Marital Typologies | meer-bezoekers.info
The problem comes when one partner did not grow up in a household where there were frequent PASSIVE-CONGENIAL MARRIAGE. Passive congenial relationships in which both partners accept a conventional Stage 2= significant conflict occurs and members of system see this as problem. To resolve the poverty problem, interactionists urge that the stigma associated In a passive-congenial relationship, the partners are not happy, but are content.
Whether they could work toward long-term financial goals. Whether they had enough money for a respectable wedding. They want to wait until they are sure their relationships are strong enough for marriage. Fear of and opposition to divorce Couples wait to marry until they fully believe their relationship will last.
Marriage is not allowed between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. No state allows an individual to marry if she or he is already married.
Many states have added laws banning same-sex marriage. Only Massachusetts allows gay and lesbian couples the legal right to marry. The Centers for Disease Control concluded that married women and men are less likely to smoke, drink heavily, or be physically inactive and are less likely to suffer headaches and psychological distress. When marriages end, women suffer increased depression and men suffer poorer physical and mental health.
Chapter 9, Marriage, A Private and Public Relationship - ppt download
Trust Versus Mistrust Children learn to trust by having their needs satisfied and by being loved. Autonomy Versus Shame and Doubt Children need to develop a sense of independence and mastery over their environment and themselves. Industry Versus Inferiority Children begin to learn that their activities pay off and that they can be creative.
Identity Versus Role Confusion Adolescents need to develop goals, a philosophy of life, and a sense of self. Intimacy Versus Isolation A young adult who does not make other intimate connections may be condemned to isolation and loneliness.
Generativity Versus Self-Absorption Individual establishes his or her own family. Integrity Versus Despair The individual looks back on life to understand its meaning. Those who make a positive judgment have a feeling of wholeness about their lives.
Characterized by periods of upset and anger, jealousy and uneasiness. Typically experienced by people who are exceedingly independent minded, lack conscientiousness, and have high anxiety. If men and women high in anxiety marry each other, their marriages tend to be unhappy but lasting marriages. Their marriages are more likely to be satisfying and enduring. They are vulnerable to divorce. Length of courtship Those who have long, slow-to-commit, up-and-down relationships are more likely to divorce.
Higher religiousness is associated with happy and stable marriages. A dominating personality may disrupt the give-and-take necessary to make a relationship work. George Levinger believed that marital stability and satisfaction were two of the most significant dimensions to consider when developing marital types; marriages could be either high or low on stability and marital satisfaction.
He used these two dimensions of marriage to describe four different marital types. Full-shell marriages had high levels of satisfaction and stability; these couples rarely if ever considered divorce and were very happy with the relationship.
No-shell marriages had low levels of stability and satisfaction; these couples were having difficulty staying together and were not happy with the relationship.
Empty-shell marriages were low on satisfaction, yet there were high levels of stability; although these couples were not happy with their relationships, there was no consideration of divorce. Half-shell marriages had high levels of satisfaction, yet the couples were likely to terminate the marriage. Researchers studying marriage in other cultures have used this logical process to examine specific aspects of marriage that are unique to a culture.
For example, in some cultures parents and family members initiate "arranged" marriages. Thus parents select marriage partners for their children.
In contrast, in most western cultures, the selection of a spouse is based on the individual's own choice and feelings of love for the partner. Arranged versus love marriages can therefore be viewed as two different marital categories.
Noran Hortacsu studied Turkish couples comparing couple initiated love marriages and family initiated arranged marriages. Although this study is useful in understanding some of the differences between love versus arranged marriages, this classification focuses only on one element of a marriage, the selection process. Using Scientific Methods to Create Typologies In more recent years, an effort has been made to classify marriages into one type or another based on systematic scientific observations of marriages.
Probably the most comprehensive marriage typology was developed using a computer-scored questionnaire Olson and Fowers This typology meets the "exhaustive" criteria because it examines nine areas of the relationship before determining the marital type.
The couples' responses were also used to help specify which aspect of their relationship might be a strength and which aspect of their relationship might be an area for growth.
This study yielded five different types of marriages: The first and most common type was labeled a devitalized marriage. The devitalized marriage was primarily characterized as dissatisfaction with all nine dimensions of the relationship.
