Content uploaded by Ramon B. Zabriskie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ramon B. Zabriskie
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF COUPLE LEISURE INVOLVEMENT,
LEISURE TIME, AND LEISURE SATISFACTION TO
MARITAL SATISFACTION
by
Heather Ann Johnson
A thesis submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Department of Recreation Management and Youth Leadership
Brigham Young University
August 2005
Copyright © 2005 Johnson
All Rights Reserved
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
Heather Ann Johnson
This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by
majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.
Date Ramon Zabriskie, Chair
Date Brian Hill
Date Dennis Eggett
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Heather Ann
Johnson in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical
style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style
requirements; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in
place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready
for submission to the university library.
Date Ramon Zabriskie
Chair, Graduate Committee
Accepted for the Department
Brian Hill
Chair, Department of Recreation Management and
Youth Leadership
Accepted for the College
Gordon B. Lindsay, Associate Dean
College of Health and Human Performance
ABSTRACT
THE CONTRIBUTION OF COUPLE LEISURE INVOLVEMENT,
LEISURE TIME, AND LEISURE SATISFACTION TO
MARITAL SATISFACTION
Heather Ann Johnson
Department of Recreation Management and Youth Leadership
Master of Science
The purpose of this study was to further clarify the relationship between couple leisure
patterns and marital satisfaction by examining the contribution of joint couple leisure
involvement, leisure time, and leisure satisfaction to couples’ satisfaction with married
life. The sample consisted of 48 married couples (N = 96). The Marital Activity Profile
(MAP), a modified version of the Family Leisure Activity Profile (FLAP) was used to
determine couple leisure involvement in core and balance leisure activities and leisure
satisfaction. The Satisfaction With Married Life (SWML), a modified version of the
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) was used to measure marital satisfaction. Blocked
multiple regression analyses indicated a positive relationship between satisfaction with
couple leisure and marital satisfaction, specifically satisfaction with core leisure activity
patterns. Implications and recommendations for further research are discussed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis is the product of the efforts of many who helped along the way. I
would like to give special recognition and express my gratitude to them.
To my husband William for his unwavering support and insight into the many
aspects of this thesis. He is the best example of all that is good in this project: to our two
young children Dane and Tanna Leigh for being such great motivation and providing us
with every day humor and love: to my parents who are the perfect example of a
successful marriage, and to my mother for all her help with our children while I worked
to finish this project: to my bothers Kevin and Thomas for being so supportive.
Gratitude must also be expressed to Brian Hill for his leadership, time and effort;
for teaching me how to think through every angle of a concept; and for giving me the
opportunity to give back to the University, and help students gain their own testimony of
the power and importance of families and couples being intentional about spending time
together: to Ramon Zabriskie for his time, faith, encouragement, willingness to endure,
and for guiding me in writing a scholarly publication: to Dennis Eggett for solving all of
our statistical problems: to Patti Freeman for her support: to Mark Widmer for giving me
the opportunity to join this great program. It has been a healing, strengthening, learning,
and growing experience: and a very special thanks to Sandy Alger for all of her help, she
is a valuable asset to the graduate program.
viii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................ix
The Contribution of Couple Leisure Involvement, Leisure Time, and Leisure Satisfaction
to Marital Satisfaction
Abstract..................................................................................................................2
Introduction............................................................................................................3
Review of Literature..............................................................................................4
Methods................................................................................................................15
Findings................................................................................................................18
Discussion……………………………………………………………………….20
References……………………………………………………………………….28
Appendix A Prospectus....................................................................................................38
Introduction..........................................................................................................39
Review of Literature............................................................................................44
Methods................................................................................................................82
References............................................................................................................87
Appendix A-1 Marital Activity Profile (MAP) ...................................................97
ix
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Zero Order Correlations among Demographic Variables............................... 35
2 Zero Order Correlations among Research Variables...................................... 36
3 Summary of Blocked Regression Equations Predicting Couple Leisure
Satisfaction................................................................................................ 37
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
1
Running Head:COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
The Contributions of Couple Leisure Involvement,
Leisure Time, and Leisure Satisfaction to
Marital Satisfaction
Heather Ann Johnson M.S.
Ramon Zabriskie Ph.D.
Brian Hill Ph.D.
Dennis Eggett Ph.D.
Brigham Young University
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to further clarify the relationship between couple leisure
patterns and marital satisfaction by examining the contribution of joint couple leisure
involvement, leisure time, and leisure satisfaction to couples’ satisfaction with married
life. The sample consisted of 48 married couples (N = 96). The Marital Activity Profile
(MAP), a modified version of the Family Leisure Activity Profile (FLAP) was used to
determine couple leisure involvement in core and balance leisure activities and leisure
satisfaction. The Satisfaction With Married Life (SWML), a modified version of the
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) was used to measure marital satisfaction. Blocked
multiple regression analyses indicated a positive relationship between satisfaction with
couple leisure and marital satisfaction, specifically satisfaction with core leisure activity
patterns. Implications and recommendations for further research are discussed.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
3
The Contribution of Couple Leisure Involvement, Leisure Time, and Leisure Satisfaction
to Marital Satisfaction.
Marital relationships have changed significantly over the past one hundred and
fifty years. Institutional relationships based on stability and security have given way to a
more pluralistic view of marriage in which couples are looking for a more flexible marital
commitment (Doherty, 1997). As a result of this desire for flexibility, the United States
has become known for our high divorce rates and the collapse of our traditional marriage
life (VanDenBerghe, 2000). This is evident in the increasing numbers of marriages
ending in divorce. Although nearly all people marry in their lifetime (Bjorksten &
Stewart, 1984), nearly one half of all first marriages are expected to end in separation or
divorce (Castro-Martin & Bumpass, 1989). About half of those who get divorced get
remarried, with even more remarriages ending in divorce (Brody, Newman, & Forehand,
1988). Couples and their marital relationships play a vital role in the preservation of the
family. Families are the fundamental unit of society (Proclamation, 1995), and it follows
that stronger marriages lead to stronger families and strengthened societies.
As the national divorce rate rises, scholars are paying more attention to marital
satisfaction and the factors that affect it, including couple leisure. Previous findings have
shown that couples that participate in activities together are more satisfied with their
marriage (Holman & Epperson, 1989; Orthner & Mancini, 1990; 1991). However there is
not a clear understanding concerning whether it is the kinds and amount of couple leisure
involvement, the satisfaction with or quality of couple leisure involvement, or the amount
of time spent together, that contributes to marital satisfaction. Therefore the purpose of
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
4
this study was to further clarify the relationship between joint couple leisure and marital
satisfaction by examining the contribution of couple leisure involvement, satisfaction
with couple leisure involvement, and joint couple time to a couple’s satisfaction with
married life.
Review of Literature
Systems Theory
Systems theory provides a useful framework for studying couples. A marital
relationship can be viewed as a system of interacting roles and communication networks.
Underlying this system is the perception of relationship satisfaction that determines
whether or not the system is able to maintain itself in its present form. Constantine (1986)
defined system structure as “the sum total of the interrelationship among elements of a
system, including membership in the system and the boundary between the system and its
environment” (p.52). Systems theory is a way of looking at the world in which people are
interrelated with one another (Constantine, 1986; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993), and
assists in explaining the behavior of complex organized systems, such as a spousal
relationship.
Systems theory provides useful insights into the relationships between leisure and
couple variables, and provides a good foundation for studying couple activity patterns
and their impact on couple marital satisfaction. From a systems theory perspective
(Constantine, 1986), couple leisure activities contribute to several aspects of the couple’s
marital relationship. One of these aspects influenced by couple leisure is couple bonding,
which in turn can affect satisfaction in two ways. First, common activities and interest
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
5
enforce boundaries around the relationship. Shared interests and activities may be one of
the more important forces establishing and maintaining boundaries in the couple system.
Second, couple leisure activities contribute to developing collective interest and identity
by placing couples in situations where they are learning to enjoy activities together
(Fincham, Beach & Kemp-Fincham, 1997).
In order to better evaluate and understand the satisfaction spouses experience with
their relationship, there must first be guidelines to follow for evaluation. Determining that
the spousal relationship is a system and using a systems perspective increases the
understanding of how and why the relationship system functions as it does, as well as
how to best deal with issues such as communication, growth, adaptation, setting
boundaries, rules, setting goals and interacting together.
Marital Satisfaction
In recent years, scholars have focused more on marital satisfaction. The rational
for studying this subject stems from its centrality to individual and family well-being
(Stack & Eshelman, 1998). There are many benefits that occur in society when strong
marriages are formed and maintained, and the need to develop interventions for marital
distress and divorce has become more prevalent (Castro-Martin & Bumpass, 1989).
Recently, researchers have also argued that marital satisfaction most likely does not
follow a U-shaped curve over the marital career as was once believed, but instead drops
significantly over the first ten years of marriage on average, and then continues to
gradually decline in the ensuing decades (Amato, 1997; Glenn, 1998; Rollins & Feldman,
1970; Vaillant & Vaillant, 1993).
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
6
When couples do succeed in creating a satisfying marriage, the satisfaction tends
to safeguard spouses from psychological distress and negative life events (Waltz,
Bandura, Pfaff, & Schott, 1988). Marital distress and dissatisfaction have negative
consequences for the physical and emotional well being of spouses and their children
(Bloom, Asher & White, 1978; Emery, 1982). Several different factors have been found
to affect martial satisfaction. Some of those recurring in the literature include violence,
children, income, and stress (Belsky, 1985; 1990; Belsky & Pensky, 1988; Cordova,
Jacobson, Gottman, & Rushe, 1993; Greenstein, 1990; Hoffman & Manis, 1978;
Markman, 1981; Stack & Eshelman, 1998; Waite and Lillard, 1991). One more factor
that has been found to influence marital satisfaction is that of joint couple leisure
involvement (Orthner & Mancini, 1990; 1991).
Joint Couple Leisure
Of importance to this study is the research that has been done concerning couple
leisure patterns. One early framework for looking at couples and their leisure was
developed by Orthner and Mancini (1990; 1991). They described three types of couple
leisure activity patterns which include individual, parallel, and joint. These patterns refer
to the individuals’ participation in the activity and their level of interaction during the
experience (Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Orthner & Mancini, 1991).
Individual leisure refers to leisure that is done without one’s spouse. It is
participated in either alone, or with people other than one’s spouse. Engagements in
individual pursuits and interaction with others to the exclusion of one’s spouse were good
predictors of global marital distress, and the absence of marital satisfaction (Smith,
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
7
Snyder, & Monsma, 1988; Orthner & Mancini, 1991). Holman and Jaquart (1988), as
well as Orthner and Mancini (1990), also suggest that a negative relationship exists
between individual leisure and marital satisfaction for both husbands and wives.
Although it has been found that couples who participate in individual activities
experience lower levels of marital satisfaction (Hill, 1988; Holman & Jaquart, 1988;
Locke, 1951; Orthner, 1975; Smith, Snyder, & Monsma, 1988), it has also been found
that participation in shared activities, or commitment to the same activities, was not
essential to marital satisfaction if the spouses perceived that their partners supported their
individual activity choices. When one spouse is committed to an activity and the other is
not, significant support from that individual’s spouse helps affirm the role of the spouse
and promote marital satisfaction (Baldwin & Ellis, 1998). This support could be
expressed in many different ways, such as holding conversations about the spouse’s
participation and performance in the activity, arranging schedules to accommodate
watching their spouse participate in the activity, or giving equipment related to the
activity as gifts (Baldwin & Ellis, 1998;).
Studies suggest that support in the pursuit of a personally meaningful goal or
behavior plays an important role in maintaining high levels of well-being (Brunstein,
Dangelmayer, & Schultheiss, 1996; Baldwin & Ellis, 1999). As perceived support
increases, marital satisfaction also increases, and it has been found that those who
participate in supported independent recreation activities reported higher marital
satisfaction than those who participated in fully independent activities (Baldwin & Ellis,
1998; Acitelli, & Antonucci, 1994; Wan, C. K., Jaccard, J. & Ramey, S. L., 1996; Julien,
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
8
& Markman, 1991). These findings are important because couples do not always enjoy
the same types of activities. Couples who have different interests and participate in
individual activities without their spouse will not necessarily experience a decline in their
marital satisfaction, as long as there is significant support from their partner concerning
the individual activity. Support concerning individual activity participation plays a large
role in increasing marital satisfaction (Baldwin & Ellis, 1999).
Parallel couple leisure refers to individual participation in the same activity at the
same time. This type of couple activity calls for little or no communication or interaction,
such as watching a movie, or watching television together. Leisure activities such as
these may represent a false front, suggesting togetherness when it does not necessarily
exist. Although a couple may be sitting on the same couch watching the same movie, that
does not necessarily mean that their time together is providing the maximum benefit
possible. In such situations there is usually little communication, interaction, or problem
solving. Leisure activities that involve little or no communication provide less benefit to
couples than others and may actually harm the relationship when they are the primary
form of couple activity interaction (Orthner & Mancini, 1990; 1991).
