Rural Adolescent Boys' Negotiating Heterosexual Romantic Relationships: "We Need to Sacrifice Our Brains"/Relations Romantiques Hétérosexuelles Chez Des Garçons Adolescents De Milieu Rural : « Nous Devons Sacrifier Nos Cerveaux »
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Adolescent romande relationships have long been regarded as integral to the healthy development of the self and the ability to form adult intimate relationships (Erikson, 1968; Sullivan, 1953). More recently, studies have focused on the effects of family and peer influences on the quality of adolescent romantic relationships (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Cauffman, & Spieker, 2009; Seiffge-Krenke, Overbeek, & Vermulst, 2010). Most apposite to the present study, however, gender differences in dating experiences, attitudes, and values of youth themselves have generated increasing attention (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006; Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Smiler, 2008). A large questionnaire survey of Canadian rural adolescents (Cameron et al., 2007) reported a significant divergence between boys' and girls' reported attitudes and behaviours in intimate relationships and boys' lack of confidence in their perception of their own and others' comportment in handling challenging relational issues.In spite of the developmental significance of dating and intimacy for adolescents, research suggests that a significant gap exists between girls' and boys' experiences, expectations, attitudes, and skills in navigating heterosexual relationships (Collins, 2003; Crockett & Beal, 2012; Giordano et al., 2006; Rose et al., 2012). At the onset of puberty, a shift in relatedness for both girls and boys takes place, with boys preferring close and intimate male friendships (Way, 2011) while girls tend to prioritize romantic relationships and often value making extensive sacrifices for the sake of them (Luft, Jenkins, & Cameron, 2012). Females in particular have been found to focus more than males on intimate heterosexual relationships, indicating heavier investment in creating and maintaining those relationships (Palchykov, Kaski, Kertesz, Barabas, & Dunbar, 2012). With age, boys increasingly tend to expect to enter marriage and become parents later in life whereas, on average, girls expect these transitions into adult roles sooner than boys do (Crockett & Beal, 2012). A deeper understanding of gender differences in adolescent dating and intimacy experiences is necessary to facilitate education and interventions to promote healthy relationship functioning both in adolescence and beyond.Boys in particular have been the subject of a comparatively small number of studies focusing on psychosocial variables such as dating motivation and heterosexual behaviours. Contrary to popular media images and a common assumption that boys' motivations in romantic relationships are primarily sexual, Smiler (2008) reported that boys' most common reasons for pursuing romantic and intimate relationships were of a relational nature. Smiler found that common factors for beginning relationships were interest-based and that connection-type motivations sustained them, although boys reported physical attraction as a primary value in a dating partner more often than girls. Boys and girls have also been found to report similar levels of love and emotional involvement in their relationships (Giordano et al., 2006). Sexual behaviour in adolescent relationships for both boys and girls, however, is associated with caring and feelings of engagement (Giordano, Manning, et al., 2010). These findings suggest that boys' experiences of adolescent romantic relationships are multifaceted.Boys' experiences of communication in romantic relationships have also received some recent attention (Giordano et al., 2006; Harper & Welsh, 2007; Rose et al., 2012). Boys report significantly higher levels of awkwardness with regard to communication between both current and previous romantic partners. This may be related to lower reported levels of confidence in navigating their relationships although, overall, they feel quite emotionally involved (Giordano et al., 2006). Furthermore, while girls are more likely to expect that communication will improve their relationship and their self-esteem, boys report that communication feels weird, uncomfortable, and like a waste of time (Rose et al. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».