, p <.001), marital

adjustment (F = 3.3, p < .05), and depression (F = 4.8, p <.001). For gender, males and females

differed on infertility stress (F = 54.2, p < .001) and depression (F = 35.1, p <.001), but not

marital adjustment. A significant gender by group interaction was found for depression.

When the self-controlling coping strategy was examined, the MANCOVA analysis found

significant main effects for group (Wilks’ Λ = .97, p < .01) and for gender (Wilks’ Λ = .95, p <

.001), but not for a group by gender interaction. Univariate follow-up tests indicated the groups

differed on infertility stress (F = 4.6, p < .01), marital adjustment (F = 4.3, p < .01), and

depression (F = 4.1, p < .01). For gender, follow-up univariate tests indicated that males and

females differed on infertility stress (F = 30.7, p < .001), and depression (F = 19.6, p < .001), but

not marital adjustment.

Couples’ use of accepting responsibility showed significant main effects for group

(Wilks’ Λ = .93, p < .001) and for gender (Wilks’ Λ = .95, p < .001). Univariate tests indicated

the groups differed on infertility stress (F = 18.3, p < .001), marital adjustment (F = 4.7, p < .01),

and depression (F = 3.3, p <.05). Univariate tests for gender showed that males and females

13
differed on infertility stress (F = 36.7, p < .001) and on depression (F = 16.6, p < .001) but not

marital adjustment. No interaction was found between groups and gender.

Bonferroni Post-Hoc Follow-Up Tests for Specific Couple Coping Patterns

Distancing. Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to examine which specific couple

pairings were significantly different from the others along the domains of infertility stress,

marital adjustment, and depression (see Table 1). The Bonferroni post-hoc test showed that

couples using distancing (i.e., made light of the situation, went on as if nothing had happened) in

the F-low/M-high group reported significantly higher levels of infertility stress (M = 132.1, p <

.01) when compared to couples in each of the other three groups (High/High M = 120.4, p < .01,

Low/Low M = 119.3, p < .01, F-high/M-low M = 117.6, p < .01). This increase in the couples’

overall mean stress was most notably influenced by the female partners’ levels of infertility

stress (female infertility stress M = 145.5, male infertility stress M = 117.8, p < .01). With

regards to the BDI, couples in the F-low/M-high group reported significantly higher scores (M =

6.8, p < .01) when compared to couples in both groups in which men coped using low amounts

of distancing (Low/Low M = 4.5, p < .01, F-high/M-low M = 4.5, p < .01) with female scores of

depression in the F-low/M-high couples (M = 9.5, p < .01) significantly higher than men’s (M =

4.3, p < .01) (it is worth noting that nether group scored clinically depressed at the time of the

study). With regards to marital adjustment scores, couples in the F-low/M-high reported

significantly lower levels of marital adjustment (M = 118.0, p < .05) when compared to couples

who coped in the opposite way (F-high/M-low, M = 121.7, p < .05), although both groups can be

classified as fairly well adjusted based on clinical cut-off criteria.

Self-controlling. As summarized in Table 1, Bonferroni post hoc analyses revealed that

couples in which the female engaged in high levels of emotional and behavioral self-control

relative to her partner (F-high/M-low group) reported significantly higher levels of infertility

14
stress (M = 127.9, p < .01) compared to couples in which females engaged in minimal self-

control strategies (F-low/M-high M = 116.4, p < .01, Low/Low M = 118.2, p < .01). For

depression, couples in the F-high/M-low group reported significantly higher levels of depression

(M = 6.4, p < .01) when compared to couples in the F-low/M-high group (M = 4.1, p < .01),

although both groups did not score in the clinically depressed range. For marital adjustment,

couples in the F-high/M-low group reported significantly lower levels of marital adjustment (M

= 116.6, p < .05) when compared to couples in the other three groups (High/High M = 120.4, p <

.05, Low/Low M = 120.7, p < .05, F-low/M-high M = 120.3, p < .05), although both groups

scored in the well-adjusted range.

Accepting responsibility. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses indicated that when both

members of the couple tended to accept a high degree of responsibility (i.e., criticized or lectured

myself, realized I brought the problem on myself), the couple reported significantly higher levels

of infertility stress (M = 134.4, p < .01) when compared to couples in the other three groups

(Low/Low M = 108.0, p < .01, F-low/M-high M = 122.9, p < .01, F-high/M-low M = 124.2, p <

.01). Conversely, when both partners assume low levels of personal responsibility for infertility,

they reported significantly lower levels of infertility stress when compared to the couples in the

other three groups (see data above). Men in couples in which both partners accepted low

amounts of responsibility for the infertility had significantly lower infertility stress (M = 99.1, p

< .01) than men in each of the other three groups (High/High M = 128.8, p < .01, F-high/M-low

M = 112.3, p < .01, F-low/M-high M = 120.3. p < .01).

For depression, when both partners accepted low amounts of responsibility for their

infertility, they reported significantly lower levels of depression (M = 4.1, p < .05) than couples

in the F-high/M-low group (M = 6.0, p < .05). Again, neither group reported scores in the

clinically depressed range. Although in the well-adjusted range for marital adjustment, couples

15
with low scores on accepting responsibility (i.e. both engaged in minimal self-blame) reported a

higher level of marital adjustment (M = 122.6, p < .05) when compared to couples in which men

engaged in high levels of self-blame (High/High M = 117.1, p < .05, F-low/M-high M = 119.1, p

< .05). Men in these couples reported higher levels of adjustment (M = 123.1, p < .01) when

compared to men in couples who accepted a high level of responsibility (High/High M = 116.3, p

< .01, F-low/M-high M = 117.7, p < .01).

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

Table 1.

Bonferroni Multiple Group Comparison of Couples Using Distancing, Self-Controlling, and

Accepting Responsibility Coping Processes (n=420 couples).

Distancing
Infertility Stress F-high/M-low Low/Low High/High F-Low/M-high
(n=114) (n=114) (n=117) (n=75)
117.6 119.3 120.4 132.1
___________________________________________

Depression Low/Low F-high/M-low High/High F-Low/M-high

(n=114) (n=114) (n=117) (n=75)
4.5 4.5 5.3 6.8
___________________________________________
____________________

Marital Adjustment F-Low/M-high High/High Low/Low F-high/M-low

(n=75) (n=117) (n=114) (n=114)
118.0 119.0 119.8 121.7
_____________________________________________
_______________________________________

Self-Controlling
Infertility Stress F-low/M-high Low/Low High/High F-high/M-low
(n=86) (n=131) (n=124) (n=79)
116.4 118.2 124.2 127.9
__________________________________________
____________________

Depression F-low/M-high Low/Low High/High F-high/M-low

(n=86) (n=131) (n=124) (n=79)
4.1 4.7 5.5 6.4
_________________________________________
_________________________________________

Marital Adjustment F-high/M-low F-low/M-high High/High Low/Low

(n=79) (n=86) (n=124) (n=131)
116.6 120.3 120.4 120.7
_________________________________________

16
Accepting Responsibility
Infertility Stress Low/Low F-low/M-high F-high/M-low High/High
(n=139) (n=80) (n=85) (n=116)
108.0 122.9 124.2 134.4
_____________________

Depression Low/Low F-low/M-high High/High F-high/M-low

(n=139) (n=80) (n=116) (n=85)
4.1 4.7 5.9 6.0
_________________________________________
________________________________________

Marital Adjustment High/High F-low/M-high F-high/M-low Low/Low

(n=116) (n=80) (n=85) (n=139)
117.1 119.1 119.4 122.6
___________________________________________
_____________________

Note. All means are adjusted.

Horizontal lines connect means that are equal (i.e., not significantly different from each other).

For example, for distancing and infertility stress, couples in the F-low/M-high group have

significantly higher infertility stress when compared to couples in each of the other 3 groups.

For distancing and depression, couples in the F-low/M-high group have significantly higher

depression scores compared to couples in only the Low/Low and F-high/M-low groups.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the coping processes of men and women

experiencing infertility and their relationship to infertility stress, marital adjustment, and

depression. This study is the first of its kind in that it identifies key couple pairings across

coping strategies that had significant relationships to partner reports of infertility stress, marital

adjustment, and depression. The study adds to the infertility literature by studying the couple as

the unit of analysis and answers a call by researchers to increase the number of studies that

examine the systemic nature of coping and the interplay between spouses’ responses to infertility

stress (Greil, 1997). The study identified three key coping strategies–distancing, self-controlling,

and accepting responsibility–that were significantly related to couples reports of infertility stress,

17
marital adjustment, and depression. The discussion will highlight these coping patterns and

discuss their implications.

Distancing (M-high/F-low)

A key coping dynamic was discovered among couples in which men distanced

themselves from the infertility while their partners did not. Men who used distancing to cope

with infertility reported making light of the situation, refusing to get too serious about infertility,

and living their lives as if nothing had happened. This couple pairing, accounting for

approximately one in five couples, was especially difficult for the female partners.

The negative impact of men’s frequent use of distancing when coupled with a partner

who rarely uses distancing is particularly evident when comparing the scores of women in the F-

low/M-high to women in the low/low group. While one would anticipate the women’s scores to

be relatively equal (since women in both groups engage in relatively minimal distancing),

women in the F-low/M-high group report increased infertility stress and depression scores when

compared to women in the low/low group. This supports the idea that for women in the F-

low/M-high group, their partner’s increased use of distancing related to increases in their levels

of infertility stress and depression. These data could also be interpreted by looking at men’s

scores in the F-low/M-high group and comparing them to men in couples who use distancing

coping techniques less frequently. For men in these couples, their scores of infertility stress and

depression remain constant, indicating that their high or low use of distancing does not impact

their own individual stress and depression levels. However, women in couples where men use

infrequent distancing report significantly lower scores of infertility stress and depression when

compared to women in the F-low/M-high group.

Beaurepaire and colleagues (1994) suggested that when coping with infertility, some

coping strategies may be individually beneficial, but may become aversive when they contrast

18
with a strategy used by one’s partner. For example, although a husband’s suppression of

emotions may reflect a personally adaptive response, it may have a negative impact on his wife.

She may feel that he does not share her distress and is not equally committed to having children.

The elevated levels of infertility stress and depression for women in this group may be the result

of feeling unsupported by their husbands who cope by trying to minimize the seriousness of

infertility (Williams, 1997). It is not uncommon for men and women who are coping differently

from each other to view their partner as uncaring, resulting in increased infertility stress (Draye,

Woods, & Mitchell, 1988).

In terms of marital adjustment, couples in the F-low/M-high distancing group reported

significantly lower levels of marital adjustment when compared to couples in F-high/M-low

group. Levin et al. (1997) found that when the man used a high degree of emotion-oriented

coping (e.g., distancing) his partner reported the lowest levels of marital satisfaction. Current

findings are also consistent with prior research which found that when coping between partners

is characterized by a lack of emotional intimacy and acceptance, the quality of the marital

relationship can deteriorate (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986).

Self-Controlling (F-high/M-low)

A second key dynamic occurred in couples in which females engaged in a high degree of

emotional and behavioral self-control while their partners engaged in a low degree of self-

control. This couple pairing accounted for approximately one in five couples. Women who

frequently used self-controlling coping kept their feelings to themselves, kept others from

knowing how bad things were, and tried to keep their feelings from interfering with other things

in their lives. Couples experiencing the F-high/M-low dynamic reported significantly higher

levels of infertility stress than couples where the female used low amounts of emotional self-

19
control, and significantly higher levels of depression than couples in the F-low/M-high self-

control group.

