ارزیابی نقش تعدیلکننده سبکهای دلبستگی در رابطه بین پاسخگویی ادراکشده همسر و صمیمیت زناشویی
محورهای موضوعی : روانشناسی خانواده
منوچهر رضائی
1
,
اسمعيل اسدپور
2
*
,
صدیقه احمدی
3
,
بلال ایزانلو
4
1 - گروه مشاوره ، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی ، دانشگاه خوارزمی ، تهران ، ایران
2 - گروه مشاوره. دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی. دانشگاه خوارزمی. تهران . ایران
3 - گروه مشاوره، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
4 - گروه برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: صمیمیت زناشویی, پاسخگویی ادراک¬شده همسر, و سبک های دلبستگی,
چکیده مقاله :
تبیین اینکه رابطه بین پاسخگویی ادراکشده همسر و صمیمیت زناشویی در سطوح مختلف سبکهای دلبستگی متفاوت خواهد بود یا نه و اینکه میزان و جهت این همبستگی در کدام یک از سبکهای دلبستگی معنادار است، یک مسئله پژوهشی بود. هدف مطالعه حاضر تعیین نقش تعدیلکننده سبکهای دلبستگی در ارتباط بین پاسخگویی ادراکشده همسر و صمیمیت زناشویی بود. روش پژوهش ازنظر گردآوری داده توصیفی-پیمایشی و از جهت تحلیل داده همبستگی بود. جامعه آماری مطالعه حاضر دربرگیرنده تمام پرستاران متأهل شهر زنجان در سال 1400 بود. از روش نمونهگیری در دسترس جهت انتخاب نمونه استفاده شد که درنهایت 317 پرستار در این مطالعه مشارکت کردند. ابزارهای پژوهش عبارت بودند از: ارزیابی شخصی از صمیمیت در رابطه (PAIR)، مقیاس پاسخگویی ادراکشده همسر (PPRS) و نسخه تجدیدنظر شده مقیاس تجارب در روابط نزدیک (ECR-R). برای تحلیل داده‌ها از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون، تحلیل مسیر و تحلیل فرایند استفاده شد. هم در مدل ساده بین متغیرها و هم در مدل حاوی اثرهایی تعاملی متغیرها، پاسخگویی ادراکشده همسر بیشترین تأثیر را در تبیین واریانس متغیر وابسته داشت. بعد از وارد کردن اثرهای تعاملی به مدل، فقط اثر تعاملی پاسخگویی ادراکشده همسر و اجتناب دلبستگی تقریباً 2 درصد بر واریانس تبیین شده متغیر وابسته افزود (05/0>P، 09/0 =β). بنابراین تنها دلبستگی اجتنابی تا حدودی رابطه بین این دو متغیر را تعدیل کرد. یافته‌های پژوهش حاضر نشان دادند که افراد ناایمن لزوماً از صمیمیت گریزان نیستند و پاسخگویی ادراکشده همان سازهای است که می‌تواند زمینه را برای تجربه صمیمیت در آنها فراهم کند.
Clarifying how the relationship between Perceived partner responsiveness (PPR) and Marital intimacy (MI) of individuals will differ at different levels of attachment styles and the extent and direction of this correlation in which of the attachment styles will be significant, was a problem. The aim of this study was to determine the moderating role of attachment styles in the relationship between PPR and MI. The research method was descriptive-survey in terms of data collection and correlational in terms of data analysis. The statistical population of this research was all of the married female nurses in Zanjan city in 2021. Convenience sampling method was used to select the sample and ultimately 317 nurses participated in this study. The scales used in this study were the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR), Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (PPRS) and Experiences in Close Relationships– Revised (ECR-R). Pearson's correlation coefficient, path analysis and process analysis were used to analyze the dataset. Both in the simple model and in the model which encompasses interactive effects of the variables, the PPR had the greatest effect in explaining the variance of the dependent variable. After including the interactive effects into the model, only the interactive effect of PPR and attachment avoidance added approximately 2% to the explained variance of the dependent variable (β = .09, p < .05). Therefore, only avoidant attachment partially moderated the relationship between those two variables. The findings of the present study showed that insecure individuals are not necessarily evasive of intimacy and PPR is the construct that can provide the basis for the experience of intimacy in them.
