Love, jealousy, satisfaction and violence in young couples: A network analysis

José Ventura-León; Cristopher Lino-Cruz

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285555

Abstract

In recent years, couples have been affected by health measures related to COVID-19, a circumstance that forces us to examine couple interactions in terms of crucial variables of their functioning. In this sense, the present study aimed to examine the association between love, jealousy, satisfaction, and violence in young couples through network analysis. A total of 834 young people and adults between 18 and 38 years of age (Mean = 20.97, SD = 2.39) participated; 646 women (77.50%) and 188 men (22.50%), who completed the Sternberg’s love scale (STLS-R), Brief Jealousy Scale (BJS), Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) and Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST-2). A partial unregularized network was estimated using the ggmModSelect function. The Bridge Strength index was calculated because the aim was to identify the bridge nodes between the variables under study. The results reveal that two nodes of the love variable, Commitment, and Intimacy, had a direct and moderate relationship with the Satisfaction node. The latter is the central node in the network. However, in the male group, the most intense associations are in Satisfaction-Intimacy, Violence-Passion, Jealousy-Commitment. It is concluded that there are relevant connections between the nodes of the network, which invite further research on couple relationships after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Citation: Ventura-León J, Lino-Cruz C (2023) Love, jealousy, satisfaction and violence in young couples: A network analysis. PLoS ONE 18(5): e0285555. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285555

Editor: Beatriz Talavera-Velasco, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Facultad de Psicologia, SPAIN

Received: February 20, 2023; Accepted: April 26, 2023; Published: May 5, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Ventura-León, Lino-Cruz. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All files are available in the OSF free repository: https://osf.io/sk2fe/?view_only=d325996f56044c848aee5ab0a8b872de.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In the last decades, an increase in the separation and divorce rates has been reported [1, 2]. In fact, in countries such as the United States and Canada a divorce culture is being discussed for some time already [3–5]. This might also be related to the decrease in the marriage rates registered in countries such as Ireland, Spain, Italy and Portugal in 2020 [6]. Consequently, Peru is not an exception. According to data from the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics [7], the separated and divorced population has been increasing exponentially, while married population has decreased in the period between the censuses of 1993 and 2017. In spite of the reported levels of divorce, young people are still in search of love relationships due to the fact that close relationships are the main contributing factor for personal happiness [8]. Thus, in the field of love relationships, literature has favored the study of love and satisfaction. However, emotions such as jealousy and rage have been studied recently [9].

It is known that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact in different aspects of people’s life, specifically in love relationships [10, 11]. In that sense, a decrease in satisfaction of young couples who do not live together was observed due to the little time shared with the partner [12]. Following that, the low satisfaction level in relationships has caused most marriages to end in divorce [13]. Thus, satisfaction in couples ends up being a key construct because it allows to assess the success and durability of the relationship [14]. Another important factor that helps to develop and maintain love relationships is love [15]. The construct is composed of three interrelated components: intimacy, passion, and commitment [16]. Therefore, love becomes a key element in love relationships, as it might hamper the self-realization of the individuals if it is not satisfied [17]. Regarding that, previous research prove a direct relation between love and satisfaction [18]. Moreover, some authors reported that satisfaction and love, both in dating and married couples, were considerably lower after the end of the COVID-19 emergency [19].

Another usual element in the field of love relationships is jealousy, because it is essentially a normal reaction in people [20]. Nevertheless, this construct takes on a varied emotional force because it can turn love into anger and tenderness into acts of control [21]. In fact, in some situations it can assume maladaptive dimensions when it is shown excessively. This harms the harmony of the relationship or even damages the physical and mental integrity through violence [20]. Regarding the forementioned, violence in love relationships refers to the attempt to dominate and control the other party, either physically, psychologically or sexually [22]. Although the research on violence in love relationships has focused on adult couples, it has been known for a while that it has strong implications in young couples [23]. The forementioned demands to keep exploring the love, satisfaction, jealousy, and violence variables in young couples, as no studies that relate these four variables have been found in literature.

Scientific evidence shows that the correlational studies with love and satisfaction [18, 19], jealousy and satisfaction [24], and aggression and jealousy variables [25] were performed using the Pearson correlation. However, no correlation studies with the network analysis were found, as it is known that this approach is considered as a novel and potentially more efficient method for the study of psychological attributes, unlike the model of latent variables [26, 27]. This is because its utility is greater for the study of the interaction between variables because it allows the researcher to examine the reciprocal association between different variables that belong to the same construct, as well as to assess the mutual interaction of different constructs [28]. Regarding the forementioned, with the network analysis a psychological attribute is a system in which all components interact with each other without being linked to a latent common cause [26]. In order to understand the network analysis approach, it is necessary to differentiate the following concepts: (a) network, refers to an abstract model that contains nodes and edges; (b) nodes, refer to the subjects or variables of the study; and (c) edges, refer to the connections between the nodes [29]. In this sense, nodes can have a strong relation witch each other, can be related to other facets within the network and/or act as bridges between them [30].

It is true that network analysis was first used in Psychology to explain psychopathological concepts [27], and, later, to analyze aspects of personality [31], intelligence [32], or even conspiracy beliefs [30]. Nevertheless, to date there is no evidence in literature to assess variables in the field of love relationships, specifically in young couples. In that sense, a void of knowledge related to the study of the variables of love, satisfaction, jealousy, and violence within the network analysis approach can be observed, especially in the Latin American context. This demands to use novel and effective methods, such as the network analysis, to analyze the study variables.

Therefore, the objective of the current research was to examine the structure of the network between the variables of love, satisfaction, jealousy, and violence in Peruvian young couples. Particularly, it aims to: (a) identify the interconnections between every node of the network; (b) recognize the main nodes; and (c) identify those nodes that function as bridges between other nodes.

Materials and methods

Participants

The participants were 834 young people and adults aged between 18 and 38 years (Mean = 20.97, SD = 2.39); 646 females (77.50%) and 188 males (22.50%). Every participant was in a love relationship of a minimum of three months, as this was considered as a necessary time for a certain stability [33]. Overall, the couple relationship time ranged between 3 and 139 months (Mean = 22.68, SD = 20.10). The size of the sample was estimated a priori through the powerly package setting 10 nodes, statistical power of 0.80, density of 0.40, which indicated a recommended minimum size of 276 observations [34]. The selection of the participants was carried out through nonprobability snowball sampling [35], because in Peru the massive and in-person applications have been affected after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Instruments.

Sternberg’s love scale (STLS-R) was used in this study [36]. The Peruvian version of the STLS-R [37] is composed of fifteen items with a Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). It is a three-factor measure that explores intimacy, passion, and commitment. The validity obtained through confirmatory factor analysis obtained acceptable goodness of fit (CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .03). The reliability coefficients estimated using omega, for the three factors: intimacy (ω = .91), passion (ω = .86), and commitment (ω = .93) can be considered good.

Brief Jealousy Scale (BJS) was used in this study [38]. EBC was a dimension of the Inventory of Emotional Communication in Love Relationships [39]. It is composed of nine items that are rated on a Likert-type scale from 1 (Not at all jealous) to 5 (Very jealous), and it explains a few scenarios in which someone might experience jealousy. Validity was obtained through confirmatory factor analysis, which revealed acceptable goodness of fit (CFI = .97; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .08). Reliability was obtained through coefficient omega (ω = .88).

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) was used in this study [40]. The Peruvian version of the RAS uses a Likert-type response scale that ranges from 1 to 5 [41]. It is a one-dimensional instrument that assesses relationship satisfaction. Item response theory (IRT) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were combined to determine the scale’s validity. In both approaches, it showed excellent goodness of fit (RMSEA < .08; CFI > .95). However, reliability was measured using two coefficients: empirical reliability (r_xx = .86) and coefficient omega (ω = .84), which indicated a good internal consistency.

Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST-2) was used in this study [42]. The Spanish version of the WAST-2 has two Likert-type format items make up this instrument [43]. It is a one-dimensional scale that assesses the presence of existing violent spells of tension and difficulty in the couple relationship. The validity was examined through validity evidence in relation to another variable; specifically, by contrasting scores of battered vs non-battered women, the results showed high sensitivity (91.4%) and specificity (76.2%). The estimated reliability for the sampling in the study exceeded 0.60 (ω = .66), a value that can be deemed acceptable for various studies [44–46]. This value signifies that more than 60% of the variance in the items can be attributed to their commonalities [47].

Procedures.

Before conducting the study, the ethical considerations outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki [48] and aspects of doing online research [49] were evaluated. These ideas were given to the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidad Privada del Norte (UPN) in Peru. All participants were required to sign a consent form that outlined the aims of the study, the anonymity guarantee, the potential benefits and dangers, and the data treatment. Along with the questionnaires on couple relationships, a sociodemographic card was used. The average response time to the form was 12 minutes. Details of the R code can be found in S1 Appendix.

Data analysis

In the RStudio environment [50], data analysis was conducted using the R programming language [51]. The present methodology was conducted by sequentially following a series of stages, which encompassed network estimation, precision analysis, stability evaluation, and comparative examination [52].

Before starting the network analysis, an exploratory analysis of the variables or nodes of interest was carried out. Descriptive statistical measures such as mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, skewness, kurtosis, and performance percentage were used to obtain detailed information about the fundamental characteristics of the variables.

In addition, as part of the network description, calculations of Global Network Properties were performed, including (a) density (D), which represents the proportion of connections existing in the graph; (b) transitivity (C^Δ), which measures the average tendency of nodes to form groups or communities in the network; and (c) average shortest path length (APL), which indicates the average number of links or connections needed to reach from one node to another in the network. Finally, the small-world index (S) was calculated because some network structures may exhibit high node clustering but low APL. S evaluates the degree of association between nodes, with a value greater than 1 being recommended [53].

Network estimation was created with the function ggmModSelect and Spearman correlation. This is because it is assumed that data are asymmetric and, in those conditions, this combination produces better estimations [54]. In this point, the centrality indexes were examined. Due to the intention to examine nodes from different communities, the Bridge Strength (BS) index was preferred, which is the summatory of the edges (excluding the signs) that exist between a node and other nodes that are not in the same community [55]. Intermediation and closeness indices were not used because in some psychological networks such as romantic networks, the assumption that each node tries to connect with all other nodes in the network is not fulfilled. Moreover, the presence of negative edges makes interpretation difficult, since these indices were developed with the idea of distances and distances cannot be negative [56]. On the other hand, a simulation study found that Strength is a better indicator of an underlying latent variable and that closeness and betweenness are strongly affected by bridging nodes [57].

For the interpretation of the network, it should be considered that each node (circle) is connected to other nodes by edges (lines), whose thickness shows the strength of the interaction. The colors in green and red tones show positive and negative correlations respectively [58]. The organization of the nodes was made through the Fruchterman-Reingold algorithm, which places the stronger interactions at the center and the weaker ones at the periphery [59]. Predictability indexes are included to the estimations through R2. They indicate the percentage of explained variance of each node with the other nodes of the network [24].

The precision of the weights of the edges was estimated with the statistics resampling technique called bootstrapping through the bootnet package. This technique consists in repeatedly estimating a model with data randomly extracted from a data set and estimating a value for the edges in each attempt. This procedure allows to estimate confidence intervals (CI) to 95%, whose width indicates the precision of the edges [60]. A graph depicting the frequency with which the parameter is set to zero is also displayed.

Stability was examined through a graph that informs the variations in centrality indexes after removing 70% of the data and making a comparison between resampled data and the study data through the average of their correlations. A coefficient summarizes this process (CS, correlation of stability) that indicates the amount of data that can be removed to keep a correlation of at least 0.70 with the centrality coefficients of the data. The final value of the CS is expected to be between 0.25 ≤ CS ≥ 0.50 [58].

There was a comparison made by sex through the NetworkComparisonTest package [61]. NCT works under a procedure of permutations and examines the differences after one thousand randomly obtained replications assuming a null hypothesis that both groups are identical. Nevertheless, to assess the effect size, bootstrap-based Spearman correlations are established, and the average of the correlations obtained from one thousand resamples is reported. On addition, the differences are investigated through a subtraction of the values of both matrices, which are shown in a corPlot graph, allowing for the instant identification of the most significant differences between the two networks.

Results

Preliminary analysis of the variables

Table 1 shows the preliminary analyses of the variables. It is observed that, among the love dimensions, Intimacy shows the highest arithmetic mean and Passion shows the lowest. According to the performance percentage, Satisfaction and Jealousy are the most intense variables in the population, while the least intense is Violence. The minimum and maximum values are located within the expected ranges. Mostly, asymmetry is negative, except for Violence. This indicates an inclination toward higher scores. In terms of kurtosis, Intimacy is the variable with the largest data peaking.

Download:

Table 1. Descriptions of the study variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285555.t001

Global network properties

In terms of density, 9 out of 15 edges were non-zero, resulting in a density of 60 percent. The value of 0.47 was observed for transitivity, indicating a low proportion of closed triangles in the studied network. When compared to a random network, the observed transitivity is slightly higher (transitivity_random = 0.50). On average, about 1.4 links are required to reach from one node to another in the network, as indicated by APL, which is lower than the random APL (APL_random = 1.61). This suggests that the original network structure is more efficient in terms of communication. Finally, the small-world index obtained a value of 1.09, indicating that nodes are relatively close to each other, and information propagates efficiently in the network.

Estimation of the network and centrality

In Fig 1, the dimensions of the love variables are closer together, indicating the existence of a community or facet. It was discovered that the edges lie between -0.19 and 0.39. The Commitment-Satisfaction (r = .31) and Intimacy-Satisfaction (r = .30) edges showed a moderate and direct relation. That means, two of the three love factors are related to relationship satisfaction. On the other side, it is observed that violent events are similarly and inversely associated to Intimacy and Satisfaction (r = -0.19). In the case of Jealousy, a direct relation with Passion (r = .17) and Violence (r = .23) can be seen. These relations are consistent with the predictability measures obtained through R2 and that are visualized with a bar at the border of the circumference of the node.

Download:

Fig 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285555.g001

Stability and precision of the network

Fig 2A shows the precision of the edges through the comparison between the mean of the relation obtained in the resamplings (Bootstrap mean) and the ones obtained by the sample. An overlapping of the data can be seen (overlapped red and black line). In addition, the grey-color bar indicates that the confidence interval has little width, which suggests low variation between resamplings.

Download:

Fig 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285555.g002

Fig 2B shows a graph that allows to see the times the parameter was not set in zero and its frequency. Consequently, Violence-Commitment was deleted from the network 92% of the time. Also, the transparency of the interval indicates that it was almost never included, but when it was, it was estimated in a small and positive magnitude. On the other hand, it is observed that Satisfaction-Commitment was never removed from the network. In addition, the black tone of the interval indicates that it was always included in the network and, when this happened, its estimation was close to 0.25.

Fig 2C shows the visualization of stability of the centrality index obtained through resampling. It is observed that the average correlation between the resampled and the original data is above 0.80 and this does not decrease even if cases are removed. Likewise, the coefficient of stability (CS) was 0.75, above the recommended minimum (CS > .50).

Comparison

Fig 3 shows the comparisons of the networks by sex. In terms of statistical significance, the network seems invariant (M = 0.23; p = .310) and the connectivity is identical (S = 0.40; p = .147). Regarding the similarity of the edges, they are almost identical in the adjacent matrices. This is because, after generating 1000 matrices based on bootstrap for each network and obtaining their correlation in each of them, it was observed that in average the correlation was above 0.80 (r_s = .86). Additionally, the corPlot graph facilitated the swift identification of crucial differences in the interactions among constructs. Consequently, the males reveals a more robust correlation between Satisfaction and Intimacy (r = .36) compared to the females (r = .27). Furthermore, only males display a positive correlation between Violence and Passion (r = .23), in contrast to the females, where such correlation is absent. Finally, the males population exhibits a positive correlation between Jealousy and Commitment (r = .11), while in the females, this relationship is not found.

Download:

Fig 3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285555.g003

Discussion

The current study is the first one to examine the relations between love, satisfaction, jealousy, and violence in young Peruvian couples with a network analysis approach. This approach was used because it allows to analyze the association between different nodes that belong to the same facet, as well as the relation between different facets [28, 58, 62]. Considering the lack of research in the field of love relationships with the network analysis approach, the interaction between the different variables of love relationships is examined. In this regard, Global Network Properties reported that the network has a more efficient structure than a random network with the same density, which translates into a more organized and cohesive network that facilitates the propagation of information between nodes.

The first objective was to identify the interconnections between each of the nodes of the network. It could be seen that two nodes of the love variable, Commitment, and Intimacy, had a direct and moderate relation with the Satisfaction node. In fact, this was expected, as commitment refers to the will of maintaining love over time and the decision of loving and being loved [16], and intimacy requires a degree of trust, closeness and connection with the partner [37, 63]. Hence, both concepts are key elements to maintain more satisfying relationships. In other words, love is related to satisfaction in love relationships, as mentioned in previous research [18, 19]. Thus, the forementioned is complemented with the idea that love and satisfaction assess the success and durability of love relationships [14, 15]. On the other hand, the nodes of Violence with Intimacy and Satisfaction show an inverse and moderate relation. These findings were expected if we consider that domestic violence refers to all forms of physical, psychological, sexual and economic abuse that occurs in the relationship [64]. Therefore, with the presence of any type of violence, it would be less probable for relationships to have confidence and closeness degrees or satisfying relationships. In that sense, any form of violence hinders the full development of the couple, basically because it reflects coercive methods and prevents to balance self and couple’s needs [65].

