An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjfs20

ISSN: 1322-9400 (Print) 1839-3543 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjfs20

Conflict resolution styles as predictors of

marital adjustment and marital satisfaction: an actor–partner interdependence model

Özge Ünal & Serap Akgün

To cite this article: Özge Ünal & Serap Akgün (2020): Conflict resolution styles as predictors of marital adjustment and marital satisfaction: an actor–partner interdependence model, Journal of Family Studies, DOI: 10.1080/13229400.2020.1766542

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2020.1766542

Published online: 19 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

(2)

Conﬂict resolution styles as predictors of marital adjustment and marital satisfaction: an actor–partner interdependence model

Özge Ünal^aand Serap Akgün^b

aDepartment of Psychology, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey;^bDepartment of Psychology, Bursa Technical University, Bursa, Turkey

ABSTRACT

The aim of the study was to examine the mediating role of marital adjustment on the relationship between conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction in terms of actor and partner effects. It was hypothesized that the marital adjustment mediates the effect of conflict resolution styles on marital satisfaction. One hundred and fifty-five married couples participated in the study. Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory, Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and Relationship Satisfaction Scale were used to collect the data. The hypotheses were tested using Actor Partner Interdependence Model (Kenny et al., 2006). According to the results, both wives’ and husbands’positive problem-solving styles predicted their own marital satisfaction via marital adjustment. In addition, husbands’ positive and negative problem-solving styles predicted both their own and their wives’marital satisfaction through marital adjustment.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 27 March 2019 Accepted 3 May 2020 KEYWORDS

APIM; conﬂict resolution styles; gender roles; marital adjustment; marital satisfaction

Introduction

Marital quality has been associated with couples’physical health (e.g. De Vogli et al.,2007;

Gottman & Levenson, 1992; Robles et al.,2014), mental health (e.g. Henry et al., 2015;

Miller et al.,2013) and children’s adjustment (e.g. Izumi & Gullón-Rivera,2018; Sturge- Apple et al., 2010). Therefore, it is gaining increasing concern by psychologists. In the related literature, marital adjustment and marital satisfaction are the most considered concepts regarding marital functioning.

Marital satisfaction is defined as an overall evaluation of one’s marriage in terms of its benefits and costs (Baumeister & Vohs,2007). More benefit and less cost lead to higher level of marital satisfaction (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Individuals’ marital satisfaction depends on the degree of what spouses gratify their needs such as intimacy, sexuality and companionship (Rusbult et al.,1998).

Marital adjustment, on the other hand, refers to the quality of interaction between couples including cohesion, adaptability, supportiveness, sharing feelings and thoughts with each other, the amount of communication, time spent together and so on. According to researchers, a well-adjusted marriage is characterized with the agreement of husband

CONTACT Özge Ünal [email protected] Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Psychology, Mersin University, Çiftlikköy Campus, Mersin, Turkey

https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2020.1766542

(3)

and wife on the fundamental domains of the marriage such as, handling the financial issues or dividing the responsibilities at home. Moreover, well-adjusted couples typically share similar interests, values and are in a harmony on expressions of affection (Burgess et al.,1963). Another definition of marital adjustment contains four dimensions;

consensus between a husband and a wife on the chief issues of marriage, satisfaction with the marriage, cohesion of dyads and emotional expression (Spanier,1976).

Although marital adjustment and marital satisfaction are often used interchangeably in the literature, they are not synonyms. Some researchers have suggested differentiat- ing these two concepts (Burgess et al.,1963; Erbek et al., 2005; Yılmaz, 2001). Marital adjustment is the individuals’ evaluations about the degree of adaptation between them and their spouse regarding interests and values (Burgess et al., 1963), whereas marital satisfaction is the individuals’ judgment about their spouses whether they fulfil their needs such as intimacy, friendship and sexuality (Burr, 1970; Rusbult et al., 1998). Thus according to the literature marital adjustment ought to be regarded as a harmonic relationship between spouses, whereas marital satisfaction should be regarded as couples’ subjective experiences of their relationships. In the present study, therefore, marital adjustment and marital satisfaction were considered as two different concepts.

Studies focused on the predictive factors of marital adjustment and marital satisfaction have reported that spouses’conﬂict resolution styles are good predictors of both marital adjustment (Soylu & Kağnıcı, 2015; Zeidner et al., 2013) and satisfaction (Sierau &

Herzberg,2012).

Conﬂict resolution styles

The concept of conflict is defined as an incompatibility between two individuals in terms of demands, goals and practices (Smith,1966). There are several sources of conflict in a marriage such as differences between spouses in values, needs and expectations (Anderson

& Sabatelli,2007). Conﬂict is a natural and unavoidable part of all human relationships.

