شمارۀ جدید فصلنامه (بهار 1403) منتشر شد


Volume 14, Issue 2 (11-2023)                   Social Problems of Iran 2023, 14(2): 253-287 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Aliverdinia A, Osyia E, Abbasi Kalan H. (2023). The Explanation of Students' Attitude toward Cohabitation: An Application of Akers' Social Learning Theory. Social Problems of Iran. 14(2), 253-287. doi:10.61186/jspi.14.2.253
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3586-en.html
1- University of Mazandaran , aliverdinia@umz.ac.ir
2- University of Mazandaran
Abstract:   (467 Views)
Living together without formal marriage, which is called cohabitation, has become popular in the world and also in our country in recent years. Cohabitation known as white marriage, domestic, biological couple, clinical. In the Oxford dictionary, it is defined as husband and wife living together. The main aim of the current research is to explain the attitude of students towards cohabitation, and also to compare the attitudes of male and female students using social learning theory, and to answer this question, what is the difference between male and female students' attitude of University Mazandaran towards cohabitation? The sample of this research is 246 students of University of Mazandaran. Simple random sampling method was used in this research. In this way, the online questionnaire was given to the research sample population without the researcher having any information about their attitude towards coexistence or their experience in the field of coexistence. Spss software was used for data analysis. The findings show that a total of 19.1 percent of the total sample are against and completely against cohabitation. The comparison between women and men also shows that 19.8% of women and 17.8% of men are against cohabitation. About half of the students also have an intermediate attitude (neither in favor nor against) towards cohabitation. The findings related to the difference in attitude towards cohabitation show that there is no significant difference between male and female students, but from the behavioral aspect, men have experienced cohabitation more than women. The results of multiple regression analysis show that the differential association variable affects cognitive and behavioral cohabitation. The variable of differential reinforcement has had a significant effect on cognitive, emotional and behavioral cohabitation and the variable of imitation has had a significant effect on emotional cohabitation. Also, the findings of the research show that the differential association in women has a significant effect on the (total) cohabitation, but it is not significant among men.
Full-Text [PDF 802 kb]   (147 Downloads)    
Type of Article: Original Research | Subject: Crime & Deviances
Received: 2023/05/14 | Accepted: 2023/11/1 | Published: 2024/02/9

