emotion work performance and division in married …
TRANSCRIPT
EMOTION WORK PERFORMANCE AND DIVISION IN MARRIED COUPLES:
LINKS TO MARITAL SATISFACTION
by
LYNDSEY RYAN HJELMSTAD
(Under the Direction of David W. Wright)
ABSTRACT
Using data from 99 married couples, this study examines the relationship between emotion work
performance and marital satisfaction. In order to test for actor and partner effects simultaneously
while controlling for the interdependence of dyadic data, the actor-partner interdependence
model (Kenny & Cook, 1999) was used. Path analysis results indicated that emotion work
contribution of husbands and wives, as well as their perception of their partners’ emotion work
contribution, predicted both partners’ marital satisfaction. Partners’ satisfaction with the division
of emotion work within the marriage also emerged as a statistically significant mediating
variable. Gender constraints revealed that emotion work appears to be a more salient predictor
of wives’ marital satisfaction than husbands’ marital satisfaction. Strengths and limitations of
the present study are discussed, and directions for future research are presented.
INDEX WORDS: Emotion work, Division of labor, Relationship satisfaction, Married
couples, Actor-partner interdependence model
EMOTION WORK PERFORMANCE AND DIVISION IN MARRIED COUPLES:
LINKS TO MARITAL SATISFACTION
by
LYNDSEY RYAN HJELMSTAD
B.S., Central Michigan University, 2008
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2013
© 2013
Lyndsey Ryan Hjelmstad
All Rights Reserved
EMOTION WORK PERFORMANCE AND DIVISION IN MARRIED COUPLES: LINKS TO MARITAL SATISFACTION
by
LYNDSEY RYAN HJELMSTAD
Major Professor: David W. Wright
Committee: Lee Johnson J. Maria Bermúdez
Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2013
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It would not have been possible to write this thesis without the help and support of the
generous people surrounding me. I owe my deepest gratitude to these people for their inspiration,
guidance, and patience throughout this process.
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my major professor, David Wright.
Since the very beginning of my graduate program, he has played an instrumental role in my
academic and personal growth. He has offered limitless insights into the world of academia,
taught me about professional development, and encouraged my autonomy as an emerging
professional. Through scaffolding, he has allowed me to create successively higher standards for
myself as I move through each stage of professional development. He has pushed me to perform
at my best, while simultaneously giving me permission to know my own limits and achieve
balance in my life. I anticipate continued growth under his advisement during the next milestone
in my academic program.
My committee members, Lee Johnson and Maria Bermúdez, have also contributed
greatly to my professional and personal growth over the past few years. Not only have they
shared their valuable perspectives on succeeding in academia, but they have also given me
constant reassurance through moments of doubt, patience in times of hardship, and unconditional
encouragement at each turn.
I would also like to acknowledge Catherine Walker O’Neal for her advisement
throughout completion of this thesis. She has added considerably to my knowledge of statistical
analyses and the research process. Without her helping me to strengthen these tools and
v
generously allowing me the opportunity to use her data project, I would not have been able to
produce this thesis.
Finally, I must acknowledge the strong network of family, friends, and colleagues who
have encouraged, strengthened, and nourished me throughout this process. My friends and
colleagues constantly energize and inspire me, while always helping me stay grounded and
balanced in personal and professional domains. My family has endorsed my educational goals
long before I felt capable of achieving them, and their support has ensured this achievement. In
particular, I would like to acknowledge my father, who was, is, and will always be, my “greatest
champion.”
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................4
Division of Household Labor ....................................................................................4
Emotion Work ...........................................................................................................7
Limitations of Previous Research ............................................................................13
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................17
3 DESIGN AND METHODS ........................................................................................18
Research Questions .................................................................................................18
Sample .....................................................................................................................20
Procedure .................................................................................................................21
Variables ..................................................................................................................22
Measures ..................................................................................................................24
Analyses ..................................................................................................................25
4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................31
Univariate Analyses ................................................................................................31
vii
Correlation Analyses ...............................................................................................32
Path Analyses ..........................................................................................................33
5 DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................43
Summary of Path Analysis Results .........................................................................43
Strengths of Present Study ......................................................................................47
Limitations of Present Study ...................................................................................49
Directions for Future Research ................................................................................51
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................52
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................53
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................60
A Emotion Work Scale ....................................................................................................60
B Satisfaction with Division of Emotion Work Scale .....................................................61
C Relationship Assessment Scale ....................................................................................62
D Demographics Scale .....................................................................................................63
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables .......................................................................32 Table 2: Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Path Model Variables .............................................33
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model ....................................................................26
Figure 2: Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Direct Effects Model) of Emotion Work
Contribution and Relationship Satisfaction. ..................................................................28
Figure 3: Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Direct Effects Model) of Perception of
Partner’s Emotion Work Contribution and Relationship Satisfaction. .........................28
Figure 4: Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM) of Emotion Work
Contribution, Satisfaction with Emotion Work Division, and Relationship
Satisfaction ....................................................................................................................29
Figure 5: Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM) of Perception of Partner’s
Emotion Work Contribution, Satisfaction with Emotion Work Division, and
Relationship Satisfaction ...............................................................................................30
Figure 6: Results from the Path Analysis on APIM Direct Effects Model 1 with Standardized
Coefficients ...................................................................................................................35
Figure 7: Results from the Path Analysis on APIMeM Model 1 with Standardized Coefficients
and Model Fit Statistics .................................................................................................38
Figure 8: Results from the Path Analysis on APIM Direct Effects Model 2 with Standardized
Coefficients ...................................................................................................................39
Figure 9: Results from the Path Analysis on APIMeM Model 2 with Standardized Coefficients
and Model Fit Statistics .................................................................................................42
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Decisions over the division of household labor are among the most difficult issues facing
married couples today. Although there may be many factors influencing how couples negotiate
the division of housework, gender remains one of the strongest predictors of household labor
performance. Research indicates that despite women’s growing involvement in paid
employment and increasing education, women still perform a disproportionate amount of work
around the home, taking responsibility for an average of two-thirds of household tasks (Bianchi
& Milkie, 2010; Claffey & Mickelson, 2009; Coltrane, 2000; Hook, 2006).
Inequities in the division of household labor can have consequences on the quality of a
marriage. Research has found support for a relationship between unequal divisions of household
labor and lower levels of personal and marital happiness (Lavee, Sharlin, & Katz, 1996; Piña &
Bengston, 1993). Particularly for women, an unfair distribution of household labor may lead to
marital dissatisfaction or even divorce (Frisco & Williams, 2003).
However, an unequal distribution of household labor is not consistently problematic for
all couples. One possible explanation is that even when tasks are not divided equally, there is a
perceived fairness between partners. There is support for the mediating role of perceived
fairness in the relationship between household tasks performed and individual and marital
distress (Claffey and Mickelson, 2009; Lavee & Katz, 2002).
It remains unclear what factors lead to perceived fairness in domestic labor arrangements,
but researchers are beginning to explore affective components contributing to perceptions of
2
fairness. For example, when women reported feeling supported and appreciated by their
husbands, they were less likely to report inequities in household labor arrangements, even when
they outperformed their husbands on household tasks (Kawamura & Brown, 2010).
Despite findings that a sense of support and concern from a partner may buffer the
negative consequences associated with an unfair domestic labor arrangement, this affective
component of family work, termed emotion work, remains absent from much of the research on
the division of household labor.
The present study will examine the dynamics of couples’ emotion work more closely.
More specifically, this study will explore how one’s own emotion work contribution, partner’s
emotion work contribution, and perceptions of partners’ emotion work contribution are related to
marital satisfaction. This study will determine how husbands’ and wives’ emotion work
performance influences both their own, as well as their partners’, marital satisfaction. These
actor and partner effects will be examined simultaneously while also accounting for the
interdependence of couple data, through use of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Kenny
& Cook, 1999). This model has not yet been applied to research in the field of emotion work,
but it is uniquely suited for this study due to the interdependent nature of married partners’
behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions of marital dynamics.
Path analysis will be used to test two hypothesized models of the relationship between
emotion work performance and relationship satisfaction. A sample of heterosexual married
couples completed online surveys about their contributions to emotion work tasks, their
perceptions of their partners’ contributions to emotion work tasks, their satisfaction with the
division of emotion work within the marriage, and their global relationship satisfaction. Results
from this study highlight how married partners’ emotion work performance impacts the
3
relationship satisfaction of themselves, as well as their partners. Additionally, this study will
investigate how satisfaction with the division of emotion work impacts the relationship between
emotion work performance and relationship satisfaction. Finally, this study will assess if
emotion work impacts marital satisfaction differently for husbands and wives.
4
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Despite changing roles in society and the work force, it appears that family work is still
divided by gender lines. Although couples must negotiate a division of household labor that
considers their unique circumstances, gender remains one of the strongest predictors of
household labor performance. Research indicates that despite women’s growing involvement in
paid employment and increasing education, women still perform a disproportionate amount of
work around the home, taking responsibility for an average of two-thirds of household tasks
(Bianchi & Milkie, 2010; Claffey & Mickelson, 2009; Coltrane, 2000; Hook, 2006).
Division of Household Labor
Studies do indicate that the gap in men’s and women’s household work has narrowed in
the past decade (Hook, 2006; Sayer, 2005). Men are contributing more to housework, while
women spend more time participating in paid work and less time on household tasks. However,
changes in the distribution of housework have failed to match increases in women’s educational
attainment and paid work involvement. On average, women report spending 13.2 hours per
week on household labor, compared to 6.6 hours per week for their husbands (Fuwa & Cohen,
2007).
Not surprisingly, a gendered division of labor that disfavors women has resulted in
women reporting lower levels of equity in their relationships than their male partners (Schechory
& Ziv, 2007). Male partners usually report that the division of household labor in their
relationship is fair, and that the investment they put into the relationship compared to the benefits
5
they receive are comparable to the benefits experienced by their partners. However, women in
the same couple relationships report that they often invest more in the maintenance of the
relationship, and receive fewer benefits than their male partners.