Depending on how it is resolved (managed) conflict has positive or negative consequences for relationships. Spouses try to resolve their conflicts with various ways that range from yelling each other tofinding an acceptable solution for both sides. According to an obser- vational research (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989), accepting responsibility, compromising, using humour, expressing physical intimateness and compliance are categorized in positive interactions whereas defensiveness, stubbornness, criticism and withdrawal from interaction are categorized in negative interactions, during a conflict discussion between couples.

Based on earlier studies (e.g. Gottman & Krokoff,1989), Kurdek (1994) has suggested four distinct conflict resolution styles used by couples in the face of marital conflict; positive problem solving, conflict engagement (negative problem solving), withdrawal and compliance. Positive problem solving refers to finding satisfactory solutions for both sides, whereas conflict engagement includes forcing the other to accept his/her own demands by oppression and assault. Withdrawal is concerned with avoiding discussing the problem with partner. Compliance refers to accept the partner’s requests without defending one’s own position. In the present study, we used Kurdek’s conceptualization of conflict resolution styles.

(4)

The relationship between conflict resolution styles and marital functioning In marriages, how couples resolve their disagreement is more important than how often they disagree with each other (Crawford & Bodine, 1996). Whether the conflict turns into a destructive competition or a constructive collaboration depends on the behaviours of spouses while discussing about the issue (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2007). Empirical findings on marital functioning have suggested that conflict resolution styles are correlated with both marital satisfaction (e.g. Stinson et al.,2017) and marital adjustment (e.g. Ridley et al.,2001).

Studies investigating the relationship between conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction have shown that positive conflict resolution style enhances marital satisfaction whereas negative conflict resolution style reduces it (Greeff & Bruyne, 2000; Kaur &

Sokhey,2010). A similar pattern has also been found for marital adjustment (Soylu &

Kağnıcı, 2015; Uğurlu, 2003). The direction of the relationship between subordination style and marital adjustment/satisfaction, however, is not clear in the literature. Some studies (e.g. Soylu & Kağnıcı,2015; Zara & Yucel,2017) have suggested that subordination is positively correlated with marital adjustment while others (e.g. Hünler & Gençöz,2003) have found that it is negatively correlated with marital satisfaction. According to Gottman and Krokoff(1989), compliance may be beneficial in short run but it deteriorates marital satisfaction in the long run. Finally, withdrawal is considered as dysfunctional interaction style (Gottman & Krokoff,1989), studies in Turkish culture, however, have reported that withdrawal is not related to marital adjustment (Özen,2006; Soylu & Kağnıcı,2015; Zara

& Yucel,2017). The relationship of marital conﬂict resolution styles to marital adjustment and marital satisfaction needs to be further explored.

The aim of the current study was to examine the mediator role of marital adjustment in the relationship between conﬂict resolution styles and marital satisfaction with Actor–

Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006). It was expected that both individuals’ own conflict resolution styles and their partners’ conflict resolution styles would predict their marital satisfaction through marital adjustment. It was also expected that perceived partner’s conflict resolution styles would predict the marital satisfaction through the marital adjustment as well.

Actor–Partner Interdependence model

According to Actor–Partner Interdependence Model, the feelings, thoughts and behaviours of individuals in an interdependent relationship are shaped by both their own variables (actor effect) and their partners’ variables (partner effect). The model enables to examine the effect of both their own independent variables and their partners’ independent variables on their dependent variables. The current study aimed to examine the impact of both actor’s and partner’s conflict resolution styles on marital satisfaction through marital adjustment. Figure 1 displays the conceptual model of the study. The hypotheses of this model are given below:

Hypothesis 1: Marital adjustment will mediate the relationship between participant’s own conﬂict resolution style and marital satisfaction (actor eﬀect).

Hypothesis 2: Marital adjustment will mediate the relationship between partner’s conﬂict resolution style and marital satisfaction (partner eﬀect).

(5)

There is some evidence showing that the perceived partner behaviour explains greater variability in marital satisfaction rather than the partner’s self-report about his/her own behaviour (Cann et al.,2011). Thus the current study also aimed to examine the impact of perceived partner’s conﬂict resolution style on marital satisfaction via marital adjustment.Figure 2displays the second conceptual model of the current study. The hypotheses of the second model are given below:

Hypothesis 3: Marital adjustment will mediate the relationship between perceptions of partner’s conﬂict resolution style and marital satisfaction (actor eﬀect).

Hypothesis 4: Marital adjustment will mediate the relationship between their partner’s perception of their conﬂict resolution style and marital satisfaction (partner eﬀect).

Figure 1.Conceptual Model 1.

Figure 2.Conceptual Model 2.

