Stress, Relationship Satisfaction, and Health Among African American Women

Stress, Relationship Satisfaction, and Health among African American Women

Supplemental Materials

Stress, Relationship Satisfaction, and Health Among African American Women: Genetic Moderation of Effects

by M. K. Lei et al., 2015, Journal of Family Psychology

Appendix 1: Items Included in Survey Instruments

Contextual Stress

Negative contexts

1) Neighborhood Disorder and Crime (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1990)(Coefficient alpha was .88 at W1, .90 at W2, .88 at W3, .86 at W4, and .86 at W5)

● Litter, broken glass or trash on the sidewalks or street? Is it...

● Graffiti on buildings and walls? Is it...

● Vacant or deserted houses or storefronts? Is it...

● Drinking in public? Is it...

● People selling or using drugs? Is it...

● Groups of teenagers or adults hanging out in the neighborhood and causing trouble? Is it....

● Gang violence? Is it...

2) Economic pressure (Conger & Elder, 1990)(Coefficient alpha was .81 at W1, .80 at W2, .88 at W3, .85 at W4, and .86 at W5)

● My family has not had enough money to afford the kind of home we need. Do you...

● We have not had enough money to afford the kind of clothing we need. Do you...

● We have not had enough money to afford the kind of food we need. Do you...

● We have not had enough money to afford the kind of medical care we need. Do you...

Positive contexts

3) Neighborhood social network (Sampson & Graif, 2009)(Correlation coefficient between two items was .23 at W1, .24 at W2, .33 at W3, .30 at W4, and .33 at W5; p < .0001)

● How many of your relatives or in-laws live in your neighborhood?

● How many friends do you have in your neighborhood?

4) Positive life events (Conger & Elder, 1994)(Coefficient alpha was .620 at W1, .611 at W2, .610 at W3, .605 at W4, and .612 at W5)

“In the past 12 months...did you”

● have a big increase in your income or improvement in your financial situation?

● have a positive change in your employment situation?

● develop any new friendships that are important to you?

● receive any kind of honor, award or recognition?

Romantic Relationship Satisfaction (Conger et al., 1990; Bryant, Conger, & Meehan, 2004) (Coefficient alpha was .87 at W1, .88 at W2, .91 at W3, .92 at W4, and .87 at W5)

● How happy are you, all things considered, with your relationship? Are you...

● All in all, how satisfied are you with your relationship? Are you...

Stress, Relationship Satisfaction, and Health among African American Women

Appendix 2: Moderated Regression Analyses Examining 5-HTTLPR as a Moderator at Three Stages (analyses excluding those with thyroid disease)

Stage 1: Romantic relationship satisfaction at W2 and W3 / Stage 2:
Contextual stress at W4 and W5 / Stage 3:
Thyroid function index at W5
Model 1a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 1b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 2a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 2b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 3a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 3b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI]
Intercept / 7.616**
[6.946, 8.286] / 7.667**
[7.003, 8.331] / .210
[-.460, .879] / .201
[-.463, .866] / .208†
[-.035, .451] / .204†
[-.038, .445]
Main effect
Contextual stress (W1-W2) / -.418**
[-.655, -.182] / -.214
[-.500, .073]
Romantic relationship satisfaction (W2-W3) / -.340**
[-.558, -.122] / -.135
[-.431, .162]
Contextual stress (W4-W5) / .083*
[.001, .165] / .020
[-.083, .123]
5-HTTLPR (1= ss, sl) / -.270
[-.701, .161] / -.267
[-.694, .159] / -.022
[-.461, .417] / -.029
[-.465, .407] / -.056
[-.215, .103] / -.058
[-.216, .100]
Two-way interaction
5-HTTLPR ×
Contextual stress (W1-W2) / -.535*
[-.969, -.102]
5-HTTLPR ×
Romantic relationship satisfaction (W2-W3) / -.440*
[-.875, -.005]
5-HTTLPR ×
Contextual stress (W4-W5) / .162*
[.001, .323]
R-square / .062 / .082 / .124 / .137 / .031 / .045
R2 increase because of interaction / .020* / .013* / .014*

Note. CI = confidence interval; W1 = Wave 1; W2 = Wave 2;W3 = Wave 3;W4 = Wave 4;W5 = Wave 5. Obesity, education, age, family poverty, and married are controlled in the analyses. Age, married, contextual stress, and romantic relationship satisfactionare standardized by z-transformation (mean = 0 and SD =1).

* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01. † p ≤ .10, two-tailed. n = 263.

Appendix 3: Moderated Regression Analyses Examining 5-HTTLPR as a Moderator at Three Stages (the overall sample, missing data are handled by FIML)

Stage 1: Romantic relationship satisfaction at W2 and W3 / Stage 2:
Contextual stress at W4 and W5 / Stage 3:
Thyroid function index at W5
Model 1a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 1b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 2a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 2b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 3a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 3b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI]
Intercept / 7.630**
[7.033, 8.226] / 7.646**
[7.053, 8.239] / .343
[-.203, .889] / .355
[-.225, .936] / .178
[-.069, .424] / .171
[-.074, .415]
Main effect
Contextual stress (W1-W2) / -.410**
[-.624, -.197] / -.253†
[-.518, .012]
Romantic relationship satisfaction (W2-W3) / -.287**
[-.494, -.080] / -.088
[-.368, .192]
Contextual stress (W4-W5) / .087†
[.000, .174] / .009
[-.102, .120]
5-HTTLPR (1= ss, sl) / -.316
[-.703, .071] / -.345†
[-.731, .040] / -.156
[-.531, .218] / -.167
[-.542, .208] / .035
[-.133, .204] / .041
[-.126, .209]
Two-way interaction
5-HTTLPR ×
Contextual stress (W1-W2) / -.386*
[-.775, .003]
5-HTTLPR ×
Romantic relationship satisfaction (W2-W3) / -.440*
[-.872, -.008]
5-HTTLPR ×
Contextual stress (W4-W5) / .191*
[.022, .361]
R-square / .062 / .079 / .101 / .113 / .019 / .032
R2 increase because of interaction / .017* / .012* / .013*

* p≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01. † p ≤ .10, two-tailed. n = 460.

Appendix 4: Moderated Regression Analyses Examining DRD4 as a Moderator at Three Stages

Stage 1: Romantic relationship satisfaction at W2 and W3 / Stage 2:
Contextual stress at W4 and W5 / Stage 3:
Thyroid function index at W5
Model 1a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 1b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 2a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 2b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 3a
Unstandardized b
[95% CI] / Model 3b
Unstandardized b
[95% CI]
Intercept / 7.439**
[6.818, 8.059] / 7.433**
[6.811, 8.055] / .108
[-.511, .726] / .136
[-.481, .754] / .250†
[-.028, .528] / .243†
[-.034, .519]
Main effect
Contextual stress (W1-W2) / -.413**
[-.646, -.179] / -.392*
[-.694, -.089]
Romantic relationship satisfaction (W2-W3) / -.337**
[-.550, -.124] / -.212
[-.481, .057]
Contextual stress (W4-W5) / .093†
[-.007, .194] / .160*
[.029, .292]
DRD4 (1= 7R+) / .037
[-.399, .474] / .037
[-.400, .473] / .355
[-.086, .797] / .363
[-.076, .803] / -.049
[-.248, .150] / -.046
[-.244, .152]
Two-way interaction
DRD4 ×
Contextual stress (W1-W2) / -.046
[-.473, .380]
DRD4 ×
Romantic relationship satisfaction (W2-W3) / -.331
[-.770, .108]
DRD4 ×
Contextual stress (W4-W5) / -.152
[-.346, .041]
R-square / .054 / .054 / .135 / .142 / .020 / .028
R2 increase because of interaction / .000 / .007 / .008

* p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01. † p ≤ .10, two-tailed. n = 269.