The Contribution of Vacationing Together to Couple Functioning

Abstract

Informed by the Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning, we investigated the contribution of one type of family leisure—couple vacations—in enhancing couples’ cohesion and flexibility (i.e., functioning). Studying dyadic data from 112 couples (224 individuals) from across the United States of America, results of multilevel models showed that the variable “shared experiences during vacations” was positively associated with couples’ day-to-day functioning at home. Couples who engaged in higher levels of shared experiences during their vacations, such as effective communication, showing affection, or experiencing new things together, reported higher levels of couple flexibility and cohesion following their vacations, regardless of the number of vacations. We discuss the implications of these results for couples who spend quality time together away from home, as well as future use of our study model when examining benefits of vacationing for families.

Keywords

benefits of tourism family vacations couples dyadic study core and balance model of family leisure functioning

Introduction

The Harvard Study of Adult Development, the longest study of humans in history (i.e., 1938–2015; Waldinger 2015), indicates that good relationships are better than fame, economic advancement, and hard work at predicting physical health and a good life. Good relationships have also been found to contribute to individuals’ mental wellbeing (Ryan and Deci 2000; Ryff and Keyes 1995; Seligman 2011). Relationships are particularly nurtured during time away from work and other obligations (Newman, Tay, and Diener 2014; Smith et al. 1988), which is often referred to as leisure or “self-determined activity-experience that falls into one’s economically free-time roles” (Kaplan 1975, p. 26). One type of leisure, family leisure (Poff, Zabriskie, and Townsend 2010), has particulary been found to contribute to individuals’ satisfaction with their family relationships (Agate et al. 2009). Sharing time together, including during vacation, may help partners strengthen their attachment; solve solvable problems (Gottman and Silver 2015); prevent divorce (Hill 1988); and, eventually, generate higher levels of marital satisfaction (Chavez 2015). Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of one type of family leisure—couple vacations—in enhancing couples’ functioning (i.e., cohesion and flexibility of their relationship).

Few researchers have focused on couples as a family when studying benefits of family leisure (Hodge et al. 2015; Townsend, Puymbroeck, and Zabriskie 2017). This is surprising for research conducted in the United States given that approximately 61% of married households are composed of couples with no children present (Statista 2018). In the last decade, more women have decided to have children toward the end of their childbearing years (Pew Research Center 2018), yet the number of childless couples in the United States remains comparable to or higher than other nations (Pew Research Center 2014). Further, married working couples without children in their household spend little time together in leisure (Jacobs and Gerson 2001; Voorpostel, Van Der Lippe, and Gershuny 2010), particularly vacations (Durko and Petrick 2013). The intensive work culture around the world and specifically in the United States has likely negatively impacted family vacations (de Graaf 2017). In 2016, GfK, one of the largest market research organizations in the world, found 50% of US employees who worked over 35 hours per week and received paid vacation time from their employers did not use all their vacation time in the previous year (US Travel and Tourism Association 2017). Vacations “constitute a prime opportunity for [individuals] to reconnect with their loved ones, to engage in positive social interactions and to consolidate their bonds” (De Bloom, Geurts, and Lohmann 2016, p. 36). Thus, this study endeavored to expand knowledge about one type of family, couples, and the contribution of one type of leisure engagement, vacations, to their relationship functioning. Informed by the Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning (Zabriskie and McCormick 2001), the relationship between couples’ vacations and their family functioning was examined. The following is a review of literature that informed this study.

Literature Review

Family leisure, often referred to as “purposive” leisure, occurs when parents deliberately plan family activities for the purpose of family members spending time with each other and promoting a sense of family unity (Shaw and Dawson 2001, p. 217). In this study, couple vacations were studied and considered a form of family leisure and were focused on pleasure, not business, travel. They involved three nights or more away from home to avoid short-term weekend getaways that some tourism scholars might not consider to be a vacation.

Family Leisure Research and the Core and Balance Model

Early family leisure research in the United States suggested that doing things together and pleasurable interactions were desirable qualities of healthy and functioning marriages and families (Fisher, Giblin, and Hoopes 1982; Stinnett et al. 1982) and linked to short-term family satisfaction and long-term family bonding and stability (i.e., reduction of divorce) (Orthner and Mancini 1990). Similar findings were reported by researchers in Australia, England, and Korea (see Smith et al. 1988). With the exception of research by Hill (1988), however, most studies of family leisure in the 20th century were cross-sectional and lacked theoretical grounding.

In 2001, Zabriskie and McCormick (2001) introduced the Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning (CBM). Considered by many to be a significant development in the study of family leisure (Hodge et al. 2015), their model linked family leisure to family cohesion and flexibility or adaptability (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The core and balance model of family leisure functioning (Zabriskie and McCormick 2001).

Olson (1986) has suggested family functioning consists of family cohesion and family flexibility, with family communication as the facilitating dimension. Family cohesion has represented “the emotional bonding that family members have toward one another” and family flexibility or adaptability has been defined as “the ability of a marital or family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress” (Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell 1979, p. 3). Central or balanced levels of flexibility (i.e., structured and flexible) have been shown to be more conducive to healthy and satisfactory marital functioning than extreme levels of flexibility (i.e., rigid and chaotic) (Mathis and Tanner 1991; Olson 2000). Families should thus try to meet their needs for flexibility and novelty as well as stability and structure in order to function and develop efficiently (Olson 1986).

According to the CBM, families tend to meet these critical needs through their leisure behavior. Zabriskie and McCormick (2001) argued that functioning is linked to involvement in two types of leisure activities that they referred to as core and balance (see Figure 1). Core leisure activities (e.g., playing board games, having family dinners) generally meet family members’ need for stability and foster family cohesion, while balance leisure activities (e.g., family vacations, attending sporting events) tend to address family members’ need for novelty, leading to family flexibility.

In the last 15 years, the CBM has been widely adopted in family leisure research. When considering distinct leisure activities and accounting for different family dynamics and additional related constructs, however, findings have been inconsistent (Hodge et al. 2015; Townsend, Puymbroeck, and Zabriskie 2017) and suggest a more complex interrelationship between family leisure involvement and family functioning. Correspondingly, the types of families that exist today in the United States, and around the world, vary dramatically. Cohabitation has become common, there is no traditional family life cycle, people increasingly remain single with no children, couples elect not to have children, and many families are comprised of same sex couples (Carlson and Furstenberg 2006; Schänzel, Yeoman, and Backer 2012). Further, people are connecting differently than they did previously and vacations may serve an important role in strengthening their relationships (Schänzel, Yeoman, and Backer 2012). Hence, to better represent such diversity, the population in this study included any couple in the United States in a committed relationship (i.e., being together for a minimum of 12 months) living without children in their home.

In addition, researchers have failed to account for the quality of or individuals’ satisfaction with their family leisure involvement (Townsend et al. 2017). Buswell et al. (2012) found satisfaction with family leisure, including the father’s involvement, was the single strongest predictor of all aspects of family functioning. Two years later, Ward et al. (2014) confirmed satisfaction with joint leisure participation was far more important when predicting marital satisfaction than amount of leisure involvement (e.g., number of days, number of hours). Hence, in this study, besides the quantity of couples’ vacations (e.g., number of vacation days), the extent to which partners took part in a number of shared experiences during their vacations together were measured as an indicator of the quality of their vacations.

A third limitation of the CBM was that there was no theoretical reason as to which leisure activities were included in the instrument and respondents were simply asked whether or not they participated in a list of leisure activities, and how that could contribute to their relationship functioning as a whole. Thus, the focus in this study was couples’ vacations only, an approach that has not yet been adopted and could lead to further progression of the framework.

Family Vacation Research

Leisure as a context for family members to maintain and develop relationships with each other has been studied (Siegenthaler and O’Dell 2000). With regard to vacations, a number of researchers have investigated individuals’ satisfaction levels with their family vacations (Fu, Lehto, and Park 2014). According to Schänzel, Smith, and Weaver (2005), the two main streams of family vacation research have been (a) conceptualizing family members as consumers or purchasers and studying their decision-making behavior and (b) market research undertaken by different sectors of the tourism industry such as the attractions and the transportation sectors. These streams of research have largely ignored the social and cultural aspects of vacations; possible psychological and physiological benefits (e.g., health, stress relief, improved interpersonal relationships); and negative outcomes such as family conflicts and stress.