References
1. Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2019). The social learning theory of crime and deviance. Handbook on crime and deviance, 113-129. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_6]
2. Akers, R. L. (2017). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315129587]
3. Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2009). Social learning theory. In J. M. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [DOI:10.4135/9781412971997.n37]
4. Akers, R, Jensen, G. (2006). Empricaial status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past, present, and future. Takinng Stok: The Status of Criminological Theory,19,1-61.
5. Akers, R. (2001). Social learning theory. American Sociological Rewiew, 5, 1-32.
6. Akers, R. (1990). Rotional choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in criminology, the path not taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81-653-676. [DOI:10.2307/1143850]
7. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Akers, RL (1992). Drugs, Alcohol, and Society. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
8. Akers, R; Kyohn, M; Lanza-Kaduce, L, Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and Deviant behavior: A specific test of general theory. American sociological Review, 44.636-655. [DOI:10.2307/2094592]
9. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 3e éd., Cincinnati: Ohio. Anderson Publishing. reconviction in a sample of UK child abusers. Sexual abuse: a Journal of research and treatment, 14, 155-167. [DOI:10.1177/107906320201400206]
10. Barber, J. S., Axinn, W. G. (1998). Gender roles attitudes and marriage among young women. The Sociological Quarterly, 39(1), 11-31. [DOI:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1998.tb02347.x]
11. Blakemore, J. E. O., Lawton, C. A., Vartanian, L. R. (2005). I can't wait to get married: Gender differences in drive to marry. Sex Roles, 53(5), 327-335. [DOI:10.1007/s11199-005-6756-1]
12. Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. F., Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Abbott, R. D., Cortes, R. R., Park, J. (2005). Mediator effects in the social development model: An examination of constituent theories. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15(4), 221-235. [DOI:10.1002/cbm.27]
13. Carroll, J. S., Badger, S., Willoughby, B., Nelson, L. J., Madsen, S., Barry, C. M. (2009). Ready or not? Criteria for marriage readiness among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(3), 349-375. [DOI:10.1177/0743558409334253]
14. Carroll, J. S., Willoughby, B., Badger, S., Nelson, L. J., Barry, C. M., Madsen, S. D. (2007). So close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(3), 219-247. [DOI:10.1177/0743558407299697]
15. Chaiken, Shelly (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752]
16. Chamberlain, P., Fisher, P. A., & Moore, K. (2002). Multidimensional treatment foster care: Applications of the OSLC intervention model to high-risk youth and their families. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 203-218). American Psychological Association. [DOI:10.1037/10468-010]
17. Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2018). Criminological theory: Past to present: Essential readings . New York: Oxford University Press.
18. De Coninck, D., Van Doren, S., & Matthijs, K. (2021). Attitudes of young adults toward marriage and divorce, 2002-2018. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 62(1), 66-82. [DOI:10.1080/10502556.2020.1833292]
19. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Kavanagh, K. A. (1992). An experimental test of the coercion model: Linking theory, measurement, and intervention. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence (pp. 253-282). Guilford Press.
20. Floridia, R., Hollinger, R. (2016). Social Learning Theory and the training of retail loss prevention officers. Security Journal. 30, 1013-1026. [DOI:10.1057/sj.2016.2]
21. Hewitt, B. A. (2006). 'Trial Marriage': Is premarital cohabitation an effective risk minimisation strategy for marriage breakdown? Paper Presented to Social Change in the 21st Century Conference, 27 October 2006, Carseldine. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/6134.
22. Horowitz, J; Graf, Nikki, L, Gretchen. (2019). Marriage and cohabitation in the U.S. Pew research center social and demographic trends, 6,1-10.
23. Jennings, A. M., Salts, C., Smith, T. A. (1992). Attitudes toward marriage: Effects of parental conflict, family structure, and gender. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17(1/2), 67-80. [DOI:10.1300/J087v17n01_05]
24. Katsurada, E., Sugihara, Y. (2002). Gender-role identity, attitudes toward marriage and gender-segregated school backgrounds. Sex Roles, 47(5), 249-258. [DOI:10.1023/A:1021334710431]
25. Kiernan, K. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside marriage in western Europe. International Jjournal of Law, Policy and the Family,15,1-21. [DOI:10.1093/lawfam/15.1.1]
26. Kim, H. S., Jung, Y. M. (2015). Self-differentiation, family functioning, life satisfaction and attitudes towards marriage among South Korean university students. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(19), 1-8. [DOI:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i19/76862]
27. Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., St Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., & Prado, L. M. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 311. [DOI:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.311]
28. Kreidl, M., & Zillinikova, Z. (2021). How does cohabitation change people's attitudes toward family dissolution?. European Sociological Review, 37(4), 541-554. [DOI:10.1093/esr/jcaa073]
29. Lawal, M. (2020). Relationship satisfaction in cohabiting university students: Evidence from the role of daration of cohabitation, lone lines and sex-life satisfaction. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 9,1-12.
30. Lee, C. (2013). Deviant Peers, opportunity and cyberbullying: A theoretical Examination of a new Deviance, A thesis submitted in Particalfulfiilmen of the Regquirement of criminology and criminal justice. Pepartment of criminology and criminal justice in the graduate school southern illionis university cabondale, 5, 1-33.
31. Lersch, k. (1999). Social lerning theory and academic dlshonesty. International journal of comparative and applied criminal justice, 23(1), 114-123. [DOI:10.1080/01924036.1999.9678635]
32. Lichter, D. T., Turner, R. N., & Sassler, S. (2010). National estimates of the rise in serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39(5), 754-765. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.11.002]
33. Huang, Y. C., Lin, S. H. (2014). Attitudes of Taiwanese college students toward marriage: A comparative study of different family types and gender. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 45(3), 425-438. [DOI:10.3138/jcfs.45.3.425]
34. Manning, W. D. (2020). Young adulthood relationships in an era of uncertainty: A case for cohabitation. Demography, 57(3), 799-819. [DOI:10.1007/s13524-020-00881-9]
35. Murrow, C., & Shi, L. (2010). The influence of cohabitation purposes on relationship quality: An examination in dimensions. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(5), 397-412. [DOI:10.1080/01926187.2010.513916]
36. Naquin Jr, M. J. (1959). Criminal Law-Miscegenation-Definition of Cohabitation. Louisiana Law Review, 19(3), 699-705.
37. Reich, J. A. (Ed.). (2020). The state of families: law, policy, and the meanings of relationships. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780429397868]
38. Rindfuss, R. R., VandenHeuvel, A. (2019). Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? In The changing American family (pp. 118-142). Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780429309441-7]
39. Rontos, K., Roumeliotou, M., Salvati, L., & Syrmali, M. E. (2017). Marriage or cohabitation? A survey of students' attitudes in Greece. Demográfia English Edition, 60(5), 5-31. [DOI:10.21543/DEE.2017.1]
40. Sassler, Sh, T. Lichter, D. (2020). Cohabitation and marriage: complexity and diversity in :union:- for mation patterns. Journal of Marriage a Family, 82,35-61. [DOI:10.1111/jomf.12617]
41. Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships, and mate selection. Journal of marriage and family, 72(3), 557-575. [DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x]
42. Stepler, R., 2017. Number of U.S. adults cohabiting with a partner continues to rise, especially among those 50 and older. United States of America. Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/617954/number-of-us/1598835/ on 26 Jan 2024. CID: 20.500.12592/cnqs16.
43. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511803956]
44. Willoughby, B. J., Olson, C. D., Carroll, J. S., Nelson, L. J., Miller, R. B. (2012). Sooner or later? The marital horizons of parents and their emerging adult children. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(7), 967-981. [DOI:10.1177/0265407512443637]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Social Problems of Iran

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb