no fun anymore: leisure and marital quality across the transition to parenthood

AMY CLAXTON AND MAUREEN PERRY-JENKINS University of Massachusetts Amherst

No Fun Anymore: Leisure and Marital Quality

Across the Transition to Parenthood

This study examines changes in leisure patternsacross the transition to parenthood for dual-earner, working-class couples, as well as therelationship between leisure and marital qual-ity. To this end, 147 heterosexual couples wereinterviewed across the transition to parenthood.Findings indicate that during the transition toparenthood, husbands and wives experience aninitial decline in leisure, followed by a gradualincline after the wife’s return to work. Overall,wives who reported more shared leisure prena-tally also reported more marital love and lessconflict 1 year later. Husbands with more inde-pendent leisure prenatally reported less loveand more conflict 1 year later. Conclusions sug-gest leisure time is integral to well-functioningmarriages, with effects lasting throughout thefirst year of parenthood.

A satisfying marital relationship has been foundto contribute to multiple aspects of mental healthandwell-being (Whisman, 1999), good parenting(Cox, Paley, & Payne, 1999), physical health(Burman & Margolin, 1992), and work produc-tivity (Forthofer, Markman, Cox, Stanley, &Kessler, 1996). Perhaps this is why researchershave devoted an inordinate amount of time tostudying the qualities that contribute to a satisfy-ing marriage and relationship dissolution (for

a review, see Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach,2000). American culture has also embraced theseinterests, and many advice columns and bookshave focused on how to keep relationships stableand satisfying. These books often recommendthat couples spend leisure time together to enrichtheir marriage. Books such as 100 Tips to BeHappy Together (Bristow, 2004) have encour-aged married couples to participate in sharedleisure activities, termed dating. According toChapman (1992) in The Five Love Languages:How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to YourMate, spending quality time together is animportant way to communicate love to a partner.Finally, Gray (1996) suggested that men andwomen have an emotional need for leisure timein Mars and Venus Together Forever.

Despite the consistency in the advice offered inself-help books, however, the research on thistopic is far less definitive. It seems that as individ-uals develop, get married, and start families,leisure time is increasingly set aside and consid-ered a bonus activity. Moreover, although thereis a growing number of dual-earner families inAmerica (Barnett, 2005), little is known aboutthe role that leisure plays in the life of dual-earnercouples, who have less discretionary time for lei-sure after managing the demands of two jobs.Given the paucity of longitudinal research on lei-sure and marital quality, it is unclear to whatextent encouraging couples to partake in leisureactivities is a helpful recommendation. The pur-pose of this article is to learn more about leisuretime and how it is related to couples’ romantic re-lationships. Building onHuston’s (2000) concep-tualization of marriage, we focus on two keydimensions of marriage, love and conflict, as

Department of Psychology, 604 Tobin Hall, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 ([email protected]).

Key Words: dyadic/couple data, family leisure, relationshipquality, transition to parenthood.

28 Journal of Marriage and Family 70 (February 2008): 28–43

opposed to overall assessments of marital sat-isfaction, because we are interested in how dif-ferent aspects of close relationships may beaffected by shared time together. Although it isalso likely that marital quality influences leisureparticipation, the aim of the current investigationis to explore whether couples who engage inshared leisure across the transition to parenthoodreport greater love and less conflict in theirrelationship.

THE TRANSITION TO PARENTHOODAND MARRIAGE

Since Burgess (1926) highlighted the importanceof studying life-cycle transitions in order tounderstand families and individuals, numerousfamily scholars have examined family transitionsin order to understand how families cope withchange (Cowan, 1991). Each major transition re-quires the family system to reorganize andaccommodate change, as well as to renegotiateexisting boundaries with regard to interpersonalpower and emotional closeness (Mattessich &Hill, 1987). The transition to parenthood has beenpinpointed as a key transition in the family lifecycle (Birchler, 1992). Thus, it is an importanttime to studymarriages. Also, given the high timedemands of a new infant, it is an intriguing time tostudy changes in leisure patterns.

Having a baby has been found to be a signifi-cant stressor for many couples (Pistrang &Barker, 2005; Ventura, 1987); there is somedebate, however, concerning the specific natureof marital functioning during this time. On oneside, there has been a consistent amount ofresearch documenting a deterioration of maritalfunctioning that occurs with the birth of a child,from which couple members may never fullyrecover (e.g., Belsky, Spanier, & Rovine, 1983;Cowan & Cowan, 1995; Crohan, 1996; Levy-Shiff, 1994). There has been some evidence thatspouses place less importance on and devote lessenergy to their marital relationship after the birthof a child. In Cowan and Cowan’s (1992) studyinvolving the self-concept of spouses undergoingthe transition to parenthood, they found thatwhenparticipants rated their parent role as increasingafter the birth of their first child, the roles thatunderwent a corresponding decrease were thepartner and lover roles. These changes supportthe idea that key dimensions of the marital rela-tionship may change following the birth ofa child.

On the other side of the debate, researchershave posited that the documented decline in mar-ital satisfaction following the birth of a child isactually a brief adjustment period from whichmost couples recover (Cowan & Cowan, 1988).Also, some have argued that the observed declinein marital satisfaction across the transition to par-enthood is merely capturing a piece of the norma-tive decline that all couples experience over time,regardless of their decision to have children(Clements&Markman, 1996;Huston&Vangelisti,1995). It has been argued that measurementissues surrounding constructs such as maritalsatisfaction and marital quality may be oneexplanation for the discrepant results. For exam-ple, some measures used in transition to parent-hood studies are capturing a decrease in certainmarital maintenance behaviors or an increasein instrumentality that occurs following the birthof a child; these changes may not be reflected inan actual decline in relationship satisfaction(Clements & Markman). Further, apart fromthe debate over marital satisfaction, it has beenfound that the birth of children makes it lesslikely that a couple will separate or divorce(Bradbury et al., 2000). Therefore, it is importantto learnmore aboutmarriages during this transitionto determine how some couples cope and othersexperience substantial distress as they transitionfrom couple to family life (Cowan & Cowan).

THE TRANSITION TO PARENTHOODAND LEISURE

Among the many documented lifestyle changesbrought about by the transition to parenthoodare changes in leisure practices. Most researchershave agreed that leisure activities decline follow-ing the birth of a baby. In their study of the tran-sition to parenthood, Belsky et al. (1983) reporteda sharp decline in joint leisure activities betweenthe last trimester of pregnancy and three monthspostnatal. Cowan and Cowan (1988) reportedthat childless couples, in comparison with cou-ples who had children, tended to rate themselvesas spending more companionate time together.Kurdek (1993) examined couples undergoingthe transition to parenthood and a comparisongroup of nonparents and noted that new parentsreported a sharper decline in joint activities thannonparents.