Nearly a decade ago, Lehto et al. (2009) and Shaw, Havitz, and Delemere (2008) began to focus on benefits and functions of family vacations, including removal from everyday life stresses and obligations, spending time with each other in a new environment—away from work and school—and interacting and bonding in new ways. They and other researchers (e.g., De Bloom, Geurts, and Lohmann 2016; Lehto et al. 2012; Lehto et al. 2009; Durko and Petrick 2013) found that family vacations provide time for families to experience novel family adventures, create shared memories, generate feelings of togetherness and cohesion, and/or form social capital.

Despite the move by researchers to advance the quality of family travel research, Lehto et al. noted, “a noticeable amount of discussion on family vacation benefits is speculative and lacks empirical evidence” (2009, p. 473). In response, they empirically examined family functioning in a leisure travel setting. Overall, their results showed that a family vacation provides family members with a unique setting, far removed from home, greater flexibility to act out roles (i.e., flexibility or adaptability) and, at the same time, intensified human interaction (i.e., cohesion). They also showed that families differed in terms of their style of functioning during their vacations. While exploratory in nature, Lehto et al.’s study was the first to empirically examine a theoretical link between family vacations and family functioning and it is believed no other researchers have focused on how shared vacation experiences can impact couples’ relationship functioning at home.

De Bloom, Geurts, and Kompier (2012), one of the first research teams to study couples and their joint vacations, studied changes in the amount and quality of conversations before and during a short domestic vacation. They found couples had more conversations with their partners during vacation than before and rated the quality of these conversations more positively.

Durko (2014) investigated the potential impacts of couples’ vacations on the degree of commitment to their relationship. She found that 20% of perceived satisfaction and commitment with one’s relationship was predicted by couples’ satisfaction with their shared vacations, and vacation satisfaction was a significant and positive predictor of relationship satisfaction, when accounting for family vacations without the presence of children.

In 2016, De Bloom, Geurts, and Lohmann conducted a longitudinal study of 35 partners before, during, and after a long vacation. The amount and quality of conversations were found to be significantly higher during vacations than before and after vacations, and couples’ overall level of relationship satisfaction was significantly higher during vacation compared to most pre- and post-vacation occasions.

While the results of the above exploratory studies confirm the link between couples’ vacation and their overall commitment and satisfaction with their relationship, the design, measures, and variables in the three studies did not uncover factors mediating the association between satisfactory couple vacations and satisfactory couple relationships. Missing is the overall impact of vacationing together on the day-to-day functioning of couples. Studying the association between vacationing together and couples’ general functioning of relationships should shed light on the contribution of vacations to couples’ relationships—the main area of investigation in this study.

As with family leisure research, there are also limitations with existing family vacation research. First, researchers have relied on participants’ recall of previous vacations, which may have taken place a year or more prior to data collection. Durko and Petrick (2016) suggested measuring couples’ overall perception of multiple past vacations on their relationship. Participants in this study were therefore asked to consider multiple past vacations they have taken in the last year with their spouse/partner.

Moreover, in terms of relationship functioning, there is no evidence that a single vacation can positively impact day-to-day family functioning (Lehto et al. 2009). However, in CBM, Zabriskie and McCormick (2001) documented a positive impact of couples’ leisure experiences over a period of one year on their day-to-day functioning. Thus, informed by CBM, this study aimed to better understand the impact that couples’ one-year vacation experiences have had on their day-to-day relationship functioning.

In addition, most social scientists using individual-level analyses have not obtained feedback from all members of the family or group (Kenny and Kashy 2014). They have also failed to consider and adjust for the interdependence of family or group members’ behaviors and experiences (Siegenthaler and O’Dell 2000). Family leisure researchers have examined dyads such as committed couples, mothers and fathers, parents and children, and in a few cases, siblings, but this has only occurred in a limited number of studies of heterosexual dyads and very few researchers have used a hierarchical or nested perspective (Hodge et al. 2015). In studies of travel as a leisure behavior, the unit of analysis has typically been individuals, not couples or families (Chen, Lehto, and Cai 2013). Ignoring the experiences of different family members and their combined impact on the individual vacation experience has likely influenced scholars’ understanding of the contribution of vacations to family functioning (Schänzel and Smith 2014; West and Merriam 2009; Fu, Lehto, and Park 2014). This study hopes to extend existing travel and tourism research by examining dyads’ perception of vacation and relationships separately, resulting in a more in-depth portrayal of the role vacationing together may play in each couple’s relationship.

Study Purpose and Hypotheses

As stated earlier, the CBM (Zabriskie and McCormick 2001) suggests that core and balance leisure activities tend to meet couples’ needs for flexibility and novelty as well as stability and structure in order to function and develop efficiently. Couples vacationing together represent one form of family balance leisure activity that may contribute to their flexibility and cohesion as a couple. Thus, informed by CBM, the current study investigated the contribution of one type of balance leisure activity—couples vacationing together—in enhancing couple functioning. It was hypothesized that couples who engage in higher levels of shared experiences during their vacations, regardless of number of vacations, will report higher levels of couple functioning following their vacations. Specifically,

Hypothesis 1: Shared experiences during vacations (SDV) is directly and positively associated with couple functioning.

Hypothesis 2: Shared experiences during vacations (SDV) is directly and positively associated with couple flexibility.

Hypothesis 3: Shared experiences during vacations (SDV) is directly and positively associated with couple cohesion.

The variable “shared experiences during vacations” (SDV) represents the extent to which couples engage in shared experiences during their vacations (e.g., spending quality time or experiencing new things together). Couple functioning (CF), a multidimensional variable, includes couple cohesion and couple flexibility (Olson 2000). Couple flexibility is the ability of partners to change their power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress while couple cohesion is the emotional bonding that partners have toward one another (Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell 1979, p. 3).

Methods

Study Sample

A US sample of 224 individuals (112 couples) was drawn from a panel consisting of partners in a committed relationship who did not have any children living in the home and had gone on a vacation lasting three nights or more at least twice in the last year (i.e., since January 2017).

Measures

Initially, family and leisure scholars and colleagues were invited to review the study instrument for comprehensibility and face validity. Adjustments were made to the instructions, wording and order of questions, instructions, and labeling of response choices to boost readability and comprehensibility. A follow-up pilot test was conducted with 10 panelists who met the sample criteria. This step resulted in some format and layout changes of the survey and the addition of timers, which were used to enhance flow and reliability.

The final version of the survey was distributed online to the sample over a three-month period (January through March 2018). The survey included 22 questions, 7 of which focused on couples’ relationship functioning and, vacation behavior in the previous year (i.e., amount of vacations and also quality of couples’ shared experiences during their vacations). Respondents were reminded to only include vacations taken away from home that lasted three nights or more and did not include visits to family or friends or vacations that involved others traveling with them. Respondents who indicated they had taken two or more vacations with their partner were invited to continue with the survey and were asked to indicate how many nights they spent on each of the vacations they took in 2017 with their partner.

Couple functioning

The couple version of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES II) (Olson et al. 1992; see Table 1) was used to measure couple functioning, which includes cohesion and flexibility. When compared to FACES III, Faces II has been found to have stronger psychometric properties (Kouneski 2000), has been validated in studies of self-report family instruments such as the McMaster Family Assessment Device (Miller et al. 2000), and to present high test-retest reliability coefficients (Kouneski 2000). Couple functioning was addressed through one question involving 16 statements addressing cohesion and 14 statements addressing flexibility (see Table 1). The 16 cohesion statements accounted for 8 different dimensions: emotional bonding, family boundaries, coalitions, time, space, friends, decision-making, and interests and recreation. The 14 flexibility statements addressed 6 underlying dimensions: assertiveness, leadership, discipline, negotiation, roles, and rules. After reviewing the results of the pilot test, response labels and wording in some of the items were modified to enhance comprehensibility and maintain consistency throughout the online survey. Changes applied to the original FACES II are noted in Table 1’s footnotes.

Table 1.

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale II (FACES II, Couple Version, Olson et al. 1992)—Measuring Couple Flexibility and Cohesion.

Cohesion statements^a

1. We are supportive of each other during difficult times.

2. It is easier to discuss our problems with people outside of our relationship than with each other.

3. We spend time together when we are home.

4. We do things together.

5. In our relationship^c we each go our own way.^b

6. We know each other’s close friends.

7. We consult each other on personal decisions.

8. We have difficulty thinking of things to do together.^b

9. We feel very close to each other.

10. I feel closer to people outside the relationship than to my partner.^b

11. I go along with what my partner decides to do.

12. We like to spend our free time with each other.

13. We avoid each other at home.^b

14. We approve of each other’s friends.

15. We tend to do more things separately.^b

16. We share interests and hobbies with each other.

Flexibility statements

1. In our relationship, it is easy for both of us to express our opinions.

2. We each have input regarding major relationship decisions.

3. We are flexible in how we handle differences.

4. We discuss problems and feel good about the solutions.

5. We shift household responsibilities between us.

6. It is hard to know what the rules are in our relationship.

7. We freely say what we want.

8. We equally share leadership in our relationship.^d

9. We operate on the principle of fairness in our relationship.

10. We try new ways of dealing with problems.

11. In our relationship we share responsibilities.

12. It is difficult to get a rule changed in our relationship.^b

13. When problems arise, we compromise.

14. We are afraid to say what is on our minds.^b

The original scale uses the following labels: almost never, once in awhile, sometimes, frequently, and almost always. Following the feedback received from the pilot test and to be consistent with response formats of other instruments in the survey, the labels were slightly modified as almost never, rarely, sometimes, very often, almost always.

These statements are reverse-worded in the original scale (Olson et al. 1992).

The word marriage was changed to relationship in an effort to better represent the reality of cohabitating couples.

In the pilot test, this original item was found controversial and it was replaced with the updated version from FACES IV (Olson 2010). Original item: We have a good balance of leadership in our marriage.

Vacation behavior

Respondents were asked to indicate the number of vacations taken as a couple lasting three nights or more since January 2017. They were cautioned not to include vacations taken to visit family or friends or vacations that involved others traveling with them. They were also asked to indicate the length of each of their vacations. Couples’ shared experiences during their vacations were measured using a modified version of Fu, Lehto, and Park’s (2014) scale (see Table 2). Keeping in mind the tenets of the CBM (Zabriskie and McCormick 2001) and Olson’s (1986) Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems as well as the results reported by Fu, Lehto, and Park (2014) and Lehto et al. (2013), the Fu, Lehto, and Park scale was deemed to have face validity for measuring shared experiences and benefits couples seek during their vacations.

Table 2.

Couples’ Shared Experiences During Their Vacations (SDV) in 2017.

Experiences Engaged in with Partner	Range^a	Overall Mean (SD)
We spend quality time together.	35-100	95.41 (8.56)
We had fun together.	20-100	94.63 (8.76)
We engaged in activities together.	25-100	92.92 (11.21)
We respected each other’s decisions.	25-100	91.97 (12.60)
We talked.	20-100	90.58 (13.71)
We experienced new things together.	14-100	88.14 (16.49)
We showed affection by kissing, touching or holding hands.	02-100	84.87 (22.29)
We learned of things we have in common.	07-100	79.00 (23.50)
We tried new food together.	00-100	74.78 (30.26)
We had sex.	00-100	72.36 (32.00)
We offered different opinions.	00-100	62.25 (30.95)
We did things that were a little daring.	00-100	53.93 (32.00)

The scale ranged from 0% (never or rarely) to 50% (about half the time) to 100% (almost all the time).

Demographic characteristics

Respondents were asked to indicate their age, gender, type of relationship (same sex/opposite sex), status of relationship (cohabitating/engaged/married), years involved with partner, highest level of education, work status (part-time/full-time/retired), household income in 2017, and state of residence in the United States. The resulting data were used to profile the sample.

Data Manipulation and Analysis

Simple frequencies and descriptive statistics such as central tendency (e.g., mean, median), dispersion (e.g., standard deviation, variance), and distribution (e.g., skewness) were interpreted and reported to profile the sample and data. Then, reliability of multiple-item indicators was assessed (Cronbach alphas were all higher than 0.79). For couple functioning (CF), each respondent was assigned a cohesion, flexibility, and total functioning score using formulas presented in the FACES II manual (Olson et al. 1992). To calculate couples’ shared experiences during vacations (SDV), a mean score on the 12 items comprising Fu, Lehto, and Park’s modified scale was calculated for each individual.

To enhance the interpretation of findings, researchers (e.g., Kashy and Ackerman 2017; Kenny and Kashy 2011) have suggested “centering” continuous independent or predictor variables by the grand-mean (i.e., rescaling predictors by subtracting their values from the mean of the full sample), and effect-coding nominal variables such as sexual orientation (i.e., –1 for same-sex relationship and +1 for opposite-sex relationship). Centering does not impact regression slopes or the significance tests; instead, it has been suggested to result in more meaningful intercept values (Kenny and Kashy 2011).

Further, in dyadic studies like this one, the scores of linked partners on each variable are usually more similar to one another than to unlinked partners (Kashy and Ackerman 2017). Thus, it is important to account for the shared dependence of partners’ scores (Amato 2013; Ward et al. 2014). Advancements in statistical tools like Multilevel Modeling (MLM), sometimes referred to as Hierarchical Linear Modeling or Random Coefficients Models, have resulted in more effective dyadic data analyses that account for and model the dependency of data (Kenny and Kashy 2011). As a result, in this study, MLM was used.

Prior to using MLM to address the study hypotheses, the dependency of the dyad scores was tested. Second, assumptions (e.g., linearity, normality, equal-variance assumption) associated with multilevel regression analyses were addressed. Third, reliability statistics were generated for the scales used to measure Shared Experiences during Vacations (SDV) and Couple Functioning (CF). Fourth, all continuous variables considered predictors in any of the three hypotheses were mean-centered. Fifth, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine potential correlations among all variables and to check for multicollinearity and significant relationships among variables. Variables that showed significant correlations with the dependent variables in each of the study models and were conceptually related were included as control variables.

Random intercept MLM was used to test the three hypotheses in this study. The decision to use this approach was due to the researchers interest in testing the relationships between constructs rather than differences between groups (i.e., dyads). A random intercept model estimated by a maximum likelihood method (a) accounts for the dependency of scores from partners; (b) is not highly affected by deviations from normality with large samples; (c) assumes a constant slope for all regression models across dyads with different grand means for each; and (d) allows for modeling and examination of level-two or between-dyads variables such as household income and relationship status, instead of simply controlling for the effects of level-two variables and holding them constant (Kenny and Kashy 2011; Liying Luo, personal communcation with Moji Shahvali, March 23, 2018).

Finally, a likelihood ratio test (LRT) or a log likelihood test was used to compare the goodness of fit of two statistical models (i.e., null model and alternative model). This approach allowed the research team to first introduce control variables to the regression models (i.e., null models) and then determine if the newly added predictors (i.e., full or theoretical model) showed a significant improvement in the proportion of explained variance in the outcome variable. In MLM, since estimations are based on a maximum likelihood technique instead of a least squares estimation, Pseudo-R² was computed, estimating the degree to which the intercept and residual variance in a model is reduced by including predictors in the model (Kashy and Ackerman 2017).

Results

Profile of Respondents

Respondents ranged in age from 20 to 74. Approximately two-thirds (68%) were 20–39 years of age. Evenly split in terms of gender, 96% indicated they were in heterosexual relationships. The majority had been in a relationship with their partner for six years or more (59%) and were married or engaged (76%). In terms of education, 97% of the sample had completed high school. Of those who pursued advanced education, 51% were college graduates and an additional 21% had completed graduate school. Furthermore, 71% of the overall sample was working full-time and 31% reported a yearly household income of $100,000 or higher in 2017. Geographically, couples resided in 31 different US states; the largest percentages (7%–8%) lived in Florida, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Vacations in the Past Year

The number of vacations taken by couples in 2017 ranged from 2 to 10. The vast majority (86%) reported taking 2 or 3 vacations in the past year. As a reminder, one of the sampling criteria for this study was that respondents had to have taken at least two vacations in the previous year. Respondents were also asked to indicate the length of each of their vacations in 2017. In four cases, the partners’ responses did not match and the couple was contacted and asked to clarify their responses. Most of the respondents spent 9–18 nights away from home on vacations in 2017 (69%). On average, couples spent 7 nights (SD=3.22) on each of their vacations in 2017. In total, they averaged 17.5 nights away from home in 2017.

Relationship Measure

Couple functioning was treated as a construct composed of two dimensions—cohesion and flexibility. Respondents’ cohesion and flexibility scores were used to calculate couple functioning scores and to test the overall relationship between couple functioning and its predictor SDV. An overall index for measuring couple functioning was created following the scoring manual of FACES II (Olson et al. 1992). The grand mean of cohesion was 66.65 with a standard deviation of 7.59. Respondents’ overall flexibility scores ranged from 36 to 70, with a grand mean of 55.65 and a standard deviation of 6.97. Total functioning scores—measured at an individual level—ranged from 2 to 8, with an average of 6.36 and a standard deviation of 1.26. A total of 90.3% of the respondents scored 5 or above on total functioning, indicating they were part of what Olsen et al. (1992) referred to as a “moderately balanced” or “balanced” couple.

Shared Experiences during Vacations

Respondents were asked how often during their vacations they had engaged in different types of activities and experiences with their partner. Using a scale ranging from 0% (never or rarely) to 50% (about half the time) to 100% (almost all the time), respondents indicated how often they engaged in 12 separate activities and experiences while on vacation with their partner in the previous year. As noted in Table 2, the highest variation in responses was with the following statements: “We offered different opinions,” “We tried new food together,” “We did things that were a little daring,” and “We had sex.” The least engaged experiences during couples’ vacations were: “We offered different opinions” (M=62.25%) and “We did things that were a little daring” (M=53.93%).

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1: Shared experiences during vacations (SDV) is directly and positively associated with couple functioning (CF)

A multilevel linear regression was calculated to predict respondents’ total functioning based on SDV and total number of vacations in 2017 (TV). The random effects model containing the two variables shown in Table 3 was found effective and significant (χ²₍₁₎ = 864.64; p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported. The pseudo-R² value of .14 indicated that the full model effectively reduced the intercept and residual variance in the null model by approximately 12%. The fixed and random effects parts of the full model can be seen in Table 3. All reported point estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients (i.e., B), which in this model suggest that a 1-unit increase in SDV leads to an increase of 0.04 units in couple functioning (CF), a score ranging from two to eight in this study.

Table 3.

Multilevel Regression Results for Hypothesis 1.

Variable^a	Fixed B Estimates (SE) (p)	Random Effects			LRT
Variable^a	Fixed B Estimates (SE) (p)	Intercepts β₀ (σ)	Residual	ICC	Critical Value (χ²)
Couple Functioning (CF) (R² = .02)		6.36 (0.11)	1.11	.70
TV	0.15 (0.10) (.137)
Couple Functioning (ΔR² = .12)		6.36 (0.10)	0.95	.70	864.637 (3.84)
TV	0.14 (0.10) (.142)
SDV	0.04 (0.00) (.000)

The variables in bold represent the outcome variables and the variables that follow are dyad-level variables and/or predictors. The first model is the Null model and the second is the Full model. Note that (1) TV = Couples’ Total Number of Vacations in 2017; SDV = Couples’ Shared Experiences during Vacations; (2) all reported point estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients (i.e., B) and, (3) pseudo-R² compares the goodness of fit of two statistical models (i.e., null model and the alternative model).

According to the random part of the model (b_0j), when SDV was around average (i.e., 82) an increase of 1 couple vacation led to an increase of 0.14 units in CF, although its effect was not statistically significant (t = 1.48, p = .14). Also, the grand mean of functioning across all dyads was 6.36 and the residual of 0.95 in the random part of the model was small, meaning that going from dyad to dyad, there was only a small amount of variation in functioning scores (i.e., small dyad-level residual), beyond individual effects.¹ The residuals of the overall model were also very small² (σ_e² = 0.41), resulting in a high proportion of the dyad-level residual compared to the total residual.³ This high proportion (i.e., ICC = .70) indicated that a high percentage of the variation in functioning scores was captured through the dyad-level characteristics of the sample, and using an MLM model for studying the effects was absolutely necessary.

The significant effect of SDV on CF and the nonsignificant effect of TV required additional testing to determine if the effect of SDV on CF depended on the number of vacations couples took in the previous year. This moderation hypothesis was tested using a random effects moderation model including the term TV*SDV. No significant moderating effect of TV on the relationship between SDV and CF was detected (t = 0.21, p = .83).

Hypothesis 2: Shared experiences during vacations (SDV) is directly and positively associated with couple flexibility

The likelihood ratio test confirmed the effectiveness and significance of the full model shown in Table 4 (χ²₍₁₎ = 1682.36; p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. A pseudo-R² value of .17 indicated that the theoretical model explained approximately 15% of the variance across dyads beyond the null model. Results in Table 4 show the fixed effects and the random effects of this model: for every 1-unit increase in SDV, couple flexibility increased by 0.23 units, when the number of total vacations was average (i.e., 3). Also, the random part of the model (b_0j) suggested when SDV was around average (i.e., 82) the predicted amount of flexibility for each partner i in dyad j was approximately 56 and an additional vacation led to an increase of 0.90 in flexibility. SDV was the only significant predictor in this model (t = 6.20, p < .001). Finally, examination of the residual variance revealed that there was a significant variance explained by the dyad (i.e., dyad effect). In this model, the ICC equaled .56.

Table 4.

Multilevel Regression Results for Hypothesis 2.

Variable*	Fixed B Estimates (SE) (p)	Random Effects			LRT
Variable*	Fixed B Estimates (SE) (p)	Intercepts β₀ (σ)	Residual	ICC	Critical Value (χ²)
Null model: Flexibility (R² = .02)		55.65 (0.58)	26.35	.55
TV	0.98 (0.52) (.062)
Full model: Flexibility (ΔR² = .15)		55.65 (0.53)	22.87	.56	1682.36 (3.84)
TV	0.90 (0.48) (.065)
SDV	0.23 (0.04) (.000)

The variables in bold represent the outcome variables, and the variables that follow are dyad-level variables and/or predictors: TV = Couples’ Total Number of Vacations in 2017; SDV = Couples’ Shared Experiences During Vacations.

Hypothesis 3: Shared experiences during vacations (SDV) is directly and positively associated with couple cohesion

The LRT confirmed the effectiveness and significance of the full model presented in Table 5 (χ²₍₁₎ = 1671.39; p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. The pseudo-R² value of .08 indicated the theoretical model explained approximately 8% of the variance across dyads beyond the null model. Per 1-unit increase in SDV, couple cohesion increased by 0.17 units, which is small yet statistically significant. The random part of the model suggested when SDV was around average (i.e., 82), the predicted amount of cohesion for all partners was approximately 69. The variation captured in this model at the second level was quite high (i.e., σ_d² = 37.59; ICC = .74). In sum, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were supported.

Table 5.

Multilevel Regression Results for Hypothesis 3.

Variable^a	Fixed B Estimates (SE) (p)	Random Effects			LRT
Variable^a	Fixed B Estimates (SE) (p)	Intercepts β₀ (σ)	Residual	ICC	Critical Value (χ²)
Full model: Cohesion (R² = .08) SDV	0.17 (0.04) (.000)	68.65 (6.13)	37.59	.74	1671.39 (3.84)

The variable in bold represents the outcome variable, and what follows is a predictor: SDV = Couples’ Shared Experiences during Vacations. Note that (1) the null model for this hypothesis just contained the dyad identifier with no independent variable, and (2) Total Number of Vacations in 2017 (TV) showed no significant bivariate correlation with couples’ Cohesion scores and was hence not included in the model as before.

