Abstract
This study began with an interest in how long-term marital couples are able to maintain stability in light of changing social and personal contexts. Using a qualitative grounded theory method as a part of an ongoing study of how couples manage the tension between ideals of partnership and stability over time, 21 couples were selected by theoretical sampling. Participants had to be living together for at least 10 years, with an oldest child at least aged 6. Flexibility—a dyadic process involving how partners adjust to and are influenced by each other, situations, environments, and life changes—emerged as a key component enabling couples to maintain marital stability. This analysis focuses on three processes that seem to influence couples’ ability to maintain flexibility in their relationships: (a) mutual decision making, (b) mutual accommodation regarding household tasks, and (c) mutual giving of personal time. Demonstrating these was associated with a focus on the relationship.
Keywords
Heterosexual couples in the United States find themselves in uncharted territory (Coontz, 2005). As institutional norms shift from gender segregated roles toward egalitarian expectations (e.g., Amato, Booth, Johnson, & Rogers, 2007; Sullivan, 2006), a new generation faces a desire for a lifelong relationship but has few models for how to accomplish it (Gerson, 2010; Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 2005). To understand how they respond to this conundrum, we invited couples who had been living together in a committed relationship for at least 10 years and whose oldest child was between 6 and 16 to tell us about their relationships. Our focus on the processes involved with flexibility arises out of their experience that it is central to making their relationships work.
Flexibility and Marital Stability
We approach this study from a family systems perspective. This means that partners in a relationship system are best understood as an interdependent unit not separate from each other or from larger systemic contexts (Galovan, Holmes, Schramm, & Lee, 2014). Rather than an individual trait, we define flexibility as a dyadic process involving how partners adjust to and are influenced by each other, situations, environments, and life changes. Drawing on interdependence theory, Gottman (2011) found that couples who are more likely to accept influence from each other in their communication have a higher chance of marital stability. Mutual influence is thus an important aspect of relational success (Knudson-Martin, 2013) and implies willingness to be flexible. Similarly, Olson’s (2000) circumplex model suggests that stable relationship systems will also be flexible, more able to respond to each other and to life’s contingencies. However, few studies examine the day-to-day processes through which flexibility contributes to stability or how it is constructed between partners.
Marital Stability
How couples maintain relationship stability has been a major research concern for many years, with recent interest often directed toward practical issues and the complexity of couple dynamics (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Early research found that even though stability increases over time, satisfaction was not directly related to stability (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). This may be changing, as more recent studies found that the happier couples were, the less likely they would seek divorce (Previti & Amato, 2003). Other elements of marital stability include factors such as forgiveness (Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007; Orathinkal & Vansteenwegen, 2006), perceptions of partners’ dependability (Young & Kleist, 2010), and emotional expression (Mirgain & Cordova, 2007; Waldinger, Hauser, Schulz, Allen, & Crowell, 2004). Relational rewards such as love, respect, friendship, and good communication appear more predictive of stability than barriers to dissolution such as staying together for the children, religious beliefs, and lack of financial resources, traditional roles, and commitment (Acevedo, Fisher, Brown, & Lucy, 2012; Previti & Amato, 2003; Reynolds, Remer, & Johnson, 1995).
Researchers know that circumstances such as age at the time of marriage, having children before marriage, cohabitation, and differing racial and religious backgrounds affect the likelihood of stability (Heaton, 2002). Religious involvement also appears linked to stability, but it varies in complex ways according to gender and race (Brown, Orbuch, & Bauermeister; 2008; Cutrona, Russell, Burzette, Wesner, & Byrant, 2011). Perceptions of fairness, commitment to relationship over self, and sharing tasks and decision making are cited as important (Amato & Cheadle, 2005; Fincham et al., 2007; Galovan et al., 2014; Tang & Curran, 2013); however, what partners do to make their relationships survive and what it means to them are much less understood.
Flexibility
The ability to be flexible when confronted with transitions and changes has been recognized as characteristic of positive couple and family functioning (Wolcott, 1999). Its relationship to marital stability has largely been studied through the circumplex model noted above (e.g., Olson, 2000; Rhoden, 2003). Together with cohesion and communication, this model considers flexibility a key factor affecting couple and family functioning. The model describes flexibility as the extent a family or couple is willing to change in leadership, roles, and rules. Considerable research (see Olson, 2000) has found that moderate levels of flexibility are ideal because it allows the relationship to balance change and stability; too high or too low levels of flexibility can be challenging over time.
