Parent–Child Leisure and Parent Affect: The Role of Family Structure

Abstract

This study evaluates differences in parent–child leisure and parent affect across single- and two-parent families. The Ecology of Family Experiences framework suggests contextual factors such as family structure and the novelty of the activity environment contribute to heterogeneity in how parents experience leisure, partly because constraints may differ across family structures. Using a large, nationally representative data sample of parents from the American Time Use Survey (N = 78,353), this study shows single-parents experience leisure deficits compared to other parents, and leisure deficits are greatest in home-based leisure. Additionally, using a subsample (N = 16,214), we found that at-home leisure is more meaningful for single parents than other parents, suggesting avoidance behaviors do not drive differences. Instead, structural constraints like time and money likely curb leisure in single-parent homes. Findings have policy implications, because many leisure programs target away-from-home leisure which is less restorative to single parents.

Keywords

leisure single parents parent–child leisure parent well-being recreation ecology of family experiences leisure constraints

Research on parent–child leisure has been conducted in small, homogeneous samples of predominantly married, two-parent families and their adolescent children (Hodge et al., 2015, 2017). Two-parent families represent only one of many increasingly diverse family structures. Indeed, the fraction of children living with a single mother grew from 8% in 1960 to 23% in 2016 (The Majority of Children Live With Two Parents, Census Bureau Reports, 2016). Parent–child leisure, that is leisure experiences parents share with a child, may support parents’ positive affect by providing opportunities for happiness and meaning (Musick et al., 2016), or, conversely, family leisure may detract from parents’ positive affect by creating stress (Izenstark et al., 2016; Tubbs et al., 2005). Moreover, differences in the associations between parent–child leisure and parent affect across family structures (i.e., single-parent and two-parent households) need to be examined so as to better understand the conditions under which leisure supports parents’ well-being. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to document parents’ affective responses to parent–child leisure when compared to all other activities (i.e., non-leisure activities and leisure activities without a child). Additionally, this article will identify differences in parent–child leisure and parent affect by family structure (two-parent families compared to single-parent families). We frame American Time Use Survey (ATUS) (Hofferth et al., 2020) data in the Ecology of Family Experiences (EFE) framework (Melton et al., 2019, 2020) to identify (a) differences in structural measures of parent–child leisure (quantity and location of leisure), and (b) subjective measures of parent–child leisure (parents’ affect).

Background

Families in the Leisure Context: An Ecological Approach

The EFE framework (Melton et al., 2019, 2020) positions outcomes of leisure experiences in families as the product of factors within multiple domains: Family, Activity, and Time. These three domains interact to produce three hierarchical levels of Individual and Family Outcomes: (a) proximal physiological or psychological responses, (b) medial meaning, and (c) distal human and family development.

Factors within the Family Domain consist of the within- and between-family characteristics that differentiate between or group together individuals and/or families. Family structure, one characteristic within the Family Domain, can be defined as the living arrangements of a child (Montgomery et al., 1996). A child may live in a household with two married or cohabitating parents, or one parent (Jensen et al., 2014). Thus, family structure may be used to explain between-family differences in leisure experiences and outcomes.

The Activity Domain consists of the characteristics of a specific leisure experience. Those characteristics align with the two subdomains of social interaction and/or activity environment. The activity environment spans a continuum of familiar to novel. Activities occurring in familiar environments (e.g., close to home) are considered core family leisure and activities occurring in novel environments (e.g., away from home) are considered balance family leisure (Melton, 2017; Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). Therefore, in this study, we examine differences in parent–child leisure and parent affect by family structure (a Family factor) and activity environment (an Activity factor). More specifically, we compare parents’ affective responses to leisure with at least one of their children across two family structures (two-parent families and single-parent families) and two activity forms (familiar and novel). Furthermore, we compare parents’ affective responses to the leisure they share with their child to all other (i.e., non-leisure and leisure without their child) activities.

Leisure and Parents’ Well-being

The associations between leisure and individual well-being are well-documented. For parents, leisure can provide opportunities for relaxation, stress relief, creative expression, and the development and maintenance of social connections (Currie, 2004; Warner-Smith & Brown, 2002). Parents’ leisure and its effects on well-being, however, are both constrained and enabled by family circumstances, including having children and/or family structure (Warner-Smith & Brown, 2002). Indeed, parents have described their parenthood as having significantly changing the form, structure, and meaning of their leisure such that leisure becomes more child-centered and less free (Such, 2006). However, parents have also reported that even though their leisure becomes child-centered, it is also highly valued and associated with positive emotions (Hunter & Witson, 1991; Irving & Giles, 2011; Such, 2006).

Classical definitions characterize leisure as intrinsically motivated, freely chosen activities during non-obligated time (Goodale & Godbey, 1988). When applied to shared leisure in a family context (i.e., parent–child leisure), the definition begins to fail. Time may not be free from obligations when engaging in family leisure. Indeed, parents have described feeling obligated to create meaningful and quality family time (Daly, 2001). Moreover, research has demonstrated that parents report a level of work (i.e., unpaid labor) is required during leisure experiences shared with their children (Larrabee, 1993; Miller et al., 2005; Shaw, 1991; Such, 2006). The “failure” of traditional definitions of leisure is especially evident for mothers who often shoulder most of the work to create and complete shared family leisure activities because of their role as primary caregiver (Hunter & Witson, 1991; Miller et al., 2005). Overall, defining and measuring parent–child leisure and its outcomes cannot rely on classical characterizations.

Thus, we adopt a combination of objective or structural and subjective perspectives to assess parent–child leisure. Structural perspectives on leisure rely on easily observable and measurable indicators of the time spent in specific activities. Therefore, we use activity type and time as structural measures of parent–child leisure. Subjective indicators extend to the participants’ interpretation of or affective responses to a leisure experience (Kuykendall et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2014). Therefore, we use indicators of parents’ subjective well-being as subjective measures of parent–child leisure outcomes. Subjective well-being includes measures of positive and negative affect, and, perhaps more importantly, meaning. Previous research has noted that despite the negative affective responses such as increased stress that parents experience because of their leisure with children, parents report deriving a great sense of meaning from “the shared good times that made friendship and family real and happy experiences rather than empty words” (Hunter & Witson, 1991, p. 231). The meaning parents derive from their leisure with children has not been compared across family structures; however, and differences in access to resources and opportunities may drive differences in the effect of parent–child leisure on parent well-being.

Differences in Parent–Child Leisure by Family Structure

Research regarding barriers to leisure (later known as leisure constraints) originated in the study of families. Three hierarchical and sequential leisure constraints were identified: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural (Crawford et al., 1991; Crawford & Godbey, 1987). These constraints can either intervene in leisure participation, or they can influence preferences and participation (Crawford et al., 1991). Thus, leisure participation represents a successful negotiation of each level of constraint. We review structural and interpersonal constraints as barriers to parent–child leisure.