The PAIR project (Processes of Adaptationin Intimate Relationships) is one of the few stud-ies that examined leisure practices across the

Leisure and Marital Quality 29

transition to parenthood in a longitudinal study.Huston, McHale, and Crouter (1986) comparedthe leisure practices of two groups of newlyweds:new parents and childless couples. They foundthat new parents spend a higher proportion oftime together completing instrumental tasksinstead of leisure activities and recreation. Ana-lyzing data from the same project, Huston andVangelisti (1995) found that the total amount ofleisure did not differ between new parents andchildless couples, but the leisure patterns of thegroups were different. Specifically, they discov-ered that new parents have very little shared lei-sure time without the baby. They also foundthat, contrary to expectations, new fathers spendmuch less leisure time independently from theirspouses than any other group (compared to newmothers and spouses without children). Theyhypothesized that this was because it is moreacceptable for mothers than for fathers to includea baby in their leisure time with friends and fam-ily. Finally, Huston and Vangelisti reported thatnew parents are dissatisfied with the amount oftime they spend doing leisure activities.Crawford and Huston (1993), who also use datafrom the PAIR project, reported no differencesbetween new parents and childless couples interms of total time spent in leisure or in sharedleisure. They did, however, find that new fathersparticipate in the least amount of leisure timeaway from their spouse. These findings speak tothe complexities involved in studying leisuretime across the transition to parenthood.

One topic that is not considered in the abovestudies is how the meaning of leisure time mightchange across the transition to parenthood fromcouple leisure to family leisure. In a qualitativestudy of attitudes toward family leisure, Shawand Dawson (2001) discovered that leisure isconsidered important and necessary for familycohesion, but women are likely to consider theplanning and maintenance of family leisure timeas a responsibility instead of a pleasure. Littleresearch has distinguished between couples lei-sure and family leisure, either empirically or con-ceptually, and it is likely that the two may berelated to marital functioning in different ways.

LEISURE AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

The notion that shared leisure participation mightimprove marital satisfaction is not new. Locke(1951) tested this supposition by comparing cou-ples whowere divorced or contemplating divorce

with happily married couples. He found that thehappily married couples reported more enjoy-ment of leisure activities. Throughout the nextfew decades, many researchers published similarfindings, perpetuating the belief that shared lei-sure activities between spouses is beneficial forrelationships (Klausner, 1968; West & Merriam,1970).

Since then, a number of researchers haveexamined the connection between participationin leisure activities and marital satisfaction. Mosthave recorded a positive relationship betweentime spent in leisure and marital satisfaction(e.g., Holman & Jacquart, 1988; Surra, 1985;Zabriskie & McCormick, 2003), although somehave reported only weak correlations betweenthese constructs (Crawford, Houts, Huston, &George, 2002; Huston et al., 1986; Huston &Vangelisti, 1995).

Orthner (1975) proposed that different types ofleisure might differentially affect marriage; spe-cifically, he posited that it would be importantto know whether couple members participate inleisure activities in the company of their spouseor independently. Orthner also suggested that lei-sure’s function in a marriage was to facilitatecommunication. Therefore, fewer shared leisureactivities during stressful life events would belikely to influence the ability of couples to adjustto change, which could result in lower perceivedmarital satisfaction. Additionally, in their qualita-tive study of family leisure experiences, Shawand Dawson (2001) found that participation infamily leisure led to improved interaction andcohesion within families. Therefore, shared lei-sure activities may be especially important formaintaining both a satisfactory marriage andfamily life.

SHARED VERSUS INDEPENDENT LEISURE

As researchers began to examine how differenttypes of leisure affect couples in different ways,two groupings of leisure have consistentlyemerged: leisure time spent with one’s spouseand leisure time spent without one’s spouse.Some researchers have found that wives whoreport higher frequencies of leisure without theirspouse also report less marital satisfaction(Crawford et al., 2002; Orthner, 1975). Marks,Huston, Johnson, and MacDermid (2001) foundthat husbands with more independent leisuretime experience more role strain. Also, couplemembers who report high marital satisfaction

30 Journal of Marriage and Family

report more shared leisure time with theirspouse (Crawford et al). Crawford et al. foundthat husbands’ independent leisure activitiesnegatively affect marital satisfaction, but thatwives’ independent leisure activities have noeffect on marital satisfaction. These studies raisetwo important points. First, independent leisuremight be detrimental to marriage. Second, lei-sure activity patterns might affect husbands andwives differently.

Crawford et al. (2002) point out that, becausethey did not differentiate between single- anddual-earner couples, their results might partiallyreflect differences in leisure opportunity. Forexample, when only one spouse is employed,the other might have more opportunity to pur-sue independent leisure activities and conse-quently may demand that more of their spouse’savailable leisure time be used in shared leisureinstead of independent leisure (Crawford et al.;Kalmijn & Bernasco, 2001). Thus, they suggestthat future work should take spouses’ employ-ment status into account.

THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study addresses several weaknessesin the study of marriage and leisure. First, it uti-lizes longitudinal data. Longitudinal studies areessential for examining individual differences inthe pathways to marital adaptation or distress(Cowan & Cowan, 1988). The PAIR project(see Huston et al., 1986) is one of the only longi-tudinal studies to date to examine leisure as it re-lates to marital quality for couples. Second, thepresent study utilizes data from dual-earner cou-ples. Therefore, we are able to consider the role ofemployment as it may limit parents’ time andenergy for leisure (Kalmijn & Bernasco, 2001;Kunz & Graham, 1996). Time constraints playan important role in determining leisure patterns(Kalmijn & Bernasco, 2001; Ventura, 1987).Also, when both parents work, a phenomenonthat has increased dramatically in the last fourdecades (Zimmerman, Haddock, Current, &Ziemba, 2003), couple members have less ‘‘freetime’’ available for leisure (Levy-Shiff, 1994).

A third important component is the utilizationof both couple members’ information. Pastresearch has often emphasized individual experi-ences and patterns of leisure (Shaw & Dawson,2001), with analyses including only one familymember (Gonzalez & Griffin, 1997; Nomaguchi& Milkie, 2003). By including input from both

couplemembers experiencing leisure and the tran-sition to parenthood, the current study can betteraddress the dyadic nature of leisure and maritaldynamics.

Finally, most research on the transition to par-enthood oversamples middle- and upper-classmothers, which is a major limitation of the exist-ing research (Clements & Markman, 1996;Holman & Jaquart, 1988; Kunz & Graham, 1996;Orthner, 1975). Findings frommiddle-class sam-ples may not be generalizable to working-classfamilies, who often cope with additional barriersand constraints, such as inadequate resourcesand economic strain (Ellis & Witt, 1994; Perry-Jenkins, 2005).

In summary, the literature suggests that cou-ples who are undergoing the transition to parent-hood may be at increased risk for declining ratesof leisure participation and declining maritalsatisfaction. The current investigation examinesthe relationships between leisure participationand marital satisfaction for working-class, dual-earner couples across the transition to parent-hood. Two major questions are addressed.

Question 1. How do shared and independentleisure activities change across the transition toparenthood? Do patterns change differently forhusbands and wives? It is expected that leisuretime with one’s spouse (shared leisure) and lei-sure time without one’s spouse (independentleisure) will decrease across the first year ofparenthood for both spouses (Belsky et al.,1983; Cowan & Cowan, 1988; Kurdek, 1993).A sharper decline in independent leisure is ex-pected for husbands, because they are not aslikely to include the newborn child in their inde-pendent leisure (Crawford & Huston, 1993;Huston & Vangelisti, 1995).

Question 2a. How does leisure relate to mari-tal quality during the first year of parenthood?Specifically, how do frequencies of prenatalshared and independent leisure activities relateto marital love and conflict 1 year later? Wehypothesize that fewer shared leisure activitiesprenatally (Time 1) will correspond with lowermarital quality 1 year later (Time 4) (Hustonet al., 1986; Orthner, 1975; Surra, 1985; Zab-riskie & McCormick, 2003). We also hypothe-size that more independent leisure activitiesprenatally (Time 1) will correspond with lowermarital quality 1 year later (Time 4) for bothspouses (Crawford et al., 2002).

Question 2b. It is likely that change in leisureparticipation over the first year of parenthood


will correlate more strongly than simple levelsof leisure measured before the baby’s birth withlevels of marital love or conflict when the childis 1 year old. To our knowledge, no one hasused change in leisure participation over thefirst year of parenthood to predict marital qual-ity. We hypothesize that decreases in sharedleisure and increases in independent leisure par-ticipation will correspond with lower maritalquality.

Because of previous research suggesting theimportance of considering certain demographicfactors, several variables will be controlled forin analyses:marital status, number ofwork hours,family income, and the length of the relationship.

METHOD

Procedures

Data were obtained from the Work and FamilyTransitions Project, a longitudinal study ofdual-earner couples undergoing the transition toparenthood. Data were collected from 1996 to2002 in face-to-face interviews with 147 dual-earner couples experiencing the transition toparenthood for the first time. The current investi-gation utilized data from the third-trimester inter-view (Time 1), a 1-month postpartum interview(Time 2), an interview within 4 weeks of moth-ers’ return to work (Time 3), and a 1-year post-partum interview (Time 4). Interviews wereconducted separately with husbands and wivesin their homes and were between 2 and 3 hourslong.

Participants

Participants were heterosexual couples recruitedat prenatal education classes at various hospitalsin western Massachusetts. Married or cohabitingcouples were chosen for inclusion if they met thefollowing criteria: (a) Both partners were expect-ing their first child, (b) both parents held full-timejobs (at least 35 hours per week) prior to the birthof their baby, (c) both parents planned to return towork full time within 6 months of the baby’sbirth, and (d) both parents were working class,which was defined by restricting the educationallevel of both parents to an associate’s degree orless. The decision to focus on working-class fam-ilies was made in an effort to examine within-group variability for a sample of lower-incomeworking families. This study places greater

emphasis on educational attainment than onincome for two reasons. First, Kohn (1995) hasargued that educational attainment is directlyrelated to an individual’s access to opportunityin the job market and is an important indicatorof one’s potential career trajectory. Because theeducation level of participants in this study waslimited to an associate’s degree or less, their abil-ity to move up the career ladder is limited. Sec-ond, Entwisle and Astone (1994) point out thepossible confounds that come from using incomeas a proxy for social class. Income is subject toshort-term fluctuations and does not take workconditions into account. For example, onewoman in our sample had a 1-year, post-high-school degree that licensed her as a practicalnurse. Although she had no benefits or healthinsurance, she worked approximately 60 hoursper week on commission and earned close to$60,000. Despite her high income, the conditionsof her work and educational level place hersquarely in the working-class category.

One criterion for inclusion in the current studywas that each couple remain intact for the dura-tion of the study, as we were interested in sharedleisure; therefore, six couples (3.9%) wereexcluded from analyses because they separatedbefore the final phase in the study. Because thesecond research question requires completion ofTime 4 questionnaires, 20 additional couples(13.1%) were excluded from analyses becausethey did not complete questionnaires from thefinal phase in the study. The final sample for thisresearch question included 127 intact couples.Analyses were conducted to determine whetherfamilies who dropped out differed from familiesremaining in the study on key demographic vari-ables, such as income, work hours, and maritalstatus. Findings indicate that couples cohabitingat Time 1 were more likely to drop out. Maritalstatus was a control variable in all analyses.

The average age at the prenatal visit was 29.0years for husbands and 27.2 years for wives.Although we use the words husbands and wivesto describe the gender of the participants, bothmarried (82.7%) and cohabiting (17.3%) cou-ples were included. The average relationshiplength was 2.7 years at Time 1. Cohabiting cou-ples had to be living together for a year priorto the mother getting pregnant. A majority ofthe participants were White (90.5% of men,95.2% of women). The highest degree held by63% of men and 59% of women was a highschool diploma or General Equivalency


Diploma (GED). Many of the participants (22%of men, 14% of women) had some type of addi-tional schooling following high school (e.g.,cosmetology license) and 15% of men and 27%of women had earned an associate’s degree.None of the participants held a bachelor’sdegree.

Median salaries were $30,493 and $23,254(U.S. currency) for men and women, respec-tively. Many participants earned high incomesbecause they work multiple jobs or increasedhours. Men worked an average of 48 hours perweek at Time 1 and 47 hours per week at Time4. Women worked an average of 41 hours perweek at Time 1 and 36 hours per week at Time 4.

Measures and Variables

Marital quality. Perceptions of the marital rela-tionship were operationalized by using two sub-scales from the Personal Relationship Scaledeveloped by Braiker and Kelley (1979). The10 items of the Love subscale assess respondents’feelings of closeness or belonging toward theirspouses on a 9-point Likert scale. Participantsare asked questions such as, ‘‘How close do youfeel toward your partner?’’ The five items of theConflict subscale assess the extent to which thepartners experience conflict and negativity ona 9-point Likert scale. Participants are askedquestions such as, ‘‘How often do you and yourpartner argue with each other?’’ Scale reliabilitya for the love items for men and women, respec-tively, was .88 and .91 at Time 4. For the conflictitems, the a coefficient for men and women,respectively, was .78 and .77 at Time 4.

Leisure behavior. Shared leisure (leisure withspouse) was assessed by asking couple mem-bers how regularly they engaged in 24 recrea-tional activities together. Independent leisure(leisure with others) was assessed by askingcouple members how regularly they engaged inthese recreational activities alone or with others(not with their spouse). The items were adaptedfrom the diary questionnaire developed byHuston et al. (1986). Responses ranged from 1(less than once a month) to 6 (more than oncea day) and included items such as ‘‘watch TVor video,’’ ‘‘go to a party,’’ and ‘‘play a sport.’’Leisure scores were an average of the scores ofthe 24 questionnaire items. At various waves,participants were instructed to report their pre-pregnancy leisure behavior (Time 1), their

leisure behavior since the baby’s birth (Time 2),their leisure behavior since returning to work(Time 3), or their leisure behavior from the pre-vious 6 months (Time 4).