These couples were overall more likely to be dissatisfied with their relationship and likely to have considered divorce. The second type was labeled a conflicted marriage.
Marriage, Communication, Lying & Cheating
Partners in these marriages were dissatisfied with communication, conflict resolution, their partner's personality, and their sex lives. However, they were satisfied with their children, religious lives, and the use of leisure time within their marriages.
Dissatisfaction stemmed most often from things within the relationship, and satisfaction was obtained from things outside the relationship. The third type of union was characterized as a traditional marriage. Traditional couples were dissatisfied with communication, conflict resolution, and sex, yet they were satisfied with family and friends, religion, and leisure time.
They were one of the most satisfied of all types in how they handled their children and parenting duties. Partners in the fourth type, harmonious marriages, were self-focused and tended to be unions in which the couple was highly satisfied with their sex lives, leisure time, and finances.
Dissatisfaction within harmonious marriages arose for the most part from interaction with their children and family, and their friendships with others. The last type, vitalized marriages, demonstrated the highest levels of satisfaction across all nine dimensions.
The study results yielded the same five couple types, with similar percentages of couples in each type. This lends credibility to the notion that Olson's typology is useful in describing more than merely Caucasian marriages.
One strength of this typology is that nine different marital dimensions are evaluated before a couple is assigned to a type. This assessment, used by thousands of couples sinceis accepted as a valid and reliable way to examine marital and premarital relationships. This typology can also be useful to clergy and marital counselors who are helping couples improve their marriages, because it highlights specific areas of the relationship that need work. It gives a clear understanding of both the strong and weak areas of a relationship.
Finally, this typology demonstrates clearly that couples can be satisfied with some dimensions of their marriage, yet dissatisfied with other aspects. It is evident by this brief discussion that the study of marriage has generated many different typologies that all attempt to describe marriage. Only one typology, however, has been practically useful in not only describing marriage but predicting marital stability, whether a couple will divorce or whether they will stay together Gottman Gottman and his colleagues observed couples in conflictual conversations, and from these observations divided couples into five different types Gottman ; Gottman and Levenson Three of these marriage types validating, volatile, and avoidant were stable and, thus, not likely to divorce.
The other two types hostile-engaged and hostile-detached were unstable and on the path toward divorce. Validating couples avoided conflict unless there was a very serious issue in the marriage. When conflict did arise, there were high levels of validation.
Validation was defined as minimal vocal responses from the listener such as "mmmmhmmm" or "yeah" that provided feedback that the speaker should continue, and demonstrated the partner was listening and wanted to understand the point of view of the speaker. Volatile couples valued their individuality more than the marriage, and allowed each partner more time for privacy. They thrived on conflict and were free to express their disagreements. Husbands and wives expressed high levels of both positive and negative feelings within their conflict.
Avoidant couples minimized marital conflict. They were distant from each other, with low levels of sharing and companionship. They valued their own separate space and desired high levels of independence.
In all three of the stable types of marriages, partners had both positive and negative interactions with each other. However, the stable couples had much higher levels of positive than negative interaction.
Hostile-engaged couples experienced high levels of overt conflict.
- Marriage in Society and Individual Context
- Sorry, your browser doesn't support frames...
- The Big Leap
One partner complained and criticized, and the other responded defensively. In these relationships, the partners had created a lifestyle based around constant conflict. Whether engaged in low-level bickering or heated conflict, they remained together as long-term combatants, interspersed with periods of truce.
They seemed almost to thrive on conflict, which provided them with an adrenalin-infused state of ongoing arousal. I felt a wave of despair when I first saw these findings. If these highly successful people had such dismal relationships, was there any hope for the rest of us? It's been twenty years since I first saw this study, and with those years has come considerable experience working with people and their relationships.
I don't think the overall statistics are any different now than when Cuber and Harroff first published their work. In other words, I think the majority of successful people still have dismal relationships.
Now, though, I know a lot more about how they got that way. More importantly, I know a lot more about how they can avoid falling into the traps that many successful people get stuck in.
I'll give you more details on how to deal with the Upper Limit Problem in my next post.