Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:52:19.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Together and apart: a typology of re-partnering in old age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2014

Chaya Koren
Chaya Koren*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work and The Center for the Study of Society, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Israel
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. Chaya Koren, PhD, Lecturer, The School of Social Work and The Center for the Study of Society, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. Phone: +972-54-6345876. Email: salsterk@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The human need for love, friendship, and physical contact, and the fear of loneliness do not diminish with age. Widowhood and late-life divorce and increased life expectancy are likely to lead to alternative relationships, such as re-partnering. The purpose of this paper is to explore interplays between emotional and physical components of re-partnering in old age

Methods:

Theoretical sampling of 20 couples included men who re-partnered at the age of 65+ years and women at the age of 60+ years, following termination of lifelong marriages due to death or divorce. Living arrangements included married or unmarried cohabitation under the same roof or in separate homes. Forty semi-structured interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The couple was the unit of analysis.

Results:

Interplays between physical and emotional dimensions were examined using five abductive parameters derived from data analysis resulting in a fourfold typology of emotional and physical closeness/distance in re-partnering in old age: (1) living together (physically and emotionally); (2) living apart (physically) together (emotionally); (3) living together (physically) apart (emotionally); and (4) living apart (physically and emotionally).

Conclusions:

Findings revealed types of partner relationships that are different from lifelong marriages. The typology could help professionals working with older persons regarding what to expect in re-partnering in old age and be included in developmental theories as an option in old age. A quantitative tool for research and therapy purposes, entitled The Re-partnering in Old Age Typology Scale (RPOAT Scale), based on abductive parameters, could be established for measuring re-partnering relationship quality and classifying re-partnering couples.

Keywords

re-partneringold agetypologytogethernessseparatenessintimacyautonomyclosenessdistance
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 26 , Issue 8 , August 2014 , pp. 1327 - 1350
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aron, A., Mashek, D. J. and Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including the other in the self. In Mashek, D. J. and Aron, A. (eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
ATLAS.ti 5.0 (2005). The Knowledge Workbench Visual Qualitative Data Analysis version. Berlin, Germany: ATLAS.ti.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, K. M., Arnott, L. and Soulsby, L. K. (2013). “You’re not getting married for the moon and the stars”: the uncertainties of older British widowers about the idea of new romantic relationships. Journal of Aging Studies, 27, 499–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, S. L. and Kawamura, S. (2010). Relationship quality among cohabiters and marrieds in older adulthood. Social Science Research, 39, 777–786.Google Scholar
Brown, S. L., Roebuck, J. and Lee, G. R. (2012). Transitions into and out of cohabitation in later life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 774–793. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00994.x Google Scholar
Carr, D. (2004). The desire to date and remarry among older widows and widowers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1051–1068.Google Scholar
Carter, E. A. and McGoldrick, M. (1989). The Family Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cooney, T. M. and Dunne, K. (2001). Intimate relationships in later life current realities, future prospects. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 838–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, J. (2012). First marriage vs. remarriage in the US, 2010 (FP 12–21). National Center for Family and Marriage Research Profiles, paper 23. Minneapolis, MN: NCFR.Google Scholar
Davidson, K. (2002). Gender differences in new partnership choices and constraints for older widows and widowers. Ageing International, 27, 43–60.Google Scholar
Davidson, K. and Fennell, G. (2002). New intimate relationships in later life. Ageing International, 27, 3–10.Google Scholar
De Jong Gierveld, J., (2002). The dilemma of repartnering: considerations of older men and Women entering new intimate relationships in later life. Ageing International, 27, 61–78.Google Scholar
De Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together: partner relationships following bereavement or divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 236–243.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. and Phillips, M. (2010). People who live apart together (LATs) – how different are they? The Sociological Review, 58, 112–134.Google Scholar
Eisikovits, Z. and Koren, C. (2010). Approaches and outcomes of dyadic qualitative analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1642–1655, doi:10.1177/1049732310376520.Google Scholar
Erikson, E. H. (1998). The Life Cycle Completed. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Gaine, G. S. and La Guardia, J. G. (2009). The unique contribution of motivations to maintain a relationship and motivation towards relational activities to relationship well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 184–202.Google Scholar
Goodman, C. (1999). Intimacy and autonomy. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 32, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskey, J. and Lewis, J. (2006). Living apart together in Britain: context and meaning. International Journal of Law in Context, 2, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koren, C. (2011). Continuity and discontinuity: the case of re-partnering in old age. The Gerontologist, 51, 687–698. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr018.Google Scholar
Koren, C. and Eisikovits, Z. (2011). Life beyond the planned script: accounts and secrecy of older persons living in re-partnering in old age in a society in transition. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28, 44–63. doi:10.1177/0265407510385430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavee, Y. and Katz, R. (2003). The family in Israel: between tradition and modernity. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 193–217.Google Scholar
Levine, I. (2004). Living apart together: a new family form. Current Sociology, 52, 223–240.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P. (1989). Intimacy: The Need to be Close. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell.Google Scholar
Mehta, K. K. (2002). Perceptions of remarriage by widowed people in Singapore. Ageing International, 27, 93–107.Google Scholar
Orbuch, T. L., Thornton, A. and Cancio, J. (2000). The impact of marital quality, divorce, and remarriage on the relationships between parents and their children. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 221–246.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, P. C. and Barner, J. R. (2006). The dance of closeness-distance in couple relationships after the death of a parent. Omega, 53, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, M. T. and Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: the pair inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L. and Levenson, R. W. (2009). We can work it out: age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24, 604–613.Google Scholar
Shutz, A. (1970). On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Spalter, T. (2010). Social capital and intimate partnership in later life: a gendered perspective on 60+-year-old Israelis. Social Networks, 32, 330–338.Google Scholar
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Timm, T. M. and Keile, M. K. (2011). The effects of differentiation of self, adult attachment, and sexual communication on sexual and marital satisfaction: a path analysis. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 206–223.Google Scholar