As well as be seen in the Table step one, the outcome presented modest significant dating between family relations functioning and you will DSS (roentgen =

As well as be seen in the Table step one, the outcome presented modest significant dating between family relations functioning and you will DSS (roentgen =

Given that revealed when you look at the Table dos, modest distinctions were included in DSS based on intercourse (t(183) = 2

Earliest, several Pearson’s correlation tests were applied so you can examine the brand new matchmaking anywhere between members of the family functioning and you may differentiation regarding self, members of the family performing and you may trait stress, and you may differentiation of worry about and feature stress is actually 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 including noticed moderate bad relationship ranging from family functioning and you may T/A (r = –

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 test if you can find variations in this new differentiation of self as well as size plus characteristic stress centered on intercourse, a great Student’s t test having separate trials was applied.

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 kody promocyjne afroromance 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).