Women’s avoidant attachment, conflict solving, and relationship satisfaction through individualism and masculinity

Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Current Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04988-1 Women’s avoidant attachment, conflict solving, andrelationship satisfaction throughindividualism andmasculinity IoneBretaña1 · ItziarAlonso‑Arbiol1 · ShiriLavy2 · FangZhang3 Accepted: 11 July 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract The utilization of specific strategies to manage couple conflict has a differential impact on women’s relationship satisfaction. However, considering that women’s role within couple relationship is shaped by societal norms, such association should be examined by embracing a cross-cultural perspective. Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the effect of individualism/ collectivism and masculinity/femininity cultural values on avoidant attachment, perceived conflict solving, and relationship satisfaction. The sample consisted of 334 women from Israel, USA, Türkiye, and Spain. An unconstrained general model elucidates the connections among relationship satisfaction, avoidant attachment, and conflict solving strategies across all countries; yet, the strength of certain associations varies based on the dimensions of masculinity and individualism. In individualistic countries, avoidant attachment predicts lower relationship satisfaction in women. The prediction of own withdrawal by avoidant attachment remains similar among women, regardless of the individualism dimension. Nevertheless, in feminine (i.e., role egalitarian) countries, the link between female’s avoidant attachment and their partner’s use of positive conflict solving strategies is stronger. Additionally, the withdrawal strategy predicts partner demand to a greater extent in women from feminine countries. These findings will assist professionals from different countries in developing culturally sensitive and tailored prevention and intervention tools. Keywords Avoidant attachment· Conflict resolution· Cultural masculinity· Gender roles· Individualism· Relationship satisfaction How partners manage conflict has significant effects on relationship satisfaction, which in turn, impacts partners’ mental and physical well-being (Moral de la Rubia etal., 2011). The strategies used to cope with conflict appear to be influenced by cultural norms, values, and beliefs (e.g., Gomez & Taylor, 2018). Certain cultural dimensions, as identified by Hofstede etal. (2010), play a significant role in shaping inter-relational codes and relationship norms. Specifically, researchers like Bretaña etal. (2019) have observed associations between individualism-collectivism (IDV) and masculinity-femininity (MAS) dimensions, which serves as a proxy for societies with varying degrees of patriarchal culture dominance) and the diverse conflict resolution strategies employed by women. In terms of IDV, countries with high scores are characterized by promoting individuals’ independency and autonomy, while countries with lower scores (leaning towards the collectivism pole) emphasize harmony, altruism, and interdependency among individuals. As for masculinity (MAS), this country-level dimension reflects cultural expectations of gender roles and has been found to influence relational dynamics and how women interact with their partners during marital conflict (e.g., Kluwer & Mikula, 2002). High MAS scores indicate Broader impact statement Unlike most studies that focus on a pattern characterized by men withdrawing from conflicts and women demanding them, our investigation takes an inverse approach. We analyze the effect of women withdrawing from conflicts and their male partners being demanding, contributing to the understand of relational dynamics in women’s victimization. Additionally, rather than assuming a universal approach, this study emphasizes the cultural variability underlying women’s strategies for resolving couple conflicts within couples. Furthermore, it explores how this distinctiveness influences their level of satisfaction within the relationship. * Ione Bretaña [email protected] 1 Faculty ofPsychology, University oftheBasque Country UPV/EHU, Av. Tolosa, 70, 20018SanSebastian, Spain 2 University ofHaifa, Haifa, Israel 3 Assumption College, Worcester, MA, USA Current Psychology 1 3 greater differences in social roles between genders, whereas the femininity end of the continuum refers to those societies where social roles of both genders overlap (Hofstede, 2001). Cultural norms regarding conflict management and communication codes may have a more prominent impact on women. For instance, Fernandez etal. (2014) found that differences in masculinity values (i.e., society’s gender role difference) explained variations in women’s emotion regulation, with women from more masculine countries more frequently employing anger as an emotion regulation mechanism. However, research on conflict resolution strategies and relationship satisfaction has generally overlooked potential differences among women from various countries. This aspect deserves a more comprehensive analysis due to the anticipated cultural variations in how women handle relationship conflicts (Bretaña etal., 2019). Neglecting such cultural differences may result in researchers incorrectly generalizing findings and family therapists and practitioners employing inadequate intervention strategies for women from diverse cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, research suggests that relationship satisfaction, reflecting individuals’ general evaluation about their relationship (Li & Fung, 2011), may also be affected by cultural factors (Sorokowski etal., 2017). Although most studies analyze the association between individual variables (e.g., attachment dimensions) and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Brassard etal., 2009; Molero etal., 2017), it has also been confirmed that such evaluation is subject to cultural values, norms, and expectations (Lalonde etal., 2004; Myers etal., 2005). Specifically, the level of satisfaction in a close relationship will be influenced by the extent to which the relationship meets culturally prescribed obligations and expectations (e.g., Myers etal., 2005). As Sorokowski etal. (2017) found in their meta-analysis, relationship satisfaction is influenced both by individual variables and cultural values. This simultaneous double-perspective of analysis has not been carried out for women’s relationship satisfaction; yet, this issue is particularly relevant because a meta-analysis by Jackson etal. (2014) showed that women’s relationship satisfaction scores were lower than men’s in Asiatic cultures, although differences in relationship satisfaction between women and men from United States had not been found. In the remaining of the Introduction, we will firstly offer a brief overview of the theoretical framework of adult attachment theory. Specifically, we will review the state-of-the-art findings on the associations among avoidant attachment, relationship satisfaction, and conflict solving strategies, examining them through the lens of IDV as a cultural dimension. Secondly, we will analyze how MAS helps in understanding individuals’ perception of their own and their partner’s conflict resolution strategies. Finally, we will propose an explanatory model of women’s relationship satisfaction levels that takes into consideration avoidant attachment dimension, conflict resolution strategies, as well as the cultural dimensions of IDV and MAS. Avoidant attachment andrelationship satisfaction Attachment has been widely used in research studies to explain behavioral differences in relational contexts. In the context of intimate relationships, attachment refers to the analysis of activation patterns and displayed behaviors (e.g., proximity, contact, and support) with attachment figures in threatening situations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Fournier etal. (2011) proposed a model that characterizes insecure attachment considering two dimensions: anxiety (about close relationships) and avoidance (of intimacy). Anxiety pertains to an individual’s excessive worry and constant monitoring of the relationship with his/her partner, often accompanied by a fear of abandonment. Avoidance, on the other hand, emphasizes independence and maintaining emotional distance from the partner. Attachment is a key variable that explains relationship satisfaction; however, meta-analytics studies (e.g., Candel & Turliuc, 2019; Li & Chan, 2012) have observed that the dimension of avoidance exerts a stronger detrimental impact on relationship satisfaction. Candel and Turliuc (2019) analyzed gender differences in the link between avoidant attachment and relationship satisfaction but focused only on a moderation effect, finding that the link of such attachment orientation with relationship satisfaction was weaker in Asian individuals compared to counterparts from North America and Europe. Yet, the cultural dimensions that explain such an association were unknown in their study. Furthermore, using continents as analysis units may not accurately capture cultural differences since they include countries that differ in one or more cultural dimensions known to be associated to the realm of relationships (e.g., Bretaña etal., 2019; Hofstede etal., 2010). Thus, further examination is necessitated to analyze the relationship between avoidant attachment and relationship satisfaction through a more fine-grained analysis: a) considering cultural values —as IDV and MAS cultural dimensions— presumed to be associated with relational questions, and b) selecting countries that differ in at least two cultural dimensions, as recommended for cross-cultural studies —and employing at least three countries— (Forbes, 2010; Van de Vijver & Leung, 2000). The current study is intended to fill this gap by answering five research questions —and by testing five corresponding hypotheses— that include the culture filter, which will be posed in the subsequent subsections. Current Psychology 1 3 Avoidant attachment, relationship satisfaction, andindividualism Expectations, beliefs, and values regarding relationships can be explained by cultural dimensions identified by Hofstede (2001): IDV and MAS. Cultural dimensions represent patterns that vary across countries. Bretaña etal. (2019) found that females from collectivistic cultures scored higher in avoidance than women from individualistic countries. Nevertheless, they did not analyze the link between avoidant attachment and relationship satisfaction, which might be subject to cultural variation (Alonso-Arbiol etal., 2007). In collectivistic cultures, marital/couple relationships may serve a more pragmatic function, with love playing a less important role, and the relationship with the partner having a primary functional (economically) role compared to relationships in individualistic cultures (Ubillos & Barrientos, 2001). While collectivist cultures highly value relationships with others, intimacy and affective issues are more often shared within the extended family network rather than being limited to the couple relationship (Dion & Dion, 1993). Fuller etal. (2004) specifically suggested that in collectivistic cultures, women’s relational bonds with their partners are supported by other memberships, such as familism. Conversely, romantic love holds greater importance in individualistic cultures, as close relationships contribute to personal fulfillment for each individual (Lalonde etal., 2004), potentially due to the lesser role of other family relations in fulfilling affective role. Building of this line of linking, it is expected that the avoidant attachment dimension would have a more negative impact in women from individualistic cultures compared to women from collectivist countries (Hypotheses 1). In any case, the effect of attachment orientation on relational dynamics extends beyond women’s relationship satisfaction in various cultures. Research demonstrates that attachment dimensions also influence how individuals resolve marital conflicts and perceive them (Bretaña etal., 2020). Avoidant attachment andconflict solving strategies In(adequate) conflict resolution and its impact on relationship satisfaction and couples’ well-being has become a crucial area of interest for relationship researchers and therapists (McNully & Russell, 2010). Positive problem-solving implies an adequate approach in which partners communicate their needs and wishes, working together to find positive solutions to problems (Hahlweg etal., 1984). On the other hand, demand and withdrawal are frequently adopted maladaptive resolution strategies in problematic couple dynamics (Bonache etal., 2019), and they are commonly associated with lower levels of personal well-being for both oneself and one’s partner (Siffert & Schwarz, 2010). Demand conflict resolution strategy is characterized by requests to the partner to discuss the problem with the use of criticism and complain (Eldridge etal., 2007). Withdrawal strategies involve behaviors such as evasion, distancing, and escape from the conflict scenario (Eldridge etal., 2007). Researchers have focused on understanding how individuals with high levels of avoidant attachment perceive couple conflicts and behaviors displayed during those conflicts (e.g., Bonache etal., 2019; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Those individuals who exhibit higher avoidant attachment are likely to perceive conflict situations and the behaviors of others more negatively (Crowley, 2008). These perceptions are often associated with greater tendency to engage in evasive communication (Fowler & Dillow, 2011) and to use withdrawal and distancing strategies to resolve conflicts (Crowley, 2008). Regarding perceived partner’s behavior, Frías etal. (2014) found that highly avoidant individuals perceive their partners as unsupportive leading them to believe that their partners are not employing positive conflict resolution strategies that involve agreement and negotiation to resolve conflicts (Kurdek, 1998). In fact, recent research by Bretaña etal. (2020) in a Spanish sample including female and male individuals demonstrated a link between the avoidantly attached individuals perceiving the partner as using fewer positive problem-solving strategies. Nevertheless, there is scarcity of research that have examined how avoidant attachment is linked to the perception of partner positively solving problems across countries with different cultural values, such as variations in individualism (IDV) and masculinity-femininity (MAS) rankings. In our study, we aimed to answer this literature gap associated with cultural differences focusing on women. This choice is driven by the circumstance that women, influenced by gender socialization, often place a higher priority on preserving relationships compared to men (Cross etal., 2000). Moreover, women often display a heightened motivation to actively tackle issues to uphold the well-being of their relationships (Baker & McNulty, 2019) and are more attentive to and reflective of relational matters (e.g., Williams etal., 2009). Additionally, women tend to utilize conflict resolution strategies to a greater extent compared to men (Tamres etal., 2002). This highlights the significance of their perception of their partners’ behavior and its potential influence on their assessment of relationship quality. The rationale for these cultural differential aspects is explained