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 Effects
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 Effects
Out of Theory H1, as well as be seen for the Contour 2, men’s detachment dispute method told me women’s low relationship fulfillment (? = –0.twelve, p = 0.02), and you will women’s detachment dispute means was also of this men’s room low relationship fulfillment (? = –0.fourteen, p = 0.01). For this reason, Hypothesis http://www.datingranking.net/pl/outpersonals-recenzja step one try affirmed.
Indirect effects anywhere between avoidant accessory dimensions and you may matchmaking satisfaction is found in Table 5. For both men, there clearly was not a critical direct effect of avoidant connection towards the relationship fulfillment, with secondary pathways set to no. Thus, detachment dispute quality means failed to mediate between actor’s avoidant connection measurement and you can lover’s relationships satisfaction. For this reason, Theory dos wasn’t 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 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.