A Theory of Power Relationships in Marriage

Rollins, Boyd C.; Bahr, Stephen J.

doi:10.2307/350682

Cited by 83 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, a woman's earnings may be weighted to have less impact, and a man's earnings weighted more, to fit societal notions and make the discrepancies acceptable (Komter, 1989). Therefore, true power discrepancies, from this perspective, may be based less on overt differences between spouses but more on the expectations (explicit or unstated) that give one partner greater ability to exert power in a given situation (Rollins & Bahr, 1976).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in the use of demand and withdraw behavior in marriage: Examining the social structure hypothesis.

Vogel

Murphy

Werner–Wilson

et al. 2007

Journal of Counseling Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies consistently show sex differences in married couples' use of demand and withdraw behavior. The social structure hypothesis proposes that these differences are the result of power differentials between spouses. This study examined the link between 3 aspects of marital power and demanding and withdrawal behavior. Contrary to social structure predictions, results showed that wives did not possess less decision-making ability or access to resources and appeared to exhibit greater situational power (i.e., domineering and dominant behaviors) than did their husbands during problem-solving discussions. Furthermore, the spouse who exhibited the most demands also exhibited the most domineering and dominant behaviors, whereas the spouse who exhibited the most withdrawal exhibited the least domineering and dominant behaviors during problem-solving discussions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in the use of demand and withdraw behavior in marriage: Examining the social structure hypothesis.

Vogel

Murphy

Werner–Wilson

et al. 2007

Journal of Counseling Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And, most explicitly, relational power calls attention to the notion that power is not a characteristic of an individual or group like age, or education, or wealth, but rather is a characteristic that can only be understood with reference to a social relationship that identifies who has power over whom. This focus on the importance of relationships is not limited to conceptions of power in community psychology, and indeed, mirrors conceptions of power in other related areas of study including the feminist literature (e.g., Riger and Krieglstein 2000) and family studies (e.g., Babcock et al 1993;Dunbar 2004;Rollins and Bahr 1976).…”

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Power as a Structural Phenomenon

Neal

2010

American Journal of Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an effort to inform empowerment theory and research, this paper provides a structural conception of power. First, we examine the essential features present in three dominant conceptions of power in community psychology: social power, psychopolitical power, and relational power. Next, commonalities in the key features of power identified by these conceptions are explored and pared down to yield a more parsimonious conception of power that is grounded only in the structural pattern of relationships through which resources are exchanged. Drawing on social exchange theory, we offer a method for measuring this streamlined, structural conception of power that allows for its more precise examination. Finally, we discuss the implications of a structural conception and measurement of power for targeting and facilitating empowering processes and evaluating empowered outcomes.

show abstract

“…According to Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) the terms status, power and dominance should be treated as interrelated but nevertheless ''separate constructs" (p. 208). With regard to dyadic power theory (Dunbar, 2004;Rollins & Bahr, 1976) power can be conceptualized as a latent variable (Komter, 1989), i.e. having the potential to influence others, which can rely on different power bases (French & Raven, 1959), such as explicit rules (legitimate power), means control (coercive and reward power), quality of relation (referent power) or skills and knowledge (expert power).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%