The third leisure pattern described by Orthner and Mancini (1990; 1991) is joint
leisure. Joint leisure describes activities in which couples participate together with high
levels of interaction. These types of activities are conducive to optimal communication
and alternative role patterning. It has been found that couples that share leisure time
together in joint activities tend to be much more satisfied with their marriages (Baldwin,
Ellis & Baldwin 1999; Holman & Jaquart, 1988; Orthner & Mancini, 1991). Spousal
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
9
understanding increases with greater amounts of shared leisure time together (Orthner &
Mancini, 1980). Baldwin, & Ellis (1999) found no significant difference between
couple’s who participated in joint recreation together and couple’s who did not, but were
highly supportive of each other in individual leisure pursuits. For example, a husband
might enjoy running in races; his wife dislikes running, but comes and watches him run
every race. While she does not actually run, the couple does enjoy joint leisure
participation in the experience, which is still related to higher marital satisfaction. Joint
activities may, however, cause conflict when the couple is not used to being together
often. This occurs when the couple is not accustomed to spending time together, and is
suddenly forced to communicate and interact. Although some levels of conflict are good
in a relationship, the conflict that joint activities may cause a couple might deter them
from further joint leisure interactions (Orthner & Mancini, 1990).
Orthner’s (1975) concept of joint, parallel, and individual activities for examining
couple’s leisure provided the framework for one of the few consistent lines of research in
this area. Although this line of research provided somewhat consistent findings and made
a significant contribution to the literature, significant questions remain and further
research has been called for (Hawkes, 1991; Holman & Epperson, 1989; Orthner &
Mancini, 1990). The types of couple leisure activities that were actually measured in this
early line of study were somewhat limited and the manner of measurement was clearly
limited to time only. It is, therefore, not clear whether it is the types of couple leisure
activities, the amount of involvement itself, the quality or satisfaction with the
involvement, or if it was simply increased amount of time spent together as a couple that
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
10
contributed to increased marital satisfaction. Orthner and Mancini (1990) acknowledged
the limitations of the couple leisure model and called for better use of improved
theoretical frameworks in future research examining contributions of family and couple
leisure. Therefore, a different theoretical framework that has been utilized in examining
family leisure involvement may provide a different perspective and further insight into
the couple leisure and marital satisfaction relationship.
Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning
The Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning (Zabriskie, 2000) is
grounded in family systems theory and not only explains how family leisure involvement
influences families, but suggests that different kinds of family leisure activities are
related to different aspects of family functioning. The model, which has been developed
and successfully tested in recent years (Zabriskie, 2000; 2001; Zabriskie & McCormick,
2000) has been utilized as a theoretical framework in a variety of studies examining
family leisure (Baker 2004; Christiansen, 2004. Freeman & Zabriskie, 2003; Smith,
Taylor, Hill, & Zabriskie, 2004; Zabriskie & Freeman, 2003; Zabriskie & McCormick
2003). Although the model has not been used in previous studies of married couples, it
provides a sound framework for examining family leisure involvement, was developed
from a family systems perspective, and therefore, is likely to provide a useful and
insightful framework for the examination of the primary subsystem within families.
Iso-Ahola (1984) explained that there is a duality in leisure involvement for
individuals that results from the balance of two opposing needs that simultaneously
influence an individuals’ behavior. He states that individuals “seek both stability and
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
11
change, structure and variety, and familiarity and novelty in [their] leisure” (p. 98).
Freeman and Zabriskie (2003) explained that the interplay between the need for both
stability and change plays a much greater role when examining the needs of family or
couple systems and is a primary underlying concept of family systems theory. In other
words, in order to be healthier and function better, families and couples must meet the
need for stability in interactions, structure, and relationships, and fulfill the need for
novelty in experience, input, and challenge (Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). Similar to
individuals, families and couples also tend to seek the balance between stability and
change through their leisure behavior (Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). The Core and
Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning suggests that there are two interrelated
categories or basic types of family leisure involvement (core & balance) which families
utilize to meet needs of stability and change, and ultimately facilitate outcomes of
cohesion and adaptability, which are the primary components of family functioning. The
model has also been utilized to examine the contributions of core and balance leisure
involvement to the related construct of family satisfaction (Zabriskie & McCormick,
2003).
Core couple leisure involvement can be depicted by joint participation in
activities that are common, regular, relatively accessible, and usually
home/neighborhood-based. They tend to require little planning and resources, and are
often spontaneous and informal. They are consistent, safe, positive, and provide a context
in which to foster relationships (Zabriskie, 2000). Couples participating in core activities
can safely explore boundaries, clarify couple/family roles and rules, and practice ways to
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
12
enforce them. Spouses can be consoled, rewarded, refreshed and rejuvenated through
regular core leisure involvement.
The playful interaction and relaxed conversation enjoyed among couples while
completing household duties such as laundry or doing dishes together may also need to
be included as a core activity for couples. Such regular activities may become a leisure
choice that is looked forward to among couples in which they can enjoy each others
company and complete household work at the same time. These chosen regular activities
performed side by side are likely to help develop relationships, foster communication,
and increase understanding of one another. Regular personal interaction based on shared
experiences enhances the knowledge of co-participants and, thus, fosters increased
personal relatedness and feelings of closeness and cohesion (Zabriskie, 2000).
Balance couple leisure involvement can be depicted by joint participation in
activities that are less common, less frequent, often out of the ordinary and provide novel
experiences. These activities are likely to require greater investment of resources, such as
effort and time, and are usually not home-based. They often require more planning and
are therefore less spontaneous and more formalized (Zabriskie, 2000). Balance types of
joint activities require couples to negotiate and adapt to new input, experiences, and
challenges, facilitate the development of adaptive skills, and the ability to learn and
change. They also tend to expose couples to new and unexpected stimuli from the outside
environment, which provides the input and challenge necessary for couples to learn and
progress as an evolving and developing relationship system (Zabriskie, 2000).
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
13
The Core and Balance Model suggests that families who regularly participate in
both core and balance family leisure activities are likely to function better and have
greater family satisfaction than those who participate in extremely high or low amounts
of either category. Therefore, when considering couples the model would suggest that
while different couple leisure patterns may meet different needs and contribute to
different aspects of a couples functioning or marital satisfaction, the inter-relationship
between both core and balance couple leisure involvement is necessary in order to
positively influence marital satisfaction. The use of this model as the framework for the
current study may help provide considerable insight and add further understanding as to
the relationship between couple leisure patterns and martial satisfaction.
Leisure Satisfaction
Leisure satisfaction has also been studied in regards to its relationship to life
satisfaction (Russell, 1987; 1990). Russell (1987) compared the influence of several
activities on life satisfaction, with one of those activities being recreation or leisure. She
hypothesized that recreation participation and recreation satisfaction would be stronger
predictors of life satisfaction than all the other activities. The results indicated that
religiosity had a slightly higher influence on life satisfaction than recreation participation.
Nevertheless, satisfaction with recreation had a much greater influence than either
religiosity or recreation participation. Russell determined that it was the satisfaction with
the recreation activity involvement that impacted the life satisfaction rather than the
frequency of involvement.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
14
In a similar study, Russell (1990) examined the interrelationship among recreation
and other life circumstance variables, one of which was quality of life. The findings
indicated that religiosity, gender, education, marital status, and age were significantly
related to income, health, recreation activity participation, and recreation satisfaction.
However, these variables were not found to influence quality of life directly. The only
significant and direct predictor of quality of life was satisfaction with recreation
involvement.
Although no similar studies have been conducted examining couples leisure
satisfaction, Baldwin and Ellis’s (1998) findings related to the value of spousal support of
individual leisure pursuits verses the actual joint participation suggest that there may be
similarities among couples as well. Particularly when considering the changing context
for a couple over the family life cycle, it is possible that satisfaction with joint couple
leisure involvement may play as significant a role in explaining marital satisfaction as the
participation itself.
Overall, past research has clearly identified a link between couple leisure and
marital satisfaction. Findings, however, are still unclear as to whether it is the amount or
type of couple leisure involvement, the satisfaction with the involvement, or simply the
time spent together that influences a couples’ satisfaction with their marriage. Therefore
the purpose of this study was to use the Core and Balance framework to examine the
contribution of joint couple leisure involvement, satisfaction with joint couple
involvement and joint couple time, to overall marital satisfaction.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
15
Methods
Sample
Subject couples (n = 48) were recruited door to door through a convenience
snowball sampling method in a mid-size western suburban area. Completed surveys were
collected from 48 married couples yielding data from 96 individuals. The respondents
ranged in age from 18 to 76 with a mean of 31.51. Concerning ethnicity, the majority
(95%) were white, the remainder included Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics. The
number of children each couple had ranged from 0-10 with a mean of 2.04. Years
married ranged from 1 to 48 with a mean of 10.1 years. Couples income ranged from less
than 10,000 dollars a year to between 126,000- 150,000 dollars a year, with a mean of
31,000-40,000 dollars a year. There was only one woman in this sample who had
experienced a divorce, and had remarried. Her responses referenced her current marriage.
Instrumentation
The research questionnaire included the following scales: (a) the 15-item Marital
Activity Profile (MAP) which measures couple leisure involvement and leisure
satisfaction based on the Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning
(Zabriskie, 2000); (b) the Satisfaction with Married Life Scale (SWML) (Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), that measures satisfaction with married life based on
the respondents own criteria; three questions that measure satisfaction with joint couple
time, and (c) relevant socio-demographic questions.
The MAP measures involvement in marital leisure activities based on the Core
and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning (Zabriskie, 2000). It is a modification
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
16
of the Family Leisure Activity Profile (FLAP), which has demonstrated acceptable
psychometric properties (Zabriskie, 2001). Modifications included adjusting activity
descriptors to describe couples activities, the elimination of 2 categories that did not
clearly fit for couples, the addition of two categories needed for couples (e.g., household
cooking and cleaning, and communication), and the combination of categories in three
other cases. All other aspects of the instrument remained the same including format,
scoring procedures, and leisure satisfaction items.
Respondents identify leisure activities done with their spouse across 15 activity
categories. Eight categories of activities are representative of core marital leisure patterns
(e.g., home-based TV/videos together, regular communication, cleaning or cooking
together, and playing games together) and seven categories are representative of balance
marital leisure patterns (e.g., community-based events, outdoor activities, adventure
activities, and travel or tourism together). Each question root asks if the respondent
participates in the activity category with their spouse. Specific examples are included
with each question to help delineate between categories. If the answer is yes, respondents
are asked to complete ordinal scales of estimated frequency (“about how often?”) and
duration (“for about how long per time?”), as well as satisfaction with participation with
your spouse in the root activity. Respondents are asked to answer the satisfaction
question, which is measured on a five point likert scale even if they do not participate in
the root activity with their spouse.
Scores for the MAP are calculated by first multiplying the ordinal indicators of
frequency and duration of participation in each category, and then summing the core
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
17
categories to provide a core marital leisure index and summing the balance categories to
provide a balance marital leisure index. The total couple leisure involvement score is
calculated by summing the Core and Balance indices. The satisfaction with couple leisure
scores is calculated by summing the satisfaction responses for the core items and balance
items. The original FLAP has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties including
evidence of construct validity, content validity, and test-retest reliability for core (r =
.74), balance (r = .78), and total family leisure involvement (r = .78) (Zabriskie, 2001).
The MAP was designed for the current study and no specific evidence of validity and
reliability for its use is available yet.
The SWML is a modified version of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) in which the words “married life” replaced
the word “life” as it was in the original items. The SWML requires respondents to agree
or disagree with five statements about married life on a seven point likert-type scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Scoring consists of summing all
items which produces a satisfaction with married life score that ranges from 5 to 35. The
original scale has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties (Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985).
Satisfaction with the amount of time spent with spouse was measured by three
items addressing a couples’ time together that required subjects to respond to a five-point
likert-type scale for each item. A series of socio-demographic questions were included to
identify underlying characteristics of the sample and to provide possible controlling
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
18
factors. Items included age, gender, ethnicity, number of children, years married, past
marital status, and estimated annual income.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine underlying characteristics of the
study sample. Pearson Product Moment zero-order correlations between variables were
examined for multicollinearity as well as to identify possible controlling factors that
could be included in subsequent regression equations. Although there were some
significant zero-order correlations indicated, the magnitude of the correlation coefficients
did not indicate multicolinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) except for the cases in
which variables were derived from previous variables such as total couple leisure
involvement and total couple leisure satisfaction. Therefore, they were not included in the
same regression analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using a blocked entry method.
Couple leisure involvement variables (core leisure involvement, balance leisure
involvement) and total couple leisure time were included in the first block, followed by
the couple leisure satisfaction variables (core couples leisure satisfaction and balance
couple leisure satisfaction) in the second block. The multiple correlation coefficients (R
2
)
were examined at an alpha level of .05 and standardized regression coefficients (Beta)
determine the relative contribution of each variable in a significant model.
Findings
Scores from the SWML scale ranged from 12 to 35 with a mean of 28.80 (SD =
5.64). Internal consistency for scores from this sample was reported at an acceptable level
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
19
(α = .923). The MAP provided index scores for core, balance, and total couple leisure
involvement and satisfaction with core, balance, and total couple leisure involvement.
Core couple leisure scores ranged from 16 to 104 with a mean of 50.79 (SD = 18.48).
Balance couple leisure scores ranged from 8 to 120 with a mean of 53.21 (SD = 24.06).
Total couple leisure involvement scores ranged from 36 to188 and had a mean of 105.04
(SD = 32.13). Satisfaction with core couple leisure involvement ranged from 15 to 40
with a mean of 30.01 (SD = 5.29). Satisfaction with balance couple leisure involvement
ranged from 14 to 33 with a mean of 24.68 (SD = 4.47). Finally, satisfaction with total
couple leisure ranged from 31 to 75 with a mean of 55.09 (SD = 9.54) Satisfaction with
joint couple time ranged from 3 to 9 with a mean of 6.52 (SD = 1.90).
Examination of the zero-order correlation coefficients indicated no significant
relationships between couple marital satisfaction and any of the demographic variables
including age, gender, number of children, years married, past marital status, and
estimated annual income (Table 1). There were also no significant relationships reported
between marital satisfaction and core leisure involvement, balance leisure involvement or
satisfaction with joint couple time (Table 2). There was a positive relationship between
marital satisfaction and satisfaction with core and balance couple leisure involvement.
Following univariate analyses, a blocked multiple regression analysis was
conducted to examine the contributions of independent variables to the explanation of
marital satisfaction beyond the zero-order relationships (Table 3). The first block
consisted of core couple leisure involvement, balance couple leisure involvement, and
satisfaction with joint couple time, and did not account for a statistically significant
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
20
portion of the variance in marital satisfaction (R
2
= .024; p < .05). After adjusting for the
first block we added the satisfaction with couple leisure involvement variables, which
resulted in a statistically significant change (R
2
= .429; p < .01) in variance explained in
marital satisfaction. Although satisfaction with both core and balance couple leisure
involvement was significant in the univarite case, satisfaction with core couple leisure
involvement was the only significant predictor of marital satisfaction in the multivariate
case (Table 3, Block 2).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to use the Core and Balance framework to examine
the contribution of joint couple leisure involvement, satisfaction with joint couple
involvement and joint couple time, to overall marital satisfaction. Overall, couples in this
study indicated that it was not the level or amount of couple leisure involvement or the
satisfaction with the amount of time spent together, but the satisfaction with couple
leisure that contributed to marital satisfaction. Such findings are consistent with previous
family theory and leisure research. Findings also add considerable clarification and
insight into the early line of research with couple leisure and marital satisfaction.
Although study limitations must be considered, findings have significant practical and
scholarly implications.
Perhaps the most significant contribution from the current findings is that the best
predictor of marital satisfaction was satisfaction with leisure involvement. In other words
it appears that the quality of couple leisure involvement was much more important than
the amount of time spent together or the amount and level of leisure involvement itself
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
21
when considering marital satisfaction. Couples that were satisfied with their leisure
involvement with their spouse, regardless of the amount or type of involvement, were
clearly more satisfied with their marriage than couples who may have participated in
more or different kinds of leisure activities but were not satisfied with that participation.
These findings are consistent with existing family literature and add further
insight to this line of study. A family systems perspective suggests that more is not
always better and that couples should interact at a comfortable level for their individual
relationship. The Circumplex Model (Olsen & DeFrain, 1994) is a graphical
representation of family relationships, is based on systems theory, and can be applied to
couple relationship systems as well. The model suggests that families and couples that
report moderate levels of cohesion and adaptability tend to function higher than those
who have extreme high or low levels of cohesion and adaptability. Furthermore, the
model suggests that families and couples tend to function better where they feel most
comfortable. Although this might not be where other families function, as long as the
entire family is comfortable there, the family can experience optimum benefits from their
relationships with each other. Current findings support this model and appear to be
similar for couples and their leisure involvement as it relates to marital satisfaction. What
is right for one couple may be too much or too little for another. Therefore it appears to
be more important for couples to be comfortable with their leisure involvement rather
than to participate in a specific amount. This is the first study that has provided such
support to this model by measuring a different construct such as couple leisure
involvement.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
22
The Circumplex Model also addresses the concept of a “dynamic family”.
Dynamic families may function at extremes for short periods of time, but they always
find their way back to homeostasis, where they are most comfortable. Dynamic families
also recognize the need for change throughout the course of the family life cycle and
must acknowledge and adjust to changes in family structure. Current findings support the
“dynamic family” concept and suggest that higher functioning couples are able to adjust
their joint leisure patterns in response to changing family structure. Dynamic couples
recognize that over the course of a family life cycle they will have to make adjustments
regarding the amount and types of leisure activities they are able to participate in
together. For example, couples that have small children reportedly have much less time
for couple leisure (Witt & Goodale, 1981) while those in the empty nest phase may have
more time for joint leisure involvement. Current findings suggest that couples that are
able to adjust the amount and type of couple leisure involvement so that they are both
satisfied within their current context also report higher marital satisfaction. With couple
leisure satisfaction being the most significant contributor to the explanation of marital
satisfaction, it can be presumed that couples can work to find the proper amount of
leisure involvement for their particular relationship throughout the changing stages of the
family life cycle.
Current findings are also consistent with previous leisure research and support
Russell’s (1987) study comparing the influence of an individuals’ leisure on life
satisfaction. Russell determined that it was the satisfaction with leisure that impacted life
satisfaction rather than the frequency or amount of involvement. In a similar study,
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
23
Russell (1990) examined the interrelationships among leisure, other life circumstance
variables such as religiosity, gender, education, marital status, and age, and their
influence on quality of life. The only significant and direct predictor of quality of life was
leisure satisfaction. Current findings support those of Russell (1987; 1990) from a
couple’s leisure context by indicating that it is the satisfaction with leisure participation,
not the amount or type of leisure participation, which influences the satisfaction with
married life.
Findings also support and add additional clarification to the early line of couple
leisure research. Historically, researchers (Holman & Jacquart, 1988; Miller, 1976;
Orthner, 1975; Smith, Snyder, & Monsma, 1988) have consistently reported positive
relationships between joint couple leisure activities and marital satisfaction, from an
individual, parallel, and joint activity pattern framework. Consistent findings were also
reported from international studies including those from Australia (Palisi, 1984). England
(Bell, 1975), and Korea (Ahn, 1982). However, the types of couple leisure activities that
were actually measured in this early line of study were somewhat limited and the manner
of measurement was clearly limited to time only. Authors acknowledged the limitations
of these studies and called for further research with improved theoretical frameworks.
Current findings provide continued support for this line of couple leisure research by
reporting a continued relationship between couple leisure and martial satisfaction.
Findings are, however, able to add further insight into this relationship by suggesting that
it is not necessarily the amount of couple leisure involvement but the satisfaction with
that involvement that contributes to martial satisfaction. Furthermore the use of the Core
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
24
and Balance family leisure framework allowed for the examination of different types of
couple leisure patterns. Findings clearly indicated that satisfaction with core couple
leisure patterns (home based, common, everyday leisure activities) together was the most
significant contributor to increased marital satisfaction.
Implications and Recommendations
Findings from this study have several valuable implications for professionals who
work with couples. Findings provide further empirical evidence indicting that couple
leisure involvement is related to overall marital satisfaction. Professionals that work with
couples often overlook the role of couple leisure involvement. Based on these findings,
however, it is clear that couple leisure involvement is an integral component of marital
satisfaction and must be acknowledged and addressed. Another insight from these
findings that must be considered is that the satisfaction with couple leisure involvement
appears to play a much greater role in marital satisfaction then does the type or amount of
leisure involvement. Therefore, professionals can help couples address and negotiate
issues related to leisure involvement and the satisfaction with their involvement within
their current family structure.
Furthermore, the importance of regular, common, often home based leisure
activities together should also be considered. Often when couple leisure involvement is
addressed by professionals or used as a treatment modality, emphasis is placed on those
activities that are out of the ordinary or different such as new challenging events or
vacations. While such activities are often impactful, particularly during a treatment
situation, findings from this study indicate that regular joint activities such as eating
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
25
dinner together, reading, gardening, and talking while washing dishes may contribute
more to overall marital satisfaction.
Although findings provide several useful implications, limitations from this study
must be recognized. The study used correlational techniques and therefore interpretations
in terms of the directionality of the relationship between leisure satisfaction and marital
satisfaction cannot be made without further research. Furthermore, the current sample
was relatively small and homogenous. Future research should consider a larger sample of
couples from a broader, more diverse geographical population. Utah is a predominantly
religious society and all of the respondents in the current sample were members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS religion is strongly focused on
families. Emphasis is placed on spending time together with one’s spouse and family.
Given the opportunity to perform the same study in an environment that is more
religiously diverse may yield different findings.
It is recommended that further work also be completed regarding the Marital
Activity Profile (MAP). Activity categories for the instrument were modified from the
original FLAP (Zabriskie, 2000) for families. While the MAP appears to have
demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties no specific validity and reliability work
has been conducted. Such work should be completed prior to further research with this
instrumentation.
Findings from this study also suggest several other recommendations for future
research. First, couple activity patterns clearly may play different roles and therefore
contribute in different ways to martial satisfaction in different stages of the family life
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
26
cycle. Therefore, examination of the contribution of family leisure involvement and
leisure satisfaction to martial satisfaction within different marital categories across the
life span, would clearly add further insight to this line of study.
Second, more consideration needs to be given to the context of the activities
themselves and the motivation behind participation. For example, do spouses participate
out of guilt or because they want to? Who decides what to do, and what state of mind are
the couples in when they participate in the activities together? Such questions are likely
to play a role in how satisfied couples are with their activity participation. Qualitative
methodologies are likely to provide the greatest insight into the motivation behind
couple’s participation or lack of participation in couple activity patterns.
Third, more attention could be given to responses as couples, instead of as
individuals. Scholars have consistently reported significant findings related to family
leisure involvement from family perspectives derived from parent and child data sets
(Freeman & Zabriskie, 2003; Zabriskie & Freeman, 2004; Zabriskie & McCormick,
2003). Similar methodologies should be used when examining couple leisure
involvement. Examining husbands and wives responses together could provide additional
information and insight into the couple leisure and marital satisfaction relationship, by
providing a couple perspective.
Finally, it is recommended that couple leisure and marital satisfaction should be
explored in relationship with measures of marital communication Previous research has
indicated that communication is vital to martial satisfaction (Cordova et al, 1993).
Orthner (1975) reported a significant relationship between participation of husbands and
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
27
wives in joint leisure and the level of their communication and Presvelou (1971) reported
that the frequency of joint leisure activities was positively related to marital
communication, especially nonverbal communication such as caring. Therefore, the
consideration of marital communication may add further insight to the current findings as
they relate to couples leisure involvement, leisure satisfaction, and their overall martial
satisfaction.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
28
References
Ahn, B. C. (1982). A study of the relation between leisure activity patterns and marital
satisfaction of urban housewives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sookinyung
Women’s University, Korea.
Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 628-640.
Baker, B. (2004). Family differentiation, family recreation, and symptoms of eating
disorders. Unpublished masters thesis. Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah.
Baldwin, J. H., Ellis G. D., & Baldwin, B. (1999). Marital satisfaction: An examination
of its relationship to spouse support and congruence of commitment among
runners. Leisure Sciences, 21, 117-131.
Bell, R. R. (1975). Significant roles among a sample of australian women. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 11, 2-11.
Belsky, J. (1985). Exploring individual differences in marital change across the transition
to parenthood: The role of violated expectations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 47, 1037-1044.
Belsky, J. (1990). Children and marriage. In F. D. Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds.). The
psychology of marriage (pp. 172-200). New York: Guilford Press.
Belsky, J., & Pensky, E. (1998). Marital change across the transition to parenthood.
Marriage and Family Review, 12, 133-156.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
29
Bjorksten, O., & Stewart, T. J. (1984). Contemporary trends in american marriage. In C.
C. Nadelson & D. C. Polonsky (Eds.), Marriage and divorce: A contemporary
perspective. (pp. 3-59). New York: Guildford Press.
