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 Outcomes
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].
Partner Consequences
Of https://datingranking.net/pl/squirt-recenzja/ Hypothesis H1, as can be seen within the Shape 2, men’s detachment conflict approach told me women’s low dating satisfaction (? = –0.12, p = 0.02), and you may ladies’ detachment argument method was also with the men’s lower relationships satisfaction (? = –0.14, p = 0.01). Therefore, Theory 1 was affirmed.
Indirect outcomes anywhere between avoidant accessory dimension and you may relationship fulfillment are present in Dining table 5. For folks, there is perhaps not a critical head aftereffect of avoidant accessory to the matchmaking fulfillment, along with secondary routes set-to no. Hence, detachment argument quality approach didn’t mediate between actor’s avoidant accessory dimension and you will partner’s relationship satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 2 wasn’t affirmed.
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.