Adhesion to the myths of conjugality by men and women: associations with marital quality and conflict
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5433/2236-6407.2019v10n3suplp66Keywords:
Conjugal myths, Gender, Conjugal quality, Conjugal conflictAbstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the adhesion of men and women to conjugal myths, comparing the sexes and checking associations with sociodemographic variables, marital quality and style of conflict resolution strategies. Participated 65 heterosexual couples, officially married (45.3%), in a stable union (35.9%) or dating (18.5%). The instruments used were: sociodemographic questionnaire, questionnaire of conjugal myths, Golombok and Rust Inventory of Martital State e Conflict Resolution Style Inventory. The results revealed that there was high or moderate adhesion to the conjugal myths. For men, greater adherence was associated with perceived higher marital quality, greater use of submission strategy and less involvement in conflict. For women, adherence to myths was positively correlated with the strategies of positive resolution of conflicts and submission and negatively with involvement in the conflict. It is discussed the need to consider adherence to the myths of conjugality in interventions with couples.
Downloads
References
Andolfi, M., & Angelo, C. (1989). Tempo e mito em terapia familiar. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas.
Caldwell, B. E., & Woolley, S. R. (2008). Marriage and family therapists' endorsement of myths about marriage. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(5), 367-387. doi: 10.1080/01926180701804626
Casad, B. J., Salazar, M. M., & Macina, V. (2015). The real versus the ideal: Predicting relationship satisfaction and well-being from endorsement of marriage myths and benevolent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(1), 119-129. doi: 10.1177/0361684314528304
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 490p.
Costa, C. B. da, Cenci, C. M. B., & Mosmann, C. P. (2016). Conflito conjugal e estratégias de resolução: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura. Temas em Psicologia, 24(1), 325-338. doi: 10.1590/1982-3703000622016.
Costa, C. B. da, & Mosmann, C. P. (2015). Relacionamentos conjugais na atualidade: percepções de indivíduos em casamentos de longa duração. Revista da SPAGESP, 16(2), 16-31.
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2006). Estatística sem matemática para psicologia. 3. Ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Delatorre, M. Z., Scheeren, P., & Wagner, A. (2017). Conflito conjugal: Evidências de validade de uma escala de resolução de conflitos em casais do sul do Brasil. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 35(1), 79-94. doi: 10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.3742
Ercegovac, I., & Bubić, A. (2016). Basic psychological needs predict participants' attitudes and expectations towards marriage. Nordic psychology, 68(2), 73-86. doi: 10.1080/19012276.2015.1071200
Falcke, D. (2003). Águas passadas não movem moinhos? As experiências na família de origem como preditoras da qualidade do relacionamento conjugal. Porto Alegre, RS. Tese de Doutorado. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul - PUCRS, 185p.
Falcke, D., & Wagner, A. (2005). A dinâmica familiar e o fenômeno da transgeracionalidade: definição de conceitos. In.: A. Wagner. Como se perpetua a família? A transmissão dos modelos familiares. Porto Alegre: EdiPUCRS.
Fonseca, S. R. A., & Duarte, C. M. N. (2014). Do namoro ao casamento: Significados, expectativas, conflito e amor. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 30(2), 135-143. doi: 10.1590/S0102-37722014000200002.
Fowler, B. J. (2000). Beyond the Myth of Marital Happiness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 243p.
George-Levi, S., Vilchinsky, N., Tolmacz, R., & Liberman, G. (2014). Testing the concept of relational entitlement in the dyadic context: Further validation and associations with relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 193-203. doi:10.1037/a0036150
Galloway, l., Engstrom, E. & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2015). Does movie viewing cultivate young people's unrealistic expectations about love and marriage? Marriage & Family Review, 51(8), 687-712. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2015.1061629
Honeycutt, J. M. (1991). The endorsement of myths about marriage as a function of gender, age, religious denomination, and educational level. Communication Research Reports, 8(2), 101-111. doi: 10.1080/08824099109359881
Jackl, J. A. (2016). “Love doesn’t just happen…”: Parent-child communication about marriage. Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 193-209. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2015.1103284
Kemer, G., Yıldız, E. Ç., & Bulgan, G. (2016). Emotional dependency and dysfunctional relationship beliefs as predictors of married Turkish individuals’ relationship satisfaction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19(e72), 1-8. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2016.78
Kramer, D., & Moore, R. M. (2001). Family myths in romantic fiction. Psychological Reports, 88, 29-41. doi: 10.2466/PR0.88.1.29-41
Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(3), 705-722. doi: 10.2307/352880
Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2013). Newlyweds’ optimistic forecasts of their marriage: For better or for worse? Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 531–540. doi:10.1037/a0033423
Lazarus, A. (1992). Mitos conjugais. Campinas: Editorial Psy.
Mosmann, C., & Falcke, D. (2011). Conflitos conjugais: motivos e frequência. Revista da SPAGESP, 12(2), 5-16.
Mosmann, C., Wagner, A., & Féres-Carneiro, T. (2006). Qualidade conjugal: mapeando conceitos. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 16(35), 315-325. doi: 10.1590/S0103-863X2006000300003.
Neff, L. A., & Geers, A. L. (2013). Optimistic expectations in early marriage: A resource or vulnerability for adaptive relationship functioning? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 38–60. doi:10.1037/a0032600
Neumann, A. P. (2017). “Viver a dois: Compartilhando esse desafio”: Avaliação de um programa psicoeducativo para casais. Tese de Doutorado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS.
Neumann, A. P., & Wagner, A. (2018). Perspectivas e desafios da coordenação de um programa de educação conjugal. Psico, 49(4), 410-421. doi: 10.15448/1980-8623.2018.4.29350
Rizzon, A. L. C., Mosmann, C. P., & Wagner, A. (2013). A qualidade conjugal e os elementos do amor: Um estudo correlacional. Contextos Clínicos, 6(1), 41-49. doi: 10.4013/ctc.2013.61.05
Rust, J., Bennun, I., Crowe, M., & Golombok, S. (1988). The Golombok Rust Inventory of Marital State. Windsor, NFER-NELSON, 39p.
Scheeren, P., Vieira, R. V. de A., Goulart, V. R., & Wagner, A. (2014). Marital
quality and attachment: The mediator role of conflict resolution styles. Paidéia, 24(58), 177-186. doi: 10.1590/1982-43272458201405
Wagner, A., & Mosmann, C. (2012). Intervenção na conjugalidade: Estratégias de resolução de conflitos conjugais. In M. N. Baptista & M. L. M. Teodoro (Eds.), Psicologia de Família (pp. 240–248). Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Wagner, A., Neumann, A. P., Mosmann, A. P., Levandowski, D. C., Falcke, D., Zordan, E. P., & Scheeren, P. (2015). ‘Viver a dois: Compartilhando esse desafio’: Uma proposta psicoeducativa para casais. Porto Alegre: Sinodal.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Estudos Interdisciplinares em Psicologia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Copyright of the published manuscripts belongs to the Journal. Since they are published in an open access Journal, they are freely available, for private use or for use for educational and non-commercial purposes.
The Journal has the right to make, in the original document, changes regarding linguistic norms, orthography, and grammar, with the purpose of ensuring the standard norms of the language and the credibility of the Journal. It will, however, respect the writing style of the authors.
When necessary, conceptual changes, corrections, or suggestions will be forwarded to the authors. In such cases, the manuscript shall be subjected to a new evaluation after revision.
Responsibility for the opinions expressed in the manuscripts lies entirely with the authors.