Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender, Sacrifices, and Variability in Commitment: A Daily Diary Study of Pregnant Heterosexual Cohabitors and their Partners

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We use interdependence theory and the inertia model to examine how gender and daily relational sacrifices predict daily variability in relationship commitment across a week in 43 U.S. couples who are unmarried cohabitors expecting their first child together (total of 455 days of data). We examined three variants of daily relational sacrifices: frequency, ease, and awareness for both individuals and partners, and we tested for gender differences. Using an Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), we found that both women and men reported lower variability in commitment when men were perceived as highly aware of the sacrifices made for them. Additionally, women experienced lower variability in commitment when their male partners reported engaging in easier sacrifices. In contrast, women reported higher variability in commitment when they reported greater frequency of sacrifices for their partner. The results can be of practical use for practitioners working with expectant cohabitors and their partners given the unique role gender plays relative to how sacrifices shape variability in daily commitment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amato, P. R. (2014). Does social and economic disadvantage moderate the effects of relationship education on unwed couples? An analysis of data from the 15-month building strong families evaluation. Family Relations, 63(3), 343–355. doi:10.1111/fare.12069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arriaga, X. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 754–765. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arriaga, X. B., Reed, J. T., Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Do fluctuations in perceived partner commitment undermine dating relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1045–1065. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ari, A., & Livni, T. (2006). Motherhood is not a given thing: Experiences and constructed meanings of biological and nonbiological lesbian mothers. Sex Roles, 54, 521–531. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9016-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., & Lopes, J. (1997). A temporal model of relationship satisfaction and stability. In R. J. Stemberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 129–159). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. Burgess & T. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135–168). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, T. J., & Young, V. J. (2012). Sexual transformations and intimate behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49(5), 454–463. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.569977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canary, D. J. (2003). Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events related to strategic choices. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 515–549). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Child Trends DataBank. (2014, July). Births to unmarried women: Indicators on children and youth. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=births-to-unmarried-women. Accessed 03 Nov 2015.

  • Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corkery, S., Curran, M. A., & Parkman, A. (2011). Relational quality of expectant cohabitors: The roles of relational sacrifice and spirituality. Marriage & Family Review, 47, 345–362. doi:10.1080/01494929.2011.594213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2000). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ​Curran, M. A., McDaniel, B. T., Pollitt, A. M., & Totenhagen, C. J. (2015). Gender, emotion work, and relationship quality: A daily diary study. Sex Roles, 73, 157–173. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0495-8.

  • Curran, M. A., Burke, T., Young, V., & Totenhagen, C. T. (2016). Relational sacrifices about intimate behavior and relationship quality for expectant cohabitors. Marriage & Family Review, 52(5), 442-460. doi:10.1080/01494929.2015.1113225.

  • Donaghue, N., & Fallon, B. J. (2003). Gender-role self-stereotyping and the relationship between equity and satisfaction in close relationships. Sex Roles, 48, 217–230. doi:10.1023/A:1022869203900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doss, B., & Rhoades, B. (2017). The transition to parenthood: Impact on couples’ romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 25–28. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (2008). Pro-relationship motivation: An interdependence theory analysis of situations with conflicting interests. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 547–560). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(1), 95–108. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00405.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Downey, G. (2003). He said, she said: A quasi-signal detection analysis of daily interactions between close relationship partners. Psychological Science, 14, 100–105. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, M. E., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1036–1045. doi:10.1177/0146167203253473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A., Kashy, D., & Smith, J. Z. (2012). Gender-typed play behavior in early childhood: Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 67, 503–515. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0198-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. E., Moyer, A. M., Black, K., & Henry, A. (2015). Lesbian and heterosexual adoptive mothers’ experiences of relationship dissolution. Sex Roles, 73, 141–156. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0432-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, L. K., La Valley, A., & Farinelli, L. (2008). The experience and expression of anger, guilt, and sadness in marriage: An equity theory explanation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 699–724. doi:10.1177/0265407508093786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., Osterman, M., & Curtin, S. C. (2014, May 29). Births: Preliminary data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports, 63(2), 1–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Salmon, M., & Rapson, R. L. (2011). Equity theory and social justice. Journal of Management, Spirituality, and Religion, 8(2), 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (2000). The implications of unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of Personality, 68, 1031–1057. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. (2007). Multilevel models for examining individual differences in within-person variation and covariation over time. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(4), 609–629. doi:10.1080/00273170701710072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, K. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Relationship supportiveness during the transition to parenting among married and unmarried parents. Parenting: Science and Practice, 9(1–2), 123–142. doi:10.1080/15295190802656828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsueh, A. C., Morrison, K. R., & Doss, B. D. (2009). Qualitative reports of problems in cohabiting relationships: Comparisons to married and dating relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(2), 236–246. doi:10.1037/a0015364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Impett, E. A., & Gordon, A. (2008). For the good of others: Toward a positive psychology of sacrifice. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (pp. 79–100). Westport: Greenwood.

  • Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.327.

  • Johnson, M. P. (1999). Personal, moral, and structural commitment to relationships: Experiences of choice and constraint. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 73–87). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp Dush, C. M. (2011). Relationship-specific investments, family chaos, and cohabitation dissolution following a nonmarital birth. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 60, 586–601. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00672.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp Dush, C. M., Rhoades, G. K., Sandberg-Thoma, S. E., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2014). Commitment across the transition to parenthood among married and cohabiting couples. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(2), 126–136. doi:10.1037/cfp0000006.

  • Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 47, 1663–1692. Retrieved from http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/47/. Accessed 24 Dec 2015.

  • Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knopp, K., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S., Owen, J., & Markman, H. (2014). Fluctuations in commitment over time and relationship outcomes. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(4), 220–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 314–323. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, C. E., McDaniel, B. T., Maas, M. K., & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Parenting stress and sexual satisfaction among first-time parents: A dyadic approach. Sex Roles, 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0623-0.

  • McDaniel, B. T. (2016). Understanding stability and change in daily coparenting: Predictors and outcomes in families with young children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia.

  • Miller, A. J., & Carlson, D. L. (2015). Great expectations? Working- and middle-class cohabitors’ expected and actual divisions of housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 346–363. doi:10.1111/jomf.12276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 79–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ogolsky, B. G., & Bowers, J. R. (2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 343–367. doi:10.1177/0265407512463338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, C., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2007). Married and cohabiting parents’ relationship stability: A focus on race and ethnicity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(5), 1345–1366. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00451.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). When bias and insecurity promote accuracy: Mean-level bias and tracking accuracy in couples’ conflict discussions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 642–655. doi:10.1177/0146167211432764.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pacilli, M. G., Taurino, A., Jost, J. T., & Van der Toorn, J. (2011). System justification, rightwing conservatism, and internalized homophobia: Gay and lesbian attitudes toward same-sex parenting in Italy. Sex Roles, 65, 580–595. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9969-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruppel, E., & Curran, M. A. (2012). Relational sacrifices in romantic relationships: Satisfaction and the moderating role of attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 508–529. doi:10.1177/0265407511431190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., & Arriaga, X. (1997). Interdependence theory. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 221–250). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In T. E. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564–596). New York: Guilford Press. 

  • Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059.

  • Rusbult, C. E., Madoka, K., Coolsen, M. K., & Kirchner, J. L. (2004). Interdependence, closeness, and relationships. In D. L. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 137–161). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Sassler, S., & Miller, A. (2011). Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 482–506. doi:10.1177/0192513X10391045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G., & Markman, H. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00418.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, C., Curran, M. A., & Arroyo, A. (2014). Cohabitors’ reasons for living together, satisfaction with sacrifice, and relationship quality. Marriage & Family Review, 50, 598–620. doi:10.1080/01494929.2014.938289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Totenhagen, C., & Curran, M. A. (2011). Daily hassles, sacrifices, and relationship quality in pregnant cohabitors. Family Science, 2, 68–72. doi:10.1080/19424620.2011.597101.

  • Totenhagen, C., Serido, J., Curran, M. A., & Butler, E. (2012). Daily hassles and uplifts: A diary study on understanding relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 719–728. doi:10.1037/a0029628.

  • Totenhagen, C. J., Curran, M. A., Serido, J., & Butler, E. A. (2013). Good days, bad days: Do sacrifices improve relationship quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 881–900. doi:10.1177/0265407512472475.

  • Totenhagen, C. J., Butler, E. A., Curran, M. A., & Serido, J. (2016). The calm after the storm: Relationship length as associated with couples’ daily variability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 768–791. doi:10.1177/0265407515597562.

  • Traupmann, J., Peterson, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Measuring equity in intimate relations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5(4), 467–480. doi:10.1177/014662168100500405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harnick, F., & Steemers, G. E. M. (1997a). From game theory to real life: How social value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1330–1344. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997b). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitton, S. W., & Whisman, M. (2010). Relationship satisfaction instability and depression. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 791–794. doi:10.1037/a0021734.

  • Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2002). Sacrifice in romantic relationships: An exploration of relevant research and theory. In H. T. Reiss, M. A. Fitzpatrick, & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Stability and change in relationship behavior across the lifespan (pp. 156–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2007). If I help my partner, will it hurt me? Perceptions of sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 64–92. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.1.64.

  • Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., & Whisman, M. A. (2014). Fluctuation in relationship quality over time and individual well-being: Main, mediated, and moderated effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 858–871. doi:10.1177/0146167214528988.

  • Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for the first author was made possible in part by a scholarship from The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Further, the present research was supported in part by grants to the last author from the Office for the Vice President for Research Small Grants at the University of Arizona as well as the Norton Fathers Endowment and McClelland Institute at the University of Arizona.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Sciences, Middle East Technical University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Nazlı Büşra Akçabozan

  2. Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5060, Normal, IL, 61790-5060, USA

    Brandon T. McDaniel

  3. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 314 Biobehavioral Health Bldg., University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Shannon A. Corkery

  4. Department of Family Studies and Human Development, Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Arizona, 650 N. Park, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0078, USA

    Melissa A. Curran

Authors
  1. Nazlı Büşra Akçabozan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brandon T. McDaniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shannon A. Corkery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melissa A. Curran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nazlı Büşra Akçabozan.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research is supported in part by the John and Doris Norton Fathers, Parenting and Families Endowment at the University of Arizona, and the Office for the Vice President for Research Small Grants Program at the University of Arizona, both awarded to Melissa Curran. Support for the first author was made possible in part by a scholarship from The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey.

Conflicts of Interest

We have no conflicts of interest to report (either financial or nonfinancial).

Human Study and Informed Consent

We secured approval from the Human Subjects Protection Program at the University of Arizona before conducting our study, including obtaining agreement from all participants on the disclosure statements/informed consent statements for the participants who agreed to take part in the surveys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akçabozan, N.B., McDaniel, B.T., Corkery, S.A. et al. Gender, Sacrifices, and Variability in Commitment: A Daily Diary Study of Pregnant Heterosexual Cohabitors and their Partners. Sex Roles 77, 194–208 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0716-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0716-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation