*3.9. Perceived Stress and Coping Orientation to Emotions and Problems*

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the three groups regarding PSS (shown in Table 5). The results show statistically significant differences, especially between relatives and the two other groups, partners with children and partners, both with respect to negative items (for example, "In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and «stressed»" (F(2, 1747) = 16.22, *p* < 0.001, with relatives M = 2.41, SD = 0.99; partners with children M = 2.17, SD = 0.90; partners M = 2.12, SD = 0.91)) and positive items (for example, "In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things" (F(2, 1747) = 18.06, *p* < 0.001, with relatives M = 1.82, SD = 0.79; partners with children M = 2.20, SD = 0.82; partners M = 2.13, SD = 0.82)). The results highlight that there is greater perceived stress in relatives in comparison to partners with children and partners, which report lower average scores for all items on the scale. In addition, the three groups were compared with respect to the positive (F(2, 1747) = 47.64, *p* < 0.001) and negative (F(2, 1747) = 16.13, *p* < 0.001) sub-dimensions of the PSS, and post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni correction showed statistically significant differences in the PSS-negative dimension between partners and children (M = 10.69, SD = 3.95), partners (M = 10.79, SD = 4.24) and relatives (M = 11.9, SD = 4.27). Statistically significant differences were also found in the PSS-positive dimension between partners and children (M = 10.35, SD = 2.28), partners (M = 10.25, SD = 2.41) and relatives (M = 9.11, SD = 2.74). The results therefore show that relatives, compared to partners with children and partners, generally have more negative perceived stress and less positive perceived stress.

A one-way ANOVA was also conducted to compare the three groups regarding "Coping Orientation to Problem Experienced" (shown in Table 6). Once again, relatives showed more general statistically significant differences from partners with children and partners (e.g., "I think about how I might best handle the problem", F(2, 1747) = 16.93, *p* < 0.001 with relatives M = 2.99, SD = 0.87; partners with children M = 3.24, SD = 0.77; partners M = 3.18, SD = 0.75). Moreover, the three groups were compared with respect to the emotion (F(2, 1747) = 8,45, *p* < 0.001) and problem (F(2, 1747) = 7,79, *p* < 0.001) sub-dimensions of the COPE, and post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni correction outlined statistically significant differences in the COPE–emotion dimension between partners and children (M = 8.24, SD = 2.46), partners (M = 7.62, SD = 2.49) and relatives (M = 7.65, SD = 2.64). Statistically significant differences were also found in the COPE–problem dimension between partners and children (M = 10.84, SD = 2.23), partners (M = 10.56, SD = 2.29) and relatives (M = 10.32, SD = 2.49). The results show, once again, that relatives, compared to partners with children and partners, report lower average scores when compared to problem-focused coping strategies, while partners with children report higher average scores with respect to emotion-focused coping strategies.


