Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:58:37.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - The Impact of Multilevel Sources of Power on Intimate Relationship Functioning

from Part I - Power in Close Relationships: Theoretical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2019

By
Jennifer J. Harman ,
Andrew L. Stewart ,
Elizabeth Keneski  and
Christopher R. Agnew
Edited by
Christopher R. Agnew  and
Jennifer J. Harman
Christopher R. Agnew
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Jennifer J. Harman
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Power in Close Relationships , pp. 102 - 140
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, G., Anderson, S. L., & Adonu, J. K. (2004). The cultural grounding of closeness and intimacy. In Mashek, D. & Aron, A. (Eds.), The handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 321–339). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Agnew, C. R. (1999). Power over interdependent behavior within the dyad: Who decides what a couple does? In Severy, L. J. & Miller, W. (Eds.), Advances in population: Psychosocial perspectives (Vol. 3, pp. 163–188). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Agnew, C. R., & South, S. C. (Eds.) (2014). Interpersonal relationships and health: social and clinical psychological mechanisms. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the cognitive representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.Google Scholar
Allgood, S. M., Harris, S., Skogrand, L., & Lee, T. R. (2009). Marital commitment and religiosity in a religiously homogenous population. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 52–67.Google Scholar
Amadiume, I. (2002). Bodies, choices, globalizing neocolonial enchantments: African matriarchs and mammy water. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 2, 41–66.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Galinksy, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.Google Scholar
Applbaum, K. D. (1995). Marriage with the proper stranger: Arranged marriage in metropolitan Japan. Ethnology, 34, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, E. H., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2009). Covenant marriage and the sanctification of gendered marital roles. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 137–178.Google Scholar
Baker, R., Kiger, G., & Riley, P. J. (1996). Time, dirt, and money: The effects of gender, gender ideology, and type of earner marriage on time, house-hold task, and economic satisfaction among couples with children. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 161–177.Google Scholar
Banks, R. R. (2011). Is marriage for white people? How the African American marriage decline affects everyone. New York: Dutton/Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Barone, R. P., Wolgemuth, J. R., & Linder, C. (2007). Preventing sexual assault through engaging college men. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 585–594.Google Scholar
Barrett, A. E. (2000). Marital trajectories and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 451–64.Google Scholar
Berman, M. I., & Frazier, P. A. (2005). Relationship power and betrayal experience as predictors of reactions to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1617–1627.Google Scholar
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–228.Google Scholar
Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H. (2007). Culture and collective violence: How good people, usually men, do bad things. In Drozdek, B. & Wilson, J. P. (Eds.), Voices of trauma: Treating survivors across cultures (pp. 27–57). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2008). Untapped potential in the study of negotiation and gender inequality in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 99–132.Google Scholar
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652–688.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.Google Scholar
Butler, J. P. (1997). The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts in personality. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60, 765–778.Google Scholar
Cherlin, A. (1992). Marriage, cohabitation, sexual behavior, and childbearing in North America. In The peopling of the Americas (Vol. 3, pp. 223–243). Liège, Belgium: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.Google Scholar
Choi, S. Y. P., & Ting, K. (2008). Wife beating in South Africa: An imbalance theory of resources and power. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 834–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201–234). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Collins, P. H. (1991). The meaning of motherhood in Black culture and Black mother–daughter relationships. In Bell-Scott, P., Guy-Sheftall, P. B., Royster, J. J., Sims-Wood, J., Decosta-Willis, M., & Fultz, L. (Eds.), Double stitch: Black women write about mothers and daughters (pp. 42–60). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, K. S., & Gillmore, M. R. (1984). Power, dependence, and coalitions. In Lawler, E. J. (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 1, pp. 27–58). Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2000). Power couples: Changes in the locational choice of the college educated, 1940–1990. Recent Developments in Urban and Regional Economics 182, 263–291.Google Scholar
Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., & Gaines, S. O. Jr. (1997). Prescriptive support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, M. (2004). Mars and Venus collide: A discursive analysis of marital self-help psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 14, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men's engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 343–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, L. E., Williams, J. H., Emerson, S., & Hourd-Bryant, M. (2000). Factors contributing to partner commitment among unmarried African Americans. Social Work Research, 24, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Singlehood, marriage and remarriage: The effects of family structure and family relationships on mothers’ well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 388–407.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. (2006). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still live happily ever after. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Dohm, A., & Wyatt, I. (2002). College at work: Outlook and earnings for college graduates, 2000-10. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 46, 3–15.Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. E. (2000). Explication and initial test of dyadic power theory. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 61, 2993–3126.Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248.Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. E., & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 207–233.Google Scholar
Duncan, C., & Loretto, W. (2004). Never the right age? Gender and age-based discrimination in employment. Gender, Work and Organization, 11, 95–115.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1987). The analysis of sex differences in social behavior: A new theory and a new method. In Eagly, A. H. (Ed.), Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation (pp. 7–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of human sex differences: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.Google Scholar
Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47, 112–133.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. E., & Moskoff, W. (1983). Decision-making power in Romanian families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 14, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, S. (Ed.). (2001). Shifting the center: Understanding contemporary families. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Molm, L. D. (2010). Bridging inequality from both sides now. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 341–346.Google Scholar
Flanagan, J. (2009, April 25). Numbers gap and a crazy sex ratio in Beijing. Retrieved from http://www.healthintelasia.com/numbers-gap-and-a-crazy-sex-ratio-in-beijing/Google Scholar
French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Fu, X. (2008). Interracial marriage and family socio-economic well-being: Equal status exchange or caste status exchange? The Social Science Journal, 45, 132–155.Google Scholar
Furnée, C. A., Groot, W., & Pfann, G. A. (2011). Health and income: A meta-analysis to explore cross-country, gender, and age differences. European Journal of Public Health, 21, 775–780.Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.Google Scholar
Ganguly-Scrase, R. (2003). Paradoxes of globalization, liberalization, and gender equality: The worldviews of the lower middle class in West Bengal, India. Gender & Society, 17, 544–566.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1968). Power in the recent writings of Talcott Parsons. Sociology, 2, 257–272.Google Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.Google Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorman, E. H., & Kmec, J. A. (2009). Hierarchical rank and women's organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1428–74.Google Scholar
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from mars, women are from venus. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Griffiths, A. (2000). Gender, power, and difference: Reconfiguring law from Bakwena women's perspectives. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 23, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 69–80.Google Scholar
Guerrero, M. A. J. (1997). Civil rights versus sovereignty: Native American women in life and land struggles. In Alexander, M. J. & Mohanty, C. T. (Eds.), Feminist Genealogies, colonial legacies, democratic futures (pp. 101–121). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1076–1087.Google Scholar
Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Halpern, C. T., Young, M. L., Waller, M. W., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2004). Prevalence of partner violence in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 124–131.Google Scholar
Harman, J. J., & Biringen, Z. (2016). Parents acting badly: How institutions and societies promote the alienation of children from their loving families. Fort Collins: Colorado Parental Alienation Project, LLC.Google Scholar
Harman, J. J., Kaufman, M. R., Aoki, E., & Trott, C. D. (2014). Sexual network partners in Tanzania: Labels, power, and the systemic muting of women's health and identity. In Pishwa, H. & Schulze, R. (Eds.), Expression of inequality in interaction: Power, dominance, and status, pp. 49–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Harman, J. J., Smith, V. E., & Egan, L. C. (2007). The impact of incarceration on intimate relationships. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 794–815.Google Scholar
Harry, J. (1984). Gay couples. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Harry, J., & DeVall, W. B. (1978). The social organization of gay males. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Harvey, S. M., Beckman, L. J., & Bird, S. T. (2003). Feeling powerful in heterosexual relationships: Cultural beliefs among couples of Mexican origin. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 5, 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, A. K., Hunt, J., Welling, L. L. M., Cárdenas, R. A., Rotella, M. A., Wheatley, J. R., … Puts, D. A. (2013). Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men's traits. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34, 334–341.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hunnicutt, G. (2009). Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting “patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence Against Women, 15, 553–573.Google Scholar