Bloom, B.L., Asher, S. J., & White, S. W. (1978). Marital disruption as a stressor: A
review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 867-894.
Brunstein, J. C.; Dangelmayer, G; Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Personal goals and social
support in close relationships: Effects on relationship mood and marital
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5, (pp. 1006
-1019).
Castro-Martin, T., & Bumpass, L. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption.
Demography, 26, 37-51.
Christiansen, O. (2004). An examination of perceptions for family acculturation, family
leisure involvement, and family functioning among mexican americans.
Unpublished masters thesis. Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah.
Constantine, L. L. (1986). Systems in general: Basic general systems theory. In Family
paradigms: The Practice of Theory in Family Therapy, (pp. 45-68). New York:
Guilford.
Constantine, J. A., & Bahr, S. J. (1981). Locus of control and marital stability: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce, 4, 11-22.
Cordova, J., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Rushe, R. (1993). Negative reciprocity
and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 559-564.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
30
Diener, E.; Emmons, R. A.; Larsen, R.J.; & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 49, 1, (pp. 71-76).
Doherty, W. J., (1997). The intentional family: Simple rituals to strengthen family ties.
New York, NY. AVON BOOKS INC.
Eckstein, D. (2004). The “A’s and H’s” of healthy and unhealthy relationships: Three
relationship renewal activities. Family Journal, 12, 4. (p. 414).
Emery, R. E. (1982). Inter-parental conflict and the children of discord and divorce.
Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310-330.
Freeman, P., & Zabriskie, R. (2003). Leisure and family functioning in adoptive families:
Implications for therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 37 (1)
73-93.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1990). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working
with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47-77.Greenstein, T. N. (1990).
Marital disruption and the employment of married women. Journal of Marriage
and the Family. 52, 657-676.
Hawkes, S. R. (1991). Recreation in the family. In S. J. Bahr (Ed.), Family research: A
sixty year review, 1930-1990 (pp. 387-433). New York: Lexington Books.
Hill, M. S. (1988). Marital stability and spouses’ shared leisure time: A multidisciplinary
hypothesis. Journal of Family Issues. (9), 427-451.
Hoffman, L. W., & Manis, J. D. (1978). Influences of children on marital interaction and
parental satisfactions and dissatisfactions. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanior (Eds.).
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
31
Child Influences on Marital and Family Interaction: A life-span perspective
(pp.165-213). New York: Academic Press.
Holman, T. B., & Jaquart, M. (1988). Leisure –activity patterns and marital satisfaction:
A further test. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 60-77.
Holman, T. B., & Epperson, A. (1989). Family and leisure: A review of literature with
research recommendations. Journal of Leisure Research. 16, 277-294.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1984). Social psychological foundations of leisure and resultant
implications for leisure counseling. In E. T. Dowd (Ed.), Leisure Counseling:
Concepts and Applications (pp. 97-125). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Julien, D.,& Markman, H. J. (1991). Social support and social networks as
determinantsof individual and marital outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 549-568.
Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760-762.
Miller, B. C. (1976). A multivariate development model of marital satisfaction. Journal of
Marriage and the Family , 38, 643-657.
Olsen, D. H., & DeFrain, J. (1994). Marriage and the family: Diversity and strengths.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Orthner, D. K. (1975). Leisure activity patterns and marital satisfaction over the marital
career. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2, 103.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. (1980). Leisure behavior and group dynamics: The case of
the family. In S. E. Iso-Ahola (Ed.), Social perspective on leisure and recreation,
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
32
Social Perspectives on Leisure and Recreation, (pp. 307-328). Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and
cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research 22, 125-137.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1991). Benefits of leisure for family bonding. In B. L.
Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson, (Eds.), Benefits of Leisure, (pp. 215-301).
State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Palisi, B. J. (1984). Marriage companionship and marriage well-being: A comparison of
metropolitan areas in three countries. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15,
43-46.
Presvelou, C. (1971 ). Impact of differential leisure activities on intraspousal
dynamics.Human Relations. 24, 565-574.Russell, R. V. (1987). The importance
of recreation satisfaction and activity participation to the life satisfaction of age-
segregated retirees. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(4), 273-283.
Russell, R. V. (1990). Recreation and quality of life in old age: A causal analysis. Journal
of Applied Gerontology, 9(1), 77-90.
Smith, K. J., Snyder, T. J., & Monsma, B. R. (1988). Predicting relationship satisfaction
from couple’s use of leisure time. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 3-13.
Stack, S., & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 527-536.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. California State
University. Northridge: Harper Collins College Publishers.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
33
The family: A proclamation to the world (1995). Ensign, 25, 102.
Vaillant, C. O., & Vaillant, G. E. (1993). Is the U-curve of marital satisfaction an
illusion? A 40 year study of marriage. Journal of marriage and the Family, 55,
230-239.
VanDenBerghe, E. (2000). The enduring, happy marriage. Findings and implications
from research. In D. C. Dollahite (Ed.), Strengthening our families, (pp. 16-28).
Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft.
Waite, L. J., & Lillard, L. A. (1991). Children and marital disruption. American Journal
of Sociology, 96, 930-953.
Waltz, M., Bandura, B., Pfaff, H., & Schott, T. (1988). Marriage and the psychological
consequences of a heart attack: A longitudinal study of adaptation to chronic
illness after 3 years. Social Science and Medicine, 27, 149-158.
Wan, C. K., Jaccard, J., Ramey, S. L. (1996). The relationship between social support and
life satisfaction as a function of family structure. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 58, 2, (pp. 502-514).
Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In W. J. Doherty, R.
LaRossa, W. R, Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family
theories and methods: A contextual approach, (pp. 325-355). New York: Plenum
Press.
Witt, P. A., & Goodale, T. L. (1981). The relationship between barriers to leisure
enjoyment and family stages. Leisure Sciences, 4, 30-49.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
34
Zabriskie, R. B. (2000). An examination of family and leisure behavior among families
with middle school aged children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Zabriskie, R. B. (2001). The validity and reliability of the Family Leisure Activity Profile
(FLAP). In M. E. Havitz & M. F. Floyed (Eds.), Abstracts from the 2001
Symposium of Leisure Research (p. 66). Ashburn, VA: national Recreation and
Park Association.
Zabriskie, R. & Freeman, P. (2004). Contributions of family leisure to family functioning
among transracial adoptive families. Adoption Quarterly ,7(3) 49-77.
Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2000). An examination of family leisure
contributions to family life satisfaction. Abstracts from the 2000 Symposium on
Leisure Research, 71. Ashburn, VA; National Recreation and Park Association.
Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2003). Parent and child perspectives of family
leisure involvement and satisfaction with family life. Journal of Leisure Research,
35(2), 163-189.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
35
Table 1
Zero Order Correlations among Demographic Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Marital Satisfaction - -.030 .126 -.022 -.071 .021
2. Age - -.119 .768** .979** .517**
3. Gender - -.010 -.025 -.027
4. Number of Children - .768** .644**
5. Number of Years Married - .513**
6. Income -
Note. * p < .05; **p < .01.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
36
Table 2
Zero Order Correlations among Research Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Marital satisfaction - .132 -.011 .039 .014 .670** .445** .677**
2. Core couple CLI*** - .159 .691** -.088 .206 .202 .179
3. Balance couple CLI - .824** -.006 -.038 .272* .143
4. Total CLI - -.107 .064 .316* .193
5. Sat w/couple time - .116 .152 .153
6. Sat w/core CLI - .712** .948**
7. Sat w/balance CLI - .883**
8. Sat w/total CLI -
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. ***CLI = couple leisure involvement.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
37
Table 3
Summary of Blocked Regression Equations Predicting Couple Leisure Satisfaction
Variable B SE B
β
Block 1 R
2
= .024 (ns)
Core couple leisure index .029 .041 .097
Balance couple leisure index .020 .031 .091
Total couple leisure time .233 .425 .074
Block 2 ∆ R
2
= .429 (p < .01)**
Core couple leisure index .002 .032 .005
Balance couple leisure index .023 .026 .102
Total couple leisure time -.011 .343 -.003
Core couple leisure satisfaction .748 .169 .710**
Balance couple leisure satisfaction -.110 .211 -.089
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01. n = 96
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
38
Appendix A
Prospectus
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
39
Chapter 1
Introduction
Nearly 2400 years ago, Aristotle described his philosophy regarding the meaning
of life. He believed that people seek happiness and a life filled with “that which is good
and lasting (Dollahite, 2000).” Aristotle’s ideas are still highly respected today, and are
evident as we look to individuals who make the decision to get married. As our society
takes marital vows we are committing ourselves to what we believe will be a lasting
marriage filled with joy and happiness. This ideal of a long lasting companionate
relationship is what we are all searching for. We seem to live in an era where the
commitment to our marital relationships is slowly diminishing. Divorce, once a difficult
ruling to obtain can now be justified by simply citing “irreconcilable differences”, and
where a divorced individual used to be in the minority, now many married individuals
seem to have experienced at least one divorce. On top of this, married couples are
counseled to lead and guide, teach and direct, support, nurture, and protect the family
unit, which is the fundamental unit in society (Hinckley, 1995). As marriages
disintegrate, so do families, leaving children confused and worried and weakening our
society. Even mass media seems obsessed with love and marriage through media reports,
talk shows and reality television. People are looking for ways to be happy in marriage.
We live in a time where people are always busy. Technology has allowed us to
put aside many of our personal interactions and substitute them for email, cell phones,
television or the computer (Daly, 1996). Couples have developed a false idea that just
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
40
because they are in the same room or same house, they are together. Relationships require
communication and interaction to remain healthy (Olson & DeFrain, 1994). Recognizing
the need for renewed energies toward communication and interaction can help couples
find more satisfaction in their marriages.
This leads to the question, what if couples that play together really do stay
together? Does marital satisfaction improve as spouses interact more frequently in
positive activities together? What do couples do together, how often do they do these
things, and how satisfied are they with their participation. Answers to these questions
would provide couples with a better understanding of how to spend their time, whether it
is doing housework, learning a new hobby, or being intimate. As couples make these
realizations and renewed commitments their marriages will become stronger, families
will become stronger, and our society will benefit.
Statement of the Problem
Researchers have conducted studies concerning leisure interaction and their
correlation with some aspects of marital strength (Orthner & Mancini, 1990: Baldwin,
1999). The Problem of this study is to explore the relationship that could exist between
married couples activity patterns and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with marital life.
Purpose of the Study
This study seeks to provide couples, marriages counselors, policymakers and
society with a greater understanding about the impact of interactive activities on marital
satisfaction. A greater understanding of these impacts can lead to changed patterns of
behavior that strengthen marriages, families and the fabric of society.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
41
Need for the Study
At a time when so many marriages are ending in divorce, couples are wondering
how to stay together and find satisfaction in their marital relationships. This thesis project
can help not only validate previous finding that couples who participate in activities
together are more satisfied (Holman & Epperson, 1989; Orthner & Mancini, 1990; 1991),
but also bring new light to the subject concerning meaningful types of activities and there
duration. With this new knowledge couples can then take steps to apply the finding to
their own relationships, perhaps improving their marital satisfaction.
Delimitations
The study will be delimitated in the following ways:
1. One hundred study packets gathered from 50 randomly chosen subject
couples between the ages of 20 and 70, living in the Provo/Orem, Utah community, who
have been married at least 2 years.
2. Marital Satisfaction will be operationalized using the Marital
Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ).
3. Couple Activity Patterns will be operationalized using the Marital
Activity Profile (MAP).
4. Data will be collected over a 2week period of time in November of
2003.
Limitations
This study will be limited in the following ways:
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
42
1. The use of correlational techniques, therefore not allowing
interpretations to indicate directionality of relationships.
2. The depth and breadth of the questionnaire.
4. The sample will be from a highly homogenous, highly family focused,
religious city in the state of Utah.
5. Subjects in the study will take the survey in the same location as their
spouse. Although they will be instructed not to share information, it could be that couples
do discuss their answers with each other.
6. There has been evidence of reliability and content related evidence of
validity presented for the Family Leisure Activity Profile (FLAP), but these have
not been proven for the Marital Activity Profile (MAP).
Assumptions
This study will be based upon the following assumptions:
1. The sample will be representative of a broad spectrum of couples in the
different stages of the family life cycle.
2. Couples who have been married longer will have more to base their
level of marital satisfaction on.
3. High marital satisfaction is not a direct result of recreation alone.
4. Individuals did not discuss their survey answers with their spouse.
5. Findings regarding marital satisfaction and the stage of life cycle will
follow a U shaped curve.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
43
5. Test instruments will measure the underlying constructs that they intend
to measure.
