
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>doi: 10.1093/esr/20.1.63
This article considers how various configurations of network characteristics affect conjugal quality. To investigate this issue, we use data from a large survey on conjugal functioning, based on 910 married couples with co-resident children living in Switzerland. Using reports from both male and female partners, we first empirically define six types of conjugal networks. We then explore the extent to which those types affect conjugal conflict and conjugal quality, making a distinction between direct, indirect and buffering effects. We find that network types have significant direct and indirect effects on conjugal quality but no significant buffering effect. We further discuss the importance of our results for understanding the functioning of contemporary couples within larger relational contexts.
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 84 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