The second objective was to identify the central node that acts as a bridge in the network. Thus, the Satisfaction node was the most central in the love relationship community. These results indicate that satisfactions is a key element in the field of love relationships [14]. Although this study is not the first to establish the relation between love and satisfaction before [18] and during the pandemic [19], it is indeed the first to examine these interactions with the network approach. Another important finding is that Satisfaction has a direct relation with Passion and Violence, variables that could physically and mentally damage the love relationship [20]. Hence, it is necessary to keep exploring the love, satisfaction, jealousy, and violence variables in young couples, as no studies that relate these four variables have been found in literature.

A third objective was to compare the nodes by sex. The most evident implication from the analysis is that, globally, the networks are invariant, and the adjacent matrices are similar. However, research results indicate that men exhibit a stronger correlation between satisfaction and intimacy in relationships compared to women. This difference may be due to various causes, including gender differences in experiencing and expressing emotions, as evidenced in previous studies [66]. Specifically, men tend to report feelings of calmness and excitement more frequently, which may be subject to cultural expectations about masculinity and success. Additionally, men exhibit a positive correlation between violence and passion, unlike women, suggesting that men may show greater expressions of dominance and control over their partners, which has often been identified as a trigger for violence against women [67, 68]. These results highlight the importance of addressing the problem of partner violence from a gender perspective. Finally, men show a positive correlation between jealousy and commitment, whereas no such relationship is found in women. While a small amount of jealousy can be an indicator of love in a relationship, it can also represent a threat to the relationship when it intensifies and leads to conflicts and mistrust [20, 69]. It should be noted that the presence of jealousy in romantic relationships appears to be more common in men than in women, as observed in previous studies [70]. These results contribute to a better understanding of gender factors that influence emotions and behaviors in relationships.

The results of this investigation have strong theoretical and practical implications. In fact, the fact that centrality is in Satisfaction supports the models that highlight the role of this construct, which is involved in the success and durability of the relationship [14]. These results show that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact in love relationships [10, 11] due to the little time shared in couples that do not live together [12]. Also, in the case of marriages, it has led to their culmination [13]. In a practical way, the results highlight the importance of considering couple satisfaction within the prevention plans that, along with Commitment and Intimacy, can serve as protecting factors against divorce or separation. This is important because the pandemic modified the interpersonal relationships with the distancing measures. Finally, it is important to note that jealousy interacts with the passional element of love and violence. Also, due to love relationships being composed of control and dominance in the present society [22], it is necessary to address both positive and negative interactions in order to contribute to the understanding of love relationships.

The results of this research are subject to the following limitations. Firstly, the participants were obtained with a snowball-type non-probability design because it was the only way of collection during the time of the research. In fact, there is evidence to assume that in Psychology non-probability designs are the most frequently used [71]. Moreover, the application of a random sampling is complex in a virtual context. Secondly, the sample inequality between men and women are a result of the sampling design, as there is no control of the proportionality of the sample. In spite of that, it is recommended for future studies to pursue the equivalence between men and women for the comparison by networks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the objective of the articles was to examine the interaction between the elements of love, relationship satisfaction, jealousy and violence in a sample of young Peruvians. The results indicate that the nodes of Commitment and Intimacy had a direct and moderate relation with the Satisfaction node, while Violence showed an inverse relation with Intimacy and Satisfaction. In second place, it was determined that Satisfaction is the core node that works as a bridge. This places this variable as one of the most influential in love relationships. Thirdly, when comparing by gender, it is observed that males exhibit larger correlations between Satisfaction-Intimacy, Violence-Passion, Jealousy-Commitment. However, these results should be taken with caution due to the disproportionality of the subsamples. These findings encourage the continuation of research on love relationships in order to better understand their dynamic, which has been affected after the COVID-19 pandemic in benefit of a healthier society.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. R codes used in data analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285555.s001

(DOCX)