Hypotheses
This study will be designed to test the following null hypotheses:
1. There is no difference in marital satisfaction as a result of the length of
time the couple has been married.
2. There is no relationship between couple activity patterns and marital
satisfaction.
3. There is a relationship between couple activity patterns and marital
satisfaction.
4. A total marriage activity index score will be correlated with the Marital
Satisfaction Questionnaire.
5. There is a relationship between activity patterns and the married life
satisfaction scale.
Definition of Terms
Couple: a man and woman married to each other who’s shared goal is to support
one another emotionally, spiritually, and physically.
Marital satisfaction: the degree to which a married couple feels content,
comfortable, and happy with their marital relationship.
Couple activity patterns: physical exercise, entertainment, recreation, intimacy,
and work habits, demonstrated by each or both individuals in a marriage relationship.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
44
Chapter2
Review of Literature
The literature related to couple activity patterns and marital satisfaction is
reported in this chapter. For organizational purposes, the literature is organized in the
following topic areas: (a) systems theory (b) marital satisfaction (c) activity patterns (d)
summary.
Systems Theory
A marital relationship can be viewed as a system of interacting roles and
communication networks. Underlying this system is the perception of relationship
satisfaction that determines whether or not the system is able to maintain itself in its
present form. Constantine (1986) defined system structure as “the sum total of the
interrelationship among elements of a system, including membership in the system and
the boundary between the system and its environment” (p.52). System’s theory tries to
explain the behavior of complex organized systems, such as a spousal relationship, and it
is a way of looking at the world in which people are interrelated with one another
(Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).
Systems theory can provide some useful insights into the relationships between
activity and couple variables and provides a good foundation for studying couple activity
patterns and their impact on couple marital satisfaction. From a systems theory
perspective (Constantine, 1986), couple activities contribute to many things, including
couple bonding, which in turn can affect satisfaction in two ways. First, common
activities and interest enforce boundaries around the relationship. Shared interests and
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
45
activities may be one of the more important forces establishing and maintaining
boundaries in the couple system. Second, couple activities contribute to developing
collective interest and identity by putting couples in situations where they are learning to
enjoy activities together (Fincham, Beach & Kemp-Fincham, 1997).
Systems theory is based on five main ideas, that when considered together help to
explain the changing dynamics of a relationship system. They are: circularity, holism,
organization, information processing, and change, which include adaptation and growth.
A more in depth look at these guiding systems principles can shed light on the benefits
that occur from studying couples from a systems view point.
Circularity
Systems elements are linked so that each piece affects all the other pieces.
Interaction and causality are not linear, but instead all members of the system act in a
circular way, each action affects the other. All members are involved in the control
aspects of the system, though that does not mean there is a smooth coordination of action.
The causal linkages are circular with no start and no end and with no possibility of
concluding that things started with one individual person or event. The system does not
operate with a linear cause and effect chain (Jackson 1965). Reciprocity, mutuality, and
fit are three sub-concepts of circularity. Reciprocity is the process of one partner’s
behavior drawing on the other behavior and so forth. Mutuality refers to the process of
both members of a relationship system mutually drawing on the others actions and
behavior. Fit is the way that the behaviors are joined together over time, which creates a
sequence that becomes coordinated and somewhat predictable (Butler, 1995; Olsen,
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
46
Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979). Spouse’s and outside observers often “punctuate” the circle
of the system and have a tendency to view their relationships linearly rather than
systemically. An example of this would be when each partner focuses on one behavior
isolated from all others. For example, a husband focuses on one specific behavior of his
wife that “causes” him to be upset with her and raise his voice. The wife on the other
hand may back up one more step and focus on a specific behavior of her husband that
“causes” her to be frustrated with him. Each partner ignores and denies the complex
interactional web that exists in their relationship system. The web helps to support the
circularity of the relationship. Couples look to punctuate their relationship in ways that
blame their partner, looking for the “original sin” (Butler, 1997, p.3). Recognizing
circularity among relationship systems can help spouse’s understand how they work
together.
Holism
Holism is based on two compositional laws: The Law of Composition, and the
Law of Decomposition. The Law of Composition states that the whole is more than the
sum of its parts. Using water is a good example of this law. Hydrogen and oxygen alone
are gases. But when put together become a very useful liquid, necessary for life. The Law
of Decomposition states that the part is more than a fraction of the whole (Butler, 1995).
This law proposes that members of relationship systems contain within themselves
potential beyond those that emerge and are expressed in any specific situation. For
example, problem solving might be a weakness for the couple, but not a weakness for an
individual spouse. These two laws are very important when you are evaluating a
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
47
relationship system. If you focus on individual spouses you don’t get a full picture of the
entire system or relationship. Conversely if emphasis is only placed on the system as a
whole, individual characteristics are overlooked.
All individuals in a system have emergent and divergent properties. Emergent
properties are a person’s potentialities that surface in any given situation or context.
Submerging properties are those potentialities that are repressed or subdued in any given
situation or context. Therefore it is valuable to focus on these properties in the context of
both the Law of Composition and Decomposition. In this context, the reason why
potentialities become apparent or are subdued becomes more evident in relation to the
system as a whole (Butler, 1995).
Organization
Organization is fundamental to a relationship system and encompasses many
concepts. Boundaries, a fundamental organizational concept, keep systems organized by
determining what will come into the system and what will go out. The boundaries act as
filters that not only mediate information, but also set the system aside from other systems,
and provide protection.
Using boundaries, systems can be broken down into subsystems that contain an
individual member or group of members of a system distinguished from other members
of the system by a distinct role or function, by hierarchy, or by boundaries. A family
system may be thought of as including subsystems (Kantor & Lahr, 1975; Minuchin,
1974). Individual family members may be perceived as subsystems of the family. Family
members may also be perceived as grouped in subsystems, such as the marital subsystem,
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
48
the parental subsystem and so forth. The family can also function as a subsystem of a
larger system, such as society. Subsystems are very important and work to carry out
specific functions in the system. Hierarchy is granted to those subsystems that have more
power than others such as parents over children (Rosenblatt, 1994).
Boundaries can be characterized in terms of their permeability, selectivity, and
variability. Variability refers to the ability of boundaries to be adaptive. Systems have
problems when boundaries are too rigid or too diffuse. Often variability changes over
time. In a couple setting, the couple as newlyweds might be very open to new activities in
order to please their spouse, but over time, as they get to know each other better, there is
less variability in what they are willing to try and entertain. Permeability refers to how
open or closed systems boundaries are. For example, couples may have very open
boundaries when it comes to discussing financial information, but very rigid boundaries
when it comes to talking about marital conflict. Selectivity refers to what the system
selects to allow through its boundaries.
Systems are also organized through belief systems. Shared beliefs within
relationship systems help organize the system and mediate interaction. As a result, both
interaction structure and process within marital and family systems can be profoundly
influenced or determined by beliefs. Beliefs could include things such as shared religious
beliefs, and cultural beliefs.
Rules, usually created as a result of the beliefs a member of a system has, also
help systems stay organized. They are used to create order, and to create a general
understanding and consensus among system members. Rules seem to take input from
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
49
outside the couple and produce output for the world inside the spousal relationship
(Broderick & Smith, 1979). Rules are negotiable, and often stem from families of origin.
When couples come together with different rules and understandings of how rules should
be followed a great deal of compromise must come into play as they make new rules for
themselves. Variability has a large effect on rules, especially in a family setting. Often
times there are many rules that are strictly enforced when children in the system are
young, but over time as the children grow older, rules become more lenient and
negotiable. Rules are also flexible. There are many times when systems have to create
new rules or modify old rules when new situations arise. Regardless of the modifications,
rules provide a great deal of organization and help to create a general understanding
among members of a system.
Along with rules, the roles played by members of a system are also very
important to the organization of a system. As each member of the system plays his or her
role, order is kept amongst the system, and other members feel more comfortable because
they know what part each member of the system is playing. All members in a system
have their own individual roles. These roles are a coherent set of interrelated behaviors,
performed by an individual member of a system, or by a subsystem, for the benefit of the
system as a whole (Butler, 1997). The role of a husband played by a man, or the role of a
parent played by a mother would be examples of this.
Information Processing
Members of systems process information and communicate one with another.
Communication can be characterized on a dimension of openness to closeness. Open
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
50
communication involves a great deal of freedom to communicate thoughts, feelings,
opinions, and fantasies between spouses. Openness also allows the freedom to be honest
and complete in communicating (Bowen, 1978). Closed communication involves
blocking, walling, distorting, or denying thoughts, feelings, and opinions, along with
truths (Zuk, 1965). Closed communication often results out of fear of rejection.
Communication styles of open and closed, although relatively simple, can cause great
dissatisfaction amongst spouses. If one spouse is open and one spouse is closed, positive
constructive communication will rarely take place. This can bring contention, confusion,
and dissatisfaction to the relationship.
Communication is delivered in feedback loops. They are connections between
behavior and evaluation of behavior. Feedback can lead to either attenuation or
amplifying responses (Rosenblatt, 1994). Attenuating feedback, which is also known as
negative feedback is responsive information or behavior within a relationship system that
operates to maintain system functioning or performance within the boundaries set by the
system. Attenuating feedback is designed to maintain system homeostasis. For couples,
different behaviors or experiences during conflict bring feedback which acts to attenuate
and dampen the conflict and brings it back into a comfortable range for those involved
(Butler, 1997). For example, becoming loud during an argument, swearing or hitting,
may constitute feedback leading to an attenuating response.
An amplifying feedback, or positive feedback is responsive information or
behavior within a relationship system that operates to amplify or increase deviation from
a set point of system functioning (Rosenblatt, 1994). An amplifying loop increases the
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
51
behavior to its outermost limits. An example of this would be a father coming home from
work in a bad mood. He speaks harshly to his wife who in turn makes a comment about
his bad attitude. Her comment then amplifies his bad mood, he becomes crankier which
in turn causes the wife to become more critical, and the loop is continually amplified. An
example on the flip side would be the expression of gratitude. The wife might express
gratitude for her family. As a result, the wife finds herself having good feelings towards
them, wanting to serve them more, and expressing more love verbally. As a result her
husband and children do all they can to producing the positive behavior that their mother
and wife appreciate. As a result of their actions the wife/mother feels even more good
feelings towards them and continues in service, and the amplifying feedback loop
continues.
Change, Adaptation, Growth
Systems have a tendency to seek homeostasis, maintaining a steady state or
equilibrium. It is in this state that members feel most comfortable; as they know what
roles they are to play and what to expect (Butler, 1997, p. 5).
Equipotentiality, and equifinality are two concepts related to change, adaptation,
and growth that help to explain homeostasis. Equipotentiality refers to the capacity of a
relationship system to arrive at different endpoints from the same starting point. This
concept implies the inability to predict systems behavior and outcomes. It is based on
agency among system members. Equifinality is just the opposite of equipotentiality. It is
the capacity of relationship systems to arrive at the same endpoint from different starting
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
52
points. This concept, like equipotentiality establishes agency into the system and makes
predictions about the system hard to come by.
As systems strive to grow, they can take on a hunting behavior. This behavior is
the constant ongoing activity of the system towards achieving its reference level of
performance or functioning (Butler, 1995). One way of understanding this behavior is by
applying it to a heater, or cooling system. The regular activity of the system turning on
and off in order to achieve the desired temperature in the room as determined by the
temperature setting could represent a hunting behavior. The system never achieves the
exact temperature desired for an extended period of time, but fluctuates right near the
setting, hunting for the temperature the system has been set at.
When it comes to facing change, growing, and adapting to life situations, rituals
can aid couple as they deal with the experiences. They are powerful tools for symbolizing
and bringing about change. Rituals open couple systems in very brief periods of time and
bring about reorganization with new structure, new processes and new beliefs and
expectations. As spouses move through their lives together, they are faced with many
different challenges, trials and new experiences. When couples are faced with changes,
having a consistent, comfortable ritual to fall back on provides security. This in turn gives
the couple confidence to take on the changes. Being open and receptive to change brings
growth to the relationship system. A couple’s ability to deal with the new situations can
determine how satisfied they are in their marriage.
Using a systems perspective can increase understanding of how and why the
relationship system functions as it does and in return, how to best deal with issues such as
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
53
communication, growth, adaptation, setting boundaries, rules, and fulfilling roles. In
order to better evaluate and understand the satisfaction spouses feel in their relationship,
we must first have guidelines to follow for evaluation. Determining that the spousal
relationship is a system and using a systems perspective can increase our understanding
of how and why the relationship system functions as it does and in return how to best
deal with issues such as communication, growth, adaptation, setting boundaries, rules,
and setting goals. When we have a better understanding of how the spousal system works
then we can have a foundation that can lead us to understanding their activity patterns
and how they affect their marital satisfaction.