(6)

Methods Participants

The sample consisted of 155 married couples (N = 310) who live in diﬀerent cities of Turkey. Males ranged in ages from 24 to 60 years with the average age of 35.42 years, females ranged in ages from 19 to 60 years with the average age of 32.19 years. The length of marriages varied between 1 month and 32 years with the average length of 7 years.

Instruments

Relationship Satisfaction Scale (RSS).The RSS (1998) was utilized to measure the extent to which participants are satisﬁed with their marriages. In this study, the Turkish version of the RSS (Büyükşahin et al., 2005) was used. The scale consists of 10 items (e.g. ‘My relationship is much better than others’relationships’) with a 4-point-Likert-type response format for theﬁrst 4 items, and a 9-point-Likert-type response format for the last 6 items.

Internal consistency of the scale for the Turkish version varied from .95 to .92 for diﬀerent samples (Büyükşahin et al.,2005). In the current study, internal consistency coeﬃcient of the RSS was .93.

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS).The RDAS (Busby et al.,1995) was used to measure marital adjustment levels of couples. The scale consists of 14 items categorized into 3 dimensions, namely dyadic satisfaction (e.g.‘How often do you and your partner quarrel?’), dyadic cohesion (e.g.‘How often do you and your mate engage in outside interests together?’) and dyadic consensus (e.g.‘How often do you agree with your partner on making major decisions?’). The scale uses 5-point-Likert-type response format. Busby et al. (1995) have suggested to use the RDAS both three- and one-dimensional construct and reported the internal consistency of one-dimensional RDAS as .90. In the current study, one-dimensional construct of the scale is internally reliable (Cronbachα= .88).

Conflict Resolution Styles Scale (CRSS). The CRSS (Özen, 2006) was developed to measure the conflict resolution styles of spouses in Turkish culture, based on Kurdek’s theoretical construct (1994). The scale consists of 25 items and 4 subscales, namely positive conflict resolution style (e.g.‘I try tofind alternatives that are acceptable to each of us’), negative conflict resolution style (e.g. By yelling I make my partner to do what I want’), subordination (e.g. ‘I accept my partner’s request in order to end the conflict’) and retreat (e.g.‘I avoid to discuss on the problem when my partner makes me angry’).

The scale uses 7-point-Likert-type response format. Internal consistency of the subscales varied from .73 to .82 (Özen,2006). In the current study, the internal consistency coeﬃ- cients of the subscales varied from .68 to .84 for participants’self-report, and from .70 to .89 for participants’ perceived partner styles.

Procedure

Voluntary couples received two identical questionnaires for each partner. They were instructed to share a common nickname for themselves and their spouses and to complete their own questionnaire separately. The questionnaires of pairs were matched according to their common nickname.

(7)

Results

The mediating effect of marital adjustment in the relationship between conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction was tested by two different path analyses using APIM for dis- tinguishable partners (i.e. heterosexual couples). The former model aimed to test the mediating effect of marital adjustment in the relationship between conflict resolution styles of husbands and wives and their marital satisfaction. The latter model aimed to test the same mediating effect in the relationship between perceived partner’s conflict resolution styles of husbands and wives and their marital satisfaction. Analyses were conducted using LISREL 8.51 (Jöreskog & Sorbom,1996). In order to test the data by APIM framework, Kenny et al.’s (2006) suggestions were followed. First, fully saturated model was examined.

Then insigniﬁcant paths were dropped from the model until there were none left.

Perception of own conﬂict resolution styles

In order to examine thefirst hypothesis, we tested the mediating effect of marital adjustment in the relationship between both husbands’and wives’self-report about their own conflict resolution styles and their marital satisfaction. The goodness offit statistics indicated that the modelfits the data very well [χ²(15, N = 155) =9.08, p >.05,GFI =.99, AGFI

=.96, CFI =1.00, RMSEA=.00]. The model was given in Appendix A.

The APIM analysis revealed significant effects of actor conflict resolution styles on husbands’ and wives’marital satisfaction through their marital adjustment. Higher positive problem solving (β=.23, p < .05) and subordination (β=.12, p < .05) styles and lower negative problem solving style (β=-.49, p < .05) of husbands predicted their marital adjustment. On the other hand, only higher positive problem solving style (β=.26, p

< .05) of wives predicted their marital adjustment. Husbands’ (β=.79, p < .05) and wives (β=.83, p < .05) marital adjustment, in turn, predicted their marital satisfaction.

Marital adjustment fully mediated the actor effect of both husbands’ (positive problem solving, subordination and negative problem solving) and wives’ (positive problem solving) conflict resolution styles on their marital satisfaction (indirect effects = .18, .10, –.39, .22;t= 3.22, 1.98,−6.76, 4.27;p< .05, respectively).

With regard to partner effects, the analysis revealed significant effects of partner’s conflict resolution styles only on wives’marital satisfaction through their marital adjustment. Higher positive problem solving style (β=.18,p < .05) and lower negative problem solving style (β=–.42, p < .05) of husbands predicted wives’ marital adjustment. The marital adjustment of wives fully mediated the relationship of their partners’conflict resolution styles (positive problem solving and negative problem solving) and their marital satisfaction (indirect effects = .15,–.18;t= 2.65,−3.22;p< .05; respectively).

Overall, conﬂict resolution styles explained 45% and 38% of total variance of husbands’ and wives’marital adjustment, respectively. Finally, 62% and 69% of the total variances in husbands’ and wives’marital satisfaction were explained by the full model.

Perception of spouse’s conﬂict resolution styles

In order to examine the second hypothesis, we tested the mediating effect of marital adjustment in the relationship between both husbands’ and wives’ perception of their spouse’s conflict resolution styles and their marital satisfaction. The goodness of fit

(8)

statistics indicated that the modelﬁts the data very well [χ²(13, N = 155) =14.52, p >.05, GFI =.98, AGFI =.93, CFI =1.00, RMSEA =.03]. The model was given in Appendix B.

The APIM analysis revealed significant effects of actor’s perception of spouse’s conflict resolution styles on husbands’and wives’marital satisfaction through their marital adjustment. Perception of spouse’s higher positive problem-solving style (β=.23,p < .05) and lower negative problem-solving style (β=–.25, p < .05) of husbands predicted their marital adjustment. Similarly, perception of spouse’s higher positive problem-solving style (β=.29, p < .05) and lower negative problem-solving style (β=–.60, p < .05) of wives predicted their marital adjustment. Husbands’ (β=.74, p < .05) and wives’ (β

=.77, p < .05) marital adjustment, in turn, predicted their marital satisfaction. Marital adjustment fully mediated the actor effect of both husbands’ (positive problem solving and negative problem solving) and wives’ (positive problem solving and negative problem solving) conflict resolution styles on their marital satisfaction (indirect effects

= .17,–.18, .22,–.46;t= 3.35,−3.76, 5.01,−8.90;p< .05; respectively). Additionally, perception of spouse’s higher subordination style (β=.12,p < .05) of wives predicted directly their marital satisfaction.

With regard to partner effects, the analysis revealed significant effects of partner’s perception of spouse’s conflict resolution styles on both wives’and husbands’marital satisfaction through their marital adjustment. Wives’ perception of spouse’s higher positive problem solving style (β=.19, p < .05) and lower negative problem solving style (β

=–.24, p < .05) predicted husbands’ marital adjustment. On the other hand, husbands’

perception of spouse’s higher positive problem-solving style (β=.12, p < .05) predicted wives’marital adjustment The marital adjustment of husbands fully mediated the relationship of wives’perception of spouses’positive problem-solving style and husbands’marital satisfaction (indirect eﬀect = .14, t= 2.55, p< .05). However, the marital adjustment of husbands partially mediated the relationship of wives’ perception of spouses’ negative problem-solving style and husbands’ marital satisfaction (indirect eﬀect =–.18, t =

−3.19,p< .05). On the other hand, the marital adjustment of wives fully mediated the relationship of husbands’ perception of spouses’ positive problem-solving style and wives’marital satisfaction (indirect eﬀect = .09,t= 2.22,p< .05).

Overall, the perception of spouse’s conﬂict resolution styles explained 35% and 61% of total variance of husbands’and wives’marital adjustment, respectively. Finally, 63% and 71% of the total variances in husbands’and wives’marital satisfaction were explained by the full model.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between spouses’conflict resolution styles, marital adjustment and marital satisfaction. As mentioned earlier, marital adjustment and marital satisfaction have been conceptualized differently. There- fore, marital adjustment and marital satisfaction were considered as two different concepts in this study. It was expected that marital adjustment, which has been defined as being in harmony with one another, would influence marital satisfaction rather than vice versa. It was hypothesized that spouses’conflict resolution styles (H1and H2) and perceived partner’s conflict resolution styles (H3 and H4) would be associated with marital adjustment, which, in turn, would predict marital satisfaction. The mediating role of marital

(9)

adjustment in the relationship between conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction was tested by two different path analyses using APIM. The relationships of spouses own conflict resolution styles with marital adjustment and marital satisfaction were examined in thefirst model, whereas perceived partner’s conflict resolution styles were considered in the second model.

