All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Exploring the Relationship Between Hurtful Messages and Partner Attachment
Unformatted Document Text:  Hurt and Attachment 14 of HMs in the overall relationship. These items were modified in order to use Likert scales (ranging from “1” indicating strongly disagree and “7” indicating strongly agree). Additionally, because some of the constructs were measured with two or three items in the original measures, other items were added including several items intended to capture the opposite of hurt (e.g., fostering self-esteem). All items are provided in Appendix A. To reduce the scales regarding degree of hurt and frequency of HMs to composite scores, a principal components analysis was conducted with an oblimin rotation. Though three factors had eigenvalues over 1.0, the scree plot indicated only two factors. Based on the factor loadings, the analysis showed strong factors for the frequency of HMs in the relationship (7 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .90) as well as for the degree of hurt (6 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .93). These items were combined to form overall scores of degree of hurt and frequency of HMs. Analysis of the distributions of the predictor and outcome variables revealed that the three attachment dimensions (i.e., secure, preoccupied, avoidant) were all normally distributed. However, the frequency of HMs and the degree of hurt variables were positively skewed. Thus, these latter variables were transformed; a logarithmic transformation was conducted on the frequency of HMs, and an inverse transformation was conducted on the degree of hurt variable due to its more severe skewness (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Design Due to the nested nature of the data (i.e., partners within couples), normal linear regression analyses would violate the assumption of independence of observations. Thus, multi- level regression analyses were conducted. This procedure accounts for the interdependence within groups and also estimates the variance between groups (Bryk & Raudenbush, 2000). Models predicting frequency of HMs and degree of hurt were conducted with all three

Authors: Dailey, Rene. and Le Poire, Beth.
first   previous   Page 14 of 29   next   last



background image
Hurt and Attachment 14
of HMs in the overall relationship. These items were modified in order to use Likert scales
(ranging from “1” indicating strongly disagree and “7” indicating strongly agree). Additionally,
because some of the constructs were measured with two or three items in the original measures,
other items were added including several items intended to capture the opposite of hurt (e.g.,
fostering self-esteem). All items are provided in Appendix A.
To reduce the scales regarding degree of hurt and frequency of HMs to composite scores,
a principal components analysis was conducted with an oblimin rotation. Though three factors
had eigenvalues over 1.0, the scree plot indicated only two factors. Based on the factor loadings,
the analysis showed strong factors for the frequency of HMs in the relationship (7 items;
Cronbach’s alpha = .90) as well as for the degree of hurt (6 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .93).
These items were combined to form overall scores of degree of hurt and frequency of HMs.
Analysis of the distributions of the predictor and outcome variables revealed that the
three attachment dimensions (i.e., secure, preoccupied, avoidant) were all normally distributed.
However, the frequency of HMs and the degree of hurt variables were positively skewed. Thus,
these latter variables were transformed; a logarithmic transformation was conducted on the
frequency of HMs, and an inverse transformation was conducted on the degree of hurt variable
due to its more severe skewness (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001).
Design
Due to the nested nature of the data (i.e., partners within couples), normal linear
regression analyses would violate the assumption of independence of observations. Thus, multi-
level regression analyses were conducted. This procedure accounts for the interdependence
within groups and also estimates the variance between groups (Bryk & Raudenbush, 2000).
Models predicting frequency of HMs and degree of hurt were conducted with all three


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 14 of 29   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.