Marital Satisfaction
For many couples marriage is a very satisfying endeavor. Marriages change and
evolve. Discovering the variables that effect marriages is important because nearly all
people marry in their lifetime (Bjorksten & Stewart, 1984). Nearly one half of all first
marriages are expected to end in separation or divorce (Castro-martin & Bumpass, 1989).
About half of those divorced get remarried with even more remarriages ending in divorce
(Brody, Neuman, & Forehand, 1988). When couples do succeed in creating a satisfying
marriage, their satisfaction tends to safeguard spouses from psychological distress, and
negative life events (Waltz, Bandura, Pfaff, & Schott, 1988). Marital Distress and
dissatisfaction have negative consequences for the physical and emotional well being of
spouses and their children (Bloom, Asher & White, 1978; Emery, 1982).
Although systems theory has been universally embraced as one of the best
theories in which to examine a couple relationships, it is important to touch on a few of
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
54
the other theories that have pioneered the study of satisfaction in marriages. These other
theories have been coupled with systems theory, seeking to explain martial satisfaction
and those variables that affect it. Working in the realm of systems theory, social exchange
theory, behavior theory, attachment theory, and crisis theory have been commonly
proposed as good theories to help explain the dynamics of couple’s interpersonal
relationships.
Social Exchange Theory
The most frequently cited theory in research on marriage and close relationships
comes from Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) theory of interdependence and proposes that
relationships grow, develop, deteriorate, and dissolve as a consequence of an unfolding
social-exchange process, which may be conceived as a bartering of rewards and costs
both between the partners and between members of the partnership and others” (Huston
& Burgess, 1979, p.4).
Behavioral Theory
Behavioral theories of marriage also have their roots in the work of Thibaut and
Kelly (1959). The focus of social exchange theory is interpersonal. Marital satisfaction is
understood to be the result of each individual’s weighting of attractions and alternatives
and those attractions and alternatives are conceived to be “aspects of perception, not
action” (Gottman, 1982, p. 950). Although rewards and costs are also part of behavior
theories, the main focus is on the interpersonal exchange of specific behaviors. This
approach is strong because it supplies a means to explain how judgments of marital
satisfaction change over time. It gives couples an opportunity to learn on the basis of their
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
55
interactions and the evaluations that follow from them, whether or not they are in a
rewarding relationship (Bradbury & Fincham, 1991).
Attachment Theory
Bowlby’s (1969) work on relationships between infants and their caregivers is
where attachment theories of marriage stem from. Bowlby (1969), through his research
suggested that the nature of this first close relationship determines a child’s internal
working model of what close relationships are like, so it should determine the nature of
an individual’s close relationship throughout the course of life. Hazen and Shaver (1987,
1994), and Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw (1988) where some of the first to apply these
attachment ideas to adult relationships. They believed that close relationships between
adults mirror enduring styles of attachment developed in infancy and early childhood.
This perspective emphasized that an individuals’ early experiences in close relationships
shape the nature and development of future relationships in adulthood. Relationship
satisfaction depends largely on the satisfaction of basic needs for comfort, care and
sexual gratification (Hazen & Shaver, 1994). The success of the relationship will rest on
whether each spouse trusts that the partner can fulfill those needs.
Crisis Theory
Crisis theory stem’s from Hill’s (1949) efforts to explain how families react to
stressful events. Although crisis theory was designed to explain the functioning of
families, some marital researchers have used the theory to explain and predict marital
outcomes. These efforts assume that declines in marital satisfaction and the occurrence of
separation or divorce reflect failures to recover from crises. In general, couples
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
56
experiencing more stressful events should be more vulnerable to negative marital
outcomes, and this effect should be moderated by the couples levels of resources and the
couple’s definition of events.
In recent year’s scholars have paid more attention to marital satisfaction (Castro-
Martin & Pampase, 1989). The rational for studying marital satisfaction stems from its
centrality in individual and family well being (Stack & Eshleman, 1998), from the
benefits that occur in society when strong marriages are formed and maintained, and from
the need to develop interventions for marital distress and divorce as they have become
more prevalent (Castro-Martin & Bumpass, 1989).
According to the 1998 U.S. Bureau of the Census, the American divorce rate has
declined for the eighth straight year, perhaps as a result of the increase in the age at first
marriage. About half of first marriages are projected to end in permanent separation or
divorce and the level of satisfaction in intact, first marriages has declined since the mid-
1970’s (National Marriage Project, 1999, Rogers & Amato, 1997). Recently researchers
have also argued that marital satisfaction probably does not follow a U-shaped curve over
the marital career, as was once believed, but instead drops significantly over the first 10
years of marriage on average, and then drops more gradually in the ensuing decades
(Amato & Booth, 1997; Glenn, 1998; Rollins & Feldman, 1970; Vaillant & Vaillant,
1993). Other recent findings related to marital satisfaction include studies on affect, and
physiology. Researchers (Fincham & Beach, 1999) have found that considering an
affective dimension of marital interaction helps to account for the variability in the
quality of marriage. Some studies show that negative affect is detrimental for marriage,
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
57
whereas others show that it promotes marital quality or is unrelated (Fincham &Beach,
1999). Findings also show that martially satisfied couples demonstrated more likeness in
physiological systems than martially dissatisfied couples (Thomsen & Gilbert, 1998).
Marital conflict, especially among newlyweds, has been found to increase pituitary and
adrenal hormones as levels of hostility increase (Malarkey, Kiecolt-Glaser, Pearl, &
Glaser, 1994). These physiological findings are important because they create a link
between marital functioning and physical well-being.
There are many factors that have been found to affect marital satisfaction. Some
of the factors are very similar to those expressed by couples as hindrances to couple
activity participation. Of specific interest and reoccurrence in the literature are violence,
children, income, and stress.
Violence
Although physical violence is difficult to directly observe, studies are now being
conducted on interaction styles in marriages and their relationship to violence. Findings
have shown that when compared with distressed couples that are not violent, the
interactions of distressed violent couples are marked by higher levels of negative
reciprocation, anger and contempt (Cordova, Jacobson, Gottman, & Rushe, 1993). These
findings clarify how disagreements can escalate in violent marriages, and they confirm
that behavioral differences between distressed and non-distressed couples can exist even
when physical violence does not. They also show that when there is violence there is less
marital satisfaction, but that the victim of the abuse will only admit they are dissatisfied
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
58
when they are certain their spouse cannot find out what they have reported. Out of fear
they often lie.
Children
Children have an interesting effect on marriages. Belsky (1990) and Waite and
Lillard (1991), both found that children increase the stability of marriage, at least when
they are relatively young, while decreasing its quality. Perhaps this is because couples try
to increase stability in the marriage for the children that have recently been added to the
relationship. It has been found that couples satisfaction levels change significantly
between the last trimester of pregnancy through several months or a few years
postpartum (Stack & Eshelman, 1998). Belsky & Rovine (1990) reported that couples do
not change much on important variables such as ethics, morals and religious beliefs, over
the transition to parenthood, and demonstrated how the ways in which couples decided to
work through the addition of children in their relationship, could be predicted from
demographic and personality data (p.12). In a study done by Cox, Paley, Burchinal, and
Payne (1999), they found that declines in marital quality and increases in negative
interaction were predicted by symptoms of depression, child gender, and whether the
pregnancy was planned. So children’s affect is different with every couple, but it usually
puts them in a position where although they want to participate in more activities together
they are unable to because children (especially when they are very young) must be tended
to. This leaves couples feeling that the quality of their marriages have gone down because
they are not as active as they once were.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
59
Income
The effects of income on marriage depend greatly on the source of income.
Husband’s income and husband’s employment have positive effects on marital stability
and satisfaction, whereas wives income and employment have the opposite effect
(Greenstein, 1990). Research (Greenstein, 1990; Markman, 1981) also suggests that the
absolute income of a couple may matter less to the marriage than the amount of stable
financial resources from which a couple can access. The only exception has been found
when the couple is receiving public assistance, which is a different type of stable income.
This has the opposite affect, predicting slight declines in marital satisfaction and stability
across time (Hannan et al., 1977).
Stress
The presence of stress predicts lower marital stability and less marital satisfaction
over time. One exception to this trend is the transition to parenthood. It has been found
that the experience of becoming a parent can bring a great deal of stress and lead to
declines in marital satisfaction (Belsky, 1985; Belsky & Pensky, 1988; Hoffman &
Manis, 1978). The interesting finding about parenting and the stress it brings to couples is
that although it leads to decreased marital satisfaction, it has been found to lead to
increased marital stability (Belsky, 1990; Waite & Lilliard, 1991). Stressful events can
account for variations in marital quality and stability over time. Several studies have
shown that the behaviors spouse’s exchange are affected by the stress couples encounter
(Aubry, Tefft, & Kingsbury, 1990; Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethington, 1989;
Halford, Gravestock, Lowe, & Scheldt, 1992; Repetti, 1989). This might mean that a
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
60
husbands long day at work affects his patience with his wife, and a wife’s frustrating day
with the children leads to her having a short fuse with her husband. Circumstances
outside the couple’s locus of control can affect adaptation between spouses, which can
account for decreased satisfaction. The backgrounds and traits that spouses bring to the
marriage can also bring stress and affect the adaptive processes. Things such as
experiences in childhood in the family of origin, level of education, and personality have
all been found to possibly bring added stress to a couples relationship and are directly
associated with the satisfaction of marital interactions (Markman, 1981).
Stressful events challenge a couple’s ability to adapt. Couples must then find a
way to adapt to the variety of stressful events and circumstances that they encounter. The
ability of a couple to adapt depends on the degree of stress they experience and the
vulnerabilities that each spouse brings to the marriage. Couples’ who gather experiences
with adaptive processes to deal with stress gradually influence their perceptions of their
marital satisfaction, which in turn contributes to the stability of the marriage. Couples
with ineffective adaptive processes who must cope with stressful events and have many
long lasting vulnerabilities, can experience declining marital satisfaction, separation, or
divorce.
Measuring Marital Satisfaction
Researchers have taken steps in trying to create the ideal way to study and
measure marital satisfaction. There have been four important developments in
measurement. One, there has been a realization that a satisfied marriage is not simply one
that is without dissatisfaction (Halford, Kelly, & Markman, 1997). Two, positive and
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
61
negative evaluations of marriage can be conceptualized and measured as separate,
although related dimensions (Fincham, Beach, & Kemp-Fincham, 1997). Three,
satisfaction needs to be conceptualized not just as a judgment made by spouses at one
point in time but as trajectory that reflects fluctuation in marital evaluations over time
(Karney & Bradbury, 1995). The advantages to this third development, is that it
encourages repetitive, longitudinal studies on marriage. Fourth, a social-cognitive
perspective has been applied to the conceptualization of marital satisfaction (Fazio,
1995). Applying this new perspective brings to light the possibility that spouses who’s
marital satisfaction is accessible should report more stable satisfaction over time, relative
to spouses whose satisfaction is less accessible (Fincham, 1987).
With so many people getting married and divorced there is good reason to
continue to examine marital satisfaction. With so many variables affecting satisfaction it
is hard to look at all of them in one study. It does seem logical that one of those variables
that can help determine or even predict marital satisfaction is a couples activity patterns.
What do couples do together? How often do they engage in the activities, and how does
that affect their marital satisfaction?
Activity Patterns
Definitions of activities and leisure, along with our understanding and make up of
families have changed over time. One concept concerning activity patterns, leisure, and
marital satisfaction however, has stayed fairly constant: benefits come for couples that do
things together. Couples who engage in joint activity participation on a regular basis with
their spouse report higher levels of marital satisfaction, communication that is more
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
62
successful, and better problem solving skills in their relationship (Baldwin, Ellis &
Baldwin 1999; Holman & Jaquart, 1988; Orthner & Mancini, 1991).
Great benefits come from participating in activities together (Orthner & Mancini,
1990). Activity participation has always been very important to individuals and family.
Couple leisure activities are integral to promoting couple bonds. Research has also shown
that couple leisure activities are positively related to couple stability, couple satisfaction
and couple interaction (Orthner & Mancini 1990). Recreation and companionship are
related to marital quality. Satisfaction with leisure activities appears to correlate with
marital and family satisfaction (Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Orthner & Mancini 1991).
Society has long since believed in the need for leisure (Russell, 1999). The idea of
contemplation is commonly referred to as classical leisure: this ancient form of leisure
encompassed activities that involved the pursuit of truth and self-understanding, an act of
contemplation full of searching, examining and reflection (Dare, Walton, & Coe, 1998).