Discussion

Most of the couples in this study, 81% of whom either worked part-time or full-time, reported taking two to three vacations in the past year that lasted 9–18 nights. Keeping in mind that the population from which the sample was drawn was limited to individuals who had taken at least two vacations in the last year, the average number of vacations they took was low, particularly from a global perspective. Project Time Off (2018) reports the average American vacation use to be 17.2 days per year in 2017, up from 16.8 days in 2016. While couples in this study reported a similar pattern of vacationing, albeit in number of nights rather than number of days (i.e., 17.5 nights), this number is less than half the number of vacation days taken by residents of some other countries in a given year (Southard 2011). In the future, researchers should endeavor to obtain a larger and more diverse sample, which would allow for comparisons of models among subsamples with different demographic characteristics. Studying the relationship between vacations of couples and their relationship functioning among nonwestern families that relate differently would also be very interesting.

Because couples in this study and across the United States do not vacation extensively as compared to couples and individuals in other developed countries, and research suggests there are benefits to vacationing together, we chose to conduct a scientific study of couples’ shared experiences during vacation and their association with couple functioning following their vacations. Lehto et al. (2009) suggested that a family vacation provides family members with a unique setting far removed from home, greater flexibility to act out roles (i.e., flexibility) and, at the same time, intensified human interaction (i.e., cohesion). This study extended this proposition: following couples’ vacations, eight percent of relationship functioning at home was predicted by the amount of their shared vacation experiences in the previous year. While eight percent is notable, there are likely other factors that could enhance this percentage. For example, might vacations to remote, exotic destinations (i.e., vacation desitination type) result in greater relationship flexibility and thus enhanced relationship functioning at home? Should couples’ satisfaction with their vacations be considered? Will the amount of increased face-to-face interaction and communication among couples following their yearly vacations determine the extent to which vacationing together can contribute to their functioning? Future research should account for the aforementioned factors and others, some of which are discussed below.

Shared Experiences during Vacations and Relationship Functioning

As a reminder, couple and family functioning has been found to be linked to involvement in two types of leisure activities, core and balance (Zabriskie and McCormick 2001). Researchers who have measured grouped core and/or balance family leisure activities have often reported core family leisure to be the only or the stronger predictor of family functioning and its two dimensions (Townsend, Puymbroeck, and Zabriskie 2017). In this study, we focused on one balance leisure activity, couples’ vacations, and documented that it is an important contributor to couple functioning, as suggested by CBM.

Specifically, couples who reported higher shared vacation experiences during their vacations together in the previous year reported higher levels of couple functioning, flexibility, and cohesion at the time of data collection. Shared experiences during vacations in 2017 explained as much as 8% of couples’ total cohesion, 15% of their flexibility, and 8% of their total functioning scores. In the future, researchers should assess whether these contributions vary over the course of different vacations. In addition, we asked individuals to recall shared experiences they had during all their vacations in the previous year. For some individuals, recalling their shared experiences may have been difficult: one vacation may have provided opportunities for a number of shared experiences while another may have resulted in very few shared experiences. Studying the incremental contributions of each vacation using relationship measures (e.g., couple functioning and satisfaction with relationship) before, during, and after a vacation and a vacation behavior measure (e.g., couple vacation experiences) during each vacation may help to limit recall bias.

When testing our hypotheses, a number of preliminary null multilevel models were run and the results are noteworthy. For example, when number of vacations and length of couple vacations were entered into the regression models predicting couple functioning or couple flexibility, along with couple vacation experiences, both number and length of couple vacations were no longer statistically significant predictors. A follow-up moderation test was also found ineffective, meaning that the association between couple vacation experiences and couple functioning was not moderated by number or length of vacations. What mattered most when predicting couple functioning and flexibility was the quality of couples’ vacations as measured by the extent to which couples engaged in different shared experiences during their vacations such as effective communication, showing affection, having fun, and trying new things together. This result was surprising given earlier research by family leisure researchers (e.g., Poff, Zabriskie, and Townsend 2010; Zabrinskie and Freeman 2004) who found that increased family leisure participation leads to enhanced family functioning.

Some recent studies employing the premises of the CBM have explored the importance of family leisure quality over quantity (e.g., Poff, Zabriskie, and Townsend 2010) and suggest using subjective measures of family leisure experiences (e.g., Melton and Zabriskie 2016), such as leisure satisfaction measures. The decision to focus on couple vacation experiences beyond the frequency of couple vacations was based on our interest in gaining insight to the quality rather than the quantity of couple vacations and its contribution to couple functioning. More research on this topic is necessary, particularly with respect to the contribution of couples’ expectations for, satisfaction with, and perceived quality of their vacations to couple functioning. For example, if one member of a couple has high expectations for sharing time and activities with the other member of the couple, but this expectation is not satisfied, will that member report lower couple functioning after the couple’s vacation? And, does perceived quality of the vacation need to be similar for both members for enhanced couple functioning to occur?

In summary, the variable “shared experiences during vacations” was found to be positively and directly associated with flexibility, cohesion, and couple functioning following vacations, regardless of number and length of couple vacations in a given year. Couples with more shared experiences during their vacations in the previous year reported higher levels of couple functioning at the time of the data collection, regardless of the number and length of vacations and regardless of their household income.

While the beta values in this study were not large, the effect sizes were often very promising given that associations between a single balance leisure activity (vacationing together) and couples’ relationship functioning were measured. In the future, researchers would benefit from combining multilevel modeling (MLM) and structural equation modeling (SEM) to attain structural understanding between the relationships identified in this study. Furthermore, experimental designs and longitudinal data would move the focus of the core and balance framework from examination of correlational relationships to investigation of causal relationships, which is highly important to the study of tourism and its long-term benefits.

Shared Experiences during Vacations and Flexibility in Relationships

The results associated with hypothesis 2 provided support for the notion that couples who engage in more shared experiences during their vacations exhibit higher flexibility in their relationship following their vacations. These shared experiences (see Table 2) included things such as spending quality time together, having fun together, showing love and affection, experiencing new things together, and offering different opinions while vacationing together. The effect size, which is comparable to past samples using similar instruments, was not large but is promising since an increase in shared experiences during vacations would not be difficult to accomplish.

Remember that respondents’ overall flexibility scores following their vacations ranged from 36 to 70 with a grand mean of 55.65 (SD=6.97), indicating that half of the sample was “moderately balanced” or lower in terms of flexibility following their vacations. A 40-unit increase on average in shared experiences such as an increase in the amount of intimacy shown during vacations or experiencing more new things together could increase individuals’ flexibility scores by as much as 9 points (40 × 0.23 = 9). This increase would place 50% of the sample in the “balanced/very flexible” category introduced by Olson et al. (1992). Exploring how destinations on the supply side could also facilitate and enhance such shared vacation experiences is a valuable pursuit.

A review of the subdimensions of flexibility further clarifies how vacations are related to couples’ relationship flexibility. Couple flexibility has been defined as the ability of partners to change their power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress (Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell 1979). It refers to a family system’s need to change, to be flexible, adapt, and learn from different experiences and situations, and was measured using 16 statements comprising six dimensions: assertiveness, leadership, discipline, negotiation, roles, and rules. Thinking of these dimensions in a vacation context, that is, when couples are away from home and their everyday environment, vacations are a suitable setting for couples to address different dimensions of flexibility in their relationship.

A recent and related study of 245 family travelers by Lehto and colleagues (2009) identified different dimensions of family flexibility before and during a vacation. Lehto et al. found assertiveness, leadership, and change of roles (three subdimensions of flexibility) can take place before and during a family vacation, and family members share responsibilities linked to planning for the vacation, assert their opinions and make their voices heard during the course of the vacation (e.g., where to stay, what to do), and more. This also is likely happening with the couple as a family unit. Researchers (e.g., Bronner and de Hoog 2008; Jenkins 1978; Kerstetter, Bricker, and Gitelson 1996; Swank 2009) have indicated that couples are becoming increasingly involved in joint travel-related decision making, which involves discussion, seeking information, and using influencing strategies. Regardless of the role each member of a couple adopts, taking on new roles before, during, and after vacations should enhance flexibility in family relationships. Moreover, since vacations generally include different situational stresses such as missed flights and long walks, they can be an opportunity for couples to test, negotiate, and practice the discipline and rules of their relationship (Kang and Hsu 2005), two other subdimensions of flexibility as defined by Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell (1979).

In sum, the results of previous research suggest that vacationing together is a precious context for couples to practice flexibility prior to and during their vacations. In the future, researchers should endeavor to document whether couples do in fact exhibit flexibility in their relationship at different points during their vacations. This could be accomplished through ecological momentary assessment (i.e., repeated sampling of experiences in real time), written or electronic diaries, commercial applications on a phone or tablet, or even online interviews.

Researchers should advance family leisure and vacation research by verifying that couple vacations are associated with higher levels of flexibility following vacations. They should also consider conducting longitudinal studies to document change in flexibility over the course of vacations (i.e., prior to and after vacations). The couples in this study reported slightly higher flexibility scores (i.e., M=56; SD=7.0) compared to the average national norm of 49.9 (SD=6.6; N=2,453; Olson et al. 1992). Thus, it may be possible that higher functioning couples participated in this dyad study (i.e., self-selection bias). It may also be that the couples were higher functioning because they vacation together more often than the norm. Note that we intentionally sampled vacationers with different degrees of couple vacation experiences in the previous year. It might also be that couples who are more flexible prior to vacations and practice more flexibility during their vacations in its different forms (e.g., higher change of roles, leadership, and negotiation) show greater flexibility or functioning post vacation. Without further research, this is simply speculation.

Shared Experiences during Vacations and Cohesion in Relationships

Couple’s level of shared experiences during their vacations in 2017 was found to be significantly associated with their cohesion scores at home, that is, the emotional bonding that they had toward one another following their vacations. This finding supported hypothesis 3. The link between vacations and family bonding and cohesion has been noted in some research on family vacations. For example, Shaw, Havitz, and Delemere (2008) found that families view vacations as an opportunity to spend time with each other away from work and school, interact and bond in new ways, and create and maintain a sense of family identity and shared values that can strengthen family relationships. Lehto et al. (2009) found family members’ perceived family vacations to be quality time well spent, and an opportunity to be supportive of each other and to strengthen family ties, all of which are outcomes linked to the emotional bonding dimension of cohesion as defined by Olson (2000). Families in Lehto et al.’s study also found vacations to be a way to make mutual decisions and form group consensus, elements of Olson’s coalition dimension of family cohesion. The findings of these studies coupled with the findings of the current study suggest that couple vacation experiences can contribute to couple cohesion.

The fact that couple’s level of shared experiences during their vacations, as a balance activity, was significantly associated with their cohesion scores challenges the original CBM. As a reminder, the original CBM proposed that common core leisure activities contribute to couple and family cohesion while less common balance leisure activities contribute to flexibility in relationships (Zabriskie and McCormick 2001). Yet, a number of studies adopting the CBM, including this study, have not fully supported the original propositions in the Model. For example, Townsend and Zabriskie (2010) reversly found balance leisure to be the only significant contributor to family cohesion while core leisure was found to be the sole significant contributor to family flexibility. The results of this study suggest that one type of balance leisure—couple vacations—positively impacts both dimensions of couple functioning (i.e., cohesion and flexibility). That being said, couples’ shared experiences during their vacations were more strongly related to flexibility than cohesion, which is in line with the CBM (i.e., β=0.23 vs. β=0.17), and explained a larger portion of flexibility than cohesion scores (R²=15% vs. 8%).

One potential reason for the different results reported in this study and studies employing the CBM can be explained by Melton’s (2017) Family Activity Model (FAM). Based on FAM, whether activities are considered core or balance should be determined based on the degree to which leisure occurs in a novel or predictable activity environment, not based on the activity per se. According to Melton, traveling with a partner for the first time to a destination and participating for the first time in a water-based activity (i.e., vacation A), for example, would be very different in terms of environment incongruity and amount of interaction between partners compared to regular trips to the same destination and participating in the same leisure activities (i.e., vacation B). These two balance leisure experiences (based on the CBM), while equal in frequency, “[produce] different outcomes for individual members of the family as well as the family unit as a whole” (Melton 2017, p. 460). Thus, vacation B, being low on environmental incongruity and novelty and high on partner interaction, would be expected to enhance couple cohesion more than it would enhance couple flexibility.

In this study, a variety of shared experiences during vacations were captured (e.g., quality time together and novelty-seeking) through an instrument we designed based on Fu, Lehto, and Park’s (2014) work. This conceptualization and measurement of vacation experiences, which included items related to both bonding and novelty-seeking (beyond just frequency of participation in certain predefined categories of core or balance leisure activities), likely allowed us to capture the association of shared experiences during vacations with both couple flexibility and cohesion.

When studying the benefits of family vacations in the future, researchers should take into account and measure the context in which vacations are taking place (i.e., the degree of environmental incongruity), as well as the degree to which partners and family members, as individuals and as a family unit, have sought novel experiences during their vacations. This will likely impact the cohesion, flexibility, and overall relationship outcomes of vacations for couples and families. Melton and Zabriskie (2016) hypothesized that the higher the novelty of the environment and the vacation experiences, the more individuals will focus on novel elements as opposed to familiar relationships. If that is the case, couples who seek emotional bonding would benefit from choosing contextually familiar destinations and activities that theoretically result in more interaction, while couples who seek more flexibility and change from the routine would benefit more from traveling to novel destinations and jointly taking part in novel activities. In summary, couple vacations were related to both couple cohesion and flexibility and ultimately couple functioning following their vacations, depending on the extent and type of their vacation experiences. More research is necessary to verify these relationships.

Family leisure researchers have documented the importance of everyday core leisure activities such as playing board games or having family dinners and their contribution to couple and family functioning. These core leisure activities require little planning and resources, are easier to pursue, and have been found to be a stronger predictor of satisfaction with family life than balance leisure activities (Townsend, Puymbroeck, and Zabriskie 2017). However, today’s intense work culture and the need to be online and connected is resulting in couples and families spending less quality and mindful time together on a day-to-day basis (Sturt and Nordstrom 2018). The findings in this study suggest than small or extended vacations (i.e., balance activities) provide couples with time to communicate, bond, have fun, and explore together and are significantly associated with the cohesion and flexibility of their relationship. Thus, researchers would benefit from broadening their scope to include other specific balance activities in an effort to enhance their understanding of the benefits of family leisure participation.

Study Limitations

The design of this study successfully dealt with some, but not all, of the limitations identified in previous research. For example, it is believed that the panel accessed for this study loosely resembled US national probability samples of individuals 18 years of age or older who were married or cohabitating (Huff and Tingley 2015). However, we were not able to determine whether the panel was representative because specific demographic data from the targeted sample of couples who live and travel together were not available from Turk Prime^®. While this could be perceived as a limitation, this study was exploratory in nature and we had no intention of generalizing our results to the larger population of couples who travel for pleasure.

There were a few instances where the timers on the surveys showed signs of speeding, which is a limitation with this form of online data collection. Turk Prime^® is adopting a technology that can help with this limitation. Using video suites, participants will take surveys while on camera and researchers will then be offered a chance to monitor the recordings to ensure that partners are separately, independently, and mindfully taking the survey.

In addition, during the data collection process, there may have been recall bias, although attempts were made to reduce it by (a) priming respondents about their two most memorable vacations at the beginning of the survey; (b) asking about specific shared experiences and activities during their vacations, rather than solely measuring satisfaction with vacations; and (c) collecting data from both members of the couple rather than relying on the memory of one partner.

In addition, while every short or extended vacation has the potential to have a lasting impact on couples’ relationships, this study was not designed to study the contribution of one single vacation to couples’ relationships. Instead, we followed the propositions of the CBM and studied the impact of multiple vacation experiences over the span of one year on couple functioning. This was done as it was believed it takes more than one vacation for couples to enhance their relationship cohesion and flexibility. Thus, based on the results, it is not known whether a single vacation contributes to couples’ day-to-day functioning at home.

Existing models, including the CBM, suggest that couple leisure involvement is generally an antecedent to higher couple functioning and to be able to effectively function as a working family system, partners should first spend some quality time together, at home or away on vacation. However, couples who already function at high levels may simply be more inclined to spend more time together, travel more, score higher on couple vacation experiences, and be more satisfied with their vacations. Thus, while theory and the significant associations in this study suggest shared experiences on vacations precede and lead to couple functioning, interpretations regarding directionality could not be made with confidence. To effectively evaluate the causal effects of couple vacations on couple functioning and ultimately satisfaction with relationship, a longitudinal study with an experimental design is necessary. Researchers could consider measuring couple functioning every four weeks over a period of a year, couple vacation experiences after each vacation, and satisfaction with relationship before and after each vacation.

