Why Men Suffer More Badly than Women after Breakups

sad low kii savage GIF by Kiiara

Many assume that women would suffer more trauma than men after an ending of a serious relationship. This conclusion may be true in the economic realm, especially if the female partners or wives are dependent on their boyfriends and husbands for support. But in the emotional or psychological realm, the case may be different. Women tend to perform well in coping with the emotional pains after a breakup in a relationship compared to men!

A study by Perilloux and Buss (2008) indicated that knowing who among the men and women would suffer more pain in coping with a breakup would depend on who are the rejectors and rejectees.

Animated GIF

Both men and women who were rejected, compared with those who did the rejecting, experienced more depression, loss of self-esteem, and rumination. But between men and women who were both rejected after a serious relationship, men tend to suffer more emotional hardships than women.

If men were rejected (rejectees) by their girlfriends and housewives (rejectors) in serious relationships, they tend to cope very badly after breakups compared to women (rejectees). Some studies revealed that women typically report experiencing more benefits after the breakup and men report poorer adjustment (e.g.Avellar & Smock, 2005; Bevvino and Sharkin, 2003; Haugaard and Seri, 2003).

mad men cry GIF

In addition, since men tend to be more romantic and more involved in establishing and maintaining a romantic or marital relationship, they experience more frustrations compared to their female partners after a divorce or separation. To enhance their romantic union, men tend to invest more time and resources than women. This serious investment of male partners in a romantic or marital union can lead to large costs if the relationship is terminated. Breakups can be costly and emotionally devastating to men when their ladies decide to discontinue the relationships.

x-men cry GIF

Why Men Deal with Breakups More Badly than Women

1. Although they tend to have more business and social connections as well as personal friends than women in public life, men generally have less intimate friends to confide their emotional problems compared to women. In terms of quality and intimacy in personal relationships, women tend to have deeper social bonding with their peers, cliques, and friends than men. Women tend to share more of their negative emotional experiences with their inner circles of friends than men.

women GIF by buzzfeedladylike

2. Men tend to hide their emotions compared to women. In a patriarchal society, men are socialized by their parents to be strong, logical, active, and masculine in their personal ways. Sons are expected to avoid signs of femininity in dealing with problems of life.

CyclonesTV strong man GIF

Although they are trained to be strong in real life problems, they are not socialized to handle well emotional problems such as divorce or serious breakups in romantic relationships. Thus, when their girlfriends and wives decide to end the relationship, they usually experience strong depression, loneliness, and imbalance in their daily routine. Men’s main confidante in romantic and marital relationships are usually their female partners. Thus, if the latter would divorce and reject them, the separation and emotional hurt are indeed very painful to them. In this case, many would resort to palliatives such as using drugs and alcoholism just to forget the past and minimize the emotional suffering.

charlie sheen drinking GIF

3. Men do not often express negative emotions compared to women (e.g., Burke et al., 1976; Levenson et al., 1994). Some studies have shown that there are gender differences in the stressful reactions to coping with negative daily life events and that women are more likely to use negative emotion-related coping strategies such as cognitive rumination and seeking emotional support than men (Matud, 2004; Tamres et al., 2002).

chatting african american GIF

Conclusion

In sum, it is true that men, especially the breadwinners, can easily cope well after a divorce or separation than women in the economic realm. But in the area of emotional and psychological adjustments, men tend to suffer more emotional pain and trauma and recover badly after a breakup compared to women. The socialization process or social upbringing of men in society that emphasizes reason, achievement, suppression of negative emotions, and focus on economic and social pursuits, rather than on fulfilling emotional needs for males, is a major contributory factor on why men tend to have less intimate friends and tend to be inhibited to share their emotional problems after a breakup.

Thank you for reading this post. Feel free to like, comment, or share it with your friends and followers. Cheers and best wishes!

GIF Credits: Giphy.com

References

Avellar, S., and Smock, P.J. (2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 315327.

Bevvino, D.L., and Sharkin, B.S. (2003). Divorce adjustment as a function of finding meaning and gender differences. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 39, 8197.

