The latest mating online game: A primer towards like, sex and you will relationships (second Ed
Postado em 25.06.2022
Rhoades Grams. K., Stanley S. M., ). New pre-wedding cohabitation impact: A replication and expansion from earlier in the day findings. Journal out of Family unit members Psychology, 23, 107-111.
Rhoades Grams. K., Stanley S. Yards., ). An excellent longitudinal analysis out-of relationship fictional character from inside the cohabiting dating. Record off Members of the family Activities, 33, 369-390.
Rindfuss Roentgen. Roentgen., VandenHeuvel A great. (1990). Cohabitation: A forerunner so you can relationship or a substitute for becoming unmarried? Populace and you can Development Comment, 16, hongkongcupid 703-726. http:// dx.doi.org/963
Rusbult C. Elizabeth. (1980)mitment and you may satisfaction for the romantic contacts: A test of your Resource Design. Journal out of Experimental Personal Therapy, sixteen, 172-186.
Schoebi D., Karney B. R., Bradbury T. N. (2012). Balances and change in the first a decade away from marriage: Does partnership confer benefits outside the effects of satisfaction? Log out of Character and you will Societal Psychology, 102, 729-742.
Scott S. B., Rhoades G. K., Stanley S. M., Allen Elizabeth. S., ). Few and Loved ones Therapy: Search and exercise, 2, 131-145. org//a0032025
Segars A beneficial. H., Grover V. (1993). Re-examining observed convenience and usefulness: A good confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Every quarter, 17, 517-525. 249590
Seltzer J. A. (2004). Cohabitation in the united states and you will Britain: Demography, kinship, additionally the future. Record away from ily, 66, 921-928. org//j.00dos2-2.x
Relationship issues during the early amount out-of ily Psychology, cuatro, 80-98
Stanley S. M. (2003, November). Evaluating pair and you can relationship relationships: Past form and into a much deeper knowledge of mode. Paper showed at the Match Relationships Interventions and you may Comparison Symposium away from the latest Dimensions Products in Family Demography Appointment. Washington D.C.
Stanley S. Yards., )munication, conflict, and connection: Wisdom to your foundations out-of relationship victory off a national questionnaire. Family unit members Process, 41, 659-675. org//j.1545-nine.x
Stanley S. M., Rhoades Grams. K. (2009). Marriages on the line: Relationship formation and solutions to own relationships training. When you look at the H. Benson S. Callan (Eds.), That which works during the dating knowledge: Sessions away from academics and you can provider deliverers in america and you will European countries (pp. 21-44). Doha, Qatar: Doha In the world Institute to have Family Knowledge and you may Innovation.
Stanley S. Yards., Rhoades Grams. K., Whitton S. W. (2010)mitment: Services, creation, and the securing off intimate accessory. Record of Family relations Principle Feedback, dos, 243-257. 00060.x
Weigel D. J., Bennett K. K., Ballard–Reisch D. S. (2003). Members of the family impacts to the partnership: Exploring the group of resource correlates off matchmaking relationship thinking. Individual Matchmaking, 10, 453-474. org//j.1475-0.x
Whitton S. W., Rhoades G. K., Stanley S. Yards., ). Negative effects of parental divorce proceedings on ily Mindset, twenty-two, 789-793. a0012800
Aspects of breakup and you will memory out-of premarital intervention: Implications having boosting matchmaking knowledge
Correspondence about it blog post will likely be managed to help you Ana Pego Monteiro. Faculdade de Psicologia. Departamento de Psicologia da Familia. Alameda da Universidade. 1649-013. Lisboa (Portugal).
This research is financed of the a few features, SFRH/BD/ and SFRH/BD/eight, regarding Portuguese Foundation to have Technology and you may Technical (Fundacao para poder a good Ciencia e Tecnologia).
Rhoades mais aussi al. (2012) along with mention the newest value out-of learning younger couples which can be matchmaking yet not cohabiting, seeing that studies contrasting these types of relationship to cohabiting dating is pair and their results ambiguous. Like, Forste and Tanfer (1996) and you can Rindfuss and VandenHeuvel (1990) verified that there was absolutely nothing difference in the structural features off one another. Kline et al. (2004), subsequently, claim that cohabiting couples possess low levels from hard work compared to the people that are not life style along with her, this research, although not, centered only to the couples one currently decided to get ) state that it is anticipated to discover an increase in limitations ranging from relationships and cohabitation, although not in the persistence, since would-have-been think.
The fresh attempt contains 924 heterosexual folks of each gender (63% female), of Portuguese nationality, with the typical age (SD = 6.90), within ages of 18 and 64. For every new member is with it directly regarding the investigation, and then make our very own device out-of analysis anyone (not the couple). Brand new shot provided four relationships statuses: 55.7% regarding sufferers into the a dating experience of no cohabitation for much more than simply six months (n = 515), eight.5% inside the an internet dating cohabiting relationships for less than 24 months (n = 69), ten.8% since the couples in a proper connection (n = 100) and you may twenty-six% was basically married (n = 240). Inside Portugal, this new court composition from a proper connection was blamed just after 2 several years of a shared domestic.
In the extent out of sociodemographic characterization of users, the amount of spiritual religion is actually assessed from question “Regarding your faith and you will means, you think yourself to be:
As mentioned, the sample was considered according to the four relationship statuses being studied. Resulting from the analysis of the sociodemographic data of the participants, we highlight the data shown in Table 1. Significant differences were found between some of the sociodemographic groups present in the sample with regards to age, F(3, 920) = ; p < .05 and religiousness, F(3, 917) = 9.128; p < .001. Participants in a non-cohabiting dating relationship were the youngest, followed by dating relationships with cohabitation and the eldest were married participants. In terms of religiousness, participants in a dating relationship that were cohabiting presented the lowest values, followed by the participants in a formal union. Married participants showed the highest scores for this variable.
With the multiple comparison analysis, the statistically significant differences between the personal commitment averages of participants that were dating and those that were married (p < .001), and between those that were married and those in a domestic partnership (p = .004) became evident. As such, married participants (M = 5.79; DP = .88) reported higher levels of personal commitment than those that were dating (M = 5.45; DP = .85), and higher than those individuals in a formal union (M = 5.46; DP = .74).
The analysis out of connection and also the variety of relational statuses and you may experiences is actually a recent subject inside in the world look, it still tries to incorporate responses towards new challenges lovers already face. Actually, the construction of safer and you will long-term intimate relationship immediately looks significantly more tough to get to whenever way too many alter was occurring in the number of gender positions, knowledge, performs, thinking and you may standard when you look at the a relationship (McGoldrick Shibusawa, 2012), meanwhile you to partners continue to resist up against the fresh not too transformative myths and expectations he has to the matrimony and you may cohabitation (Storaasli Markman, 1990).
Reed J. M. (2006). Perhaps not crossing brand new “more line”: Exactly how cohabitors which have pupils check the unions. Journal of ily, 68, 1117-1131.