Structural constraints intervene between leisure preference and actual leisure behavior. Examples of structural constraints include a lack of financial or temporal resources. The scope and acuteness of structural constraints may vary by family structure. For example, single-mother households are more likely to live in poverty than any other family structure; some 30% of single-mother households live in poverty compared to 16% of cohabiting couple and 8% of married couple households (Livingston, 2014). Still, in previous comparisons of parents’ perceptions, single parents were not more likely than two-parents to feel they do not spend enough time with their children (Milkie et al., 2004). However, the context of time parents spend with children may vary by family structure. For example, single-parents report spending more time in childcare activities than married or cohabiting parents (Kalenkoski et al., 2007), likely reducing time available for leisure activities. Thus, time use research has demonstrated some variation in parents’ overall time use by family structure; however, the direct examination of objective and subjective assessments of parent–child leisure has across different family structures remains to be done.

Interpersonal constraints may operate as influencing factors that affect leisure participation and leisure preference. Interpersonal constraints arise from differences in leisure preferences or needs between individual family members, and from general family conflict (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Thus, families reporting elevated stress or conflict may seek out leisure that requires little interaction, or they may avoid shared leisure experiences all together (Crawford & Godbey, 1987).

Constraints to family leisure are surmountable, and research indicates that negotiating constraints (i.e., creating strategies and methods for overcoming constraints) can lead to more satisfying and meaningful leisure (Hendersonet al., 1995). Negotiating implies active rather than passive acceptance of constraints (Jackson et al., 1993), and the resilience of single-parent families suggests an ability to negotiate structural and interpersonal constraints (e.g., Coleman et al., 2013; Greeff & Ritman, 2005; Tubbs et al., 2005). Even in negotiating constraints, family leisure is likely to look different had constraints not been present (Jackson et al., 1993). Thus, we expect households with greater concentration of structural constraints to participate in less leisure, particularly away-from-home activities that are more resource intensive (Harrington, 2015; Hornberger et al., 2010; Tubbs et al., 2005). Likewise, we expect parents with more complex family systems (i.e., greater interpersonal constraints) to report differences in affect during leisure.

Differences in Parents’ Affect by Family Structure

Research examining parents’ affect as a function of family structure appears to be less prevalent than research examining child and adolescent well-being as a function of family structure (e.g., Artis, 2007; Brown, 2006; Brown et al., 2015; Manning & Lamb, 2003). Within the current literature, some mixed evidence for variation in overall parent well-being by family structures exists. Single mothers report lower levels of well-being than married mothers (Cairney et al., 2003; Lansford et al., 2001). Such differences in affect and subjective well-being by family structure may be attributable to several mechanisms. For example, stigmatization of single parents (particularly single mothers) is, to an extent, embedded in the sociocultural mind (Dowd, 1999), and has been identified as a factor affecting psychological well-being (Rudowicz, 2001). Increased emphasis on intensive parenting ideologies may also affect single parents’ affect and well-being given that a single parent is likely to take on the role of provider and “good parent” (Musick et al., 2016) without assistance from a second parent.

Leisure experiences may serve to ameliorate parents’ stress and strain. Scholars have argued the need for leisure was perhaps “more apparent among families that face greater stress, constraint, and difficulty by nature of their family structure” (Hornberger et al., 2010, p. 158). Similarly scholars have also concluded leisure met several developmental and relational needs in families, including stress management (Orthner et al., 1994). Parents’ gender and roles may simultaneously drive differences in the association between leisure and with parent well-being. For example, fathers’ reports of leisure with children were associated with more indicators of well-being than mothers’ (Coyl-Shepherd & Hanlon, 2013). In addition to reducing negative affect, family leisure may increase positive affect through mechanisms of autonomy, mastery, meaning, and affiliation (Newman et al., 2014). Thus, we examine parents’ reports of subjective well-being in conjunction with family leisure events across different family structures.

Current Study

Previous study of parent–child leisure has relied on small, homogeneous samples of predominantly married, two-parent families and their adolescent children (Hodge et al., 2015, 2017). Moreover, previous study of parent–child leisure has applied models that do not account for crucial family characteristics such as family structure. Instead, general models had been applied to specific populations, including single-parent families (Hornberger et al., 2010), to replicate and confirm non-specific associations between family leisure and family functioning. We improve precision of reporting by remaining sensitive to family structures (a Family factor) and family leisure locations (an Activity factor). Additionally, we note the extensive work that family time use research has done to document differences in family time by family structure. Indeed, we have included references to this body of literature in our rationale and background. This study contributes to this field by addressing the leisure domain of family time use specifically. The unique characteristics of the leisure domain of family time such as the activity environment necessitate tailored theoretical framing of research.

This study uses both structural indicators and subjective indicators to evaluate differences in parent–child leisure for single parents compared to parents in two-parent families. The analysis is sensitive to family leisure locations to provide insight into core and balance leisure patterns.

The study uses data from the ATUS and regression analysis tools to understand the interplay between family structure and core and balance parent–child leisure patterns. Based on prior research (Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Crawford et al., 1991), we hypothesize that because single parents face higher barriers to both core (i.e. at-home) leisure and in balance (away-from-home), they will engage in core and balance parent–child leisure less than parents in two-parent families (H1). Based on notions that leisure experiences ameliorate parents’ stress and strain and are most beneficial for family structures facing greater stress (Hornberger et al., 2010), we hypothesize that subjective well-being during parent–child leisure will be highest among single-parents (H2), regardless of whether it is a core or balance leisure experience.

Methods

Data

The ATUS data were collected by U.S. Census Bureau using some households in the Current Population Survey sample. A 30-min phone interview collected an individual’s time use over a 24-h period, from 4 a.m. of the previous day until 4 a.m. of the interview day. Data collection took place continuously through the sample time period, including on each day of the week. Respondents accounted for all time throughout the day (Hamermesh et al., 2005). Interviewers were specially trained in using the Day Reconstruction Method and computer assistance to help respondents recall details with accuracy (Kahneman et al., 2004). For each primary activity throughout a day, respondents reported who else was present. Thus, we combine reports of leisure with information about who else was present and where leisure occurred to study patterns of parent–child leisure in familiar and novel environments across family structures.