The following variables were created ascontrols: Marital status: a dummy variable indi-cating whether a couple was married (1) or co-habiting (2) at Time 1. Job hours: Wives andhusbands reported the number of hours that theyworked for all jobs at Time 3. These hours weresummed to create a total work hour variable foreach spouse. Total family income: Wives andhusbands reported their individual gross annualincomes independently at Time 1. Individual in-comes were summed to create a total familyincome variable. Length of relationship: Part-ners reported how long they had been in therelationship, in months, which was used as thelength of relationship variable.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.Results of t tests indicated that wives reportedsignificantly fewer leisure activities with spousethan husbands at every time point. Reports ofleisure with spouse are moderately correlated.Husbands and wives reported similar frequen-cies of leisure with others at every time point,with only one exception. Husbands reportedsignificantly fewer leisure activities with othersthan wives at Time 2, when wives are takingmaternity leave. Average frequencies of leisureat every time point are relatively low (seeTable 1).

Bothhusbands’ andwives’ reports of lovewerenegatively skewed. Because normally distributeddata is one of the assumptions of regression anal-yses, we completed a linear transformation thatresulted in an acceptable distribution in terms ofnormality. Spouses’ reports of conflict revealeddistributions within the acceptable limits fornormality.

Question 1 Analytic Strategy

The first research question addressed whetherparticipation in leisure changes over the first yearof parenthood and whether this change is similaror different for husbands and wives. It washypothesized that both leisure with spouse and


leisure with others would decline over time forhusbands and wives. Multilevel modeling(Raudenbush&Bryk, 1992) is a useful techniquefor the present study because it accounts forshared variance in couple data. Both linear andquadratic rates of change in leisure with spouseand leisure with others were explored for eachspouse across four time points. In Level 1, anunconditional model was used to examinewhether there was a significant degree of averagechange in level, slope, and curvature of the trajec-tory in leisure over time. In addition, this modelidentifies whether there is a significant degreeof variability in both levels of leisure and changein leisure (slope) for individual partners.

Unconditional models were tested separatelyfor leisure with spouse and leisure with others.First, a model testing for linear change in leisureover time was run, followed by a model that alsoincluded quadratic change over time, which testsfor curvature in the trajectory. Model comparisontests indicated that the quadratic models ex-plained more variance for leisure with spouse(v ¼ 72.16, p , .001) and for leisure with others(v ¼ 22.60, p , .05) than the models with onlylinear change. Thus, it was evident that leisureactivities progress in a positive quadratic patternof change across the transition to parenthood.

Question 1 Results

The Level 1 model was represented by the fol-lowing equation, with either leisure with spouseor leisure with others as the outcome:

Yij ¼ bw1jðwifeÞ1 bw2jðwife linearÞij1 bw3jðwife quadraticÞij1 bh4jðhusbandÞ1 bh5jðhusband linearÞij1 bh6jðhusband quadraticÞij 1 eij

Leisure with spouse. For both wives (b ¼�0.079, t ¼ �8.32, p , .001) and husbands (b ¼�0.076, t ¼ �8.21, p , .001), analyses re-vealed a significant negative, linear change inleisure with spouse across the four time points.Thus, for both husbands and wives, shared lei-sure declines over the first year of parenthood.Moreover, there was also a significant quadraticchange for wives’ (b ¼ 0.004, t ¼ 6.19, p ,.001) and husbands’ (b ¼ 0.004, t ¼ 6.59, p ,.001) leisure with spouse. There was a steep ini-tial decline in leisure with spouse between Time1 (prenatal) and Time 2 (1 month postnatal),followed by a gradual incline throughout theyear, although not recovering to prenatal levels.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N ¼ 147 couples)

Husbands Wives

M SD M SD t r

Time 1

Leisure with spouse 1.971 .324 1.846 .290 2.26* .34***

Leisure with others 1.803 .375 1.851 .295 �0.20 .14

Time 2

Leisure with spouse 1.743 .433 1.590 .387 3.73*** .27**

Leisure with others 1.654 .484 1.778 .404 �2.39* .07

Time 3

Leisure with spouse 1.715 .374 1.573 .420 3.43** .30**

Leisure with others 1.715 .457 1.718 .452 �0.12 .22*

Time 4

Leisure with spouse 1.642 .390 1.476 .395 3.64*** .15yLeisure with others 1.693 .440 1.704 .449 �0.45 .08

Change in leisurea(Time 4 � Time 1)

Leisure with spouse �0.365 .073 �0.417 .088 21.97*** .95***

Leisure with others �0.150 .137 �0.155 .136 0.47 .51***

Time 4 love 7.831 .848 7.752 1.023 �0.87 .53***

Time 4 conflict 3.410 1.293 3.933 1.305 3.97*** .37***

aHigher numbers ¼ increase in leisure.

yp , .10. *p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001. Two-tailed tests.


Wives’ and husbands’ change in shared leisureover time are depicted in Figure 1.

An examination of variance components re-vealed no significant variability in the slope orcurvature in leisure with spouse for husbands orwives, indicating that, although there is signifi-cant change for bothwives’ and husbands’ leisurewith spouse across time, spouses’ patterns ofchange are similar. That is, individuals tend toexperience a steep decline in leisure participationwhen their baby is born and a subsequent gradualincline across the following year, with little vari-ation from this trend.

Leisure with others. For both wives (b ¼�0.035, t ¼ �3.10, p , .01) and husbands(b ¼ �0.031, t ¼ �2.74, p , .01), analysesrevealed a significant negative, linear change inleisure with others across the four time points.Thus, for both husbands and wives, independentleisure declined over the first year of parent-hood. Additionally, there was also a significantquadratic change in wives’ (b ¼ 0.002, t ¼2.52, p , .05) and husbands’ (b ¼ 0.002, t ¼2.36, p , .05) leisure with others, suggestingthat leisure with others initially declines afterTime 1 and then gradually inclines up untilTime 4, although it does not recover to Time 1levels. These results are depicted in Figure 2.

An examination of the variance componentsrevealed significant variability in the slope of lei-sure with others for husbands (b ¼ 0.062, p ,.05) and marginal significance in the variability

of the slope of leisure with others for wives(b ¼ 0.061, p , .10). Significant variationaround these slopes indicates that some individ-uals decline, some increase, and some remainstable in terms of leisure with others. Althoughthere was no significant variability in the curva-ture of the trajectory for leisure with others forwives, there was marginally significant variabil-ity in the curvature of the trajectory for husbands(b ¼ 0.004, p , .10), indicating that husbandsexperience different patterns of change in theirtrajectories of leisure with others.

