Dyadic investigations of past traumatic events and affectionate touch frequency in couples.

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 FAMILY STUDIES
Turan Deniz Ergun,Kerem Besim Durbin,Lara Seefeld,Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik,Anik Debrot
{"title":"Dyadic investigations of past traumatic events and affectionate touch frequency in couples.","authors":"Turan Deniz Ergun,Kerem Besim Durbin,Lara Seefeld,Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik,Anik Debrot","doi":"10.1037/fam0001267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Past traumatic events negatively affect romantic relationships, yet their impact on affectionate touch, an important predictor of psychological and relational well-being, remains unknown. In two preregistered studies with nonclinical samples, we hypothesized that traumatic events are negatively associated with affectionate touch frequency for both the victim (i.e., actor effect) and their romantic partner (i.e., partner effect). We also expected this negative link to be stronger for the people perceiving relatively low responsiveness and/or high insensitivity in their partner. We used secondary data from 70 Swiss couples in Study 1 and collected data online from 441 couples living in the United States or United Kingdom in Study 2. All couples were heterosexual, and both studies were dyadic and cross-sectional. Unlike our hypotheses, analyses with Actor-Partner Interdependence Models revealed no negative associations between past traumatic events and affectionate touch. In Study 1, we found no significant actor effects but small-sized positive partner effects of men's traumatic events on women's affectionate touch frequency. In Study 2, however, two out of three actor effects and one partner effect were positive with negligible to small sizes. Neither perceived partner responsiveness nor insensitivity had a moderating role. The association between past traumatic experiences and affectionate touch was inconsistently nonsignificant or positive but consistently nonnegative across our two studies. Our research demonstrated that past traumatic events did not inhibit individuals from expressing love and care to their partner through affectionate touch in our sample, even for varying levels of perceived partner responsiveness (insensitivity). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Psychology","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001267","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Past traumatic events negatively affect romantic relationships, yet their impact on affectionate touch, an important predictor of psychological and relational well-being, remains unknown. In two preregistered studies with nonclinical samples, we hypothesized that traumatic events are negatively associated with affectionate touch frequency for both the victim (i.e., actor effect) and their romantic partner (i.e., partner effect). We also expected this negative link to be stronger for the people perceiving relatively low responsiveness and/or high insensitivity in their partner. We used secondary data from 70 Swiss couples in Study 1 and collected data online from 441 couples living in the United States or United Kingdom in Study 2. All couples were heterosexual, and both studies were dyadic and cross-sectional. Unlike our hypotheses, analyses with Actor-Partner Interdependence Models revealed no negative associations between past traumatic events and affectionate touch. In Study 1, we found no significant actor effects but small-sized positive partner effects of men's traumatic events on women's affectionate touch frequency. In Study 2, however, two out of three actor effects and one partner effect were positive with negligible to small sizes. Neither perceived partner responsiveness nor insensitivity had a moderating role. The association between past traumatic experiences and affectionate touch was inconsistently nonsignificant or positive but consistently nonnegative across our two studies. Our research demonstrated that past traumatic events did not inhibit individuals from expressing love and care to their partner through affectionate touch in our sample, even for varying levels of perceived partner responsiveness (insensitivity). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
对夫妻过去的创伤事件和爱抚频率的双向调查。
过去的创伤事件会对恋爱关系产生负面影响,但它们对亲情抚摸(心理和关系幸福的重要预测指标)的影响仍然未知。在两项预先登记的非临床样本研究中,我们假设创伤事件与受害者(即行为者效应)及其恋爱伴侣(即伴侣效应)的亲情抚摸频率呈负相关。我们还预计,这种负相关对于那些认为其伴侣反应能力相对较低和/或高度不敏感的人来说会更强。在研究 1 中,我们使用了 70 对瑞士情侣的二手数据;在研究 2 中,我们在线收集了 441 对居住在美国或英国的情侣的数据。所有夫妇均为异性恋,两项研究均为双向横断面研究。与我们的假设不同的是,演员-伴侣相互依赖模型的分析结果显示,过去的创伤事件与亲昵抚摸之间没有负面联系。在研究 1 中,我们发现男性的创伤事件对女性的亲昵接触频率没有显著的行为者效应,但有小规模的伴侣正效应。然而,在研究 2 中,三个行为者效应中有两个是正效应,一个伴侣效应是正效应,且效应大小可忽略不计或很小。感知到的伴侣反应性和不敏感性都没有起到调节作用。在我们的两项研究中,过去的创伤经历与亲切抚摸之间的关系不尽相同,有的不显著,有的呈正相关,但始终是非负相关。我们的研究表明,在我们的样本中,过去的创伤事件并没有抑制个体通过亲昵抚摸向伴侣表达爱和关怀,即使伴侣的反应能力(不敏感性)水平不同也是如此。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
200
期刊介绍: Journal of Family Psychology offers cutting-edge, groundbreaking, state-of-the-art, and innovative empirical research with real-world applicability in the field of family psychology. This premiere family research journal is devoted to the study of the family system, broadly defined, from multiple perspectives and to the application of psychological methods to advance knowledge related to family research, patterns and processes, and assessment and intervention, as well as to policies relevant to advancing the quality of life for families.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信