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.
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].
Out-of Theory H1, as well as be observed from inside the Profile dos, men’s room detachment disagreement method said women’s lower relationships pleasure (? = –0.several, p = 0.02), and you can ladies detachment conflict strategy has also been associated with the men’s room reduced relationships satisfaction (? = –0.14, p = 0.01). For this reason, Hypothesis step one is actually affirmed.
Secondary consequences between avoidant connection dimensions and you can relationship pleasure are observed in Dining table 5. For both individuals, there can be perhaps not a significant direct effectation of avoidant connection into matchmaking fulfillment, with all of indirect paths set to zero. For this reason, withdrawal disagreement solution approach did not mediate between actor’s avoidant connection aspect and you will lover’s relationship fulfillment. Thus, 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.