Question 2a Analytic Strategy

Next, we examinedwhether the amount of leisureparticipated in at Time 1 predicted marital qualityreported at Time 4. We hypothesized that moreleisure with spouse at Time 1 would predict morelove and less conflict at Time 4, and that higherlevels of leisure with others at Time 1 would pre-dict less love and more conflict at Time 4. Toaddress these questions, a two-level model wasconstructed for each outcome (love and conflict).The Level 1 equations provided for separate esti-mates of the mean levels of the outcome variable(love or conflict) while retaining a shared errorterm. The Level 2 equations included demo-graphic control variables and independent varia-bles (leisure with spouse or leisure with others).Specifically, the Level 2 equations for this ques-tion were completed twice. First, the demo-graphic controls (relationship length, income,

FIGURE 2. AVERAGE CHANGE IN LEISURE WITH OTHERS

OVER TIME.

0 4 9 13 171.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Time in MonthsA

vera

ge L

eisu

re S

core

Wives

Husbands….….

FIGURE 1. AVERAGE CHANGE IN LEISURE WITH

SPOUSE OVER TIME.

0 4 9 13 171.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Time in Months

Ave

rage

Lei

sure

Sco

re

Wives Husbands ….….


work hours, and marital status) were entered intoan equation to predict the intercepts for eachspouse — the average love score after account-ing for measurement error — and to determinethe amount of variance in the outcome remainingunexplained after accounting for the demo-graphic controls. Next, predictor variables (leisurewith spouse) were entered into the model to ex-amine whether the addition of this variable ex-plained any additional variance in love (Model1). The leisure with spouse variables were the‘‘true scores’’ for Time 1 (accounting for mea-surement error) that were used in the Question1 analyses. The resulting husbands’ Level 2equations were

b1 ¼ g10 1 g11ðMarital StatusÞ1 g12ðH0s Job HoursÞ1 g13ðTotal Family IncomeÞ1 g14ðLength of RelationshipÞ1 g15ðH0s Leisure with SpouseÞ1 l1

Next, a model comparison test was run to assesshow much additional variance was accountedfor by the predictor variable. These numberswereused to calculate effect sizes (pseudo R

2statistics)

of the leisure components in the final model.The next step was to replicate these models,

using the leisure with others variables forModel 2 analyses. The leisure with others valuewas also obtained by using the ‘‘true scores’’ at-tained from Question 1. The analyses were iden-tical. Finally, all analyses were repeated usingconflict as the outcome variable.

Question 2a Results

Using leisure to predict love. Chi-squares per-formed on deviance statistics indicated that bothleisure with spouse (v

2 ¼ 12.51, p , .01) andleisure with others (v

2 ¼ 5.92, p , .05) ex-plained a significant amount of the variance inlove, above and beyond that accounted for bythe demographic controls (see Table 2). InModel 1, wives’ leisure with spouse reliably ex-plained 8.96% of the remaining variance inwives’ Time 4 love. Husbands’ leisure withspouse reliably predicted husband’s Time 4 love,although the effect was small (0.84% of the re-maining variance). As expected, for both wivesand husbands, higher amounts of leisure withspouse at Time 1 predicted higher amounts oflove at Time 4.

In Model 2, wives’ leisure with others did notreliably predict wives’ love. Husbands’ leisurewith others had a significant effect on husbands’love, predicting 9.2% of the remaining variancein Time 4 love. As expected, for husbands, higheramounts of leisurewith others at Time 1 predictedlower amounts of love at Time 4.

Using leisure to predict conflict. Chi-squaresperformed on deviance statistics indicated thatboth leisure with spouse (v

2 ¼ 5.04, p , .10)and leisure with others (v

2 ¼ 5.15, p , .10) ex-plained a marginally significant amount of thevariance in conflict. In Model 1, wives’ Time 1leisure with spouse reliably predicted Time 4conflict for wives, explaining 5.64% of the re-maining variance; more shared leisure pre-dicted less conflict. For husbands, Time 1

Table 2. Final Estimation of Fixed Effects for Spouses’ Time 4 Love and Conflict Using Time 1 Leisure Scores as Predictors:

Leisure With Spouse (Model 1) and Leisure With Others (Model 2)

Love Conflict

Wives Husbands Wives Husbands

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Controls

Marital status 0.045 0.146 0.195 0.261 �0.207 �0.299 0.447 0.415

Work hours �0.008 �0.004 �0.015 �0.020 0.013 0.011 0.015 0.016

Family income 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 �0.000 �0.000 �0.000y �0.000*

Length of relationship �0.041 �0.068 0.048 0.007 �0.085 �0.064 �0.016 �0.002

Leisure w/spouse at T1 1.507*** — 0.861* — �0.877* — �0.019 —

Leisure w/others at T1 — 0.302 — �0.742* — 0.125 — 0.651*

Effect size (psd. R2) .0896 .0019 .0084 .0920 .0564 .0014 �.0006 .0470

*p , .05. ***p , .001. Two-tailed tests.


leisure with spouse did not reliably predictTime 4 conflict.

In Model 2, leisure with others did not reliablypredict conflict for wives. It was a significant pre-dictor of husbands’ conflict, however, explaining4.7% of the remaining variance. As expected,higher amounts of leisure with others at Time 1predicted higher amounts of conflict at Time 4for husbands.

Question 2b Analytic Strategy

The next question examined how increases or de-creases in leisure across the transition to parent-hood predict love and conflict at Time 4. It washypothesized that an increase in leisure participa-tion across the first year would be a better predic-tor of marital love and conflict than the Time 1levels of leisure, and that a decline in leisure overthe transition would predict less love and moreconflict. Because change in leisure was the keyvariable hypothesized to predict love and con-flict, we planned to use a true slope calculatedfrom the hierarchical linear model for eachparticipant. Because analyses for Question 1 re-vealed that leisure changes across time in a qua-dratic fashion, it was not appropriate to use theslope in analyses, as it would either representa sharp decline or a slight increase, neither ofwhich can give an accurate portrayal of changeover time. To obtain a more useful variable,a difference score measuring the overallchange across the transition (Time 4 � Time 1)was computed for each participant. We used

the true scores calculated to account formeasurement error in each time point. Thesescores were entered into the model to predictlove and conflict at Time 4. Analyses werecomputed four times, using change in leisurewith spouse and change in leisure with othersas predictors for both outcome variables (loveand conflict).

Question 2b Results

Using change in leisure to predict love. In Model1, wives’ change in leisure with spouse reliablyexplained 4.55% of the remaining variance inwives’ Time 4 love, after accounting for demo-graphic controls. Husbands’ change in leisurewith spouse reliably explained 1.90% of the re-maining variance in husbands’ Time 4 love.The direction of effects was unexpected for bothspouses; specifically, a steeper decline in leisurewith spouse over the transition predicted higheramounts of love at Time 4 (see Table 3).

In Model 2, wives’ change in leisure withothers did not reliably predict love, but husbands’change in leisure with others marginally pre-dicted love for husbands (p , .10), explaining5.65% of the remaining variance. The directionof the finding was again unexpected, as a steeperdecline in leisure with others over the transitionpredicted less love at Time 4.

Using change in leisure to predict conflict. InModel 1,wives’ change in leisurewith spouse reli-ably predicted wives’ Time 4 conflict, explaining

Table 3. Final Estimation of Fixed Effects for Spouses’ Time 4 Love Using Leisure Change Scores (Time 4 � Time 1)

as Predictors: Leisure With Spouse (Model 1) and Leisure With Others (Model 2)

Love Conflict

Wives Husbands Wives Husbands

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Controls

Marital status 0.043 0.191 0.087 0.392 �0.140 �0.273 0.475 0.295

Work hours �0.005 �0.004 �0.015 �0.022 0.012 0.009 0.015 0.018

Family income 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 �0.000 �0.000 �0.000y �0.000yLength of relationship �0.047 �0.075 0.051 0.005 �0.095y �0.066 �0.023 �0.000

Change in leisure w/spouse

across time

�3.826* — �4.192* — 3.978** — 1.052 —

Change in leisure w/others

across time

— 0.069 — 1.820y — 0.155 — �1.614y

Effect size (psd. R2) .0455 .0009 .0190 .0565 .0882 �.0002 .0026 .0200

yp , .10. *p , .05. **p , .01. Two-tailed tests.


8.82%of the remaining variance, but it did not sig-nificantly predict conflict for husbands. The direc-tion of this relationship was again unexpected,with a steeper decline in leisure with spouse pre-dicting lower amounts of conflict at Time 4.

In Model 2, change in leisure with others didnot reliably predict conflict for wives, but it wasmarginally significant (p , .10) for husbands,explaining only 2% of the remaining variance.Unexpectedly, a steeper decline in leisure withothers predicted higher amounts of conflict atTime 4.

The final research question asked whetherchange in leisure would be a better predictor thanTime 1 leisure of Time 4 love and conflict. Toanswer this question, both variables (changeand level) were to be simultaneously entered aspredictor variables. Prior to running these mod-els, however, we examined the relationship be-

tween the Time 1 leisure and change in leisureto test formulticollinearity. The correlationswereextremely high, ranging from �.61 to �.91,which indicated that higher levels of Time 1 lei-sure with spouse were associated with steeper de-clines in leisure over the transition to parenthood.Figure 3 demonstrates this relationship by illus-trating the change in leisure over time for two setsof spouses: the 10 cases that had reported thegreatest and the least decline in leisure over time.As the figure demonstrates, the spouses with themost decline in leisure over time also reportedthe highest levels of Time 1 leisure and their Time4 leisure scores remain higher than those of indi-viduals who reported the least decline in leisureparticipation over time. Thus, those individualsreporting the greatest declines in leisure over timeare still more likely to have higher average levelsof leisure and to report the most positive marital

FIGURE 3. COMPARISON OF SPOUSES REPORTING GREATEST AND LEAST DECLINES IN SHARED LEISURE.

0

3.5

2.5

0.5

1.5

2

3

1

1 4

0

3.5

2.5

0.5

1.5

2

3

1

1 4

Leis

ure

Mea

nsLe

isur

e M

eans

Wives

Husbands

Time

Time

= 10 cases reporting greatest declines in leisure

- - - - - - - = 10 cases reporting least decline in leisure


outcomes. In contrast, individuals who reportedthe least decline in shared leisure over time alsoreported lower levels of leisure at Time 1, andthey reported the least positive marital outcomes.These results help to explain the unexpecteddirection of effects found when we used changein leisure to predict love and conflict.

DISCUSSION

The first question to be addressed was whethershared or independent leisure undergoes a signif-icant change across the transition to parenthoodfor husbands and wives. Our hypotheses weregenerally confirmed. Husbands and wives expe-rienced an immediate decline in both shared lei-sure and independent leisure after the birth oftheir child. As the wife returns to work, however,couplemembers gradually began to increase theirleisure activities. It is possible that in the weeksfollowing the birth, spouses are too busy, tootired, or too interested in and engaged with theirnew baby to find time to participate in their previ-ous leisure interests. Over time, shared and inde-pendent leisure practices begin to resume after thewife’s return to work, when she appears to haveless ‘‘free time’’ available. It is possible thatnew parents are able to add typical leisure pur-suits (e.g., lunch with friends) back into theirschedule once both parents are working andexperiencing amore structured day. It is also pos-sible that parents are at least partially adjusted totheir new roles. Notably, neither husbands norwives fully return to their prenatal levels ofshared or independent leisure. Interestingly, bothspouses report great variability in the degree towhich they incorporate independent leisure intotheir lives once they become parents. Our datashow that although some individuals experiencea steady decline in independent leisure, someexperience an initial decline and then begin toresume leisure outside of the marriage, whereasothers actually increase their independent leisuretime over the first year.

The second question addressedwhether leisurepractices across the transition to parenthood arerelated to parents’ reports of relationship loveand conflict 1 year postpartum, hypothesizingthat leisure would buffer the documented declinein marital quality that takes place during the tran-sition to parenthood. Our hypotheses were par-tially supported. For wives, more prenatalshared leisure predicted higher marital love andless conflict when the baby was 1 year old. This

relationship was found for husbands’ reportedlove as well, albeit with a very small effect size.This pattern of findings seems to support popularmarital advice books that recommend couplesspend more time together to keep their marriageshealthy. It also provides longitudinal support thata relationship exists between shared leisure andthe quality of the marital relationship (Holman& Jacquart, 1988; Houts, Robins, & Huston,1996; Kurdek, 1993).

Turning to the results for independent leisure,significant findings emerged only for husbands.That is, the fewer independent leisure activitieshusbands participated in before the baby wasborn, the less conflict they reported in their mar-riage 1 year later. Perhaps husbands who spendmore time with friends do so because they feelless connected to their spouse or less fulfilled intheir relationship. Alternatively, wives mayresent husbands’ independent leisure time, whichnegatively affects their relationship (Henry,Miller, & Giarrusso, 2005). These potential ex-planations are speculations only, and furtherresearch is needed to understand this process.Regardless, data from the current study suggestthat too much leisure spent away from one’s part-ner is a precursor of marital conflict, at least forhusbands.

Next, the amount of change that husbands andwives experience in their leisure throughout thetransition to parenthood was examined in rela-tion to their marriage. We expected steeper de-clines in leisure to be harmful to marital quality.Here, our hypotheses were not confirmed. Wewere surprised to find that decreases in sharedleisure across the transition to parenthood wereassociated with more positive marital outcomes.The picture became clear after we ran our nextmodel, using change and level as predictors. Aclose examination of Figure 3 tells the story.Exploratory analyses revealed that couple mem-bers with a high amount of prenatal shared lei-sure tended to experience the greatest declinesin leisure participation over the transition to par-enthood. Those marriages were resilient, how-ever, despite the decline in leisure during thistime because those who experienced the mostdecline still had higher levels of leisure thanthose who experienced less of a decline over thetransition. Therefore, it is possible that couplesparticipating in more shared leisure before thebaby was born continued to experience its ad-vantages, despite engaging in fewer shared lei-sure activities during the transition. This finding


implies that the state of the marriage before thebaby is born is critical. It appears that couplesare better able to withstand the decline in leisureduring the transition when they have establishedfrequent leisure activity patterns prior to thebaby’s birth. Perhaps engaging in more shared lei-sure prior to the birth leads couples to developpositive communication patterns that persisteven when couples have less leisure timetogether. Alternatively, more prenatal sharedleisure could be a result of spouses havingmore shared interests. These are topics forfuture research.

