*J. Clin. Med.* **2020**, *9*, 3906

**Table 6.** Coping orientation to emotions and problems, group comparison. Note: PwC = partners with children; R = relatives; P = partner.


### **4. Discussions**

The results of this research allow different considerations on the influence that interpersonal relationships have on the quality of living together, in particular on the emotional level. Several studies report the importance of the type of relationship in living together [19,21]; in this study, we aimed to investigate the possible effect of the relationship as a mediator on stress, future perspectives and coping strategies during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy.

PSS results showed that perceived stress is greater in the relatives group. In particular, negative perceived stress showed higher scores in the relatives group, instead of the partner and partners with children groups, while positive perceived stress showed higher scores in the partners with children and partner groups compared to the relatives one. Furthermore, an important fact arises from the comparison between the three groups: in general, partners with children showed statistically higher scores in COPE-NVI. In particular, the results showed that the partners with children group engaged coping strategies related to emotions and problem solving more frequently than other groups, suggesting that children could play a moderating role in the implementation of stress coping strategies. Similar results emerged from the STPI; in fact, as far as concerns the future perspective, the group partners with children showed higher values than the other two groups, showing a greater tendency towards planning for future events. These results can be explained through the positive dyadic coping and collaborative coping constructs; these coping constructs consider stress management as a collective and not individualistic process—the subject does not manage stress in a void but within an interpersonal context [30]. Giving support to the partner in stressful situations would increase the quality of the conjugal relationship, but also the physical and psychological well-being of the family members, both in cases of daily stress and in extraordinary stressful events [31–33]. In highly stressful situations, significant others, especially the partner, are a great support source, but so too are active participants in family management and the influence of the management process itself [34,35], and activate shared coping strategies [34].

Moreover, according to Berg and colleagues [36], there is a positive association between dyadic coping and partner well-being. More specifically, when partners reported more collaborative coping, they reported more positive emotions. This result seems to be in line with the present study result; in fact, from the data that emerged from the semantic differential on the perceived emotions during lockdown, it could be noted that positive emotions are more likely to be experienced by individuals who live with their partner, and with partners and children.

From the data analysis, an interesting finding seems to emerge from the comparison between the future forecasts scale and the positive and negative relationships scales. According to participants' future forecasts, as a result of the COVID-19 emergency an increase in spousal separations is likely to occur, as well as in domestic violence. However, according to the positive and negative relationships data, the results seem to be in contrast with the future forecasts scale. In fact, while in future forecasts negative aspects at a relational level (i.e., separations) emerge, on the other side, items from the positive relationships scale, referring to complicity, trust, listening and respect, show above-average scores, both in the general sample and especially in those who reported living with the partner only, and with partners and children. The same thing happens, on the contrary, with the negative relationships scale (e.g., indifference, arguments, differences of opinion, but also verbal and physical violence), on which scores were quite low, in contrast with the risk perception of increasing separations and domestic violence. This apparent contradiction between the data could be explained through fundamental attribution error [37], which is the tendency to underestimate the role of situational determinants and overestimate the degree to which social actions and outcomes reflect the dispositions of relevant actors.

Finally, from the qualitative analysis, a prevalence of negative words and ideas emerges, referring to the experience during lockdown and forced cohabitation caused by the Ministerial Decrees (Decree-Law no. 19 of 25 March 2020; Decree-Law no. 33 of 16 May 2020). Since responses were not sentences and only three words were asked for, it was not necessarily possible to assign a meaning (e.g., positive, negative or neutral) to the terms, but these analysis results allowed a broader interpretation of the

emerging data; however, it could be noteworthy that the first word with a fully positive meaning (i.e., "useful") appeared in the twenty-third position, while the previous words all had a negative (i.e., "stressful") or neutral (i.e., "thinking") meaning. From what emerges, most people have reported to experience the lockdown as a difficult period, reporting heavy and meaningful words, often related to strong psychological distress conditions (i.e., alienating, depressing, anxiety, crisis).

Overall, it can be hypothesized that during the COVID-19 lockdown, interpersonal relationships with people living together had an important impact on psychological well-being. An emotional bond seems to be an important mediator in the management of stress and negative emotions; moreover, the COVID-19 outbreak has generated a unique situation with specific characteristics related to stress, coping strategies and living together, creating a new multifaceted form of cohabitation, highlighting the need to create and validate instruments which can be used in unexpected events. New studies could investigate the effects of forms of cohabitation without emotional bonds (e.g., roommates), also by using these ad hoc instruments, in order to validate them for use among the scientific community.

This study may give rise to a consideration for future research considering the possible mediating effect of the caregiver role. In fact, the partners with children group suggested the possible positive effect on stress and coping strategies of being a caregiver; however, those living with relatives could equally be caregivers for both children and elderly or disabled relatives. Therefore, it could be investigated if it is the caregiver role that act as a mediator in the experience of positive emotions—for example, differentiating within the relatives group between those who take care of a cohabitant relative and those who do not—or if it is the presence of children which activates positive emotions.

These results may have important practical and clinical implications—emotional cohabitation plays a key role in stress and coping management, proving to be a good basis for possible counseling interventions, but also for the development of awareness and preventions projects related to COVID-19 s psychological consequences that are also linked to educational programs on living together and emotional relationships. Since lockdown has led to intense stress, fatigue and anxiety [38,39], this kind of study may help identify potential action fields and protocols in order to reduce stress and increase awareness of cohabitant relationships, which will result, in turn, in greater psychological well-being.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.M., A.F., G.L., A.P., M.B., E.P., A.M.G. and F.A.; data curation, E.M., A.F., G.L. and A.P.; formal analysis, E.M., A.F. and G.L.; investigation, E.M. and A.F.; methodology, E.M., A.F., G.L. and F.A.; project administration, A.M.G. and F.A.; resources, E.M. and A.F.; software, E.M., A.F. and M.B.; supervision, A.M.G. and F.A.; validation, E.M., A.F., A.P., M.B., E.P. and A.M.G.; visualization, G.L., A.P., M.B., E.P., A.M.G. and F.A.; writing—original draft, E.M., A.F., G.L. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, E.M., A.F., G.L., A.P., M.B., E.P., A.M.G. and F.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