The relationship of conﬂict resolution style with marital adjustment and marital satisfaction

Results indicated that positive problem-solving styles of husbands and wives positively predicted their own marital satisfaction via marital adjustment in both partners. It was also found that negative problem-solving styles of husbands’, but not wives’, negatively predicted their own marital satisfaction through marital adjustment. In general, our findings regarding the relationship between conflict resolution style and marital satisfaction are in line with the empirical studies (Greeff& Bruyne,2000; Schneewind & Gerhard, 2002) and theories of conflict resolution (Crawford & Bodine,1996; Deutsch,2006). As earlier mentioned, positive problem solving includes to find a satisfactory solution for both sides involved in the conflict while negative problem solving refers to use physical or verbal aggression in order to persuade others to accept their viewpoint. According to Deutsch’s (2006) theory of cooperation and competition, how the conflicts in a relationship are resolved affects the atmosphere of the relationship. When the conflicting sides cooperate to find an acceptable resolution for both of them, they construct trust and friendly demeanour in their relationship. On the other side, when conflicting sides compete against each other to insist on her/his viewpoint then the relationship becomes insecure and hostile. Similarly, Crawford and Bodine (1996) have suggested that the conflict resolution styles affect the quality of the relationship. Accordingly, hard responses including suppressing the partner trigger negative emotions such as anger, while prin- cipled responses including cooperation support the development of positive emotions and trust.

Interestingly, participants’negative problem-solving styles predicted their own marital adjustment and satisfaction in husbands, but not in wives. One possible reason for this ﬁnding could be the power inequality between traditional gender roles in Turkey.

Wives’ negative problem-solving behaviours (i.e. raising her voice to have her partner do what she wants, threating her partner to end up the relationship) might be even func- tional to get what they want in some circumstances. Further research is warranted to examine this issue.

Thefinding of the study regarding the subordination style has shown that subordination predicted marital adjustment and marital satisfaction in males, but not in females. It was found that the more a husband subordinates his wife’s demands in marital conflicts the more he experiences marital adjustment, and in turn, the more he feels satisfied with his marriage. The positive relationship between subordination style and marital adjustment is in line with the previous studies conducted in Turkish culture (Soylu &

Kağnıcı,2015; Zara & Yucel,2017). In those studies, however, the gender differences in the relationship of subordination style and marital adjustment were not included since the researchers did not aim to find it. On the other hand, the findings of the present study contrast with those of Greeff and Bruyne (2000) who found that subordinating

(10)

males had very low marital satisfaction. Similarly, Hünler and Gençöz (2003) have found that subordination style reduced marital satisfaction through the decline in perceived problem-solving skills. Further research will also be needed to clarify the relationship between subordination and marital adjustment and marital satisfaction.

Considering partner effects, the APIM analysis has shown that husbands’ positive problem-solving and negative problem-solving styles predicted wives’marital satisfaction through the wives’ marital adjustment whereas wives’ conflict resolution styles did not predict husbands’ marital satisfaction. Thisfinding supports the results of the previous research showing that females are more sensitive to partner’s behaviours in the relationship compared to males. For instance, Huston and Vangelisti (1991) have found in their longitudinal study that husbands’ early socioemotional behaviours were associated with their wives’ later socioemotional behaviours, whereas there was not the same partner effect to predict husbands’ later socioemotional behaviours. The another study shows the vulnerability of wives in demanding change (Heavey et al.,1993). It was found that wives tend to be more demanding while discussing a marital problem than husbands do. Our results are also consistent with Özen’s (2006)findings that husbands’conflict resolution styles affected their wives’ marital adjustment whereas there was not the same partner effect to predict husbands’marital adjustment. Thisfinding of the current study showing the wives’ sensitivity to their partners’ behaviours may reflect the expectation of society regarding the traditional gender roles. Females might be more open to their partners’messages compared to males because they are the relationship-oriented side of the marriage owing to social learning in the Turkish culture where the traditional gender roles are commonly approved. It has been claimed that women are more relationship oriented than men because of the socialization process (Gilligan,1982/1993). Accord- ing to this explanation, girls and boys are supposed to pass different learning processes while they are adopting the gender roles that the society expects from them. Boys are supposed to individualize themselves from their relationship with their mothers to adopt and perform the gender roles, whereas girls are not because they share the same sex with their mother. Therefore, males have learned to separate themselves from relationship by social learning while females have learned to be relationship oriented. This claim can explain the findings of the current study showing that wives are more susceptible to be affected by their partners’behaviours than husbands.

The relationship of perceived partner’s conﬂict resolution style with marital adjustment and marital satisfaction

In thefirst model, the relationship between spouses’perceptions of their own conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction was tested, whereas in the second model the relationship between perceived partner’s conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction was investigated.

Results revealed that the perceived partner’s conﬂict resolution styles predicted marital satisfaction via marital adjustment. Speciﬁcally, perceived partners’ positive problem- solving style positively and negative problem solving style negatively associated with husbands and wives’marital satisfaction through marital adjustment. Results also indicated that perceived partners’positive problem-solving style was positively related to partner’s marital adjustment and then partner’s marital satisfaction of both spouses. Wives’

(11)

perception of their partners’negative problem-solving style negatively predicted their husbands’marital adjustment and satisfaction, whereas husbands’perceptions of their partners’ negative problem-solving style did not predict wives’ marital adjustment. Wives’ perception of their partners’subordination style directly predicted their own marital satisfaction positively. Taken together, these results suggest that not only spouses’ perceptions of their own conﬂict resolution styles but also their perceptions of partners’

conflict resolution styles have significant influence on marital satisfaction through marital adjustment.

The most intriguing part of the study comes from comparing thefindings of the former and latter models in terms of the predictors of husbands’marital satisfaction. While pre- dicting husband’s marital satisfaction in thefirst model where the effect of spouses’own conflict resolution styles on their own marital satisfaction and partners’marital satisfaction were tested, there was no significant partner effect on husbands’marital satisfaction.

However, the second model in which the eﬀect of spouses’perceptions of their partners’

conflict resolution style on their own and their partners’marital satisfaction was tested, a number of partner effects on husbands’marital satisfaction were significant. Latter model has revealed that wives’perceptions of their partner’s conflict resolution styles predicted husbands’ marital satisfaction while former model revealed that wives’ self-reported conflict resolution styles did not predict husbands’marital satisfaction. In short, husband’s marital satisfaction was affected not by what his wife evaluates her own treatment to him in marital conflicts but by what she evaluates his treatment to herself. One can infer from thisfinding that wives give feedback to their partners’by sharing her feelings and thoughts about his treatment to her, support her husbands to maintain the pro-relationship behaviour and demand to change the undesired behaviour of her husband. This interpretation is in line with priorfindings. For example, Gottman and Silver (1999/2013) have argued that women are more inclined to detect the problems and demand the change than men when things have not gone well in marriage for some time past. Thus considering the woman is the feedback giver in the marriage thefinding can be reasonable that wife’s evaluations about her husband’s conflict resolution styles affected their husbands’marital adjustment and satisfaction while her self-reported conflict resolution styles’did not.

Another interesting finding of the study regarding with the predictors of husband’s marital satisfaction is that his wife’s self-reported conflict resolution styles did not predict his marital satisfaction whereas his own evaluations of how she treats to him during conflicts did. One can infer from this finding that individuals’ perceptions of their partners’conflict resolution styles are better predictors of their marital satisfaction than their partners’self-reported conflict styles. Thefinding is consistent with the previous findings. For example, Cann et al. (2011) have revealed that the evaluations about partner’s humour styles are better predictors of his/her marital satisfaction than both partner’s self- reported humour styles and his/her own humour styles.

Finally, withdrawing from the conflict didn’t predict husbands’and wives’marital outcomes both in thefirst and second models. Thisfinding is consistent with the previous studies in Turkey revealing that there is no relationship between withdrawal and marital adjustment (i.e. Özen,2006; Soylu & Kağnıcı,2015; Zara & Yucel,2017). It may be explained by the assumption that there are at least two different intentions of avoiding from conflicts. Some married individuals may avoid conflict in order to protect the relationships and mask their negative feelings whereas others to distance themselves

(12)

from the relationship and stay emotionally unavailable (Delatorre & Wagner, 2019).

Therefore, a comprehensive explanation can be provided in the future when considering this behaviour in interaction with the intention of the withdrawing spouse and the attri- bution of partner to this behaviour.

In general, our hypothesis suggesting a mediational role of marital adjustment in the relationship between couples’ conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction was confirmed. These findings are in line with the sound relationship house theory (Gottman & Gottman, 2017) claiming that the quality of communication between spouses both in the absence and in the presence of conflict leads the couple to create a friendship which in turn prepares the atmosphere of the relationship appropriate for sharing the same marital goals and building a common meaning towards life. Happiness and longevity could be regarded as a consequence of this harmonic relationship con- structed by the couples’effectively attempt for intimacy and friendship.

Taken together both husbands and wives need their partners’ constructive problem- solving behaviours to be satisfied with their marriage in the face of marital conflict. The findings showing that the conflict resolution styles related with the marital adjustment processes predict couple’s satisfaction can be reasonable when considering the assump- tions of stress and coping theory (Bodenmann, 2005). According to the theory when a stressful event appears in a marriage regardless whether it originates from inside or outside of the couple it effects both partners and triggers their dyadic coping strategies because they share an interdependent relationship and have mutual concerns or goals.

When spouses use positive dyadic coping styles their relationship quality increases, whereas it decreases in the face of negative coping like undermining the seriousness of partner’s stress or providing the support by using sarcasm. The theory claims that positive coping behaviours of spouses are not an altruistic behaviour or a kind of social support but an engagement of spouses to assure both the other’s and relationship’s wellbeing. Spouses effectively trying to reduce the stress of their partners know that by reducing the negative influences on the relationship it can be possible to make room for positive marital experiences. Our findings suggesting that couples managing their marital problems effectively experience both marital adjustment and satisfaction is in line with this theory. Thus defining the behaviour of reducing partner’s stress level as a primary goal in conflict and regarding this primary goal as a mutual engagement that each partner should show adherence could be a key in the marital happiness.