As with the distancing dynamic, it appears that when one partner copes using self-

controlling strategies, it directly impacts the other partner’s reports of infertility stress and

depression. This was particularly true for men when their partners use self-controlling coping

strategies. Men in the F-high/M-low group reported higher levels of infertility stress when

compared to men in couples in which their partners used a low degree of emotional and

behavioral self-control. These findings are consistent with Stanton et al’s findings (1992) that

wives who used more self-controlling coping had husbands who were more distressed.

In addition to increased infertility stress among male partners, the F-high/M-low self-

controlling pairing appeared to be particularly difficult for couples’ marital relationship.

Couples in the F-high/M-low group exhibited poorer marital adjustment than couples in each of

the other three groups–the only time this was found among marital adjustment in the study.

The decreased marital adjustment may be related to the discrepancy in each partner’s use of self-

controlling coping. For example, men in the F-low/M-high couples may feel pressure from their

spouse to be protective about information related to the infertility experience, while they, on the

other hand, may feel a desire to share this information with others. This contradiction between

the partner’s coping style may fuel marital conflict which decreases adjustment. A second

possible explanation for the decreased marital adjustment in couples using the F-high/M-low

coping dynamic is related to partner support. Since females in the F-high/M-low group are less

likely than females who use low amounts of emotional self-control to communicate with their

partner or others about their infertility stress, both members of the couple fail to receive the

benefit of support from their partner and from others which is a critical element of the coping

process (McDaniel, Hepworth, & Doherty, 1992). O’Brien and DeLongis (1997) found that if a

20
spouse is unavailable to offer support and understanding regarding the difficulty of coping with a

stressor, support received from other sources is not an adequate replacement. And finally,

decreased marital adjustment in these couples may be related to a woman’s emotional isolation

that is likely to accompany this coping dynamic. For example, women who attempt to control

their emotional and behavioral reactions to infertility may prevent their partner from hearing

about significant emotional distress. This creates a potential barrier to emotional cohesion and

consensus which are key ingredients to marital adjustment (Spanier, 1976).

However, the opposite of this coping style (F-low/M-high) does not appear to produce the

same negative results. When females engaged in low amounts of self-controlling coping

strategies and their partners engaged in high amounts, the couples were likely to report lower

levels of infertility stress and depression and higher levels of marital adjustment. Couples in

which men use more self-controlling than women may reflect the more common and traditional

dynamic in which men are less likely to discuss their problems and women are more open to

expressing discomfort and sharing their difficulties. Studies have indicated that males were

much less likely than females to confide in others regarding infertility (Daniluk, 1997). As a

result, the F-low/M-high dynamic may appear normal and more acceptable to the couple and,

therefore, may be less likely to produce a negative result.

Accepting Responsibility (Low/Low, High/High)

Accepting responsibility as a coping strategy involves acknowledgement of one’s role

related to infertility as well as one’s attempt to correct the problem (e.g., “criticized or lectured

myself,” “realized I brought the problem on myself,” “I made a promise to myself that things

would be different next time”). Couples in this study who tended to assume a high degree of

responsibility for their infertility, reported the highest amount of infertility stress and lowest

levels of marital adjustment. On the other hand, when both partners did not accept sole

21
responsibility for the infertility (e.g., low/low group), they reported the lowest levels of infertility

stress and the highest amounts of marital adjustment. For accepting responsibility, 28% of

couples were in the high/high group, while 33% of the couples were in the low/low group.

Although studies have examined the relationship between accepting responsibility and

coping individually with infertility, less is known about how a couple’s use of accepting

responsibility impacts a couple’s distress. In a study examining how individuals cope with

infertility, a strong relationship was found between accepting responsibility and increased

emotional distress (Stanton, 1991). For couples who both accept responsibility, this relationship

appears be heightened. One possible explanation could be that when both members of the couple

accept blame, couples feel unable to console and support each other when experiencing the

feelings of guilt and hurt that are associated with accepting blame for their infertility. When at

least one member of the couple does not accept responsibility for the infertility, this appears to

have a buffering effect on the couple’s reports of infertility stress and marital adjustment.

