While the revealed in Dining table dos, modest variations was in fact included in DSS centered on intercourse (t(183) = 2
Very first, multiple Pearson’s relationship examination have been used to help you compare the relationship anywhere between loved ones doing work and you will differentiation from datingranking.net/pl/amateurmatch-recenzja thinking, family members functioning and trait nervousness, and you will distinction out-of notice and you can attribute nervousness try checked.
43, p < .001, r 2 = .19) and adaptability and DSS (r = .43, p < .001, r 2 = .19), and cohesion and DSS (r = .39, p < .001, r 2 = .15). In addition, significant relationships were found between the dimensions of the family functioning and the dimensions of the differentiation of self. Specifically, adaptability was moderately and negatively related to EC (r = -.50, p < .001, r 2 = .25) and slightly related to FO (r = -.19, p = .009, r 2 = .04), IP (r = .22, p = .002, r 2 = .05) and ER (r = -.27, p < .001, r 2 = .07). It was also observed that cohesion was moderately associated with EC (r = -.52, p < .001, r 2 = .27) and slightly related to IP (r = .21, p = .005, r 2 = .04) and ER (r = -.20, p = .006, r 2 = .04).
It actually was together with observed average bad matchmaking between loved ones working and T/An effective (roentgen = –
44, p < .001, r 2 = .19), as well as between adaptability and T/A (r = -.41, p < .001, r 2 = .16) and between cohesion and T/A (r = -.42, p < .001, r 2 = .17).
Likewise, it was found that DSS and T/A are negatively and rather highly related (r = -.69, p < .001, r 2 = .48). Finally, significant and positive relationships were found between RE and T/A (r = .67, p < .001, r 2 = .45), with a high magnitude; CE and T/A (r = .55, p < .001, r 2 = .30), with a moderated magnitude; FO and T/A (r = .33, p < .001, r 2 = .11); and IP and T/A (r = -.36, p < .001, r 2 = .13), with a negative relationship.
Next, to check in the event the you’ll find variations in the fresh new differentiation away from care about and its own proportions and in feature stress based on gender, a great Student’s t shot for independent examples was used.
24, p = .026, Cohen?s d = .35), with a higher mean in the group of men (M = 4.33, SD = .41) compared to the group of women (M = 4.17, SD = .49). Furthermore, large differences were observed between men and women in ER (t(183) = -4.88, p = < .001, Cohen?s d = .76), with higher scores in women (M = 3.61, SD = .95) than in men (M = 2.92, SD = .84); and moderate differences were found in IP (t(183) = 2.37, p = .019, Cohen?s d = .37), with higher scores in men (M = 4.77, SD = .59) than in women (M = 4.54,SD = .63). Finally, statistically significant differences were found in T/A according to sex (t(183) = -2.84, p = .005, Cohen?s d = .45), with a higher mean in women (M = , SD = ) than in men (M = , SD = ), and a moderate effect size.
To check if the family functioning predicts the level of differentiation of self achieved and if family functioning and differentiation of self predict anxiety, two linear regression analysis were performed. Before, it was observed that the relationship between Cohesion and Adaptability was high (r = .79, Cronbach’s alphas of both subscales = .95). To solve the problems of multicollinearity, the total family functioning score was included as a predictor variable, instead of its two dimensions. A simple linear regression revealed that family functioning (? = .43, p < .001) explained 18.8% of the DSS scores (R 2 = .188, F(1,183) = , p < .001). Furthermore, a multiple linear regression revealed that family functioning (? = -.17, p < .001) and differentiation of self (? = -.62, p < .001) explained 50.3% of trait anxiety (R 2 = .503, F(2,182) = , p < .001).