Sliding versus Deciding in Relationships: Associations with Relationship Quality, Commitment, and Infidelity.

Jesse Owen, Galena K Rhoades, Scott M Stanley
{"title":"Sliding versus Deciding in Relationships: Associations with Relationship Quality, Commitment, and Infidelity.","authors":"Jesse Owen,&nbsp;Galena K Rhoades,&nbsp;Scott M Stanley","doi":"10.1080/15332691.2013.779097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>From choosing a partner to date to deciding to cohabit or marry, individuals are faced with many relationship choices. Given the costs of failed relationships (e.g., personal distress, problems with work, lower well-being for children, lost opportunities to meet other partners), it is important consider how individuals are approaching these decisions. The current study tested if more thoughtful and clear relationship decision-making processes would relate to individuals' levels of satisfaction with and dedication to their partners as well as their extra-dyadic involvements. In a sample of 252 men and women, the results showed that regardless of relationship status (i.e., dating, cohabiting, or married), those who reported more thoughtful decision-making processes also reported more dedication to their partners, higher satisfaction with the relationship, and fewer extra-dyadic involvements.</p>","PeriodicalId":45661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy-Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15332691.2013.779097","citationCount":"54","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy-Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.779097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 54

Abstract

From choosing a partner to date to deciding to cohabit or marry, individuals are faced with many relationship choices. Given the costs of failed relationships (e.g., personal distress, problems with work, lower well-being for children, lost opportunities to meet other partners), it is important consider how individuals are approaching these decisions. The current study tested if more thoughtful and clear relationship decision-making processes would relate to individuals' levels of satisfaction with and dedication to their partners as well as their extra-dyadic involvements. In a sample of 252 men and women, the results showed that regardless of relationship status (i.e., dating, cohabiting, or married), those who reported more thoughtful decision-making processes also reported more dedication to their partners, higher satisfaction with the relationship, and fewer extra-dyadic involvements.

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
关系中的滑动与决定:与关系质量、承诺和不忠的关系。
从选择约会对象到决定同居或结婚,每个人都面临着许多关系的选择。考虑到失败关系的代价(例如,个人痛苦、工作问题、儿童福祉下降、失去与其他伴侣见面的机会),重要的是要考虑个人如何处理这些决定。目前的研究测试了更深思熟虑和清晰的关系决策过程是否与个人对伴侣的满意度和奉献程度以及他们的额外参与有关。在252名男性和女性的样本中,结果表明,无论关系状态如何(即约会、同居或已婚),那些报告更深思熟虑的决策过程的人也报告了对伴侣更多的奉献,对关系的满意度更高,以及更少的额外的双重参与。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Mindful Partnering: Introducing a Theoretical Construct and Testing Psychometric Properties of the Mindful Partnering Measure. Client Perceptions of the Most and Least Helpful Aspects of Couple Therapy. Constructive communication patterns and associated factors among male couples. Sliding versus Deciding in Relationships: Associations with Relationship Quality, Commitment, and Infidelity. Marriage Education in the Army: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
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