Similarly, a review of family research identified flexibility as one of the prominent factors contributing to family resilience: that is, successful coping under adversity (Black & Lobo, 2008). Gerson (2010) described gender flexibility in breadwinning and caretaking as key to explaining why some families remain stable or improve when faced with challenges and others spiral downward. When parents transgressed gender boundaries, all types of families (homemaker–breadwinner, single parent, dual career, etc.) did better. How couples manage work and family issues is thus an important aspect of flexibility, with clear implications for relationship quality and stability (Dush & Taylor, 2012; Galovan et al., 2014; Usdansky & Parker, 2011).
Issues of accommodation and influence are also gendered and related to power dynamics, the resources partners hold, and how they appreciate and perceive the other (Knudson-Martin, 2013; Tang & Curran, 2013; Treas & Tai, 2012; Usdansky & Parker, 2011). Women report wanting male partners to share in more of the family work but how to make that happen is not clear (Walters & Whitehouse, 2012). When intimate partners are also parenting, the relational dynamics involved are particularly challenging (Galovan et al., 2014; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Milkie & Denny, 2014). Though feminist scholars have examined the day-to-day processes involved developing equal partnerships (e.g., Deutsch, 1999; Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 2009; Risman & Johnson-Summerford, 1998), these studies have not focused on relational stability as a primary concern.
Method
The purpose of this study is to develop grounded theory regarding how flexibility is connected to the processes through which heterosexual couples maintain marital stability. In this study, we used grounded theory from a lens that attempts to maintain some level of distance and objectivity from the data (Daly, 2007) while accepting that the researcher does not have the ability to entirely separate her or himself from who we are and what we know (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Therefore, we took on the stance of amplifying the voices of the participants and sharing what seems to being going on for participants, rather than what we think is important.
This analysis is a part of a larger qualitative study designed to understand how couples manage the tension between ideals of partnership and the need to maintain stability over time, particularly in light of a changing gender norms and sociocultural demands. We sought to examine what works in long-term relationships through reflections by the couples themselves. Focusing on couples who have been together for at least 10 years with oldest children aged 6 to 16 enabled us to access the experience of couples who had been dealing with the complexities of raising children for an extended period of time.
Participants
This analysis is based on interviews with 21 volunteer couples (i.e., 42 participants), completed as a part of the ongoing study. Participants were recruited via word of mouth and theoretically selected based on their relevance to the concepts of interest in this study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). At the time of the interview, all were married, with relationships extending from 10 to 25 years. Most had two children. Four had one child, one had three, and one had four. Only one person reported a prior marriage.
The sample was ethnically diverse, including African American (7), Asian (6), European American (18), African (5), Guianese (1), and Hispanic (4) individuals. At the time of the interview, all lived in Southern California. They ranged from 29 to 57 years of age and included persons from a wide range of backgrounds and life experiences. Eight had immigrated to the United States. Though participants also represented a variety of educational statuses, all appeared economically stable at this point in their lives and 76% held bachelor’s degrees or higher. Most of the sample thus represented people most likely to maintain marital stability (Amato et al., 2007).
Eight mothers and one father were currently primarily stay-at-home parents. The rest were dual-earner couples. However, participants reported considerable change over time in earner statuses, and all had worked outside the home at some point in their marriages. Examples of occupations include cosmetologists, teachers, engineers, self-employed business owners, managers, technicians, lawyers, electrician, photographer, school administrators, physicians, and other health care providers.
Interview Process
Couples were interviewed together in their homes for approximately 1 to 2 hours. The interview questions were designed to focus on the couple’s relationship dynamics and processes specific to relationship ideology, relationship structures and behaviors, and decision making and conflict resolution. Interviewing partners together allowed us to observe how partners responded to each other and to focus on them as the unit of analysis. Questions were open-ended to enable the participants to share what was particularly important to them. For example, what do you think constitutes a “good” relationship? How do you decide how much time to spend apart and together? How do you divide household responsibilities? What types of decisions have you had to make during your relationship? Each of the interviews was transcribed for the process of coding. To ensure confidentiality, we assigned pseudonyms.
