Lead and you can Secondary Ramifications of Actor’s Withdrawal and you may Relationships Satisfaction

Figure 2. Actor-partner model for avoidant attachment dimension, withdrawal-demand conflict resolution strategies, and relationship satisfaction. M = Men, W = Women. Beta values are unstandardized. ? p < 0.05; ?? p < 0.01; ??? p < 0.001.

Star Consequences

As can been seen in Figure 2, both for men (? = 0.41, p < 0.001) and women (? = 0.41, p < 0.001), high scores in actor's avoidant attachment dimension were positively associated with high scores in actor's withdrawal conflict resolution strategy, to a greater extent than actor's demand/aggression conflict resolution strategy (? = 0.27, p < 0.001 for men, and ? = 0.27, p < 0.001 for women). Regarding demand/aggression conflict resolution strategy, it is associated with the actor's relationship satisfaction. Nevertheless, although an actor's demand/aggression explained low scores in the actor's relationship satisfaction to a higher extent in women than in men (? = –0.27, p < 0.001 and ? = –0.20, p < 0.01, respectively) when we compared the size of women's and men's actor effects, there was no significant gender differences [? 2 Diff (1) = 0.22, p = 0.64].

Withdrawal conflict resolution strategy was positively associated with the actor’s relationship satisfaction. Regarding men’s actor effects, withdrawal was associated with low scores in actor’s relationship satisfaction to a higher extent in men than in women (? = –0.25, p < 0.001 and ? = –0.12, p = 0.01, respectively). Nevertheless, when we compared the size of men's and women's actor effects, there was no significant gender differences [? 2 Diff (1) = 2.10, p = 0.15].

Companion Outcomes

Of Hypothesis H1, as can be seen within the Shape 2, men’s withdrawal argument means told me ladies’ reasonable relationship pleasure (? = –0.twelve, p = 0.02), and you can women’s withdrawal argument strategy has also been associated with the men’s reduced relationships satisfaction (? = –0.fourteen, p = 0 tagged.01). Thus, Theory step one is actually confirmed.

Secondary effects anywhere between avoidant attachment measurement and relationships pleasure should be observed in Dining table 5. For men and women, there is certainly perhaps not a life threatening direct effectation of avoidant accessory to your relationship pleasure, along with indirect paths set to no. Thus, detachment argument quality method don’t mediate ranging from actor’s avoidant attachment dimensions and you may partner’s relationship satisfaction. For this reason, Theory 2 wasn’t verified.

Regarding the association between actor’s demand/aggression conflict resolution strategy and partner’s relationship satisfaction, in the case of men, actor’s demand/aggression strategy was negatively associated with the women’s (partner’s) relationship satisfaction (? = –0.24, p < 0.01); beta coefficient was of low-to-moderate size. Likewise, in the case of women, actor's demand/aggression strategy also was negatively associated with men's (partner's) relationship satisfaction (? = –0.20, p < 0.01), the beta coefficient being of low-to-moderate size too.

As for the association between conflict resolution strategies interaction (partner effects), the results showed that actor’s withdrawal strategy was associated with partner’s demand/aggression strategy in men and women. Specifically, men’s withdrawal was positively associated with women’s demand/aggression (? = 0.46, p < 0.001), and women's withdrawal was positively associated with men's demand/aggression (? = 0.48, p < 0.001). In both cases, effect sizes were moderate. Hypothesis 3 was, therefore, confirmed.

Regarding Hypothesis 4, in men’s case, we observed an indirect effect between actor’s withdrawal and actor’s relationship satisfaction through partner’s demand/aggression (standardized indirect effect = –0.29, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01), which was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (95% CI = –0.41 to –0.19). Regarding women, we observed an indirect effect between the actor's withdrawal and the actor's relationship satisfaction through partner's demand/aggression (standardized indirect effect = –0.25, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01), which was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (95% CI = –0.35 to –0.15). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed.