Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender, Emotion Work, and Relationship Quality: A Daily Diary Study

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

Abstract

We use the gender relations perspective from feminist theorizing to investigate how gender and daily emotion work predict daily relationship quality in 74 couples (148 individuals in dating, cohabiting, or married relationships) primarily from the southwest U.S. Emotion work is characterized by activities that enhance others’ emotional well-being. We examined emotion work two ways: trait (individuals’ average levels) and state (individuals’ daily fluctuations). We examined actor and partner effects of emotion work and tested for gender differences. As outcome variables, we included six types of daily relationship quality: love, commitment, satisfaction, closeness, ambivalence, and conflict. This approach allowed us to predict three aspects of relationship quality: average levels, daily fluctuations, and volatility (overall daily variability across a week). Three patterns emerged. First, emotion work predicted relationship quality in this diverse set of couples. Second, gender differences were minimal for fixed effects: Trait and state emotion work predicted higher average scores on, and positive daily increases in, individuals’ own positive relationship quality and lower average ambivalence. Third, gender differences were more robust for volatility: For partner effects, having a partner who reported higher average emotion work predicted lower volatility in love, satisfaction, and closeness for women versus greater volatility in love and commitment for men. Neither gender nor emotion work predicted average levels, daily fluctuations, or volatility in conflict. We discuss implications and future directions pertaining to the unique role of gender in understanding the associations between daily emotion work and volatility in daily relationship quality for relational partners.

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. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, K. R., Lloyd, S. A., & Few, A. L. (2009). Reclaiming feminist theory, method, and praxis for family studies. In S. A. Lloyd, A. L. Few, & K. R. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of feminist family studies (pp. 3–17). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  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 

  • Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2011). Self-compassion and relationship maintenance: The moderating roles of conscientiousness and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 853–73. doi:10.1037/a0021884.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Introduction: Meta-theory and theory in family communication research. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    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., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. 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. New York: Academic.

    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 

  • 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (2000). It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation. In U. Narayan & S. Harding (Eds.), Decentering the center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial, and feminist world (pp. 156–176). Bloomington: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cottingham, M. D., Erickson, R. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2014). Examining men’s status shield and status bonus: How gender frames the emotional labor and job satisfaction of nurses. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0419-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, A. K. (1987). Invisible work. Social Problems, 34, 403–415. doi:10.1525/sp.1987.34.5.03a00020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–106. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, F. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender and Society, 21, 106–127. doi:10.1177/0891243206293577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 601–619. doi:10.1037/a0013969.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncombe, J., & Marsden, D. (1993). Love and intimacy: The gender division of emotion and ‘emotion work’: A neglected aspect of sociological discussion of heterosexual relationships. Sociology, 27, 221–241. doi:10.1177/0038038593027002003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, R. J. (1993). Reconceptualizing family work: The effect of emotion work on perceptions of marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 888–900. doi:10.2307/352770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, R. J. (2005). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 337–351. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00120.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866–884. doi:10.2307/353307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferree, M. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 420–439. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00711.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Few-Demo, A. L., Lloyd, S. A., & Allen, K. R. (2014). It’s all about power: Integrating feminist family studies and family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 85–94. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.864295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, G. L., & Murry, V. M. (2000). Gender and families: Feminist perspectives and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1160–1172. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01160.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 

  • 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 

  • Hanlon, N. (2012). Masculinities, care, and equality: Identity and nurture in men’s lives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, K. E., Werner-Wilson, R. J., Cook, A. S., & Berger, P. S. (2001). The association between emotion work balance and relationship satisfaction of couples seeking therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 193–205. doi:10.1080/019261801750424316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. G., & Hunt, L. L. (1987). Male resistance to role symmetry in dual earner households: Three alternative explanations. In N. Gerstel & H. E. Gross (Eds.), Families and work (pp. 192–203). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J., Rauer, A., & Volling, B. (2013). A dyadic view of support in marriage: The critical role of men’s support provision. Sex Roles, 68, 427–438. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0256x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 structure and processes. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., Berschied, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (1998). Language and processes in the construction of equality in new marriages. Family Relations, 47, 81–91. doi:10.2307/584854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender and Society, 3, 187–216. doi:10.1177/089124389003002003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63, 11–1. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9797-z.

    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 

  • McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800. doi:10.1086/426800.

    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 

  • Ogolsky, B., Niehuis, S., & Ridley, C. (2009). Using online methods and designs to conduct research on personal relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 610–628. doi:10.1080/01494920903224202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osmond, M. W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories. In P. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 591–625). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  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, 642–55. doi:10.1177/0146167211432764.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, C. A. (2010). “Women’s work?” Women partners of transgender men doing housework and emotion work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 165–183. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00690.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). Relationships in human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.844.

  • Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender and Society, 18, 429–450. doi:10.1177/0891243204265349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rook, K. S. (2001). Emotional health and positive versus negative social exchanges: A daily diary analysis. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 86–97. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0502_4.

    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 

  • 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, L. C., Cohen, P. N., & Casper, L. M. (2004). Women, men and work. In R. Farley & J. Haaga (Eds.), The American people (pp. 76–106). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. D. (1998). “Men don’t do that sort of thing”: A case study of the social isolation of househusbands. Men and Masculinities, 1, 138–172. doi:10.1177/1097184X98001002002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S., Rhoades, G., & Markman, H. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509. doi:10.1111/j.17413729.2006.00418.x.

  • Stevens, D., Minnotte, K., Mannon, S., & Kiger, G. (2006). Family work performance and satisfaction: Gender ideology, relative resources, and emotion work. Marriage & Family Review, 40, 47–74. doi:10.1300/J002v40n04_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surra, C. A., Curran, M. A., & Williams, K. (2009). Thinking and talking about relationships: Effects of participation in a longitudinal study of dating. Personal Relationships, 16, 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01207.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomeer, M. B., Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2015). Gendered emotion work around physical health problems in mid- and later-life marriages. Journal of Aging Studies, 32, 12–22. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2014.12.001.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Totenhagen, C. J. (2011). Daily processes in romantic relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A Humanities and Social Sciences, 72, 2589.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 574–583. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., & Lodge, A. C. (2015). Intimacy and emotion work in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 542–556. doi:10.1111/jomf.12178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of family communication. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voydanoff, P. (2007). Work, family, and community: Exploring interconnections. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, J. C., & Donis, E. (2007). Masculinity ideology, male identity and romantic relationship quality among heterosexual and gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 775–786. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9303-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E. H., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wharton, A. S., & Erickson, R. J. (1995). The consequences of caring: Exploring the links between women’s job and family emotion work. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 273–296. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00440.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Young, V., Curran, M. A., & Totenhagen, C. (2012). A daily diary study: Working to change the relationship and relational uncertainty in understanding positive relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 132–148. doi:10.1177/0265407512453826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our sources of funding were from the McClelland Institute at the University of Arizona for Melissa Curran, and from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Award Number T32DA017629) for Brandon McDaniel.

We would like to thank both Drs. Emily Butler and Mark Borgstrom for their statistical assistance.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arizona, 650 N. Park, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0078, USA

    Melissa A. Curran & Amanda M. Pollitt

  2. The Pennsylvania State University, 314 Biobehavioral Health Bldg., University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Brandon T. McDaniel

  3. 214 Child Development Research Center, University of Alabama, Box 870160, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487-0160, USA

    Casey J. Totenhagen

Authors
  1. Melissa A. Curran
    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. Amanda M. Pollitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Casey J. Totenhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa A. Curran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Curran, M.A., McDaniel, B.T., Pollitt, A.M. et al. Gender, Emotion Work, and Relationship Quality: A Daily Diary Study. Sex Roles 73, 157–173 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0495-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0495-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation