Advertisement

Macht, Arbeitsteilung, Konflikt, Konfliktstile und Gewalt in Partnerschaften

  • Kirsten Rüssmann
  • Johannes Kopp
  • Paul B. Hill
Chapter

Abstract

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit dem Auftreten, den Formen und den Ursachen von Machtstrukturen, mit häuslicher Arbeitsteilung sowie mit Konflikten und Gewalt in Beziehungen als auch mit deren Auswirkungen für die Partnerschaft. Hierbei werden jeweils die aktuellen empirischen Befunde, vor allem aber die theoretischen Zugänge diskutiert. Es zeigt sich dabei eine große theoretische Konsistenz der Erklärungsansätze, wobei vor allem hinsichtlich der Thematik familialer Gewalt noch ein größerer Forschungsbedarf bezüglich praktischer Interventionsmöglichkeiten besteht.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Agarwal, B. 1997. ‘Bargaining’ and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3: 1–51.Google Scholar
  2. Amato, P. R. 2010. Research on divorce: continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 650–666.Google Scholar
  3. Amato, P. R., Booth, A. 1995. Changes in gender role attitudes and perceived marital quality. American Sociological Review 60: 58–66.Google Scholar
  4. Arránz Becker, O. 2008. Was hält Partnerschaft en zusammen? Psychologische und soziologische Erklärungsansätze zum Erfolg von Paarbeziehungen. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  5. Arránz Becker, O., Rüssmann, K., Hill, P. B. 2005. Wahrnehmung und Bewältigung von Konfl ikten und die Stabilität von Partnerschaft en. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 17: 251–278.Google Scholar
  6. Bachofen, J. J. 1975 (1861). Das Mutterrecht. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  7. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Dollard, M. F. 2008. How job demands aff ect partners’ experience of exhaustion: Integrating work-family confl ict and crossover theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 901–911.Google Scholar
  8. Bargatzky, T. 1989. Einführung in die Ethnologie. 2. Aufl age. Hamburg.Google Scholar
  9. Bartholomew, K. 1990. Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal relationships 61: 226–244.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, G. S. 1981. A treatise on the family. Cambridge, London.Google Scholar
  11. Berger, P. L., Kellner, H. 1965. Die Ehe und die Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Soziale Welt 16: 220–235.Google Scholar
  12. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie M. 2010. Work and family research in the fi rst decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 704–725.Google Scholar
  13. Bierhoff, H. W., Grau, I. 1999. Romantische Beziehungen: Bindung, Liebe, Partnerschaft. Bern. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. S., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., Stevens, M. R. 2011. Th e national intimate partner and sexual violence survey. 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta.Google Scholar
  14. Blair, S. L. 2013. Th e division of household labor. S. 613–636 in: G. W. Peterson, K. R. Bush (Hg.): Handbook of marriage and family. New York.Google Scholar
  15. Blohm, M., Walter, J. 2014. Traditionelle Arbeitsteilung. S. 385–390 in: Statistisches Bundesamt (Hg.): Datenreport 2013. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  16. Blood, R. O., Wolfe, D. M. 1960. Husbands and wives. Th e dynamics of married living. Glencoe. Bowlby, J. 1975. Bindung. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  17. Bowlby, J. 1976. Trennung. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  18. Bradbury, T. N., Finchham, F. D. 1990. Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin 107: 3–33.Google Scholar
  19. Brahnam, S. D., Margavio, T. M, Hignite, M. A., Barrier, T. B., Chin, J. M. 2005. A gender-based categorization for confl ict resolution. Journal of Management Development 24: 197–208.Google Scholar
  20. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 2004. Lebenssituation, Sicherheit und Gesundheit von Frauen in Deutschland. Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zu Gewalt gegen Frauen in Deutschland. Berlin.Google Scholar
  21. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 2012. Gewalt gegen Frauen in Paarbeziehungen. Eine Sekundäranalytische Auswertung zur Diff erenzierung von Schweregraden, Mustern, Risikofaktoren und Unterstützung nach erlebter Gewalt. Berlin.Google Scholar
  22. Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F. G., Dawson, E. J. 1994. Human communication. London.Google Scholar
  23. Busby, D. M. 1991. Violence in the family. S. 335–385 in: S. J. Bahr (Hg.): Family research. A sixtyyear review, 1930–1990. Vol. 1. New York.Google Scholar
  24. Bussmann, K.-D. 2010. Gewalt in Familien. S. 637–652 in: J. Ecarius (Hg.): Handbuch Familie. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  25. Butzer, B., Kuiper, N. A. 2008. Humor use in romantic relationships: Th e eff ects of relationship satisfaction and pleasant versus confl ict situations. Th e Journal of Psychology 142: 245–260.Google Scholar
  26. Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., Kashy, D. A. 2005. Perceptions of confl ict and support in romantic relationships: Th e role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 510–531.Google Scholar
  27. Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., Cody, M. J. 1988. Goal types, sex, and locus of control in managing interpersonal confl ict. Communication Research 115: 426–446.Google Scholar
  28. Canary, D. J., Messman, S. J. 2000. Relationship confl ict. S. 261–270 in: C. Hendrick, S. S. Hendrick (Hg.): Close relationships. A sourcebook. Th ousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  29. Cann, A., Norman, M. A., Welbourne, J. L., Calhoun, L. G. 2008. Attachment styles, confl ict styles and humour styles: interrelationships and associations with relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality 22: 131–146.Google Scholar
  30. Caughlin, J. P., Vangelisti, A. L. 2013. Confl ict in dating and marital relationships. S. 161–178 in: J. G. Oetzel, S. Ting-Toomey (Hg.): Th e SAGE handbook of confl ict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  31. Caycedo, J. C., Wang, G., Bar, S. K, 1991. Gender roles in the family. S. 435–491 in: S. J. Bahr (Hg.): Family research. A sixty-year review, 1930–1990. Vol. 1. New York.Google Scholar
  32. Christensen, A., Heavey, C. L. 1993. Gender diff erences in marital confl ict: Th e demand/ withdraw interaction pattern. S. 113–141 in: S. Oskamp, M. Constanzo (Hg.): Gender issues in contemporary psychology. Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
  33. Christensen, A., Walczynski, P. T. 1997. Confl ict and satisfaction in couples. S. 249–275 in: R. J. Sternberg (Hg.): Satisfaction in close relationships. New York, London.Google Scholar
  34. Cohan, C. L., Bradbury, T. N. 1997. Negative life events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 114–128.Google Scholar
  35. Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambrigde.Google Scholar
  36. Coser, L. A. 1965. Th eorie sozialer Konfl ikte. Neuwied, Berlin.Google Scholar
  37. Cotrell, B., Monk, P. 2004. Adolescent-to-parent abuse. A qualitative overview of common themes. Journal of Family Issues 25: 1072–1095.Google Scholar
  38. Coverman, S. 1985. Explaining husband’s participations in domestic labor. Sociological Quarterly 26: 81–97.Google Scholar
  39. Creasey, G., Ladd, A. 2005. Generalized and specifi c attachment representations: Unique and interactive roles in predicting confl ict behaviors in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31: 1026–1038.Google Scholar
  40. Creighton, J. 1992. Schlag nicht die Türe zu! – Konfl ikte aushalten lernen. Reinbek.Google Scholar
  41. Deutsch, M. 1973. Th e resolution of confl ict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  42. Domingue, R., Mollen, D. 2009. Attachment and confl ict communication in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26: 678–696.Google Scholar
  43. Dominguez-Folgueras, M. 2013. Is cohabitation more egalitarian? Th e division of household labor in fi ve European countries. Journal of Family Issues 34: 1623–1646.Google Scholar
  44. Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. D., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J. 2009. Th e eff ect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An eight-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 601–619.Google Scholar
