Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relational Networks of Young Couples and Marriage Choice Paths in Italy: Data on Membership and Influence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Family Continuity and Change

Part of the book series: Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life ((PSFL))

Abstract

This chapter proposes an exploratory research on morphological structure and functions of the personal networks of young Italians organizing their lives as couples during their transition to married life. In Italy, next to the weakening and a process of deinstitutionalization of marriages (Cherlin 2004; Bramanti 2013), new ways of forming couples are spreading such as long cohabitation and live apart together (LAT) with no intention to get married. Young people experience new relational codes in a social context that promote the reversibility of choices and/or the privatization of behaviours. These configurations affect the traditional role (and identity) of the family within society and could trigger a series of knock-on effects on future generations. A recent publication in fact has sized up the Italian situation by noting that the increase in unstable, fragmented couples poses questions about the future of society there (Donati 2012).

This work is the result of a common reflection among the authors. However, Moscatelli M. edited paragraphs 2, 3, and 4; Bramanti D. edited paragraphs 1 and 5.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In 2012, 52.3 % males and 35 % females aged 25–34 still lived with their families of origin (ISTAT 2014b).

  2. 2.

    In the language of SNA we refer to the multiplexity function of ties.

  3. 3.

    www.relationalstudies.net.

  4. 4.

    This pilot project will be followed by research on the role of primary networks for parents of young children, 0–3. We thank the partner ‘Institute of Anthropology—Abbazia di Mirasole’.

  5. 5.

    This term is used in the language of SNA and for personal network analysis.

  6. 6.

    Because some of the couples interviewed were participating in marriage preparation courses (both religious and civil), we are grateful to the relevant organizations for their collaboration in the sampling; in particular, to the Diocese of Milan, the municipality of Villanzona (Trento), and the municipality of Milan. It was a nonprobabilistic quota sampling.

  7. 7.

    Even though the initial objective was to observe the couple networks as a whole and evaluate some hypotheses on the overlapping of nodes, budget constraints prevented any further processing during this pilot phase.

  8. 8.

    The battery of questions on this topic (i.e., openness of the couple) was composed on a scale of agreement from 1 to 9.

  9. 9.

    The index was calculated over the variables of the set of questions illustrated previously (from 16a to 17h) plus the variable about single partner voluntary commitment in associations. The items were listed by importance, and more weight was attributed to positive answers; at the end the scores were added together.

  10. 10.

    Network resources means the people who belong to the network.

  11. 11.

    We refer to alters’ age, the age of the nodes of the two nets.

  12. 12.

    Density is usually defined as the sum of all ties divided by the number of possible ties. Density is usually defined as the average strength of ties across all possible (not all actual) ties.

  13. 13.

    It is the percentage of reciprocal bonds in one networks calculated on all the potential connections.

  14. 14.

    There are some research studies about young adults and on this topic in our Family Studies and Research University Centre (see Rossi del Corso and Lanz 2013).

  15. 15.

    It is the percentage of agreement on the question ‘Do you perceive Alter (1, 2, 3, and other) as close to your couple values?’ in one network calculated on all the potential connections; if every alter is close to the couples’ values, it will be 100 %.

  16. 16.

    It is the percentage of agreement on the question ‘Has Alter (1, 2, 3, and other) influenced your couple choices?’ in one network calculated on all the potential connections; if every alter influenced ego, it will be 100 %.

  17. 17.

    The model has a silhouette measure sufficient / weak. Only the first 8 input variables have an importance of more than 0.2.

References

  • Axinn, G., and A. Thornton. 1992. The Influence of Parental Resources on the Timing of the Transition to Marriage. Social Science Research 21(3): 261–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsky, J., and M. Rovine. 1984. Stability and Change in Mother-Infant and Father-Infant Interaction in a Family Setting at One, Three, and Nine Months. Child Development 55(3): 692–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A., D. Johnson, A. Branaman, and A. Sica. 1995. Belief and Behavior: Does Religion Matter in Today’s Marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family 57(3): 661–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S.P., M.G. Everett, and L.C. Freeman. 2002. UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bott, E. 1957. Family and Social Network. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1980. Le Capital Social—Notes Provisoire. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramanti, D. 2013. Il Rischio Di Diventare Un Noi: Perché Prendersi Cura Della Coppia? Consultori Familiari Oggi 21(1): 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Capitale Sociale E Ambiente Amichevole: Quali Risorse Per Le Famiglie Con Figli (0–13 anni). Roma: Rapporto Istat 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A.J. 2004. The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 67(5): 848–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cigoli, V., and E. Scabini. 2012. Alla Ricerca del Famigliare. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P. 2006. Coppie di fatto, una interpretazione sociologica. Rivista di teologia morale 37(149): 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Reflexivity After Modernity: From the Viewpoint of Relational Sociology. In Conversations About Reflexivity, ed. M.S. Archer. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. The Family as a Resource of Society. Familia et Vita XVII, 2–3: 217–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felmlee, D.H. 2001. No Couple is an Island: A Social Network Perspective on Dyadic Stability. Social Forces 79: 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogerbrugge, M.J.A., A.E. Komter, and P. Scheepers. 2013. Dissolving Long-Term Romantic Relationships: Assessing the Role of the Social Context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(3): 320–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Istat. 2014a. Il matrimonio in Italia. Report del 21 novembre 2014, Roma. Available online: http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/138266.

