Arguing With Friends vs. Romantic Partners: Do Emerging Adults’ Gender-Typed Conflict Management Strategies Vary by Sexual Orientation?

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Emily Keener, Julia Milo, Kourtney Kotvas
{"title":"Arguing With Friends vs. Romantic Partners: Do Emerging Adults’ Gender-Typed Conflict Management Strategies Vary by Sexual Orientation?","authors":"Emily Keener, Julia Milo, Kourtney Kotvas","doi":"10.1177/21676968231182477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We experimentally investigated the influence of sexual orientation, gender, relationship type, and partner gender on emerging adults’ gender-typed conflict management strategies. Our 2 Participant Gender (between-subjects) x 2 Sexual Orientation (between-subjects) x 3 Relationship Context (within-subjects) mixed factorial design addressed whether findings of prior research (Keener & Strough, 2017) with heterosexual emerging adults generalized to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer/Questioning (LGBQ) men and women. Participants (N = 227; LBQ women = 49; GBQ men = 33; heterosexual women = 70; heterosexual men = 75) were emerging adults from the United States. They read hypothetical conflict scenarios and rated their likelihood of using communal/other-focused or agentic/self-focused strategies. Endorsement of agentic strategies varied depending on sexual orientation, participant gender, and relationship type. However, endorsement of communal strategies only varied by participant gender and relationship type. Our findings support social contextual developmental approaches emphasizing that individual and contextual factors interact to influence gender-typed behavior.","PeriodicalId":47330,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Adulthood","volume":"11 1","pages":"979 - 993"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Adulthood","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968231182477","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We experimentally investigated the influence of sexual orientation, gender, relationship type, and partner gender on emerging adults’ gender-typed conflict management strategies. Our 2 Participant Gender (between-subjects) x 2 Sexual Orientation (between-subjects) x 3 Relationship Context (within-subjects) mixed factorial design addressed whether findings of prior research (Keener & Strough, 2017) with heterosexual emerging adults generalized to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer/Questioning (LGBQ) men and women. Participants (N = 227; LBQ women = 49; GBQ men = 33; heterosexual women = 70; heterosexual men = 75) were emerging adults from the United States. They read hypothetical conflict scenarios and rated their likelihood of using communal/other-focused or agentic/self-focused strategies. Endorsement of agentic strategies varied depending on sexual orientation, participant gender, and relationship type. However, endorsement of communal strategies only varied by participant gender and relationship type. Our findings support social contextual developmental approaches emphasizing that individual and contextual factors interact to influence gender-typed behavior.
与朋友争论与浪漫伴侣:新兴成年人的性别冲突管理策略是否因性取向而异?
我们通过实验研究了性取向、性别、关系类型和伴侣性别对新兴成人性别冲突管理策略的影响。我们的2名参与者性别(被试之间)x 2名性取向(被试之间)x 3名关系背景(被试内部)混合因子设计探讨了之前对异性恋新生成人的研究结果(Keener & Strough, 2017)是否可以推广到女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和酷儿/质疑(LGBQ)男性和女性。参与者(N = 227;LBQ女性= 49;GBQ男性= 33;异性恋女性= 70;异性恋男性(75人)是来自美国的初生成人。他们阅读假设的冲突场景,并评估他们使用集体/他人为中心或代理/自我为中心策略的可能性。对代理策略的认可取决于性取向、参与者性别和关系类型。然而,对公共策略的认可仅因参与者的性别和关系类型而异。我们的研究结果支持社会环境发展方法,强调个人和环境因素相互作用影响性别类型的行为。
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
Emerging Adulthood
Emerging Adulthood Multiple-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
19.20%
发文量
87
×
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