A labor of love? Emotion work in intimate relationships

Abstract

Drawing on relational developmental systems and gender relations perspectives, this study analyzed data from 1,932 heterosexual couples from Waves 1 and 2 of the German Family Panel to answer three questions: (1) What are the longitudinal associations between male and female partners’ emotion work provision and relationship satisfaction? (2) Are there gender differences in associations between emotion work and relationship satisfaction? (3) Does autonomy moderate associations among these focal variables? An actor–partner interdependence model revealed emotion work was linked to heightened future relationship satisfaction, and female partners’ emotion work was the strongest predictor of both partners’ relationship satisfaction. Latent variable interactions demonstrated male partners’ emotion work was linked to female partners’ heightened relationship satisfaction only when men also reported high levels of autonomy. Emotion work may be a “labor of love” that builds future relationship satisfaction while under the differential “management” of autonomous self-representation and gender norms of affective care.

Pornography and sexual relationships: Discursive challenges for young women

“…Having to compete with pornography through sexual self-objectification places the onus on women to conduct the labour to achieve intimacy, which men have the power to thwart. This is consistent with traditional gender-role theory in which women are responsible for managing the emotional labour in relationships (Duncombe & Marsden, 1993; Horne & Johnson, 2018). Although willing self-objectification might be understood as an expression of women’s ownership of their sexual desires, a component of postfeminism (Burkett & Hamilton, 2012; Dobson, 2015), women’s accounts did not reveal ownership but rather the obligation to please their male partners.…”

The Psychological Toll of Emotion Work in Same‐Sex and Different‐Sex Marital Dyads

“…In this way, our focus on emotion work differs from research on “emotional labor” in that it does not occur in paid or public sectors of the market economy but represents a separate—albeit related—construct (Hochschild, 1989). The study of emotion work within intimate relationships has a rich legacy within family studies, signifying that it is a key component of family and marital dynamics (Erickson, 2005; Horne & Johnson, 2018; Pfeffer, 2010; Rao, 2017; Umberson et al, 2015; Wong, 2017). Emotion work in intimate relationships seems to benefit the psychological well‐being of the recipient of that work (Thomeer, Umberson, & Pudrovska, 2013), but we know very little about the implications of emotion work for the emotion worker's psychological well‐being.…”

“…As articulated with the gender‐as‐relational perspective, the dynamics of same‐sex relationships, which consist of two men or two women, may be unique compared with different‐sex couples because people enact gender differently depending on whether they are interacting with a man or a woman even when they are influenced by broader societal constraints and opportunities associated with gender (Ferree, 2010; Thomeer et al, 2020). A key limitation of past studies on emotion work is that this research has focused on different‐sex unions wherein gender differences and inequality in care work are central (Curran et al, 2015; Horne & Johnson, 2018; Minnotte et al, 2010). Although most research on different‐sex couples finds that women are more focused than men on emotion work in their intimate relationships (Rao, 2017; Thomeer et al, 2015; Wong, 2017), a fuller understanding of gendered emotion work processes requires that we also examine emotion work and well‐being linkages for men compared to women in same‐sex marriages.…”

“…Emotion work, defined as work intended to bolster another person's emotional well‐being by reading and managing that person's emotional needs, is a common dynamic in intimate relationships (Erickson, 2005; Hochschild, 2003; Pfeffer, 2010) that helps foster intimacy and closeness between spouses (Minnotte, 2017; Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, 2015). Although emotion work is positively associated with marital quality for the couple and for the well‐being of the individual spouse receiving emotion work (Curran, McDaniel, Pollitt, & Totenhagen, 2015; Horne & Johnson, 2018; Minnotte, Pedersen, & Mannon, 2010), the provision of emotion work may be stressful and psychologically costly for the spouse who provides that work (Duncombe & Marsden, 1993, 1995; Umberson et al, 2015). Moreover, because research on heterosexual couples generally suggests that emotion work is a more immersive experience for women than men and that women are more concerned with the importance of emotion work within their relationship (Elliott & Umberson, 2008; Erickson, 2005; Rao, 2017; Wong, 2017), emotion work may more strongly undermine psychological well‐being for women than for men.…”

A Large-Scale Test of the Replicability and Generalizability of Survey Measures in Close Relationship and Sexuality Science

“…Indeed, theories describing differential patterns of evolutionary (SST; Buss & Schmitt, 1999) and/or cultural pressure (Eagly & Wood, 1999;Wiederman, 2005) across gender/sex lead one to not only expect levels of relationship and sexuality variables to potentially differ, but also potentially the meaning of relationship and sexuality variables. Further divergences in measurement models across gender/sex in relationship (e.g., Beam et al, 2018) and sexuality variables (e.g., Carpenter, Janssen, Graham, Vorst, & Wicherts, 2008) might be driven by differences in relational and/or sexual attention (Rubin, Peplau, & Hill, 1981), cost/benefit appraisals (see review by Haselton & Buss, 2000), experiences (Frederick, John, Garcia, & Lloyd, 2018, Horne & Johnson, 2019, goals , identity (see review by Impett & Peplau, 2006), or needs (Fisher, Moore, & Pittenger, 2012).…”