Marital Relationships and Parenting: Intimate relations and their correlates

Ami Rokach

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351804233
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Romantic relationships, especially good ones, are desired of almost all humans. However, what makes such relationships good and nourishing? For the most part, it is the support and intimacy that exists within the couple, and their ability to experience life and face difficulties together.

This book is divided into two sections, one focusing on the couple and their intimate relationship, and the other on how that relationship influences their offspring. Part one examines whether sacrificing in an intimate relationship is always beneficial and whether it help strengthen the marital/couple unit? Attachment theory has had a significant influence on how we view relationships in childhood as well as in adulthood. The book sheds light on the mechanisms that mediate attachment style and the quality of the intimate relationships, exploring the relationship between one's ability to express empathy and that person's ability to offer social support to his/her partner.

The second part of the book explores what young adults think about marriage, influenced by their parental relationship; how parental relationships affect children's social experience in school; how parental approaches to children affect their sibling relationship; the parental role in childhood eating disturbances; and how the family climate affects children's loneliness.

All in all, the book affords a thorough review not only of what marital/couple intimacy is and what can affect it, but how significant it is in affecting their children, in and out of the house. The chapters in this book were originally published in the Journal of Psychology.

Intimacy Behaviors and Relationship Satisfaction for Cohabitors: Intimate Sacrifices Are Not Always Beneficial

Valerie J. Young^a and Melissa A. Curran^b

^aHanover College;^b University of Arizona

ABSTRACT
Guided by interdependence theory, the authors examined how relationship satisfaction is explained by intimate behavior sacrifices in a sample of cohabitors (N = 200). Specifically, it was predicted that characteristics of intimate behavior sacrifices, such as ease and partner appreciation should alter the association of sacrifice frequency and relationship satisfaction. The pattern that emerged demonstrates lower satisfaction for cohabitors when they frequently made intimate sacrifices and their partners were less appreciative of the sacrifices. When making frequent, but less appreciated, intimacy sacrifices for their partner, cohabitors may struggle with intimacy behaviors that are partner oriented.

One way in which individuals build and maintain satisfying romantic relationships is through creating and exchanging intimacy, tending to each other’s interpersonal needs (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Relationships characterized by a high level of physical intimacy and affectionate behaviors are often relationally satisfying (Byers, 2005; Floyd et al., 2009; Holmberg, Blair, & Phillips, 2010). Though researchers have identified several different facets of relational intimacy (Pascoal, Narciso, & Pereira, 2014; Prager, 1995), one important element of intimacy includes the components of affection exchange among people in relationships. Physical intimacy includes behaviors such as kissing, holding hands, and touching (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Not only can physical touch from a partner improve one’s own and partner’s affective state (Debrot, Schoebi, Perrez, & Horn, 2013), but physical intimacy is also associated with relationship satisfaction and commitment (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010) and conflict resolution (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003). Further, affectionate behavior is important to relational quality given that affectionate people report better psychological, mental, emotional, social, and relational well–being (Floyd, 2002). Despite these positive personal and relational outcomes related to physical intimacy, intimacy can be a source of conflict in romantic relationships (Papp, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2013), and individuals may prefer some intimate behaviors more than their partners (Gulledge et al., 2003).

To better understand the ways in which intimacy contributes to relationship satisfaction, in the present study we investigated the conditions in which intimacy is communicated by studying intimate behavior sacrifices, defined as interpersonal acts in which one person transforms their own intimate behaviors to align with their partner’s preferences. According to interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979), sacrifices should contribute positively to relationship quality, as they signal that an individual is interested in their partner’s outcomes. These behaviors signal an individual’s attempt to negotiate their own relational intimacy norms to meet one another’s needs in the relationship. Indeed, in one study, intimacy behaviors done for a partner such as hugging, holding hands, giving massages, and acting affectionately was positively associated with relationship satisfaction (Burke & Young, 2012).

Within this focus on intimate sacrifices and relational satisfaction, we examine individuals in various stages of cohabiting relationships, which is a quickly growing, diverse segment of the U.S. population (Kiernan, 2004; Sassler, 2010). Some research suggests that cohabitors report more relational problems or conflict than married or dating couples (Kline et al., 2004; Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006) and other research does not (Willoughby, Carroll, & Busby, 2012). However, cohabitors have reported fewer intimacy related problems (Hsueh, Morrison, & Doss, 2009). In light of these findings, cohabitors are relevant to an investigation of intimacy because intimacy norms in a relationship may still be developing as couples negotiate this relationship stage that often includes some uncertainty (Surra, Gray, Boettcher, Cottle, & West, 2006; Willoughby et al., 2012). The juxtaposition of uncertainty and solidarity in cohabitation provides a unique and theoretically relevant context for studying how individuals feel regarding intimacy sacrifices. Thus, we identify individuals in various stages of cohabiting relationships, from “stay over” couples (e.g., Sassler, 2004) to full time cohabitors, as the focus of the present study, with the goal of illuminating some of the ways that intimate behaviors can strengthen or improve relationship satisfaction.

Theoretical Foundations for Intimate Sacrifice

Interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979) outlines a process in which individuals consider their own and their partner’s needs and outcomes as they coordinate relationship interactions. The theory suggests that interdependent individuals experience conflicts of interest that allow each person the option to coordinate their behavior to align with their partner’s interpersonal needs. One way in which individuals may approach an interdependence situation is to engage in a relationship transformation, often referred to as relationship sacrifice in which a person may “depart from one’s immediate interests to promote the partner’s interests” (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003, p. 362). The transformation process of interdependence theory suggests that individuals make decisions based on their own self–interest and on their partner’s interests, the relationship goals, or other altruistic considerations. The decision to make sacrificial behaviors could be made quite rapidly or be an intentional choice (Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997). The decisions a person makes regarding when and how to negotiate their own and their partner’s needs can be the basis for forming the relationship rules that govern future interactions (Kelley et al., 2003).

Scholars have examined the interdependence process of behavior coordination to better understand the motivations and outcomes of sacrifices. Previous research on sacrifice suggests that willingness to make relational sacrifices is associated with positive relationship quality, including greater relationship satisfaction, lower perceived quality of alternatives, and higher investment size and commitment (Etcheverry & Le, 2005; Van Lange, Agnew, Harinck, & Steemers, 1997; Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997). A positive attitude about relationship sacrifice may signal relationship commitment and contribute positively to the longevity of a committed marriage (Stanley, Whitton, Sadberry, Clements, & Markman, 2006). Frequency of sacrifice and relationship quality is less patterned. Some studies find positive associations (Burke & Young, 2012; Totenhagen, Curran, Serido, & Butler, 2013; Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997, study 4) while others find neutral (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005) or negative (Whitton, Stanley, & Markman, 2007) associations. In these latter studies, sacrifices may be viewed as relationship costs by individuals who are primarily operating to maximize their own outcomes.

Indeed, the type of relationship (i.e., married versus cohabiting or dating) in which sacrifice is investigated may matter. For married couples, sacrifice may be one way to demonstrate relationship commitment and dedication to one another (Stanley, Whitton, et al., 2006); yet in relationships with less formal stability and structural commitment that marriage provides, the motives for sacrifice may necessarily differ, as well as the outcomes of those sacrifices. Commonly in studies of sacrifice, the participants are either mostly or all married (e.g., Whitton et al., 2007), mostly or all dating (Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997, Study 1), or a mix of dating and cohabiting (Joel, Gordon, Impett, MacDonald, & Keltner, 2013), or a mix of dating, cohabiting, and married (Burke & Young, 2012). Indeed, calls to examine sacrifices in a large sample of cohabitors have been noted (e.g., Whitton et al., 2007).

There is a need for research that investigates the conditions in which intimate sacrifices occur and how these transformations impact relationship satisfaction. Therefore, we propose, based on interdependence theory and previous research, that some cohabiting individuals may be sacrificing based on partner–oriented reasons (e.g., because partner enjoys cuddling), while others may be sacrificing for self-oriented reasons (e.g., because cuddling means their partner will feel indebted to them). Partner-oriented individuals may not experience the negative cognition and emotion associated with situations of conflicting interests, because ultimately, their relationship satisfaction is independent of their sacrifices. In other words, communally-oriented individuals do not experience a need to cognitively justify how, when, or why they make sacrifices for their partners; they enact intimacy behaviors to benefit their partner or their relationship (Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986). For more self-interested individuals, it may be particularly important when they enact intimacy behaviors for their partners, that the sacrifice is relatively easy, and that their partners are appreciative of these sacrifices (presumably, so that they can be “repaid” in the future). The nature of sacrifice, according to interdependence theory, purposely ranges from more self-orientation to more partner–orientation, suggesting that some apparent a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction—Intimate relations: what enriches and what depletes them
• PART I: Marital and intimate relations
• PART II: Parents, children, support, and intimacy
• Index