Our analysis of parent–child leisure and parents’ affect across different family structures utilized individual-level time-use diary data from 2003 to 2019 (Hofferth et al., 2020). The total ATUS respondent sample from 2003 to 2019 was 210,586. We dropped 132,233 respondents who did not have at least one of their own children aged 18 or younger living in the household, leaving a final analytic sample of 78,353. Table 1 identifies household and individual demographic information for the sample, specified by family structure. We also utilized a subsample of parents based on respondents in 2010, 2012, and 2013 (N= 16,214) to evaluate parents’ subjective well-being. The ATUS provided weights specific to this subsample to ensure that it was nationally representative, and the demographic characteristics of the subsample were not statistically different from the full sample, with the exception of small differences in employment and income (Supplemental Table S1).

Table 1.

Household and Individual Demographics—Descriptive Statistics for Parents^a.

	Two-Parent Household^b(N₁ = 57,443)		Single-Parent Household(N₂ = 20,910)
Variable	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Respondent:
Female^c	0.50	0.50	0.67***	0.47
Age	39.69	8.57	35.86***	9.95
Race/ethnicity:
White	0.66	0.47	0.48***	0.50
Black	0.07	0.26	0.25***	0.43
Hispanic	0.19	0.40	0.23***	0.42
Other race/ethnicity	0.07	0.26	0.04***	0.19
Employed	0.79	0.40	0.73***	0.44
Highest educational attainment:
High school diploma	0.25	0.43	0.37***	0.48
Some college	0.24	0.43	0.29***	0.46
Bachelor’s degree or higher	0.40	0.49	0.16***	0.37
Household:
Number of household adults	2.34	0.72	1.93***	1.03
Number of household children	1.96	0.98	1.72***	0.96
Average of age of household children	8.90	5.25	8.62***	5.28
SD of age of household children	1.84	1.96	1.44***	2.03
Fraction female of household children	0.49	0.40	0.49	0.43
At least one child moved in recently	0.04	0.19	0.17***	0.38
Family income^d	80,504.79	45,634.05	45,732.42***	35,243.15
Low-income^e	0.16	0.36	0.47***	0.50
Lives in a metro area	0.84	0.37	0.83*	0.37

Note. ^aAsterisks represent significance of two-sample unpaired t-tests. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ^bTwo-parent household: household with two parents, including biological parents, adopted parents, stepparents, and cohabiting partners where the spouse was either present or absent. ^cFemale: 0 = not female, 1 = female. ^dFamily income was topcoded at $150,000. ^eLow-income household: 0 = household income was greater than $40,000 ($2019), 1 = household income was less than $40,000 ($2019).

Measures

Family Structure

Two-parent families (N = 57,443) were classified as a family group consisting of two parents and their household children. This family group includes all two-parent households (regardless of parents’ marital status) where parents lived with their biological children, adopted children, or stepchildren. Single-parent families (N = 20,910) were classified as households with only one parent (and no romantic partner) and children in the household. These households may have included other adults who were not romantic partners of the parent; mostly commonly, other adults in the household were adult children of the parent. We note that literature included in the background section of this article often focuses exclusively on single mothers. We do not make a distinction between single mothers or single fathers; instead, we include all single parents and control for sex.

Parent–Child Leisure

We conceptualized parent–child leisure as any leisure activity a parent reported doing with a household child, regardless of who else was present. This is an inclusive measure (i.e., other in the social context may be present) rather than exclusive (Crouter et al., 2004). The leisure measure included the following activities with children: eating, media time, attending sporting and cultural events, socializing, relaxing, playing games, playing sports, exercising, and participating in outdoor recreation. We categorized these leisure activities based on the familiarity or novelty of the physical environment in which each occurred, specifically whether the activity occurred at home or away from home (Iso-Ahola, 1980; Melton, 2017; Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). We measured total daily leisure time in minutes. We were sensitive to the leisure context, specifically whether leisure occurred at home. All other activities were termed “not parent–child leisure,” which included leisure activities done without children and non-leisure activities such as caring for others, household work, work, educational activities, shopping, and volunteer activities.

Parent Well-Being during Family Leisure

In 2010, 2012, and 2013, sample respondents were asked about their subjective well-being for up to three activities during the sample day. We used a subset of 16,214 parents from these years and analyzed well-being responses for 48,092 activities. We used four dimensions of well-being to measure parents’ responses during family leisure activities. Respondents answered the following questions: (a) How meaningful did you consider what you were doing [to be]? (b) How happy did you feel during this time? (c) How sad did you feel during this time? (d) How stressed did you feel during this time? For each question, the respondents chose their answers from a scale of 0 (e.g., not happy at all) to 6 (e.g., very happy). As explained by Lee et al. (2016), these questions mirror subjective well-being components of the Princeton Affect and Time Study (Krueger et al., 2009) and the European Social Survey (OECD 2013). Indicators on meaning, happiness, sadness, and stress allowed for a broad investigation into parents’ well-being during parent–child leisure.

Analytic Approach

To explore structural and subjective aspects of parent–child leisure by family structure, we used two separate models. First, we evaluated the time spent in leisure (i.e., structural indicators), and second, we evaluated parents’ subjective well-being during parent–child leisure.

Time Spent in Leisure

The analysis first tested for differences using independent means significance testing on leisure patterns between the samples of one- versus two-parent families. Next, we used Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to analyze the minutes per day spent in parent–child leisure. Because we had three dependent variables (total leisure, away-from-home leisure, and at-home leisure), we estimated the model separately for each dependent variable. We represent the minutes per day person i spent time in parent–child leisure activity j as the dependent variable.

L_{i j} = β_{0} + β_{1} (S i n g l e P a r e n t_{i}) + X Γ + ϵ_{i j}

The independent variable was family structure characteristics (single-parent home, 0 = not a single-parent home, 1 = single-parent home). The omitted category was two-parent homes and all estimates were made in relation to two-parent families. The vector X contained sociodemographic and timing controls. Specifically, we include age in years, female (0 = male, 1 = female). To account for race/ethnicity, we included binary variables to control for Black (0 = non-Black, 1 = Black), Hispanic (0 = non-Hispanic, 1 = non-Black Hispanic), White (0 = non-White, 1 = White). The baseline comparison group for race/ethnicity was our “Other Race/Ethnicity” category which included Asians Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. To account for education attainment, we included binary variables for no high school degree (0 = high school degree, 1 = no high school degree), high school degree (0 = high school degree is not the highest educational attainment or no high school degree, 1 = high school degree is highest educational attainment), binary variable indicating some college attendance but no degree higher than high school degree, employed (0 = not employed, 1 = employed). The model included controls for the number of household children, the average age of children, the standard deviation of the age of children, and a binary to indicate whether any child moved into the household since the final Current Population Survey interview 2–5 months prior. Family income was included as a continuous variable, although it was topcoded at $150,000 nominal dollars. A binary variable to indicate if the parent lives in a metropolitan area was included (0 = rural, 1 = urban); definition of metro areas was based on the US Census definition of living within a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) which included outlying areas. A categorical variable was included for one of four regions using standard region categorizations used by the US Census, with “northeast” as the reference category. Year binary variables were included to correct for secular trends in leisure over time. Additionally, day of the week and holiday binary variables were also included in the regression to control for timing effects. Geographic and timing information was added by the Census following the interview, minimizing concerns about measurement error.

The ATUS provided high quality data with minimal missingness. The full sample had 0.002% missing data, due to some households not reporting family income. We estimated our model using multiple imputation with 100 iterations to account for missing information. The model used sample weights to adjust for oversampling on weekends, correct for sample attrition, and ensure the sample was representative of the US population.

Parent Affect during Family Leisure

The second aspect of the analysis explored parents’ well-being during parent–child leisure using a subset of parents who provided well-being measures. The well-being sample was collected across three years and is still representative of the US population. The ATUS provided specific weights for working with this subsample to ensure that the well-being sample remained representative of the national population. Rather than focus on absolute well-being rankings, we measured well-being for each respondent during parent–child leisure relative to reports of his or her own well-being when in different contexts. Because our well-being data set consisted of three activities and emotional evaluations per individual, we estimated person-specific fixed effects to control for unobserved individual characteristics. By transforming variables to deviations from individual-specific means, we controlled for all invariant unobservable confounding factors in a robust framework (Wooldridge, 2016). We conceptualized the basic model in matrix form as follows:

\begin{array}{l} S W B_{i j} = β_{0} + β_{1} (L e i s u r e_{i j} * S i n g l e_{i} * H o m e_{i j}) + β_{2} (L e i s u r e_{i j}) \\ + β_{3} (H o m e_{i j}) + + γ \cdot (2 w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s) + X Γ + α_{i} + ϵ_{i j} \end{array}

We represented subjective well-being for person i in context j as the dependent variable. Because we had four well-being measures, we estimated the model separately for each dependent variable. Parent–child leisure was a binary variable indicating whether the parent was engaged in leisure with their child (0 = not parent–child leisure, 1 = parent–child leisure). Home was also a binary variable indicating whether the activity occurred at home (0 = away from home, 1 = home). The triple interaction term allowed for comparisons between family structures during leisure at and away from home. The two-way interactions vector contained four two-way interactions between family structure variables, family leisure, and the home indicator variable. The vector X contained timing controls (hour of the day binary indicators). Because our model controlled for all time-invariant characteristics, we did not include demographic factors that did not change within a person. Robust errors were used. We assumed that any endogeneity confounding factors in the error term was person-specific, as represented by alpha i. Because family income (the only variable with missing data) was not included in the well-being analysis, we had no missing data in the well-being analysis.

Results

Family Leisure Participation and Duration

Table 2 provides a description of parent–child leisure with information on differences in parent–child leisure across family structures. The duration of parent–child leisure is measured in minutes of parent–child leisure on the sample day. On the sample day, the average time spent in parent–child leisure was 158 min; interestingly, single-parents spent about 17 min less time in parent–child leisure each day relative to parents in two-parent homes. This difference was found in both at-home and away-from-home leisure. An 11-min gap (9.3% less) in parent–child leisure was detected in away-from-home leisure, and a 10-min gap (16.8% less) in parent–child leisure was found in leisure at home.

Table 2.

Description of Parent–Child Leisure^a.

	Two-Parent Homes(N₁ = 57,443)	Single-Parent Household(N₂ = 20,910)
Activity	Mean time	Mean time
Leisure	162.72	145.40***
Leisure at home	124.83	113.16***
Leisure away from home	60.09	49.97***

Note. ^aAsterisks represent significance of two-sample t-tests with unequal variances for frequencies and intensities. Two-parent home is the base of comparison in all tests. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Measured in minutes per day.

Parent–child leisure deficits persisted for single parents when controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, as shown in Table 3. Single parents spent 16 min less daily (9.7% less) engaged in parent–child leisure. Compared to parents in two-parent homes, single parents spent 13 min less in family leisure at home on the sample day (10.3% less time). Single parents spent 3 min less (7.6% less) in family leisure away from home. These results are robust to including only the observations used in the subsequent well-being analysis, although they are less precise due to a smaller sample (Supplemental Table S2-S3). Results are also not sensitive to excluding households with non-parent adults (Supplemental Table S4).

Table 3.

OLS Estimates of the Duration of Family Leisure by Family Structure (N = 69,199).

Variable	AnyLeisure		LeisureAt Home		Leisure Away From Home
Variable	B	SE B	B	SE B	B	SE B
Single-parent	−15.86***	1.39	−12.91***	1.24	−2.95***	0.84
Dependent mean	162.72		124.83		38.89
R ²	0.20		0.13		0.09

Note. The base family structure is two-parent families. Coefficients are measured as minutes per day. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Parent Affect during Parent–Child Leisure

Table 4 reports predicted parent well-being following fixed effects regression, with each column predicting a separate dimension of parent well-being. Magnitudes of the coefficients for the models correspond to how much a parameter changed a parent’s affect on a scale from 0 to 6. We found that all parents were happier, less sad, and less stressed during parent–child leisure regardless of the activity setting. We found that the leisure environment (i.e., familiar vs. novel) interacted with family structure. Parents in one-parent homes found familiar leisure (i.e., at-home leisure) with their children to be more meaningful than parents in two-parent homes. Single parents experienced similar levels of happiness, sadness, and stress during at-home leisure with children compared to their counterparts in two-parent homes. Single parents experienced less meaning when engaging in parent–child leisure away from home compared to other parents. Single parents experienced similar levels of happiness, sadness, and stress during parent–child leisure away from home when compared to their counterparts in two-parent homes.

Table 4.

Predicted Parent Well-Being Comparisons during Parent–Child Leisure (N = 48,092 activities, 16,214 parents).

Variables	Meaning	Happiness	Sadness	Stress
Single-parent households
At-home leisure	4.9	4.8	0.4	1.0
Away-from-home leisure	4.8	4.8	0.4	1.1
Not parent–child leisure	4.3*	4.3*	0.5	1.5*
Two-parent households
At-home leisure	4.7^†	4.8	0.5	0.9
Away-from-home leisure	5.2*^†	4.9	0.4	1.0
Not parent–child leisure	4.3*	4.3*	0.5	1.5*

Note. Predicted value units are rankings on a scale from 0 to 6. Asterisks represent significant differences within parent group of at-home leisure compared to away-from-home leisure for p < .05. A dagger represents significant differences across parent types for a particular type of leisure for p < .05.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in parent–child leisure and parent affect during parent–child leisure for single parents compared to other parents. Importantly, we found lower parent–child leisure in single-parent homes. In terms of parent subjective well-being during parent–child leisure, all parents were happier, less sad, and less stressed during their leisure with their children regardless of the activity setting (at home or away from home). Interestingly, single-parents reported feeling more meaning during at-home leisure and less meaning during away-from-home leisure relative to parents in two-parent families.