Our study has some limitations. Because the methodology of the study is based on surveys the direction of causality could not be assessed. Another shortcoming of the survey methodology is the desirability problem. Although each participant took the questionnaires in an individual envelope that they could hide their answers by closing it to minimize this problem we couldn’t have control it. Additionally, because of the closeness of Turkish culture, spouses might hide their sincere answer to protect the marital privacy.

Thus further studies can use observing methodology of implicit measure.

Nevertheless, our study has at least two contributions to the literature. First, it offers evidence for differentiation between marital adjustment and marital satisfaction which have been used interchangeably in the literature. Second, we asked each of the spouses both evaluation of their own conflict resolution style and evaluation of their partners.

By means of the methodology including both spouses’ perceptions of their own and

(13)

partners’ conﬂict resolution styles, our study revealed the eﬀect of the gender roles on marriages in Turkish culture showing the two models were in compatible with each other.

Given thefindings regarding the relationship of positive and negative problem-solving styles with marital happiness there are some practical outcomes of this study. Since the presence of negative interactions and the absence of positive communications during the conflict reduce the marital quality the practitioners consulting the couples may con- sider strengthening the positive conflict resolution skills of spouses such as sharing feelings with each other, trying to empathize with spouse, cooperating tofind satisfying solutions for both sides, while training them to destructive consequences of negative problem- solving styles such as insisting the other for adopting his/her own point of view, threating his/her to leave. Further, considering the results showing that the wives’self-reports on their own conflict resolution behaviour didn’t predict their husbands’marital outcomes, whereas husbands’ perceptions of their wives’ conflict resolution behaviour predicted, one can infer that there is a gap between perceptions of men on their wives’conflict behaviour and their wives’self-reports on their own conflict behaviour. In order to close the gap giving spouses the opportunity of clarifying their concrete expectations from their partners during conflict could be helpful in the intervention programs based on behavioural approaches.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Associate Professor H. Tuğba Erol Korkmaz for her support on analysing the data of this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (2007). Conﬂict in marriage. In A. S. Anderson, & R. M. Sabatelli (Eds.),Family interaction: A multigenerational developmental perspective(pp. 169–195). Pearson.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007).Encyclopedia of social psychology. Sage.

Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its signiﬁcance for marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.),Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping(pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association.

Burgess, E. W., Locke, H. J., & Thomes, M. M. (1963). Measuring success in marriage. In E. W.

Burgess, H. J. Locke, & M. M. Thomes (Eds.), The family from institution to companionship (pp. 287–308). American Book Company.

Burr, W. R. (1970). Satisfaction with various aspects of marriage over the life cycle: A random middle class sample. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 32(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.

2307/349968

Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A Revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and non-distressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidi- mensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289–308.https://doi.org/10.

1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x

Büyükşahin, A., Hasta, D., & Hovardaoğlu, S. (2005). İlişki istikrarı ölçeği (İİÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması.Türk Psikoloji Yazıları,8(16), 25–35.

(14)

Cann, A., Zapata, C. L., & Davis, H. B. (2011). Humor style and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: Perceived versus self-reported humor styles as predictors of satisfaction.Humor,24(1), 1–20.https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.001

Crawford, D. K., & Bodine, R. J. (1996).Conﬂict resolution education: A guide to implementing programs in schools, youth-serving organizations, and community and juvenile justice settings:

Program report. DIANE Publishing.

Delatorre, M. Z., & Wagner, A. (2019). How do couples disagree? An analysis of conﬂict resolution proﬁles and the quality of romantic relationships.Revista Colombiana de Psicología,28(2), 91– 108.https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v28n2.72265

Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. E. Marcus (Eds.),The handbook of conﬂict resolution: Theory and practice(pp. 21–40). Jossey Bass.

De Vogli, R., Chandola, T., & Marmot, M. G. (2007). Negative aspects of close relationships and heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(18), 1951–1957. https://doi.org/10.1001/

archinte.167.18.1951

Erbek, E., Beştepe, E., Akar, H., Eradamlar, N., & Alpkan, R. (2005). Evlilik Uyumu. Düşünen Adam: Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi,18(1), 39–47.

Gilligan, C. (1982/1993). In a diﬀerent voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Harvard University Press.

