• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

关系破坏理论:基于依恋和目标导向框架扩展的概念模型的初步评估

The Theory of Relationship Sabotage: A Preliminary Evaluation of Conceptual Models Expanding on Attachment and Goal-Orientation Frameworks.

作者信息

Peel Raquel

机构信息

Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, Central Queensland University, Mackay, QLD 4740, Australia.

Discipline of Psychology, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia.

出版信息

Behav Sci (Basel). 2025 Aug 12;15(8):1091. doi: 10.3390/bs15081091.

DOI:10.3390/bs15081091
PMID:40867448
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12382637/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The current study proposed the best model to explain relationship sabotage by comparing three competing conceptual models, using attachment and goal-orientation frameworks. Up until now, the literature had not comprehensively defined and modelled which defensive strategies commonly lead to relationship sabotage.

METHODS

A sample of 436 participants was recruited for the current study. Analyses were conducted using structural equation modelling over two analytical steps. First, a series of confirmatory analyses were conducted to test how the predicted latent variables fit in one-congeneric models. Secondly, three full models were tested.

RESULTS

Results showed the best model for relationship sabotage is non-recursive, and it does involve reciprocal effects between insecure attachment styles, relationship factors (i.e., perceived relationship quality and perceived relationship stress), and defensive strategies commonly observed in relationship sabotage (i.e., defensiveness, trust difficulty, and lack of relationship skills).

CONCLUSIONS

The best model for relationship sabotage is not linear. While insecure attachment can lead to relationship sabotage, sabotaging relationships can reinforce existing insecure attachment styles and/or establish new vulnerable styles. Further, defensive strategies can influence how people perceive quality and stress in their relationship, which means that individuals' own attitudes and behaviours might be preventing them from starting and maintaining fulfilling intimate relationships.

摘要

引言

当前的研究通过比较三种相互竞争的概念模型,运用依恋和目标导向框架,提出了解释关系破坏的最佳模型。到目前为止,文献尚未全面定义和建模哪些防御策略通常会导致关系破坏。

方法

本研究招募了436名参与者作为样本。分析分两个分析步骤使用结构方程模型进行。首先,进行了一系列验证性分析,以测试预测的潜在变量如何拟合单因素模型。其次,测试了三个完整模型。

结果

结果表明,关系破坏的最佳模型是非递归的,它确实涉及不安全依恋风格、关系因素(即感知到的关系质量和感知到的关系压力)以及关系破坏中常见的防御策略(即防御性、信任困难和缺乏关系技巧)之间的相互影响。

结论

关系破坏的最佳模型不是线性的。虽然不安全依恋会导致关系破坏,但破坏关系会强化现有的不安全依恋风格和/或建立新的脆弱风格。此外,防御策略会影响人们对关系质量和压力的感知,这意味着个人自身的态度和行为可能会阻碍他们建立和维持令人满意的亲密关系。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/eb7d55213a79/behavsci-15-01091-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/0b7b43a8dd7c/behavsci-15-01091-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/324a81548700/behavsci-15-01091-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/7709adc89cfa/behavsci-15-01091-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/d4c3e9ff4003/behavsci-15-01091-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/db9633ccb759/behavsci-15-01091-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/eb7d55213a79/behavsci-15-01091-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/0b7b43a8dd7c/behavsci-15-01091-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/324a81548700/behavsci-15-01091-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/7709adc89cfa/behavsci-15-01091-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/d4c3e9ff4003/behavsci-15-01091-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/db9633ccb759/behavsci-15-01091-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9b62/12382637/eb7d55213a79/behavsci-15-01091-g006.jpg

相似文献

1
The Theory of Relationship Sabotage: A Preliminary Evaluation of Conceptual Models Expanding on Attachment and Goal-Orientation Frameworks.关系破坏理论:基于依恋和目标导向框架扩展的概念模型的初步评估
Behav Sci (Basel). 2025 Aug 12;15(8):1091. doi: 10.3390/bs15081091.
2
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
3
Adapting Safety Plans for Autistic Adults with Involvement from the Autism Community.在自闭症群体的参与下为成年自闭症患者调整安全计划。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):293-302. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0124. eCollection 2025 Jun.
4
Parent-infant psychotherapy for improving parental and infant mental health.改善父母和婴儿心理健康的亲子心理治疗。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 8;1(1):CD010534. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010534.pub2.
5
Sexual Harassment and Prevention Training性骚扰与预防培训
6
A New Measure of Quantified Social Health Is Associated With Levels of Discomfort, Capability, and Mental and General Health Among Patients Seeking Musculoskeletal Specialty Care.一种新的量化社会健康指标与寻求肌肉骨骼专科护理的患者的不适程度、能力以及心理和总体健康水平相关。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Apr 1;483(4):647-663. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003394. Epub 2025 Feb 5.
7
A digital intervention to improve mental health and interpersonal resilience for young people who have experienced online sexual abuse: the i-Minds non-randomised feasibility clinical trial and nested qualitative study.一项针对遭受网络性虐待的年轻人改善心理健康和人际恢复力的数字干预措施:i-Minds非随机可行性临床试验及嵌套定性研究
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Jul;13(28):1-27. doi: 10.3310/THAL8732.
8
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[容量与健康结果:来自系统评价和意大利医院数据评估的证据]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.
9
Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.性虐待和暴力的心理社会干预的幸存者、家庭和专业人员的经验:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 4;10(10):CD013648. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013648.pub2.
10
Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.移民健康素养提升干预措施背景下的性别差异:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Dec 12;12(12):CD013302. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013302.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
Turkish Adaptation of Romantic Relationship Sabotage Scale: Validity and Reliability Study.浪漫关系破坏量表的土耳其语改编:效度与信度研究
Psychiatry Clin Psychopharmacol. 2023 Mar 1;33(1):48-57. doi: 10.5152/pcp.2023.22500. eCollection 2023 Mar.
2
The relationship sabotage scale: an evaluation of factor analyses and constructive validity.关系破坏量表:因子分析与构建效度评估。
BMC Psychol. 2021 Sep 19;9(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00644-0.
3
Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction.压力及其与关系满意度的关联。
Curr Opin Psychol. 2017 Feb;13:96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010. Epub 2016 May 26.
4
Self-efficacy in romantic relationships: prediction of relationship attitudes and outcomes.恋爱关系中的自我效能感:对关系态度和结果的预测。
J Soc Psychol. 2013 Nov-Dec;153(6):629-50. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2013.801826.
5
The buffering effect of relationship satisfaction on emotional distress in couples.夫妻关系满意度对情绪困扰的缓冲作用。
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 22;12:66. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-66.
6
An evaluation of R2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in pharmacological and biochemical research: a Monte Carlo approach.R2作为药理学和生化研究中非线性模型的不充分度量的评估:一种蒙特卡罗方法。
BMC Pharmacol. 2010 Jun 7;10:6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2210-10-6.
7
The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: reliability, validity, and factor structure.亲密关系体验量表(ECR)简版:信度、效度与因子结构
J Pers Assess. 2007 Apr;88(2):187-204. doi: 10.1080/00223890701268041.
8
Costs of self-handicapping.自我设限的代价。
J Pers. 2005 Apr;73(2):411-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00314.x.
9
Attachment and exploration in adulthood.成年期的依恋与探索。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):317-31. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.317.
10
A global measure of perceived stress.一种感知压力的整体衡量指标。
J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96.