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