| Literature DB >> 35045879 |
Souheil Hallit1,2, Sahar Obeid3, Yara El Frenn4, Marwan Akel5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lebanon is passing through an economic crisis leading to a decreased monthly income within a couple and more couple's dissatisfaction. Furthermore, many studies postulate that the different types of attachment styles affect the romantic relationship experienced between adults. The main objectives of our study were to (1) validate the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) and Couple Satisfaction Index-4 (CSI-4) scales, and (2) assess the association between attachment styles and couple satisfaction and evaluate the mediating role of alexithymia in these associations.Entities:
Keywords: Alexithymia; Attachment styles; Couple Satisfaction Index-4; Couple satisfaction; Depression; Lebanon; Relationship satisfaction; Toronto Alexithymia Scale; Validation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35045879 PMCID: PMC8772182 DOI: 10.1186/s40359-022-00719-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychol ISSN: 2050-7283
Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (N = 445)
| Variable | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Male | 146 (32.8%) |
| Female | 299 (67.2%) |
| Single (but in a serious relationship) | 321 (72.2%) |
| Married | 124 (27.8%) |
| Secondary or less | 321 (72.2%) |
| University | 124 (27.8%) |
Item descriptive statistics, standardized factor loadings, and explained variance of the couple satisfaction index
| Variable | Standardized factor loadings | Standard error | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSI 1 | 1 | ||
| CSI 2 | 0.84 | 0.13 | < 0.001 |
| CSI 3 | 0.93 | 0.14 | < 0.001 |
| CSI 4 | 0.91 | 0.14 | < 0.001 |
Item descriptive statistics, standardized factor loadings, and explained variance of the couple satisfaction index
| Variable | Standardized factor loadings | Standard error | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TAS 2 | 1 | ||
| TAS 11 | 0.718 | 0.076 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 12 | 0.596 | 0.072 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 17 | 0.509 | 0.077 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 1 | 1 | ||
| TAS 3 | 0.573 | 0.066 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 6 | 0.680 | 0.072 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 7 | 0.762 | 0.068 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 9 | 0.780 | 0.069 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 13 | 0.698 | 0.068 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 14 | 0.651 | 0.070 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 5 | 1 | ||
| TAS 10 | 0.724 | 0.097 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 15 | 0.419 | 0.082 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 16 | 0.480 | 0.088 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 18 | 0.693 | 0.096 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 19 | 0.743 | 0.097 | < 0.001 |
| TAS 20 | 0.425 | 0.087 | < 0.001 |
Correlation between the couple satisfaction index and other continuous variables
| Variable | Correlation coefficient | |
|---|---|---|
| Alexithymia | − 0.197 | |
| Depression | − 0.195 | |
| Secure attachment style | 0.196 | |
| Preoccupied attachment style | − 0.033 | 0.487 |
| Fearful attachment style | 0.115 | |
| Dismissing attachment style | − 0.025 | 0.592 |
| Age | − 0.092 | 0.054 |
| Number of children | − 0.011 | 0.816 |
| Household crowding index | − 0.193 |
Numbers in bold indicate significant p-values
Correlation between the couple satisfaction index and other categorical variables
| Variable | Mean ± SD | Effect size | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.990 | 0 | ||
| Male | 9.69 ± 5.36 | ||
| Female | 9.69 ± 5.54 | ||
| 0.498 | |||
| Single (but in a serious relationship) | 8.96 ± 5.41 | ||
| Married | 11.60 ± 5.19 | ||
| 0.259 | |||
| Secondary or less | 9.42 ± 5.48 | ||
| University | 10.82 ± 5.32 |
The Student t test was used to compare two means
Multivariable analysis: linear regression taking the couple satisfaction index as the dependent variable
| Variable | Unstandardized beta | Standardized beta | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marital status (married vs single*) | 3.59 | 0.29 | 2.38 to 4.81 | |
| Education level (university vs secondary or less*) | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.699 | − 0.95 to 1.42 |
| Age | − 0.12 | − 0.28 | − 0.16 to − 0.07 | |
| Household crowding index | − 1.29 | − 0.22 | − 1.79 to − 0.79 | |
| Alexithymia | − 0.09 | − 0.16 | − 0.15 to − 0.04 | |
| Depression | − 0.05 | − 0.12 | − 0.09 to − 0.01 | |
| Secure attachment style | 0.47 | 0.16 | 0.17 to 0.78 | |
| Preoccupied attachment style | − 0.27 | − 0.09 | 0.137 | − 0.62 to 0.09 |
| Fearful attachment style | 0.27 | 0.08 | 0.139 | − 0.09 to 0.62 |
| Dismissing attachment style | − 0.21 | − 0.06 | 0.221 | − 0.56 to 0.13 |
*Reference group
Mediation analysis
| Effect of attachment style on alexithymia | Effect of attachment style and alexithymia on couple satisfaction index | Effect of attachment style on couple satisfaction index | Mediating effect of alexithymia | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | 95% BCa CI | t | p | Beta | 95% BCa CI | t | p | Beta | 95% BCa CI | t | p | |||||
| Model 1: Attachment style, alexithymia and couple satisfaction index | ||||||||||||||||
| Secure | − 0.94 | − 1.46 | − 0.42 | − 3.53 | 0.56 | 0.25 | 0.86 | 3.57 | 0.66 | 0.36 | 0.97 | 4.24 | 19.19% | |||
| Alexithymia | − 0.11 | − 0.17 | − 0.06 | − 4.11 | ||||||||||||
| Preoccupied | 0.99 | 0.45 | 1.54 | 3.57 | − 0.37 | − 0.69 | − 0.04 | − 2.22 | − 0.47 | − 0.79 | − 0.15 | − 2.85 | 27.80% | |||
| Alexithymia | − 0.10 | − 0.16 | − 0.05 | − 3.69 | ||||||||||||
| Fearful | 0.86 | 0.34 | 1.38 | 3.23 | − 0.07 | − 0.38 | 0.24 | − 0.44 | 0.661 | − 0.17 | − 0.48 | 0.14 | − 1.06 | 0.290 | – | |
| Alexithymia | − 0.11 | − 0.17 | − 0.06 | − 4.11 | ||||||||||||
| Dismissing | 0.41 | − 0.09 | 0.91 | 1.60 | 0.111 | − 0.26 | − 0.55 | 0.03 | − 1.75 | 0.08 | − 0.30 | − 0.60 | − 0.01 | − 2.03 | 17.32% | |
| Alexithymia | − 0.11 | − 0.17 | − 0.06 | − 3.97 | ||||||||||||
Numbers in bold indicate significant p-values