Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Theoretical model tested.

Note: H = husband; W = wife. Dyadic support stands for all the predictor variables (emotional and practical support). Red lines indicate actor effects; green lines indicate partner effects. Data Source: Swiss Household Panel (SHP).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Independent sample t-tests comparing the initial and the analytical sample.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Pearson’s bivariate correlations.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

APIMeM with husbands’ and wives’ social support as predictor variables.

Note: H = husband; W = wife. Plain lines showed the significant paths, dotted lines the non-significant paths. * p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001. Data Source: Swiss Household Panel (SHP).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

APIMeM with only significant contrasts between indirect actor effects and between indirect actor-partner effects estimated.

Note: H = husband; W = wife. Dyadic support stands for all the predictor variables (emotional and practical support). Indirect Effect 1 (yellow lines) = Support Husbands →Depressive mood Husbands →Health Husbands; Indirect Effect 2 (red lines) = Support Husbands →Optimism Husbands →Health Husbands; Indirect Effect 3 (purple lines) = Support Wives →Depressive mood Wives→Health Wives; Indirect Effect 4 (orange lines) = Support Wives →Optimism Wives →Health Wives; Indirect Effect 5 (green lines) = Support Husbands →Depressive mood Husbands→ Health Wives; Indirect Effect 6 (blue lines) = Support Husbands →Optimism Husbands→ Health Wives. Data Source: Swiss Household Panel (SHP).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 3.

The contrasts between significant indirect actor effects and between indirect actor-partner effects.

More »

Table 3 Expand