  45. Ecarius, J. (Hg.) 2007. Handbuch Familie. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  46. Eckert, R., Hahn, A., Wolf, M. 1989: Die ersten Jahre junger Ehen. Verständigung durch Illusionen. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  47. England, P., Farkas, G. 1986. Households, employment, and gender: A social, economic, and demographic view. New York.Google Scholar
  48. Esser, H. 1993. Social modernization and the increase in divorce rate. Journal of Institutional and Th eoretical Economics 149: 252–277.Google Scholar
  49. Esser, H. 1996. Soziologie – Allgemeine Grundlagen. Frankfurt am Main, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Esser, H. 2000. Soziologie – Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 3: Soziales Handeln. Frankfurt am Main, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Esser, H. 2002. Ehekrisen: Das (Re −) Framing der Ehe und der Anstieg der Scheidungsraten. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 31: 472–496.Google Scholar
  52. Feeney, J. A. 1999. Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. S. 355–377 in: J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver (Hg.): Handbook of attachment: Th eory, research, and clinical applications. New York.Google Scholar
  53. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Ridder, E. M. 2005. Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 1103–1119.Google Scholar
  54. Fincham, F. D. 2003. Marital confl ict: Correlates, structure, and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12: 23–27.Google Scholar
  55. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H. 1999. Confl ict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology 50: 47–77.Google Scholar
  56. FRA (European Union Agency for Fundumental Rights) 2014. Violence against women: An EUwide survey. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  57. French, J. R., Raven, B. H. 1960. Th e bases of social power. S. 607–623 in: D. Cartwright, A. Zander (Hg.): Group dynamics. New York.Google Scholar
  58. Gelles, R. J. 1995. Contemporary families. A sociological view. Th ousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  59. Gillespie, D. 1971. Who has the power? Th e marital struggle. Journal of Marriage and the Family 33: 445–448.Google Scholar
  60. Gottman, J. M. 1979. Marital interaction. Experimental investigations. New York.Google Scholar
  61. Gottman, J. M. 1993a. A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology 7: 57–75.Google Scholar
  62. Gottman, J. M. 1993b. Th e roles of confl ict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of fi ve types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 6–15.Google Scholar
  63. Gottman, J. M. 1994a. What predicts divorce? Th e relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  64. Gottman, J. M. 1994b. Why marriages succeed or fail? New York.Google Scholar
  65. Gottman, J. M. 1998. Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 169–197.Google Scholar
  66. Gottman, J. M. 2007. Making relationships work. Harvard Business Review: 45–50.Google Scholar
  67. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., Swanson, C. 1998. Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60: 5–22.Google Scholar
  68. Gottman, J. M., Driver, J. L. 2005. Dysfunctional marital confl ict and everyday marital interaction. Journal of Divorce/Remarriage 43: 63–77.Google Scholar
  69. Gottman, J. M., Krokoff, L. J. 1989. Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57: 47–52.Google Scholar
  70. Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W. 1992. Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social psychology 63: 221–233.Google Scholar
  71. Gouin, J. P., Glaser, R., Loving, T. J., Malarkey, W. B., Stowell, J., Houts, C., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. 2009. Attachment avoidance predicts infl ammatory responses to marital confl ict. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 23: 898–904Google Scholar
  72. Grau, I., Bierhoff, H.-W. 2003. Sozialpsychologie der Partnerschaft. Berlin.Google Scholar
  73. Grunow, D., Schulz, F., Blossfeld, H. P. 2007. Was erklärt die Traditionalisierungsprozesse häuslicher Arbeitsteilung im Eheverlauf: Soziale Normen oder ökomische Ressourcen? Zeitschrift für Soziologie 36: 162–181.Google Scholar
