38. Maenpaa, E. & Jalovaara, Meters. (2013). The results from homogamy in socio-economic background and you may knowledge for the changeover regarding cohabitation to help you marriage. Acta Sociologica , 56 (3), 247-263.
39. Oprisan, Age., & Cristea, D. (2012). Several details out-of influence about notion of relationship pleasure. Procedia – Public and Behavioral Sciences , , 33 , 468-472.
An effective longitudinal research out-of be concerned spillover in-marriage: Do spousal assistance adequacy shield the effects?
40. Rammstedt, B., & Schupp, J. (2008). Only the congruent endure – Personality similarities inside the couples. Identification and Individual Distinctions , 45 (6), 533-535.
I expect to see differences among learnt regions, as they features diffe rent sociocultural status, along with variations based in the personal conditions that may effect on the symmetry for the dating
43. Ruppanner, L., Bernhardt, Elizabeth., & Branden, Yards. (2017). Section out of housework with his along with her look at housework equity: A good typology off Swedish partners. Demographic Look , thirty-six , 501-524.
49. Russell, Roentgen. J. H., & Wells, P. (1993). Relationship therefore the Relashionship Survey: MARQ Manual . Sevenoaks: Hodder and you will Stoughton.
forty five. Russell, R. J. H. & Wells, P. (1991). Personality resemblance and you will quality of relationship. Character and you may Personal Differences , 12 (5), 407-412. Continue reading “Assortative coordinating certainly one of same-sex and different-sex people in the united states, 1990-2000”