Gottman, J., & Gottman, J. (2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory &

Review,9(1), 7–26.https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12182

Gottman, J. M., & Krokoﬀ, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 006X.57.1.47

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution:

Behavior, physiology, and health.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63(2), 221–233.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221

Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (1999/2013). Evliliği sürdürmenin yedi ilkesi. (E. Deniz, Trans.).İstanbul:

Varlık Yayınları. (Original work published 1999).

Greeﬀ, A. P., & Bruyne, T. (2000). Conﬂict management style and marital satisfaction.Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,26(4), 321–334.https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300438724

Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conﬂict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,61(1), 16–27.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.16

Henry, N. J., Smith, T. W., Butner, J., Berg, C. A., Sewell, K. K., & Uchino, B. N. (2015). Marital quality, depressive symptoms, and the metabolic syndrome: A couples structural model.

Journal of Behavioral Medicine,38(3), 497–506.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-015-9619-4 Hünler, O. S., & Gençöz, T. (2003). Boyun eğici davranışlar ve evlilik doyumu ilişkisi: Algılanan

evlilik problemleri çözümünün rolü.Türk Psikolojisi Dergisi,18(51), 99–108.

Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61(5), 721– 733.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.721

Izumi, M., & Gullón-Rivera, A. L. (2018). Family resilience among sojourning Japanese mothers:

Links to marital satisfaction and children’s behavioral adjustment. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal,46(3), 282–296.https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12247

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Scientiﬁc Software International.

Kaur, T., & Sokhey, G. (2010). Conﬂict resolution and marital satisfaction. Indian Journal of Community Psychology,6(1), 90–104.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006).Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press.

Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conﬂict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples.Journal of Marriage and Family,56(3), 705–722.https://doi.org/10.2307/352880 Miller, R. B., Mason, T. M., Canlas, J. M., Wang, D., Nelson, D. A., & Hart, C. H. (2013). Marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms in China.Journal of Family Psychology,27(4), 677–682.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033333

(15)

Özen, A. (2006). Value similarities of wives and husbands and conﬂict resolution styles of spouses as predictors of marital adjustment. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara

Ridley, C. A., Wilhelm, M. S., & Surra, C. A. (2001). Married couples’conﬂict responses and marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,18(4), 517–534.https://doi.org/10.1177/

0265407501184005

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health:

A meta-analytic review.Psychological Bulletin,140(1), 140.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859 Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring com-

mitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships,5(4), 357–391.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

Schneewind, K. A., & Gerhard, A. K. (2002). Relationship personality, conﬂict resolution, and marital satisfaction in theﬁrst 5 years of marriage.Family Relations,51(1), 63–71.https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00063.x

Sierau, S., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2012). Conﬂict resolution as a dyadic mediator: Considering the partner perspective on conﬂict resolution. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 221–232.

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.828

Smith, C. G. (1966). A comparative analysis of some conditions and consequences of intra-organ- izational conﬂict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(49), 504–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/

2391573

Soylu, Y., & Kağnıcı, D. Y. (2015). Evlilik uyumunun empatik eğilim, iletişim ve çatışma çözme stil- lerine göre yordanması.Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal,5(43), 44–54.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,38(1), 15–28.https://doi.org/10.

2307/350547

Stinson, M. A., Bermúdez, J. M., Gale, J., Lewis, D., Meyer, A. S., & Templeton, G. B. (2017). Marital satisfaction, conﬂict resolution styles, and religious attendance among Latino couples: Using the actor–partner interdependence model. The Family Journal,25(3), 215–223.https://doi.org/10.

1177/1066480717710645

Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2010). Typologies of family functioning and children’s adjustment during the early school years. Child Development, 81(4), 1320–1335.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01471.x

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959).The social Psychology of Groups. Wiley.

Uğurlu, O. (2003).Evli çiftlerde cinsiyet ayrımına ilişkin tutumlar, çatışma yönetim biçimleri ve evlilik uyumu arasındaki ilişki. Yayınlanmamışyüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi.

Yılmaz, A. (2001). Eşler arasındaki uyum: Kuramsal yaklaşımlar ve görgül çalışmalar. Aile ve Toplum Eğitim–Kültür ve Araştırma Dergisi,1(4), 49–59.

Zara, A., & Yucel, F. G. (2017). The effect of projective identification, conflict resolution styles, and gender roles on marital satisfaction.Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi, 20(2), 76–83.https://doi.org/10.

5505/kpd.2017.68077

Zeidner, M., Kloda, I., & Matthews, G. (2013). Does dyadic coping mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and marital quality?Journal of Family Psychology,27(5), 795–805.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034009

(16)

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Structural model using marital adjustment as a mediator in the relationship between conﬂict resolution style and marital satisfaction

Figure A1.

(17)

APPENDIX B

Structural model using marital adjustment as a mediator in the relationship between perceived partners’conﬂict resolution style and marital satisfaction

Figure B1.