1. Introduction and Hypotheses
Work Hard, Play Hard: A Study on Household and Leisure Activities in Romantic Relationships Sydney T. Beck, Brian G. Ogolsky, J. Kale Monk The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Introduction and Hypotheses
Agreement of preferences for daily activities has important implications for romantic relationships. However, little research has been conducted to understand the association between compatibility of leisure preferences and relationship satisfaction. Insight into this association is vital because, for example, wives who perceive less support in household activities report less marital and personal happiness (Pina & Bengtson, 1993). Moreover, research has shown that teenagers and young adults are more satisfied when participating in out-of-school activities with their significant others (Berg, Trost, Schneider, & Allison, 2001). There have been few studies that focus on the frequency of activities done with a partner versus separately and how this influences relational satisfaction. Investigating this influence is salient because couples experience the highest levels of affective well-being when partners achieve their daily activity goals together (Gere, Schimmack, Pinkus, & Lockwood, 2011).
H1: Individuals will be more satisfied when their preferences for household, competitive, noncompetitive, and affective leisure activities are compatible with the partner’s preference for those activities.
H2: Individuals who engage in household, competitive, noncompetitive and affective leisure activities together as opposed to separately will report higher levels of satisfaction.
Method
Participants and Recruitment: Data for the present study were initially collected over 9 months for an analysis of the evolution of commitment among heterosexual couples. Random digit dialing was used to recruit participants. Each partner in the couple individually completed nine monthly, face-to-face interviews throughout three phases. The sample consisted of 232 heterosexual, unmarried couples who were 19 to 35 years old.
Procedure: During each phase, the partners completed a battery of questionnaires that measured their social and personal traits and relationship beliefs.
Measures: Relationship satisfaction was measured with a single item that read, “All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with your relationship over the last month or so” (Huston & Vangelisti, 1991) with a scale that ranged from 1 (completely dissatisfied) to 7 (completely satisfied). Preference for leisure activities was reported in Phase 1. A total of 50 activities (e.g., playing golf, going out to a movie) were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = dislike very much to 7 = like very much). We calculated coupled partners’ similarity of preferences using Robinson’s (1957) coefficient of agreement.
To measure frequency of engagement with the partner in leisure activities, we calculated the proportion of leisure activities that were done with the partner as the frequency of activities done with the partner divided by the total number of leisure activities.
Results:
The results suggest that compatibility of preference for leisure activities is not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction except for engaging in pro-relationship activities like relationship talk. Coefficients for variables of interest predicting relationship satisfaction are presented in Table 1. Although mutual preference for competitive and noncompetitive activities were not associated with relationship satisfaction, affective activities were associated with greater relationship satisfaction (H1). The proportion of time that partners spent engaging in household, competitive, noncompetitive, and affective activities together did not correlate with relationship satisfaction (H2).
Table 1
Mutual Preference of Leisure Activities and Proportion of Leisure Spent with the Partner Predicting Relationship Satisfaction
Discussion
Based on these findings, it seems that affective leisure activities or activities that involve relationship-focused talk and pro-relationship sentiment are the most salient for relationship satisfaction. In fact, individuals’ agreement with their partner on their preference for each type of activity was assessed for all leisure categories, but only affective leisure emerged as a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction. Thus, compatibility on competitive and noncompetitive activities and household tasks were not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction.
Similarly, the proportion of time spent with a partner (versus alone or with others) on each of the activity categories was also not significantly associated with reports of relationship satisfaction. This null finding implies that the level of agreement and overall enjoyment of an activity may be more salient than whether or not partners engage in the activities together.
Our findings support the fact that affective activities, including talking to a partner about the relationship, are critical for relationship maintenance (Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013). Thus, it is vital that partners both value this activity and are willing to engage in these pro- relationship behaviors, otherwise they may be less compatible as evidenced by a decrease in relationship satisfaction. Future research should account for individuals’ assumptions about their partners’ preferences because having an inaccurate view of what activities a partner enjoys could negatively influence relationship quality. Our findings have important implications for couple therapists and relationship educators because it seems that mutual enjoyment of affective activities is a more robust predictor of relationship satisfaction than the amount of time spent engaging in these activities with a partner. Thus, couples should be encouraged to spend time engaging in affective activities.
References
Carlson, W., & Rose, A. J. (2012). Brief report: Activities in heterosexual romantic relationships: Grade differences and associations with relationship satisfaction. Journal of Adolescence, 35,
Gere, J., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R. T., & Lockwood, P. (2011). The effects of romantic partners’ goal congruence on affective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 45,
Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 721–733.
Ogolsky, B., & Bowers, J. (2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30,
Pina, D. L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1993). The division of household labor and wives' happiness: Ideology, employment, and perceptions of support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,
Note. All coefficients are unstandardized
Funding for this project came from a USDA HATCH grant to the second author.