Burke, R. J., Weir, T., & Harrison, D. (1976). Disclosure of problems and tensions experienced by marital partners. Psychological Reports, 38, 531–542.

Haugaard, J.J., and Seri, L.G. (2003). Stalking and other forms of intrusive contact after the dissolution of adolescent dating or romantic relationships. Violence and Victims, 18, 279297.

Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). The influence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 56–68.

Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1401-1415.

Perriloux, C and Buss, D. (2008). Breaking up Romantic Relationships: Costs Experienced and Coping Strategies Deployed. Evolutionary Psychology. 

Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 2-30.

Anthony Bourdain’s Suicide and the Limits of Popularity

The tragic death and suicide of the Anthony Bourdain this week is an eye-opener for some of us who want fame, wealth, and popularity at all costs.

Anthony Bourdain is an American celebrity chef, author, travel documentarian, and CNN television personality who starred in programs focusing on the exploration of international culture, cuisine, and human condition. He was considered one of the most influential chefs in the world by many commentators. He first became known for his 2000 bestselling book “Kitchen Confidential: Adventurers in the Culinary Underbelly”.

To many people,  Bourdain had enjoyed all the fame and material rewards due to top celebrities idolized by millions of admirers. But only few people, most probably only his closest friends and relatives, knew what he had actually gone through in his private life. Since celebrities appear happy in front of TV cameras and usually secretive about their personal life, we assume that their being rich and famous is the ideal goal in life.

But things are not what they seem. What appears from the outside may not be from the inside.

The irony of public life is that the more people become popular to the public because of their extraordinary talents and abilities, the more they lose their freedom and ability to mingle around with the poor, ordinary people, and their fans without fear of being hurt and lowering their social stature. Many people aspire to be like Anthony Bourdain, Michael Jackson, Bruno Mars, and all other top celebrities because they are praised by millions of fans around the world. But they may not be fully aware that to be rich and popular implies moving more to your own private life and inner sanctuary to find peace and consolation with your loved ones and away from the noise of screaming fans. It also requires nurturing a strong social bonding with their inner circle of friends which can reduce the risk of committing suicide.

People’s lives have two dimensions: The public and the private.

In the public sphere we project ourselves based on what our bosses, managers, or producers and directors, in the case of show business, who will tell us what to do in our jobs. The public arena is the stage of our public performance but the private sphere is our backstage where we return to our true selves and meet our own family and inner circle of friends, and relatives.

Life can be ironic. Anthony Bourdain and the rest of the celebrities may had appear happy with their fans and people who surrounded them, but in reality all that transpired could be just for the show dictated by directors, scriptwriters and producers. If Bruno Mars, for instance, could appear very happy singing in front of his adoring fans during his concert. But after that? He could return lonely to his hotel if he has no intimate and loyal friends and relatives who would support him outside his public performance. Robin Williams, another famous actor who committed suicide, could be indeed very funny and appear joyful to his fans in the movie or TV screens, but deep indeed as a private person he was lonely and hurting inside and longing for genuine love from people who surrounded him. But this seemed not his case when Williams once said:

Anthony Bourdain’s life was not easy. Although he was successful in his career part of life, he was a lonely man in private life. Before he became famous, he struggled against his drug addiction and alcoholism. He was a chef in a huge mega city of New York where social alienation is high. He was not also successful in his married life, being divorced twice. Research shows that men tend to suffer emotionally more than women after breakups or divorce. He probably hurting privately with all his past marital separations. Bourdain only has one child. If he has many children who are very supportive to him despite these divorces, he would not probably commit suicide.

Celebrities are actually lonely in front of “lonely crowd” during their public performances.  Loneliness would even be greater if celebrities do not have their own supportive inner circle of family members, close relatives, and friends who could console them in times of personal crisis and trouble. The social integration theory of Emile Durkheim states the level of social integration of people with their social groups is connected with the risk of suicide. The more people are attached with their social groups, such as family, peer, kin, or organization, the lesser is their risk of committing suicide. Communal support  can prevent depression and egoistic suicide.

Celebrities can be prone to depression and suicide if they have a weak social bonding with their social groups. Some rich and famous are able to manage stress and pressure in their public life as celebrities because they are able to maintain their strong bonding with their families and friends who provide a strong support system to their work and career.

Bourdain’s death can provide us an important lesson: Life is not all about popularity and material success! Life is being and not having. Whatever blessings we receive in life must not hinder us from searching and pursuing a spirituality and finding the true meaning of life beyond material happiness. Bourdain became very busy after he became a celebrity that he found less time to enjoy life with his loved ones. In one of his interviews, he longed to be just a father to his daughter, to enjoy the moment of being just a dad, not a celebrity! Spiritual joy is therefore more lasting than material happiness! What makes smile in our journey to the next life is not our material success and popularity, but the joy and happy memories we have created with our loved ones and with people we care about.

Thank you for reading this post. Follow this blog for more updates.

Is Jesus a Sociologist?

painting-1023419_640
Web Hosting

Perhaps this question is inappropriate because Sociology as a social science discipline was only established in the late 19th century and Jesus was already preaching in Galilee some 2,000 years ago. Besides, Jesus as our Lord and founder of Christianity had no formal training in sociology and is never considered by many as a social scientist during His time.

But Jesus, believed by many Christians as both man and divine, must have known the human heart and behavior better than any scientist who can theorize people’s actions.

christ-1618197_640

He may not have known sociology during His time but His words and preaching were full of sociological insights. Theologians and sociologists may have overlooked that there are many passages in the Gospel attributed to Jesus that are full of sociological theories and insights.

Body of Christ

Source: haikudeck.com

The New Testament too in the letters of St. Paul, especially Romans 12:5,1 Corinthians 12:12–27, Ephesians 3:6 and 5:23, Colossians 1:18 and Colossians 1:24 describing the Church as the Body of Christ, is also very sociological! Describing the early Church as one system or a human body with different interdependent parts obviously illustrates the sociological theory of functionalism. Functionalism as established by the French founder of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim, views society as one system like a human body, with different interdependent functions.

Here are 2 similarities between Jesus’s perspectives and sociology as illustrated by some biblical passages below:

1. Jesus’ Teaching on Understanding People’s actions: Judge not just the external acts but the motive behind them is similar to Max Weber’s concept of “Verstehen” (interpretive understanding).

Jesus

Soruce: www.vineyardmsa.org

The following words of Jesus against hypocrisy and rash judgment highlight the importance of understanding people’s motives behind their actions and not just their external acts. In hypocrisy, the public can only see the people’s appearance or what Max Weber calls as “stereotypes”. The scribes and Pharisees appear very religious and pious in front of the Jews or worshipers, but their motives are not religious–these leaders would only want to appear religious in order that the Israelites would praise and respect them.

Max Weber

Source: www.slideplayer.com

The German sociologist Max Weber uses the concept “verstehen” (interpretive understanding) or understanding social action from the actor’s point of view in studying the true meaning of human behavior. In this case, the sociologist must put himself into the shoes of the person performing the external act or stereotype and understand his/her motive. Applying “verstehen” implies research, interviewing, triangulation, and knowing the true meaning of the external action as well as the intention of the individual performing it, thus making the behavioral assessment holistic.

In this case, Jesus saw a discrepancy between what the Pharisees and Scribes showed publicly in their stereotypes, i.e., appearing very religious in the temple, and the motives behind their piety. Before Weber recommended “verstehen” to sociologists in studying behavior, Jesus was already applying it during His lifetime:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every impurity” (Matthew 23:27).

“In the same way, you appear to be righteous on the outside, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness” (Matthew 23:28).

 2. Jesus Teaching against discrimination and marginalization of  the poor in Jewish society resembles the conflict theory in Sociology. 

Karl marx

Photo Credit: AZ Quotes

The conflict sociologists who are inspired by Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism view the oppression of the poor or working class by the elite or rich capitalists as a byproduct of an economic system wherein the means of production of goods are owned and controlled by the private sector or rich capitalists and motivated by profit. Conflict theorists see the unequal distribution of goods as the root cause of economic injustice in society.

jesus and social justice

Source: www.findinggraceatthecenter.com

But before Karl Marx and conflict sociologists saw the unequal distribution of goods in society as the root cause of society’s conflict, Jesus already condemned any form of economic and social discrimination of the weak and inequality during His time. The economic control of the rich and religious elite led by the Pharisees and Scribes of the Jewish society is viewed by Jesus as causing a great injustice and the marginalization of the poor, the sick, and the afflicted: “But if anyone has the world’s good and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in you” (1 John 3:17-18)?

social justice and the gospel

Jesus’ pronouncement on the Last Judgment clearly illustrates His awareness of economic conflict and condemnation of social inequality that marginalizes the poor who imitate Him:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” (Matthew 25: 34-36).

Conclusion

Is Jesus a sociologist? Well, formally Jesus may not be a sociologist and social scientist since He did not receive any formal sociological training. Moreover, the primary focus of His teaching is spiritual and religious. But obviously His words and perspectives are full of sociological insights! Theologians and Bible scholars may not have given much attention to the sociological underpinnings of Jesus’ teachings. But to those who have been academically trained in both Sociology and Theology, it is fairly obvious that Jesus is a “sociologist”, that his perspective of reality is holistic, and, thus, using the “sociological imagination.” Of course Jesus is more than just a sociologist. For many Christians, Jesus is the Christ who is both true man and true God. As divine, He knows human behavior more what professional sociologists understand about human agency!

Photo Credit (except those with attribution): Pixabay.com

Thank you for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

Is Jesus a Sociologist?

painting-1023419_640
Web Hosting

Perhaps this question is inappropriate because Sociology as a social science discipline was only established in the late 19th century and Jesus was already preaching in Galilee some 2,000 years ago. Besides, Jesus as our Lord and founder of Christianity had no formal training in sociology and is never considered by many as a social scientist during His time.

But Jesus, believed by many Christians as both man and divine, must have known the human heart and behavior better than any scientist who can theorize people’s actions.

christ-1618197_640

He may not have known sociology during His time but His words and preaching were full of sociological insights. Theologians and sociologists may have overlooked that there are many passages in the Gospel attributed to Jesus that are full of sociological theories and insights.

Body of Christ

Source: haikudeck.com

The New Testament too in the letters of St. Paul, especially Romans 12:5,1 Corinthians 12:12–27, Ephesians 3:6 and 5:23, Colossians 1:18 and Colossians 1:24 describing the Church as the Body of Christ, is also very sociological! Describing the early Church as one system or a human body with different interdependent parts obviously illustrates the sociological theory of functionalism. Functionalism as established by the French founder of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim, views society as one system like a human body, with different interdependent functions.

Here are 2 similarities between Jesus’s perspectives and sociology as illustrated by some biblical passages below:

1. Jesus’ Teaching on Understanding People’s actions: Judge not just the external acts but the motive behind them is similar to Max Weber’s concept of “Verstehen” (interpretive understanding).

Jesus

Soruce: www.vineyardmsa.org

The following words of Jesus against hypocrisy and rash judgment highlight the importance of understanding people’s motives behind their actions and not just their external acts. In hypocrisy, the public can only see the people’s appearance or what Max Weber calls as “stereotypes”. The scribes and Pharisees appear very religious and pious in front of the Jews or worshipers, but their motives are not religious–these leaders would only want to appear religious in order that the Israelites would praise and respect them.

Max Weber

Source: www.slideplayer.com

The German sociologist Max Weber uses the concept “verstehen” (interpretive understanding) or understanding social action from the actor’s point of view in studying the true meaning of human behavior. In this case, the sociologist must put himself into the shoes of the person performing the external act or stereotype and understand his/her motive. Applying “verstehen” implies research, interviewing, triangulation, and knowing the true meaning of the external action as well as the intention of the individual performing it, thus making the behavioral assessment holistic.

In this case, Jesus saw a discrepancy between what the Pharisees and Scribes showed publicly in their stereotypes, i.e., appearing very religious in the temple, and the motives behind their piety. Before Weber recommended “verstehen” to sociologists in studying behavior, Jesus was already applying it during His lifetime:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every impurity” (Matthew 23:27).

“In the same way, you appear to be righteous on the outside, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness” (Matthew 23:28).

 2. Jesus Teaching against discrimination and marginalization of  the poor in Jewish society resembles the conflict theory in Sociology. 

Karl marx

Photo Credit: AZ Quotes

The conflict sociologists who are inspired by Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism view the oppression of the poor or working class by the elite or rich capitalists as a byproduct of an economic system wherein the means of production of goods are owned and controlled by the private sector or rich capitalists and motivated by profit. Conflict theorists see the unequal distribution of goods as the root cause of economic injustice in society.

jesus and social justice

Source: www.findinggraceatthecenter.com

But before Karl Marx and conflict sociologists saw the unequal distribution of goods in society as the root cause of society’s conflict, Jesus already condemned any form of economic and social discrimination of the weak and inequality during His time. The economic control of the rich and religious elite led by the Pharisees and Scribes of the Jewish society is viewed by Jesus as causing a great injustice and the marginalization of the poor, the sick, and the afflicted: “But if anyone has the world’s good and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in you” (1 John 3:17-18)?

social justice and the gospel

Jesus’ pronouncement on the Last Judgment clearly illustrates His awareness of economic conflict and condemnation of social inequality that marginalizes the poor who imitate Him:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” (Matthew 25: 34-36).

Conclusion

Is Jesus a sociologist? Well, formally Jesus may not be a sociologist and social scientist since He did not receive any formal sociological training. Moreover, the primary focus of His teaching is spiritual and religious. But obviously His words and perspectives are full of sociological insights! Theologians and Bible scholars may not have given much attention to the sociological underpinnings of Jesus’ teachings. But to those who have been academically trained in both Sociology and Theology, it is fairly obvious that Jesus is a “sociologist”, that his perspective of reality is holistic, and, thus, using the “sociological imagination.” Of course Jesus is more than just a sociologist. For many Christians, Jesus is the Christ who is both true man and true God. As divine, He knows human behavior more what professional sociologists understand about human agency!

Photo Credit (except those with attribution): Pixabay.com

Thank you for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

4 Top Areas that Married Couples Argue

im-right-1458410_640
Web Hosting
Photo Credit: MoteOo at Pixabay.com

Marriage is always inter-cultural. Two individuals who decide to tie the knot in marriage know that each one of them come from a different cultural orientation. Culture is a way of life of a group of people living in a particular locality. Every individual has distinct cultural orientation with regard to beliefs, values, attitudes, practices, and worldviews. Thus when two persons decide to stay together for life in marriage, it is expected that various personal conflicts and differences will arise during the union. Marriage is not only a “bed of roses”, but also a “bed of thorns” that requires daily and lifelong adjustment and negotiation between the husband and the wife to continue the marital commitment until  “death do us part.”

A study by Buss et al. (1990) revealed that cultural differences play an important role  in marital conflict. Research shows that the top 4 sources of conflict and disagreement between married couples are those related to sexual activity, finances, division of labor, and raising of children in the family. According to many research, these 4 areas of marital conflicts are often significantly related to almost all cases of marital problems:

1. Sexual Activity

man-1082894_640

Photo Credit: Prawny at Pixabay.com

Conflicts in sexual activity during marriage occur over initiation of sexual activity, with the female often rejecting male overtures. Males may be more eager for sex with their partner in order to reduce the risk of her impregnation by a rival, or as a side effect of a low threshold for sex in order to maximize fertilization of additional females.

Sexual coercion by any spouse in marital life constitutes another, possibly related source of conflict, usually with the male coercing the female (e.g. Miller, 2000).  One study revealed that conflict in sexual activity in marriage has also been observed to occur over suspected or acknowledged infidelity, and over mate guarding, or jealousy. (Dillion et al., 2014).

2. Money Matters

divorce-3311829_640

Photo Credit: LillyCantibile at Pixabay.com

Money matters or financial management is also a major area that causes conflict in marriage and can lead to divorce or separation if not handled properly by the couple.

Some researchers have observed that finances on marriage often increase marital conflict and the chance of divorce rises when wives’ income rises (Rogers & DeBoer, 2001). Dew, Britt, and Huston (2012) also found that marital conflict involving finances was the strongest predictor of divorce. Individuals in a family may feel disadvantaged if they do not get to spend as much money as they would like or if the person feels that someone else in the family gets to spend more than they do.

Other researcher indicated that women report that arguments about money last longer and reoccurred more often and husbands report more angry behavior regarding this topic. Disagreements over money are more likely to be handled the wrong way and be unresolved in marital relationships (Papp, Cummings, & Corke-Morey, 2009).

A study by Rogers and DeBoer (2001) revealed that women are happier with their marriage when their income increases, but men are not affected by their wives’ income increase. An increase in income for women is thought to reduce the chance of divorce since an increase of income promotes marital happiness for women.

3. Division of Labor in the Family

gir-162191_640

The third major source of marital conflict is the division and distribution of labor in the family. The traditional gender always assign the housekeeping chores and child rearing to the wife, while the breadwining role is assigned to the husband.

One study revealed that the distribution of household chores can be a source of conflict for married people and can also be linked to gender inequality (Faulkner, Davey, & Davey, 2005). In our world today, less than 50% of women do not pursue careers in the workplace. But wives who have jobs outside of the home can increase martial conflict as women’s responsibilities include more than just taking care of the home and children (Faulkner, Davey, & Davey, 2005). Although  wives working outside of the home can help improve the couple’s financial situation, it can also increase the wives’ awareness of the problems in a marriage (Amato, 2010). In this case, working wives are pressured to perform the dual roles of doing housekeeping and earning extra income for the family outside the home. This unequal distribution of labor in the family is a major cause of conflict and divorce.

4. Raising Children

family-3036595_640

Photo credit: mohamed_hassan at Pixabay.com

Raising the children in the family is also a main source of conflict between the husband and the wife. Conflict may arise over the number and spacing of children in some cultures (Mason and Taj, 1987) but not in others (Mason and Smith, 2000). When spouses do disagree on family planning, husbands usually desire more children than wives, consistent with women providing more childcare.

One study revealed that U.S. wives and husbands’ lack of relatives to assist them in marital conflict with regard to children can makes family life difficult because there is an extended family nearby to offer assistance.

Final Words

 

A relationship with high levels of satisfaction can still end in dissolution if the partners are not committed to their relationship. Couples can still maintain their marital commitment despite various disagreements if they strive to keep the relationship going no matter what circumstances arise. In sociology, marriage is an ongoing negotiation between two people to keep their marital commitment. The success or continuity of the marriage would then depend on the willingness of the husband and wife to dialogue and and accept each other despite their personal and cultural differences. As the song goes,  “I love you because you’re you!” Each spouse must not surrender just because of irreconcilable differences. Conflicts must be seen as a challenge to actualize the marital vows to remain married “until death do us part.”

References

Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650-666.

Faulkner, R. A., Davey, M., & Davey, A. (2005). Gender-related predictors of change in
marital satisfaction and marital conflict. The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 33, 61-83.

Lisa M. Dillon, L.M. et al (2015). Sources of Marital Conflict in Five Cultures. Evolutionary Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491501300101.
Hamilton, K.A. (2013). The Effects of Marital Conflict and Marital Environment on Change in Marital Status. Thesis. UKnowledge.University of Kentucky. Retrieved fromhttps://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=hes_etds.
Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., & Goeke-Morey, M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer:
Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family Relations, 58, 91-103.
Rogers, S. J. & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). Changes in wives’ income: Effects on marital
happiness, psychological well-being, and the risk of divorce. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 63, 458-472.
Rusbult, C. E. & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An
interdependent analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-
204.