Another important finding was that wives con-sistently reported fewer shared leisure activitiesthan their husbands. The modest correlationbetween husbands and wives reports of sharedleisure (correlations range from .15 to .34) pointsto the significant degree of unshared variancebetween these reports. This study utilizes self-report data, which is based on each person’s per-ceptions of their leisure practices. Nevertheless,wives in our study perceive themselves to beengaged in fewer shared leisure activities, eventhough, at least theoretically, they are reportingon the same shared activities.We turned to the lit-erature to examine whether wives and husbandscould be defining leisure time differently. Maher(2005) studied motherhood and found that wivesmight view leisure time that includes the baby tobe part of her ‘‘job’’ as a mother, instead of con-sidering this time to be leisure. Shaw andDawson(2001) also point out that mothers feel moreresponsibility to initiate family leisure to facili-tate cohesion. Mothers are also more likely tohave primary responsibility for the arduous taskof planning leisure activities. Our data could bereflectingwives’ increased sense of family leisureas a duty instead of something they do for fun.These results lend support to Shaw andDawson’shypotheses that conventional definitions of lei-sure were not always applicable to family leisure,because not every family member tends to findtypical leisure activities to be rewarding or plea-surable. We emphasize that although womenare reporting fewer leisure activities, a strongrelationship was found between wives’ report ofshared leisure and wives’ report of marital love.Therefore, in future studies, it will be importantto clarify exactly what wives find to be satisfyingabout leisure.

Some researchers who study the transition toparenthood have found that when couples havetheir first child, they spend more time together

doing instrumental tasks together, such as bath-ing and feeding the baby, instead of engaging inshared leisure (Clements & Markman, 1996;Huston et al., 1986). This shared activity mayexplain why, even when leisure declines overthe transition, marriages are not negativelyaffected, because couples are still sharing in fam-ily time. Shared time as parents, even whenfocused on caring for the infant, may be experi-enced as positive couple time. Unfortunately,our childcare data do not distinguish how oftencouples share childcare and household tasksacross the first year of parenthood, although thiswould be a fruitful area of inquiry.

Our findings lend partial support to those ofHuston and Vangelisti (1995) and Crawfordand Huston (1993), who found that new fathersexperienced the least amount of independent lei-sure time. In our study, husbands and wivesreported similar frequencies of independentleisure time, with the exception of 1 month afterthe baby was born. At that time, wives were onmaternity leave, and husbands reported havingfewer leisure activities independent from theirwives. After wives go back to work, they onceagain report similar independent leisure time astheir partners. Our findingsmay diverge from ear-lier work because we studied a dual-earner sam-ple in which both husbands and wives hadrelatively equal commitments to paid employ-ment, thus equally limiting their time for indepen-dent leisure. Thus, different work hours lead todifferent amounts of independent leisure.

This study, which focuses exclusively onworking-class couples during the transition toparenthood, challenges us to consider the rela-tionship between leisure and marriage withina specific ecological context and during a signifi-cant developmental period in a family’s life. Lon-gitudinal data allow us to examine the complexrelationship between level of leisure, changein leisure, and implications for marriage. Addi-tionally, because this study consists of onlydual-earner couples, we are able to considerhow couples who are pressed for time manageto fit leisure into their lives and its implicationsfor their marriage (Crawford et al., 2002).

Limitations

The results of this study should be viewed in lightof its limitations. First, findings from this studyare based on a working-class, White, heterosex-ual sample. Findings cannot be generalized to


couples of other social classes, ethnic minorities,or gay and lesbian couples. Leisure practices andthe importance of leisure might be differentwithin other sociocultural contexts.

Another limitation of the current study is that itis based on retrospective self-report data. Find-ings from diary data or observational data mightreveal different relationships. Also, the measuresused did not take into account whether the babyparticipated in parents’ reports of shared leisureand independent leisure. Thus, we were unableto consider the idea that leisure following thetransition to parenthood may take on new forms(i.e., instrumental activities) and new members(i.e., the baby). Future studies should take thepresence of the baby during leisure practices intoaccount, as well as obtain parents’ perceptions ofwhat they consider tasks versus leisure.

Implications and Future Directions

Findings from this study suggest that shared lei-sure has enduring, positive effects on marriage,and it seems to be beneficial to establish positiveshared leisure practices before life stresses (suchas parenthood) occur for couples. It might be ben-eficial to stress the importance of leisure pursuitsin premarital counseling in order to provide cou-ples with onemore protective factor to strengthenthe marriage. An important area for futureresearch iswhether certain types of leisure are dif-ferentially associated with marital quality. It hasbeen found that active leisure pursuits (e.g.,going out to dinner) might involve more inter-action than passive leisure pursuits (e.g., watch-ing television), and might therefore be morebeneficial for couples (Cowan & Cowan, 1988;Crawford et al., 2002; Orthner 1975).

Although it is evident that leisure participationcan influence marital quality, this study did notexamine the extent of the reciprocal causal rela-tionship. Crawford et al. (2002) determined thatmarital quality also can influence leisure partici-pation. Future studies might further consider thedirection of causality when analyzing longitudi-nal data. Moreover, it is likely that the natureand definition of leisure also change as spousestransition to parenthood and move from couple-level leisure to family-level leisure. Future stud-ies should continue to evaluate the differentmeanings and implications of family leisure(Maher, 2005; Shaw & Dawson, 2001).

As Crawford et al. (2002) suggest, moreimportant than the amount of leisure performed

are the ‘‘conditions under which [couples] doso and how they evaluate such interaction’’(p. 448). Future work that attends to preferences,compatibility, and subjective definitions of leisureas well as life course issues will further our under-standing of how patterns of behavior, as well asfeelings and attitudes about those activities, affectthe course of relationship development.

REFERENCES

Barnett, R. C. (2005). Dual-earner couples: Good/

bad for her and/or him? In D. F. Halpern & S. E.

Murphy (Eds.), From work-family balance towork-family interaction: Changing the metaphor(pp. 151 – 171). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Belsky, J., Spanier, G. B., & Rovine, M. (1983). Sta-

bility and change in marriage across the transition

to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-ily, 45, 567 – 577.

Birchler, G. R. (1992). Marriage. In V. B. Van

Hasselt & M. Herson (Eds.), Handbook of socialdevelopment: A lifespan perspective (pp. 397 –

419). New York: Plenum Press.

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of

marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 62, 964 – 980.

Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in

the development of close relationships. In R. L.

Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange indeveloping relationships (pp. 15 – 168). New

York: Academic Press.