Coding
In grounded theory researchers have no preconceived notions of theory, and it is through coding that researchers are open to study what emerges from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). To contribute to trustworthiness of the analysis (e.g., Daly, 2007), we first coded each transcript individually and then reviewed each transcript together and debated our differences about the analysis until we all came to a consensus. We also avoided becoming saturated in the literature prior to coding in order to maximize the open-coding process and build theory that was truly grounded in the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
We began with open coding of the relational processes described in the interviews and originally identified more than 100 codes; for example, he accepts her help, he asks her to confirm, he values sharing common things, she confirms his ideas, both communicate, conflict over roles, they manage schedules together, he values interaction with her, lack of emotional connectivity, share household tasks, firm division of household tasks, and he took care of home responsibility when she was gone.
We found similarities in our codes, and in this process we grouped reoccurring codes together: for example, “he is accepting her help,” “share household tasks,” “firm division of household task,” and “he took care of home responsibility when she was gone” were all grouped under “helping each other out.” Another example is “both communicate,” “discuss conflict over roles,” and “they arrange schedule together” were grouped under “communication.”
Analysis
We began to notice how the concept of flexibility emerged in the interviews. Thus we used axial coding, analytic memos, and diagrams to develop an understanding of how couples in this study were able to maintain stability through flexibility. Through this process, five predominant themes originally emerged: accommodation patterns, division of household tasks, use of time, decision made by, and communication.
However, after reviewing the data several times we decided to merge a few of our categories that appeared to overlap. As a result, communication was merged into decision making and use of time because we found that most of the communication occurred in one of these two contexts. We also merged accommodation patterns and division of household tasks because we found that couples reported doing most of their accommodation in relation to household tasks. The extent to which both partners demonstrated flexibility also emerged as a primary factor. Hence we changed the names of these categories to reflect the newly merged categories and concluded that mutual decision making, mutual accommodation regarding household tasks, and mutual giving of personal time best describe how couples in this study are able to maintain stability through flexibility.
For example, mutual accommodation regarding household tasks indicates that each person attends to his or her partner’s needs and lends him or herself to ease the burden of the other. Mutual decision making involves both spouses communicating their opinions and reaching a resolution. Mutual giving of personal time examines how partners put aside their own time to facilitate family and relational needs. We categorized each aspect of flexibility: (a) wife, if she appeared the predominant one in action; (b) husband, if he appeared the predominant on in action; or (c) together, if the couple seemed to contribute relatively equally. If only one spouse appeared flexible in decision making, accommodation regarding household tasks, or giving of personal time, we considered the couple as not being flexible within this area. We noted that flexibility was described by couples who reported relatively gendered organization of their family structures, as well as by those who indicated that they viewed them as ungendered. We did not attempt to determine the accuracy of partners’ estimations of who did what but focused instead on participants’ perceptions.
The final stage of analysis involved explaining how each of these three flexibility processes supported stability. A relational focus emerged as the common unifying theme. We concluded (a) that demonstrations of flexibility both contribute to and are the result of maintaining a relational focus and (b) that a relational focus in which individual actions and goals of both partners are framed within the relational context promoted stability among these couples.
Results
Figure 1 illustrates three basic processes that seemed to constitute the ability of couples in this study to maintain flexibility in their relationships. In this section, we first examine how gender related to flexibility in this sample, then consider each of the three processes involved in flexibility and illustrate how they are connected to a relational focus.
How flexibility promotes relational stability.
Gender and Flexibility
Whether beginning with gendered expectations or egalitarian expectations, most of the couples in this study repeatedly emphasize flexibility as a defining component of their lives together. Eight describe gendered flexibility in which general roles, responsibilities, and relationship patterns are significantly organized by gender but partners regularly cross these gender divisions and their contributions changed over time. Betty, a former stay-at-home mom who has returned to school says, “I like having some roles . . . knowing what is expected of you.” But Robert picks up many of “her” roles: “I cannot have her come home and make dinner if she’s been in school or working all day . . . it just goes against everything I believe in.”
Eight other couples report ungendered flexibility in which couples described responsibilities as shared and interchangeable depending on circumstances. Walter, a realtor married to a psychiatrist taking a break from work while their baby is young, reports “Our relationship is not defined like a traditional marriage where the wife has certain tasks, and the husband has certain tasks . . . We share everything equally and discuss everything equally.” These couples say they organize around availability rather than gender. Walter: “Whoever is working more will do less of the housework. I remember when you were working more, I would be doing all the laundry and dealing with the dishes, and now you’ve been doing it for the last year.”
