Russian Psychological Issues
JournalsTopicsAuthorsEditor's Choice Manuscript SubmissionAbout PsyJournals.ruContact Us
Social Psychology and Society - №4 / 2021 | Перейти к описанию
Web of Science СС

  Previous issue (2021. Vol. 12, no. 3)

Included in Scopus

Social Psychology and Society

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

ISSN (printed version): 2221-1527

ISSN (online): 2311-7052


License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published since 2010

Published quarterly

Free of fees
Open Access Journal


The Quality of Interpersonal Relationships and Satisfaction with the Marriage of Young People 490


Kozhukhar G.S.
PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor of the Chair of Theoretical Foundations of Social Psychology, Department of Social Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow, Russia

Objective. Analysis of the relationship between the assessment of interpersonal relations and satisfaction with marriage among young spouses in an official and civil marriage. Background. Against the background of the growing number of divorces, the need to analyze and understand the factors associated with marriage satisfaction among nowday’s youth is increasing in order to develop programs for overcoming difficulties in communication and maintaining relationships. Study design. The work examined the relationship between interpersonal relationships and marital satisfaction. The presence and nature of the relationship was checked through correlation, regression, factor analysis and automatic modeling (SPSS). The survey was conducted individually or in a group before the start of the pandemic. Participants. 108 young spouses, of which 30 couples, 48 respondents took part without their partners (44.44% of boys, 55.56% of girls) from 20 to 35 years old (M=28.6; SD=2.83). Measurements. Marriage Satisfaction Test Questionnaire (MAR); test questionnaire “Analysis of family anxiety” (ACT); Russian-language versions of the questionnaire “Scale of love and sympathy” and methods of researching partnerships Partnership Questionnaire (PFB); PEA questionnaire to identify the level of understanding, emotional attractiveness and authority (respect) of partners in marriage. Results. A complex system of relationships was revealed between the types of relationships between partners, indicators of family anxiety and satisfaction with marriage. Satisfaction with marriage increases in case of manifestation of love and sympathy in interpersonal relationships, experiences of emotional attraction between partners, respect and rare use of conflict behavior. Predictors of marital satisfaction have been identified, and a standard model of interpersonal relationships has been described, which allows predicting marital satisfaction at a young age. Main conclusion. There is a complex systemic relationship between the assessment of the quality of interpersonal relationships and the perception of satisfaction with marriage in young spouses and partners in a civil marriage, the knowledge of which allows you to create a model of the relationship system in order to predict the satisfaction with marriage of young people and prevent conflicts in relationships leading to their destruction.

Keywords: marriage satisfaction, interpersonal relations, love, emotional attraction, respect, anxiety, conflict, young spouses

Column: Empirical Research


For Reference



1.        Admiralskaya I.S. Otnoshenie suprugov k sebe i drug k drugu i udovletvorennost’ brakom. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [The attitude of the spouses towards themselves and towards each other and satisfaction with the marriage]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2008. Vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 5—11. (In Russ.).

2.        Baeva I.A. Problemy sotsializatsii podrostka v postsovetskom periode razvitiya Rossii (psikhologicheskii analiz molodezhnoi subkul’tury) [Problems of socialization of a teenager in the post-Soviet period of development of Russia (psychological analysis of youth subculture)]. In Obukhova L.F., Korepanova I.A. (eds.). Na poroge vzrosleniya: sbornik nauchnykh statei III vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii (g. Moskva, 23—25 noyabrya 2011 g.) [On the threshold of growing up: collection of scientific articles of the III All-Russian scientific-practical conference]. Moscow: MGPPU, 2011, pp. 36—48. (In Russ.).

3.        Burykina M.Yu. Mezhlichnostnye supruzheskie otnosheniya i udovletvorennost’ brakom zhenshchin-pedagogov, vospitannykh v nepolnykh sem’yakh [Elektronnyi resurs] [Interpersonal matrimonial relations and satisfaction with marriage of women educators brought up in incomplete families]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2009. Vol. 1, no. 4. URL: (Accessed 04.06.2020). (In Russ.).

4.        Butuzova Yu.S. Otnosheniya mezhdu suprugami v molodoi sem’e [Elektronnyi resurs] [Relations between spouses in a young family]. Molodoi uchenyi = Young scientist, 2016, no. 17(121), pp. 286—288. URL: (Accessed 05.06.2020). (In Russ.).

5.        Evgrafova Yu.A. Rolevaya struktura v molodoi supruzheskoi pare [Elektronnyi resurs] [Role structure in a young married couple]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Psikhologiya = Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Psychology, 2019. Vol. 9(94), pp. 411—423. DOI:10.21638/ spbu16.2019.407 (Accessed 05.06.2020). (In Russ.).

6.        Kapnina G.I. Transformatsii v vospriyatii funktsii sem’i v postindustrial’nom obshchestve [Elektronnyi resurs] [Transformations in the perception of family functions in postindustrial society]. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovaniya =Prospects for science and education, 2016, no. 2, pp. 34— 39. URL: (Accessed 04.06.2020). (In Russ.).

7.        Klinicheskaya psikhologiya [Clinical psychology]. In M. Perre, U. Baumanna (eds). St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. 1247 p. (In Russ.).

8.        Moskvicheva N.L., Rean A.A., Kostromina S.N., Grishina N.V., Zinov’eva E.V. Zhiznennye modeli molodykh lyudei: predstavleniya o budushchei sem’e i modeli, transliruemoi roditelyami [Life models of young people: ideas about the future family and the model transmitted by the parents]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2019. Vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 5—18. DOI:10.17759/pse.2019240301 (In Russ.).

9.        Nozikova N.V. Dominiruyushchie tsennosti semeinoi tselenapravlennosti v zavisimosti ot nekotorykh sotsial’no-demograficheskikh faktorov [Dominant values of family purposefulness depending on some socio-demographic factors]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social psychology and society, 2016. Vol. 7(4), pp. 56—67. DOI:10.17759/sps.2016070404 (In Russ.).

10.    Olifirovich N.I., Zinkevich-Kuzemkina T.A., Velenta T.F. Psikhologiya semeinykh krizisov [The psychology of family crises]. St. Petersburg: Rech’, 2006, pp. 179—183; 193—197.

11.    Ostapenko R.I. Mnogomernyi analiz dannykh dlya psikhologov: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie [Multivariate data analysis for psychologists: a teaching aid]. Voronezh: VGPU, 2012. 72 p. (In Russ.).

12.    Skvortsova S.N., Shumsky V.B. Strukturnaya model’ fenomena zavisimosti v blizkikh mezhlichnostnykh otnosheniyakh [Structural model of the phenomenon of dependence in close interpersonal relations]. Konsul’tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya = Consultative psychology and psychotherapy, 2013. Vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 51—69. (In Russ.).

13.    Slepkova V.I., Zayeko T.A. Praktikum po psikhologicheskoi diagnostike semeinykh otnoshenii: Ucheb.-metod. kompleks [Workshop on the psychological diagnosis of family relations: Textbook.- method. Complex]. Minsk: BSPU, 2003. 339 p. (In Russ.).

14.    Schneider L.B. Psikhologiya semeinykh otnoshenii [Psychology of family relations]. Kurs lektsii. Uchebnoe posobie dlya studentov—psikhologov [Course of lectures. Textbook for students— psychologists]. Moscow: Aprel’-Press, Publ.: EKSMO-Press, 2000. 512 p. (In Russ.).

15.    Eidemiller E.G., Yustitskis V. Psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya sem’I [Psychology and psychotherapy of the family]. St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 38, 555—556. (In Russ.).

16.    Billingsley S., Lim M.-G., Caron J., Harris A., Canada R. Historical overview of criteria for marital and family success. Family Therapy: The Journal of the California Graduate School of Family Psychology, 2005, no. 32(1), pp. 1—4.

17.    Fehr B., Harasymchuk C., Sprecher S. Compassionate love in romantic relationships: A review and some new findings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2014, no. 31(5), pp. 575—600. DOI:10.1177/0265407514533768

18.    Ghahjavarestani A.М., Badia M.М., Sanahuja Gavalda J.M. Study of Marital Satisfaction in Autistic Families. Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2020. Vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 21—31. DOI:10.17759/autdd.2020180204

19.    Honari B., Saremi A.A. The Study of Relationship between Attachment Styles and Obsessive Love Style. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Science, 2015, no. 1656, pp. 152—159. DOI:10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.12.617

20.    Kansky J., Allen J.P., Ed Diener E. The young adult love lives of happy teenagers: The role of adolescent affect in adult romantic relationship functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 2019, no. 80, pp. 1—9. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2019.03.006

21.    Kozhukhar G., Breus E. Marriage satisfaction and the quality of interpersonal relations of young spouses. 5nd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM2018 (Bulgaria, Albena, 28.02.2018—02.09.2018). SGEM 2018, Conference Proceedings, Science and society, 2018, no. 5(23), pp. 215222.

22.    Meuwly N., Schoebi D. Social psychological and related theories on long-term committed romantic relationships. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 2017, no. 11(2), pp. 106120. DOI:10.1037/ebs0000088

23.    Meyer D.D., Jones M., Rorer A., Maxwell K. Examining the Associations Among Attachment, Affective State, and Romantic Relationship Quality. The Family Journal, 2015, no. 23(1), pp. 1825. DOI:10.1177/1066480714547698

24.    Olderbak S., Randall A.K., O’Brien D. Committed romantic relationships: Integrating evolutionary and relationship science. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 2017, no. 11(2), pp. 103 105.

25.    Plechaty M., Courturiers S., Cote M., Roy M. Personality and close relationship. Comprehensive Psychological Report, 1996, no. 78(2), pp. 657658.

26.    Rossier J., Rigozzi C., Charvoz L., Bodenmann G. Marital Satisfaction: Psychometric Properties of the PFB and Comparison with the DAS. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 2006, no. 65(1), pp. 5563.

27.    Rubin Z. Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, no. 16, pp. 265273.

28.    Samantha J., Heintzelman S.J., Ed Diener E. Subjective well-being, social interpretation, and relationship thriving. Journal of Research in Personality, 2019, no. 78, pp. 93105.

29.    Surra C.A., Gray C.R., Boettcher T.M.J., Cottle N.R., West A.R. From courtship to universal properties: Research on dating and mate selection, 1950 to 2003. In A.L. Vangelisti, D. Perlman (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 113130.


© 2007–2022 Portal of Russian Psychological Publications. All rights reserved in Russian

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

Catalogue of academic journals in psychology & education MSUPE

Creative Commons License Open Access Repository     Webometrics Ranking of Repositories

RSS Psyjournals at facebook Psyjournals at Twitter Psyjournals at Youtube ??????.???????