Developing a Structural Model of Marital Quality Based on Communication Patterns with the Mediation of Spouse's Perceived Responsiveness

Narimani, Akram; Asadpour, Esmaeil; Sadeghi Afjeh, Zohreh; Poushaneh, Kambiz

Volume 13 - Articles-1402 MEJDS (2023) 13: 175 | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.IAU.CTB.REC.1401.020

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Narimani A, Asadpour E, Sadeghi Afjeh Z, Poushaneh K. Developing a Structural Model of Marital Quality Based on Communication Patterns with the Mediation of Spouse's Perceived Responsiveness. MEJDS 2023; 13 :175-175
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-3275-en.html

Developing a Structural Model of Marital Quality Based on Communication Patterns with the Mediation of Spouse's Perceived Responsiveness

Akram Narimani¹

, Esmaeil Asadpour ^*²

, Zohreh Sadeghi Afjeh³

, Kambiz Poushaneh³

1- PhD Student in Counseling, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Counseling, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Education and Counseling, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract: (693 Views)

Abstract
Background & Objective: Various factors, such as individual, communication, and external factors, affect the marital quality of couples. Communication problems are a fundamental issue in family-related communication approaches. Another factor affecting the marital quality of couples is the spouse's perceived responsiveness. The responsiveness the spouse perceives increases emotional expression in relationships, reduces conflict, and strengthens intimacy between couples in marital relationships. Conversely, in an unresponsive atmosphere, there is a learned helplessness with depression. Considering the importance that the perceived responsiveness of the couples has on the marital quality, and also keeping in mind that increasing efficient and effective communication patterns in marital relationships can help improve the quality of couples' marital relationship, the present study was conducted to develop a structural model of marital quality based on communication patterns with the mediation of spouse's perceived responsiveness.
Methods: The research method is analytical of correlational type and structural equation modeling. The statistical population of the research included all married women referred to counseling centers and psychological services under the supervision of the Psychology and Counseling Organization of Iran in Tehran City in 2022. For sampling, 13 counseling centers in 8 districts of Tehran were referred. The samples in the present study were recruited by available sampling. The size of the statistical sample was estimated to be 350 people, taking into account the number of parameters estimated in the conceptual model of the research, but to prevent the drop of participants, 400 married women completed the questionnaires, 3 cases were removed due to not completing the questionnaires, and finally, the questionnaires of 397 samples were analyzed. The inclusion criteria include female gender, being married, being 30-50 years old, education with at least a diploma, at least 3 years of cohabitation, the absence of severe mental disorders, and the absence of psychiatric drug use in the past year (based on the contents of the file available at the counseling center) were considered. The exclusion criterion was not answering more than 10% of the questionnaires (7 questions). Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Busby et al., 1995), Spouse's Perceived Responsiveness Scale (Reis et al., 2017), and Communication Patterns Questionnaire (Christensen & Sulawi, 1984) were used to collect data. The structural equation modeling method and version 22 of SPSS and AMOS software were used for data analysis.
Results: Examining the coefficients of the direct path showed that the pattern of mutual constructive communication (p<0.001, β=0.39), the communication pattern of withdrawal/expectation (p<0.001, β=-0.24), and the pattern of mutual avoidance (p<0.001, β=-0.20) had significant direct relationships with marital quality. Also, the coefficients of the indirect path showed that the constructive communication pattern had a significant indirect relationship (p=0.001, β=0.14) and the withdrawal/expectation (p=0.014, β=-0.10) and mutual avoidance communication patterns (p<0.001, β=-0.17) had significant indirect relationships with marital quality with the mediation of the spouse's perceived responsiveness. Also, the fit indices showed that the hypothesized model fits the measurement model (X²/df=2.79, CFI=0.94, GFI=0.94, AGFI=0.94, NFI= 0.93, RMSEA=0.07).
Conclusion: Based on the present research findings, communication patterns are related to the mediation of the spouse's perceived responsiveness with marital quality. It seems that the perceived responsiveness of the spouse through neutralizing the negative consequences and increasing the emotions, negative affection, and constructive attitude of people towards each other in the interactions is always an influential factor in the marital quality of the couple. According to the results of the present study, it is suggested that marriage counselors and family therapists should pay attention to the key role of spouses' perceived responsiveness in premarital counseling and in predicting the quality of couples' relationships, as well as in the field of family education and individual counseling in increasing the quality of couples' relationships.

Keywords: Marital quality, Communication patterns, Spouse's perceived responsiveness

Full-Text [PDF 493 kb] (535 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Counseling

References

1. Attar-Schwartz S, Fridman-Teutsch A. Father support and adjustment difficulties among youth in residential care: the moderating role of peer victimization and gender. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2018;88(6):701–12. [DOI]

2. Rasouli S, Golparvar M, Ramezani M, Hasani J. Comparison of the effectiveness of Iranian sexual satisfaction training package and masters & Johnson's approach on marital quality of married people. Journal of Psychological Science. 2020;19(85):101–10. [Persian] [Article]

3. Mattson RE, Cameron N, Middleton FA, Starr LR, Davila J, Johnson MD. Oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) links to marital quality via social support behavior and perceived partner responsiveness. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(1):44–53. [DOI]

4. Hou Y, Jiang F, Wang X. Marital commitment, communication and marital satisfaction: An analysis based on actor–partner interdependence model. Int J Psychol. 2019;54(3):369–76. [DOI]

5. Gottman JM, Krokoff LJ. Marital interaction and satisfaction: a longitudinal view. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989;57(1):47–52. [DOI]

6. Champagne ER, Muise A. Responsiveness and relationship satisfaction in couples coping with parkinson's disease: a pilot study. Psychol Rep. 2022;125(2):804–21. [DOI]

7. Bergeron S, Pâquet M, Steben M, Rosen NO. Perceived partner responsiveness is associated with sexual well-being in couples with genito-pelvic pain. J Fam Psychol. 2021;35(5):628–38. [DOI]

8. Rice TM, Kumashiro M, Arriaga XB. Mind the gap: perceived partner responsiveness as a bridge between general and partner-specific attachment security. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):7178. [DOI]

9. Crasta D, Rogge RD, Maniaci MR, Reis HT. Toward an optimized measure of perceived partner responsiveness: development and validation of the perceived responsiveness and insensitivity scale. Psychol Assess. 2021;33(4):338–55. [DOI]

10. Ruan Y, Reis HT, Clark MS, Hirsch JL, Bink BD. Can I tell you how I feel? perceived partner responsiveness encourages emotional expression. Emotion. 2020;20(3):329–42. [DOI]

11. Lachance-Grzela M, Ross-Plourde M, Vautour M, Larocque M, Duguay A. Mindfulness, perceived partner responsiveness, and relational conflict among emerging adult couples. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy. 2020;54(3):451–63.

12. Cook WL, Dezangré M, De Mol J. Sources of perceived responsiveness in family relationships. J Fam Psychol. 2018;32(6):743–52. [DOI]

13. Parker ML, Gallus KL. Disabilities and the family: where are the marriage, couple, and family therapists. Family Therapy Magazine. 2021;20(3):40–3.

14. Willoughby BJ, Belt D. Marital orientation and relationship well-being among cohabiting couples. J Fam Psychol. 2016;30(2):181–92. [DOI]

15. Nichols NB, Backer-Fulghum LM, Boska CR, Sanford K. Two types of disengagement during couples' conflicts: withdrawal and passive immobility. Psychol Assess. 2015;27(1):203–14. [DOI]

16. Atashpanjeh M, Shirazi M. Investigating the predictive role of communication patterns in marital satisfaction and infertility in infertile women. Nursing and Midwifery Journal. 2022;20(3):242–50. [Persian] [DOI]

17. Soltani Kermanshahi V, Rasouli A. Structural equation of marital quality of life based on positive feeling of husband and sexual intimacy with communication patterns in women visiting counseling centers. Khalagheyat-Zendegi Journal. 2020;1:4. [Persian]

18. Masoumi S, Rezaeian H, Hoseinian S. Prediction sexual satisfaction on the Basis of coupleʼ s communication patterns. Journal of Woman and Family Studies. 2017;5(1):79–101. [Persian] [Article]