In contrast, four couples described limited flexibility. Whether or not intentionally, these couples organized around stereotypic gender divisions and cross these boundaries less frequently. Michael, whose wife works as a hairstylist, explains, “If it doesn’t have to do with protecting or taking care of the family I want no part in it. She’s great with decorating and doing the house stuff.” Women in these relationships do most of the accommodating or, if unhappy, may try to initiate change. Michael’s wife LaDonna, comments on her experience with her mother-in-law teaching her how a wife should act: “It was a problem in the beginning . . . women in their culture [Guyana] do everything so I didn’t even know I was being brainwashed” (laughs).
One couple demonstrated a different pattern, distressed flexibility. Larry and Kay describe considerable flexibility in most aspects of their day-to-day functioning, including a time when Larry was a stay-at-home dad. Kay: “One year you need something and the next year I need it . . . We just do what needs to be done.” However, even though they were very flexible around family responsibilities, they report considerable relationship distress and “rocky times.” They cite a common gender pattern (Gottman, 2011): He is emotionally disengaged; she wants to talk about relationship issues, but cannot engage him. In this case, flexibility appears to contribute to the longevity of the marriage but, in and of itself, is not sustaining happiness, particularly for the wife.
Maintaining Flexibility
The processes maintaining flexibility are similar regardless of how gender is constructed, They include (a) mutual accommodation regarding household tasks, (b) mutual decision making, and (c) mutual giving of personal time.
Mutual Accommodation Regarding Household Task
Mutual accommodation regarding household tasks is not just about dividing work; for couples in this study, it indicates that each partner cares about his or partner’s needs and lends him or herself to ease the burden. For example, Robert is often away from home a few days of the week and Betty takes care of everything at home. But when he is back at home he takes care of many of the household tasks. He describes, “Ummm, you know, cooking, cleaning, whatever it is I can do to . . . so . . . you know she gets a break.” Though Maria, a Hispanic stay-at-home mom, carries responsibility for the children and Jose “participates,” she says, “There’s no lines between male and female . . . we cross the lines all the time.”
Notably, partners generally do not need to ask for help. Sharing has become automatic and part of attunement to each other. Walter and Sue “both pitch in.” For example,
He unloads the dishwasher usually. . . And I’ll load the dishwasher usually. But if one person’s busy, I’ll do it or he’ll do it . . . we help each other do the laundry. Sometimes I’ll wash and he’ll fold.
Sophie and Tai, a Cambodian couple both trained as accountants, describe their underlying attention to each other in the division of tasks: Tai: “We always try to do what the other person would think . . . .” Sophie agrees, “. . . so I always try to think, umm, how he thinks when he’s in my shoes. In the back of my mind somewhere I’m always thinking if that was fair.”
When there is less mutuality regarding household tasks, the wives appear to be predominantly accommodating. Desiree, a teacher and student married to Tom, an electrician, resents his unwillingness to step in, “I don’t think that it is fair that Tom does not have to do any chores. Like I was gone this weekend and I came back to piled up laundry and dishes in the sink.” Some women are able to petition for help. For example, after Ashley said, “I’m done with this [carrying all the responsibility for household tasks],” Sean asked what he could do. But Ashley is still the primary accommodator: “I don’t ask him to do things he doesn’t like to do.”
Mutual Decision Making
Mutual decision making involves both partners communicating his or her opinions and coming to agreement on how to proceed. Ungendered-flexibility couples describe lots of talking. Brian, currently a stay-at home dad, and his wife Jenny, a teacher, report ongoing discussions over many major decisions in their lives. Jenny: “It was spits; it was picking up the conversation, okay we left it here. Then we moved on to the next.” Betty says Robert “knows the money [situation], so he doesn’t really have to, but I think out of respect and speaking about equality he calls me up [when making a major purchase].”
Some of the gendered-flexibility couples express the idea that the man is the head of the house and the final decision maker, but in practice they don’t operate very hierarchically. Nonetheless, several of the women describe subtle accommodation in decision making. Samantha: “Even if I know I have the right to do something I would still go and talk with him, consult with him . . . He is still the head.” Among these flexible couples, both partners take the other into account in decision making. They view decision making as a shared process, that is, “We always decide together.” In contrast, Sandee and Alvin, a limited-flexibility couple who report power struggles, describe a contest of “debate” and “compromise.” According to Sandee, “Sometimes he wins and sometimes I win.” LaDonna, in another less flexible relationship, describes unilateral decision making on the part of her husband: “He will call a family meeting and be like ‘this is it, yada yada yada’ and that’s it.”
Mutual Giving of Personal Time
Mutual giving of personal time refers to the partners’ willingness to organize their time to facilitate family and relationship needs. This process involves the ability to put aside individual time for the sake of the relationship. All participants describe flexibility regarding time in at least some areas, with most also prioritizing personal time for emotional connectivity with their partners. Sean and Ashley, who are trying to repair a relationship with limited flexibility, now work around their tight schedule to spend time with one another: “Let’s decide on a day so that we can just do something. Another thing we brought up was just going out walking.” Ben and Sarah, a couple with ungendered flexibility, explains the importance of giving personal time in which they plan frequent trips together without their children: “ . . . weekend getaways, we just spent some time in the snow . . . and when I’m off, I’m off . . . Ben would give the pager to somebody else when he’s on vacation.” Ben also reports that he is the one organizing the next trip. Furthermore, Robert and Betty, with gendered flexibility, intentionally make time for one another: “When we’re home, if we’re able to spend time together then we do. If she is busy with work I will give her space but we make time to talk and catch up.”
In these examples couples are flexible around time so each person and family member can accomplish what they need or want to do, but also seek to prioritize their time to intimately connect with one another (see Reynolds & Knudson-Martin, 2015). For example, Sally and Harry (an ungendered-flexibility couple in which both are engineers) explain their history of time flexibility:
One of my jobs took me over to Malaysia. When I would go, I had to go for 3 weeks to 4 weeks at a time. So I’d be gone, and the kids were babies when I left, so he would have to take care of all that. (Sally)
Things have changed since Sally was laid off last year, but they still describe very different schedules, “On weekends, we’re going kind of our own separate directions. She’ll be dragging [daughter] to soccer practice, and I’ll be managing my son’s baseball team. You [Sally] have Bunco, like, twice a month.” Yet they report emotional connection, in part because their partner responds to their needs with their time:
And I haven’t had any of my parents pass away yet, so I didn’t know exactly what she was going through, but I get the sense that . . .
Yeah, I was a mess.
So how did you respond to her?
Well, he took care of everything at the house, and I just left and went took care of my mom.
Relational Focus
Flexibility in this study was connected to the three interrelated processes of mutual accommodation regarding household tasks, mutual decision making, and mutual giving of personal time. As couples spoke, they conveyed how strongly they valued this give and take and how it enabled them to maintain their relationship over time. Based on their experiences, we hypothesize that the more both partners display these processes, the better they are able to maintain flexibility in their relationships. Moreover, flexibility flowed out of a relational focus in which the importance of their relationship appeared to outweigh their own interests. This relational focus was especially visible when one of the partners was not available due to work or being away, when they wanted to lighten the load of the other partner, when dealing with conflict, when viewing themselves as team members or partners, and when they wanted to preserve emotional connectivity.
Derek and Chondra exemplify the link between flexibility, relational focus, and stability over time. When she got pregnant at the age of 14, he vowed to be different from his father who had abandoned his family. According to Derek, an African American man without a high school degree, “We were determined to figure it out . . . we had to do what we had to do.” Chondra: “He was determined for me to finish school.” Over the course of their 17 years together, they filled no predetermined roles, putting the relationship and each other first:
We were kids. Now it’s like, what does she want in a man? What does she want in a friend, and what does she want in a partner? We are still figuring that out each and every day . . . the questions, the answers, the emotions. You just learn from each other. If you don’t, you’ll end up growing apart, because you’re not spending that time to try. Most people don’t understand quality time. Now I understand quality time.
I taught him that.