Understanding parents’ affect during their leisure with children has broad implications. Parents’ affect is considered one indicator of well-being. Well-being spills over into parent–child relations, and crosses over to affect child development, health, and risk-taking behaviors (Bai et al., 2016; Webb et al., 2017). In the following sections, we contextualize our findings that parent affect differed by family structure using the EFE framework and propose social policy to better support single parents in creating access to home-based and away-from-home family leisure. Leisure and its restorative effects can improve parent and child well-being, and increasing equity in access to leisure across family structures may be an untapped avenue for supporting parent and child well-being.

Differences in Family Leisure Participation by Family Structure

Single parents spent 16 min less in leisure than other parents. Core leisure (i.e., leisure at home) primarily drove differences in overall parent–child leisure due to the larger share of time spent in core leisure across all families, and single parents reported less time in day-to-day leisure such as shared mealtimes, socializing, and media. Although the difference in minutes per day of at-home leisure is larger than the difference in minutes per day of away-from-home leisure (13 min vs. 3 min, respectively), after calculating the percentage difference, leisure in both contexts contribute more equally to the overall deficit. Previous research had identified overall “expected” reductions in total family leisure for single parent families (Hornberger et al., 2010); however, the differences were not specified, meaning research did not sufficiently differentiate between core and balance family leisure participation. Thus, although previous research mentioned disparities in family leisure participation by family structure, we argue the specification of these disparities is perhaps more important to the translation of research than was previously acknowledged.

Child outcomes are a function of the cumulative time parents have spent with children, rather than concurrent time (Zick et al., 2001). This suggests that even small changes in daily patterns of parent–child time can accumulate to affect child development. Past research shows that small increases in daily parent–child time affects children’s development. For example, Price & Kalil (2019) and Kalb & Van Ours (2014) show causal evidence that increasing parent–child reading by a few minutes each week leads to improved reading abilities later. Zick et al. (2001) find evidence that small differences in playing time with children influences behavior and school outcomes. Thus, although the differences in parent–child leisure across family structures seem relatively small (3–13 min per day), over time, these differences are likely to impact child development in observable ways. Moreover, given that parents reported feeling happier, less stressed, and less sad during their parent–child leisure time, the cumulative effects of the small deficits experienced by single parents may, over time, contribute to chronic stress and decreased subjective well-being. Indeed, research has demonstrated that stressor pile-up has negative effects on adults’ physical and psychological well-being that exceeds the effects of separate stressors (Schilling & Diehl, 2014). It may well be that the “pile-up” of parent–child leisure deficits that lead to parents experiencing fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions could undermine single parents’ subjective well-being over time.

Parent–Child Leisure and Parent Affect

As noted, parents, regardless of family structure, reported feeling happier, less sad, and less stressed during their parent–child leisure when compared to all other activities (i.e., non-leisure and leisure without children). Essentially, single parents are just as happy or content with parent–child leisure as parents from two-parent households. The first implication of this finding is that, although two-parent households are typically held as the “standard” in research and literature, the two-parent family structure may not be the standard for parent well-being within the context of family leisure. Indeed, the resilience of single parents has been demonstrated in literature (Dowd, 1999; Edin & Lein, 1997). Therefore, we expect future research to frame the study of parent–child leisure within these findings.

The second implication is that, although parents report feeling obligated to provide leisure experiences for and with children, the actual experience of the leisure generates positive affect and leads to reductions in negative affect. Furthermore, the work that parents (typically mothers) engage in to create and provide leisure experiences with children creates almost a paradox, or at the very least a juxtaposition of leisure and work. This paradox, however, does not appear to inhibit the beneficial outcomes of increased subjective well-being from leisure shared with children.

The Meaning of Parent–Child Leisure: The Importance of Context and Family Structure

In addition to the positive affect parents experience during leisure with their children, parents reported an increase in the meaning they derived from their leisure, though this effect varied by family structure and activity environment. We found evidence for a three-way interaction between parents’ affect during leisure (an immediate response Outcome), family structure (a Family factor), and activity location (an Activity factor) such that single parents derived more meaning from close-to-home leisure activities than other parents. The increased meaning single parents ascribe to close-to-home family leisure may be explained in two ways: First, meaning increases through negotiation of constraints (Henderson, et al., 1995). Therefore, given that constraints are likely to be concentrated in single-parent families, the meaning of family leisure would increase as single parents negotiate the structural obstacles to family leisure. Second, the scarcity of opportunities for close-to-home family leisure may inherently increase its value and meaning (Kahneman & Fredrick, 2002; King, Hicks, & Abdelkhalik, 2009; May, 2009). Structural constraints may limit opportunities for close-to-home family leisure while simultaneously increasing its meaning.

Interestingly, single parents experienced less meaning during family leisure away from home compared to their counterparts in two-parent homes. Meaning in leisure is derived from an individual’s perception of gaining something important or valuable (Newman et al., 2014). This can also be conceptualized as meaning-making through leisure. Iwasaki (2008) attributed meaning-making through leisure to enhanced social connectedness or belonging, and lifespan human development (Porter et al., 2010). Additionally, Iwasaki (2017) noted identity, both personal and collective, may be a mechanism of meaning making in leisure. Therefore, single parents may be less likely to perceive value in away-from-home leisure than two-parent families because of these mechanisms. Novel environments that require additional supervision and care of children may reduce single parents’ ability to engage in social processes with their children that would render perceived increases in belonging or connectedness. Similarly, the novelty of away-from-home leisure may render psychological arousal that exceeds optimal levels. These mechanisms may therefore decrease a parent’s ability to find meaning in away-from-home leisure, and further research examining these mechanisms is needed.

Constraints to Family Leisure

The EFE enabled us to explore mechanisms that may be constraining family leisure in different family structures. Interpersonal constraints operate through mechanisms of preference and/or avoidance. Our findings indicated that parents in all families, regardless of the family structure, enjoyed leisure with a child and reported positive well-being during parent–child leisure. Therefore, we can reject interpersonal constraints as a mechanism reducing parent–child leisure.