In Closing

This study used and modified the original CBM (Zabriskie and McCormick 2001) in three primary ways to effectively investigate the contributions of couple vacation experiences to their relationships. First, unlike the original model that grouped all core and balance activities together, we focused on one balance leisure activity—vacations. Second, considering the number of childless families in the United States and worldwide, and the potential distraction of children during vacations, we moved away from a focus on what was considered the traditional nuclear family (e.g., mother, father, and children) to couples without children, cohabitating or married, in a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship. Third, we measured vacation involvement using both frequency and quality of vacations using a list of shared vacation experiences. Results reinforced the argument that vacationing together contributes to couple functioning, including cohesion and flexibility. Number and length of vacations, for the most part, were not significant predictors of the relationship outcomes of couple vacations. Instead, actual couple vacation behaviors (measured as shared experiences during vacations) such as offering opinions and experiencing new things together were introduced in this study as an alternative and effective way of measuring vacationing for couples. In the future, researchers should continue to study specific core and balance leisure experiences and how they relate to couple and family functioning. Other family-related constructs such as family communication and satisfaction with relationship should also be tested in a vacation context, as suggested by the refined Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning (Townsend, Puymbroeck, and Zabriskie 2017).

This study provided strong evidence that as couples vacation together, their need for stability and emotional bonding as well as their need for change and novelty are better met, resulting in higher levels of relationship cohesion and flexibility. This is believed to be an important finding as healthy and functioning family relationships have arguably constituted one of the main elements of a flourishing society (Seligman 2011).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management and Dr. Deborah Kerstetter at The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State).

ORCID iD

Mojtaba (Moji) Shahvali

Notes

Author Biographies

Moji Shahvali holds a doctoral degree in recreation and tourism management from The Pennsylvania State University in the United States. He is currently a postdoctoral scholar in Shiraz University in Iran. Aside from teaching undergraduate tourism and leisure courses, he is conducting research on the benefits of vacations for individuals and families.

Deb Kerstetter is Professor Emerita of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management at The Pennsylvania State University. Her primary research interests focus on factors affecting tourists’ decision making and travel behavior as well as the impact of tourism development on residents’ quality of life.

Jasmine Townsend is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management at Clemson University in the United States. Her main research areas include understanding the outcomes of participation in recreation and leisure for individuals and families, especially families with a member with a disability.

References

Agate

Joel R.

Zabriskie

Ramon B.

Agate

Sara Taylor

Poff

Raymond

. 2009. “Family Leisure Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Family Life.” Journal of Leisure Research 41 (2): 205–23.

Amato

Miriam Puerta

. 2013. “The Mediating Effects of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness during Couple Leisure on the Relationship between Total Couple Leisure Satisfaction and Marital Satisfaction.” Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.

Bronner

Fred

de Hoog

Robert

. 2008. “Agreement and Disagreement in Family Vacation Decision-Making.” Tourism Management 29 (5): 967–79.

Buswell

Lydia

Zabriskie

Ramon B.

Lundberg

Neil

Hawkins

Alan J.

2012. “The Relationship between Father Involvement in Family Leisure and Family Functioning: The Importance of Daily Family Leisure.” Leisure Sciences 34 (2): 172–90.

Carlson

Marcia J.

Furstenberg

Frank F.

2006. “The Prevalence and Correlates of Multipartnered Fertility among Urban U.S. Parents.” Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (3): 718–32.

Chavez

Joy

. 2015. “Couple Leisure Time: Building Bonds Early in Marriage through Leisure.” Master’s thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.

Chen

Lehto

Xinran Y.

Cai

Liping

. 2013. “Vacation and Well-Being: A Study of Chinese Tourists.” Annals of Tourism Research 42: 284–310.

De Bloom

Jessica

Geurts

Sabine A. E.

Kompier

Michiel A. J.

2012. “Effects of Short Vacations, Vacation Activities and Experiences on Employee Health and Well-Being.” Stress and Health 28 (4): 305–18.

De Bloom

Jessica

Geurts

Sabine A. E.

Lohmann

Martin

. 2016. “Tourism and Love: How Do Tourist Experiences Affect Romantic Relationships?” In Positive Tourism, edited by S.

Filep

Laing

Csikszentmihalyi

, 35–53. New York: Routledge.

10.

de Graaf

John

. 2017. “Vacation Commitment Day: It’s Time for Your Company to Commit to Vacations — Take Back Your Time.” http://www.takebackyourtime.org/time-for-your-company-to-commit-to-vacations/.

11.

Durko

Angela M.

2014. “Examining the Potential Relationship Benefits of Leisure Travel Taken with and without One’s Significant Other and Children.” PhD diss., Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.

12.

Durko

Angela M.

Petrick

James F.

2013. “Family and Relationship Benefits of Travel Experiences: A Literature Review.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (6): 720–30.

13.

Durko

Angela M.

Petrick

James F.

2016. “Travel as Relationship Therapy: Examining the Effect of Vacation Satisfaction Applied to the Investment Model.” Journal of Travel Research 55 (7): 904–18.

14.

Fisher

Barbara L.

Giblin

Paul R.

Hoopes

Margaret H.

1982. “Healthy Family Functioning: What Therapists Say and What Families Want.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 8 (3): 273–84.

15.

Xiaoxiao

Lehto

Xinran

Park

Ounjoung

. 2014. “What Does Vacation Do to Our Family? Contrasting the Perspectives of Parents and Children.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 31 (4): 461–75.

16.

Gottman

John M.

Silver

Nan

. 2015. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country’s Foremost Relationship Expert. New York: Harmony Books.

17.

Hill

Martha S.

1988. “Marital Stability and Spouses’ Shared Time: A Multidisciplinary Hypothesis.” Journal of Family Issues 9 (4): 427–51.

18.

Hodge

Camilla

Bocarro

Jason N.

Henderson

Karla A.

Zabriskie

Ramon B.

Parcel

Toby L.

Kanters

Michael A.

2015. “Family Leisure: An Integrative Review of Research from Select Journals.” Journal of Leisure Research 47 (5): 577–600.

19.

Huff

Connor

Tingley

Dustin

. 2015. “‘Who Are These People?’ Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 2 (3): 1–12.

20.

Jacobs

Jerry A.

Gerson

Kathleen

. 2001. “Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families? Explaining Trends in Work, Leisure, and Family Time.” Work and Occupations 28 (1): 40–63.

21.

Jenkins

Roger L.

1978. “Family Vacation Decision-Making.” Journal of Travel Research 16 (4): 2–7.

22.

Kang

Soo Kang

Hsu

Cathy H. C.

2005. “Dyadic Consensus on Family Vacation Destination Selection.” Tourism Management 26 (4): 571–82.

23.

Kaplan

Max

. 1975. Leisure: Theory and Practice. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

24.

Kashy

Deborah A.

Ackerman

Robert A.

2017. “Dyadic Data Analysis Workshop.” Michigan State University. http://psychology.psy.msu.edu/Workshops_Courses/dda.aspx (accessed 23 March 2018).

25.

Kenny

David A.

Kashy

Deborah A.

2011. “Dyadic Data Analysis Using Multilevel Modeling.” In Handbook for Advanced Multilevel Analysis, edited by J. J.

Hox

Robers

J. K.

, 335–70. New York: Routledge.

26.

Kenny

David A.

Kashy

Deborah A.

2014. “The Design and Analysis of Data from Dyads and Groups.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, 2nd ed., edited by H. T.

Reis

Judd

C. M.

, 589–607. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Kerstetter

Deborah L.

Bricker

Kelly S.

Gitelson

Richard

. 1996. “The Influence of a Spouse or Partner in Travel Decision-Making.” Visions in Leisure and Business 15 (2): 40–44.

28.

Kouneski

Edward F.

2000. “The Family Circumplex Model, FACES II and FACES III: Overview of Research and Applications.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

29.

Lehto

Xinran Y.

Choi

Soojin

Lin

Yi Chin

MacDermid

Shelley M.

2009. “Vacation and Family Functioning.” Annals of Tourism Research 36 (3): 459–79.

30.

Lehto

Xinran Y.

Xiaoxiao

Hanliang

Zhou

Lingqiang

. 2013. “Vacation Benefits and Activities: Understanding Chinese Family Travelers.” Jounral of Hospitality & Tourism Research 41 (3): 301–28.

31.

Lehto

Xinran Y.

Lin

Yi Chin

Chen

Choi

Soojin

. 2012. “Family Vacation Activities and Family Cohesion.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 29 (8): 835–50.

32.

Mathis

Richard D.

Tanner

Zoe

. 1991. “Cohesion, Adaptability, and Satisfaction of Family Systems in Later Life.” Family Therapy 18 (1): 47–60.

33.

Melton

Karen K.

2017. “Family Activity Model: Crossroads of Activity Environment and Family Interactions in Family Leisure.” Leisure Sciences 39 (5): 457–73.

34.

Melton

Karen K.

Zabriskie

Ramon B.

2016. “In the Pursuit of Happiness All Family Leisure Is Not Equal.” World Leisure Journal 58 (4): 311–26.

35.

Miller

Ivan W.

Ryan

Christine E.

Keitner

Gabor I.

Bishop

Duane S.

Epstein

Nathan B.

2000. “The McMaster Approach to Families: Theory, Assessment, Treatment and Research.” Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): 168–89.

36.

Newman

David B.

Tay

Louis

Diener

2014. “Leisure and Subjective Well-Being: A Model of Psychological Mechanisms as Mediating Factors.” Journal of Happiness Studies 15 (3): 555–78.

37.

Olson

David H.

1986. “Circumplex Model VII: Validation Studies and FACES III.” Family Process 25 (3): 337–51.

38.

Olson

David H.

2000. “Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems.” Jounal of Family Systems 22:144–67.

39.

Olson

David H.

2010. “FACES IV and the Circumplex Model: Validation Study.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 37 (1): 64–80.

40.

Olson

David H.

McCubbin

Hamilton I.

Barnes

Howard

Larsen

Andrea

Muxen

Marla

Wilson

Marc

. 1992. Family Inventories: Inventories Used in a National Survey of Families across the Family Life Cycle, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

41.

Olson

David H.

Sprenkle

Douglas H.

Russell

Candyce S.

1979. “Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: I. Cohesion and Adaptability Dimensions, Family Types, and Clinical Applications.” Family Process 18 (1): 3–28.

42.

Orthner

Dennis K.

Mancini

Jay A.

1990. “Leisure Impacts on Family Interaction and Cohesion.” Journal of Leisure Research 22 (2): 125–37.

43.

Pew Research Center. 2014. “In Terms of Childlessness, U.S. Ranks Near the Top Worldwide | Pew Research Center.” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/in-terms-of-childlessness-u-s-ranks-near-the-top-worldwide/.

44.

Pew Research Center. 2018. “U.S. Women More Likely to Have Children Than a Decade Ago.” https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/18/theyre-waiting-longer-but-u-s-women-today-more-likely-to-have-children-than-a-decade-ago/.

45.

Poff

Raymond A.

Zabriskie

Ramond B.

Townsend

Jasmine A.

2010. “Modeling Family Leisure and Related Family Constructs: A National Study of US Parent and Youth Perspectives.” Journal of Leisure Research 42 (3): 365–91.

46.

Project: Time Off. 2018. “State of American Vacation 2018.” https://projecttimeoff.com/reports/state-of-american-vacation-2018/.

47.

Ryan

Richard M.

Deci

Edward L.

2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78.

48.

Ryff

Carol D.

Keyes

Corey Lee M.

1995. “The Structure of Psychological Well-Being Revisited.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (4): 719–27.

49.

Schänzel

Heike A.

Smith

Karen A.

2014. “The Socialization of Families Away from Home: Group Dynamics and Family Functioning on Holiday.” Leisure Sciences 36 (2): 126–43.

50.

Schänzel

Heike A.

Smith

Karen A.

Weaver

Adam

. 2005. “Family Holidays: A Research Review and Application to New Zealand.” Annals of Leisure Research 8 (2/3): 105–23.

51.

Schänzel

Heike A.

Yeoman

Ian

Backer

Elisa

. 2012. Family Tourism: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Bristol, UK: Channel View.

52.

Seligman

Martin EP

. 2011. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. New York: Simon & Schuster.

53.

Shaw

Susan M.

Dawson

Don

. 2001. “Purposive Leisure: Examining Parental Discourses on Family Activities.” Leisure Sciences 23 (4): 217–31.

54.

Shaw

Susan M.

Havitz

Mark E.

Delemere

Fern M.

2008. “‘I Decided to Invest in My Kids’ Memories’: Family Vacations, Memories, and the Social Construction of the Family.” Tourism Culture & Communication 8 (1): 13–26.

55.

Siegenthaler

K. L.

O’Dell

2000. “Leisure Attitude, Leisure Satisfaction, and Perceived Freedom in Leisure within Family Dyads.” Leisure Sciences 22 (4): 281–96.

56.

Smith

Gregory T.

Snyder

Douglas K.

Trull

Timothy J.

Monsma

Brian R.

1988. “Predicting Relationship Satisfaction from Couples’ Use of Leisure Time.” American Journal of Family Therapy 16 (1): 3–13.

57.

Southard

Benjamin Hunter

. 2011. “Vacation Time in Europe and America: An Inquiry into Varying Benefit Systems across Cultures.” Honors thesis, University of Tennessee.

58.

Statista. 2018. “Percentages of U.S. Family Households with Children 1970-2017, by Type.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/242074/percentages-of-us-family-households-with-children-by-type/.

59.

Stinnett

Nick

Sanders

Greg

DeFrain

John

Parkhurst

Anne

. 1982. “A Nationwide Study of Families Who Perceive Themselves as Strong.” Family Perspective 16 (1): 15–22.

60.

Sturt

David

Nordstrom

Todd

. 2018. “10 Shocking Workplace Stats You Need To Know.” Forbes, March. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsturt/2018/03/08/10-shocking-workplace-stats-you-need-to-know/#30f786def3af.

61.

Swank

Sheri Merci

. 2009. “Cohabitating Couples Travel Decisions and Their Overall Trip Satisfaction.” Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento, CA, USA.

62.

Townsend

Jasmine A.

Van Puymbroeck

Marieke

Zabriskie

Ramon B.

2017. “The Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning: A Systematic Review.” Leisure Sciences 39 (5): 436–56.

63.

Townsend

Jasmine A.

Zabriskie

Ramon B.

2010. “Family Leisure among Families with a Child in Mental Health Treatment: Therapeutic Recreation Implications.” Therapeutic Recreation Journal 44 (1): 11–34.

64.

US Travel and Tourism Association. 2017. “Project: Time Off.” https://www.projecttimeoff.com/sites/default/files/StateofAmericanVacation2017.pdf.

65.

Voorpostel

Marieke

Van Der Lippe

Tanja

Gershuny

Jonathan

. 2010. “Spending Time Together: Changes over Four Decades in Leisure Time Spent with a Spouse.” Journal of Leisure Research 42 (2): 243–65.

66.

Waldinger

Robert

. 2015. “What Makes a Good Life? Lessons from the Longest Study on Happiness.” https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_waldinger_what_makes_a_good_life_lessons_from_the_longest_study_on_happiness?language=en.

67.

Ward

Peter J.

Barney

Keith W.

Lundberg

Neil R.

Zabriskie

Ramond B.

2014. “A Critical Examination of Couple Leisure and the Application of the Core and Balance Model.” Journal of Leisure 46 (5): 593–611.

68.

West

Patrick C.

Jr.

L. C.

Merriam , 2009. “Outdoor Recreation and Family Cohesiveness: A Research Approach.” Journal of Leisure Research 41 (3): 351–59.

69.

Zabrinskie

Ramon B.

Freeman

Patti

. 2004. “Contributions of Family Leisure to Family Functioning among Transracial Adoptive Families.” Adoption Quarterly 7 (3): 49–77.

70.

Zabriskie

Ramon B.

McCormick

Bryan P.

2001. “The Influences of Family Leisure Patterns on Perceptions of Family Functioning.” Family Relations 50 (3): 281–89.