Though a relational focus is an attitude, it is expressed in visible demonstrations such as giving each other a break, making decisions after discussing it with one another, dividing household task based on availability, having, setting aside a specific day and time weekly for one another, turning off phones and pagers when spending time with one another, letting down guards with one another, having routine family dinners, viewing one another as a team, running errands together, and playing together. For example, Sophie and Tai practice gendered flexibility. Sophie emphasizes how each person in the relationship feels their input is valued: “We know our roles . . . but if one still disagrees; then we’ll go over it one more time, in case we miss something.” Flexibility means partners are there for each other. Walter says, “We can count on each other no matter what.”
Even though most of the couples express flexibility in their relationship, some face challenges when working on being flexible, saying that they are working on picking up after one another, making sacrifices, compromising, or not always looking for fairness in the relationship. When flexibility does not occur, work, cultural tradition, or other circumstances interfere. For example, Sandee and Alvin, a limited-flexibility couple from Botswana report a struggle in which she has felt overwhelmed: “You get to a point you can’t take it any more . . . you resent the culture because it puts too much work on the woman.” Sandee feels undervalued: “I have been hit harder because that emotional part of me has not been you know . . . has been neglected. Her feeling relationally unattended is related to Derek’s inflexible approach to roles and responsibilities: “You know, it’s so depressing when you come home there is no food . . . it’s so dirty, maybe the kids haven’t showered, it is just the most depressing thing ever.” In contrast, Chondra (ungendered flexibility) feels very relationally supported, “I would come home, he would cook. [He] would have my bath water run.” Thus, flexibility occurs to the extent that both partners make the well-being of the other and the relationship the primary focus, which in turn appears to lead to marital stability. Without experiencing the relational focus, as in the example of Larry Kay above, flexibility may help couples cope but by itself may not sustain the couple’s emotional bond.
Discussion
This study sought to examine how flexibility helps maintain marital stability in a sample of couples who have held their relationships together through the strains of raising children. As shown in Figure 1, couples described three key processes: mutual accommodation regarding household tasks, mutual decision making, and mutual giving of personal time. These processes contribute to maintaining flexibility in large part through the relational focus of each partner, which leads to stability. Although this was not surprising for those who disavowed traditional gender roles, it is interesting that even those with gendered flexibility, that is, they reported generally organizing around gendered roles and responsibilities, regularly crossed these gender lines to support their partners and to accomplish whatever needed to be done. Even among those with limited flexibility, flexibility was valued—especially by the women.
This research extends the work of previous studies (e.g., Olson, 2000; Rhoden, 2003; Wolcott, 1999) on the significance of flexibility to marital stability by examining flexibility as a process revealed through couple interactions. In contrast to the move toward individualism identified by Amato et al. (2007), couples in this study repeatedly described a relational orientation that seemed to both be the impetus for their willingness to be flexible and reinforced by demonstrations of it.
Though women are generally socialized to focus more on relationships than men (Knudson-Martin, 2013; Loscocco & Walzer, 2013), most men in this study appeared to share a relational perspective. Several described learning to develop this view over time. Given that women’s disappointment in men’s more limited relational interests is a frequent cause of relational distress (Loscocco & Walzer, 2013), this finding is particularly important. Moreover, when perceptions of flexibility were limited, women in this study felt isolated and alone. In fact, several couples described recent movements toward increased male flexibility following their wives’ expressions of relational dissatisfaction.
The division of labor is an important contributor to relationship satisfaction (Dush & Taylor, 2012; Galovan et al., 2014). Amato et al. (2007) found that couples that believe division of household task is unfair are inclined to report more conflict and are more likely to contemplate divorce. Our findings coincide with these findings. They highlight the importance of mutual accommodation in the division of household tasks and illustrate that the division of labor represents a way couples nurture their relationships and show positive regard toward one another. It also appears to be a way partners demonstrate commitment to each other and their relationships (Tang & Curran, 2013).
Our findings also add to the call for couples research that moves beyond a focus on conflict to suggest that mutual flexibility may be an important aspect of what Fincham et al. (2007) call the transformative process of marriage; for example, mutual sacrifice that reinforces the bond between the couple and makes their relationship less vulnerable to future stressors, therefore increasing marital stability. Similarly, couples in this study spoke of mutual decision making as part of respect and commitment to other (Attridge, Berscheid, & Simpson, 1995). Shared decision making may contribute to marital stability (e.g., Amato et al., 2007) because it allows each partner to experience value and voice in the relationship.
As in previous research (Voorpostel, van der Lippe, & Gershuny, 2009), couples in this study sometimes found that it was difficult to spend time together because of competing demands between individual and shared time. The many pressures on time, particularly for couples raising children (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004), means that time was imbued with great meaning for couples in this study. Giving up personal time for the other or to share time together was therefore highly significant and communicated value of the relationship. Time for shared focus on each other may also contribute to mutual self-disclose and intimacy (Reynolds & Knudson-Martin, 2015; Voorpostel et al., 2009).
Finally, and perhaps most important, flexibility occurred when and because partners were in tune with the needs of the other. Young and Kleist (2010) found that as couples are able to meet more of their partner’s expectations, they also gradually gain more security in their relationship with one another. Mutual attunement protects relationships (Huston, 2009). Couples feel emotionally connected when the other accommodates to help accomplish tasks and willingly give of themselves through time. Sue states, “Yes, we are tuned to each other. Even when I don’t say something, it’s like, ah-h, how did he know that I needed that? You know? He does it and I do it.” Mutual attunement makes it more likely that partners will respond to each other. When partners are not mutually attuned, a power difference is created in whose needs and interests are likely to be addressed (Knudson-Martin, 2013). As a result, wives in the less flexible relationships expressed dissatisfaction and resentment. Among the more flexible, both women and men were able to influence the other, often without having to ask, enhancing flexibility and contributing to stability over the long haul.
Practice Implications
These findings coincide with other work that emphasizes the importance of a mutually supportive relational focus (e.g., Knudson-Martin & Huenergardt, 2010) and illustrates the importance of pragmatic, day-to-day issues to marital stability. They suggest that efforts to help couples improve relationship stability should address issues such as how partners share household tasks, make decisions, and spend time together. Practitioners should be aware that these may be unbalanced in distressed relationships (McGeorge, Carlson, & Guttormson, 2009). Furthermore, though gender socialization may mean that men could benefit from help in learning to take a relational approach, the experience of the long-term couples in this study suggests that mutual accommodation and attunement are possible for both women and men. Approaches that encourage couples to accept differences in the ways that women and men “are,” for example, that men are not as relational as women, may do couples who want their relationships to last a disservice. Approaches that help both women and men recognize and respond to their relational needs are likely to enhance stability.
Limitations and Future Directions
Couple research will benefit from additional study on the processes involved in the positive aspects of relational functioning (e.g., Fincham et al., 2007). Given shifting gender norms and expectations, it is especially important to identify relationship models that work and what partners do to sustain them. Although our sample was diverse in many ways, people currently living in poverty and economic distress were not represented. It is therefore not possible to know to what extent these findings regarding flexibility apply to this population. Since economic distress is related both marriage and instability (Amato et al., 2007), this is an important area for future research. Qualitative research that follows couples over time would also bring additional information to light, such as how couples process change over time and across life stages or during economic distress.
It is important to note that our study interviewed couples together; interviewing couples separately may bring out more conflict within the couple’s dynamic. We also did not do a behavioral count to determine how often flexibility occurred within each of the factors. As a result, we only know what participants said about their relationship patterns and their interpretations of them. Since gendered power processes may influence expectations and how people estimate their own and their partner’s contributions (Loscocco & Walzer, 2013), a feminist analysis may identify imbalances masked to them by gendered norms and expectations. In other words, what is perceived as fair or mutual may not be an accurate assessment of equal give-and-take.
Our study also looked at flexibility in terms of marital stability; we did not directly explore marital satisfaction or parenting. Although we found examples of flexibility and limited flexibility across the cultural groups and education levels represented in the study, we were not able to focus specifically on how culture relates to flexibility. These are all important areas for future study.
Despite these limitations, this study shows that couples who maintain stability are likely to achieve this by being flexible through a relational focus in areas of mutual accommodations regarding household tasks, mutual decision making, and mutual giving of personal time. These results suggest that family life educators and couples therapists have the ability to help couples consider the relational messages of mutual support in their pragmatic responses to daily life. Enrichment programs and clinical work should emphasize the importance of a relational focus in creating and reinforcing the flexibility needed for marital stability. Educators and clinicians may thus play a significant role in helping people respond to the changing sociocultural context by expanding their capacity for flexibility and transforming how they enact limiting gender norms.
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.