Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
4.4 Dynamics of Conjugal Interactions
Conjugal relationships are dynamic constructs which evolve and change over time.
Furthermore, there are numerous ways in which conjugal life is structured by the partners and interaction patterns change from one couple to another. However, Kellerhals et al. (2004) assume that once rhythms and habits are implemented in the relationship there is a low chance of changes. Through an examination of the single dimensions of conjugal interactions, this assumption will be verified. The development of conjugal interactions over time has not yet been investigated in the literature. The findings of this thesis thus seek to make a contribution relevant to this research gap. The hypotheses tested in the following sections are only partially derived from the existing research literature. The results can be understood as exploratory findings within a less researched area in family sociology.
H4.1: Concerning the cohesion dimension (fusion-autonomy, and openness-closure), it is expected that there will be an alignment of those over time among men and women of the same
couple.
This hypothesis is supported by the research findings showing alignment of attitudes over time (Caspi et al., 1992; Kalmijn, 2005).
118 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
H4.2: Concerning the regulation dimension, it is expected that role differentiation will remain stable and routinisation will become even higher, due to the implementation of fixed rhythms in
the relationship.
Kellerhals and colleagues (2004) already hypothesised that rhythms will be implemented in the relationship over time and that they tend to stay stable after this implementation. However, there has to date been no empirical evidence for this.
To test the hypotheses, the answers for the single dimensions of conjugal interactions will be analysed for men and women separately for both waves and will be compared to each other as well as over time. The single indices will also be compared for the two waves in order to detect changes or stability of conjugal interactions. It will also be shown whether there is convergence of attitudes of men and women over time. This is followed by presentation of the typology of conjugal interaction, considering all dimensions at two points in time. The indices that are used for the construction of the typology were calculated in the same way as the researchers have done for the first wave (Widmer et al., 2003). This procedure allows a comparison of the results for the two waves.
4.4.1 Cohesion
To measure the degree of fusion, seven questions were asked of each partner, with the request to evaluate the statement. The questions were asked of both partners in Waves 1 and 3 so that it becomes possible to examine changes of the evaluation for the couples who stayed together during the observation period. These questions aimed at gathering information about the similarity or dissimilarity of attitudes, values, beliefs and tastes (in terms of music, literature, etc.) of the partners, as well as preferences for time sharing or autonomy of the partners (Question 1). Table 20 displays the proportion of answers of men and women concerning the single items which are considered to measure the degree of fusion in Wave 1 and 3.
In general, in both waves the respondents confirm that they spend most of their evenings with the partner. Furthermore, there is a high affirmation for having the same religious and political views as the partner in Wave 1 as well as in Wave 3, indicating that similarities of values and opinions are important for the conjugal relationship. Men and women in both waves also state
4.4.1 Cohesion 119
that they usually go out with the partner to meet friends. In contrast, in Wave 3 there are more women than in Wave 1 and also more women than men who pursue more activities outside the sphere of work without the partner. Furthermore, women sacrifice less often from their own activities in Wave 3 than in Wave 1. This indicates that women emphasise the importance of their own time management in Wave 3. In general, the proportion of the answers stays quite stable over time. Most of the significant results show lower discrepancies between men and women, indicating that there is a similarity in fusional or autonomous attitudes.
Table 20: Proportion of Indicators for Fusion (%)
1st wave 3rd wave
Women Men Cramers' V Chi² df Proportion of discrepancy of answer M-W (%)
Women Men Cramers' V Chi² df Proportion of discrepancy of answer M-W (%) 1. You spend most of your evenings with your
partner (5 out of 7).
0.29*** 61.99*** 1 18 0.32*** 71.75*** 1 14
Agreement 84 87 87 90
Disagreement 16 13 13 11
2. Religious and political views of your partner are quite close to yours.
0.26*** 49.50*** 1 11 0.21*** 31.23*** 1 10
Agreement 92 93 93 93
Disagreement 9 7 7 7
3. When you meet your friends, you meet them
mostly in the company of your partner. 0.10** 7.67** 1 18 0.22*** 35.04*** 1 15
Agreement 90 88 90 90
Disagreement 10 12 10 10
4. All the money that enters the home budget is
divided equally between you. 0.29*** 61.85*** 1 7 0.38*** 105.69*** 1 6
Agreement 94 95 95 95
Disagreement 6 5 5 5
5. Outside your work you have many activities without your partner.
0.10* 4.01* 1 46 0.14*** 14.24*** 1 42
Agreement 47 46 60 54
Disagreement 53 54 40 46
6. You sacrifice some of your activities to not distance yourself from your partner.
0.10* 6.34* 1 40 0.10** 7.03** 1 43
Agreement 63 71 56 70
Disagreement 37 29 44 30
7. You rather ask one question less than to have conflict with your partner.
0.10 3.04 1 54 0.01 0.16 1 49
Agreement 44 58 50 68
Disagreement 56 42 50 32
8. In your relationship you need a good dose of autonomy.
0.15*** 16.52*** 1 30 0.01 1.66 1 28
Agreement 84 72 88 78
Disagreement 16 28 12 22
9. In terms of music, books and films, you have very similar preferences.
0.31*** 68.76*** 1 29 0.30*** 64.53*** 1 33
Agreement 69 70 61 66
Disagreement 32 30 39 34
Note: column percentages, N=721 (for men and women), *** p≤0.001; ** p≤0.01, * p≤0.05.
122 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
To distinguish autonomous and fusional attitudes of men and women, an index has been created by summing up the points of the single items. The index has been dichotomised at the median to differentiate men and women who are more fusional or autonomous. Illustration 20 shows changes on the fusion-autonomy axis over time for women, once again using the parallel coordinate plot. About one third of women kept fusional or autonomous attitudes respectively.
However, we can also observe changes in the two directions. Whereas ca. 26% of the women changed from an autonomous to a fusional attitude, only 10% of the women changed from fusion to autonomy. In the case of the men, we can observe the same trend in Illustration 21, although there are differences in the proportion of the paths. More men than women, about 40%, are characterised as fusional in both waves. In both waves, autonomous attitudes of men are observable less often than for women.
Note: N=721, Cramers' V = 0.32***, Chi² = 74.25***, df =1, *** p≤0.001.
Illustration 20: Development of Fusional Attitudes, Women
4.4.1 Cohesion 123
Note: N=721, Cramers' V = 0.36***, Chi² = 94.28***, df = 1, *** p≤0.001.
Table 21 shows whether fusional or autonomous attitudes of partners converge over time. There is an increase in couples where both partners have fusional attitudes over time. In contrast, couples where both partners have autonomous attitudes were less frequent in Wave 3. However, there are still many couples with mixed attitudes. The hypothesis that there is convergence of attitudes for couples who stayed together has so far only been partially confirmed. However, the results show that fusional attitudes of men and women became more pronounced over time.
Illustration 21: Development of Fusional Attitudes, Men
124 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
Table 21: Alignment of Fusional Attitudes Over Time (%)
Men
Women Fusional Autonomous Cramers' V Chi² df
WAVE 1 0.27*** 40.04*** 1
Fusional 53 30
Autonomous 47 70
Total 100 100
WAVE 3 0.23*** 38.03*** 1
Fusional 67 43
Autonomous 33 57
Total 100 100
Note: column percentages, N= 721, *** p≤0.001; ** p≤0.01, * p≤0.05.
To measure the degree of closure of men and women, six items were used and the participants were asked to evaluate whether they agreed or not (Question 2). Response categories ranged from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”. Table 22 shows how men and women replied to the questions which measure the degree of closure in Wave 1 and 3. The great majority of men and women follow the daily political and economic discourse in the media and are interested in customs and traditions of other countries. Almost all men and women confirmed in both waves that they have a very open home for their friends and families. In contrast, there are also tendencies for closure, indicated by the preference of men and women to stay within the family in both waves. In regard to the items concerning fusional attitudes, there is in general a stability among the answers between both waves.
Table 22: Proportion of the Indicators for Closure (%)
1. You follow daily political and economic news. 0.20*** 27.93*** 1 24 0.14*** 14.84*** 1 21
Agreement 77 89 81 92
Disagreement 23 11 19 8
2. You visit or you are going out with your friends several times a week.
0.10* 5.93* 1 44 0.15*** 15.80*** 1 42
Agreement 44 37 46 41
Disagreement 56 64 54 59
3. You are not too attracted by the customs and/or traditions of other countries.
0.19*** 25.65*** 1 30 0.17*** 20.58*** 1 33
Agreement 21 27 23 30
Disagreement 79 73 77 70
4. You often prefer to stay with the family. 0.12** 10.12** 1 12 0.13*** 11.28*** 1 14
Agreement 90 96 89 95
Disagreement 10 5 11 5
5. Your home is very open to friends, colleagues and members of your family.
0.26*** 48.49*** 1 8 0.22*** 34.69*** 1 8
Agreement 95 94 94 95
Disagreement 5 6 6 5
6. You stay informed on the affairs of your community, region.
0.26*** 50.32*** 1 25 0.23*** 38.21*** 1 19
Agreement 77 81 84 87
Disagreement 23 19 16 13
Note: column percentages, N=721 (for men and women),*** p≤0.001; ** p≤0.01, * p≤0.05.
126 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
To distinguish between men and women with more open and closed attitudes an index, taking into account all the given answers to the six items, was built and dichotomized at the median.
Illustration 22 shows whether women moved on the closure-openness axis over time. 50% of women already displayed an open attitude in Wave 1 and did not change over time, and about one fifth showed closed attitudes in both waves. Only some 10% of women changed from an open attitude towards a closed one, whereas 17% became more open over time. In comparison to women, men show some differences, as can be seen in Illustration 23. Men less often displayed open attitudes in both waves. Interestingly, men developed a closed attitude more often over time than women. In respect to the cohesion dimension, differences between men and women occurred. Women tended to become more autonomous concerning their time management and also more open towards the environment than men.
Note: N=721, Cramers' V = 0.41***, Chi² = 119.38***, df = 1, *** p≤0.001.
Illustration 22: Development of Closure, Women
4.4.1 Cohesion 127
Note: N=721, Cramers' V = 0.29***, Chi² = 59.45***, df = 1, *** p≤0.001 .
Table 23 shows the accordance of open or closed attitudes of men and women in both waves.
Between the two waves, there is an increase in couples where both partners have open attitudes and a decrease in couples where both are closed. As the separate analyses for men and women already indicated, there is an increase in couples where men show a greater tendency for closure than women. Even though there is a convergence of open attitudes over time, the hypothesis of attitude alignment can once again only partially be confirmed, since there is still a high proportion of couples with different attitudes.
Illustration 23: Development of Closure, Men
128 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
Table 23: Alignment of Open Attitudes Over Time (%)
Men
Women Openness Closure Cramers' V Chi² df
WAVE 1 0.23*** 38.22*** 1
Openness 69 46
Closure 31 54
Total 100 100
WAVE 3 0.24*** 41.71*** 1
Openness 78 55
Closure 22 45
Total 100 100
Note: column percentages, N= 721, *** p ≤0.001.
4.4.2 Regulation
The regulation dimension summarises several indicators that have been measured in Wave 1 and 3. To measure functional roles, questions about different household tasks were asked to men and women. These questions include items about who prepares the meals, does the shopping, who does the household cleaning, the laundry, but also who takes care of the administrative tasks and reparation work, and who is responsible for child care (when there are children up to age 15 in the household) (Question 3). Men and women were asked to evaluate their own amount of time investment in the single tasks in relation to their partner, in order to measure the differentiation in functional roles. Response categories range from ‘less than one quarter’ to
‘almost everything’.
Table 24: Proportion of Indicators for Functional Roles (%)
1st wave 3rd wave
Women Men Gamma
correlation Chi² df Women Men Gamma
correlation Chi² df
Cooking and Shopping '-0.71*** 40.3*** 16 -0.64*** 359.30*** 16
Almost everything 56 2 50 4
Three quarter 28 4 24 6
Half 15 20 21 27
One quarter 1 33 2 35
Less 1 42 3 29
Cleaning, tidying up and dishwashing '-0.59*** 265.76*** 16 0.57*** 316.50*** 16
Almost everything 50 1 42 3
Almost everything 88 1 86 2 290.87*** 16
Three quarter 6 1 7 1
Half 4 3 5 7
One quarter 1 8 2 8
Less 2 88 1 83
Home budget including tax reconciliation, bills and bank accounts control
Home, car and garden maintenance '0.48*** 155.27*** 16 -0.56*** 200.70*** 16
Almost everything 3 64 5 64
Three quarter 4 15 5 15
Half 22 14 21 14
One quarter 15 3 18 3
Less 56 3 51 5
Table 24: continued
1st wave 3rd wave
Women MenGamma correlation Chi² df Women Men Gamma
correlation Chi² df
Take care of children (if children up to age 15 in household) -0.43*** 55.02*** 16 -0.32*** 41.03*** 20
Almost everything 31 1 30 1
Three quarter 41 1 34 3
Half 27 34 33 49
One quarter 1 41 1 35
Less 1 23 0 10
Note: N=721 (for men and women), *** p ≤0.001, ** p ≤0.01.
4.4.2 Regulation 131
Table 24 shows the distribution for men and women in both waves. For both points of observation, a highly gendered differentiation of time investment in household tasks is observable. Women invest much more time in typical female tasks such as cooking, cleaning and doing the laundry and child care, whereas men devote more time to administrative tasks and reparation work. The figures for the first and third waves do not differ that strongly, which is why it can be stated that the couples in the sample have in general a traditional share of household tasks. To show whether there exist a high or low differentiation of functional roles for each wave, an index has been constructed taking into account answers given by women. The aim is to examine whether there is an overinvestment in household tasks by women. An index was created by summing up how often women do three quarters or almost all of a given single task. The index has been dichotomized at the median in order to differentiate between couples with a low or high gendered differentiation of functional roles. Illustration 24 displays the changes in the differentiation of functional roles over time.
Note: N=721, Cramers' V = 0.39***, df = Chi² = 102.81***, df = 1, *** p ≤0.001.
Illustration 24 shows that there is a high level of stability in the differentiation of functional roles. Approximately 40% of the couples display a high differentiation in both waves and around one third of the couples are characterised by a low role differentiation in both waves.
Illustration 24: Development of Differentiation of Functional Roles
132 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
Nevertheless, there are also some changes over time. About one fifth of the couples changed from a high to a low differentiation of functional roles whereas only about 10% moved from low to high differentiation. This is evidential for the hypothesis that the differentiation of functional roles became less important for some couples.
Relational roles describe the competencies and responsibilities of each partner, such as taking the initiative, having the biggest influence in discussions, lowering the temperature of dispute in discussions, supporting, encouraging. To examine how these single competencies and responsibilities are distributed among the couples, both partners were asked to evaluate who among them hold the individual competency. Response categories were “myself”, “ my partner”
and “both of us” (Question 7).
Table 25: Proportion of Indicators for Relational Roles (%)
1st Wave 3rd Wave
Women Men Cramers' V Chi'2 df Women Men Cramers' V Chi² df
Orientation roles
Delivers more ideas and takes the initiative 0.27*** 106.20*** 4 0.28*** 110.50*** 4
Myself 41 22 39 18
My partner 20 38 11 29
Both of us 40 40 50 54
Have the most weight in the discussions 0.18*** 37.54*** 4 0.18*** 22.05*** 4
Myself 16 31 16 25
My partner 33 16 28 15
Both of us 51 53 57 61
Mediation role
Stays the most correct, refocuses the discussion 0.15*** 102.45*** 4 0.10**101.36*** 4
Myself 34 36 38 27
My partner 29 27 21 25
Both of us 37 37 41 47
Calms the disputes, proposes the compromises 0.22*** 66.79*** 4 0.19*** 51.46*** 4
Myself 35 38 37 30
My partner 32 25 19 25
Both of us 34 37 43 45
Emotional support role
Relaxes the atmosphere and makes people laugh 0.17*** 34.37*** 4 0.27*** 13.54*** 4
Myself 31 42 31 39
My partner 37 20 27 18
Both of us 32 39 42 43
Gives most of support, encouragement, advice 0.16*** 49.93*** 4 0.12*** 18.16** 4
Myself 38 16 38 11
My partner 19 42 11 35
Both of us 43 42 51 54
Makes the most of the little sacrifices for the couple and the family life 0.19*** 44.95*** 4 0.11** 46.14*** 4
Myself 41 13 40 11
My partner 9 40 7 31
Both of us 50 47 53 58
Note: column percentages, N=721 (for men and women), *** p ≤0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01.
134 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
Overall, relational roles are quite equally differentiated among the partners, since for the most part, both partners answered that both of them are responsible for the individual items. There is even an increase in the proportion of equal share of relational roles over time. Partners share in particular the influence in discussions equally and both make sacrifices for the family. Women deliver ideas and propose compromises more often than men. In contrast, men have more weight in discussions, if it is not equally distributed among the partners. Nevertheless, having a deeper look into the response categories “myself” and “my partner”, there are differences in the perception of men and women regarding who is more responsible or more competent for the individual items. Differences are especially observable for mediation roles. Women think more often that they are more correct during discussions, and calm down disputes more than their partner thinks they do. Furthermore, women also state more often that they relax the atmosphere than their partner thinks they do. For those three items, there is a disparity between self-perception and self-perception by the partner. For the other items, men and women evaluate quite equally who is more responsible when they are not both responsible. To examine whether there are couples with a high or low differentiation of relational roles, an index was built taking into account answers given by women. By counting how often women gave the answer “both of us”, an index was constructed differentiating between women who gave this answer zero up to three times and women who gave it more often than three times. Having given this answer three times or less means that there is a strong differentiation in relational roles and more than three times shows a low differentiation in relational roles. Once again, this index was built for Waves 1 and 3 and to observe the changes over time.
4.4.2 Regulation 135
Note: N=721, Cramers' V = 0.26***, Chi² = 49.53***, df = 1, *** p ≤0.001.
About 40% of the couples show a high differentiation of relational roles in both waves and about one fifth are characterised by a low role differentiation. Even though there is a tendency for stability of relational roles, and also for a high differentiation, it can be noted that differentiation became lower for many couples.
Decisional power describes whether partners take decisions together or whether one partner is more dominant in the relationship. This concerns aspects of conjugal life such as choosing the activities for the weekend or vacation, inviting someone or accepting invitations, or making important purchases (Question 6). The distribution of decisional power indicates whether there are imbalances of power in the relationship.
Illustration 25: Development of Differentiation of Relational Roles
Table 26: Proportion Of Indicators for Decisional Power (%)
1st wave 3rd wave
Women Men Gamma cor Chi² df Women Men Gamma cor Chi² df
1. Choosing the weekend activities 0.16** 91.04*** 9 0.17** 64.58*** 9
Myself 29 20 22 14
My partner 15 27 12 23
Both 55 52 64 62
Somebody else 1 1 2 1
2. Make or accept an invitation 0.33*** 59.03*** 4 0.23** 35.66*** 6
Myself 36 9 32 8
My partner 9 36 6 33
Both 56 56 62 59
Somebody else
3. Refurnish or equip your apartment 0.33*** 108.15*** 4 0.21*** 93.54*** 9
Myself 46 8 48 6
My partner 5 57 5 53
Both 49 36 47 41
Somebody else
4. Choosing the holiday destination 0.15** 112.05*** 9 0.13** 111.04*** 9
Myself 14 11 15 9
6. Choosing or changing the insurance policies 0.31*** 160.71*** 6 0.36*** 250.92*** 9
Myself 9 41 10 37
My partner 39 10 36 10
Both 52 49 54 53
Somebody else
Table 26: continued
1st wave 3rd wave
Women Men Gamma cor Chi² df Women Men Gamma cor Chi² df
7. When children are small: Allow or disallow them certain things 0.10 17.48** 4 0.23* 73.91*** 16
Myself 40 13 28 8
My partner 5 26 4 22
Both 54 60 62 61
Somebody else 2 2
No answer 1 1 4 7
Note: column percentages, N=721 (for men and women), *** p ≤0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01.
138 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions
In general, decisions are mostly made by both partners equally. Over time there is even an increase in sharing of decision-making for all items. Furthermore, there is a level of accord in the answers of men and women in most cases, meaning that partners estimate quite equally which of them has more power in respect to certain decisions, if they are not made by both partners. This accordance is even stronger in Wave 3. In Wave 1 there are some discrepancies for the items related to making important purchases and for decisions concerning children. To see the differentiation of decisional power within the relationship, an index has been built taking into account the answers given by women. Counting how often women said that there is
In general, decisions are mostly made by both partners equally. Over time there is even an increase in sharing of decision-making for all items. Furthermore, there is a level of accord in the answers of men and women in most cases, meaning that partners estimate quite equally which of them has more power in respect to certain decisions, if they are not made by both partners. This accordance is even stronger in Wave 3. In Wave 1 there are some discrepancies for the items related to making important purchases and for decisions concerning children. To see the differentiation of decisional power within the relationship, an index has been built taking into account the answers given by women. Counting how often women said that there is