It is noteworthy that the most favorable outcome is found when neither partner assumes

blame for the infertility. This dynamic is important for both males and females. When neither

partner assumed responsibility for the infertility, men reported lower levels of infertility stress in

comparison to men in the other three groups. Similarly, when neither partner assumed

responsibility women reported lower levels of infertility stress in comparison to women whose

partners accepted a high degree of responsibility. Research examining the coping process of

accepting responsibility for infertility has found that men and women may accept blame in an

effort to protect one’s spouse from additional stress-related burdens (Tennen, Alleck, &

Mendola, 1991). The current study appears to show that removing this protective function by

both partners refusing to accept responsibility may be the best coping strategy of all.

Limitations
22
 It should be noted that the current study contains a number of limitations. First,

participants represent only a sub-set of couples experiencing infertility whose earlier treatments

have failed and who have made a decision to pursue in vitro fertilization. While approximately

75% of couples will pursue some form of infertility treatment (e.g., medication, surgery, etc), it

is estimated that only 3% of infertility services are accounted for by IVF and other assisted

reproductive technologies (American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2005; Sadler & Syrop,

1987). Thus, the findings from this study are limited in their generalizability to couples pursuing

in vitro fertilization. Reactions and coping processes might be different for couples in other

phases of the infertility experience or who are pursuing other forms of treatment (e.g.,

medication, tubal surgery, artificial insemination, etc).

Second, the research design and multivariate analysis used in the study do not allow for

causal relationships to be determined between the independent and dependent variables. Thus, it

is difficult to determine if the coping patterns used by couples reduce negative outcomes, or if

negative outcomes-such as increased infertility stress-lead couples to use particular coping

patterns. Future studies which use more highly controlled research designs would be useful in

adding to these preliminary findings.

Third, due to the cross-sectional design of this study, the analysis fails to capture the

impact of time on infertility treatments. Berg and Wilson (1991) have shown that infertility

treatments longer than 2 to 3 years typically result in negative outcomes such as decreased

marital satisfaction. On average, the current sample indicated that couples in the study had well-

adjusted marriages. This characteristic of the sample is consistent with claims that participants

in infertility research studies are those whose marriages have survived the initial stress of

infertility and who proceed to advanced treatment on a self-selected bias of high cohesion.

(Raval, Slade, Buck, & Lieberman, 1987)

23
 Fourth, the findings regarding depression and marital adjustment should be regarded as

preliminary and should be interpreted with caution. For the majority of couples in the study,

they reported minimal levels of depression and normal levels of marital adjustment. Although

statistically significant results were found using the MANCOVA analysis, the clinical

significance of these study findings must be examined. These scores can likely be explained due

to timing factors (e.g., couples completed the measures prior to treatment when they are more

hopeful about the possibility of treatment) and also to social desirability factors (e.g., couples

want to make a good impression at the medical treatment clinic so they won’t be denied

services). It is interesting however, that even though the majority of couples were well-adjusted

and non-depressed, statistically significant differences were found in the sample. Although these

couples were well functioning prior to their first treatment cycle, it would be interesting to

examine these coping processes during a more distressing period (e.g., following a treatment

failure). Such studies may find greater group differences and expand on the preliminary findings

in this study.

Fifth, while specific data on race and ethnicity of study participants were not collected, it

is estimated that the sample was comprised primarily of patients who are Caucasian reflecting

the Canadian population during those years (Newton et al., 1999). As a result, minority groups

are underrepresented, which is a limitation in the majority of studies examining infertility (Greil,

1997).

