38. Maenpaa, Elizabeth. & Jalovaara, Meters. (2013). The effects off homogamy during the socio-economic history and studies toward change away from cohabitation to matrimony. Acta Sociologica , 56 (3), 247-263.

39. Oprisan, Elizabeth., & Cristea, D. (2012). A few details of determine on concept of relationship satisfaction. Procedia — Social and you can Behavioral Sciences , , 33 , 468-472.

An effective longitudinal data regarding be concerned spillover in-marriage: Do spousal help adequacy buffer the effects?

forty. Rammstedt, B., & Schupp, J. (2008). Just Japon gelin nasД±l alД±nД±r the congruent survive — Identification parallels within the lovers. Personality and you can Private Variations , forty-five (6), 533-535.

We expect to find differences­ certainly examined regions, as they has actually diffe­ lease sociocultural status, together with differences based in the personal issues that will get affect this new balance in the dating

43. Ruppanner, L., Bernhardt, Age., & Branden, M. (2017). Division from cleaning with his along with her look at housework fairness: Good typology regarding Swedish people. Group Research , 36 , 501-524.

forty two. Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. (1993). Relationship as well as the Relashionship Questionnaire: MARQ Manual . Sevenoaks: Hodder and you will Stoughton.

forty-five. Russell, R. J. H. & Wells, P. (1991). Identity resemblance and you will quality of wedding. Identity and you may Individual Distinctions , 12 (5), 407-412. Читать далее »