Abstract
For individuals losing weight who are cohabiting with their romantic partners, weight loss is pursued within a relational context. To better understand the role of romantic partners, 44 individuals from a Southwestern city in the U.S. who were actively trying to lose weight were interviewed about the current and desired role of their partner in their weight loss. Responses were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed. Themes specifically pertinent to the romantic relationship that facilitated or hindered weight loss were identified. Three major themes emerged, each with subthemes. Factors that facilitated weight loss were having a team effort in pursuing the weight loss goals, partners being accommodating to dietary and schedule changes, and the provision of logistical help (e.g., childcare). Obstacles presented by the interdependent nature of romantic relationships included partners having opposing perspectives on weight loss, partners’ negative comments about themselves, and difficulties in balancing the weight loss goals with the needs of the relationship. Complicating support from partners, some participants gave mixed messages about the desired support from their partners as well as inconsistent reactions to partner support. The findings highlight that theory and intervention programs need to consider the complexity of losing weight in this interdependent, relational context.
There is no doubt—weight loss is hard. Despite the well-known consequences and correlates of overweight and obesity, including a breadth of health consequences (Hu et al., 2004; Mokdad et al., 2003), stigmatization and discrimination (Carr & Friedman, 2005; Gortmaker, Must, Perrin, Sobol, & Dietz, 1993), mental health issues (Heo, Peitrobelli, Fontaine, Sirey, & Faith, 2006), and financial costs (Cawley & Meyerhoefer, 2012; Finkelstein, Trogdon, Cohen, & Dietz, 2009), two thirds of U.S. adults are overweight or obese (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2014). This highlights that those trying to lose weight face strong forces against enacting healthier behaviors.
Although weight loss programs and campaigns tend to target individuals in addition to healthcare providers or the workplace, one of the potentially largest influences on our diet and exercise behaviors is romantic partners (Markey, Markey, & Gray, 2007). Romantic partners, especially those cohabiting, typically have daily contact and enact routines together (e.g., eat meals together). This interdependence is reflected in the health concordance between partners (Di Castelnuovo, Quacquaruucio, Donati, de Gaetano, & Iacoviello, 2009; Meyler, Stimpson, & Peek, 2007) such as partners’ diet and exercise becoming more similar over time (Bove, Sobal, & Rauschenbach, 2003; Homish & Leonard, 2008) and partners’ body mass indexes (BMIs) being correlated (Falba & Sindelar, 2008). Effective interventions thus require a more sophisticated understanding of the relational context in which romantic partners support or undermine weight loss. This study uses a qualitative analysis to more deeply explore unique factors presented by the interdependent nature of romantic relationships as individuals attempt to lose weight.
The relational context of weight loss
For individuals losing weight who are cohabiting with their romantic partners, weight loss is pursued within a relational context. In other words, individuals attempt to lose weight within an environment cocreated by their partner. This environment can present facilitators as well as hindrances in weight loss pursuits. Partners can, on the one hand, undermine individuals’ weight loss efforts by tempting them with unhealthy foods, refusing to eat the same diet, interfering with their scheduled exercise, or making disparaging comments about their efforts (Henry, Rook, Stephens, & Franks, 2013; Mackert, Stanforth, & Garcia, 2011; Ryden & Sydner, 2011). Conversely, reviews and meta-analyses of intervention research suggest support from romantic partners in weight loss is generally helpful (Black, Gleser, & Kooyers, 1990; McLean, Griffin, Toney, & Hardeman, 2003; Verheijden, Bakx, van Weel, Koelen, & van Staveren, 2005), particularly when the partner co-participates in the weight loss program (Golan, Schwarzfuchs, Stampfer, & Shai, 2009; Gorin et al., 2005; Kumanyika et al., 2009). Yet, significant effects are not always found with partner support (Brownell & Stunkard, 1981; Dubbert & Wilson, 1984), or the amount of weight lost is relatively small and not always maintained (Jeffery et al., 2000).
These small and varied effects suggest we need to better understand the role of the romantic relationship in individuals’ attempts to lose weight. Much of the research on couple communication about weight loss has focused on types of strategies. A recent meta-analysis of research with the social control perspective found that strategies tend to elicit either positive or negative emotions with positive emotions having a stronger link with behavior change (Craddock, vanDellen, Novak, & Ranby, 2015). In addition, research across several areas suggests the effectiveness of strategies depends on how they make the individuals feel about themselves and their relationship (e.g., whether the strategies show care and concern or are motivated by partners’ selfish goals; Burke & Segrin, in press; Dailey, Romo, & McCracken, 2010; Goldsmith, Gumminger, & Bute, 2006; Lewis, Butterfield, Darbes, & Johnston-Brooks, 2004; Thompson, Romo, & Dailey, 2013; Tucker & Mueller, 2000).
