Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Psychology and Psychotechnics
Reference:

Shkurko T.A., Lomova M.A. Socio-Psychological Factors of Legitimizing Partnership

Abstract: The authors of the article have studied the basic socio-psychological needs (including the need for control and affect) and their correlation in family relations (parameters of compatibility needs); parameters of psychological well-being (the ability to establish positive relations with others, the degree of autonomy, the degree of competence in managing the surroundings, personal growth, the availability of goals in life, the level of self-acceptance, the overall emotional evaluation of oneself and his or her own life, meaningfulness of life, the ability to perceive and integrate new experiences) and viability (the degree of involvement, level of control, risk acceptance) by partners who are married or cohabitate. 70 people participated in the research including 35 families (24 officially married families and 11 cohabitated families) who have been living together for 1 year at least and 30 years at most. Participants aged from 21 years old to 59 years old. The following empiric research methods have been used: 1. "Methods of diagnosing psychological well-being of the personality" (T. D. Shevelenkova, P. P. Fesenko) [24]; 2. "Test of viability" (D. A. Leontiev, D. I. Rasskazova) [11]; 3. The questionnaire «Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation» (V. Schutz, adapted by A. A. Rukavishnikov) [3]. As a method of data analysis the authors have used the method of comparison of two independent samples based on the Mann-Whitney test. The results of the research have shown that the basic socio-psychological needs do not influence on the preference for a certain type of marriage: cohabitation or official. The factors of legitimizing a partnership union include compatibility of socio-psychological needs of the partners based on the principle of complementarity and their degree of openness to the world. The most important sphere to legitimize of relationships of partners is the sphere of control. The study extends the existing social psychology notions about socio-psychological factors of legitimizing partnership relations and the role of personality's need for control, establishing and developing relations with other people.


Keywords:

cohabitation, official marriage, marriage, close emotional relationship, need for control, socio-psychological need, need, family, partner compatibility, legitimizing relations


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here .
References
1. Yun-Chen H., Shu-Hui L. Attitudes of Taiwanese College Students toward Marriage: A Comparative Study of Different Family Types and Gender // Journal of comparative family studies. 2014, Vol. 45, ¹ 3, pp. 425-438.
2. Wiik K. A., Keizer R., Lappegård T. Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012, Vol. 74, ¹ 3, pp. 389-398.
3. Sassler Sh. Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate Selection // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010, Vol. 72, ¹ 3, pp. 557-575.
4. Manning W. D., Longmore M. A., Giordano P. C. The Changing Institution of Marriage: Adolescents' Expectations to Cohabit and to Marry // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007, Vol. 69, ¹ 3, pp. 559-575.
5. Fincham F.D., Beach S.R.H. Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010, Vol. 72, ¹ 3, pp. 630-649.
6. Heuveline P., Timberlake J. M. The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004, Vol. 66, ¹ 5, pp. 1214-1230.
7. Hiekel N., Castro-Martín T. Grasping the Diversity of Cohabitation: Fertility Intentions Among Cohabiters Across Europe // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014, Vol. 76, ¹ 3, pp. 489-505.
8. Dominguez-Folgueras M., Castro-Martin T. Cohabitation in Spain: No Longer a Marginal Path to Family Formation // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013, Vol. 75, ¹ 2, pp. 422-437.
9. Brown S. L., Bulanda J. R., Lee G. R. Transitions Into and Out of Cohabitation in Later Life // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012, Vol. 74, ¹ 4, pp. 774–793.
10. Shkurko T.A., Lomova M.A. Psikhoanaliticheskaya model' kontrolya i sovremennye predstavleniya o kontrole v blizkikh emotsional'nykh otnosheniyakh // Severokavkazskiy psikhologicheskiy vestnik. 2015. ¹ 13/4. S. 122-125, 153-154.
11. Bourdais C. L., Lapierre-Adamcyk É. Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004, Vol. 66, ¹ 4, pp. 929-942.
12. Shkurko T.A. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskie osobennosti lichnosti s vyrazhennoy potrebnost'yu v kontrole sebya i drugikh lyudey // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2011. ¹ 349. S. 177-184.
13. Chelnokova I.A. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskaya model' determinatsii vstupleniya partnerov v grazhdanskiy brak [Tekst]: avtoref. dis. na soisk. uchen. step. kand. psikhol. nauk (19.00.05) / Chelnokova I.A.; Rossiyskiy gos. sots. universitet. M., 2010. 188 s.
14. Shevelenkova T.D., Fesenko T.P. Psikhologicheskoe blagopoluchie lichnosti // Psikhologicheskaya diagnostika. 2005. ¹ 3. S. 95-121.
15. Simonov A.S. Teoretiko-empiricheskie predposylki psikhologicheskogo konsul'tirovaniya po problemam vybora brachnogo partnera. [Elektronnyy resurs] // Prikladnaya psikhologiya i psikhoanaliz: elektron. nauchn. zhurn. 2014 g. ¹2. URL: http://ppip.idnk.ru/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.09.2016).
16. Kharlamova T.M. Psikhologicheskaya spetsifika brachnoy assortativnosti // Fundamental'nye issledovaniya. 2013. ¹ 8-4. S. 974-978.
17. Romanova E.V. Vliyanie opyta vzaimootnosheniy v roditel'skoy sem'e na formirovanie supruzheskikh otnosheniy i udovletvorennost' brakom // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ser. 12. 2011. ¹ 7. S. 121-128.
18. Semeynyy kodeks RF ot 29.12.1995 g. ¹ 223-FZ (red. ot 30.12.2015 g., gl. 3, st. 10) [Elektronnyy resurs] // SPS Konsul'tantPlyus. URL: http://www.consultant.ru (data obrashcheniya: 06.10.2016).
19. Psikhologiya semeynykh otnosheniy s osnovami semeynogo konsul'tirovaniya / Pod red. Silyaevoy E.G. 3-e izd., stereotip. M.: Akademiya, 2005. 192 s.
20. Parshikova O.V. Skhodstvo suprugov po lichnostnym kharakteristikam i prodolzhitel'nost' braka. [Elektronnyy resurs] // Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya. 2012. T. 5. ¹ 26. URL: http://psystudy.ru. (Data obrashcheniya: 18.10.2016).
21. Raygorodskiy D.Ya. Psikhologiya sem'i. Uch. posobie dlya fakul'tetov psikhologii, sotsiologii, ekonomiki i zhurnalistiki. Samara: Izdatel'skiy Dom BAKhRAKh-M. 2007. 752 s.
22. Myasishchev V.N. Psikhologiya otnosheniy. M.: MPSI, 2005. 158 s.
23. Novikova E.N. Gendernaya spetsifika dobrachnogo povedeniya studencheskoy molodezhi (Na primere Respubliki Mordoviya) [Tekst]: avtoref. dis. na soisk. uchen. step. kand. sotsiol. nauk (22.00.04) / Novikova E.N. Saransk, 2006. 189 s.
24. Obozov N.N., Obozova A.N. Tri podkhoda k issledovaniyu psikhologicheskoy sovmestimosti // Voprosy psikhologii. 1981. ¹ 6. S. 98-101.
25. Leont'ev D.A., Rasskazova E.I. Test zhiznestoykosti. Metodicheskoe rukovodstvo po novoy metodike psikhologicheskoy diagnostiki lichnosti s shirokoy oblast'yu primeneniya. Prednaznachaetsya dlya professional'nykh psikhologov-issledovateley i praktikov. M.: Smysl, 2006. 65 s.
26. Kronik A., Kronik E. V glavnykh rolyakh: Vy, my, on, ty, ya: psikhologiya znachimykh otnosheniy Tekst / A. Kronik, E. Kronik. M.: Izd-vo «Mysl'», 1989. 204 s.
27. Kostrikova M.V. Psikhologicheskaya sovmestimost' suprugov // Nauchnye issledovaniya: ot teorii k praktike: materialy mezhdunar. nauch.–prakt. konf. (Cheboksary, 13 noyab. 2014 g.) / Redkol.: O.N. Shirokov [i dr.]. Cheboksary: TsNS «Interaktiv plyus», 2014. S. 196–198.
28. Kovaleva A.V. Transformatsiya ponyatiya «grazhdanskiy brak» kak proyavlenie krizisa semeyno-brachnykh otnosheniy [Tekst]: avtoref. dis. na soisk. uchen. step. kand. sotsiol. nauk (22.00.04) / Kovaleva A.V.; Tikhookeanskiy gos. universitet. Khabarovsk, 2009. 185 s.
29. Elizarov A.N. Psikhologicheskoe konsul'tirovanie sem'i: Uch. posobie dlya stud. vuzov, obuch. po naprav. i spets. psikhologii. M.: Os'-89, 2004. 400 s.
30. Zakirova S.A. Kriterial'nye otlichiya braka ot drugikh «Podobnykh brachnym» otnosheniy // Severo-Kavkazskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. 2013. ¹ 1. S. 63-67.
31. Dubovskikh O.V., Il'inskaya S.V. Vliyanie obraza sem'i suprugov na ikh udovletvorennost' brakom // Vestnik Samarskoy gumanitarnoy akademii. Seriya «Psikhologiya». 2015. ¹ 1(17). S. 138-151.
32. Egorova M.S., Parshikova O.V. Skhodstvo suprugov po samootsenkam i vzaimnym otsenkam lichnostnykh svoystv. [Elektronnyy resurs] // Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya. 2010. T. 3. ¹ 11. URL: http://psystudy.ru (data obrashcheniya: 09.09.2016).
33. Andreeva T.V. Semeynaya psikhologiya: Uchebnoe posobie. SPb.: Rech', 2004. 244 s.
34. Bakushkina N.I. Struktura vnutriparnoy soglasovannosti po psikhologicheskim i saotsiodemograficheskim kharakteristikam na raznykh etapakh formirovaniya lyubovnoy pary // Nauchnyy dialog. 2013. ¹ 4(16): Psikhologiya. Pedagogika. S. 8-14.
35. Rukavishnikov A.A. Diagnostika mezhlichnostnykh otnosheniy [Tekst] / Fetiskin N.P., Kozlov V.V., Manuylov G.M. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskaya diagnostika razvitiya lichnosti i malykh grupp. M., 2002. C. 167-171.