  74. Hahlweg, K. 1996. Fragebogen zur Partnerschaft sdiagnostik (FPD). Göttingen.Google Scholar
  75. Hahlweg, K., Th urmeier, F., Engl, J., Eckert, V., Markman, H. 1998. Prävention von Beziehungsstörungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: K. Hahlweg, D. h. Baucom, R. Bastine, H. J. Marman (Hg.): Prävention von Trennung und Scheidung. Internationale Ansätze zur Prädiktion und Prävention von Beziehungsstörungen. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  76. Hatch, L. R., Bulcroft, K. 2004. Does long-term marriage bring less frequent disagreements? Five explanatory frameworks. Journal of Family Issues 25: 465–495.Google Scholar
  77. Hazan, C., Shaver, P. 1987. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 511–524.Google Scholar
  78. Heavey, C. L., Christensen, A., Malamuth, M. M. 1995. Th e longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital confl ict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63: 797–801.Google Scholar
  79. Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., Christensen, A. 1993. Gender and confl ict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 16–27.Google Scholar
  80. Held, T. 1978. Soziologie der ehelichen Machtverhältnisse. Darmstadt, Neuwied.Google Scholar
  81. Hill, P. B. (Hg.) 2004. Interaktion und Kommunikation – Eine empirische Studie zu Alltagsinteraktionen, Konfl ikten und Zufriedenheit in Partnerschaft en. Würzburg.Google Scholar
  82. Hill, P. B., Kopp, J. 2013. Familiensoziologie. 5. Aufl age. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  83. Holmes, J. G., Levinger, G. 1994. Paradoxial eff ects of closeness in relationships on perceptions of justice: An interdependence theory perspective. S. 149–174 in: M. J. Lerner, G. Mikula (Hg.): Entitlement and the aff ectional bond: Justice in close relationships. New York.Google Scholar
  84. Holmes, J. G., Murray, S. L. 1996. Confl ict in close relationships. S. 622–654 in: E. T. Higgins, A. W. Kruglanski (Hg.): Social psychology – A handbook of basic principles. New York.Google Scholar
  85. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. 2005. Male versus female intimate partner violence. Putting controversial fi ndings into context. Journal of Marriage and the Family 67: 1120–1125.Google Scholar
  86. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Stuart, G. L. 1999. A typology of male batterers. An initial examination. S. 45–72 in: X. B. Arriaga, S. Oskamp (Hg.): Violence in intimate relations. Th ousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  87. Jeff ries, V. 2000. Virtue and marital confl ict: A theoretical formulation and research agenda. Sociological Perspectives 43: 231–246.Google Scholar
  88. Johnson, M. P. 2005. Domestic violence: It’s not about gender – or is it? Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 1126–1130.Google Scholar
  89. Karney, B. R., Bradbury, T. N. 1995. Th e longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin 118: 3–34.Google Scholar
  90. Kirchler, E., Rodler, C., Holzl, E., Meier, K. 2001. Confl ict and decision-making in close relationships: Love, money, and daily routine. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  91. Kirkpatrick, L. A., Davis, K. E. 1994. Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 502–512.Google Scholar
  92. Klein, D. M., White, J. M. 1996. Family theories – An introduction. Th ousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  93. Kluwer, E. S., Johnson, M. D. 2007. Confl ict frequency and relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 1089–1106.Google Scholar
  94. Koerner, K., Jacobson, N. J. 1994. Emotion and behavior in couple therapy. S. 207–226 in: S. M. Johnson, L. S. Greenberg (Hg.): Th e heart of the matter: Perspectives on emotion in marital therapy. New York.Google Scholar
  95. Kurdek, L. A. 1994. Confl ict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56: 705–722.Google Scholar
  96. Lambert, N. M., Dollahite, D. C. 2006. How religiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, and overcome marital confl ict. Family Relations 55: 439–449.Google Scholar
  97. Lawrence, E., Pederson, A., Bunde, M., Barry, R. A., Brock, R. L., Fazio, E., Mulryan, L., Hunt, S., Madsen, L., Dzankovic, S. 2008. Objective ratings of relationship skills across multiple domains as predictors of marital satisfaction trajectories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25: 445–466.Google Scholar
  98. Lewis, R. A., Spanier, G. B. 1979. Th eorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. S. 268–294Google Scholar
  99. in: W. Burr (Hg.): Contemporary theories about the family. Vol. 1. New York, London.Google Scholar
  100. Lloyd, S. A. 2013. Family violence. S. 449–485 in: G. W. Peterson, K. R. Bush (Hg.): Handbook of marriage and the family. New York.Google Scholar
  101. Lloyd, S. A., Emery, B. C. 2000. Th e dark side of courtship: Physical and sexual aggression. Th ousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  102. Lupri, E. 1990. Harmonie und Aggression: Über die Dialektik ehelicher Gewalt. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 42: 474–501.Google Scholar
  103. Mader, K., Schneebaum, A. 2013. Zur geschlechtsspezifi schen Intrahaushaltsverteilung von Entscheidungsmacht in Europa. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 39: 361–403.Google Scholar
  104. Mancarini, L., Soroni, M. 2012. Happiness, housework, and gender inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review 28: 203–219.Google Scholar
  105. Manser, M., Brown, M. 1980. Marriages and houshold decision: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review 21: 33–44.Google Scholar
  106. Markefk a, M., Billen-Klingbeil, I. 1989. Machtverhältnisse in der Ehe und ihre Folgen. S. 345–360 in: R. Nave-Herz, M. Markefk a (Hg.): Handbuch der Familien- und Jugendforschung. Band 1: Familienforschung. Neuwied, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  107. Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., Whitton, S. W. 2010. Th e premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: Th e fi rst fi ve years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 289–298.Google Scholar
  108. McNulty, J. K., Russell, V. M. 2010. When “negative” behaviors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term eff ects of problem-solving behaviors on changes in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98: 587–604.Google Scholar
  109. Mead, D. E., Vatcher, G. M., Wyne, B. A., Roberts, S. L. 1990. Th e comprehensive area of change questionnaire: Assessing marital couples presenting complaints. American Journal of Family Th erapy 18: 65–79.Google Scholar
  110. Mederer, H. J. 1993. Division of labor in two-earner homes: Task accomplishment versus household management as critical variables in perceptions about family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family 52: 133–145.Google Scholar
  111. Montgomery, J. 1989. Confl ict in families. S. 33–67 in: J. B. Gittler (Hg.): Th e annual review of confl ict knowledge and confl ict resolution. Vol. 1. New York.Google Scholar
  112. Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C. 2009. For richer, for poorer: Money as a topic of marital confl ict in the home. Family Relations 58: 91–103.Google Scholar
  113. Pietromonaco, P. R., Greenwood, D., Barrett, L. F. 2004. Confl ict in adult close relationships: An attachment perspective. S. 267–299 in: W. S. Rholes, J. A. Simpson (Hg.): Adult attachment: Th eory, research, and clinical implications. New York.Google Scholar
  114. Pillemer, K. 1985. Th e dangers of dependency: New fi ndings on domestic violence against the elderly. Social Problems 33: 146–158.Google Scholar
  115. Pistole, C. 1994. Adult attachment styles: Some thoughts on closeness-distance struggles. Family Process 33: 147–159.Google Scholar
  116. Raven, B. H. 1993. Th e bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues 49: 227–251.Google Scholar
  117. Rüssmann, K. 2004. Sozialstruktur und Konfl iktpotential in Partnerschaft und Ehe. S. 103–156 in: P. B. Hill (Hg.): Interaktion und Kommunikation – Eine empirische Studie zu Alltagsinteraktionen, Konfl ikten und Zufriedenheit in Partnerschaft en. Würzburg.Google Scholar
  118. Rüssmann, K. 2006. Sozialstruktur und Konfl ikte in Partnerschaft en. Eine empirische Studie zur Auswirkung von sozial- und familienstrukturellen Merkmalen auf partnerschaft liche Konfl ikte. Hamburg.Google Scholar
  119. Rüssmann, K., Arránz Becker, O., Hill, P. B. 2005. Sozialstruktur, Interaktionsverhalten, Konfl ikte und Partnerschaft szufriedenheit. S. 77–110 in: F. W. Busch, Nave-Herz (Hg.): Familie und Gesellschaft. Beiträge zur Familienforschung. Oldenburg.Google Scholar
  120. Rüssmann, K., Arránz Becker, O., Kelzenberg, D. 2004. Konzepte und Skalen zur Messung des Beziehungserfolgs. Zur Entwicklung einschlägiger Instrumente. S. 73–102 in: P. B. Hill (Hg.): Interaktion und Kommunikation – Eine empirische Studie zu Alltagsinteraktionen, Konfl ikten und Zufriedenheit in Partnerschaft en. Würzburg.Google Scholar
  121. Saavedra, M. C., Chapman, K. E., Rogge, R. D. 2010. Clarifying links between attachment and relationship quality: Hostile confl ict and mindfulness as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 380–390.Google Scholar
  122. Safi lios-Rothschild, C. 1976a. A macro- and micro-examination of family power and love: An exchange model. Journal of Marriage and the Familiy 38: 355–362.Google Scholar
  123. Safi lios-Rothschild, C. 1976b. Th e dimensions of power distribution in the family. S. 275–292 in: H. Grunebaum, J. Christ (Hg.): Contemporary marriage, structure, and therapy. Boston.Google Scholar
  124. Sanchez, L. 1994. Gender, labor allocations, and the psychology of entitlement within the home. Social Forces 73: 533–553.Google Scholar
  125. Sayer, L. C. 2010. Trends in housework. S. 19–38 in: J. Treas, S. Drobnic (Hg.): Dividing the domestic. Stanford.Google Scholar
  126. Schmahl, F., Langmeyer, A., Schaer, M., Wendt, E. V., Th önnissen, C., Walper, S. 2011. Eff ekte von feindseligen Attributionen und Konfl iktstilen auf die subjektive Stabilität von Paarbeziehungen. S. 125–151 in: J. Brüderl, L. Castiglioni, N. Schumann (Hg.): Partnerschaft, Fertilität und intergenerationale Beziehungen: Ergebnisse der ersten Welle des Beziehungs- und Familienpanels. Würzburg.Google Scholar
  127. Schneider, N. F. 1990. Woran scheitern Partnerschaft en? Subjektive Trennungsgründe und Belastungsfaktoren bei Ehepaaren und nichtehelichen Lebensgemeinschaft en. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 19: 458–470.Google Scholar
  128. Schröttle, M. 2010. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Th ese der Gendersymmetrie bei Gewalt in Paarbeziehungen. Gender 2: 133–151.Google Scholar
  129. Schulz, F., Blossfeld, H.-P. 2006. Wie verändert sich die häusliche Arbeitsteilung im Eheverlauf. Eine Längsschnittstudie der ersten 14 Ehejahre in Westdeutschland. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 58: 23–49.Google Scholar
  130. Schulz, F., Grunow, D. 2007. Tagebuch versus Zeitschätzung. Ein Vergleich zweier unterschiedlicher Methoden zur Messung der Zeitverwendung für Hausarbeit. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 19: 106–128.Google Scholar
  131. Segrin, C., Hanzal, A., Domschke, T. J. 2009. Accuracy and bias in newlywed couples‘ perceptions of confl ict styles and the association with marital satisfaction. Communication Monographs 76: 207–233.Google Scholar
  132. Shelton, B. A., John, D. 1996. Th e division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 299–322.Google Scholar
  133. Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., Bell, K. M. 2008. A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fi elds. Aggression and Violent Behavior 13: 185–194.Google Scholar
  134. Sillars, A. L., Canary, D. J., Tafoya, M. 2004. Communication, confl ict, and the quality of family relationships. S. 413–446 in: A. L. Vangelisti (Hg.): Handbook of family communication. Mahwah, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  135. Simmel, G. 1904. Th e sociology of confl ict. American Journal of Sociology 9: 490–525.Google Scholar
  136. Smith, L., Heaven, P. C. L., Ciarrochi, J. 2008. Trait emotional intelligence, confl ict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction Personality and Individual Diff erences 44: 1314–1325.Google Scholar
  137. Spanier, G. B. 1976. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38: 15–28.Google Scholar
  138. Sprecher, S., Schmeeckle, M., Felmlee, D. 2006. Th e principle of least interest: Consequences of inequality in emotional involvement for young adult romantic relationships. Journal of Family Issues 27: 1255–1280.Google Scholar
  139. Sprey, J. 1969. Th e family as a system in confl ict. Journal of Marriage and the Family 31: 699–706.Google Scholar
  140. Sprey, J. 1979. Confl ict theory and the study of marriage and the family. S. 130–159 in: W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, I. Reiss (Hg.): Contemporary theories about the family. General theories/ theoretical orientations. Vol. 2. New York, London.Google Scholar
  141. Sprey, J. 1999. Family dynamics – An essay on confl ict and power. S. 667–686 in: M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, G. W. Peterson (Hg.): Handbook of marriage and the family. New York.Google Scholar
  142. Steinmetz, S. K. 1987. Family violence: Past, present, and future. S. 725–765 in: M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz (Hg.): Handbook of marriage and the family. New York, London.Google Scholar
  143. Straus, M. A. 1990a. Measuring intrafamily confl ict and violence: Th e confl ict tactics (CT) scales. S. 29–47 in: M. A. Straus, R. J. Gelles (Hg.): Physical violence in American families. Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8.145 families. New Brunswick, London.Google Scholar
  144. Straus, M. A. 1990b. Social stress and marital violence in a national sample of American families. S. 181–201 in: M. A. Straus, R. J. Gelles (Hg.): Physical violence in American families. Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8.145 families. New Brunswick, London.Google Scholar
  145. Straus, M. A. 1999. Th e controversy over domestic violence by women. A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. S. 17–44 in: X. B. Arriaga, S. Oskamp (Hg.): Violence in intimate relations. Th ousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  146. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J. (Hg.) 1990. Physical violence in American families. Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8.145 families. New Brunswick, London.Google Scholar
  147. Th ibaut, J. W., Kelley, H. H. 1959. Th e social psychology of groups. New York.Google Scholar
  148. Th ompson, L. 1991. Family work: Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues 12: 181–196.Google Scholar
  149. Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. 2006. Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 557–583.Google Scholar
  150. Treas, J., Drobnic, S. (Hg.) 2010. Dividing the domestic. Men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford.Google Scholar
  151. Trube-Becker, E. 1986. Gewalt gegen Frauen. S. 81–92 in: W. T. Haesler (Hg.): Viktimologie. Zürich.Google Scholar
  152. Tyrell, H. 2001. Das konfl ikttheoretische Defi zit der Familiensoziologie. Überlegungen im Anschluss an Georg Simmel. S. 43–64 in: J. Huinink, K. P. Strohmeier, M. Wagner (Hg.): Solidarität in Partnerschaft und Familie – Zum Stand familiensoziologischer Th eoriebildung. Würzburg.Google Scholar
  153. Wagner, M., Weiß, B. 2005. Konfl ikte in Partnerschaft en. Erste Befunde der Kölner Paarbefragung. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 17: 217–247.Google Scholar
  154. Waller, W. W. 1938. Th e family, a dynamic interpretion. New York.Google Scholar
  155. Weick, S. 1994. Familie. S. 508–520 in: Statistisches Bundesamt (Hg.): Datenreport 1994. München.Google Scholar
  156. Weiß, B., Wagner, M. 2008. Stehen Konfl ikte einer guten Partnerschaft entgegen? Eine empirische Analyse auf Grundlage dyadischer Daten. S. 135–152 in: S. Walper, E.-V. Wend (Hg.): Partnerschaft en und die Beziehungen zu Eltern und Kindern: Befunde zur Beziehungs- und Familienentwicklung in Deutschland, Familie und Gesellschaft Band 24. Würzburg.Google Scholar
  157. Weiß, B., Wagner, M. 2010. Beeinfl ussen Konfl ikte die Partnerstabilität? Eine Längsschnittanalyse auf Grundlage zweier Paarbefragungen. S. 187–227 in: M. Feldhaus, J. Huinink (Hg.): Neuere Entwicklungen in der Beziehungs- und Familienforschung – Vorstudien zum Beziehungs- und Familienentwicklungspanel (PAIRFAM), Familie und Gesellschaft Band 23. Würzburg.Google Scholar
  158. Wesel, U. 1980. Der Mythos vom Matriarchat. Über Bachofens Mutterrecht und die Stellung von Frauen in frühen Gesellschaft en. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten Rüssmann
    • 1
  • Johannes Kopp
    • 2
  • Paul B. Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.RWTH AachenAachenDeutschland
  2. 2.Universität TrierTrierDeutschland

Personalised recommendations