Huston, T. L. (1983). Power. In Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christenses, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Paplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 169–219). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Ickes, W. (1993). Traditional gender roles: Do they make, and then break, our relationships? Journal of Social Issues, 49, 71–85.Google Scholar
ILO Socio-Economic Security Programme. (n.d.). Fact sheet no. 4: Women face more economic insecurity: Cumulative disadvantages intensify gender divide. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/ses/download/docs/sheet_no4.pdf.Google Scholar
Izraeli, D. N. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter's theory of proportions. Social Forces, 62, 153–165.Google Scholar
Jemmott, J. B., Ashby, K. L., & Lindenfeld, K. (1989). Romantic commitment and the perceived availability of opposite-sex persons: On loving the one you're with. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1198–1211.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, M. (2005). The effects of divorce on men's unemployment and social security histories. European Journal of Population, 21, 347–366.Google Scholar
Kang, X. (2006). The cult of the fox: Power, gender, and religion in late imperial and modern China. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Karakurt, G., & Cumbie, T. (2012). The relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, H. H. (1983). Close relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978) Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ketchen, B., Armistead, L., & Cook, S. (2009). HIV infection, stressful life events, and intimate relationship power: The moderating role of community resources for Black South African women. Women & Health, 49, 197–214.Google Scholar
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503.Google Scholar
Kim, J. S., Griskevicius, V., & Simpson, J. (2011, January). Sex ratio and relationship maintenance: An experimental approach. Address presented at the 12th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Kirchler, E. (1989). Kaufentscheidungen im Privaten Haushalt. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Kjøs, P., Tjersland, O. A., & Roen, K. (2014). The mediation window: Regulation of argumentation and affect in custody mediation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55, 527–538.Google Scholar
Klawitter, M. (2008). The effects of sexual orientation and marital status on how couples hold their money. Review of Economics of the Household, 6, 423–446.Google Scholar
Klunklin, A., & Greenwood, J. (2005). Buddhism, the status of women, and the spread of HIV/AIDS in Thailand. Health Care for Women International, 26, 46–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knudsen, K., & Wærness, K. (2008). National context and spouses’ housework in 34 countries. European Sociological Review, 24, 97–113.Google Scholar
Knudsen, K., & Wærness, K. (2009). Shared or separate: Money management and changing norms of gender equality among Norwegian couples. Community, Work & Family, 12, 39–55.Google Scholar
Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in couple relationships. Family Processes, 52, 5–18.Google Scholar
Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (2009). Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships. New York: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Kompter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender and Society, 3, 187–216.Google Scholar
Kotla, H. (2011, April). India's skewed sex ratio: Seven brothers. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/18530371Google Scholar
Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–164.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fitzgerald, C. J., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity reduces women's marital ages and increases variance in men's marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 420–431.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Schlemmer, E. (2009). Male scarcity is differentially related to male marital likelihood across the life course. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 280–287.Google Scholar
Kubicek, K., McNeeley, M., & Collins, S. (2015). Same-sex relationship in a straight world: Individual and societal influences on power and control in young men's relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 83–109.Google Scholar
Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion's share of the housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63, 767–780.Google Scholar
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships 10, 37–57.Google Scholar
Lee, K. (2001). China's growing problem of too many men. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2011/05/13/chinas-growing-problem-of-too-many-single-men/.Google Scholar
Lee, I., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 1029–1064.Google Scholar
Lehmiller, J. J. (2010). Differences in relationship investments between gay and heterosexual men. Personal Relationships, 17, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Commitment in age-gap heterosexual romantic relationships: A test of evolutionary and socio-cultural predictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 74–82.Google Scholar
Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennon, C. A., Stewart, A. L., & Ledermann, T. (2012). The role of power in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 95–114.Google Scholar
Little, B., & Terrance, C. (2010). Perceptions of domestic violence in lesbian relationships: Stereotypes and gender role expectations. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 429–440.Google Scholar
MacDonald, K. B. (1991). A perspective on Darwinian psychology: The importance of domain-general mechanisms, plasticity, and individual differences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 449–480.Google Scholar
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186.Google Scholar