below. Avoidant attachment, perceived conflict resolution strategies, andindividualism Culture plays a significant role in shaping individuals’ emotion regulation and conflict management strategies (Heppner, Current Psychology 1 3 2008). One key cultural dimension, individualism/collectivism, influences how individuals handle conflicts in close relationships, interacting with their attachment orientations. While withdrawal and distancing conflict resolution strategies are more commonly associated with collectivistic countries as a means to promote group harmony (Friedman etal., 2010), the use of withdrawal strategy within couple relationships may vary across cultures when considering the impact of avoidant attachment on conflict behaviors. Withdrawal itself is a strategy employed by highly avoidant individuals to manage distress (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000), highlighting their need for autonomy and independence (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). This need for autonomy is more prevalent in individualistic countries than in collectivistic ones (Hofstede, 2001; Schmitt etal., 2003). Therefore, the associations between the cognitive-affective inclination of seeking intimacy avoidance (i.e., avoidant attachment dimension) and the adoption of a behavioral withdrawal strategy might be stronger in individualistic countries. Culture may also help explain differences in how highly avoidant individuals perceive their partners’ behaviors during conflicts. While there are limited studies on this specific topic, a handful of studies has examined a proxy variable: perceived social support from the partner. Specifically, Ho etal. (2010) noticed that the avoidant orientation of attachment was linked with lower perceived partner support in a university sample from Hong-Kong (a collectivistic country) to a higher extent compared to an American sample (an individualistic country). A similar result was observed by Friedman etal. (2010), who showed that the relationships between avoidant attachment and decreased perceived partner’s support was stronger in collectivistic countries (i.e., Hong-Kong and Mexico) than in an individualistic culture (i.e., USA). Although social support remains in the affective sphere (rather than the cognitive nature of perception), due to its links with the use of problem-solving strategy (Kaur, 2017), it is reasonable to expect that the trend of stronger effect in individualistic countries would also apply to how partners are perceived to employ problem-solving strategies. A closer look at the gender perspective shows research evidence pointing to women’s higher tendency than men to use positive problem-solving strategies —active coping, planning, and problem-focused coping— (e.g., Tamres etal., 2002). These results might be interpreted, in turn, as perceiving that their male partners use positive problem-solving strategy less frequently by opposition and according to their expectation standards. Tamres etal.’s (2002) research, however, was conducted in English-speaking and highly individualistic countries according to Hofstede’s (2010) ranking: United States, Canada, England, Australia, Ireland, and New-Zealand. Conversely, societally reinforced relational expectations (Williams etal., 2009) may be amplified in women from collectivistic countries, where the emphasis on interdependence and relationship with others is stronger (Hofstede, 2001). Consequently, women in collectivistic countries may experience higher normative pressure to maintain relationships through problem-solving and mutual communication (Tamres etal., 2002). In sum, we expect that women scoring higher in avoidant attachment will show the following patterns: a) they will exhibit higher levels of withdrawal conflict strategy in individualist countries compared to women from collectivistic countries (Hypotheses 2), and b) they will perceive their male partners as using positive problem-solving strategies to a lesser extent in collectivistic countries compared to women from individualistic countries (Hypotheses 3). Conflict solving, relationship satisfaction, andcountry‑level masculinity‑femininity In addition to individualism, masculinity is another relevant cultural dimension that influences individuals’ regulation of themselves in couple conflicts and how these strategies impact their relationship satisfaction. Masculinity reflects societal expectations of gender roles and can have an effect on how women resolve conflicts with their male partners in couple relationships (e.g., Kluwer & Mikula, 2002). Rehman and Holtzworth-Munroe (2006) analyzed the association of withdrawal and demand with culture, without examining the interaction between these two strategies. They found that demand was more frequent in women in egalitarian relationships, while women in less egalitarian relationships used demand and withdrawal to a lesser extent. Nevertheless, these results were analyzed at an individuallevel, focusing on gender-role levels between the two partners, rather than at the cultural-level, which considers variations in gender-role norms across cultures. To understand how individual variability in dealing with conflict with male partners may be influenced by cultural values and norms, it is essential to examine this phenomenon at a more macro level, considering cultural differences in gender-role normative differentiation (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 2006). When it comes to perception and how demand and withdrawal are perceived to be deployed by the partner, gender role-based differences have been reported. Kluwer and Mikula (2002) found that in egalitarian marriages, which are more normative in feminine countries, asymmetric conflict resolution strategies (demand-withdrawal) were more salient compared to traditional marriages with stronger roles differences between women and men. Women from more traditional marriages (a proxy for masculinity societies at the cultural level) tend to notice less conflict and are more prone to use negotiation to reach consensus on gender roles, norms, and relationships rules (VanYperen & Buunk, 1991). In contrast, relationship Current Psychology 1 3 roles and rules are less determined in egalitarian marriages (Kluwer & Mikula, 2002), allowing both partners to discuss matters more openly without normative obligations to comply with male partners’ decisions (Pratto & Walker, 2004). Thus, women in egalitarian marriages (a proxy for feminine societies at the country level) are more likely to stand up for their position and well-being in the close relationship and perceive greater conflict with their partner (Buunk etal., 2000). This scenario suggests a higher use of asymmetric (i.e., with different aim/function) relational conflict dynamics where demand and withdrawal are more prevalent. Nevertheless, the results observed by Kluwer and Mikula (2002) are based on a single country (the Netherlands), where relational norms do not differ for the examined sample. In summary, we may expect that the association between own withdrawal perception and perceived partner demand to be stronger among women from feminine countries than among women from masculine ones (Hypothesis 4). Finally, we test Bretaña etal.’s (2020) relational model cross-culturally (see Fig.1). Our proposal involves examining the links between the avoidant orientation of attachment and both own perceived and partner (perceived) conflict resolution strategies, as well as the mediational effect of the conflict solving in the association between avoidant attachment and relationship satisfaction, through cultural dimensions. The interactive conflict perception pattern in our study is based on the withdrawal-demand model introduced by Bonache etal. (2019), and it has been comprehensively described in previous research by Bretaña etal. (2020). This implies a hypothesis of an overall model that may be applicable to all cultures (Hypothesis 5). Aim andhypotheses Our study was developed to look into the effects of individualism and masculinity cultural values on avoidant attachment, (perceived) conflict solving strategies, and relationship satisfaction. For the sake of clarity, we summarize here all the hypotheses. The first hypotheses (H1 to H4) deal with cultural differences in the association of some variables (i.e., specific paths) of the model. The last hypothesis (H5) aims at testing a model on interrelated variables that explain women’s relationship satisfaction from the mentioned variables. (i.e., the configural invariance). Hypothesis 1: The expected association between the avoidant orientation of attachment and decreased relationship satisfaction will be stronger among women from individualistic countries compared to women from collectivist countries. Hypothesis 2: Women scoring higher in avoidant attachment will exhibit higher levels of withdrawal conflict strategy in individualist countries compared to women from collectivistic countries. Hypothesis 3: Women reporting higher avoidant attachment will feel their partners as using positive problemsolving strategies to a lesser extent in collectivistic countries compared to women from individualistic countries. Hypothesis 4: The association between two asymmetrical conflict solving strategies —specifically, own withdrawal perception and partner demand perception — will be stronger among women from feminine countries than among women from masculine countries. Hypothesis 5: A configural cross-cultural model is proposed to explain women’s relationship satisfaction. - - - Avoidance Attachment Own Withdrawal Perceived Partner Demand Relationship Satisfaction Perceived Partner Positive + + - Fig. 1 Path model of women’s couple satisfaction Current Psychology 1 3 Women reporting higher avoidant attachment will show a higher perception of their own conflict resolution strategy (withdrawal) and their partner’s conflict resolution strategies (demand and positive problem-solving), which, in turn, will be associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction. The current study Four countries that are representative of the IDV and MAS cultural dimensions were analyzed (see Fig.2). Türkiye was considered a collectivistic and feminine country, valuing consensus and promoting equality and friendliness (Hofstede, 2001). Spain was categorized as an individualistic (Páez & Zubieta, 2004) and feminine country (Hofstede, 2001). The USA was classified as an individualistic country with a leaning towards masculinity (Hofstede, 2001). Lastly, Israel was identified as a collectivist society with a strong sense of regional patriotism (Sagy etal., 1999; Triandis, 1995); and regarding MAS, Israel has generally been considered in an intermediate position between masculinity and femininity but was selected and classified as masculine for the study because it is positioned as more masculine in comparison to Spain and Türkiye. Methods Participants We estimated the size of the sample with GPower v.3.1 (Faul etal., 2009). We utilized results from Candel and Turliuc’s (2019) meta-analysis, in which authors found a medium association between these two variables for women (r = −.45). In our study, with an alpha of .05 and power of .95, a sample of N = 45 was required. Since two multigroup models were proposed for each model, the hypothetic sample size would be 90 individuals. Our sample was made of 332 women (48.1% from Spain, 25.5% from Israel, 14.5% from USA, and 11.8% from Türkiye). Their mean age was 35.2 (SD = 11.57), mean for relationship length was 11.75 (SD = 11.62), and 67.2% were married, 32.1% cohabiting, and 0.7% were only dating. The majority women had a single child (54.8%). Regarding education, 2.7% had primary education, 19.2% had completed secondary education, 8.4% had college-level education, and 60.8% had completed university studies. As for religion, in Israel, 53.3% were Jewish and 39% Christians; in USA, 40.8% were Catholics Christians, 22.4% were Protestant Christians, and 28.6% identified as followers of a different religion; in Türkiye, 91.3% were Sunni Muslims, and 4.3% were Shia Muslims; and in Spain, 62.1% were Catholic Christians and 34.6% were atheist. Instruments Sociodemographic information Individuals completed a sociodemographic sheet. These following variables were collected: gender, age, country, relationship length, gender, education, children, relationship status, and erotic orientation.1 Experiences in close relationships (ECR; Brennan etal., 1998; in its Spanish version by Alonso-Arbiol etal., 2007; Hebrew and Turkish versions by Bretaña etal., 2019). The ECR is a commonly employed instrument composed of 36 self-reported items rated on a Likert-7 scale (from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree) and tapping two subscales, which assesses attachment orientations: anxiety and avoidance. In this study only avoidance was used; it measures individuals’ comfort with emotional closeness to others (e.g., I try to avoid getting too close to my partner). Higher scores are indicative of higher avoidance. Cronbach alphas were as follows: .86 (Israel), .87 (USA), .81 (Türkiye), and .85 (Spain). Revised conflict inventory (CI-R; Ridley etal., 2001; Spanish, Hebrew, and Turkish versions by Bretaña etal., 2019). The CI-R assesses conflict resolution strategies in couples using 13 items through three dimensions: positive problemsolving, withdrawal, and demand. The inventory assesses USASpain Masculinity IsraelTürkiye Collectivism Femininity Individualism Fig. 2 Country display based on individualism-collectivism (IDV) and masculinity-femininity (MAS). Note. The vertical line represents the dimension of individualism (IDV), while the horizontal line represents the dimension of Masculinity (MAS) 1 Since the initial number of women self-describing themselves as homosexual or bisexual was very low (n < 10) and all of them were located in Spain, a decision was made to not include them in this study to avoid representativeness bias. The provided sample size is the one used eventually for the analysis. Current Psychology 1 3 positive conflict resolution strategies that facilitate negotiation and compromise formation during conflicts (e.g., coming up with ideas). Withdrawal incorporates items related to avoiding the conflict (e.g., stopping the discussion early). Demand is a strategy that includes items involving high levels of criticism, attack or losing control (e.g., blaming the partner). Participants rated the frequency of strategy — three subscales— for themselves (CI-Self) and their partners (CI-Partner) on a 7-Likert scale (1 = never; to 7 = always). Higher scores represent a higher tendency to use (or to perceive the use by her partner) each conflict resolution strategy. Cronbach alphas were between acceptable and good for the subscale of withdrawal in CI-Self: α = .42 for Israel,2 α = .60 for USA, α = .81 for Türkiye, and α = .70 for Spain. Cronbach alphas for CI-Partner in demand subscale were good: α = .76 for Israel, α = .76 for USA, α = .92 for Türkiye, and α = .66 for Spain. For positive problem solving perceived in the partner (CI-Partner), Cronbach alphas values were also good: .75 (Israel), .72 (USA), .68 (Türkiye), and.80 (Spain). Relationship assessment scale (RAS; original by Hendrick, 1988; in Spanish: Molero etal., 2016; and in Hebrew and Turkish: Bretaña etal., 2019). Individuals responded about their satisfaction with their relationship with seven items (e.g., to what extent are you satisfied with your current relationship?), on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all satisfied; 7 = very satisfied). Cronbach alphas were .78 (Israel), .81 (USA), .81 (Türkiye), and .83 (Spain). Data at country‑level The scores of Individualism-Collectivism (IDV) and Masculinity-Femininity (MAS) were collected from Hofstede’s (2001) study. For the model testing analyses, two composites were made for cultural values. Procedure After institutional consent was obtained from the main author, collaborators from the countries collected data, which took place in 2010. Following the approach taken by other cross-cultural researchers in comparative studies (e.g., Alonso-Arbiol etal., 2011; Obioma etal., 2022), women were recruited using a snowball sampling procedure, which is a cost-effective, useful, and practical sampling strategy highly employed (for instance, see meta-analyses: Berry etal., 2012; Connelly & Ones, 2010). By starting with a common point of reference (university students’ contacts), it is likely that the subsamples across countries would have a similar composition in terms of sociodemographic variables. Participants were individually contacted, and upon receiving instructions for completing the survey, they filled them out and returned them back in sealed envelopes to guarantee anonymity. Participation was voluntary, and no compensation was provided. Data analysis Structural equivalence across countries for all instruments had been previously tested in Bretaña etal. (2019). We used path analysis to examine our expectations concerning pathways between avoidant attachment and relationship satisfaction through conflict resolution strategies. The model estimation employed the maximum likelihood method; AMOS v.23 was used or that purpose. We tested the model through multi-group analyses to detect differences across countries based on the two cultural dimensions. To test our hypotheses, we used χ2 differences’ test (Bou & Satorra, 2007). This analysis compares the size of β values of the regression models across countries. Finally, to examine the mediation role of specific variables, bootstrapping method was employed to evaluate indirect effects. Results Table1 displays the descriptive (M and SD) values for the target variables, categorized according to the country values used in the study. Table2 provides the correlations among the target variables for countries classified as individualistic versus collectivistic. Correlations between avoidant attachment dimension and own conflict withdrawal were positive but small in women from both individualistic countries (r = .24, p = .00) and collectivistic countries (r = .38, p = .00); the magnitude of these correlations were similar (z = −1.53, p = .08). However, the correlations between avoidant attachment and (perceived) partner withdrawal were of different magnitude (z = 2.10, p = .03) for individualistic and collectivistic countries. The correlations for individualistic countries were statistically significant but small (r = .29, p = .00), whereas no correlations appeared in collectivistic countries (r = .06, p = .52). Finally, there were cultural dissimilarities in the magnitude of the correlations between avoidant attachment dimension and relationship satisfaction (z = −4.52, p = .00); the correlation was of medium size (r = −.56, p = .00) for women from individualistic countries, whereas it was of small size (r = −.12, p = .18) for women from collectivistic countries. Table3 displays the correlations between target variables in masculine and in feminine countries. In general, 2 The low score in alpha value in CI-Withdrawal in Israel (α = .45) may be explained by the existence of item #10 (‘think of leaving the marriage’), which is awkward in that culture. Although divorce rates are increasing, marriage dissolution is not common yet (Kulik & Heine-Cohen, 2011). Current Psychology 1 3 the correlations between both own and perceived problemsolving strategies and relationship satisfaction were higher in women from masculine countries than from feminine countries. Specifically, there are differences in the magnitude of the correlation between relationship satisfaction and own positive (z = 2.68, p = .00), between relationship satisfaction and own demand (z = −2.21, p = .02), between relationship satisfaction and partner positive (z = 2.60, p = .00), and between relationship satisfaction and partner demand (z = 3.97, p = .00). We had proposed a conflict resolution model applicable to women from different countries (see Fig.2). With the Table 1 Descriptive data of study variables broken by to country values Individualism (n = 200) Collectivism (n = 132) Masculinity (n = 135) Femininity (n = 197) M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD) Avoidant Attachment 2.13 (0.76) 3.17 (1.25) 2.66 (0.97) 2.47 (1.19) Conflict Solving - Own Positive 4.83 (0.91) 4.46 (1.11) 4.57 (1.02) 4.76 (0.99) Demand 1.43 (0.54) 1.79 (1.01) 1.63 (0.64) 1.54 (0.86) Withdrawal 2.78 (0.90) 2.86 (1.05) 2.77 (0.81) 2.89 (1.05) Conflict Solving - Partner Positive 4.24 (1.20) 4.16 (1.34) 4.23 (1.22) 4.19 (1.29) Demand 1.29 (0.53) 1.69 (1.15) 1.45 (0.67) 1.43 (0.96) Withdrawal 2.60 (0.91) 2.62 (1.13) 2.55 (0.97) 2.64 (1.03) Relationship Satisfaction 6.15 (0.67) 6.04 (1.37) 6.00 (0.78) 6.18 (1.14) Table 2 Inter-correlations between target variables in individualistic vs. collectivistic countries The correlations for individualistic countries are presented in the upper portion of the diagonal; the correlations for collectivistic countries are presented in the lower portion of the diagonal * p < .05; **p < .01 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Avoidance Attachment – −.20** .19** .24** −.24** .18** .29** −.56** 2. Own Positive −.30** – −.13 −.29** .63** −.20** −.12 .37** 3. Own Demand .21*.01 – .39** −.18** .53** .26** −.27** 4. Own Withdrawal .38** .07 .62** – −.26** .17*.27** −.35** 5. Partner Positive −.20*.45** .09 .01 – −.35** −.43** .54** 6. Partner Demand .12 .06 .65** .52** .00 – .26** −.39** 7. Partner Withdrawal .06 .09 .44** .44** .01 .59** – −.34** 8. Relationship Satisfaction −.12 .11 −.18*−.16 .20*−.30** −.13 – Table 3 Inter-Correlations between target variables in masculine vs. feminine countries The correlations for masculine countries are presented in the upper portion of the diagonal; the correlations for feminine countries are presented in the lower portion of the diagonal * p < .05; **p < .01 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Avoidance Attachment – −.31** .22*.23** .00 .13 .00 −.25** 2. Own Positive −.30** – −.30** −.21** .48** −.17*.01 .40** 3. Own Demand .30** .17*– .27** −.12 .57** .21** −.38** 4. Own Withdrawal .33** −.09 .58** – −.17*.23** .33** −.34** 5. Partner Positive −.32** .59** .00 −.13 – −.32** −.32** .50** 6. Partner Demand .27** −.03 .66** .42** −.05 – .27** −.60** 7. Partner Withdrawal .20** −.04 .43** .36** −.17 .53** – −.29** 8. Relationship Satisfaction −.25** .12 −.15*−.19** .25** −.24** −.17*– Current Psychology 1 3 aim of examining cultural differences in the model due to IDV, we carried out a multi-group analysis. Countries were clustered according to IDV levels: high (individualistic) vs. low (collectivistic). Table4 shows that the model fit was good across women from individualistic and collectivistic countries (χ2/df = 2.19, p = .11, AGFI = .92, TLI = .91, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06, LO90 = .00 y HI90 = .14). The second multi-group analysis was carried out with masculine (high MAS levels) and feminine (low MAS levels) countries. Table5 shows that the model fit was good across women from masculine and feminine countries (χ2/df = 2.47, p = .08, AGFI = .91, TLI = .87, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06, LO90 = .00 y HI90 = .14). The unconstrained model was the most parsimonious in both cases; it implies that the data of the two groups fit the model separately, and that no further equality constraints were imposed, other than the observed variables in the model. Hypothesis 1 To determine whether women with high scores on the avoidant attachment dimension from individualistic countries had lower relationship satisfaction scores compared to their counterparts from collectivistic countries (Hypothesis 1), we conducted χ2 test for differences analysis. As shown in Fig.3, the (negative) value for individualistic countries (β = −.43, p = .00) was larger than the value for collectivistic countries (β = −.05, p = .58). In the comparison model, we found that with a 5% confidence level, we did not reject the alternative hypothesis. This suggests that there were significant differences in the variances between the two groups (the fit of the unconstrained model was χ2 = 2.95, df = 2, p = 0.05; while the χ2 difference test fit was χ2 = 4.70, df = 3, p = .00). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Table 4 Fit Indexes of the model to predict couple satisfaction through individualism country dimension The most restrictive model that demonstrated a good fit is indicated by italic font. In italics the most parsimonious model Model X2df X2/df p AGFI TLI CFI RMSEA LO90 HI90 1Unconstrained 4.37 2 2.19 .11 .92 .91 .99 .06 .00 .14 2 Structural weights 42.08 10 4.20 .00 .86 .75 .85 .10 .07 .13 3 Structural covariances 68.02 11 6.18 .00 .78 .59 .71 .12 .10 .15 4 Structural residual 312.07 16 19.50 .00 .52 −.4 .00 .24 .22 .26 Table 5 Fit indexes of the model to predict couple satisfaction through masculinity countries The most restrictive model that demonstrated a good fit is indicated by italic font. In italics the most parsimonious model Model X2df X2/df p AGFI TLI CFI RMSEA LO90 HI90 1Unconstrained 4.93 2 2.47 .08 .91 .87 .99 .06 .00 .15 2 Structural weights 33.57 10 3.36 .00 .88 .78 .89 .08 .05 .11 3 Structural covariances 39.95 11 3.63 .00 .87 .76 .87 .09 .06 .12 4 Structural residual 127.58 16 7.97 .00 .81 .38 .50 .14 .12 .17 Fig. 3 Path model of women’s couple satisfaction through individualism/collectivism. Note. Values in italics are for women from individualistic cultures and values in bold are for women from collectivistic cultures. The beta coefficients are standardized. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 .24***.38*** .17** .52*** -.15** -.23** -.18***-.31** -.43***-.05 .34***.19* -.14** .03 -.22** .08 Avoidance Attachment Own Withdrawal Perceived Partner Demand Relationship Satisfaction Perceived Partner Positive