Studies on the relationship between this inequity in household work and relationship
outcome variables have yielded mixed results. Some research suggests that when women are
dissatisfied with the division of household labor, they also report lower levels of personal and
marital happiness (Piña & Bengston, 1993). Similarly, other studies have found that unequal
division of labor is related to lower marital happiness and higher relational conflict (Frisco &
Williams, 2003; Lavee, Sharlin, & Katz, 1996). In contrast, some research has found that an
unequal distribution of housework is not uniformly problematic for all couples (Kluwer, Heesink,
& van de Vliert, 2002; Meier, McNaughton-Cassill, & Lynch, 2006). These contradictory
findings suggest that a direct link between division of housework and relationship satisfaction
has not been consistently supported.
One explanation for the unclear relationship between division of housework and
relationship outcomes is that a third variable may be mediating this relationship. Research has
examined the mediating role of perceived fairness in household labor arrangements and
subsequent personal and marital distress. Wilkie, Ferree, and Ratcliff (1998) found that for both
husbands and wives, performance of household tasks indirectly impacted marital satisfaction
through spouses’ perceptions of fairness in housework arrangements. In another study,
perceived fairness also mediated the relationship between household labor contribution and
marital quality, but only for wives (Lavee & Katz, 2002). Claffey and Mickelson (2009) found
additional support for the mediating role of perceived fairness in the relationship between
household tasks performed and individual and marital distress. One limitation of this study,
6
however, is that only wives were used in the sample, so it is unclear whether the same processes
occur for husbands.
The link between equity in household labor and relationship conflict may be dependent
on which partner perceives an inequity. When women perceive that they are unfairly responsible
for the majority of the housework, they are more likely to experience marital dissatisfaction and
are more likely to seek divorce (Frisco & Williams, 2003). However, when men express
dissatisfaction over the division of household labor, they do not report lower relationship
satisfaction or increased conflict (Kluwer, Heesink, & van de Vliert, 1996; Stevens, Kiger, &
Riley, 2001).
Perceived fairness in domestic labor arrangements is an important variable that may help
explain why some partners are not adversely affected by an unequal distribution of household
work. However, the factors that lead to partners’ perception of fairness are not based solely on
housework contribution or expectations about who will perform what tasks. There may be an
affective component contributing to perceptions of fairness. Kawamura and Brown (2010)
explored how wives’ perceived fairness in domestic labor arrangements is predicted by the
extent to which they feel they are important to their husbands, a concept termed mattering.
Feelings of mattering are reflective of “wives’ beliefs about their husbands’ supportiveness of
them, as evidenced by respect, concern, and appreciation” (pp. 976). Researchers found that
when wives felt like they mattered to their husbands, they were more likely to perceive their
marital division of household work as fair, even when they greatly outperformed their husbands
on household labor. These results indicate that emotional dynamics within the marriage may
contribute to perceived fairness more than the actual division of household tasks.
7
Research on how a gendered division of labor impacts partners’ personal and relationship
satisfaction has clearly produced mixed results. Still, it appears that the division of household
labor is an important issue for couples. An imbalance in the housework division or perceived
fairness of such arrangements has the potential to negatively impact partners’ well being, as well
as their marital satisfaction or quality. Further study of family work division is necessary to
answer remaining questions about the implications of this housework division on couple
outcomes. Additionally, the study by Kawamura and Brown (2010) introduced the idea that
emotional dynamics within a relationship are an important consideration in the ever-growing
field of household labor research, yet this affective component of family work has been
underrepresented in research on this topic.
The majority of research conducted on family work has focused primarily on household
chores and child care responsibilities, ignoring the work that partners often put into maintaining
the relationship itself (Strazdins & Broom, 2004). Only recently have researchers begun
incorporating another important aspect of family work into this growing body of literature:
emotion work.
Emotion Work
Emotion work refers to the socioemotional tasks associated with providing support for a
romantic partner and maintaining the emotional climate of a relationship (DeVault, 1999; Holm,
Werner-Wilson, Cook, & Berger, 2001). This concept was first introduced by Levenger (1964),
who noted that socioemotional behaviors are different from other household tasks because they
cannot be allocated to individuals outside of the family. Household tasks, and even child care,
can be delegated to persons external to the family, but emotional maintenance is the distinct
responsibility of partners involved in a relationship. This first research done by Levenger
8
indicated that emotion work was more strongly associated with marital satisfaction than the
division of instrumental tasks within the home (1964).
Since Levenger’s pioneering work on the socioemotional side of family work, other
scholars have begun incorporating emotion work into the discussion of division of household
labor. Hochschild (1983) added that emotion work refers to the “management of feeling to
create a publicly observable facial and bodily display” (p. 7), usually for the purpose of
positively influencing the emotions of others.
Other researchers have built on these original definitions of emotion work, specifying
that emotion work involves “activities that are concerned with the enhancement of others’
emotional well-being and with the provision of emotional support” (Erickson, 2005, p. 338).
This conscious intent to positively influence the emotional well-being of another is crucial to the
conceptualization of emotion work (Strazdins, 2000). Specific behaviors associated with this
aspect of emotion work include listening to the concerns or problems of a partner, providing
encouragement or advice, expressing appreciation, and offering empathy or solutions when a
partner is upset (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Erickson, 1993; Tingey, Kiger, & Riley, 1996).
Beyond the purpose of benefiting a partner’s well-being, emotion work also involves
tending to affective dynamics in the couple relationship. This includes engaging in behaviors
that increase closeness or intimacy between partners, as well as tending to negative feelings and
conflicts that arise within the relationship (Strazdins, 2000). Partners must be aware of the
emotional climate of the relationship, simultaneously managing intimacy-promoting and
conflict-repairing behaviors (Erickson, 2005). Behaviorally, this may involve praising a partner,
disclosure of one’s personal thoughts or feelings for the purpose of increasing feelings of
9
interpersonal closeness, and initiating conversations about areas of conflict in the relationship
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Erickson, 1993; Tingey et al., 1996).
Emotion work in past research has been operationalized in three main ways. The first
two measurements involve direct reports about the frequency with which specific emotion work
tasks are performed. First, participants’ own contribution to emotion work has been assessed.
To measure this, participants are asked to report how often they engage in emotion work tasks
within their relationship. Second, participants’ perception of partner contribution to emotion
work has been measured. Participants report how often they believe their partner engages in
tasks associated with emotion work. Because this is one partner’s report of the other partner’s
contribution, it is referred to as the participant’s perception of partner contribution. The last
measurement of emotion work seeks to uncover partners’ overall perceptions of the emotion
work arrangement in their relationship. To do this, researchers have focused on partners’
satisfaction with emotion work. Participants simply report how satisfied they are with the
division of emotion work in their relationship. Each of these three areas of emotion work
performance (e.g., own emotion work performance, perceived partner emotion work
performance, and satisfaction with emotion work division) have been used in research on
emotion work.
In general, studies have found that emotion work is divided according to similar gender
lines as household labor. Women report doing more emotion work than their partners (Minnotte,
Stevens, Minnotte, & Kiger, 2007; Stevens et al., 2001; Strazdins & Broom, 2004). Men
corroborate this unequal distribution of emotion work, reporting that they perceive their wives
participate more in emotion work tasks than they do (Minnotte et al., 2007).
10
Emotion work as an independent variable. Studies incorporating the concept of
emotion work have used it as both an independent variable and a dependent variable. As a
dependent variable, factors associated with emotion work performance for men and women have
been explored. Early work in this area found that gender imbalances and inequities in larger
society predicted an unequal division of emotion work in married couples (Duncombe &
Marsden, 1993; 1995). The research on the relationship between gender construction and
emotion work has been mixed. Erickson (2005) found that gender construction, although not
predictive of housework or child care performance, was a statistically significant predictor of
emotion work performance. This suggests that gender construction is a stronger predictor of
emotion work than sex, in that men and women with a more feminine-expressive gender identity
performed more emotion work. Interestingly, women who identified with more masculine traits
also performed more emotion work. This positive relationship between feminine-expressive
gender identity and emotion work performance was not supported by Minnotte et al. (2007), who
found that men and women with traditional gender ideologies performed less emotion work as
compared to their partners. Because these findings were contradictory to what the authors
hypothesized, they posited that men with traditional gender ideologies may overreport their
contribution to emotion work relative to their partners, an observation supported by research on
reporting household labor and gender ideology (Press & Townsley, 1998).
According to Minnotte et al. (2007), other significant predictors of emotion work
performance involve characteristics of the relationship itself. As relationship duration increases,
men are less likely to engage in emotion work tasks. Men’s emotion work performance is also
negatively related to their partner’s work-to-family spillover. That is, when their partners have
stress levels at work that spillover into domestic life, men are less likely to engage in emotion
11
work. One final predictor of emotion work performance for men and women was overall
participation in household labor. Men and women who performed more overall housework were
also more likely to engage in emotion work tasks.
Emotion work as a dependent variable. Emotion work performance has been examined as a
predictor for satisfaction with the division of domestic labor arrangements. In a study of 96
married and cohabitating couples, participants’ perceptions of their partner’s emotion work
performance was the strongest predictor of satisfaction with the division of domestic labor
(Stevens, Minnotte, Mannon, & Kiger, 2006). In terms of their own emotion work contribution,
research has found a negative relationship between self-reported emotion work contribution and
satisfaction with the division of emotion work for men and women (Stevens et al., 2001).
Additionally, the balance between partners’ relative contribution to emotion work is also
important. When men and women report engaging in more emotion work relative to their
partners, their satisfaction with the emotion work arrangement in their relationship decreases
(Stevens, Kiger, & Mannon, 2005).
Emotion work performance and satisfaction with division of emotion work have been
studied as predictors of relationship satisfaction. In a study by Stevens et al. (2001), satisfaction
with the division of emotion work was one of the most statistically significant predictors of
marital satisfaction for men and women. Women’s own contributions to emotion work had an
indirect effect on their marital satisfaction, while men’s own contributions to emotion work and
their partner’s emotion work had indirect effects on their marital satisfaction. Another study
found that the emotion work each partner contributed to the relationship, as well as the emotion
work they received from their spouse, were both significantly predictive of marital satisfaction
12
for men and women (Minnotte, Pedersen, & Mannon, 2010). Emotion work performance has
also been found to be negatively related to feelings of marital burnout (Erickson, 1993).
The relationship between emotion work and feelings about the marriage may be
especially pronounced for women. Men’s performance of emotion work is associated with
increases in women’s marital satisfaction and perceived marital quality (Duncombe & Marsden,
1995; Wilcox & Nock, 2006). Erickson (1993) found that husbands’ emotion work tasks were
more positively associated with women’s marital well-being than the amount of household
chores and child care their husbands performed. When women perceive inequities in the
division of emotion work performance, they experience lower levels of relationship satisfaction
(Duncombe & Marsden, 1993, 1995). Additionally, Strazdins and Broom (2004) found that
women who performed more emotion work as compared to their husbands also reported lower
levels of marital love, higher marital conflict, and higher psychological distress.
Additionally, the provision of emotional support has been shown to have a buffering
effect on women who contribute more to the household labor in a marriage. Even when
household roles are not divided equally among husbands and wives, wives who received
emotional support from their husbands had higher overall satisfaction and satisfaction with role
division (Cappuccini & Cochrane, 2000).
Other research has supported the idea that performance of emotional tasks is more
strongly related to relationship satisfaction than completion of physical household tasks
(Duncombe & Marsden, 1993). These findings highlight the importance of including emotion
work in the study of family work, as it may be more important than more typically studied
household tasks.
13
Another study attempted to predict marital satisfaction by categorizing emotion work
performance scales by both partners into a couple score of emotion work (Holm et al., 2001).
Three categories of couples emerged: 1) balanced couples; 2) wife performs more emotion work;
3) husband performs more emotion work. Results indicated that men and women were both
more satisfied with their relationship when the emotion work performance between partners was
balanced. Further support for the importance of a balanced division of emotion work is offered
by the finding that despite reporting an unequal distribution of emotion work in their relationship,
both men and women said that they desired an equal sharing of emotion work tasks (Strazdins &
Broom, 2004).
Limitations of Previous Research
Although studies on emotion work have illuminated how this important aspect of family
work may predict several relationship outcome variables, there are still gaps in the current
research. Research in the area of emotion work could be strengthened by the use of male and
female samples and statistical analyses that allow for the study of male and female partners
together.
Issues with samples. One major limitation of many of the studies on emotion work is
that they study female partners only (Duncombe & Marsden, 1995; Erickson, 1993; Wilcox &
Nock, 2006). Focusing on female samples alone could create biases in research. As discussed
previously, men and women differ in the amount of domestic labor performed, as well as the
satisfaction they report with their domestic labor arrangements. By focusing on purely female
samples, we rely on female self-reports only to determine what men contribute to emotion work
in the household. Previous research indicates that partners often underestimate the amount of
household work contributed by their partners, while overestimating their own contribution (Fuwa
14
& Cohen, 2007; Kamo, 2000). Obtaining estimates on each partner’s contribution to emotion
work from only one partner may create an inaccurate picture of emotion work division.
Therefore, both partners should be studied to more accurately assess the division of emotion
work within the marriage.
Furthermore, the outcomes associated with emotion work performance may be different
for men and women. Studies of domestic labor that do not include emotion work have found that
in marriages where the division of household work is unbalanced, women are more likely to
perceive that this arrangement is inequitable and experience lower levels of marital satisfaction
because of it (Frisco & Williams, 2003). The available studies on emotion work that do survey
both partners have found that an unequal division of emotion work has a more profound negative
effect on the psychological well-being and relationship satisfaction of women (Duncombe &
Marsden, 1995; Strazdins & Broom, 2004; Wilcox & Nock, 2006). These findings suggest that
the processes leading from emotion work performance to marital satisfaction may be different
for husbands and wives, necessitating more research that utilizes samples consisting of husbands
and wives.
Even when samples of husbands and wives are used, they are analyzed separately
(Cappuccini & Cochrane, 2000; Erickson, 2005; Minnotte et al., 2007; Stevens et al., 2005;
2006; 2007; Strazdins & Broom, 2004). Not only does this violate the independence of data
assumption of many statistical analyses, but it prevents researchers from determining key
processes about the negotiation of emotion work at the dyadic level. This represents another
limitation in the existing emotion work literature.
Methodological issues. Another limitation of previous research on emotion work is that
while negotiation of emotion work arrangements is a dyadic process that occurs between two
15
partners, it has been studied primarily at the individual level. Most studies to date have studied
how self-reported emotion work performance and perception of partner’s emotion work
performance leads to self-reported outcome variables, such as marital satisfaction. Even though
emotion work is a couple-level construct, it is measured and analyzed for each partner at the
individual level.
Even when emotion work performance estimates are gathered from both partners, they
are typically analyzed in a way that ignores the inherent interdependence of partners within a
marriage. For instance, Stevens et al. (2001), used regression equations to determine if husbands’
and wives’ contributions to emotion work, as well as their perception of their partners’
contribution to emotion work, predicted marital satisfaction. Analyses were run separately for
men and women, but these groups were hardly independent from each other. The marital
satisfaction and emotion work performance of each participant was likely correlated with the
same variables as reported by his or her spouse, which means groups were not independent from
one another.
Standard statistical analyses used for prediction (e.g., regression models) assume
independence of data—that is, that each participant in the data set is independent from every
other participant in the data set. Studying married couples clearly violates this independence
assumption because married partners influence one another in ways that are relevant to the
variables in question. For instance, one partner’s marital satisfaction not only depends on his or
her own attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors in the relationship, but it is also influenced by their
perception of their partner’s attitudes, perceptions, behaviors, and satisfaction within the
marriage.
16
There are several sources of nonindependence among married couples. Research
indicates that partners in a marriage tend to be similar on a number of traits, such as age,
education, socioeconomic status, and personality traits (Gaunt, 2006; Hitsch, Hortaçsu, & Ariely,
2010). These similarities often exist before partners even meet, and it may be what drives their
attraction for one another. The high correlation between partners on many important variables
creates difficulties in studying both partners as individuals in the same research study.
Another factor impacting the nonindependence of married couples is what has been
termed common fate, which occurs when two participants coexist or share the same environment,
making them more similar than two participants who do not share environments (Kenny,
Mannetti, Pierro, Livi, & Kashy, 2002). The majority of married couples live together, and are
thus exposed to the same environments, neighborhoods, people, and interactions on a regular
basis. Sharing the same environment also increases the likelihood that partners will influence
one another, which creates the issue of mutual influence.
A final source of nonindependence in married couples is called mutual influence (Kenny
et al., 2002). The process of mutual influence has shown that, through direct and indirect means,
members of a small group influence the behavior, thoughts, and feelings of other members of
that small group. This is certainly true for husbands and wives, who exert influence on one
another daily and through a number of direct and indirect ways. For example, husbands’ and
wives’ reports of marital satisfaction tend to be highly correlated (Cook & Kenny, 2005).
Because of the many sources of nonindependence between partners in a marriage,
spouses should not be studied using traditional statistical procedures like analysis of variance
(ANOVA) or regression tests that assume independence of subjects. Researchers are using new
statistical models to address these methodological concerns in studying small groups, such as
17
married couples. One such model, the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny &
Cook, 1999) will be used to study husbands and wives in the current sample.
Purpose of the Study
This study will expand on previous research examining the link between partners’
emotion work and global relationship satisfaction. While several studies have examined the
relationship between emotion work performance and relationship satisfaction, few studies have
analyzed these relationships dyadically. Specifically, studies have estimated actor effects or
partner effects, but not simultaneously within one model while controlling for the
interdependence of partner data. The present study will explore the relationship between
emotion work performance and global relationship satisfaction. Additionally, the present study
will consider partners’ satisfaction with the division of emotion work as a mediating variable.
18
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Research Questions
The present study will use an existing dataset to answer the following research questions.
For clarity purposes, the research questions have been divided into questions addressing direct
actor effects, direct partner effects, mediating actor effects, mediating partner effects, and gender
differences.
Direct Actor Effects.
1. Does wives’ self-reported emotion work contribution predict their own global
relationship satisfaction?
2. Does husbands’ self-reported emotion work contribution predict their own global
relationship satisfaction?
3. Does wives’ self-reported perception of husbands’ emotion work contribution predict
their own relationship satisfaction?
4. Does husbands’ self-reported perception of wives’ emotion work contribution predict
their own relationship satisfaction?
Direct Partner Effects.
5. Does wives’ self-reported emotion work contribution predict their husbands’ global
relationship satisfaction?
6. Does husbands’ self-reported emotion work contribution predict their wives’ global
relationship satisfaction?
19
7. Does wives’ self-reported perception of husbands’ emotion work contribution predict
their husbands’ global relationship satisfaction?
8. Does husbands’ self-reported perception of wives’ emotion work contribution predict
their wives’ global relationship satisfaction?
Mediating Actor Effects.
9. Does husbands’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the
marriage mediate the relationship between husbands’ self-reported emotion work
contribution and husbands’ global relationship satisfaction?
10. Does wives’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the marriage
mediate the relationship between wives’ self-reported emotion work contribution and
wives’ global relationship satisfaction?
11. Does husbands’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the
marriage mediate the relationship between husbands’ self-reported perception of wives’
emotion work contribution and husbands’ global relationship satisfaction?
12. Does wives’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the marriage
mediate the relationship between wives’ self-reported perception of husbands’ emotion
work contribution and wives’ global relationship satisfaction?
Mediating Partner Effects.
13. Does husbands’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the
marriage mediate the relationship between wives’ self-reported emotion work
contribution and husbands’ global relationship satisfaction?
20
14. Does wives’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the marriage
mediate the relationship between husbands’ self-reported emotion work contribution and
wives’ global relationship satisfaction?
15. Does husbands’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the
marriage mediate the relationship between wives’ self-reported perception of husbands’
emotion work contribution and husbands’ global relationship satisfaction?
16. Does wives’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work in the marriage
mediate the relationship between husbands’ self-reported perception of wives’ emotion
work contribution and wives’ global relationship satisfaction?
Gender Differences.
17. Are there gender differences in the relationship between any predictor (including
mediating) variables and husbands’ or wives’ global relationship satisfaction?
Sample
Data were taken from a larger study on gender role attitudes, gender role behaviors, and
relationship outcomes, conducted by Dr. Catherine Walker O’Neal. Participants were primarily
recruited through Internet sources, including online discussion boards, online blog posts, and
electronic mail list servers. Additionally, snowball sampling was used by asking participants to
share information about study participation with others. Inclusion criteria for participation
included being heterosexual, married, between the ages of 20 and 35, and able to have both
partners in the marriage give informed consent for participation.
The final sample consisted of 99 heterosexual, married couples between the ages of 20
and 35 (M= 28.51, SD= 3.85 and M= 27.25, SD= 3.55 for husbands and wives, respectively).
The sample was predominantly Caucasian (86.9% of husbands, n= 86 and 87.9% of wives, n=
21
87). The education level of the sample ranged from a high school diploma or equivalent to a
graduate or professional degree. The majority of husbands held a four-year college degree
(46.5%, n= 46), and the majority of wives held a graduate or professional degree (56.6%, n= 56).
The mean annual household income ranged from less than $10,000 to more than $100,000, with
participants in each income category. The median household income group was $60,000 to
$79,999. The length of marriage for couples in the sample ranged from two months to 12 years,
7 months (M= 36.16 months, SD= 2.50). Twenty couples reported being married less than a
year (20.6%); twenty-three couples (23.7%) reported being married between one and two years;
thirty-six couples reported being married between two and five years (37.1%); eighteen couples
reported being married over five years (18.5%); and two couples in the sample did not report
their marriage length. The majority of couples in the sample (73.7%, n= 73) reported having no
children. Thirteen couples reported having one child (13.1%); nine couples reported having two
children (9.1%); and four couples reported having three children (4%).
Procedure
The original study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to data
collection. Participants answered questions through online surveys about their demographic
information, gender role attitudes, household labor behavior of self and partner, work-family
balance, and indicators of the quality of the relationship (e.g., global relationship satisfaction,
sexual satisfaction, conflict behaviors, and relationship stability). Participants were entered into
a drawing for a chance to receive a $25 gift card. Four gift cards were awarded at random.
22
Following completion of online surveys, participants were prompted to enter their
partners’ e-mail address so that he/she may also participate in the study. Partners were sent e-
mails including the link to the study, and reminder e-mails were sent to partners who did not
complete the surveys within two weeks. Partners were matched based on the birthdates they
provided for themselves and their partners. Participants with corresponding birthdates were
matched so that married couples became the unit of analysis.
Variables
Independent variables. Emotion work performance will be used as an independent
variable in this study. Emotion work performance indicates how often an individual believes
he/she engages in a particular task associated with emotion work. Additionally, participants’
perception of how often their partner engages in emotion work tasks will be studied. Thus, two
aspects of emotion work performance will be examined as independent variables: 1) participant
emotion work performance, and 2) participant’s perception of partner’s emotion work
performance. Both of these aspects of emotion work performance will be measured using self-
report data (see Measures).
While studies on emotion work have used emotion work performance as an independent
variable, others have emphasized that the actual amount of time spend on emotion work tasks
may be less important than each partner’s satisfaction with the division of emotion work tasks
within the relationship (Stevens et al., 2001). Stated another way, it may be less important for
partners to equally split emotion work tasks than it is for them to feel satisfied with the emotion
work allocation in their relationship. For the present study, in addition to studying participants’
emotion work performance and participants’ perception of partner emotion work performance,
23
participants’ self-reported satisfaction with the division of emotion work will be used as a
mediating variable.
In studies of household labor division, satisfaction with the division of housework has
been found to mediate the relationship between domestic labor performed and marital
satisfaction (Stevens et al., 2005). Others have suggested that the actual amount of housework
performed may be less important than the degree to which partners perceive that this division is
equitable and fair. In fact, perceptions of fairness in household labor division have been more
predictive of marital happiness than the amount of household labor performed by each partner
(Frisco & Williams, 2003). These findings support the idea that satisfaction with household
labor may be an important mediating variable, but this has not been applied to research on
emotion work division. Some researchers have used satisfaction with division of emotion work
as an independent variable, and have found that it is predictive of marital satisfaction above and
beyond the effect of emotion work contribution alone (Stevens et al., 2001). However, to date,
no studies on emotion work have used satisfaction with the division of emotion work as a
mediating variable. The present study will use satisfaction with emotion work division as a
mediator between emotion work performance and global relationship satisfaction.
Dependent variable. Global relationship satisfaction will be used as the dependent
variable for the present study. Previous research on emotion work in couples has explored
relationship satisfaction as the main dependent variable of interest. Global relationship
satisfaction will be measured using self-report data (see Measures).
24
Measures
The measures and items relevant to these analyses are described below. All measures are
included in Appendices A-D.
Emotion work performance. Emotion work performance will be measured using a 6-
item scale adapted from Blumstein and Schwartz (1983), Erickson (1993), and Tingey et al.
(1996). Participants were asked, “In general, how often do you engage in the following
behaviors?” Items included: “1. Confide my innermost thoughts and feelings to my partner; 2.
Try to bring my partner out of a bad mood; 3. Praise my partner; 4. Suggest good solutions to
your partner’s problems; 5. Take the lead in talking things over; and 6. Sense that my partner is
disturbed about something.” Participants responded on a 6-point scale where 1= never and 6=
always. Coded responses were summed into an index where higher scores indicated more
emotion work performed by the respondent.
Participants’ perception of their partners’ emotion work performance will also be
measured. Participants were asked, “How often do you think your spouse engages in these
behaviors?” The same six items from the emotion work performance measure were listed, and
participants indicated how often they perceived their partner to engage in those six tasks on a 6-
point scale where 1= never and 6= always. Responses to these items were also summed, and
higher scores indicated higher levels of participants’ perceived partner emotion work
performance.
In previous studies using these two measures, high reliability was found. For participant
emotion work performance, alpha reliability coefficients of .78 and .73 were found for males and
females, respectively (Stevens et al., 2005). For partner’s emotion work, alpha reliability
coefficients of .85 and .87 were reported for males and females, respectively. Although the
25
validity of this measure has not been established in previous research, based on consultation with
several other researchers, this variable appears to have good face validity.
Satisfaction with division of emotion work. Satisfaction with the division of emotion
work will be measured using one item from a behavior satisfaction measure adapted by Stevens
et al. (2005). Participants were asked, “Overall, how satisfied are you with this division of
‘emotion work’ (i.e., efforts made to understand feelings and validate one another) within your
home?” Response categories were coded so that 1= very dissatisfied, 2= dissatisfied, 3=
somewhat dissatisfied, 4= somewhat satisfied, 5= satisfied, and 6= very satisfied.
Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction will be measured using the
Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988; RAS). This measure consists of seven items
rated on a 3-point scale (response categories vary by question; see measure in Appendix). The
items of the RAS are aimed at identifying participants’ global satisfaction with the marriage,
feelings toward their partner, and how well their needs are being met. Construct validity was
established by comparing this measure to Spanier’s Dyadic Adjustment Scale (1976). These
scales were highly correlated (r= .80), suggesting good construct validity of the RAS. High
reliability was also established with a standardized alpha of .87 (Hendrick, 1988).
Analyses
This study used a version of the APIM to study the relationship between emotion work
performance and global relationship satisfaction. The APIM allows researchers to estimate the
effects of both partners simultaneously, while at the same time controlling for the
interdependence between partners (Kashy & Kenny, 1999; Kenny, 1996). Additionally, this
model provides insight into how a participant’s own behavior or attitudes influences their own
self-reported outcome variables (actor effect), as well as how their partner’s behaviors and
26
attitudes impact their self-reported outcome variables (partner effects). Kenny and Cook (1999)
illustrated this model with the following figure:
Figure 1. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Kenny & Cook, 1999, p. 434).
Figure 1 depicts the basic considerations of the APIM. The partners’ scores on an
independent variable are indicated by X and X’ for husbands and wives, respectively, and the
interdependence between them is shown with an arrow. Next, the outcome score for husband
and wife are Y and Y’, respectively. U represents the unexplained variance associated with each
partner’s outcome score, and the model shows that these variances for husbands and wives are
also interdependent. Finally, the paths between the independent and dependent variables show
actor and partner effects. Horizontal lines show actor effects; for instance, how the husband’s
score on the independent variable leads to his score on the outcome variable. Diagonal lines
illustrate partner effects; for instance, how the wife’s score on the independent variable
influences the husband’s score on the outcome variable.
For the present study, a variation of the APIM will be used that incorporates a mediating
variable into the model. This actor-partner interdependence mediation model (APIMeM) studies
three pairs of variables, X, Y, and M, for two members of a dyad (Ledermann & Bodenmann,
2006). The APIMeM has been used in several studies of heterosexual couples (Campbell,
Simpson, Kashy, & Fletcher, 2001; Ledermann, Macho, & Kenny, 2011; Riggs, Cusimano, &
Benson, 2011).
27
The present study first examined two direct effect models (see Figures 2 and 3), separated
by endogenous, or predictor, variables. Next, the mediating variables were added into the model,
creating two proposed APIMeM models (see Figures 4 and 5). Models were examined using
path analysis to simultaneously study actor and partner effects while controlling for the
interdependence of dyadic data. Maximum likelihood estimates were obtained using the AMOS
statistical program. Missing data is handled in AMOS using full information maximum
likelihood.
Goodness of model fit was determined using several indices of fit. The chi-square
statistic tests the overall fit of the model, but its value is sensitive to sample size, so the relative
chi-square statistic will also be used. The relative chi-square is defined as the chi-square statistic
divided by its degrees of freedom, and is indicated in AMOS by CMIN/DF. Additional indices
of model fit that will be used include the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA). Acceptable model fit is indicated by CMIN/DF values less
than 2.0 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007), CFI values greater than .95, and RMSEA values less
than .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Mediating effects were tested by comparing the direct effects models to the mediating
models. When a direct effect pathway was statistically significant in the direct effects model, but
failed to reach statistical significance in the mediating model, possible mediating effects were
explored. The Daniel Soper Sobel Test statistic was used to determine the strength of each
statistically significant mediating path.
In order to determine if there were gender differences in any of the statistically significant
paths, parameter constraints were placed on these paths for husbands and wives. A chi-square
difference test was then conducted and compared to the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic for
28
the full model, which did not contain any parameter constraints. Gender differences existed
when there was a statistically significant difference between the two chi-square statistics (Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2008).
Figure 2. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (direct effects model) of emotion work contribution and relationship satisfaction. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects
Figure 3. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (direct effects model) of perception of partner’s emotion work contribution and relationship satisfaction. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects.
29
Figure 4. Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM) of emotion work contribution, satisfaction with emotion work division, and relationship satisfaction. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects.
30
Figure 5. Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM) of perception of partner’s emotion work contribution, satisfaction with emotion work division, and relationship satisfaction. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects.
31
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the link between married partners’ emotion
work performance and their global relationship satisfaction. Results are divided into three main
sections. The first section provides results from univariate analyses. The second section
presents results from correlation analyses of all study variables. The third section focuses on the
path analyses of the APIM direct effect models, the APIMeM models, the effect of mediating
variables, and gender differences among paths.
Univariate Analyses
Descriptive statistics for the variables in the study are presented in Table 1. On average,
women reported contributing slightly more emotion work (M= 33.74, SD= 4.01) than men (M=
33.16, SD= 4.14). Men reported that their wives performed more emotion work (M= 32.21, SD=
5.92) than wives reported their husbands performing (M= 31.77, SD= 6.40). Men were more
satisfied with the division of emotion work within their marriage (M= 4.91, SD= .80) than
women (M= 4.63, SD= 1.28). Men reported higher levels of global relationship satisfaction (M=
19.16, SD= 2.60) than women (M= 18.89, SD= 2.40).
Paired-samples t-tests were used to determine if any of the differences between husbands’
and wives’ mean values were statistically significant. Husbands and wives were not significantly
different in terms of self-reported emotion work contribution (t= -1.02, df= 97, p= .31) or
perception of partner emotion work contribution (t= .60, df= 97, p= .55). In terms of satisfaction
with division of emotion work, the difference between husbands’ and wives’ reported values was
32
significant, t= 2.15, df= 98, p= .03. Husbands and wives did not differ significantly on their
reported level of global relationship satisfaction (t= .88, df= 98, p= .38).
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
Husbands Wives M SD M SD Emotion Work 33.16 4.14 33.74 4.01 Contribution Perception of Partner 32.21 5.92 31.78 6.40 Emotion Work Contribution Satisfaction with 4.91 .80 4.63 1.28 Division of Emotion Work Global Relationship 19.16 2.60 18.89 2.40 Satisfaction
Correlation Analyses
Pearson correlations among study variables were also conducted using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The results of the correlation analysis are
presented in Table 2. Husbands’ and wives’ reports of their own emotion work contribution
were not correlated (r= .13, p= .22). Husbands’ and wives’ reports of partner emotion work
contribution and relationship satisfaction were moderately positively correlated (r= .20 and .24,
respectively, p< .05). Thus, correlation analyses confirmed the interdependence of partner data
for variables of interest. Many of the paths from research questions were also supported by
correlation analyses.
33
Table 2
Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Path Model Variables
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Husband’s Emotion Work Contribution
−
2. Wife’s Emotion Work Contribution
.13 −
3. Husband’s Perception of Wife’s Emotion Work Contribution
.40** .35** −
4. Wife’s Perception of Husband’s Emotion Work Contribution
.49** .42** .20* −
5. Husband’s Satisfaction with Emotion Work Division
.32** .24* .69** .11 −
6. Wife’s Satisfaction with Emotion Work Division
.41** .39** .31** .72** .28** −
7. Husband’s Global Relationship Satisfaction
.07 .23* .28** .14 .33** .27** −
8. Wife’s Global Relationship Satisfaction
.23* .47** .16 .58** .08 .60** .24* −
Note. *p< .05. **p< .001 (two-tailed).
Path Analyses
The variables in the study were examined to ensure that assumptions for path analysis
were met. Histograms for study variables were assessed to determine normality. Examination of
the histograms for study variables did not reveal any dramatic deviations from normality.
Scatterplots of relationships between variables were examined, and all relationships were
determined to be linear.
34
Two models were tested using path analysis with AMOS software. Maximum likelihood
estimates were obtained to test the research questions. An alpha level of .05 was used to
determine significant pathways in all models. The results from the path analyses will be
discussed for each model separately.
Model 1. The first model tested (shown in Figure 4) examined the relationship between
husbands’ and wives’ self-reported emotion work contribution and their global relationship
satisfaction, using satisfaction with emotion work division as a mediating variable. Consistent
with the APIM, husbands’ and wives’ values on the predictor variable, as well as the error terms
for the outcome variables, were correlated (Kenny, 1999). The error terms for husbands’ and
wives’ values on the mediating variable were not correlated.
Model fit. In order to test the effect of the mediating variables, the model was first run
without the mediating variable. Figure 6 shows the standardized path coefficients for this direct
effects model predicting husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction. Wives’ emotion work
contribution was strongly associated with their own relationship satisfaction (ß= .27, p< .001).
Wives’ emotion work contribution was also associated with husbands’ relationship satisfaction
(ß= .15, p< .05). In sum, for the direct effects model, there was a statistically significant actor
effect of emotion work contribution on relationship satisfaction for wives. There was also a
statistically significant partner effect of emotion work contribution on husbands’ relationship
satisfaction.
Despite two statistically significant pathways, the direct effects model did not achieve
adequate model fit, χ2 (0)= .00, CFI= 1.00, RMSEA= .17. Because this direct effects model was
fully saturated, it yielded zero degrees of freedom. With no degrees of freedom, the probability
level for the Chi-square test statistic could not be computed; however, because of its low value, it
35
can be assumed that the model fit is poor. The CMIN/DF and TLI values also are not reported
because without any degrees of freedom, they could not be computed.
Figure 6. Results from the path analysis on APIM direct effects model 1 with standardized coefficients. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
Next, the full model (with the mediating variables) was tested. This model studied the
relationship between self-reported emotion work contribution and global relationship satisfaction,
with partners’ satisfaction with emotion work division as a mediating variable. Figure 7 presents
the standardized regression coefficients for the full model.
The results of this model indicate statistically significant actor effects for the relationship
between emotion work contribution and satisfaction with emotion work division for both
husbands (ß= .29, p< .01) and wives (ß= .31, p< .001). It appears that as husbands and wives are
both more satisfied with the division of emotion work in the marriage as their own contribution
to emotion work increases. There were also statistically significant actor effects for the
relationship between satisfaction with emotion work division and global relationship satisfaction
for both husbands (ß= .29, p< .01) and wives (ß= .52, p< .001). It appears that husbands and
wives report higher levels of relationship satisfaction when they are also more satisfied with the
36
division of emotion work. There was a statistically significant actor effect in the relationship
between emotion work contribution and global relationship satisfaction for wives only (ß= .31,
p< .001). Wives appear to experience higher relationship satisfaction as they report contributing
more to emotion work in the relationship. Finally, there was a statistically significant partner
effect in the relationship between wives’ emotion work contribution and husbands’ satisfaction
with emotion work division (ß= .20, p< .05). Husbands appear to experience higher satisfaction
with the division of emotion work as wives’ self-reported contribution to emotion work increases.
Overall, the full model achieved a good model fit, χ2 (1)= 1.12, p= .29, CMIN/DF= 1.12,
CFI= 1.00, TLI= .98, RMSEA= .04. All model fit indices fall within the acceptable range
outlined previously (See Methods). The full model also appears to fit the data better than the
direct effects model, so the mediating variable was examined.
Mediating effects. The direct effects model showed two statistically significant pathways,
so the effect of the mediating variable was examined for these two paths only. For the direct
effect of wives’ emotion work contribution on wives’ marital satisfaction, although this path was
still statistically significant in the full model, two possible variables were considered for partial
mediation of this path: wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division, and husbands’
satisfaction with emotion work division. Sobel’s test was used to test the strength of these
potential mediating variables. The relationship between wives’ emotion work contribution and
wives’ relationship satisfaction was not mediated by husbands’ satisfaction with emotion work
division, z= 1.36, p= .17. The relationship between wives’ emotion work contribution and wives’
relationship satisfaction was partially mediated by wives’ satisfaction with emotion work
division, z= 3.07, p= .002.
37
In the direct effects model, the relationship between wives’ emotion work contribution
and husbands’ relationship satisfaction was also statistically significant. Only one mediating
variable (husbands’ satisfaction with emotion work division) was tested. Sobel’s test revealed
that husbands’ satisfaction with emotion work division did not mediate the relationship between
wives’ emotion work contribution and husbands’ relationship satisfaction, z= 1.40, p= .16.
Although the test of the strength of this mediator failed to reach significance, it is important to
note that the direct path between wives’ emotion work contribution and husbands’ relationship
satisfaction was statistically significant in the direct effects model, but not the full model. This
suggests at least partial mediation of this relationship. It is likely that the relatively high standard
errors of regression coefficients in the model impacted the significance of the Sobel’s test
statistic.
Gender differences. Gender constraints were placed on all pathways that reached
statistical significance for both husbands and wives to determine gender differences. Gender
constraints indicated a statistically significant gender difference for the relationship between
actor emotion work contribution and actor satisfaction with emotion work division, Δχ2(2)=
568.33, p < .0001. There was also a statistically significant gender difference for the relationship
between actor emotion work contribution and partner satisfaction with emotion work division,
Δχ2(2)= 567.34, p < .0001. Examination of the regression coefficients for these paths revealed
that compared to husbands, wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division was more likely to be
impacted by both their own emotion work contribution and their partners’ emotion work
contribution. There was no gender difference in the relationship between actor satisfaction with
emotion work division and actor relationship satisfaction, Δχ2(2)= .06, p= .97. Participants’
38
satisfaction with the division of emotion work appears to impact their own relationship
satisfaction similarly for husbands and wives.
Figure 7. Results from the path analysis on APIMeM model 1 with standardized coefficients and model fit statistics. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
Model 2. The second model tested (shown in Figure 5) examined the relationship
between participants’ perceptions of their partners’ emotion work contribution and global
relationship satisfaction, again using satisfaction with emotion work division as a mediating
variable.
39
Model fit. Consistent with the analysis procedure for the first model, a direct effects
model was first tested that did not include the mediating variables. Figure 8 illustrates this
model and its standardized regression coefficients. There were statistically significant actor
effects in the relationship between perception of partner emotion work contribution and
relationship satisfaction for both husbands (ß= .26, p< .01) and wives (ß= .57, p< .001). It
appears that both husbands and wives experience increased relationship satisfaction when they
perceive their partner is engaging in more emotion work.
This direct effects model did not achieve adequate model fit, χ2 (0)= .00, CFI= 1.00,
RMSEA= .22. As with the first direct effects model, the second direct effects model was fully
saturated, and thus yielded zero degrees of freedom. With no degrees of freedom, the probability
level for the Chi-square test statistic could not be computed; however, because of its low value, it
can be assumed that the model fit is poor. The CMIN/DF and TLI values also are not reported
because without any degrees of freedom, they could not be computed.
Figure 8. Results from the path analysis on APIM direct effects model 2 with standardized coefficients. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
40
Next, the full model was tested. There were two pathways that were not close to
significance, so these were deleted in order to increase the power of the other paths. The
simplified model is presented in Figure 9 with standardized regression coefficients.
The results of this model indicate statistically significant actor effects in the relationship
between participants’ perception of partner emotion work contribution and satisfaction with
emotion work division for husbands (ß= .70, p< .001) and wives (ß= .70, p< .001). It appears
both husbands and wives are more satisfied with the division of emotion work when they
perceive their partner is engaging more in emotion work. There were also statistically significant
actor effects in the relationship between partners’ satisfaction with emotion work division and
global relationship satisfaction for both husbands (ß= .27, p< .01) and wives (ß= .46, p< .001). It
appears that both husbands and wives experience increases in relationship satisfaction when they
perceive their partners are engaging more in emotion work. There was a statistically significant
partner effect in the relationship between husbands’ perception of their wives’ emotion work
contribution and wives’ satisfaction with emotion work contribution (ß= .16, p< .05). It appears
that as husbands’ perceptions of their wives’ contribution to emotion work increases, wives’
satisfaction with emotion work division also increases.
Overall, the second full model achieved a good model fit, χ2 (3)= 4.22, p= .24,
CMIN/DF= 1.40, CFI= .99, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .06. Again, all model fit indices fall within the
outlined ranges for acceptable model fit. The second full model also appears to fit the data better
than its corresponding direct effects model, so the mediating variable was examined.
Mediating effects. The second direct effects model showed two statistically significant
pathways, so the effect of the mediating variable was examined for these two paths only. For the
direct effect of husbands’ perception of their wives’ emotion work contribution on husbands’
41
marital satisfaction, husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division were
considered as possible mediating variables. The relationship between husbands’ perception of
their wives’ emotion work contribution and husbands’ relationship satisfaction was not mediated
by wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division, z= 1.46, p= .14. The relationship between
husbands’ perception of their wives’ emotion work contribution and husbands’ relationship
satisfaction was fully mediated by husbands’ satisfaction with emotion work division, z= 2.66,
p= .008.
In the direct effects model, the relationship between wives’ perception of their husbands’
emotion work contribution and wives’ relationship satisfaction was also statistically significant.
Both husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division were tested as possible
mediating variables. Husbands’ satisfaction with emotion work division did not mediate the
relationship between wives’ perception of husbands’ emotion work contribution and wives’
relationship satisfaction, z= .47, p= .64. Wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division fully
mediated the relationship between wives’ perception of husbands’ emotion work contribution
and wives’ relationship satisfaction, z= 3.64, p= .0003.
Gender differences. Gender constraints were placed on all pathways that were
statistically significant for both husbands and wives in the second model to determine gender
differences. Gender constraints indicated a statistically significant gender difference for the
relationship between actor perception of partner contribution to emotion work and actor
satisfaction with emotion work division, Δχ2(2)= 793.45, p < .0001. Examination of the
regression coefficients for this path revealed that compared to husbands, wives’ satisfaction with
emotion work division was more likely to be impacted by their perception of their partners’
emotion work contribution. As with the first model, there was no statistically significant gender
42
difference in the relationship between actor satisfaction with emotion work division and actor
relationship satisfaction, Δχ2(2)= .60, p = .74.
Figure 9. Results from the path analysis on APIMeM model 2 with standardized coefficients and model fit statistics. Notes: Solid lines illustrate actor effects; dotted lines illustrate partner effects. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
43
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This study examined the relationship between married partners’ emotion work
performance, their satisfaction with emotion work division, and global relationship satisfaction,
as guided by a version of the APIM. This model used the dyad as the unit of analysis, allowing
for modeling of the interdependence between partners’ own reports of emotion work contribution,
perceptions of partner emotion work contribution, and relationship satisfaction. A mediating
variable was also examined to determine how husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction with the division
of emotion work satisfaction influences the relationship between emotion work and relationship
satisfaction. In this section, results from the study will be discussed. Strengths and limitations
of the study will be presented, as well as directions for future research.
Summary of Path Analysis Results
Two models were tested that explored different aspects of emotion work and their effects
on satisfaction with emotion work division and global relationship satisfaction.
The first model considered how husbands’ and wives’ reports of their own contributions
to emotion work performance influenced their relationship satisfaction, through satisfaction with
emotion work division. Results indicated support for the proposed model. Seven paths in the
model reached statistical significance. There were statistically significant actor effects for both
husbands’ and wives’ own contribution to emotion work and their subsequent satisfaction with
emotion work division. These results suggest that the more each partner engages in tasks related
to emotion work, the more satisfied they will be with the division of emotion work in their
marriage. This contradicts previous findings that there is a negative association between self-
44
reported emotion work contribution and satisfaction with emotion work division (Stevens et al.,
2001). One possible explanation for this finding is that partners who are more satisfied with the
division of emotion work within the relationship are more likely to engage in emotion work tasks.
Additionally, there were partner effects for the relationship between self-reported
emotion work contribution and partners’ satisfaction with emotion work division for both
husbands and wives. Not only are married partners more satisfied with the division of emotion
work when they themselves engage in emotion work tasks, but they also report greater
satisfaction with emotion work division when their partners report higher emotion work
performance. Because previous research has not studied emotion work using a dyadic model,
these partner effects have not been found in previous literature.
In both models, actor effects were also found in the relationship between husbands’ and
wives’ satisfaction with emotion work and their global relationship satisfaction. This finding
suggests that both partners report higher relationship satisfaction when they are more satisfied
with how emotion work is divided in the marriage. This finding is consistent with previous
literature reporting a link between satisfaction with emotion work division and marital
satisfaction (Stevens et al., 2001).
For wives, there was also a direct relationship between their own emotion work
contribution and their relationship satisfaction. Wives appear to experience greater relationship
satisfaction when they engage in emotion work tasks, which supports previous research
(Minnotte et al., 2010; Stevens et al., 2001). However, in the present study, this relationship was
partially mediated by wives’ satisfaction with the division of emotion work. For husbands in the
present study, there was no direct link between their own emotion work contribution and their
relationship satisfaction. This contradicts previous research that found a statistically significant
45
relationship between husbands’ self-reported emotion work contribution and their relationship
satisfaction (Minnotte et al., 2010). This difference in findings may be partially explained by the
presence of the mediating variable. Although the strength of the mediating variable was not
statistically significant in the relationship between husbands’ emotion work contribution and
their relationship satisfaction, this could have been due to low standard errors for the
unstandardized regression coefficients. Thus, a mediating relationship could still exist, but was
not detected because of small standard errors in the study.
Overall, the first model fit the data very well as indicated by several model fit indices. It
appears that considering all variables together in the same model, while simultaneously
controlling for the interdependence between husbands and wives on emotion work contribution
and relationship satisfaction, allowed for a clearer picture of how self-reported emotion work
contribution influences partners’ relationship satisfaction.
The second model explored how husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of their partners’
emotion work contribution impacts relationship satisfaction through satisfaction with the division
of emotion work. After model simplification to increase power in the model’s significant
relationships, five pathways reached statistical significance.
There were statistically significant actor effects for the relationship between perception of
partner emotion work contribution and satisfaction with emotion work division. Husbands and
wives both report higher satisfaction with the division of emotion work when they perceive their
partner is engaging in emotion work tasks. This finding is consistent with previous research that
found that satisfaction with emotion work division is higher when partners perceived that their
partner was contributing to emotion work (Stevens et al., 2006).
46
There was a statistically significant partner effect in the relationship between perception
of partner emotion work contribution and satisfaction with emotion work division for wives only.
This finding suggests that women are more satisfied with the division of emotion work when
husbands perceive that their wives are contributing to emotion work tasks. This could indicate
that when men perceive a greater contribution to emotion work from their wives, wives feel more
recognition for the emotion work they give, and are thus more satisfied with emotion work
arrangements.
Satisfaction with the division of emotion work fully mediated the relationship between
actor perception of partner’s emotion work contribution and relationship satisfaction for both
husbands and wives. The direct effects model revealed a direct link between both husbands’ and
wives’ perception of their partners’ emotion work contribution and their own relationship
satisfaction, which supports previous research concluding the same relationship (Minnotte et al.,
2010). However, once the mediator was added into the model in the present study, this direct
pathway failed to reach significance for husbands and wives. Previous research has not studied
satisfaction with emotion work division as a mediator between emotion work and relationship
satisfaction, so this finding represents a unique contribution to the emotion work literature. It is
also possible that this relationship was at least partially mediated by partners’ satisfaction with
the emotion work division; however, as reported earlier, the low standard errors of the regression
coefficients may have skewed the results testing the strength of partner mediators.
Overall, the second model also fit the data reasonably well. The first model did achieve a
slightly better fit, but the second model still met criteria for adequate model fit on all reported
indices.
47
Gender differences also emerged when constraints were placed on pathways that reached
significance for both partners. It appears that as compared to husbands, wives’ perception of
their husbands’ emotion work contribution has a stronger impact on their satisfaction with
emotion work division. Additionally, wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division was more
likely to be impacted by both their own emotion work contribution and their partners’ emotion
work contribution. These gender differences support previous literature suggesting that the
relationship between emotion work and relationship satisfaction is especially pronounced for
women (Duncombe & Marsden, 1995; Strazdins & Broom, 2004; Wilcox & Nock, 2006).
However, while previous research examined gender differences more in terms of general trends,
the present study looked at gender differences for each statistically significant pathway, which
allowed for a clearer idea about how various aspects of self and partner emotion work impact
relationship satisfaction differently for men and women.
Strengths of Present Study
This study has several unique strengths that contribute to the research on emotion work.
Most notably, this is the only study to date that has applied the APIM in examining the
relationship between emotion work and relationship satisfaction. Previous research in this area
has used analysis procedures that do not consider the interdependence between husbands and
wives on several key variables. However, using the APIM allowed examination of both actor
and partner effects, while also modeling the interdependence of husbands and wives on emotion
work contribution, perception of partners’ emotion work contribution, and relationship
satisfaction. Several statistically significant partner effects were found, which adds to existing
literature that has mainly focused on actor effects (e.g., how husbands’ and wives’ own emotion
48
work contribution impacts their own marital satisfaction). Additionally, by testing two models, a
more complete picture of how emotion work influences marital satisfaction is achieved.
Another unique contribution of the present study is the use of partners’ satisfaction with
emotion work division as a mediating variable. While previous studies have considered this
variable as an independent and dependent variable, it has not been tested as a possible variable
mediating the relationship between emotion work and marital satisfaction. The strength of the
mediating variable was statistically significant in several pathways, highlighting its utility as a
variable through which emotion work impacts relationship satisfaction.
Investigation of gender differences in specific pathways allowed a better understanding
of how the relationships between emotion work, satisfaction with emotion work division, and
relationship satisfaction may operate differently for husbands and wives. Previous research has
found gender differences in general trends of emotion work. For instance, it has been found that
emotion work impacts marital satisfaction more for women than for men (Duncombe & Marsden,
1995; Wilcox & Nock, 2006). However, testing gender differences in numerous pathways
revealed the specific actor and partner effects that are more pronounced for wives than for their
husbands. These gender differences can help us better understand how emotion work impacts
marital satisfaction more for women than for men. Specifically, the results of this study suggest
that compared to their husbands, wives’ satisfaction with emotion work division is more likely to
be impacted by their own emotion work contribution, their perception of their husbands’ emotion
work contribution, and their husbands’ self-reported emotion work contribution. These findings
suggest that emotion work impacts marital satisfaction differently for women through variables
influencing her satisfaction with emotion work division, not her marital satisfaction itself.
49
Another strength of the current study is that it used a measure of emotion work that has
been used in multiple studies of emotion work in couples. This allows for more accurate
comparison between results from this study and findings from previous research.
Limitations of Present Study
Despite the strengths of this study, there are also several important limitations. There
was a sample bias in this study in that participants were homogenous in a number of ways that
may have impacted results. Participants in the study were mostly Caucasian, highly educated,
and reported rather high annual incomes. The inclusion criteria used for the study also specified
that couples participating in the study would be limited to couples in the first few years of
marriage. This is important because although this limitation was purposely used to control for
cohort effects, emotion work performance and satisfaction may change throughout the duration
of marriage. Similarly, emotion work and relationship satisfaction may be impacted by the
presence of children in the home. A relatively small proportion of the sample used reported
having children in the home, so it is unclear how children may impact study variables. The
characteristics of this sample should be considered in interpreting the results of this study,
especially when attempting to generalize results to larger populations that may be less
homogenous than the sample used.
Another limitation of this study resulted from the recruitment procedures used.
Participants were recruited through various online sources, including marriage blogs. It can be
assumed that individuals visiting marriage blogs may be more invested in the maintenance and
quality of their marriage than those who do not visit these websites. Thus, a volunteer bias may
have been present.
50
It is important to note that a larger number of original participants’ partners did not
participate in the study. Because partner data were required for inclusion in the study, these
participants were dropped from the sample (n= 531). These participants who did not meet
inclusion criteria because of missing partner data did not differ significantly from the remainder
of the sample in terms of ethnicity, income, or self-reported emotion work contribution.
However, they were significantly different from the final sample in regards to other variables.
Specifically, the final sample was more highly educated, more satisfied with the division of
emotion work within the marriage, more globally satisfied with the relationship, and perceived
that their partner did more emotion work, as compared to the individuals whose partners did not
complete the survey. When couples are less satisfied with their marriage and the emotion work
distribution within the marriage, we can reasonably expect they would be less likely to want to
participate in a study that asks them details about these topics. However, these differences do
create a notable sampling bias.
The final sample was also relatively small for path analyses. Larger sample sizes are
generally recommended for this type of analysis. Similarly, the small sample size contributed to
small standard errors for regression coefficients in the analysis, which may have skewed the
results of the test of the strength of the mediator. Larger standard errors could have revealed
additional mediating effects.
A final limitation of this study was the absence of control variables in the analysis.
Previous studies on emotion work have used control variables such as gender ideology, presence
of children, length of marriage, household income, education, and age of partners (Erickson,
2005; Minnotte et al., 2010; Stevens et al., 2001) due to their potential impact on marital
satisfaction. Because the proposed model was already fully saturated and had very few degrees
51
of freedom, additional pathways could not be specified, so no control variables were used.
Results should be interpreted with caution as variables that were not controlled for could have
had an impact on participants’ relationship satisfaction.
Directions for Future Research
Future studies can extend on the findings from this study by considering the limitations
outlined above. A more diverse sample in terms of education, ethnicity, income, length of
marriage, and presence of children in the home could help eliminate the biases created by using a
homogenous sample. This would increase the generalizability of results to larger populations.
Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies examining couples at all stags of marriage could
provide valuable information about how emotion work processes change throughout the duration
of a marriage.
Future studies could also use other recruitment strategies that would not result in
selection biases. For instance, in addition to online surveys and recruitment through marriage
blogs, researchers could use paper surveys and recruit through other avenues that would appeal
to different types of couples.
More studies are needed using the APIM to study emotion work in couples because of its
ability to test actor and partner effects while modeling the interdependence between partners.
This would help replicate the results of the current study. Additionally, larger sample sizes
would increase the power of the results, and allow for additional constraints to be placed in the
model, including control variables. Future studies should consider controlling for variables that
may have an effect on marital satisfaction, such as length of marriage, presence of children in the
home, income, age of partners, education, and ethnicity.
52
Conclusion
Despite the limitations discussed, this study makes several unique contributions to the
study of emotion work in couples. Application of the APIM to this study showed statistically
significant actor and partner effects in the relationships between emotion work, satisfaction with
the division of emotion work, and relationship satisfaction. Previous research has mainly
focused on actor effects, but statistically significant partner effects in this study revealed that
participants’ partners also influence the emotion work variables predicting marital satisfaction.
These statistically significant partner effects further support the dyadic nature of emotion work
processes within marriages, necessitating the use of dyadic data analysis procedures such as the
APIM in future research on emotion work. Using the APIM also allowed the interdependence
between partners in terms of their emotion work and relationship satisfaction to be modeled in a
way that previous studies have not considered. This study also examined partners’ satisfaction
with emotion work division as a mediating variable in the relationship between emotion work
and relationship satisfaction. Several statistically significant mediating pathways emerged,
highlighting that satisfaction with emotion work satisfaction is an important mediating variable
to consider in future research. Finally, gender differences were examined more fully in this
study than in previous research, allowing us to see how men and women are affected differently
by the emotion work contributions of themselves, as well as their partners.
53
REFERENCES
Bianchi, S.M., & Milkie, M.A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st
century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 705-725. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2010.00726.x
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York:
Morrow.
Cappuccini, G., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Life with the first baby: women’s satisfaction with the
division of roles. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 18(3), 189-202.
Claffey, S.T., & Mickelson, K.D. (2009). Division of household labor and distress: The role of
perceived fairness for employed mothers. Sex Roles, 60, 819-831. doi: 10.1007/s11199-
008-9578-0
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social
embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208-
1233. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01208.x
Cook, W.L., & Kenny, D.A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of
bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29(2), 101-109. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000405
DeVault, M. L. (1999). Comfort and struggle: Emotion work in family life. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561.