ابراهیمی, گلنوش, عابد, نازنین. (1402). پیش بینی تاب‌آوری از سبکهای دلبستگی و تنظیم شناختی هیجان زنان دارای تجربه سوگ همسر. مجله روانشناسی, 106، 2(27), 223-215. http://www.iranapsy.ir/Article/41300
رضائی، منوچهر؛ احمدی، صدیقه (۱۴۰۱). پاسخگویی ادراکشده همسر یک سازه بازدارنده (محافظت کننده) تأثیرگذار؛ مستحکم‌ترین پل برای تجربه صمیمیت در روابط: یک مطالعه موردی. رویش روان¬شناسی.; ۱۱ (۶) : ۶۱-۷۸ . http://frooyesh.ir/article-1-3365-fa.html
صبوری, ریحانه, رافضی, زهره، و سهرابی‌اسمرود, فرامرز. (1403). مقایسه صمیمیت زناشویی زوجین دارای عزت نفس شکننده، آسیب‌دیده و ایمن. مجله روانشناسی, 109، 1(28),32-22. http://www.iranapsy.ir/Article/44220
Adair, K. C., Boulton, A. J., & Algoe, S. B. (2018). The effect of mindfulness on relationship satisfaction via perceived responsiveness: Findings from a dyadic study of heterosexual romantic partners. Mindfulness, 9(2), 597-609. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12671-017-0801-3
Attaky, A., Kok, G., & Dewitte, M. (2020). Attachment Insecurity and Sexual and Relational Experiences in Saudi Arabian Women: The Role of Perceived Partner Responsiveness and Sexual Assertiveness. The journal of sexual medicine, 17(7), 1383-1394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.029
Balzarini, R. N., Muise, A., Zoppolat, G., Di Bartolomeo, A., Rodrigues, D. L., Alonso-Ferres, M., ... & Slatcher, R. B. (2023). Love in the time of COVID: Perceived partner responsiveness buffers people from lower relationship quality associated with COVID-related stressors. Social psychological and personality science, 14(3), 342-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/19485506221094437
Bergeron, S., Pâquet, M., Steben, M., & Rosen, N. O. (2021). Perceived partner responsiveness is associated with sexual wellbeing in couples with genito-pelvic pain. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(5), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000829
Canavarro, M. C., Silva, S., & Moreira, H. (2015). Is the link between posttraumatic growth and anxious symptoms mediated by marital intimacy in breast cancer patients? European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 19(6), 673-679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2015.04.007
Çelebi, B. M. (2018). The Impacts of Adult Attachment Styles on Marital Relationships. The International Journal of Human and Behavioral Science, 4(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.19148/ijhbs.413233
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004a). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and intimacy. Handbook of closeness and intimacy, 163-187.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004b). Working Models of Attachment Shape Perceptions of Social Support: Evidence From Experimental and Observational Studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(2), 350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Fletcher, G. J. (2015). “All or nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 450. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0038866
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
Itzchakov, G., Reis, H. T., & Weinstein, N. (2022). How to foster perceived partner responsiveness: High‐quality listening is key. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(1), Article e12648. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12648
Jesslyn, E., & Dewi, F. I. R. (2020, May). Trust in Dating Couples: Attachment Anxiety, Attachment Avoidance, and Perceived Partner Responsiveness. In Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2019) (pp. 684-691). Atlantis Press.
Kim, K. H. (2005). The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 368-390. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_2
Kim, M. (2013). The effect of marital intimacy, sex communication, and sexual satisfaction on the marital satisfaction for Korean middle-aged women. Journal of next generation information technology, 4(8), 441-448.
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(5), 1238. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1238
Lemay Jr, E. P. (2014). Accuracy and bias in self-perceptions of responsive behavior: Implications for security in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 638-656. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0037298
Lemay Jr, E. P., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(5), 834-853. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.834
Little, K. C., McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). Sex buffers intimates against the negative implications of attachment insecurity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 484-498. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0146167209352494
Lu, S. (2024). Attachment and Relationship - To What Extent Does Attachment Styles Influence Romantic Relationships?. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media. 61. 185-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/61/20240530
Pietromonaco, P. R., Overall, N. C., & Powers, S. I. (2022). Depressive Symptoms, External Stress, and Marital Adjustment: The Buffering Effect of Partner’s Responsive Behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 220-232. http://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211001687
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/index.html
Raposo, S., & Muise, A. (2021). Perceived partner sexual responsiveness buffers anxiously attached individuals’ relationship and sexual quality in daily life. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(4), 500–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000823
Reis, H. T. (2014). Responsiveness: Affective interdependence in close relationships. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 255–271). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14250-015
Reis, H. T., Crasta, D., Rogge, R. D., Maniaci, M. R., & Carmichael, C. L. (2017). Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (PPRS) (Reis & Carmichael, 2006). The sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures, 516-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119102991.ch57
Rice, T. M., Kumashiro, M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2020). Mind the Gap: Perceived Partner Responsiveness as a Bridge between General and Partner-Specific Attachment Security. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197178
Rodriguez, L. M., Fillo, J., Hadden, B. W., Øverup, C. S., Baker, Z. G., & DiBello, A. M. (2019). Do you see what I see? Actor and partner attachment shape biased perceptions of partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 587-602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218791782
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Journal of statistical software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of marital and family therapy, 7(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x
Stanton, S. C., Campbell, L., & Pink, J. C. (2017). Benefits of positive relationship experiences for avoidantly attached individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 568-588. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000098
Tosyali, F., & Harma, M. (2024). Interaction between varying social ties on health: Perceived partner responsiveness and institutional trust. International Journal of Psychology, 59(1), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.13088
Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2006). What's love got to do with it? Equality, equity, commitment and women's marital quality. Social Forces, 84(3), 1321-1345.