Typological Approach of Conjugal Interactions by

The typology used for this thesis is based on two main dimensions: cohesion and regulation.

Cohesion as a dimension was already considered in other studies (Olson et al., 1989) and is an important factor to describe conjugal interactions as well as the functioning of conjugal configurations. Regulation as the second dimension determines how conjugal life is organised.

The description of the single indicators of each dimension is based on the work of Kellerhals and colleagues and refers to the dimensions and measurements chosen in the first wave (Widmer et al., 2003).

Cohesion is understood as “(...) the degree of emotional bonding between family members”

(Olson et al., 1989). By means of cohesion, the internal and external boundaries of a group are defined. It describes the degree to which resources such as time, money, ideas and affection are shared. Each partner of a couple decides how much of his/her resources he or she is willing to

4.2 Typological Approach of Conjugal Interactions by Kellerhals and Colleagues 113

share in the relationship. Internal cohesion is determined by the question of establishing a good distance, i.e. whether the “we” is important or the “I” (Kellerhals et al., 2004). External boundaries are determined by the exchange with the environment. Two axes are available to classify the degree of cohesion: the fusion-autonomy axis and the openness-closure axis.

The fusion-autonomy axis describes the degree of relatedness of partners towards each other.

On the one hand, there are couples who appreciate similarity and community, similar values and beliefs and time sharing; on the other, there are couples for whom autonomy is the main value.

As a second indicator of cohesion, the closure-openness axis describes whether men and women in a couple value contacts with the social environment or whether they avoid them. For some men and women, contacts with the outside are seen as an enrichment for themselves but also for the partnership. Yet there are also men and women who see social interaction as a threat to themselves or for the relationship and therefore they try to restrict it to a minimum. To be open or closed towards the environment does not only mean whether one stays in contact with friends and family but also entails keeping in touch with the community and be interested in its social and political life.

Regulation in a relationship defines how roles and hierarchies are established between gender and generations, how routines and rituals are defined, and furthermore how space and time are scheduled in the household. To reach the objectives of the relationship, all couples have to coordinate the actions of the members. Overall, there has been a development from relationships characterised by hierarchy and differentiation to those marked by equality and low differentiation. In low differentiated systems, both partners usually follow their professional career and domestic tasks are shared. Activities are negotiated and flexibility serves as a guarantee for adaptation and equality. Here, each partner can realise his own goals in the different life domains. In contrast, highly differentiated systems are characterised by predictability due to clearly defined structures and rules. As a result of specialization, these systems show efficiency. As roles and tasks are defined, conflicts are limited and solidarity is reinforced due to the dependency of both partners (ibid).

Functional roles describe the distribution of household tasks among the partners. Furthermore, it can be observed whether there is one partner who invests much more time in certain tasks than the other. This allows examining whether couples prefer a traditional or a more equal share of household tasks. In contrast to functional roles, relational roles describe the emotional investment of partners by describing the share of competencies and responsibilities in the

114 Chapter 4. Conjugal Interactions

relationship. They can be divided into three different types. The mediation role refers to the person who is more responsible for the conflict resolution. The partner who is responsible for the information delivery has the informative role. Finally, the emotional role is ascribed to that partner who is more responsible for the emotional support in the relationship. Decisional power refers to whether one partner takes decisions about specific aspects of the conjugal life or whether both partners decide together.

The master status as an indicator for regulation shows whether couples prefer that each partner should focus mainly on only one area, either the labour market or the household. Routinisation is an important factor to analyse conjugal life, since it shows how flexible or rigid couples are in their daily habits. In case of unexpected events, it is important that each partner in a couple adapt quickly to ensure the well-functioning of the relationship. A rigid organisation of the daily life can hinder this adaptation process. In general, two different modes of regulation can be defined: normative regulation is characterised by long-term defined roles and by clearly defined power structures and hierarchy. The communicative mode of regulation is characterised by redefinition of situations, invention of solutions and improvisation (ibid).

One study which refers to this dimension was conducted by Aboim (2008). The author tested the impact of life course indicators on conjugal functioning, using a typology of conjugal interaction for a Portuguese sample. The typology of conjugal interaction considered three dimensions: cohesion, gender differentiation and external orientation. The analyses were based on a sample of about 1,800 Portuguese women, living with a partner and having at least one child between 6 and 16 years in the household. The author identified six styles of conjugal interactions. Parallel couples were characterised by high gender differentiation of household tasks as well as of leisure activities. There was a clear preference of closure, but also of autonomy of the partners. For Associative couples, the individual self-expression, expressed by the preference of autonomy, was more important than fusional norms. These couples were also open towards their environment. The Familial-parallel couples showed high gender differentiation concerning the division of housework, but low differentiation for leisure activities Furthermore, these couples emphasised fusional norms. Confluent couples displayed high fusional norms and low gendered differentiation of household tasks. Among confluent couples, the dual-breadwinner model was dominant and the sharing of instrumental tasks was very important. Bastion couples were characterised by high fusion, closure and a high level of differentiation of household tasks. The closed and fusional attitudes of those couples did not

4.2 Typological Approach of Conjugal Interactions by Kellerhals and Colleagues 115

leave any space for individual activities. Companionship-fusion couples combined fusional and open attitudes, and the sharing of household tasks between the partners, with the preference for the dual-breadwinner model. For the relationship between life course factors and socio-demographic characteristics and conjugal interactions, the researcher found that living in cohabitation and forming a relationship in later life were connected to individual autonomy.

Education, as one socio-demographic characteristic was also linked to conjugal interactions, in particular for women. Women of Associative couples had higher educational degrees and women of Familial-parallel, Confluent and Bastion couples had statistically significant lower educational degrees than other women. Being in the Parallel style of interactions was linked to cohabitation, the presence of several children in the household as well as to remarriage trajectories (Aboim, 2008).

In a study by Kellerhals et al., (1992) a typology of conjugal interactions was constructed, oriented to the dimensions internal cohesion and external orientation. The authors identified four ideal-types of families; Shelter, Parallel, Companionship and Association. Shelter families stressed the importance of community in the family, where external contacts tend to be avoided.

Parallel families are also closed from the external world; however, inside the family every member has its clearly defined roles. Association families stress the independence and autonomy of its members. Companionship families benefit form external contacts in their internal family life, as it creates exchange and communication between the members (Kellerhals, Montadon, & Ritschard, 1992).