1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The first objective of the present study is to use a recently collected representative sample of Canadians to test the hypothesis that as cohabitation becomes more normative in Canada, the prevalence of violence in cohabiting unions will decrease relative to the prevalence of violence in marital unions. […] The second objective is to test the selection and relationship hypotheses derived from the theoretical framework […], in so doing, to understand how selection and relationship factors operate in the relationship between cohabitation and violence at the turn of the millennium.» (p. 631)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«The data employed in this study are from Statistics Canada’s cycle 13 of the General Social Survey (GSS). [T]he sample of the GSS used consists of 7,396 heterosexual women living married or common-law at the time of the survey. Of these, 958 are cohabiting and 6,438 are married.» (p. 631-632)

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«Overall, several indications in the present study suggest that, if current trends continue, as cohabitation becomes normative, the selection bias will be reduced and one would expect the differential rates of violence in cohabiting and marital unions to converge. However, the results of the present study also demonstrate that, although there are indications that this process is under way, there is a long way to go before parity between cohabitors’ and marrieds’ risk of violence will be reached. […] Recent research demonstrates that Québec has a lower prevalence of violence than the rest of Canada and that these lower levels are due to differences in the patriarchal dominating behavior of men in the rest of Canada compared to Québec […]. Interestingly, Québec is also the province of Canada that has by far the greatest prevalence of cohabitation. […] Although the present study shows that marrieds in Québec have significantly lower odds of violence compared to marrieds in the rest of Canada, the same cannot be said for cohabitors.» (p. 648)