References

1. Koppetsch C, Bub EM, Eckert J. Bonding power in couples’ relationships. Why relationships fail. Berl J Soziol. 2019;29: 5–32.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Moore KA, Campbell A. The Investment Model: Its Antecedents and Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction. J Relationships Res. 2020.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Meltzer S. Our divorce culture: A durkheimian perspective. J Divorce Remarriage. 2011;52: 147–163.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Mo W. The divorce culture and picture books for young children. nternational J Early Child. 2007;39: 23–35.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Yodanis C. Divorce culture and marital gender equality: A cross-national study. Gend Soc. 2005;19: 644–659.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Database OF. Marriage and divorce rates. 2022. Available: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_1_Marriage_and_divorce_rates.pdf
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. Perú: Cambios en el estado civil o conyugal 1981–2017 (Departamento, Provincia y Distrito). Inst Nac Estadística e Informática. 2020.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Schmidt CD, Luquet W, Gehlert NC. Evaluating the Impact of the “Getting The Love You Want” Couples Workshop on Relational Satisfaction and Communication Patterns. J Couple Relatsh Ther. 2016;15: 1–18.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Lenz K, Adler MA. Emotions, love, and sexuality in committed relationships. Research Handbook on the Sociology of the Family. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.; 2021. pp. 314–327. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975544.00030
10. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Implications of social isolation, separation, and loss during the COVID-19 pandemic for couples’ relationships. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;43: 189–194. pmid:34416682
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Viaux-Savelon S, Maurice P, Rousseau A, Leclere C, Renout M, Berlingo L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on maternal psychological status, the couple’s relationship and mother-child interaction: a prospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22: 732. pmid:36163044
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Vigl J, Strauss H, Talamini F, Zentner M. Relationship satisfaction in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national examination of situational, dispositional, and relationship factors. PLoS One. 2022;17: 1–16. pmid:35239691
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Abreu-Afonso J, Meireles M, Queiroz-García I, Leal I. How Couple ‘ s Relationship Lasts Over Tim? A Model for Marital Satisfaction. 2022. pmid:33736540
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Özdemir B, Demir A. Romantic relationship satisfaction, age, course load, satisfaction with income and parental status as predictors of instructors’ burnout: Evidence from a correlational study. Curr Psychol. 2019;38: 1083–1098.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Brkić-Jovanović N, Lazić M, Jerković I, Krstić T, Srdanović Maraš J. Love exchange and relationship satisfaction among same-sex couples: an actor-partner interdependence model: Love exchange in same-sex couples. Psychol Sex. 2022;13: 255–264.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Sternberg RJ. A triangular theory of love. Psychol Rev. 1986;93: 119–135.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Maslow AH. Motivación y personalidad. Ediciones Díaz de Santos; 1991.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Lemieux R, Hale JL. Intimacy, passion, and commitment among married individuals: further testing of the triangular theory of love. Psychol Rep. 2000;87: 941–948. pmid:11191410
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Ahuja KK, Khurana D. Locked-Down Love: A Study of Intimate Relationships Before and After the COVID Lockdown. Fam Relat. 2021;70: 1343–1357.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. De Silva P. Jealousy in Couple Relationships. Behav Chang. 2004;21: 1–13.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Scheinkman M, Werneck D. Disarming Jealousy in Couples Relationships: A Multidimensional Approach. Fam Process. 2010;49: 486–502. pmid:21083550
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Arbinaga F, Mendoza-Sierra MI, Caraballo-Aguilar BM, Buiza-Calzadilla I, Torres-Rosado L, Bernal-López M, et al. Jealousy, violence, and sexual ambivalence in adolescent students according to emotional dependency in the couple relationship. Children. 2021;8: 1–14. pmid:34828706
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Sebastián J, Verdugo A, Ortiz B. Jealousy and violence in dating relationships: Gender-related differences among a Spanish sample. Span J Psychol. 2014;17: 1–12. pmid:26054724
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Barelds DPH, Barelds-Dijkstra P. Relations between different types of jeolousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2007;14: 176–188.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Parker JG, Walker AR, Low CM, Gamm BK. Friendship jealousy in young adolescents: Individual differences and links to sex, self-esteem, aggression, and social adjustment. Dev Psychol. 2005;41: 235–250. pmid:15656752
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Guyon H, Falissard B, Kop JL. Modeling psychological attributes in psychology—An epistemological discussion: Network analysis vs. latent variables. Front Psychol. 2017;8: 1–10. pmid:28572780
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Borsboom D, Cramer AOJ. Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9: 91–121. pmid:23537483
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Di Blasi M, Gullo S, Mancinelli E, Freda MF, Esposito G, Gelo OCG, et al. Psychological distress associated with the COVID-19 lockdown: A two-wave network analysis. J Affect Disord. 2021;284: 18–26. pmid:33582428
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Fonseca-Pedrero E. Network analysis in psychology. Papeles del Psicol. 2018;39: 1–12.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Ventura-León J, Valencia PD, Vilca LW, Carbajal-León C, Reyes-Bossio M, et al. Network analysis of the relationships between conspiracy beliefs towards COVID-19 vaccine and symptoms of fear of COVID-19 in a sample of latin american countries. Curr Psychol. 2022. pmid:36090914
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Costantini G, Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Perugini M, Mõttus R, Waldorp LJ, et al. State of the aRt personality research: A tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. J Res Pers. 2015;54: 13–29.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Van der Maas HLJ, Kan KJ, Marsman M, Stevenson CE. Network models for cognitive development and intelligence. J Intell. 2017;5: 1–17. pmid:31162407
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Corona G, Mannucci E, Lotti F, Boddi V, Jannini EA, Fisher AD, et al. Impairment of Couple Relationship in Male Patients with Sexual Dysfunction is Associated with Overt Hypogonadism. J Sex Med. 2009;6: 2591–2600. pmid:19515208
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Constantin M, Schuurman NK, Vermunt J. A General Monte Carlo Method for Sample Size Analysis in the Context of Network Models. 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Maxwell JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. California State, US: Sage publications; 2012.
36. Andrade AL de, Garcia A, Cassepp-Borges V. Evidências de validade da Escala Triangular do Amor de Sternberg—Reduzida (ETAS-R). Psico-USF. 2013;18: 501–510.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Ventura-León J, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Jara-Avalos S, Yañez J, Icochea K, Rodas N. Evidence of validity and factorial invariance of the Sternberg Love Scale Brief Spanish Version. Acta Colomb Psicol. 2020;23: 86–110.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Ventura-León J, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Barboza-Palomino M, Aparco V, Rodas N. Validación de una Medida Breve de Celos en Estudiantes Universitarios Peruanos. Propósitos y Represent. 2018;6: 125.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Sánchez R. Emotional Communication on Romantic Relationships: Design and Validation of a Measure in Mexico. Interpersona An Int J Pers Relationships. 2012;6: 211–226.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Hendrick S, Dicke A, Hendrick C. The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998. pp. 137–142.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Ventura-León J, Lino-Cruz C, Caycho-Rodríguez T. Relationship Satisfaction in Young Couples: Evidence for Validity of Short Scale Combining CFA and IRT. J Sex Marital Ther. 2022; 1–12. pmid:36177854
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Brown J, Lent B, Schmidt G, Sas G. Application of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and WAST-short in the family practice setting. J Fam Pract. 2000;49: 896–903. pmid:11052161
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Plazaola-Castaño J, Ruiz-Pérez I, Hernández-Torres E. Validación de la versión corta del Woman Abuse Screening Tool para su uso en atención primaria en España. Gac Sanit. 2008;22: 415–420. pmid:19000522
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Lauriola M, Iani L. Personality, Positivity and Happiness: A Mediation Analysis Using a Bifactor Model. J Happiness Stud. 2017;18: 1659–1682.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Mafla AC, Herrera-López HM, Villalobos-Galvis FH. Psychometric approach of the revised illness perception questionnaire for oral health (IPQ-R-OH) in patients with periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 2019;90: 177–188. pmid:30176171
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. López-Gil JF, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Tárraga-López PJ, García-Hermoso A. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validation of the Spanish perceived physical literacy instrument for adolescents (S-PPLI). J Exerc Sci Fit. 2023.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. McDonald RP. Test theory: A unified treatment. New York: Psychology Press; 2013.
48. Asociación Médica Mundial. Declaración de Helsinki. 1964. Available: http://www.conamed.gob.mx/prof_salud/pdf/helsinki.pdf
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Hoerger M, Currell C. Ethical issues in Internet research. APA handbook of ethics in psychology, Vol 2: Practice, teaching, and research. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association; 2011. pp. 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/13272-018
50. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA; 2021. Available: http://www.rstudio.com/
51. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2022. Available: https://www.r-project.org/
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Burger J, Isvoranu AM, Lunansky G, Haslbeck JMB, Epskamp S, Hoekstra RHA, et al. Reporting standards for psychological network analyses in cross-sectional data. In: PsyArXiv. 2020 pp. 1–57.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Isvoranu A. M., Epskamp S., Waldorp L., & Borsboom D (Eds.). Network psychometrics with R: A guide for behavioral and social scientists. Routledge; 2022.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Isvoranu A-M, Epskamp S. Continuous and ordered categorical data in network psychometrics: Which estimation method to choose? Deriving guidelines for applied researchers. 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mbycn
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Jones PJ, Ma R, McNally RJ. Bridge Centrality: A Network Approach to Understanding Comorbidity. Multivariate Behav Res. 2021;56: 353–367. pmid:31179765
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Bringmann LF, Elmer T, Epskamp S, Krause RW, Schoch D, Wichers M, et al. What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks? J Abnorm Psychol. 2019;128: 892–903. pmid:31318245
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Hallquist MN, Wright AGC, Molenaar PCM. Problems with Centrality Measures in Psychopathology Symptom Networks: Why Network Psychometrics Cannot Escape Psychometric Theory. Multivariate Behav Res. 2021;56: 199–223. pmid:31401872
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Epskamp S, Fried EI. A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychol Methods. 2018;23: 617–634. pmid:29595293
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Fruchterman TMJ, Reingold EM. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw Pract Exp. 1991;21: 1129–1164.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Epskamp S. bootnet: Bootstrap methods for various network estimation routines. 2020. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/package=bootnet
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. van Borkulo CD, Boschloo L, Kossakowski JJ, Tio P, Schoevers RA, Borsboom D, et al. Comparing network structures on three aspects: A permutation test. J Stat Softw. 2017.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Christensen AP, Golino H, Silvia PJ. A Psychometric Network Perspective on the Validity and Validation of Personality Trait Questionnaires. Eur J Pers. 2020;34: 1095–1108.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Diessner R, Frost N, Smith T. Describing the neoclassical psyche embedded in Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. Soc Behav Pers. 2004;32: 683–690.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Binfa L, Cancino V, Ugarte I, Mella M, Cavada G. Adaptación del instrumento WAST para la detección de violencia doméstica en Centros de Salud. Rev Med Chil. 2018;146: 331–340. pmid:29999103
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. Laurent HK, Kim HK, Capaldi DM. Interaction and relationship development in stable young couples: Effects of positive engagement, psychological aggression, and withdrawal. J Adolesc. 2008;31: 815–835. pmid:18164053
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. Simon RW, Nath LE. Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? Am J Sociol. 2004;109: 1137–1176.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
67. Smoliak O, LaMarre A, Rice C, Tseliou E, LeCouteur A, Myers M, et al. The politics of vulnerable masculinity in couple therapy. J Marital Fam Ther. 2022;48: 427–446. pmid:34160831
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
68. Bustamante CM, Quintal López RI, Amarís Macías M. La violencia Masculina en la Pareja como Proceso Relacional: Un Desafío de Superación Cultural. Masculinities Soc Chang. 2019;8: 307.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
69. Buss DM. The evolution of love in humans. In: Sternberg RJ, Sternberg K, editors. The new psychology of love. Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 42–63.
70. Ponti L, Ghinassi S, Tani F. The Role of Vulnerable and Grandiose Narcissism in Psychological Perpetrated Abuse Within Couple Relationships: The Mediating Role of Romantic Jealousy. J Psychol. 2020;154: 144–158. pmid:31652110
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
71. Fricker RD, Burke K, Han X, Woodall WH. Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p -Value Ban. Am Stat. 2019;73: 374–384.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Koppetsch C, Bub EM, Eckert J. Bonding power in couples’ relationships. Why relationships fail. Berl J Soziol. 2019;29: 5–32.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Moore KA, Campbell A. The Investment Model: Its Antecedents and Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction. J Relationships Res. 2020.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Meltzer S. Our divorce culture: A durkheimian perspective. J Divorce Remarriage. 2011;52: 147–163.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Mo W. The divorce culture and picture books for young children. nternational J Early Child. 2007;39: 23–35.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Yodanis C. Divorce culture and marital gender equality: A cross-national study. Gend Soc. 2005;19: 644–659.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Database OF. Marriage and divorce rates. 2022. Available: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_1_Marriage_and_divorce_rates.pdf
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. Perú: Cambios en el estado civil o conyugal 1981–2017 (Departamento, Provincia y Distrito). Inst Nac Estadística e Informática. 2020.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Schmidt CD, Luquet W, Gehlert NC. Evaluating the Impact of the “Getting The Love You Want” Couples Workshop on Relational Satisfaction and Communication Patterns. J Couple Relatsh Ther. 2016;15: 1–18.
View Article
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Lenz K, Adler MA. Emotions, love, and sexuality in committed relationships. Research Handbook on the Sociology of the Family. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.; 2021. pp. 314–327. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975544.00030