Marks, N. F., & Lambert, J. D. (1998). Marital status continuity and change among young and midlife adults: Longitudinal effects on psychological well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 652–686.Google Scholar
Medicine, B. (2001). Learning to be an anthropologist & remaining “native”. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Meier, K., Kirchler, E., & Hubert, A. (1999). Savings and investment decisions within private households: Spouses’ dominance in decisions on various forms of investment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 99–519.Google Scholar
Mikula, G. (1998). Justice in the family – multiple perspectives in the division of labor: Introduction. Social Justice Research, 11, 211–213.Google Scholar
Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, D. S. (2010). Quarrelsomeness in daily life. Journal of Personality, 78, 39–66.Google Scholar
Müller, U. (1998). The micropolitics of gender differences in family life. In Ferreira, V., Tavares, T., & Portugal, S. (Eds.), Shifting bonds, shifting bounds (pp. 329–344). Oeiras: Celta Editora.Google Scholar
Musaiger, A. O., & D'Souza, R. (2009). Role of age and gender in the perception of aging: A community-based survey in Kuwait. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 48, 50–57.Google Scholar
Nakonezny, P. A., & Denton, W. H. (2008). Marital relationships: A social exchange theory perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 402–412.Google Scholar
National Spiritual Assembly of the Ba’ Hai of the United States (2013). Spiritual concepts. Retrieved from http://www.bahai.us/welcome/spiritual-concepts/Google Scholar
Naved, R. T., & Persson, L. A. (2010). Dowry and spousal physical violence against women in Bangladesh. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 830–856.Google Scholar
Netting, N. S. (2010). Marital ideoscapes in 21st-century India: Creative combinations of love and responsibility. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 707–726.Google Scholar
North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 982–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 271–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overall, N. C., Hammond, M. D., McNulty, J. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2016). When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men's aggressive responses to low situational power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 195–217.Google Scholar
Oyamot, C. M., Fuglestad, P. T., & Snyder, M. (2010). Balance of power and influence in relationships: The role of self-monitoring. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 23–46.Google Scholar
Papp, L. M. (2010). The course and quality of intimate relationships among psychologically distressed mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 71–79.Google Scholar
Pedersen, F. A. (1991). Secular trends in human sex ratios: Their influence on individual and family behavior. Human Nature, 2, 271–291.Google Scholar
Peplau, L. A. (1979). Power in dating relationships. In Freeman, J. (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (2nd ed., pp. 106–121). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.Google Scholar
Poeschl, G. (2008). Social norms and feelings of justice about unequal family practices. Social Justice Research, 21, 69–85.Google Scholar
Poortman, A. (2000). Sex differences in the economic consequences of separation: A panel study of the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 16, 1–17.Google Scholar
Population Reference Bureau. (2005). Marriage in the Arab world. Retrieved from http://www.igwg.org/pdf05/MarriageInArabWorld_Eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
Potoczniak, M. J., Murot, J. E., Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Potoczniak, D. J. (2003). Legal and psychological perspectives on same-sex domestic violence: A multisystemic approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 252–259.Google Scholar
Pratto, F., Lee, I., Tan, J. Y., & Pitpitan, E. V. (2011). Power basis theory: A psychoecological approach to power. In Dunning, D. (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 191–222). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In Eagly, A. H., Beall, A., & Sternberg, R. (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 242–268). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2001). Matrifocality, power, and gender relations in Jamaica. In Brettell, C. B. & Sargent, C. F. (Eds.), Gender in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 371–379). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Qian, Z. (1997). Breaking the racial barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and 1990. Demography, 34, 263–276.Google Scholar
Quisumbing, A. R., & Maluccio, J. A. (2003). Resources at marriage and intrahousehold allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63, 283–327.Google Scholar
Raja, V. (2010). Intimacy, time, and scarcity: Drug-involved women account for secretly withholding financial capital in violent intimate relationships. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39, 131–158.Google Scholar
Raven, B. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 217–244.Google Scholar
Raven, B. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8, 1–22.Google Scholar