Finally, because 80% of the sample had a female factor diagnosis (e.g., tubal factors,

endometriosis), participants represent only a subset of the infertility population. It has been

estimated that 40% of infertility is attributable to females, 40% to males, and 20% to a

combination of male and female factors (Robinson & Stewart, 1996; Wright, Allard, Lecours, &

Sabourin, 1989) although this distribution is rarely found in research studies (Ulbrich, et al.,

24
1990). Ulbrich et al.speculated that the underrepresentation of males in infertility research may

be a function of men being more reluctant to discuss their infertility and seek social support. It is

likely a similar dynamic is occurring here, but further research is needed to assess the frequency

of male-factor infertility and the reasons why men diagnosed with infertility choose not to pursue

treatments or report their condition to researchers.

Implications for Practice and Research

Many clinical approaches to working with infertility fail to take into account the

relational and systemic nature of the experience. Instead, therapists commonly view infertility as

an individual problem, which often leads to unsatisfactory outcomes (Greil, Leitko, & Porter,

1988). Such approaches to therapy fail to take into account the complex interpersonal

relationships that are often found among couples coping with infertility.

However, in recent years, systemic clinical approaches have been emphasized to help

couples more successfully adjust to the infertility experience. Newton (2000) writes about

effective cognitive-behavioral strategies to help couples adjust to the stress of infertility.

Diamond, Kezur, Meyers, Scharf, & Weinshel (1999) use a narrative approach to help couples

re-story their experience and work through a series of predictable stages in the infertility

experience. The current study suggests that couples coping patterns using distancing, self-

controlling, and accepting responsibility seem to be particularly important, and an integration of

cognitive-behavioral strategies and techniques restory the intended experience of infertility might

be helpful interventions to use when working with couples using these coping patterns.

For clinicians who work with infertile couples, integrating the findings from this study

into their treatment can assist couples in moving away from negative coping patterns to coping

patterns that are related to reductions in infertility stress and depression and increases in marital

adjustment. For example, findings from this study showed that coping strategies may benefit the

25
individual but negatively impact the partner. Clinicians can use this information to alter negative

relationship dynamics which occur when one partner is coping using strategies which have a

deleterious effect on his or her partners functioning. For example, this study found that couples

where the female engaged in a high degree of emotional self-control and the males used a low

degree of self-control had lower levels of marital adjustment. In this situation, clinicians could

help the couple understand the mutuality of the problem. The therapist could help the couple to

see how each partner’s behaviors impact the other by discussing how the wife, by keeping her

feelings to herself and not involving her husband, may trigger negative emotional reactions in

her husband. Likewise, a husband who discloses how difficulty the infertility experience is to

others may further increase the wife’s use of self-controlling coping strategies.

A similar rationale could be used for couples where the man distances himself from the

experience of infertility where his partner does not, and for couples who both use a high degree

of self-blame to cope with infertility. Using the findings from this study, therapists can help

couples alter their coping patterns to either promote or discourage any of the dynamics that were

significantly related to infertility stress, decreased marital adjustment, or depression .

Findings from this study also point the direction to future research which may benefit

couples experiencing infertility. First, the creation of a new instrument which measures

infertility-specific coping would be valuable. Although the Ways of Coping Questionnaire

(WCQ) helps one to understand the coping processes of individuals and couples experiencing

certain stresses, some of the items appear to have little relevance to couples experiencing

infertility. This new instrument could be developed in conjunction with the Fertility Problem

Inventory (FPI) so that various types of coping could be linked with specific forms of infertility

stress.

26
 Future research that examines the impact of coping with infertility stress in understudied

populations (e.g., minorities, couples not pursing treatments) is also needed. Findings from such

studies would be valuable in identifying the relationship between infertility and coping among

minority couples and those who do not pursue treatment. In addition, studies which examine the

relation coping processes of couples pursuing other forms of infertility treatments (e.g., tubal

surgery, artificial insemination, etc), would be valuable in helping further the understanding of

the coping processes of couples dealing with the unique stresses of other treatments.