[ref10] 10. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Implications of social isolation, separation, and loss during the COVID-19 pandemic for couples’ relationships. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;43: 189–194. pmid:34416682
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Viaux-Savelon S, Maurice P, Rousseau A, Leclere C, Renout M, Berlingo L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on maternal psychological status, the couple’s relationship and mother-child interaction: a prospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22: 732. pmid:36163044
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Vigl J, Strauss H, Talamini F, Zentner M. Relationship satisfaction in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national examination of situational, dispositional, and relationship factors. PLoS One. 2022;17: 1–16. pmid:35239691
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Abreu-Afonso J, Meireles M, Queiroz-García I, Leal I. How Couple ‘ s Relationship Lasts Over Tim? A Model for Marital Satisfaction. 2022. pmid:33736540
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Özdemir B, Demir A. Romantic relationship satisfaction, age, course load, satisfaction with income and parental status as predictors of instructors’ burnout: Evidence from a correlational study. Curr Psychol. 2019;38: 1083–1098.
View Article
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Brkić-Jovanović N, Lazić M, Jerković I, Krstić T, Srdanović Maraš J. Love exchange and relationship satisfaction among same-sex couples: an actor-partner interdependence model: Love exchange in same-sex couples. Psychol Sex. 2022;13: 255–264.
View Article
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Sternberg RJ. A triangular theory of love. Psychol Rev. 1986;93: 119–135.
View Article
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Maslow AH. Motivación y personalidad. Ediciones Díaz de Santos; 1991.
View Article
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Lemieux R, Hale JL. Intimacy, passion, and commitment among married individuals: further testing of the triangular theory of love. Psychol Rep. 2000;87: 941–948. pmid:11191410
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Ahuja KK, Khurana D. Locked-Down Love: A Study of Intimate Relationships Before and After the COVID Lockdown. Fam Relat. 2021;70: 1343–1357.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. De Silva P. Jealousy in Couple Relationships. Behav Chang. 2004;21: 1–13.
View Article
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Scheinkman M, Werneck D. Disarming Jealousy in Couples Relationships: A Multidimensional Approach. Fam Process. 2010;49: 486–502. pmid:21083550
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Arbinaga F, Mendoza-Sierra MI, Caraballo-Aguilar BM, Buiza-Calzadilla I, Torres-Rosado L, Bernal-López M, et al. Jealousy, violence, and sexual ambivalence in adolescent students according to emotional dependency in the couple relationship. Children. 2021;8: 1–14. pmid:34828706
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Sebastián J, Verdugo A, Ortiz B. Jealousy and violence in dating relationships: Gender-related differences among a Spanish sample. Span J Psychol. 2014;17: 1–12. pmid:26054724
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Barelds DPH, Barelds-Dijkstra P. Relations between different types of jeolousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2007;14: 176–188.
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Parker JG, Walker AR, Low CM, Gamm BK. Friendship jealousy in young adolescents: Individual differences and links to sex, self-esteem, aggression, and social adjustment. Dev Psychol. 2005;41: 235–250. pmid:15656752
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Guyon H, Falissard B, Kop JL. Modeling psychological attributes in psychology—An epistemological discussion: Network analysis vs. latent variables. Front Psychol. 2017;8: 1–10. pmid:28572780
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Borsboom D, Cramer AOJ. Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9: 91–121. pmid:23537483
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Di Blasi M, Gullo S, Mancinelli E, Freda MF, Esposito G, Gelo OCG, et al. Psychological distress associated with the COVID-19 lockdown: A two-wave network analysis. J Affect Disord. 2021;284: 18–26. pmid:33582428
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Fonseca-Pedrero E. Network analysis in psychology. Papeles del Psicol. 2018;39: 1–12.
View Article
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Ventura-León J, Valencia PD, Vilca LW, Carbajal-León C, Reyes-Bossio M, et al. Network analysis of the relationships between conspiracy beliefs towards COVID-19 vaccine and symptoms of fear of COVID-19 in a sample of latin american countries. Curr Psychol. 2022. pmid:36090914
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] PubMed/NCBI

[101] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Costantini G, Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Perugini M, Mõttus R, Waldorp LJ, et al. State of the aRt personality research: A tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. J Res Pers. 2015;54: 13–29.
View Article
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Van der Maas HLJ, Kan KJ, Marsman M, Stevenson CE. Network models for cognitive development and intelligence. J Intell. 2017;5: 1–17. pmid:31162407
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Corona G, Mannucci E, Lotti F, Boddi V, Jannini EA, Fisher AD, et al. Impairment of Couple Relationship in Male Patients with Sexual Dysfunction is Associated with Overt Hypogonadism. J Sex Med. 2009;6: 2591–2600. pmid:19515208
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Constantin M, Schuurman NK, Vermunt J. A General Monte Carlo Method for Sample Size Analysis in the Context of Network Models. 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Maxwell JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. California State, US: Sage publications; 2012.

[ref36] 36. Andrade AL de, Garcia A, Cassepp-Borges V. Evidências de validade da Escala Triangular do Amor de Sternberg—Reduzida (ETAS-R). Psico-USF. 2013;18: 501–510.
View Article
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Ventura-León J, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Jara-Avalos S, Yañez J, Icochea K, Rodas N. Evidence of validity and factorial invariance of the Sternberg Love Scale Brief Spanish Version. Acta Colomb Psicol. 2020;23: 86–110.
View Article
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Ventura-León J, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Barboza-Palomino M, Aparco V, Rodas N. Validación de una Medida Breve de Celos en Estudiantes Universitarios Peruanos. Propósitos y Represent. 2018;6: 125.
View Article
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Sánchez R. Emotional Communication on Romantic Relationships: Design and Validation of a Measure in Mexico. Interpersona An Int J Pers Relationships. 2012;6: 211–226.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Hendrick S, Dicke A, Hendrick C. The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998. pp. 137–142.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Ventura-León J, Lino-Cruz C, Caycho-Rodríguez T. Relationship Satisfaction in Young Couples: Evidence for Validity of Short Scale Combining CFA and IRT. J Sex Marital Ther. 2022; 1–12. pmid:36177854
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Brown J, Lent B, Schmidt G, Sas G. Application of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and WAST-short in the family practice setting. J Fam Pract. 2000;49: 896–903. pmid:11052161
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Plazaola-Castaño J, Ruiz-Pérez I, Hernández-Torres E. Validación de la versión corta del Woman Abuse Screening Tool para su uso en atención primaria en España. Gac Sanit. 2008;22: 415–420. pmid:19000522
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Lauriola M, Iani L. Personality, Positivity and Happiness: A Mediation Analysis Using a Bifactor Model. J Happiness Stud. 2017;18: 1659–1682.
View Article
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Mafla AC, Herrera-López HM, Villalobos-Galvis FH. Psychometric approach of the revised illness perception questionnaire for oral health (IPQ-R-OH) in patients with periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 2019;90: 177–188. pmid:30176171
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. López-Gil JF, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Tárraga-López PJ, García-Hermoso A. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validation of the Spanish perceived physical literacy instrument for adolescents (S-PPLI). J Exerc Sci Fit. 2023.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. McDonald RP. Test theory: A unified treatment. New York: Psychology Press; 2013.

[ref48] 48. Asociación Médica Mundial. Declaración de Helsinki. 1964. Available: http://www.conamed.gob.mx/prof_salud/pdf/helsinki.pdf
View Article
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Hoerger M, Currell C. Ethical issues in Internet research. APA handbook of ethics in psychology, Vol 2: Practice, teaching, and research. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association; 2011. pp. 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/13272-018

[ref50] 50. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA; 2021. Available: http://www.rstudio.com/

[ref51] 51. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2022. Available: https://www.r-project.org/
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Burger J, Isvoranu AM, Lunansky G, Haslbeck JMB, Epskamp S, Hoekstra RHA, et al. Reporting standards for psychological network analyses in cross-sectional data. In: PsyArXiv. 2020 pp. 1–57.
View Article
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Isvoranu A. M., Epskamp S., Waldorp L., & Borsboom D (Eds.). Network psychometrics with R: A guide for behavioral and social scientists. Routledge; 2022.
View Article
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Isvoranu A-M, Epskamp S. Continuous and ordered categorical data in network psychometrics: Which estimation method to choose? Deriving guidelines for applied researchers. 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mbycn
View Article
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Jones PJ, Ma R, McNally RJ. Bridge Centrality: A Network Approach to Understanding Comorbidity. Multivariate Behav Res. 2021;56: 353–367. pmid:31179765
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] PubMed/NCBI

[175] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Bringmann LF, Elmer T, Epskamp S, Krause RW, Schoch D, Wichers M, et al. What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks? J Abnorm Psychol. 2019;128: 892–903. pmid:31318245
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] PubMed/NCBI

[179] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Hallquist MN, Wright AGC, Molenaar PCM. Problems with Centrality Measures in Psychopathology Symptom Networks: Why Network Psychometrics Cannot Escape Psychometric Theory. Multivariate Behav Res. 2021;56: 199–223. pmid:31401872
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] PubMed/NCBI

[183] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Epskamp S, Fried EI. A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychol Methods. 2018;23: 617–634. pmid:29595293
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[185] View Article

[186] PubMed/NCBI

[187] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Fruchterman TMJ, Reingold EM. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw Pract Exp. 1991;21: 1129–1164.
View Article
Google Scholar

[189] View Article

[190] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Epskamp S. bootnet: Bootstrap methods for various network estimation routines. 2020. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/package=bootnet
View Article
Google Scholar

[192] View Article

[193] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. van Borkulo CD, Boschloo L, Kossakowski JJ, Tio P, Schoevers RA, Borsboom D, et al. Comparing network structures on three aspects: A permutation test. J Stat Softw. 2017.
View Article
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Christensen AP, Golino H, Silvia PJ. A Psychometric Network Perspective on the Validity and Validation of Personality Trait Questionnaires. Eur J Pers. 2020;34: 1095–1108.
View Article
Google Scholar

[198] View Article

[199] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Diessner R, Frost N, Smith T. Describing the neoclassical psyche embedded in Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. Soc Behav Pers. 2004;32: 683–690.
View Article
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Binfa L, Cancino V, Ugarte I, Mella M, Cavada G. Adaptación del instrumento WAST para la detección de violencia doméstica en Centros de Salud. Rev Med Chil. 2018;146: 331–340. pmid:29999103
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[204] View Article

[205] PubMed/NCBI

[206] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Laurent HK, Kim HK, Capaldi DM. Interaction and relationship development in stable young couples: Effects of positive engagement, psychological aggression, and withdrawal. J Adolesc. 2008;31: 815–835. pmid:18164053
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[208] View Article

[209] PubMed/NCBI

[210] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Simon RW, Nath LE. Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? Am J Sociol. 2004;109: 1137–1176.
View Article
Google Scholar

[212] View Article

[213] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Smoliak O, LaMarre A, Rice C, Tseliou E, LeCouteur A, Myers M, et al. The politics of vulnerable masculinity in couple therapy. J Marital Fam Ther. 2022;48: 427–446. pmid:34160831
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[215] View Article

[216] PubMed/NCBI

[217] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Bustamante CM, Quintal López RI, Amarís Macías M. La violencia Masculina en la Pareja como Proceso Relacional: Un Desafío de Superación Cultural. Masculinities Soc Chang. 2019;8: 307.
View Article
Google Scholar

[219] View Article

[220] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Buss DM. The evolution of love in humans. In: Sternberg RJ, Sternberg K, editors. The new psychology of love. Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 42–63.

[ref70] 70. Ponti L, Ghinassi S, Tani F. The Role of Vulnerable and Grandiose Narcissism in Psychological Perpetrated Abuse Within Couple Relationships: The Mediating Role of Romantic Jealousy. J Psychol. 2020;154: 144–158. pmid:31652110
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[223] View Article

[224] PubMed/NCBI

[225] Google Scholar

[ref71] 71. Fricker RD, Burke K, Han X, Woodall WH. Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p -Value Ban. Am Stat. 2019;73: 374–384.
View Article
Google Scholar

[227] View Article

[228] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participants

Instruments.

Procedures.

Data analysis

Results

Preliminary analysis of the variables

Global network properties

Estimation of the network and centrality

Stability and precision of the network

Comparison

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. R codes used in data analysis.

References