Rich, A. (1976). Of women born: Motherhood experience and institution. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. (1993). Women, motherhood, and childrearing. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Rivers, J. J., & Josephs, R. A. (2010). Dominance and health: The role of social rank in physiology and illness. In Guinote, A. & Vescio, T. K. (Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 87–112). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rodgers-Rose, L. (1980). The Black woman: A historical overview. In Rodgers-Rose, L. (Ed.), The black woman (pp. 15–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rollins, B. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 619–627.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2005). A critique of exchange theory in mate selection. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1284–1325.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. (2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22, 1–23.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 250–263.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The Investment Model of Commitment Processes. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 218–231). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Interdependence in close relationships. In Fletcher, G. J. O. & Clark, M. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 359–387). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence Processes. In Higgins, E. T. & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564–596). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375.Google Scholar
Sanchez, D. T., Fetterolf, J. C., & Rudman, L. A. (2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 168–183.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311.Google Scholar
Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Farrell, A. K., Orina, M. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2013). Power and social influence in relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.) APA handbook of personality and social psychology: vol. 2. interpersonal relations and group processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over time from “his” and “her” perspective. Sex Roles, 37, 361–379.Google Scholar
Staples, R. (1981). The myth of the Black matriarchy. Black Scholar, 12, 26–34.Google Scholar
StatsBee, (2012). Ratio of single men to single women. Retrieved from http://nycedc.tumblr.com/post/16175652438/ratio-of-single-men-to-single-women-in-nyc-newGoogle Scholar
Steil, J. M. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1986). Paradigms and groups. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 251–289). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stets, J. E. (1997). Status and identity in marital interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 185–217.Google Scholar
Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 236–250.Google Scholar
Sutphin, S. T. (2010). Social exchange theory and the division of household labor in same sex couples. Marriage & Family Review, 46, 191–206.Google Scholar
The World Bank. (2008). Girls’ education in the 21st Century: Equality, empowerment, and growth. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099080014368/DID_Girls_edu.pdf.Google Scholar
Thege, B. (2009). Rural Black women's agency within intimate partnerships amid the South African HIV epidemic. African Journal of AIDS Research, 8, 455–464.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Son.Google Scholar
Thitsa, K. (1983). Nuns, mediums and prostitutes in Chiang Mai: A study of some marginal categories of women. Occasional Paper No. 1. Kent, UK: University of Kent at Canterbury, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Tichenor, V. J. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital power. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 638–650.Google Scholar
Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men's dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53, 191–205.Google Scholar
Uecker, J. E., & Regnerus, M. D. (2010). Bare market: Campus sex ratios, romantic relationships, and sexual behavior. The Sociological Quarterly, 51, 408–435.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau. (2011). More working women than men have college degrees, Census Bureau Reports. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb11-72.html.Google Scholar
Uunk, W. J. G. (2004). The economic consequences of divorce for women in the European Union: The impact of welfare state arrangements. European Journal of Population, 20, 251–285.Google Scholar
Van Willigen, M., & Drentea, P. (2001). Benefits of equitable relationships: The impact of sense of fairness, household division of labor, and decision making power on perceived social support. Sex Roles, 44, 571–597.Google Scholar
Vogler, C. (1998). Money in the household: Some underlying issues of power. The Sociological Review, 46, 687–713.Google Scholar
Waller, W., & Hill, R. (1951). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Wong, D. (2012). Doing gender, doing culture: Division of domestic labour among lesbians in Hong Kong. Women's Studies International Forum, 35, 266–275.Google Scholar
Worell, J. (1988). Women's satisfaction in close relationships. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 477–498.Google Scholar
Whyte, M. K. (1978). The status of women in preindustrial societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Yan, Y. (2006). Girl power: Young women and the waning of patriarchy in rural North China. Ethnology, 45, 105–123.Google Scholar
Yusof, A., & Duasa, J. (2010). Household decision-making and expenditure patterns of married men and women in Malaysia. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 371–381.Google Scholar
Zhang, X. (2009). Fecundity and husband-wife education gaps at first marriage (Doctoral dissertation, Binghamton University). Retrieved from http://udini.proquest.com/view/fecundity-and-husband-wife-age-and-pqid:1917842381/Google Scholar
Zhou, L. (2006). American and Chinese college student's anticipation of their postgraduate education, career, and future family roles. Sex Roles, 55, 95–110.Google Scholar
Zhou, X., Dong, X. L., Wang, L., & Li, T. H. (2011). The very high sex ratio in rural China: Impact on the psychosocial wellbeing of unmarried men. Social Science & Medicine 73, 1422–1427.Google Scholar
Zipp, J. F., & Toth, J. (2002). She said, he said, they said: The impact of spousal presence in survey research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 177–208.Google Scholar
Zipp, J. F., Prohaska, A., & Bemiller, M. (2004). Wives, husbands, and hidden power in marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 933–958.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×