Bristow, W. (2004). 100 tips to be happy together.Hauppauge, NY: Barrons Educational Series.

Burgess, E. W. (1926). The family as a unity of inter-

acting personalities. The Family, 7, 3 – 9.Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the

association between marital relationships and

health problems: An interactional perspective. Psy-chological Bulletin, 112, 39 – 63.

Chapman, G. (1992). The five love languages: Howto express heartfelt commitment to your mate.Chicago: Northfield.

Clements, M., & Markman, H. J. (1996). The transi-

tion to parenthood: Is having children hazardous to

marriage? In N. Vanzetti & S. Duck (Eds.), A life-time of relationships (pp. 290 – 310). Belmont,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1988). Who does

what when partners become parents: Implications

for men, women, and marriage. Marriage andFamily Review, 12, 105 – 131.


Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partnersbecome parents: The big life change for couples.New York: Basic Books.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1995). Interventions

to ease the transition to parenthood: Why they are

needed and what they can do. Family Relations,44, 412 – 423.

Cowan, P. A. (1991). Individual and family life tran-

sitions: A proposal for a new definition. In P. A.

Cowan & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family tran-sitions (pp. 3 – 30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cox, M. J., Paley, B., & Payne, C. C. (1999). The

transition to parenthood: Marital conflict and with-

drawal and parent-infant interaction. In M. J. Cox

& J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Conflict and cohesion infamilies: Causes and consequences (pp. 87 – 104).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crawford, D. W., Houts, R. M., Huston, T. L., &

George, L. J. (2002). Compatibility, leisure, and

satisfaction in marital relationships. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 64, 433 – 449.

Crawford, D. W., & Huston, T. L. (1993). The impact

of the transition to parenthood on marital leisure.

Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,39 – 46.

Crohan, S. E. (1996). Marital quality and conflict

across the transition to parenthood in African

American and White couples. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 58, 933 – 944.

Ellis, G. D., & Witt, P. A. (1994). Perceived freedom

in leisure and satisfaction: Exploring the factor

structure of the perceived freedom components of

the Leisure Diagnostic Battery. Leisure Sciences,16, 259 – 270.

Entwisle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some

practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/

ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Devel-opment, 65, 1521 – 1540.

Forthofer, M. S., Markman, H. J., Cox, M., Stanley,

S., & Kessler, R. C. (1996). Associations between

marital distress and work loss in a national sample.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 597 – 605.Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (1997). On the statistics

of interdependence: Treating dyadic data with

respect. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personalrelationships: Theory, research and interventions(2nd ed., pp. 271 – 302). New York: Wiley.

Gray, J. (1996). Mars and Venus together forever:Relationship skills for lasting love. New York:

HarperCollins.

Henry, R. G., Miller, R. B., & Giarrusso, R. (2005).

Difficulties, disagreements and disappointments in

late-life marriages. International Journal of Agingand Human Development, 61, 243 – 264.

Holman, T. B., & Jacquart, M. (1988). Leisure-

activity patterns and marital satisfaction: A fur-

ther test. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50,69 – 77.

Houts, R. M., Robins, E., & Huston, T. L. (1996).

Compatibility and the development of premarital

relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family,58, 7 – 20.

Huston, T. L. (2000). The social ecology of marriage

and other intimate unions. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 62, 298 – 320.

Huston, T. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C.

(1986). When the honeymoon’s over: Changes in

the marriage relationship over the first year. In

R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging fieldof personal relationships (pp. 109 – 132). Hills-

dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1995). How par-

enthood affects marriage. In M. A. Fitzpatrick &

A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interac-tions (pp. 147 – 176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kalmijn, M., & Bernasco, W. (2001). Joint and sepa-

rated lifestyles in couple relationships. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 63, 639 – 654.

Klausner, W. J. (1968). An experiment in leisure.

Science Journal, 4, 81 – 85.

Kohn, M. L. (1995). Social structure and personality

through time and space. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder,

Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives incontext: Perspectives on the ecology of humandevelopment (pp. 141 – 168). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Kunz, J. L., & Graham, K. (1996). Life course

changes in alcohol consumption in leisure activi-

ties of men and women. Journal of Drug Issues,26, 805 – 829.

Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Nature and prediction of

changes in marital quality for first-time parent and

nonparent husbands and wives. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 6, 255 – 265.

Levy-Shiff, R. (1994). Individual and contextual corre-

lates of marital change across the transition to par-

enthood. Developmental Psychology, 30, 591 – 601.Locke, H. J. (1951). Predicting adjustment in mar-

riage. New York: Holt.

Maher, J. (2005). A mother by trade: Women reflect-

ing mothering as activity not identity. AustralianFeminist Studies, 20(46), 17 – 29.

Marks, S. R., Huston, T. L., Johnson, E. M., &

MacDermid, S. M. (2001). Role balance among

White married couples. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 63, 1083 – 1098.

Mattessich, P., & Hill, R. (1987). Life cycle and

family development. In M. B. Sussman & S. K.


Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage andthe family (pp. 437 – 469). New York: Plenum

Press.

Nomaguchi, K. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2003). Costs

and rewards of children: The effects of becoming

a parent on adults’ lives. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 65, 356 – 374.

Orthner, D. K. (1975). Leisure activity patterns and

marital satisfaction over the marital career. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 37, 91 – 102.

Perry-Jenkins, M. (2005). Work in the working class:

Challenges facing families. In S. M. Bianchi, L.

M. Casper, & B. R. King (Eds.), Work, family,health, & well-being (pp. 453 – 472). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Pistrang, N., & Barker, C. (2005). How partners talk

in times of stress: A process analysis approach. In

T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging per-spectives on dynamic coping (pp. 97 – 119), Wash-

ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1992). Hierarchi-cal linear models: Applications and data analysismethods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Shaw, S. M., & Dawson, D. (2001). Purposive lei-

sure: Examining parental discourses on family

activities. Leisure Sciences, 23, 217 – 231.

Surra, C. A. (1985). Courtship types: Variations in

interdependence between partners and social net-

works. Journal of Personality & Social Psychol-ogy, 49, 357 – 375.

Ventura, J. N. (1987). The stresses of parenthood re-

examined. Family Relations, 36, 26 – 29.

West, P., & Merriam, L. C., Jr. (1970). Outdoor recre-

ation and family cohesiveness: A research approach.

Journal of Leisure Research, 2, 251 – 259.Whisman, M. A. (1999). Marital dissatisfaction and

psychiatric disorders: Results from the national co-

morbidity survey. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 108, 701 – 706.

Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2003). Parent

and child perspectives of family leisure involve-

ment and satisfaction with family life. Journal ofLeisure Research, 35, 163 – 189.

Zimmerman, T. S., Haddock, S. A., Current, L. R., &

Ziemba, S. (2003). Intimate partnership: Foundation

to the successful balance of family and work.

American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 107 – 124.


no fun anymore: leisure and marital quality across the transition to parenthood

Documents