19. Tasfiliz D, Selcuk E, Gunaydin G, Slatcher RB, Corriero EF, Ong AD. Patterns of perceived partner responsiveness and well-being in Japan and the United States. J Fam Psychol. 2018;32(3):355–65. [DOI]

20. Rezaee M, Ahmadi S. Perceived partner responsiveness as an influential buffering (protective) construct; the well-grounded bridge to experience intimacy in relationships: a case study. Rooyesh. 2022;11(6):61–78. [Persian] [Article]

21. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2023. [DOI]

22. Christensen A, Sullaway M. Communication Patterns Questionnaire. APA PsycTests; 1984. [DOI]

23. Christensen A, Shenk JL. Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(3):458–63. [DOI]

24. Bodenmann G, Kaiser A, Hahlweg K, Fehm‐Wolfsdorf G. Communication patterns during marital conflict: a cross‐cultural replication. Personal Relationships. 1998;5(3):343–56. [DOI]

25. Heavey CL, Larson BM, Zumtobel DC, Christensen A. The Communication Patterns Questionnaire: the reliability and validity of a constructive communication subscale. J Marriage Fam. 1996;58(3):796. [DOI]

26. Samadzadeh M, Shaieri MR, Javidi N. Communication Patterns Questionnaire: the reliability and validity. Journal of Family Counseling and Psychotherapy. 2013;3(1):124–50. [Persian] [Article]

27. Busby DM, Christensen C, Crane DR, Larson JH. A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. J Marital Fam Ther. 1995;21(3):289–308. [DOI]

28. Hollist CS, Miller RB. Perceptions of attachment style and marital quality in midlife marriage. Family Relations. 2005;54(1):46–57. [DOI]

29. Yoosefi N. Investigation of psychometric properties of the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scales (RDAS). Research in Clinical Psychology and Counseling. 2012;1(2):183–200. [Persian] [Article]

30. Reis HT, Lemay EP, Finkenauer C. Toward understanding understanding: the importance of feeling understood in relationships. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2017;11(3):e12308. [DOI]

31. Reis HT, Shaver, P. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In: Duck S; editor. Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1988.

32. Birnbaum GE, Reis HT, Mizrahi M, Kanat-Maymon Y, Sass O, Granovski-Milner C. Intimately connected: the importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016;111(4):530–46. [DOI]

33. Reis HT, Maniaci MR, Rogge RD. Compassionate acts and everyday emotional well-being among newlyweds. Emotion. 2017 Jun;17(4):751–63. [DOI]

34. Rezaei M. Determining the relationship between spouse's perceived responsiveness and nurses' marital intimacy. with the moderating role of attachment styles [Thesis for MSc]. [Tehran, Iran]: Kharazmi University; 2021. [Persian]

35. Naraškevičiūtė E. The relationship between perceived partner's responsiveness and sexual satisfaction: The role of positive body image [Thesis for MSc]. Utrecht University; 2017.

36. Chou CP, Bentler PM. Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH; editor. Structural equation modelin. New York: Giulford Press; 2012.

37. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

38. Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology. 1982;13:290. [DOI]

39. Schrodt P. Emotion labor with parents as a mediator of family communication patterns and young adult children's mental well-being. J Fam Commun. 2020;20(1):66–81. [DOI]

40. Mohammad Amin Zade, Kazemian S, Esmaeili M. Emotional balance and communication patterns in family: a comparative study between families with and without disability students. Journal of Woman and Family Studies. 2017;5(2):221–38. [Persian] [Article]

41. Bostwick EN, Johnson AJ. Family secrets: the roles of family communication patterns and conflict styles between parents and young adult children. Communication Reports. 2018;31(2):91–102. [DOI]

42. Sabzi N, Sheikholeslami R. The mediating role of emotional maturity in the relationship between family communication patterns and empathy. Developmental Psychology. 2015;12(46):141–53. [Persian]

43. Sedaghat Khah A, Behzadi Poor S. Predicting the quality of marital relationship on the base of relationship beliefs, mindfulness and psychological flexibility. Quarterly Journal of Woman & Society. 2017;8(30):57–77. [Persian] [Article]