Given this, the relational context in which these strategies occur needs further exploration. For example, because relational satisfaction shapes attributions of partner behaviors, general satisfaction might affect the interpretation of partners’ support strategies regarding weight loss (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Yet, other dynamics more specific to weight loss might influence the effectiveness of partner support. The few studies that have assessed the relational context have focused on general relational qualities or whether partners have similar characteristics or attitudes about health. For example, Butterfield and Lewis (2002) found that partners (particularly husbands) used more unilateral tactics when less equity was perceived in the relationship; general satisfaction and closeness in this study, however, were not associated with tactic choice. In addition, influence attempts appear more effective for men in couples who valued health more and for women who valued health less relative to their husbands (Skoyen, Blank, Corkery, & Butler, 2013). Burke, Randall, Corkery, Young, and Butler (2012) examined matched-weight couples (i.e., both partners were either of normal weight or overweight) and mixed-weight couples (i.e., in which one partner was of normal weight and the other was overweight). Mixed-weight couples reported more general relational conflict and daily arguing, particularly when the woman was overweight and when the couple ate together more frequently. The researchers surmised that either the overweight partner felt judged or insecure or the conflict instigated weight gain. Related to this, Dailey, Romo, and Thompson (2011) found that conflict was greater when partners differed more in the acceptance they exhibited toward each other about weight management.
These studies provide an initial glimpse into the relational context of weight loss. Yet, to fully inform theory and intervention approaches incorporating romantic partners, much more needs to be uncovered about what role the interdependent nature of romantic relationships plays in individuals’ weight loss. For example, research has shown negative relational dynamics are associated with unhealthy behaviors (Butler, Young, & Randall, 2010; Markey, Birch, & Markey, 2001), influence attempts might be motivated by dissatisfaction with their partners’ appearance rather than health goals (Markey, Gomel, & Markey, 2008), and individuals might enact health behaviors to please or placate their partners but experience negative emotions as well (Lewis & Rook, 1999). Further, Finkel, Fitzsimons, and colleagues have recently argued that goals are not individual but social pursuits (Finkel, Fitzsimons, & vanDellen, 2016; Fitzsimons, Finkel, & vanDellen, 2015), and even when partners share the same goal, the means through which they pursue that goal could conflict thereby restricting goal accomplishment. Bradbury and Karney (2014) share this view and highlight that mutual influence is an inherent part of weight loss in romantic relationships.
Although previous research has identified supportive and hindering factors of weight loss (Henry et al., 2013; Mackert et al., 2011; Theiss, Carpenter, & Leustek, 2016), this analysis aims to understand more about the relational dynamics that might be particularly pertinent or unique to weight loss in the romantic relationship context. Thus, rather than focusing on the specific behaviors or strategies partners use to either support or undermine weight loss, this study explores underlying factors related to the interdependent nature of romantic relationships that might affect the process of partner support. The current study thus takes a qualitative approach in exploring the relational context with a sample of overweight individuals who were actively trying to lose weight or who had recently lost a significant amount of weight. The general research question guiding this analysis was thus: What factors, both facilitating and hindering, in the romantic relationships context play a role in individuals’ weight loss efforts?
This article extends upon the emerging literature on the relational context of weight loss in several ways. Whereas much of the research in this area is quantitative and has assessed general relational qualities (e.g., satisfaction, equity) or matched characteristics (e.g., weight), this analysis takes an inductive approach and focuses on how the interdependent nature of romantic relationships helps or hinders individuals’ weight loss. Further, although fully understanding the relational context requires assessing how both partners contribute to the relational climate, the emphasis here is on the individuals losing weight and their subjective perspective of their partner’s behaviors and the relationship as well as their sensemaking about the partner’s role in their weight loss. From this, more specific relational qualities that are theoretically and practically salient to weight management might be revealed to guide future research and intervention programs.
Method
Participants
This analysis is a part of a larger study exploring individuals’ desired role of their romantic partner in their weight loss and had Institutional Review Board approval. Participants in this study included 44 individuals from a Southwestern city in the U.S. who were recruited from a large university and the surrounding community. The criteria for participating were that they were (a) actively trying to lose weight or had recently lost a substantial amount of weight (e.g., 10% of their body weight), (b) had a BMI of over 25 (i.e., the classification for overweight), (c) currently cohabiting with their romantic partner, and (d) 18 years of age or older. All participants were individuals; no partners participated.
Participants ranged in age from 20 to 64 (M = 36.98, SD = 12.88, Mdn = 31.50), and three quarters (n = 33) were female. More than half the sample was Caucasian (n = 27), 10 were Hispanic or Latino/a, four were Asian, two were African American/Black, and one reported a different ethnicity. A little more than half of the sample was married (n = 24); the remaining classified their relationships as dating, engaged, or in a long-term, committed relationship. Two female participants were in same-sex relationships; the remaining were heterosexual. Relationship lengths ranged from 10 months to 45 years (M = 12.86 years, SD = 11.17, Mdn = 9.83). Length of cohabitation ranged from 0 (two individuals had recently cohabited but recently started a long-distance relationship) to 43 years (M = 10.17 years, SD = 11.43, Mdn = 4.25). Ten of the participants reported a household income of more than US$100,000, 10 reported incomes between US$80,000 and US$100,000, 6 reported US$60,000–80,0000, 6 reported US$40,000–60,000, 6 reported US$20,000–40,000, and 5 reported their incomes was less than US$20,000; one declined to report their income. About two thirds of the sample (n = 30) did not have children; the other 13 had one to three children (M = 1.92) with nine of these reporting that their children lived in the household.
The BMIs of the sample ranged from 20.37 to 51.49 and averaged 29.36 (SD = 5.73). Based on the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1998) categorizations, 23 (52.3%) were overweight (BMIs between 25 and 29.9), and 15 (34.1%) were obese (BMIs over 30). Because those who had recently lost a significant amount of weight were also eligible to participate, six (13.6%) were normal weight (BMIs between 18.5 and 24.9) at the time of the interview. In general, participants described their weight as heavier (M = 5.33) than their partners (M = 4.64, on a scale from 1 = very underweight to 7 = very overweight, paired samples t = 4.96, p < .001). Although the number of pounds lost was not collected for every participant, the 35 participants from whom this information was obtained lost an average of 16 pounds (SD = 14.93, Mdn = 15, ranging from 0 to 70 pounds).
At the beginning of the interview, participants were asked, “How long have you been actively trying to lose weight?” and “Is this the first time you’ve tried to lose weight?” Lengths ranged from 1 month to 30 years: Ten had been actively trying to lose weight for less than 6 months, 8 said 6–12 months, 7 said 1–2 years, 10 said 3–5 years, 5 said 7–8 years, 1 said 13 years, and 1 said 30 years. Only three individuals reported that this was their first attempt at weight loss, and 10 additionally explained they had struggled with weight their full adult life. Thus, weight loss was not a new or recent pursuit for the majority of participants. In addition, the author and a research assistant coded responses on how often participants talked with their partner about their weight loss on a four-point scale (1 = never to rarely, 13.6%; 2 = once a week, 15.9%; 3 = several times a week, 43.8%; 4 = daily, 25.0%; Cronbach’s α = .91; M = 2.72 and SD = 0.72), which suggests most participants talked with their partner relatively frequently.
Procedures
Various recruitment methods were employed. The majority (59%) were recruited through methods targeted toward those interested in health (e.g., health and wellness expo on campus open to the entire university, advertising to a campus weight loss group), and 39% were recruited through more general methods (e.g., flyers posted on bulletin boards on campus and in the community, daily events e-mail sent to all campus staff and faculty); recruitment method could not be determined for one participant. The only differences between recruitment methods were in relationship status; those recruited through targeted methods were more likely to be married (69% vs. 29%) and less likely to be dating or engaged (7.7% vs. 35.3%), χ2(3) = 8.50, and p = .037. The two groups did not vary in sex, age, BMI, relationship length, length of cohabitation, or length of interview.
Individuals interested in participating contacted the author to set up an interview time and place. Participants were allowed to choose the setting to make them feel most comfortable. Interviews took place at coffee shops, in the university union, in their offices, or in the author’s office. Interviews were audio-recorded and ranged from 15.92 min to 68.75 min (M = 36.19, SD = 13.30). All interviews took place in the summer of 2015. Participants received a US$30 Amazon.com gift card for their time.
Details regarding informed consent were provided in writing as well as verbally. No participants declined to participate. Participants were told that the study sought to understand the current and desired role of their romantic partner in their weight loss process. The interview protocol was semi-structured. Following introductory questions about their weight loss (e.g., what they found difficult or enjoyable about the process, what they defined as success), participants were asked what role they wanted their partner to play in their weight loss, what messages or actions from their partners were helpful and unhelpful and why, whether they talked with their partner about what was helpful or unhelpful, and what they thought their partners could do differently to better support their weight loss. The interview questions pertinent to this analysis are reported in Appendix A. All participants were asked all the questions listed in Appendix A unless a response rendered the next question inapplicable (e.g., if participants reported they had not done or said anything to indicate their partner’s behavior was helpful, asking how their partner responded was not possible). Additional or follow-up questions were asked to explore certain ideas or examples participants offered.
Analysis
The interviews were transcribed verbatim. Certain asides (e.g., Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) were noted throughout the time of the interviews, and the author, who conducted all of the interviews, read through each transcript and added to this list of general themes or ideas started during the interviews. The full transcripts were read and considered in developing themes. The process of thematic analysis was utilized. Although relational dynamics have been largely addressed within the social control perspective (e.g., Burke, Randall, Corkery, Young, & Butler, 2012; Butterfield & Lewis, 2002; Lewis et al., 2004), no specific theoretical perspective was employed to allow any salient elements to emerge.
During the initial read of the transcripts, the author made note of all general categories or ideas and made an initial codebook. Open coding was employed to identify any potential themes or patterns in the interviewees’ responses relevant to the research question. Using the constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965), categories were continually refined and redefined as more examples emerged. The categories were then assessed through axial coding in which larger categories as well as subcategories became more evident. For example, a general category representing a need for external support initially emerged. Upon assessing the various characteristics or manifestations of this theme, it became evident that several types of support were included within this theme. The logistical help theme discussed below was a subcategory from this larger category that was particularly pertinent to the relational context. As another example, the team effort theme described below is a combination of a “working as a team” category and a category focusing on how partners used “we-ness” mentality. In assessing the essential nature of each theme, the two were merged as they both represent partners viewing the weight loss as a combined effort.
Results
Three overarching themes, each with subthemes, are reported in this analysis. Evidence for each theme is provided through quotes from the interviews. The quotes are identified by the participant number, their sex (F or M), their age, and whether they were pursuing their weight loss goals individually or jointly with their partner (Ind. vs. Joint). To increase comprehension and flow, certain modifications were made to a few of the quotes (e.g., repeated or filler words such as “like” were excluded).
Relational facilitators
Participant responses reflected several factors that facilitated (or were perceived as potentially facilitating) their weight loss efforts. The vast majority of participants wanted the weight loss to be a team effort. Understandably, a couple of participants expressed wanting the weight loss to be their own journey (e.g., busy mothers whose exercise was their time to do something just for themselves), but most either appreciated or wanted their partners to be on board with their weight loss efforts.
One participant noted, “Well I would love it if we were more of a team” (#31, F, 59, Joint). Another expressed that working as a team made the process more enjoyable: “Yeah, we’re doing it together as a team. Yeah we’re talking about it—This is what we’re gonna do, and we’re gonna do it together” (#25, M, 24, Joint). Another participant commented that: I believe that is kind of the most gratifying thing—knowing that you and your partner are into doing something and don’t have to convince them that they are already going to be on board with it. [We] kind of aligned our goals and wants in the same way, so it is fun to do it along with your partner. (#45, F, 29, Joint) I kind of feel like as far as the creating healthy lifestyle, I’m doing it by myself.…Getting in the car, actually leaving [to go exercise]…by yourself is not very motivating. Especially when she’s sitting at home on her Ipad and playing video games. (#37, F, 37, Ind.) I can make time for myself. I think that’s played a major role. I’m not expected to be home when he is home. I can go work out at 10 in the night if…[I’m] inclined to do it at that hour. So I think that makes a big deal. (#36, F, 26, Ind.)
Whereas partner accommodations were more passive reactions to the participants initiating healthier behaviors, logistical help was more proactive on the part of the partner. Participants noted that help with the everyday logistics of taking care of the household, preparing meals, or managing children had been important in their weight loss efforts or was desired to enable greater efforts. For example, participants noted: “He’ll help me get my breakfast and lunch together the night before so that I can…get to class at 7 in the morning” (#32, F, 55, Ind.), and “Usually, if he’s home earlier than I am, he prepares a salad so he makes one for me. So instead of going home and picking up whatever junk we have in the pantry, I will choose the salad” (#36 F, 26, Ind.). Some mothers also expressed that logistical help with children was important. In describing her definition of good support, one participant noted: Support would be to me, [him] taking the kids to do this activity, so I can use that time instead to go walk in the neighborhood or run or something. To me that would be the biggest support…It’s harder when the kids don’t want him to bathe them because he gets water in their eyes. And therefore, I have crying, and I can’t do Pilates because I hear screaming. It’s not a Zen atmosphere…To me that would be the biggest piece. (#19, F, 37, Joint)
Relational obstacles
Several themes highlighted how the relational context might complicate the process of weight loss. Many of the participants noted that they and their partners had different perspectives or approaches to weight loss. A common difference tended to fall along gendered norms: men focused more on exercise and women focused more on diet (French, Jeffery, & Wing, 1994; Tsai, Nan, Lan, & Jun, 2016; Welsh, Robinson, & Lindman, 1998). For example, “We both take on weight management in different ways.…For me it’s like ‘You need to run, you need to work out’. And she’s like, ‘You’re gonna eat good’. I guess that’s the challenge for us” (#28, M, 23, Ind.). Another said: She is more focused on the nutrition side. She’s actually a vegan now. I’m more focused on the weight loss side. So we’re trying to complement each other…[It] hasn’t worked out too well because…it’s hard to get her in the gym and it’s hard to get me to do nutrition. (#6, M, 22, Joint)
Whether actively trying to lose weight or not, partners negative comments about their own weight or appearance also presented a psychological barrier for participants. These comments were discouraging to participants and often required the participants to provide emotional or esteem support to their partners. One commented that “the negativity is really hard to be around. I mean he just like self-injuries sometimes. Not, like doing anything extreme. But it’s kind of like Dobby from Harry Potter” (#7, 22, F, Ind.). Another participant, frustrated by her partner’s negativity about himself, discussed their conversations about weight management as “often less productive because it’s somebody beating themselves up, and then somebody trying to make it better” (#17, F, 44, Joint). Another explained: So when she says she feels like she doesn’t like the way she looks, I’m like, well, that’s how I look.…I struggled with some dislike of my body back in high school. Throughout college, I got a little more comfortable with it. But with [her] comments more recently, I’ll be like, maybe I don’t like my body after all maybe I should work on it some. (#22, F, 26, Ind.)
Some participants also expressed difficulty in balancing the needs of the individual and the relationship. For some, knowing what to prioritize was a struggle. In discussing what would make her weight loss easier, one participant said: I think I would do better if I actually didn’t have a boyfriend…I wouldn’t go out to eat as much…I wouldn’t come home as much…Sometimes you feel obligated to come home, to spend time…I would probably be doing exercise classes or just being out, walking around somewhere…I think I would eat less too because my day would be just so busy. (#4, F, 24, Ind.) I would say he’s really social, he’s a social butterfly. And he really wants me to go; he doesn’t want to go alone. So I’ll go, and then I’ll have water all night and it’s boring, or I’ll have a drink or two, but I feel like those are unhealthy. I don’t need to be having those. So I feel like that’s a barrier. (#15, F, 29, Ind.) I get a little upset because I think he doesn’t consider that he has this time to exercise and I don’t, because he still wants us to have dinner together…So like when do I have time to exercise? (#33, F, 35, Joint) So that has been a bit of struggle. If she is going into an environment where [drinking] is primarily what everybody is doing, I kinda don’t want to go there…And until I feel more confidence that I can stick to my guns when I go out, I just kinda go for avoidance instead. And that has been frustrating for her, her saying, “Why aren’t you coming to see my band play?” (#44, M, 40, Joint)
Conflicting messages by those losing weight
Although the interviews focused on what the individuals desired from their partners in their weight loss pursuits, through the interviews, it became apparent that participants sometimes gave their partners mixed messages about what was helpful. This occurred in two forms: participants giving mixed requests about what support they desired and participants having different reactions to similar messages at different times.
As an example of mixed requests about what they wanted from their partners, one participant noted how she tries to avoid talking about weight: “I go back and forth, and he likes to hold me to what I say. So that is something I try to avoid. ‘Yeah I said that, but I don’t feel like doing it today’” (#36, F, 26, Ind.). The participants realize they are giving mixed messages, and how this might make it hard for their partners; but they also lack motivation to make healthier choices. As one explained, “Yah, I think we’ve had conversations like, ‘Don’t enable me!’ So when I bring it up, he’s like, ‘Just remember what you said’.” Later, she added, “I’ll push back because I’m really stubborn, and I’ll be like, ‘I’ll go [to the gym] tomorrow!’” (#16, F, 26, Joint). Another noted: [When] we’re at a restaurant, we got our food, and I might say something like, “This is not healthy at all.” He just kind of looks at me, he’s like, “But you said you wanted a burger from Red Robin.” And I was like, “I know, but still we should have never come here…I do want to go to Red Robin, but I’m just talking. And you weren’t supposed to actually take me there.” (#4, F, 24, Ind.) He tries to help if he sees me eating something, “Should you be eating that?” So it helps me to go, “Oh yeah, you’re right.” Sometimes I would get upset, and I’m like, “Really, you get to eat it, why can’t I?” (#29, F, 48, Ind.) He thinks it’s really easy to say, “Just do it.” But on my end, I emotionally get hurt…a little upset if I don’t feel pretty that day. On days I do feel motivated, he’ll be like, “That’s great just keep working out. Just keep eating well. You’ve done good all week.” So he gives those motivating comments, and I’m like, “Yah, you’re right,” and real excited about it. But those days are few and far in between…I think it just depends on how I’m feeling that week. If I’ve been actively working out all week, trying to lose weight, than those are positive conversations, positive tone, everything is good. I end up eating better…But on the weeks where I haven’t been so good about it, it’s not. I’ve been making excuses, I don’t want to go running…Then those turn into probably not positive conversations because I’m already not feeling good about myself, and his comments aren’t helping. (#15, F, 29, Ind.) It depends on whether she is in the pessimistic mood…If I wait until I see a better opportunity then it has been much more productive. So just shutting up and just holding onto things and waiting for a better time…that this is a receptive point. (#44, M, 40, Joint) Some days, I am like I want to be pushed no matter what. And some days, I am more adamant that day that I don’t want to do it. I don’t know why that is. I don’t know if it is my mental state that day or just what I have gone through that day. I have done a lot of introspection of what does works. I think that is hard for him because he has talked about the moving line of “When do you want me to push you ‘cause sometimes I do it and you get mad and other times you let me.”…So it is hard. (#40, F, 29, Ind.)
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to better understand how the romantic relationship context plays a role in individuals’ weight loss efforts. Rather than focusing on strategies employed by partners, this analysis explored features more unique to the interdependent nature of cohabiting, romantic relationships that might facilitate or hinder weight loss. Individuals pursuing weight loss were interviewed to obtain their subjective perspectives on their partner’s support. Responses were qualitatively analyzed, and several conclusions can be drawn across the themes that emerged.
Participants overwhelmingly wanted a team effort; they wanted their weight loss to be a joint effort or shared goal. This supports how the intervention studies of previous decades involving co-participation yielded the best results (Brownell & Stunkard, 1981; Dubbert & Wilson, 1984) and parallels other research showing that individuals feel hindered in their weight loss progress when their partners resist healthy changes (Henry et al., 2013; Mackert et al., 2011; Ryden & Sydner, 2011). Although individuals could be assisted by friends, coworkers, or healthcare professionals, romantic partners are in a unique position to offer a team approach to weight loss given their shared household and routines. If partners do not want or need to lose weight, merely being accommodating to dietary or schedule changes and/or offering logistical support could provide this unified effort regarding the weight loss goals. Recent research regarding transactive goal dynamics additionally suggests partners might create a shared self-regulatory system to be more successful and conserve resources for other tasks (Finkel et al., 2016; Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011; Fitzsimons et al., 2015). In other words, if individuals can rely on their partners to make them healthy food, for example, they have more time to devote to other responsibilities or pursuits.
Conversely, lacking this assistance was a source of frustration for some, and perhaps particularly for those with children—they desired more help from partners in caring for the household so they could take the time to exercise. Importantly, this logistical help or accommodation is most easily, and sometimes can only be, provided by the romantic partner. Childcare and household tasks (although could be outsourced) are often done by partners, and individuals losing weight cannot choose a more accommodating spouse with whom to eat dinner every night. In addition, perhaps reflecting how women engage in more of the household and childcare tasks (Knudsen & Waerness, 2008), mostly women expressed desiring more logistical help. This combined with women being more likely to monitor their partner’s diet behaviors (Markey et al., 2008) raises the possibility that men receive more invisible support for their weight loss (e.g., the provision of logistical help without prompting; see Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000; Shrout, Herman, & Bolger, 2006). Although research typically focuses on explicit support (Butterfield & Lewis, 2002; Dailey et al., 2010; Gorin, Powers, Koestner, Wing, & Raynor, 2014), it would be worthwhile to gather data from both partners to explore when invisible support is optimal. For example, invisible support might be more effective for individuals who are sensitive or ashamed about their weight (Conradt et al., 2008) or when direct strategies would be perceived as face threatening (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000) or prompt reactance (Thompson et al., 2013).
The themes pertaining to obstacles particularly highlighted the need to assess romantic partners’ motivation and ability to provide support. Although some research has more recently acknowledged partners’ interdependence (e.g., Butterfield & Lewis, 2002; Burke et al., 2012; Skoyen et al., 2013), theories or studies regarding weight loss support and influence by romantic partners implicitly suggest romantic partners can act as objective others providing unilateral support. Yet, romantic partners are not personal trainers, physicians, or nutritionists who can provide ideal information from outside the relational context. Support for the weight loss, if provided, is not the only role partners are playing in a cohabiting relationship—they are first and foremost romantic partners in which there are expectations for companionship and need fulfillment in addition to being co-owners of a household and sometimes co-parents. Thus, couples have to weave the goal of weight loss into the complexity of their relationships and/or families, requiring them to simultaneously negotiate these multiple roles and needs.
This invokes the systemic nature of weight management in relationships (Harkaway, 1983; Macchi, Russell, & White, 2013), and partners’ interdependence was particularly highlighted in the balancing needs theme. Some individuals struggled with balancing their own needs to lose weight with the needs of the partner or relationship. For some, prioritizing both seemed impossible, and similar to Bradbury and Karney’s (2014) observations and conclusions, the weight loss goals typically took a backseat to the partner or relationship. Previous research also shows that weight loss by one partner might increase negative interactions, threaten the other partner’s security, or change the nature of the relationship (Romo & Dailey, 2014) because a previous routine or pattern has been altered by the pursuit of weight loss. Thus, weight loss attempts by one or both partners might induce imbalance in the overall nature of the relationship.
In addition, partners might be struggling with their own weight loss or appearance as well as other stressors in their own lives. As exemplified by partners’ negative comments about themselves, individuals can be sidetracked by partners’ own insecurities. These negative comments might engender “fat talk” (typically negative conversations about weight and appearance), which can have detrimental effects regarding body satisfaction, drive for thinness, and depression (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012; Shannon & Mills, 2015; Sharpe, Naumann, Treasure, & Schmidt, 2013). Moreover, partners’ insecurities likely make it difficult for them to provide quality support.
Additionally, even if both participants and partners are pursuing weight loss, some couples had different, and seemingly incompatible, approaches to weight loss which had implications for the behaviors enacted. In explicating their transactive goal dynamics model, Finkel, Fitzsimons, and vanDellen (2016) make a similar argument in that even if partners share a goal, their different means in pursuing the goal might be mutually obstructive. Although a more health-conscious partner can positively influence a less healthy partner (Golan et al., 2009; Gorin et al., 2005), having different attitudes and characteristics regarding weight management can create conflict and mitigate support (Burke et al., 2012; Hong et al., 2005).
Complicating the support process further, individuals losing weight sometimes gave mixed messages in what support they wanted or had inconsistent reactions to the support that was provided. Bradbury and Karney (2014) termed these individuals “Wafflers.” Although the partners were not interviewed in the current study, it was evident from the descriptions by the participants that partners could be easily confused by the conflicting messages. This combined with partners already struggling with how to craft their health influence messages in ways that also address relational goals (e.g., avoid harming the relationship; Burke & Segrin, in press) might thwart partners’ willingness to provide support. Participants’ reasoning revealed that the mixed messages were likely due to temporary stressors and moods. Hence, for example, encouragement to exercise was better received when they were in a good mood. Further, and perhaps counterintuitively, participants appeared more receptive to encouragement and challenge when they were already enacting healthy behaviors, whereas they were resistant to such attempts when they were offtrack. Individuals already seemed to feel negatively about their unhealthy choices and felt a push by their partners was additional criticism. Thus, although partners might see a need to provide encouragement when the individuals are not engaging in healthy behaviors, their support attempts might be more effective when the individuals seem to need it least.
The findings combined suggest that the relational context is more complex than previous theory and research would suggest. Merely coaching cohabiting partners on which strategies to use might not address the complex web of relational dynamics in which weight loss is pursued. Although some research has highlighted the interdependent nature of partners (Burke et al., 2012; Lewis & Butterfield, 2007; Lewis et al., 2004) or assessed characteristics of the relationship (Butterfield & Lewis, 2002; Skoyen et al., 2013), weight loss occurs in an intricate, relational context that both partners shape. The dynamic process of negotiating better support from partners could be perceived as risky, difficult, or impossible. Weight loss goals might be pursued while balancing the needs, approaches, and insecurities of both partners, all of which might change on a daily basis or from conversation to conversation. Individuals might also have varying responses to partner support. As Homish and Leonard (2008) argue, interventions targeting couples rather than individuals might be more effective for some. Helping couples address different approaches, negotiate logistical help, balance individual and relational needs, and navigate mixed responses due to temporary stressors might be necessary to provide a relational/family environment conducive to weight loss. Ultimately, a greater understanding of the romantic relationship context should reveal more nuanced clues on how partners can best facilitate individuals’ weight loss.
Applications and future directions
From a theoretical standpoint, the themes point toward several factors that might help explain when and what types of partner support are more effective. For example, future research could examine how the compatibility of partners’ goals and approaches to weight loss, partners’ sensitivity about their weight loss or body image, the difficulty in balancing weight loss goals and relationships needs, and the ability and motivation of partners to provide support (e.g., see Cunningham & Barbee, 2000) affect the support process and weight loss outcomes. Additionally, a more complex future direction would be to explore fluctuating motivation and the strategies that best address the different levels of motivation. All of these factors might enhance current theory about partners’ support and provide greater predictive and explanatory power.
Assessing partners’ readiness to change (i.e., transtheoretical model; Marcus et al., 1992; Prochaska et al., 1994) would be beneficial as well. The current participants were actively trying to lose weight (or had recently lost a significant amount of weight) and were thus in the action and maintenance stages of weight loss. Individuals in the precontemplation and contemplation stages, however, might have less support or more undermining from their romantic partners. As such, the relational context might present additional barriers for individuals who are not ready or able to enact weight loss efforts. Further, support might be perceived differently if the two partners are in different stages of change (Hong et al., 2005). As Bradbury and Karney (2014) suggest, different strategies might be needed if the person is not yet ready to engage in healthier behaviors (e.g., indirect support such as stocking the fridge with healthier foods).
On a practical level, individuals pursuing weight loss might need to be aware of how mixed messages could complicate their partner’s support. Moreover, research suggests individuals should be positive in their support seeking (e.g., avoid complaining and whining) as this elicits better support (Meltzer, McNulty, & Karney, 2012). On the other side, partners might be more effective if they understand the power of their influence. For example, partners being accommodating, avoiding negative comments about themselves, and approaching the weight loss goal as a joint effort (regardless of whether they want to lose weight) could provide a more conducive weight loss environment. For both partners, compromises might be beneficial. If partners encounter struggles due to conflicting approaches or balancing individual and relational goals, explicit negotiation might be necessary. Bradbury and Karney (2014) advocate communicating to achieve mutual understanding in order to reveal the underlying issues that might prevent more effective efforts (e.g., partner fears, beliefs).
Limitations
The conclusions of this analysis should be contextualized within the limitations of the study. First, only the individuals losing weight were interviewed. Obtaining similar responses from the romantic partners, and comparisons between partners, would be beneficial. Several factors also limit the generalizability of the findings. The participants, although varied in some respects (e.g., age, position within the university), were perhaps relatively homogenous and not representative of the general population. For example, participants were all from the same community, and many were associated with the university. In addition, few participants discussed their weight loss endeavors as a financial difficulty, which does not necessarily reflect how lower income individuals and families are at a greater risk for obesity. Further, partners of the participants in this sample were generally supportive; few partners appeared to directly sabotage their efforts. The majority of the sample was also female, and the findings thus might reflect women’s experiences more than men’s. Given that sex differences are found regarding body image, diet and exercise patterns (French et al., 1994; McCabe et al., 2012; Reboussin et al., 2000; Tsai et al., 2016), and women might be more influential or involved in their partners’ behaviors (Lewis et al., 2004; Markey et al., 2008; Umberson, 1992), exploring sex differences regarding the relational context would be beneficial.
Those who volunteered to participate might have been more comfortable in talking about weight loss and their partner’s support, and therefore experienced fewer barriers, which could have hindered additional themes from being discovered. Yet, as with any study involving interviews, some participants were more forthcoming and others were more reticent. The wide range of interview lengths (16–69 min) likely reflects this; but additionally, some participants had talked extensively with their partners about weight loss whereas some talked very little. Many participants additionally seemed to have thought a lot about, or were struggling with, their partner’s support. Some also engaged in more sensemaking as they answered the questions—exploring more consciously how they felt about their partner’s support. It was clear that others struggled more with their weight loss which resulted in greater elaboration. Although it was easier to delve into the planned and follow-up questions with certain participants, the range of responses reflects the diversity of mind frames of people who are trying to lose weight.
In addition, more general relational qualities (e.g., satisfaction, conflict management) were not measured in the current study. As such, the themes could not be assessed in relation to overall satisfaction or other qualities. Individuals who are more satisfied in their relationships might be more likely to cite facilitating factors, whereas dissatisfied individuals might report more of the obstacles and mixed messages. Exploring the bidirectional influence of these qualities and the factors found here and in other research might provide a broader picture of navigating weight management within romantic relationships. Although this analysis focuses on the role of romantic partners, it cannot be assumed that participants’ partners were the primary or only influence on their weight loss. All participants were able to discuss the role of their partner in their weight loss, but some participants noted other influences that were stronger (e.g., a family member’s health issues related to weight, internal drive to be thin). The salience of these factors of the relational context might thus vary by the level of current or desired involvement by partners (e.g., Rook, August, Parris Stephens, & Franks, 2011).
Conclusion
The complexity of the relational context needs to be considered further to better understand the role of romantic partners in individuals’ weight loss pursuits. Partners providing logistical help, being accommodating to schedule changes, and negotiating a shared perspective regarding weight loss goals might facilitate weight loss efforts. Yet, this research highlights that romantic partners are not objective, third parties that can easily bestow ideal support; partners might struggle with their own weight issues, have an incompatible approach to weight loss, and the needs of weight loss might conflict with the needs of the relationship. In addition, individuals receiving support are not always rational or positive in their reactions to what are often well-intended support attempts. Hence, on theoretical as well as practical levels, both partners’ experiences and perspectives, regardless of whether only one or both partners are trying to lose weight, should be considered as they both actively contribute to the relational context in which weight loss attempts occur.
Footnotes
Author’s note
A version of this article was presented at the 2016 National Communication Association Convention in Philadelphia, PA.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Special Research Grant from the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Texas at Austin.