  • ———. 2014b. Le nuove informazioni del 15 Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni. Available online: http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/124394.

  • Kalmijn, M. 2003. Shared Friendship Networks and the Life Course: An Analysis of Survey Data on Married and Cohabiting Couples. Social Networks 25(3): 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. Edited by Cartwright, D. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litwak, E., and I. Szelenyi. 1969. Primary Group Structures and Their Functions: Kin, Neighbors and Friends. American Sociological Review 34: 465–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W., and P. Smock. 1995. Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage Among Cohabitors. Demography 32(4): 509–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W.D., J.A. Cohen, and P.J. Smock. 2011. The Role of Romantic Partners, Family and Peer Networks in Dating Couples’ Views about Cohabitation. Journal of Adolescent Research 26(1): 115–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcadams, D. P. and de St. Aubin, E. 1992. A Theory of Generativity and Its Assessment through Self-Report, Behavioral Acts, and Narrative Themes in Autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 1003–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milardo, R.M. 1986. Personal Choice and Social Constraint in Close Relationships. Applications of Network analysis. In Friendship and Social Interaction, ed. V. Derlega, and B. Wistead. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J.C. 1973. Networks, Norms, and Institutions. In Network Analysis—Studies in Human Interaction, ed. J. Boissevain, and J.C. Mitchell, 2–35. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, P. 2003. Methodological Issues in Social Support and Social Network Research. Social Networks 25(3): 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosnati, R., and Iafrate, R. 2007. Riconoscersi genitori: I Percorsi di Promozione e Arricchimento del Legame Genitoriale . Trento: Erikson.

  • Rossi, G. (ed.) 2001. Lezioni di sociologia della famiglia. Roma: Carocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Legami e percorsi di coppia: le trasformazioni della coniugalità in Europa. In L’Italia nell’Europa: i valori tra persistenze e trasformazioni, ed. G. Pollini, A. Pretto, and G. Rovati, 135–166. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi del Corso, A., and Lanz, M. 2013. Felt Obligation and Family Life Cycle: A Study Intergenerational Relationships. International Journal of Psychology 48: 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scabini, E., and Manzi, C. 2005. Famiglia, identità e rapporti tra le generazioni, in identità e appartenenza nella società globale. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scabini, E., and Rossi, G. (eds.) 2006. Le parole della famiglia. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serason, I.G., H.M. Levine, R.B. Basham, and B.R. Serason. 1983. Assessing Social Support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, C.H., and K.M. Abraham. 2010. Staying Connected: Young Adults’ Felt Obligation toward Parents With and Without Mental Illness. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoits, P. 1982. Life, Stress, Social Support and Psychological Vulnerability. Journal of Community Psychology 10(4): 341–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronca, L. 2007. I Personal Network in Italia. Sociologia e Politiche Sociali 15(2): 55–84. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Sociologia relazionale e social network analysis. Analisi delle strutture sociali. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Poel, M.G.M. 1993. Delineating Personal Support Networks. Social Networks 15: 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tilburg, T. 1998. Losing and Gaining in Old Age: Changes in Personal Network Size and Social Support in a Four-Year Longitudinal Study. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences 53(6): 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, B. 1979. The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology 84(3): 1201–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E.D. 2010. Family Configurations. A Structural Approach to Family Diversity. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E.D., and J.-A. Gauthier. 2011. Le modèle développemental à la lumière des trajectoires familiales contemporaines: confirmation ou remise en question? In Parcours de vie et insertions sociales, ed. D. Joye, C. Pirinoli, D. Spini, and D.E. Widmer, 150–157. Zürich: Seismo.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Matteo Moscatelli

  2. Faculty of Education, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Donatella Bramanti

Authors
  1. Matteo Moscatelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donatella Bramanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Moscatelli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Mykolas Romeris University , Vilnius, Lithuania

    Vida ÄŒesnuitytÄ—

  2. Federal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Detlev Lück

  3. University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Eric D. Widmer

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moscatelli, M., Bramanti, D. (2017). Relational Networks of Young Couples and Marriage Choice Paths in Italy: Data on Membership and Influence. In: Česnuitytė, V., Lück, D., D. Widmer, E. (eds) Family Continuity and Change. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59028-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59028-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59027-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59028-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation