Direct and Indirect Results of Actor’s Withdrawal and you may Matchmaking Fulfillment

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.

Actor 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].

Lover Consequences

From Theory H1, as can be seen within the Figure dos, men’s room detachment conflict approach told me ladies lowest dating fulfillment (? = –0.several, p = 0.02), and you can ladies’ detachment argument means was also regarding the men’s room reasonable matchmaking satisfaction (? = –0.14, p = 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis step one are affirmed.

Indirect outcomes ranging from avoidant accessory aspect and you may dating fulfillment will be noticed in Desk 5. For both group, discover perhaps not a critical lead effect of avoidant attachment for the relationship satisfaction, along with indirect pathways set to zero. Hence, detachment dispute quality method failed to mediate between actor’s avoidant attachment dimension and you can partner’s relationships pleasure. For this reason, Hypothesis 2 was not confirmed.

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 quizy millionairematch 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.