Qualitative studies that examine the coping processes of couples experiencing infertility

would be of great value. These studies could help reveal the complex processes of coping with

infertility and could shed additional light on the couple groupings that reported positive

outcomes (low/low accepting responsibility), as well as those that reported negative outcomes

(F-high/M-low self-controlling, F-low/M-high distancing).

Finally, future research could include longitudinal studies that track changes in couples’

coping strategies over time. Coping strategies that appear ineffective at the early stages of

treatment may prove to be effective given a new set of circumstances. If longitudinal designs are

not possible, cross-sectional designs that replicate this study using couples experiencing

infertility who are not pursuing treatment or who recently completed treatments would be

valuable. This would allow researchers to more fully understand the relationship between coping

and infertility stress, marital adjustment and depression across the various phases of the

infertility experience.

27
 References

Abbey, A., Andrews, F. M., & Halman, J. (1991). Gender’s role in response to infertility.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 295-316.

American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2005). Frequently asked questions about

infertility. Available online at http://www.asrm.org/Patients/faqs.html

Andrews, F. M., Abbey, A., & Halman, L. J. (1991). Stress from infertility, marriage factors,

and subjective well-being of wives and husbands. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 32, 238-253.

Andrews, F. M., Abbey, A., & Halman, L. J. (1992). Is fertility-problem stress different? The

dynamics of stress in fertile and infertile couples. Fertility and Sterility, 57, 1247-1253.

Arbisi, P. A. (2001). Review of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. In B. S. Plake, & J. C.

Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurement yearbook (pp. 121-123). Lincoln,

NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Beaurepaire, J., Jones, M., Thiering, P., Saunders, D., & Tennant, C. (1994). Psychological

adjustment to infertility and its treatment: Male and female responses at different stages

of IVF/ET treatment. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 229-240.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck depression inventory: Manual, second

edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Berg, B. J., Wilson, J. F. (1991). Psychological functioning across stages of treatment for

infertility. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11-26.

Berghuis, J. P., & Stanton, A. L. (2002). Adjustment to a dyadic stressor: A longitudinal study

of coping and depressive symptoms in infertile couples over an insemination attempt.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 433-438.

Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Brazillier.

28
Chandra, A., Martinez, G. M., Mosher, W. D., Abma, J. C., & Jones, J. (forthcoming in 2005).

Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health: Data from the 2002 National Survey

of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics Series 23, Number 25. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

Connolly, K. J., Edelmann, R. J., & Cooke, I. D. (1987). Distress and marital problems

associated with infertility. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 5, 49-57.

Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social

relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 454-460.

Daniluk, J. C. (1997). Gender and infertility. In SR. Leiblum, SR. (Ed.), Infertility:

Psychological issues and counseling strategies (pp. 103-129). New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Diamond, R., Kezur, D., Meyers, M., Scharf, C. N., Weinshel, M. (1999). Couple therapy for

infertility. New York: Guilford Press.

Domar, A. D., Seibel, M., Broome, A., Friedman, R., & Zuttermeister, P.C. (1992). The

prevalence and predictability of depression in infertile women. Fertility and Sterility, 58,

1158-1163.

Downey, J., & McKinney, M. (1992). The psychiatric status of women presenting for infertility

evaluation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 196-205.

Draye, M. A., Woods, N. F., & Mitchell, E. (1988). Coping with infertility in couples: Gender

differences. Health Care for Women International, 9, 163-175.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986).

Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.

29
Freeman, E.W., Boxer, A.S., Rickels, K., Tureck, R., & Mastroianni, L. (1985). Psychological

evaluation and support in a program of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertility

and Sterility, 43, 48-53.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. White Plains, NY.

Longman.

Greil, A. L. (1997). Infertility and psychological distress: A critical review of the literature.

Social Science and Medicine, 45, 1679-1704.

Greil, A. L., Leitko, T. A., & Porter, K. L. (1988). Infertility: His and hers. Gender & Society,

2, 172-199.

Hess, K. D. (1992). Review of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. In J. J. Kramer & J. C.

Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurement yearbook (pp. 296-297). Lincoln, NE:

University Press.

Hynes, G. J., Callan, V. J., Terry, D. J., & Gallois, C. (1992). The psychological well-being of

infertile women after a failed IVF attempt: The effects of coping. British Journal of

Medical Psychology, 65, 269-278.

Jordan, C., & Revenson, T. A. (1999). Gender differences in coping with infertility: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 341-358.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York. Springer.

Levin, J. B., Sher, T. G., & Theodos, V. (1997). The effect of intracouple coping concordance

on psychological and marital distress in infertility patients. Journal of Clinical

Psychology in Medical Settings, 4, 361-372.

McDaniel, S. H., Hepworth, J., & Doherty, W. (1992). Medical family therapy with couples

facing infertility. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 101-122.

30
McQuillan, J., Greil, A., White, L., & Jacob, M. C. (2003). Frustrated fertility: Infertility and

psychological distress among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1007-1018.

Newton, C. R. (2000). Counseling the infertile couple. In L. H. Burns & S. N. Covington

(Eds.), Infertility counseling: A comprehensive handbook for clinicians (pp. 103-116).

New York: Parthenon.

Newton, C. R., Sherrard, M. A., & Glavac, I. (1999). The fertility problem inventory:

Measuring perceived infertility-related stress. Fertility and Sterility, 72, 54-62.

O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1997). Coping with chronic stress: An interpersonal

perspective. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress (pp. 161-190). New

York: Plenum Press.

Peterson, B.D., Newton, C.R., & Rosen, K.H. (2003). Examining congruence between couples’

perceived infertility related stress and its relationship to depression and marital

adjustment in infertile men and women. Family Process, 42, 59-70.

Raval, H., Slade, P., Buck, P., & Lieberman, B. E. (1987). The impact of infertility on emotions

and the marital and sexual relationship. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology,

5, 221-234.

Robinson, G. E., & Stewart, D. E. (1996). The psychological impact of infertility and new

reproductive technologies. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 4, 168-172.

Sadler, A. G., & Syrop C. H. (1987). The stress of infertility: Recommendations for assessment

and intervention. In D. Rosenthal (Ed.), Family stress: The family therapy collections,

22, (pp. 1-17). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Seibel, M. M., & Taymor, M. L. (1982). Emotional aspects of infertility. Fertility and Sterility,

37, 137-146.

31
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of

marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

Stanton, A. L. (1991). Cognitive appraisals, coping processes, and adjustment. In A. L. Stanton

& C. Dunkel-Schetter (Eds.), Infertility: Perspectives from stress and coping research

(pp. 87-108). New York: Plenum Press.

Stanton, A. L, Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & Mendola, R. (1991). Cognitive appraisal and

adjustment to infertility. Women and Health, 1-15.

Stanton, A. L., Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & Mendola, R. (1992). Coping and adjustment to

infertility. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1-13.

Stuart, R. B. (1992). Review of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley

(Eds.), The eleventh mental measurement yearbook (pp. 297-298). Lincoln, NE:

University Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & Mendola, R. (1991). Causal explanations for infertility: Their

relation to control appraisals and psychological adjustment. In A. L. Stanton, & C.

Dunkel-Schetter (Eds.), Infertility: Perspectives from stress and coping research (pp.

109-132). New York: Plenum Press.

Ulbrich P. M., Coyle, A. T., & Llabre, M. M. (1990). Involuntary childlessness and marital

adjustment: His and hers. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 16, 147-158.

Williams, M. E. (1997). Toward greater understanding of the psychological effects of infertility

on women. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 7-26.

32
Wright, J., Allard, M., Lecours, A., & Sabourin, S. (1989). Psychological distress and

infertility: A review of controlled research. International Journal of Fertility, 34, 126-

142.

33