离婚中的权力不对称与早期干预。

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Marian A. J. van Dijk, Sven Zebel, E. Giebels
{"title":"离婚中的权力不对称与早期干预。","authors":"Marian A. J. van Dijk, Sven Zebel, E. Giebels","doi":"10.1037/law0000376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individuals going through divorce often experience an imbalance of power, and this is likely to change throughout the divorce process. In this study, we examine the relationship between perceived differences in relative power among individuals going through divorce and their subsequently reported emotions, appraisals of agreements, and third-party involvement in divorce settlement. Our main expectation was that an initially perceived disadvantage in power would in fl uence subsequent stages of the divorce process, even when the perceived disadvantage reduces over time. Furthermore, we expected an empowering effect of an educational web based intervention that can reach people early in the divorce process. Using a quasi-experimental pretest – posttest design, the sample included 312 Dutch adults who visited (260) or did not visit (52) a web-based intervention and were assessed at three points in time. As expected, and despite a decrease in perceptions of power asymmetry over time, we observed enduring detrimental effects of an early power disadvantage in terms of higher emotional costs, more dissatisfaction with the process and content of the agreements, and more third-party involvement. Interestingly, those who reported power asymmetry (both as disadvantage ánd advantage) also reported more third-party lawyer and less mediator involvement. Also as expected, in this sample, those who reported a power disadvantage and used the web based intervention, reported higher power at a later stage than those who did not use the web intervention. This study points at the importance of signaling, and potentially offering a remedy for, perceived power disadvantages in the initial stages of a divorce process.","PeriodicalId":51463,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Public Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Power asymmetry and early intervention in divorce.\",\"authors\":\"Marian A. J. van Dijk, Sven Zebel, E. Giebels\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/law0000376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Individuals going through divorce often experience an imbalance of power, and this is likely to change throughout the divorce process. In this study, we examine the relationship between perceived differences in relative power among individuals going through divorce and their subsequently reported emotions, appraisals of agreements, and third-party involvement in divorce settlement. Our main expectation was that an initially perceived disadvantage in power would in fl uence subsequent stages of the divorce process, even when the perceived disadvantage reduces over time. Furthermore, we expected an empowering effect of an educational web based intervention that can reach people early in the divorce process. Using a quasi-experimental pretest – posttest design, the sample included 312 Dutch adults who visited (260) or did not visit (52) a web-based intervention and were assessed at three points in time. As expected, and despite a decrease in perceptions of power asymmetry over time, we observed enduring detrimental effects of an early power disadvantage in terms of higher emotional costs, more dissatisfaction with the process and content of the agreements, and more third-party involvement. Interestingly, those who reported power asymmetry (both as disadvantage ánd advantage) also reported more third-party lawyer and less mediator involvement. Also as expected, in this sample, those who reported a power disadvantage and used the web based intervention, reported higher power at a later stage than those who did not use the web intervention. This study points at the importance of signaling, and potentially offering a remedy for, perceived power disadvantages in the initial stages of a divorce process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Public Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Public Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000376\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Public Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000376","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经历离婚的人通常会经历权力的不平衡,这种情况可能会在整个离婚过程中发生变化。在本研究中,我们研究了经历离婚的个体在相对权力方面的感知差异与他们随后报告的情绪、对协议的评估以及第三方参与离婚解决之间的关系。我们的主要期望是,最初感知到的权力劣势会影响到离婚过程的后续阶段,即使这种感知到的劣势随着时间的推移而减少。此外,我们期望基于教育网络的干预能够在离婚过程的早期达到人们的授权效果。采用准实验前测-后测设计,样本包括312名荷兰成年人,他们参加了(260人)或没有参加(52人)基于网络的干预,并在三个时间点进行评估。正如预期的那样,尽管随着时间的推移,对权力不对称的看法有所减少,但我们观察到,在较高的情感成本、对协议过程和内容的更多不满以及更多第三方参与方面,早期的权力劣势会产生持久的有害影响。有趣的是,那些报告权力不对称的人(两者都是劣势ánd优势)也报告了更多的第三方律师和更少的调解人参与。同样,正如预期的那样,在这个样本中,那些报告权力劣势并使用基于网络的干预的人,在后期报告的权力比那些没有使用网络干预的人更高。这项研究指出了在离婚过程的最初阶段发出信号的重要性,并可能为察觉到的权力劣势提供补救措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Power asymmetry and early intervention in divorce.
Individuals going through divorce often experience an imbalance of power, and this is likely to change throughout the divorce process. In this study, we examine the relationship between perceived differences in relative power among individuals going through divorce and their subsequently reported emotions, appraisals of agreements, and third-party involvement in divorce settlement. Our main expectation was that an initially perceived disadvantage in power would in fl uence subsequent stages of the divorce process, even when the perceived disadvantage reduces over time. Furthermore, we expected an empowering effect of an educational web based intervention that can reach people early in the divorce process. Using a quasi-experimental pretest – posttest design, the sample included 312 Dutch adults who visited (260) or did not visit (52) a web-based intervention and were assessed at three points in time. As expected, and despite a decrease in perceptions of power asymmetry over time, we observed enduring detrimental effects of an early power disadvantage in terms of higher emotional costs, more dissatisfaction with the process and content of the agreements, and more third-party involvement. Interestingly, those who reported power asymmetry (both as disadvantage ánd advantage) also reported more third-party lawyer and less mediator involvement. Also as expected, in this sample, those who reported a power disadvantage and used the web based intervention, reported higher power at a later stage than those who did not use the web intervention. This study points at the importance of signaling, and potentially offering a remedy for, perceived power disadvantages in the initial stages of a divorce process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law ® provides a forum in which to critically evaluate the contributions of psychology and related disciplines (hereinafter psychology) to public policy and legal issues, and vice versa. It is read by legal scholars and professionals and public policy analysts as well as psychology researchers and practitioners working at the interface of the three fields. The journal publishes theoretical and empirical articles that critically evaluate the contributions and potential contributions of psychology to public policy and legal issues;assess the desirability of different public policy and legal alternatives in light of the scientific knowledge base in psychology;articulate research needs that address public policy and legal issues for which there is currently insufficient theoretical and empirical knowledge;present empirical work that makes a significant contribution to the application of psychological knowledge to public policy or the law; andexamine public policy and legal issues relating to the conduct of psychology and related disciplines (e.g., human subjects, protection policies; informed consent procedures).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信