Erratum: Conflict Resolution as a Dyadic Mediator: Considering the Partner Perspective on Conflict Resolution

Authors

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. Conflict Resolution as a Dyadic Mediator: Considering the Partner Perspective on Conflict Resolution Volume 26, Issue 3, 221–232, Article first published online: 26 May 2011

Correspondence to: Susan Sierau, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20a, Leipzig 04103, Germany.

E-mail: susan.sierau@medizin.uni-leipzig.de

Sierau, S., and Herzberg, P.Y. (2012). Conflict Resolution as a Dyadic Mediator: Considering the Partner Perspective on Conflict Resolution. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 221–232. DOI: 10.1002/per.828

In our paper on mediating effects of partner-reported conflict resolution styles among the attachment dimensions of avoidance and anxiety, and relationship satisfaction, we have to report a correction of two path coefficients of partner-effects in our tested Actor–Partner Mediator Model with latent variables.

On page 228 (Anxiety as exogenous variable) in the sentence “The influence of the partner was statistically significant for partner anxiety on positive conflict solving style (.16, p < .001) and from positive conflict solving style to partner relationship satisfaction (.12, p < .001)”, the coefficient of the relation between partner anxiety and positive conflict solving style had a negative algebraic sign and should be −.16. Likewise, the nonsignificant coefficient for the association between anxiety and relationship satisfaction was also negative (−.07). In Table 4, the path coefficients were also p1 = −.16 instead of .16, and p3 = −.07 instead of .07.

Concerning the “summarizing of mediational effects” (pages 229–230) the significant, negative relation of p1 indicated that in line with our expectations, we found one negative effect of anxiety on partners' positive problem solving. This effect was only small in magnitude (−.16, p < .001).

In the discussion (page 230), we have to correct our conclusion on the association between attachment anxiety, the partners' use of positive problem solving and relationship satisfaction. Instead of our statement, that there was a surprising positive association between attachment anxiety and the partners' use of positive problem solving, we found a negative relation between attachment anxiety and the partners' use of positive problem solving. This was also expected in our hypotheses and is also in line with previous studies (e.g. Cann, Norman, Welbourne, & Calhoun, 2008). Our results indicated that individuals with higher scores on anxious attachment showing less functional conflict resolution may also attenuate their partners' positive problem solving. Yet, the use of positive problem solving was associated with both partners' greater relationship satisfaction.

Ancillary