We find evidence that disparities in parent–child leisure in single-parent homes are likely driven by multiple structural constraints, affecting leisure participation, leisure duration, and parent affect. Single parents enjoyed leisure with their children while simultaneously engaging in it less often. Leisure deficits in single-parent homes coupled with evidence of elevated positive affect during at-home leisure supports the assumption that constraints to leisure are more concentrated in single-parent families.

This finding is consistent with broader literature on structural constraints faced by single parents. First, single parents may have work schedules that keep them away from home evenings and weekends (Kelly & Voydanoff, 1985; Roy et al., 2004; Tubbs et al., 2005). Even when single parents have standard work schedules, routine family management tasks, such as running errands, may crowd out family leisure time. Second, single parents own their home less often (Nieuwenhuis & Maldonado, 2018), and may have more limited physical space for indoor and outdoor home-based leisure. Third, single parents households, particularly those headed by single mothers, are more concentrated in low-income neighborhoods (South & Crowder, 1998), which often results in decreased likelihood of living within a close distance to a park, green space, or recreation facilities (Gordon-Larsen et al., 2006; Wen et al., 2013). A greater concentration of constraints necessitates more effort and resources to negotiate them. In family structures where resources may already be limited, overcoming a high concentration of constraints is therefore a greater challenge, and may limit leisure.

Supporting Parent–Child Leisure Access through Social Policy and Behavior

Although at-home leisure is most restorative for single parents, single parents experience at-home leisure deficits. Social policies and behaviors typically target family leisure occurring away from home. Given the equal contributions of at-home and away-from-home leisure to single parents’ reported leisure deficits, policies, programs, or initiatives that address parent–child leisure in both contexts are necessary. Agencies offering novel leisure experiences such as children’s museums, aquariums, amusement parks, or zoos may create discounted family memberships or reduced price tickets into family-centric events. Likewise, municipal parks and recreation agencies often waive or reduce fees for services based on household income, or offer family memberships at a discount. Although such policies are certainly beneficial, they emphasize away-from-home leisure experiences, and additional policies supporting parents’ ability to create close-to-home leisure experiences are also warranted. Social policy and behavior may need to be refocused across multiple sectors to better support parent well-being through at-home family leisure. Based on findings, we argue this is particularly salient for single parents who are likely to experience the highest concentration of constraints to home-based leisure.

Family life education on intentional leisure may be another application of our research. “Parents and practitioners may not intuitively think about or pay attention to the types of family leisure in which they engage” (Hodge et al., 2017). “Parents themselves may focus more on larger, more expensive balance family leisure activities such as vacations and travel, rather than the informal, spontaneous, and commonplace core types of family leisure” (Hodge et al., 2017). Based on our findings, and the findings of previous research, designing intentional daily [home-based] leisure experiences should be a priority for family life educators (FLEs) and practitioners” (Chandler et al., 2018). Many states require divorcing parents to attend family education classes, which may be an important setting to discuss the value of at-home leisure for single parents.

Social policy that supports single parents in negotiating constraints to family leisure may be more effective if it focused on minimizing the obligatory family management tasks crowding out leisure time at home. Such policy could coordinate efforts across multiple economic sectors, including private, municipal, and federal. For example, in the private sector, flexible work schedules and remote work options for parents may increase opportunities for at-home family leisure. In a different part of the private sector, online grocery ordering and delivery services could be leveraged to streamline day-to-day obligatory tasks for single parents. Existing aid policies and programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) may be positioned to intervene by allowing delivery fees to constitute a qualifying purchase. Grocery stores may independently consider implementing their own policies or programs for waiving fees for families based on family structure or household income, and stores may benefit by increasing market share and engendering customer loyalty. Such programs and policies may therefore benefit parents’ well-being by creating more opportunities for home-based family leisure as well as benefit private and public agencies.

In the municipal sector, adjustments and improvements to current infrastructure may support more at-home leisure. Public transportation policy and programs may be uniquely positioned to support families’ leisure by reducing structural constraints. First, accessible and efficient public transit may reduce the time parents spend commuting, and thereby increase time for family leisure. Second, using public transit often saves families money (Chitwood, 2015), and better public transit could help relax financial constraints to family leisure. Small changes to existing municipal programs could also enable more home-based leisure. For example, municipal libraries in some locations have implemented mobile library trucks that make weekly visits to neighborhoods with book check out services and, in some cases, free meals (“Bloom Truck,” n.d.). Building on such existing infrastructure, mobile library services could be extended to include leisure-centric check-out options. Libraries, in some cases, already have an inventory of board games, puzzles, and DVDs available for check out. Mobile library services could therefore include these and other (e.g., sporting equipment) additional items as a way to support parents’ negotiation of at-home leisure constraints. Municipal parks and recreation agencies could implement similar mobile recreation services that supply material resources to support home-based leisure. In Louisiana, the Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge implemented BREC on the Geaux, a mobile recreation program that provides recreation opportunities to underserved communities (BREC Kids & Community, n. d.). Contractor or moving-style trucks have been painted and outfitted with jump ropes, trampolines, basketball, soccer, and outdoor games equipment. These trucks follow scheduled routes that include daytime stops at elementary schools during the academic year, and after-school stops at parks and housing complexes. By offering library services, meals, or recreation opportunities in nearby neighborhood fixtures such as parks, municipal programs can reduce time spent in obligatory tasks such as meal preparation and create leisure opportunities close to home.

Finally, at the federal level, national-level policies may serve to support the constraint negotiation efforts of families. The United States is one of the only advanced economies that does not have a national policy on vacation time. By comparison, policies in Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland guaranteed employees 35, 29, and 28 days of vacation, respectively, in 2013 when they ranked higher than the United States in gross domestic product per capita (Dickey, 2015). Access to guaranteed vacation time through national policy not only creates opportunities for leisure but also may serve to address the pervasive cultural stigma surrounding taking time off away from work (Dickey, 2015). Overall, we echo Tubbs and colleagues’ (2005) suggestion that facilitating greater access to family time can enhance family strengths and provide positive social value.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the ATUS allowed us to make significant progress in measuring leisure deficits, limitations to our study remain, and we offer directions for future research that will address these limitations. First, data from ATUS do not allow us to observe how children and parents simultaneously respond to family leisure. Thus, future research that examines responses to family leisure from multiple family members may provide additional insight and depth into our findings. For one such study, see Larson and Richards (1994) in which time use data and responses to that time were collected from parents and children. Data from ATUS focus on indicators of leisure quantity. We can estimate how much time is spent in particular activities; however, we do not have indicators of the quality of activity, experiences, and social interactions. Using the EFE framework and previous research as a guide, we would suggest future research focus on indicators of leisure quality in addition to quantity (Hodge et al., 2017). Quality may be extrapolated from multiple indicators such as social interactions, meeting psychological needs, or environmental factors more specific than location (Melton et al., 2019). ATUS data do not provide refined indicators of the quality of social interactions during leisure, thus, the impact of high- vs. low-interaction parent–child leisure on parents’ affect remains unexplored. A related factor is that the ATUS does not contain good information on whether the parent is the primary caregiver, whether the parent is the primary guardian, or custody arrangements. As parent–child relationships likely are important for subjective well-being during leisure, we hope to see more study of this in the future. Additionally, without qualitative inquiry into single parents’ experiences of negotiating leisure constraints we can only speculate about the concentration of leisure constraints facing single parents. We also hope to see further within-group research of single-parent families to provide insight on how parent–child leisure relates to family constraints, race, ethnicity, parent gender, and other contextual factors in this group. Moreover, longitudinal study of the cumulative effects of parent–child leisure deficits on parent and child well-being will further illuminate lived impact of those deficits. Our results are necessarily descriptive in nature, and we are unable to identify causal drivers of the pattern we find. We hope to see future research exploring potential drivers for the differences observes. Despite these limitations, this study contributes to a greater understanding of parent–child leisure across different family structures and the contribution of those experiences to parents’ affect. We have demonstrated the value and importance of considering multiple domains of family leisure experiences simultaneously, including family factors (e.g., family structure) and activity factors (e.g., novelty). Such precision in reporting findings improves upon previous research regarding family leisure and family structure, and can better inform social policy and behavior interventions that focus on methods of creating more close-to-home leisure opportunities for families.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jfi-10.1177_0192513X211010856 – Supplemental material for Parent–Child Leisure and Parent Affect: The Role of Family Structure

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jfi-10.1177_0192513X211010856 for Parent–Child Leisure and Parent Affect: The Role of Family Structure by Camilla J. Hodge and Jocelyn Wikle in Journal of Family Issues

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.

ORCID iDs

Camilla J. Hodge

Jocelyn Wikle

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Artis

J. E.

(2007). Maternal cohabitation and child well-being among kindergarten children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00355.x

Bai

Repetti

R. L.

Sperling

J. B.

(2016). Children’s expressions of positive emotion are sustained by smiling, touching, and playing with parents and siblings: A naturalistic observational study of family life. Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039854

Bloom Truck. (n.d.). The community library. Retrieved March 28, 2019, from https://www.comlib.org/bloom-truck/

Brown

S. L.

(2006). Family structure transitions and adolescent well-being. Demography, 43(3), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2006.0021

Brown

S. L.

Manning

W. D.

Stykes

J. B.

(2015). Family structure and child well-being: Integrating family complexity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 77(1), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12145

Cairney

Boyle

Offord

D. R.

Racine

(2003). Stress, social support and depression in single and married mothers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38(8), 442–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-003-0661-0

Chitwood

(2015). October transit savings report: Saving money by taking public transportation is a great Halloween treat. American Public Transportation Association. https://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2015/pages/151030_transit-savings.aspx

Coleman

Ganong

Russell

L. T.

(2013). Resilience in stepfamilies. In Becvar

D. S.

(Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 85–103). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3917-2_6

Coyl-Shepherd

D. D.

Hanlon

(2013). Family play and leisure activities: Correlates of parents’ and children’s socio-emotional well-being. International Journal of Play, 2(3), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2013.855376

10.

Crawford

D. W.

Godbey

(1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9(2), 119–127.

11.

Crawford

D. W.

Jackson

E. L.

Godbey

(1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513147

12.

Crouter

A. C.

Head

M. R.

McHale

S. M.

Jenkins Tucker

(2004). Family time and the psychosocial adjustment of adolescent siblings and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 147–162.

13.

Currie

(2004). Motherhood, stress, and the exercise experience: Freedom or constraint? Leisure Studies, 23(3), 225–242.

14.

Daly

K. J.

(2001). Family time: From ideology to lived experience. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 283–294.

15.

Dickey

(2015). Save our vacation: What we must do to revive a cherished American institution. Time Magazine.

16.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

17.

Diener

Sapyta

J. J.

Suh

(1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_3

18.

Dowd

N. E.

(1999). In defense of single-parent families. NYU Press.

19.

Edin

Lein

(1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. Russell Sage Foundation

20.

Gordon-Larsen

Nelson

M. C.

Page

Popkin

B. M.

(2006). Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117(2), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0058

21.

Greeff

A. P.

Ritman

I. N.

(2005). Individual characteristics associated with resilience in single-parent families. Psychological Reports, 96(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.96.1.36-42

22.

Goodale

Godbey

(1988). The evolution of leisure: Historical and philosophical perspectives. Venture.

23.

Hamermesh

D. S.

Frazis

Stewart

(2005). Data watch: The American time use survey. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 221–232.

24.

Harrington

(2015). Practices and meaning of purposive family leisure among working- and middle-class families. Leisure Studies, 34(4), 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.938767

25.

Henderson

K. A.

Bedini

L. A.

Hecht

Schuler

(1995). Women with disabilities and the negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Studies, 14, 17–31.

26.

Hodge

C. J.

Bocarro

J. N.

Henderson

K. A.

Zabriskie

Parcel

T. L.

Kanters

M. A.

(2015). Family leisure: An integrative review of research from select journals. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(5), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.18666/jlr-2015-v47-i5-5705

27.

Hodge

C. J.

Duerden

M. D.

Layland

E. K.

Lacanienta

Goates

M. C.

Niu

X. M.

(2017). The association between family leisure and family quality of life: A meta-analysis of data from parents and adolescents. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12202

28.

Hofferth

S. L.

Flood

S. M.

Sobek

Backman

(2020). American time use survey data extract builder: Version 2.8 [dataset]. University of Maryland and IPUMS. https://doi.org/10.18128/D060.V2.8

29.

Hornberger

L. B.

Zabriskie

R. B.

Freeman

(2010). Contributions of family leisure to family functioning among single-parent families. Leisure Sciences, 32(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400903547153

30.

Hunter

P. L.

Whitson

D. J.

(1991). Women, leisure and familism: Relationships and isolation in small town Canada. Leisure Studies, 10, 219–233.

31.

Irving

H. R.

Giles

A. R.

(2011). Examining child’s impacts on single mothers’ leisure. Leisure Studies 30(3), 365–373.

32.

Iso-Ahola

S. E.

(1980). The social psychology of leisure and recreation. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.

33.

Iwasaki

(2008). Pathways to meaning-making through leisure-like pursuits in global contexts. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(2), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2008.11950139

34.

Iwasaki

(2017). Contributions of leisure to “meaning-making” and its implications for leisure studies and services. Annals of Leisure Research, 20(4), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2016.1178591

35.

Izenstark

Oswald

R. F.

Holman

E. G.

Mendez

S. N.

Greder

K. A.

(2016). Rural, low-income mothers’ use of family-based nature activities to promote family health. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(2), 134–155. https://doi.org/10.18666/jlr-2016-v48-i2-6409

36.

Jackson

E. L.

Crawford

D. W.

Godbey

(1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409309513182

37.

Jensen

T. M.

Shafer

Larson

J. H.

(2014). (Step)parenting attitudes and expectations: Implications for stepfamily functioning and clinical intervention. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 95(3), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2014.95.27

38.

Kahneman

Krueger

A. B.

Schkade

D. A.

Schwarz

Stone

A. A.

(2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572

39.

Kalb

van Ours

J. C.

(2014). Reading to young children: A head-start in life. Economics of Education Review, 40, 1–24.

40.

Kalenkoski

C. M.

Ribar

D. C.

Stratton

L. S.

(2007). The effect of family structure on parents’ child care time in the United States and the United Kingdom. Review of Economics of the Household, 5(4), 353–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-007-9017-y

41.

Kelly

R. F.

Voydanoff

(1985). Work/family role strain among employed parents. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 34(3), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/583575

42.

Krueger

A. B.

Kahneman

Fischler

Schkade

Schwarz

Stone

A. A.

(2009). Time use and subjective well-being in France and the U.S. Social Indicators Research, 93(1), 7–18.

43.

Kuykendall

Tay

(2015). Leisure engagement and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 364–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038508

44.

Lansford

J. E.

Ceballo

Abbey

Stewart

A. J.

(2001). Does family structure matter? A comparison on adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather, and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 840–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00840.x

45.

Larson

Richards

M. H.

(1994). Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. Basic Books.

46.

Lee

Hofferth

S. L.

Flood

S. M.

Fisher

(2016). Reliability, validity, and variability of the subjective well-being questions in the 2010 American Time Use Survey. Social Indicators Research, 126(3), 1355–1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0923-8

47.

Livingston

(2014). About one-third of U.S. children are living with an unmarried parent. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/27/about-one-third-of-u-s-children-are-living-with-an-unmarried-parent/

48.

Manning

W. D.

Lamb

K. A.

(2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 876–893.

49.

Melton

K. K.

(2017). Family activity model: Crossroads of activity environment and family interactions in family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 39(5), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2017.1333056

50.

Melton

K. K.

Hodge

C. J.

Duerden

M. D

. (2020). Ecology of family experiences: Contextualizing family leisure for human development & family relations. Journal of Leisure Research, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1802374

51.

Melton

K. K.

Larson

Boccia

M. L.

(2019). Examining couple recreation and oxytocin via the Ecology of Family Experiences Framework: Oxytocin in couple leisure. Journal of Marriage and Family. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12556

52.

Milkie

M. A.

Mattingly

M. J.

Nomaguchi

K. M.

Bianchi

S. M.

Robinson

J. P.

(2004). The time squeeze: Parental statuses and feelings about time with children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 739–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00050.x

53.

Miller

Y. D.

Brown

W. J.

(2005). Determinants of active leisure for women with young children—An “ethic of care” prevails. Leisure Sciences, 27, 405–420.

54.

Montgomery

L. E.

Kiely

J. L.

Pappas

(1996). The effects of poverty, race, and family structure on US children’s health: Data from the NHIS, 1978 through 1980 and 1989 through 1991. American Journal of Public Health, 86(10), 1401–1405. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.86.10.1401

55.

Musick

Meier

Flood

(2016). How parents fare: Mothers’ and fathers’ subjective well-being in time with children. American Sociological Review, 81(5), 1069–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416663917

56.

Newman

D. B.

Tay

Diener

(2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9435-x

57.

Nieuwenhuis

Maldonado

L. C.

(Eds.). (2018). The triple bind of single-parent families: Resources, employment and policies to improve well-being. Policy Press.

58.

Orthner

D. K.

Barnett-Morris

Mancini

J. A.

(1994). Leisure and family over the life cycle. In L’Abate

(Ed.), Handbook of developmental family psychology and psychopathology (pp. 176–201). Wiley.

59.

Porter

Iwasaki

Shank

(2010). Conceptualizing meaning-making through leisure experiences. Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, 33(2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/07053436.2010.10707808

60.

Price

Kalil

(2019). The effect of mother-child reading time on children’s reading skills: Evidence from natural within-family variation. Child Development, 90(6), e688–e702.

61.

Roy

K. M.

Tubbs

C. Y.

Burton

L. M.

(2004). Don’t have no time: Daily rhythms and the organization of time for low-income families. Family Relations, 53(2,), 168–178.

62.

Rudowicz

(2001). Stigmatization as a predictor of psychological well-being of Hong Kong single mothers. Marriage & Family Review, 33(4), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v33n04_06

63.

Schilling

O. K.

Diehl

(2014). Reactivity to stressor pile-up in adulthood: Effects on daily negative and positive affect. Psychology and Aging, 29(1), 72–83.

64.

Shaw

S. M.

(1991). Research note: Women’s leisure time - using time budget data to examine current trends and future predictions. Leisure Studies, 10, 171–181.

65.

South

S. J.

Crowder

K. D.

(1998). Avenues and barriers to residential mobility among single mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(4), 866–877. https://doi.org/10.2307/353630

66.

Such

(2006). Leisure and fatherhood in dual-earner families. Leisure Studies, 25(2), 185–199.

67.

The Majority of Children Live With Two Parents, Census Bureau Reports. (2016). The United States census bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192.html

68.

Tubbs

C. Y.

Roy

K. M.

Burton

L. M.

(2005). Family ties: Constructing family time in low-income families. Family Process, 44(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00043.x

69.

Warner-Smith

Brown

(2006). ‘The town dictates what I do’: The leisure, health and well-being of women in a small Australia country town. Leisure Studies, 21(1), 39–56.

70.

Webb

Panico

Bécares

McMunn

Kelly

Sacker

(2017). The inter-relationship of adolescent unhappiness and parental mental distress. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.10.001

71.

Wen

Zhang

Harris

C. D.

Holt

J. B.

Croft

J. B.

(2013). Spatial disparities in the distribution of parks and green spaces in the USA. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(S1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9426-x

72.

Zabriskie

R. B.

McCormick

B. P.

(2001). The influences of family leisure patterns on perceptions of family functioning. Family Relations, 50(3), 281–289.

73.

Zick

C. D.

Bryant

W. K.

Osterbacka

(2001). Mothers’ employment, parental involvement, and the implications for intermediate child outcomes. Social Science Research, 30, 25–49.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB