Unveiling the Shadows: An Exploratory Analysis of Perceived Disadvantages in Intimate Relationships

IF 1.4 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Evolutionary Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1007/s40806-024-00397-0
Menelaos Apostolou, Eleni Iniati, Andrea Charalambous, Alexia Zalaf, Antonios Kagialis
{"title":"Unveiling the Shadows: An Exploratory Analysis of Perceived Disadvantages in Intimate Relationships","authors":"Menelaos Apostolou, Eleni Iniati, Andrea Charalambous, Alexia Zalaf, Antonios Kagialis","doi":"10.1007/s40806-024-00397-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Intimate relationships are not characterized only by advantages as they have also a darker side. Accordingly, the current research aimed to identify the disadvantages of being in an intimate relationship in the Greek cultural context. More specifically, Study 1 employed qualitative research methods with a sample of 202 Greek-speaking participants, identifying 94 possible disadvantages. Study 2 employed quantitative research methods with a sample of 525 Greek-speaking participants and classified these disadvantages into 11 broader factors or major disadvantages and three broader domains or primary disadvantages. Participants indicated \"Conflicts\" as the most important primary disadvantage, followed by the \"Emotional burden\" and the \"Compromises\" primary disadvantages. Furthermore, we found that women indicated abusive behaviors, economic dependency, and less freedom factors as more important major disadvantages than men. Additionally, older participants reported making compromises as a more important major disadvantage than younger participants. Moreover, single participants rated several major disadvantages as more important than participants in an intimate relationship. Overall, our study sheds light on the less favorable aspects of intimate relationships and highlights important sex, age, and relationship status differences in perceiving these disadvantages.</p>","PeriodicalId":52399,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-024-00397-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intimate relationships are not characterized only by advantages as they have also a darker side. Accordingly, the current research aimed to identify the disadvantages of being in an intimate relationship in the Greek cultural context. More specifically, Study 1 employed qualitative research methods with a sample of 202 Greek-speaking participants, identifying 94 possible disadvantages. Study 2 employed quantitative research methods with a sample of 525 Greek-speaking participants and classified these disadvantages into 11 broader factors or major disadvantages and three broader domains or primary disadvantages. Participants indicated "Conflicts" as the most important primary disadvantage, followed by the "Emotional burden" and the "Compromises" primary disadvantages. Furthermore, we found that women indicated abusive behaviors, economic dependency, and less freedom factors as more important major disadvantages than men. Additionally, older participants reported making compromises as a more important major disadvantage than younger participants. Moreover, single participants rated several major disadvantages as more important than participants in an intimate relationship. Overall, our study sheds light on the less favorable aspects of intimate relationships and highlights important sex, age, and relationship status differences in perceiving these disadvantages.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
揭开阴影对亲密关系中感知到的不利因素的探索性分析
亲密关系并非只有优点,也有其阴暗面。因此,本研究旨在找出希腊文化背景下亲密关系的不利因素。更具体地说,研究 1 采用了定性研究方法,对 202 名希腊语参与者进行了抽样调查,确定了 94 项可能存在的弊端。研究 2 采用定量研究方法,对 525 名希腊语参与者进行抽样调查,并将这些不利因素分为 11 个更广泛的因素或主要不利因素,以及 3 个更广泛的领域或主要不利因素。参与者认为 "冲突 "是最重要的主要不利因素,其次是 "情感负担 "和 "妥协"。此外,我们还发现,与男性相比,女性认为虐待行为、经济依赖和自由度较低是更重要的主要不利因素。此外,与年轻参与者相比,年长参与者认为做出妥协是更重要的主要不利因素。此外,单身参与者比有亲密关系的参与者更重视几项主要不利因素。总之,我们的研究揭示了亲密关系中的不利因素,并强调了在感知这些不利因素时性别、年龄和关系状态的重要差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Evolutionary Psychological Science Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Evolutionary Psychological Science is an international, interdisciplinary journal that publishes empirical research, theoretical contributions, literature reviews, and commentaries addressing human evolved psychology and behavior. The Journal especially welcomes submissions on non-humans that inform human psychology and behavior, as well as submissions that address clinical implications and applications of an evolutionary perspective. The Journal is informed by all the social and life sciences, including anthropology, biology, criminology, law, medicine, philosophy, political science, and the humanities, and welcomes contributions from these and related fields that contribute to the understanding of human evolved psychology and behavior. Submissions should not exceed 10,000 words, all inclusive.
期刊最新文献
Advancing the Understanding of Phenotypic Mimicry in Men’s Conspicuous Consumption Effects of Accelerated Reproductive Timing in Response to Childhood Adversity on Lifetime Reproductive Success in Modern Environments Women’s Dangerous World Beliefs Predict Biases Against Formidable Men in Legal Domains Distractibility and Impulsivity in ADHD as an Evolutionary Mismatch of High Trait Curiosity Reciprocator-Recipient Asymmetries in Reciprocal Altruism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1