54
Duncombe, J., & Marsden, D. (1993). Love and intimacy: The gender division of emotion and
“emotion work”: A neglected aspect of sociological discussion of heterosexual
relationships. Sociology, 27, 221-241.
Duncombe, J., & Marsden, D. (1995). ‘Workaholics’ and ‘whingeing women’: Theorizing
intimacy and emotion work—The last frontier of gender inequality? Sociological Review,
43, 150-169.
Erickson, R.J. (1993). Reconceptualizing family work: The effect of emotion work on
perceptions of marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 888-900.
Erickson, R.J. (2005). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household
labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67, 337-351. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-
2445.2005.00120.x
Frisco, M.L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework inequity, marital happiness, and
divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51-73.
doi: 10.1177/0192513X02238520
Fuwa, M., & Cohen, P.N. (2007). Housework and social policy. Social Science Research, 36,
512-530. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.04.005
Gaunt, R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier?
Journal of Personality, 74, 1401-1420. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00414.x
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 93-98.
Hitsch, G.J., Hortasu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in
online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 393-427. doi: 10.1007/s11129-
010-9088-6
55
Holm, K. E., Werner-Wilson, R. J., Cook, A. S., & Berger, P. S. (2001). The association
between emotion work balance and relationship satisfaction of couples seeking therapy.
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 193-205.
doi: 10.1080/019261801750424316
Hook, J. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965-2003. American
Sociological Review, 71, 639-660. doi: 10.1177/000312240607100406
Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:
University of California.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 61, 1-55.
doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Kashy, D.A., & Kenny, D.A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H.T. Reis
& C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kamo, Y. (2000). “He said, she said”: Assessing discrepancies in husbands’ and wives’ reports
on the division of household labor. Social Science Research, 29(4), 459-476.
doi: 10.1006/ssre.2000.0674
Kawamura, S., & Brown, S.L. (2010). Mattering and wives’ perceived fairness of the division
of household labor. Social Science Research, 39, 976-986.
doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.004
Kenny, D.A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294. doi: 10.1177/0265407596132007
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2008). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford
Press.
56
Kenny, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues,
analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 279-294.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x
Kenny, D.A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D.A. (2002). The statistical analysis
of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 126-
137. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.126
Kluwer, E.S., Heesink, J.A.M., & van de Vliert, E. (1996). Marital conflict about the division of
household labor and paid work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 958-969.
Kluwer, E.S., Heesink, J.A.M., & van de Vliert, E. (2002). The division of labor across the
transition to parenthood: A justice perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,
930-943. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00930.x
Larson, K.L., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex roles: Traditional or egalitarian. Sex
Roles, 19(1/2), 1-12. doi: 10.1007/BF00292459
Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(1), 27-39.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00027.x
Lavee, Y., Sharlin, S., & Katz, R. (1996). The effect of parenting stress of marital quality.
Journal of Family Issues, 17, 113-135. doi: 10.1177/019251396017001007
Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D.A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using
the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595-612. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2011.607099
Levenger, G. (1964). Task and social behavior in marriage. Sociometry, 27, 433-448.
57
Meier, J.A., McNaughton-Cassill, M., & Lynch, M. (2006). The management of household and
childcare tasks and relationship satisfaction in dual-earner families. Marriage and
Family Review, 40(2/3), 61-88. doi: 10.1300/J002v40n02_04
Minnotte, K. L., Stevens, D. P., Minnotte, M. C., & Kiger, G. (2007). Emotion-work
performance among dual-earner couples: Testing four theoretical perspectives. Journal
of Family Issues, 28(6), 773-793. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07299676
Minnotte, K. L., Pedersen, D., & Mannon, S. E. (2010). The emotional terrain of parenting and
marriage: Emotion work and marital satisfaction. The Social Science Journal, 47, 747-
761. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2010.07.011
Minnotte, K. L., Pedersen, D. E., Mannon, S. E., & Kiger, G. (2012). Tending to the emotions
of children: Predicting parental performance of emotion work with children. Marriage
and Family Review, 46, 224-241. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2010.490199
Piña, D.L., & Bengston, V.L. (1993). The division of household labor and wives’ happiness:
Ideology, employment, and perceptions of support. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
55(4), 901-912. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02238520
Press, J.E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives’ and husbands; housework reporting. Gender and
Society, 12(2), 188-218. doi: 10.1177/089124398012002005
Riggs, S.A., Cusimano, A.M., & Benson, K.M. (2011). Childhood emotional abuse and
attachment processes in the dyadic adjustment of dating couples. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 58(1), 126-138.
Sayer, L.C. (2005). Gender, time, and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work,
unpaid work, and free time. Social Forces, 84(1), 285-303. doi: 10.1353/sof.2005.0126
58
Shechory, M., & Ziv, R. (2007). Relationships between gender role attitudes, role division, and
perception of equity among heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples. Sex Roles, 56, 629-
638. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9207-3
Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.
Stevens, D., Kiger, G., & Riley, P. J. (2001). Working hard and hardly working: Domestic labor
and marital satisfaction among dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and Family,
63(2), 514-526. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00514.x
Stevens, D. P., Kiger, G., & Mannon, S. E. (2005). Domestic labor and marital satisfaction:
How much or how satisfied? Marriage and Family Review, 37(4), 49-67. doi:
10.1300/J002v37n04_04
Stevens, D. P., Minnotte, K. L., Mannon, S. E., & Kiger, G. (2006). Family work performance
and satisfaction: Gender ideology, relative resources, and emotion work. Marriage and
Family Review, 40(4), 47-74. doi: 10.1300/J002v40n04-04
Strazdins, L. (2000). Integrating emotions: Multiple role measurement of emotional work.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 52(1), 41-50. doi: 10.1080/00049530008255366
Strazdins, L., & Broom, D.H. (2004). Acts of love (and work): Gender imbalance in emotional
work and women’s psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 25(3), 356-378.
doi: 10.1177/0192513X03257413
Tabachnik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tingey, H., Kiger, G., & Riley, P.J. (1996). Juggling multiple roles: Perceptions of working
mothers. Social Science Journal, 33(2), 183-191.
59
Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2006). What’s love got to do with it?: Equality, equity,
commitment and women’s marital quality. Social Forces, 84(3), 1321-1345.
doi: 10.1353/sof.2006.0076
Wilkie, J.R., Ferree, M.M., & Ratcliff, K.S. (1998). Gender and fairness: Marital satisfaction in two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 577-594. Zimmerman, T. S., Haddock, S. A., Current, L. R., & Ziemba, S. (2003). Intimate partnership:
Foundation to the successful balance of family and work. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 31, 107-124. doi: 10.1080/01926180390167070
60
APPENDIX A Emotion Work Scale
(Adapted from Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Erickson, 1993; and Tingey, Kiger, & Riley, 1996)
In general, how often do you engage in the following behaviors? Never Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Confide my innermost thoughts and feelings to my partner 2. Try to bring my partner out of a bad mood 3. Praise my partner 4. Suggest good solutions to your partner’s problems 5. Take the lead in talking things over 6. Sense that my partner is disturbed about something. How often do you think your spouse engages in these behaviors? Never Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Confide his/her innermost thoughts and feelings to me 2. Try to bring me out of a bad mood 3. Praise me 4. Suggest good solutions to my problems 5. Take the lead in talking things over 6. Sense that I am disturbed about something.
61
APPENDIX B Satisfaction with Division of Emotion Work Scale (Adapted from Stevens, Kiger, & Mannon, 2005)
The following questions address your satisfaction with you and your spouse’s current division of certain behavioral tasks. In other words, how satisfied are you with “who does what” within your marriage? Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Somewhat Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6
Overall, how satisfied are you with this division of “emotion work” (i.e., efforts made to understand feelings and validate one another) within your home?
62
APPENDIX C Relationship Assessment Scale
(Hendrick, 1988) We are interested in how satisfied you are with your marriage. Please evaluate your marriage using the following questions. 1. How well does your partner meet your needs?
Poorly Average Very well
2. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship? Unsatisfied Average Very satisfied
3. How good is your relationship compared to most? Worse Average Better
4. How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this relationship? Always Sometimes Never
5. To what extend has your relationship met your original expectations? Poorly Average Very well
6. How much do you love your partner? Not at all Some Very much
7. How many problems are there in your relationship? A lot Some None
63
APPENDIX D Demographics Scale
DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION: Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Questions 1 and 2 are important for you to complete because they are used to match your answers with your partner’s responses. If we are unable to match your responses, you will not be eligible for the drawing. 1. Your Birthdate: ______ 2. Your partner’s birthdate: __________________ 3. Gender (fill in one circle): O Male O Female 5. What is your ethnic background? (fill in one circle) Caucasian/White African American/Black Hispanic/Latino Asian American Native American Bi-racial Other O O O O O O
6a. Do you follow a specific religion or spiritual belief system?
O Yes O No
6b. If yes, please write the name of the religion/denomination in which you participate (i.e., Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, etc.) ____________________________________
7. What is the highest level of education that you have? Fill in One: O Do not have high school degree O Completed high school or GED
O Some college O 2-year college/Technical school degree
O 4-year college degree O Post-college degree (e.g., Master’s, Ph.D., M.D., J.D.) 8. What is your total household income (gross income) before taxes in the current year? Please include child support AND government assistance here
O less than $10,000 O $10,000 - $19,999
O $20,000 - $29,999 O $30,000 - $44,999 O $45,000 - $59,999 O $60,000 - $79,999 O $80,000 - $99,999 O $100,000 or more
64
9. How many biological (or adopted, non-step-) children do you have? 10. How many stepchildren do you have? 11. How long have you been married to your present spouse? Years Months