POLNE RAZLIKE U PREFERENCIJAMA PREMA OSOBINAMA IDEALNOG PARTNERA I ULOGA AFEKTIVNE VEZANOSTI

  • Dejan Kantar Katedra za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci
  • Marija Zotović Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu
  • Siniša Subotić Katedra za psihologiju i Prirodno-matematički fakultet, Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci
Ključne reči: idealan partner, instrumentalne osobine, ekspresivne osobine, dimenzije afektivne vezanosti, rana odrasla dob

Apstrakt

Prvi cilj ovog istraživanja jeste ispitati koje psihološke karakteristike idealnog partnera vrednuju ženske i muške osobe u ranoj odrasloj dobi. Drugi cilj jeste utvrditi mogu li se potencijalne razlike u preferencijama prema osobinama idealnog partnera predvidjeti na osnovu izraženosti dimenzija afektivne vezanosti: anksioznosti i izbjegavanja. Prigodan uzorak čini 279 heteroseksualnih studenata (51.6% djevojaka), prosječnog uzrasta 20.33 godine. Ispitanici su popunili Modifikovanu skalu iskustava u bliskim odnosima (SM-ECR-R) te BSRI inventar polne uloge, koji je korišćen kao mjera poželjnih partnerskih osobina. Rezultati pokazuju da su djevojke i mladići uglavnom usaglašeni u pogledu stepena poželjnosti većine osobina idealnog partnera. Kao poželjne birane su i ekspresivne i instrumentalne osobine, s tim da je uočena snažnija preferencija prema prvim. I djevojke i mladići poželjnijim idealnim partnerima smatraju emotivno ekspresivnije osobe, s tim da djevojke svoje idealne partnere opisuju preko viših vrijednosti i na mjerama socijalne dominacije i na mjerama emotivne ekspresivnosti. Razmatranjem individualnih razlika preko dimenzija afektivnog vezivanja utvrđeno je da višu preferenciju prema socijalnoj dominaciji predviđaju niže izbjegavanje i niža anksioznost, dok višu preferenciju prema emotivnoj ekspresivnosti predviđaju niže izbjegavanje i viša anksioznost. Ovim je potvrđeno da teorija afektivnog vezivanja predstavlja koristan koncept u objašnjenju preferencija prema osobinama idealnog partnera, pri čemu je intenzitet predikcije osjetno veći u slučaju emotivne ekspresivnosti nego socijalne dominacije.

Reference

Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751

Atari, M., & Jamali, R. (2016). Dimensions of women’s mate preferences. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(2), 1−10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916651443

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226−244.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215

Bem, S. L. (1981). A manual for the Bem sex role inventory. Consulting Psychologist Press.

Bem, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of crosssex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078640

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Bosak, J., Eagly, A., Diekman, A., & Sczesny, S. (2017). Women and men of the past, present, and future: evidence of dynamic gender stereotypes in Ghana. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117738750

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107−136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x

Boxer, C. F., Noonan, M. C., & Whelan, C. B. (2013). Measuring mate preferences. Journal of Family Issues, 36(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x13490404

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Selfreport measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.

Brumbaugh, C. C., Baren, A., & Agishtein, P. (2014). Attraction to attachment insecurity: Flattery, appearance, and status’s role in mate preferences. Personal Relationships, 21(2), 288–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12032

Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., … & Yang, K.-S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022190211001

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x

Choi, N., & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem sex role inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 872–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258235

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

De Winter, J. F. C., & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Addendum added October 2012). Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(11), 1−16. Retrieved from: https://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=11

Delacre, M., Lakens, D., & Leys, C. (2017). Why psychologists should by default use Welch’s t‒test instead of student’s t‒test. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 92‒101. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.82

Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001

Domingue, R., & Mollen, D. (2009). Attachment and conflict communication in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(5), 678−696. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0265407509347932

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 355–377). Guilford Press.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72−89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350

Green, B. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (1994). The attractiveness of gender-typed traits at different relationship levels: Androgynous characteristics may be desirable after all. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(3), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294203002

Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 40(3), 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081

Hanak, N., & Dimitrijevic, A. (2013). A Serbian version of modified and revised experiences in close relationships scale (SM–ECR–R). Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(5), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.778271

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Holmes, B. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2009). Adult attachment and romantic partner preference: A review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(6−7), 833−852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509345653

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53−60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R

Kachel, S., Steffens, M. C., & Niedlich, C. (2016). Traditional Masculinity and Femininity: Validation of a New Scale Assessing Gender Roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956

Levy, G. D., Taylor, M. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). Traditional and evaluative aspects of flexibility in gender roles, social conventions, moral rules, and physical laws. Child Development, 66, 515–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131594

Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2

Maznah, I., & Choo, P. F. (1986). The Factor Structure of the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). International Journal of Psychology, 21(1–4), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598608247574

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics and change. Guilford Press.

Montgomery, M. J. (2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(3), 346–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558404273118

Moreland, J. R., Gulanick, N., Montague, E. K., & Harren, V. A. (1978). Some psychometric properties of the Bem sex-role inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(2), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167800200207

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625−632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y

Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 996–1016. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.996

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1−36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

Sadikaj, G., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2016). Negative affective reaction to partner’s dominant behavior influences satisfaction with romantic relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(8), 1324–1346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516677060

Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023

Simpson, J. A., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Campbell, L. (2001). The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes (pp. 86–106). Oxford: Blackwell.

Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x

Stefanović Stanojević, T. (2011). Afektivna vezanost: razvoj, modaliteti i procena. Filozofski fakultet u Nišu.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871−1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.

Vuletić, G. i Vuletić, T. (2017). Opažanje današnjeg muškarca i osobine poželjnog partnera s obzirom na konstrukte maskulinosti i femininosti. Psihološka istraživanja, 20(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.5937/PsIstra1702273V

Waters, C. W., Waters, L. K., & Pincus, S. (1977). Factor analysis of masculine and feminine sex-typed items from the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Psychological Reports, 40(2), 567–570. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1977.40.2.567
Objavljeno
09. 07. 2020.
Broj časopisa
Sekcija
Članci