In modern society, classical leisure is not as popular as it used to be. Work has
taken over many spheres of life, and is what we are taught to take seriously, where leisure
time is empty time. We now consider leisure as the time we have which is not bound by
obligations (Robinson & Godbey, 1997). Modern leisure is now most commonly defined
as either activities done in our free time, a state of mind, or an activity. This concept is
completely opposite from the classical theory on leisure (Dare et al., 1998)
Not only has our definition of leisure changed but our definitions of families,
roles, and marital relationships have also taken on new definitions. The essence of family
life today can be described as changing and diverse. The changes are hard to see from
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
63
day to day, but over the decades they are more apparent. Couples are more likely to live
together before getting married. Children are coming later and divorce separates almost
half of all marriages. Parenting has become less of a focus for today’s families and the
number of single parent families has dramatically increased (Orthner, 1998). More
women are in the work force and couples are spending less time engaged in activities
together. Individual responsibilities as they relate to gender roles and families have also
changed. Fathers are not the only working parent. Mothers have also entered the work
force. Also where housework and children where always known as the women’s job, stay
at home fathers now do the wash and drive carpool.
Prior to the 20
th
century, family bonding was facilitated through shared family
work activities and other family roles. Families were held together by strong external
constraints and their complementary roles, particularly between husbands and wives
(Larson, Gillman, & Richards, 1997). This was a pre-industrial time when men and
women had quite different patterns of socialization and in which their complementary
roles were vital to individual and family success. With industrialization, family and
gender roles became more interchangeable. Individual families became more dependent
for their success on the ability of husbands and wives to reconcile their different needs
and interests, rather than their abilities to submerge their individual needs and interests in
favor of larger family goals (Larson et al., 1997). Families were not looking to separate
work and leisure, instead, leisure and work where one in the same as families worked
together to accomplish the jobs that were necessary day to day.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
64
Industrialization also brought change to families. Fathers have left home for the
work place and although some mothers still stay at home, many women are also in the
work force. Family members engage in many activities individually instead of with the
rest of the family. Recreation is no longer part of everyday activity, but instead is done
when there is time, with those who are interested. Recreation is now something that
individuals participate in when their work is done.
Benefits of Shared Activities
Marital strengths have demonstrated links to participation in shared activities.
These include the meeting of relational needs, developing problem-solving skills,
building parent child bonds, and improving social support. Spending time together,
learning new activities and solving problems in less threatening environments can
particularly help couples practice skills that can be transferred back into the day to day
life of the family and marital relationship. The area of potential family strength that has
received the most attention is the meeting of relational needs that otherwise are not
always met. Shared recreation experiences are related to higher marital satisfaction,
improved marital commitment and even lower rates of divorce. Couples who are happy to
share activities are not looking for ways out of their relationship (Holman & Jaquart,
1998). Recreation could then be the key to successful marriages today. Time spent in
separate, independent activities that separate marital partners, have been found to hinder
couple strengths (Holman & Jaquart, 1988; Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Orthner &
Mancini, 1991; Smith et al., 1988). Shared activities can also impact couple problem
solving. Healthy problem solving requires open communication and practice in being
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
65
flexible and adaptable. Both of these skills are promoted in active shared experiences.
These help couples practice the skills they can apply to tougher tests of their relationship
(Gillis & Gass, 1993).
Couple Activity Patterns
Couples leisure has been classified into activity patterns. Activity patterns refer to
the individual participating in the activity and their level of interaction during the
experience (Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Orthner & Mancini, 1991). This variable can be
divided into three dimensions, individual, parallel, and joint. Individual leisure refers to
leisure that is done without one’s spouse. It is participated in either totally alone, or with
other people, other than one’s spouse. Engagements in individual pursuits and interaction
with others to the exclusion of one’s spouse were good predictors of global marital
distress, and the absence of marital satisfaction (Smith, Snyder, & Monsma, 1988;
Orthner & Mancini, 1991). Holman & Jaquart (1988), and Orthner & Mancini (1990),
also suggest that a negative relationship exists between individual leisure and marital
satisfaction for both husbands and wives.
Although it has been found that couples who participate in individual activities
experience lower levels of marital satisfaction (Hill, 1988; Holman & Jaquart, 1988;
Locke, 1951; Orthner, 1975; Reissman, Aron, & Bergen, 1993; Smith, Snyder, Trull, &
Monsma, 1988), it has also been found that participation in shared activities, or
commitment to the same activities, was not essential to marital satisfaction if the spouses
perceived that their partners supported their activity choices. When one spouse is
committed to an activity and the other is not, significant support from that individual’s
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
66
spouse helps affirm the role of the spouse and promote marital satisfaction (Baldwin &
Ellis, 1998). This support could be expressed in many different ways, such as holding
conversations about the spouse’s participation and performance in the activity, arranging
schedules to accommodate watching their spouse participate in the activity, or giving
equipment related to the activity for gifts (Baldwin & Ellis, 1998; McCall & Simmons,
1978).
Studies suggest that support in the pursuit of a personally meaningful goal or
behavior plays an important role in maintaining high levels of well being (Brunstein,
Dangelmayer, & Schultheiss, 1996; Ruehlman & Wolchik, 1988). As perceived support
increases, marital satisfaction also increases, and it has been found that those who
participate in supported independent recreation activities reported higher marital
satisfaction than those who participated in fully independent activities (Baldwin & Ellis,
1998; Acitelli, & Antonucci, 1994; Cutrona, 1996; Jaccard, Wan, & Ramey, 1996; Julien,
& Markman, 1991). These findings are important because couples do not always enjoy
the same types of activities. Couples who have different interests and participate in
individual activities without their spouse will not necessarily experience declines in their
marital satisfaction as long as there is significant support from their partner concerning
the individual activity. Support concerning individual activity participation plays a large
role in increasing marital satisfaction (Baldwin & Ellis, 1998).
Parallel leisure refers to individual activities in a group context, taking place when
two people are engaging in the same activity. The activity calls for little or no
communication or interaction, such as watching a movie, or television. Leisure activities
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
67
such as these seem to represent a false front, suggesting togetherness when it does not
necessarily exist. Just because a couple is sitting on the same couch watching the same
movie doesn’t mean that their time together is providing the maximum benefit. In these
situations there is usually little communication, interaction, or problem solving. Leisure
activities that involve little or no communication provide little benefit to couples and may
actually hurt the relationship (Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Orthner & Mancini, 1991).
The third leisure category is joint leisure. Joint leisure describes activities in
which couples participate together with high levels of interaction. These types of
activities are conducive to optimal communication and alternative role patterning. It has
been found that couples that share leisure time together in joint activities tend to be much
more satisfied with their marriages (Baldwin, Ellis & Baldwin 1999; Holman & Jaquart,
1988; Orthner & Mancini, 1991). Spousal understanding increases with greater amounts
of shared leisure time (Orthner & Mancini, 1980). Findings show that no significant
difference has been found between couple’s who participate in joint recreation together
and couple’s who did not, but were highly supportive of each other (Baldwin, & Ellis,
1998). For example, a husband might really enjoy running in races while his wife dislikes
running but comes and watches him run every race. Even though she doesn’t actually run,
this doesn’t necessarily hurt their relationship because she supports his individual activity
and participates in a different way. Joint activities may however, cause conflict when the
couple is not used to being together often. This occurs when the couple is not used to
spending time together and is forced to communicate and interact. Although some levels
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
68
of conflict are good in a relationship, the conflict that joint activities can cause a couple
might deter them from further joint leisure interactions (Orthner & Mancini, 1980).
Leisure Constraints and Barriers
There are many different reasons why couples do or do not participate in leisure
activities together. These different constraints and barriers have different effects on
couples depending on what stage of life they are in and their willingness to find the time
in their busy schedules to actively engage in activities with their spouses.
Spouse employment is one variable found to effect leisure. Wives and mothers
who are employed have less available time to spend participating in leisure (Holman &
Epperson, 1984). As a result, employed wives are more likely to have husbands who
enacted the activity planning in the spousal relationship. The employment of wives
resulted in a decline in recreation involving social relationships. A woman’s employment
however, does not effect her involvement in intra-family and commercial recreational
activities (Rollins & White, 1998). This suggests that although working wives do not
have time for “girl’s night out”, they still do find time to participate with their spouse in
activities. Leisure time together comes at the expense of a great deal of stress. Wives and
mothers are juggling work, family responsibilities and trying to find time to spend with
their significant other (Groves, 1997; Hill, 1988).
Socioeconomic status also effects couples activity time together. Financial well-
being accounts for a very small portion of the variance in couple activity choices,
especially when other factors are included simultaneously. Socioeconomic status does
however have a large effect on the types of activities that might be chosen. Couples with
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
69
little money to spend on leisure feel they are limited as far as the activities they can
participate in. Learning a new skill or investing in a new hobby such as mountain biking,
golf, tennis, or even going out to dinner can cost a great deal of money, funds a couple
might not have. Couples with little extra money have to be more creative in their leisure
planning, seeking out inexpensive activities. The extra effort can become frustrating and
often leaves the couple feeling it is more trouble than it is worth (Holman & Epperson,
1984).
The leisure behaviors that an individual’s parental family enacted also affect
current family leisure choices. It has been found that about half of a person’s favorite
current activities were begun in the family of orientation (Holman & Epperson, 1984).
Current family type appears to make some difference.
Location of relatives has also been found to have some impact on family
recreation (Holman & Epperson 1984). Those couples with relatives in close proximity
spend more leisure time together. One reason for this could be because there are other
people planning and facilitating events and activities, which takes pressure off the couple.
And there are people close by to watch children so the couple can do more together.
Amount of leisure time is generally seen in terms of with whom the individual or
couple spends it or what the individual or couple does during the leisure time. This means
that when you look at what a couple does together, do they have the time to go away for a
long weekend, or just enough time to eat breakfast together in the morning, or do the
dishes together? The effect that a specific activity form or activity pattern has on a
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
70
marriage or a couple is dependent on the amount of time given to that activity form or
pattern (Holman & Epperson, 1984).
The most frequently used variable to explain couples activity patterns and
satisfaction is stage of family life cycle. Companions have different amounts of time for,
and interest in, individual and couple activities at different life cycle stages. When a
husband and wife are raising their children, there is less time for couple activities
especially for the women whose primary responsibility could be taking care of the
children. The portion of time spent in couple activities is more important to the wives’
marital satisfaction then it is to the husbands (Holman & Jaquart, 1998), yet men have
more time for leisure pursuits. Family life cycle stage also appears to affect the type of
activities couples choose (Holman & Epperson, 1984). For example, when children are
present they often participate in activities with the parents. Therefore activities might
include trips to “Chuck-E-Cheese for pizza when the couple would rather be at nice
restaurant having steak. When children are older or have left the home, couples don’t
have to worry about being home or getting babysitters and can be gone longer, engaged
in activities they prefer. The total number of activities participated in by a spouse is
unrelated to either partner’s marital satisfaction. The total number of activities makes a
difference only when there is a great discrepancy between spouses (Holman & Jaquart,
1988).
Family life cycle may also impact leisure barriers, but those barriers change over
the life of a family. More home centered activities occur when mothers are not employed
outside of the home and when a child was a preschooler (Larsen et al., 1997). Children
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
71
have an interesting effect on marital satisfaction concerning activity patterns together.
They seem to have a negative impact on marital satisfaction but they increase marital
stability (Hill, 1988; Orthner & Mancini 1991). The presence of a preschool child
significantly depressed the amount of time husbands and wives spent together in
activities. Children can contribute to marital dissolution in situations where the spouses
have less shared leisure time. Couples with children tend to choose activities that will be
most enjoyed by the children rather than themselves or their spouses. This can lead to
dissatisfaction with couple activity patterns (Hill, 1988; Orthner & Mancini 1991).
Work issues can also be considered barriers to shared activities. Husbands
employment has a more pronounced effect on time spent with children than does wives
employment, and parents in single earner families are more likely to spend time with
children than those in a dual earner family (Huston & Burgess, 1979). Women’s
involvement in work inside and outside of the home occurs at the expense of time with
their spouse (Orthner & Mancini, 1991).
Different gender role attitudes also create barriers to couple activity participation
and marital satisfaction. Men and women view leisure differently, especially in a family
setting where children are present. Men are more likely than women to view leisure as an
opportunity for attachment and affiliation. Couple leisure for fathers is seen as relaxation,
diversion and an opportunity for self-expression.
Regardless of their employment status, most mothers are still viewed as holding
primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children and family. The gender
approach to leisure constraints research has shown that women have less time for couple
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
72
leisure because they are more constrained than men with regard to household obligations
and family commitments (Henderson, 1995; Jackson, 1985; Searle & Horna, 1989), and
that these constraints are also related to family life cycle (Jackson & Henderson, 1995,
Witt & Goodale, 1981). As a result, the home and family realm are less clearly a context
of leisure, since they are often putting the needs of others before their own. Mothers often
wonder if they ever experience leisure. They feel less free; less intrinsically motivated
and experience less enjoyment than their husbands during couple, home, and family
leisure activities (Larson, Gillman, & Richards, 1997; Smith, Snyder & Monsma, 1988).
The leisure constraints for women increase over the life cycle, while for men
these expectations are much lower and more constant. Although men also experience
feelings of increased stress over time, it has less to do with family expectations. Men
have more liberty to pursue a career, interests outside the home, or personal interests
within the home than do women (Witt & Goodale, 1981). When time-budget analysis are
used to measure activity participation, married women are found to have significantly
less activity time than married men (Shaw, 1985). The problem of not having enough free
time seems to increase during the entire child-rearing period, and falls off sharply as a
barrier once children have left the home. Kelly (1975) has discussed the reduced
flexibility of time during the parenthood stage. Family responsibilities increase and
become less flexible for women, and responsibilities within the home fall on the women
as a result of child rearing. Kelly (1974) also found that having children at home raised
the amount of role-related activities.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
73
Typologies of Constraints
A constraint may be defined “as any factor which intervenes between the
preference for an activity and participation in it” (Henderson, Bialeschki, Shaw &
Freysinger, 1989, p. 117). The above-mentioned barriers and constraints are just the
beginning of an ever-increasing list of constraints that hinder couples opportunities to
participate in activities together.
Intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints to positive couple leisure
experiences exist (Orthner & Mancini, 1991). Intrapersonal constraints involve internal
states and are said to interact with leisure preferences, and are considered unstable and
amenable to change (Orthner & Mancini, 1991). These factors include stress, depression,
anxiety, religiosity, kin and non-kin reference group attitudes, socialization influences,
sense of competence, and personal evaluations of the appropriateness and availability of
leisure activities (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997; Orthner & Mancini, 1991).
Interpersonal constraints may be the products of individual barriers that people
bring into the marriage relationship, or the products of the interaction between spouses.
These include aspects of the marriage relationship, such as sex role attitudes, general
quality of the relationship, spousal conflict, decision-making abilities and power in the
marital relationship. This constraint also includes factors related to the parent-child
relationships, and interactions with friends, coworkers and neighbors (Larson, Gillman, &
Richards, 1997; Mannell & Kleiber, 1997; Orthner & Mancini, 1991; Smith, Snyder &
Monsma, 1988).
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
74
Structural constraints include factors such as lack of opportunities or the cost of
activities that result from external conditions in the environment. They could be related to
paid and unpaid work, families and the ideal of care, perceived lack of entitlement to
leisure, gender defined personality traits, socioeconomic status, and health and safety
concerns. They might include family life cycle stage, financial resources, season, climate,
the nature of work time, availability of activity opportunities, and reference group
attitudes regarding activity appropriateness (Holman & Epperson, 1984; Mannell &
Kleiber, 1997; Orthner & Mancini, 1991).
Henderson et al. (1988) also touched on a fourth alternative type of constraint,
labeled antecedent, and defined it as “attitudes associated with an a priori recreation
situation such as personal capacities, personalities, socialization factors, interests, etc.”
(p. 70). This alternative constraint seems as though it could be one of the most important,
touching on how “comfortable” an individual might feel with themselves, their abilities,
and also based on their interests and how well they have or have not done in certain
activities in the past.
Overcoming Leisure Constraints
After discussing so many reasons why couples don’t participate in activities
together it seems there is not a solution. Despite the many constraints to leisure couples
face, especially as they progress through the life cycle (Jackson, 1985; Jackson &
Henderson, 1995; Searle & Horna, 1989), there are ways to overcome the constraints.
Two proposed mechanisms to overcoming constraints are “constraint negotiation” and
“recreation substitutability” (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). “Constraint negotiation refers to
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
75
the strategies people use to avoid or reduce the impact of the constraints and barriers to
activity participation and enjoyment” (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997, p. 341). Recreation
substitutability “explains a narrower range of constraint coping behavior and deals with
how people stay active and continue to meet their activity needs by choosing a new
activity or setting when a preferred activity is no longer possible” (Mannell & Kleiber,
1997, p. 341).
Negotiating Constraints. Different constraints affect people in different ways.
Couples might use constraints negotiation when interpersonal and structural constraints
hinder them from participating, or make participation difficult. Jackson, Crawford and
Godbey (1993), have addressed three strategies to negotiate constraints. Cognitive
strategies include cognitive dissonancy reduction, where activity alternatives are
devalued and no longer appeal to the participant. Behavioral strategies include modifying
leisure and changing other aspects of one’s lifestyle. Time management strategies could
include controlling daily routines, sharing responsibilities with other family members,
such as one’s spouse, and choosing alternative activities that require less time (Mannell &
Kleiber, 1997). A couple’s ability to negotiate constraints can allow more time for joint
activities, and in return bring added stability and satisfaction to the marriage.
Recreation Substitutability. Recreation substitutability takes place when the
participant substitutes an entirely new or adapted activity for the old activity, which they
can no longer participate in. Predicting what activities individuals or couples will choose
as substitutions is difficult because each participant is looking to fulfill different needs
(Brunson & Shelby, 1993; Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). Iso-Ahola (1986) argued, “the
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
76
greater a person’s feeling of choice or freedom in selecting a new activity, the greater his
or her willingness to substitute” (p.369). For couples this way of negotiation might cause
conflict as each spouse is looking for an activity that provides different things, yet they
are trying to participate in shared activity experiences.
Rituals
Another tool couples can use to help overcome barriers and constraints to joint
activity participation are by establishing rituals together. Rituals are highly valued
repetitions of symbolic social activities that contribute significantly to the establishment
and preservation of a couple’s collective sense of itself (Bossard & Boll, 1950; Pett,
Lang, & Gander, 1997; Wolin & Bennett, 1984). As powerful organizers of behavior,
rituals provide the couple with a sense of stability and identity, serving as a means of
learning about culture and socialization both within and outside the relationship system
(Schuck & Bucy, 1997). Ritual characteristics include: role assignment, affect, regularity,
expectation of attendance, ability to plan and execute, and symbolic significance (Fiese,
1996). Rituals provide a better understanding of the structure and meaning of a
relationship system as well as reveal the extent a couple’s ritual life is related to overall
cohesion and satisfaction in the household (Haines, 1998).
According to Doherty (1997), for activities to be rituals they must be planned,
coordinated, and meaningful. They can be classified into three categories: connection
rituals, love rituals, and community rituals. Connection rituals serve as everyday
opportunities for couples to bond and to become involved. Love rituals focus on one-to-
one intimacy that makes family members feel special. Community rituals are an
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
77
opportunity for couples to connect with a wider social network from which they both give
and gain support. Good rituals can keep couples from drifting farther apart while they
work on their problems (Doherty 1997). Rituals are symbolic of communication that
brings satisfaction to couples, and are experiences acted out in a systematic fashion over
time (Wolin & Bennett, 1984). Through rituals, couple identification is confirmed,
feelings of belonging are fostered, and couple roles are defined (Baxter & Clark, 1996;
Bennett et al., 1988; Fiese, 1992; Gruber & McNinch, 1992; Rubin, 1989; Shuck & Bucy
1997, Wolin et al., 1997). Rituals mean something different to each individual in the
relationship system; similarly, different couples have distinct ritual styles. Rituals
promote stability and cohesion within a relationship unit. According to Doherty (1997),
consistency is at the heart of couple rituals. Rituals can provide a couple with identity,
perspectives, and a tool for dealing with stress and disruption in the relationship system.
In a world of transition, rituals serve to anchor the couple as they contribute to the
establishment and preservation of a “couple identity’ (Baxter, & Clark, 1996; Bennett et
al., 1988; Fiese, 1992; Pett et.al., 1997). Symbolic intra-family communication channels
built by rituals foster perceptions of belonging, satisfaction, and self-esteem as this
patternistic form of communication helps to establish and preserve the couple’s collective
sense of itself (Rubin, 1989). Members have the opportunity to confirm their
identification with each other, create feelings of belonging, delineate boundaries, and
define roles within families (Bennett et al., 1988; Fiese, 1992; Gruber, & McNinch, 1992;
Shuck, & Bucy, 1997; Wolin et al., 1980). The special meaning and repetitive nature of
rituals have a bonding effect that stabilizes and preserves a collective sense of family
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
78
identity through the generations. Couple rituals appear to be an affirmation of bonds that
serve to enforce connections between a couple, thus strengthening the relationship
system, giving it continuity into the future, particularly during times of tension, and
change (Pett et al., 1992).
Core/Balance Marital Activities
It is important to look at the couple activity patterns and not just the specific
activity. Iso-Ahola (1984) argued that stability and novelty in leisure behavior could be
pursued within or between leisure activities. Zabriskie (2000) suggests the ideas of Core
and Balance as two basic patterns of activities that demonstrate different characteristics in
order to meet the needs of both stability and change, which can lead to different outcomes
of couple cohesion, adaptability, and satisfaction.
Core activities are relatively accessible, usually home/neighborhood-based
activities that couples do. They are easier to facilitate and participate in, require little
planning and resources, and could be spontaneous and informal. They are consistent,
safe, positive, and provide a context in which to foster relationships (Zabriskie, 2000).
They are usually non-threatening due to their regularity and familiar environments.
Couples participating in core activities can safely explore boundaries, clarify
couple/family roles and rules, and practice ways to enforce them. Spouses can be
consoled, rewarded, refreshed and rejuvenated through core activities. Daily happenings
are addressed and feelings and emotions can be expressed during involvement in core
activities.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
79
Household work is a major part of core activities. Although this can change over
the course of the life cycle, it is important to include work and family/household
maintenance in core activities. Often, couples interaction during the day comes when the
two of them are doing dishes together, laundry or cleaning house. Although these are not
necessarily the number one choice of activity for the couple, they are things that have to
be done, and couples may decide that they are much more enjoyable done together than
done individually. Working side by side can be very powerful in developing
relationships, fostering communication, and increasing couple understanding of one
another. Not recognizing work as a core activity may leave much of a couple’s time spent
together, unaccounted for. Regular personal interaction based on shared experiences
enhances the knowledge of co-participants and, thus, fosters increased personal
relatedness and feelings of closeness and cohesion (Zabriskie, 2000).
Balance activities are less common, less frequent, and provide novel experiences.
These activities require greater investment of resources like effort, and time, and are
usually not home based. They probably require more planning and are therefore less
spontaneous and more formalized (Zabriskie, 2000). Although they usually occur less
frequently, they sometimes take place for a longer duration of time than core activities,
and can be more out-of-the ordinary. Couples negotiate and adapt to new input,
experiences, and challenges, facilitate the development of adaptive skills, and the ability
to learn and change. Balance activities require couples to be exposed to new and
unexpected stimuli from the outside environment, which provides the input and challenge
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
80
necessary for couples to learn and progress as an evolving and developing relationship
system (Zabriskie, 2000).
Although the concepts of core and balance have been examined in regards to
families (Zabriskie, 1999), exploring the core and balance connection with couples could
possible shed some light and add strength to the idea that couple activity patterns and
martial satisfaction are connected.
Summary
Strong couples are basis for strong families, and strong families contribute to strong
societies. Using the systems theory gives us a foundation from which to study families
and their activity patterns. Previous research has shown that couples that participate in
joint activities will experience more satisfaction with their marriages and increased
spousal understanding (Baldwin, Ellis & Baldwin 1999; Holman & Jaquart, 1988;
Orthner & Mancini, 1991). Despite the fact that joint activities benefit couples, finding
time to participate is very difficult amongst all of the interpersonal, intrapersonal, and
structural constraints (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997; Orthner & Mancini, 1991) that they are
faced with, especially over the course of the life cycle (Henderson, 1995; Jackson, 1985;
Searle & Horna, 1989). Although not all constraints can be eliminated or overcome,
couples that are willing to use negotiation strategies and recreation substitutability to deal
with the constraints, have a better chance of finding ways to participate in joint activity
patterns, which could possibly lead to increased marital satisfaction.
It is important to know not only how much time couples spend together, but if the
activities themselves make a difference regarding marital satisfaction. Are couples that
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
81
spend time cleaning the house together (core) as satisfied as those who spend time rock
climbing once a month (balance)? Must both types of activities be present in order to
create the greatest level of marital satisfaction, and if core is weak, does balance suffer
and vice versa? Therefore the purpose of this study is to evaluate couples activity
patterns. The study aims to look at the activities couples share, how frequently they
participate, how satisfied they are with their participation, and if there is any connection
between the answers to the above questions and couples marital satisfaction.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
82
Chapter 3
Methodology
The problem of this study is to investigate the correlations that might exist
between marital satisfaction and couple activity patterns. The methodologies of this study
are presented in the following organizational pieces: (a) selection of subjects; (b)
instrumentation; (c) design of the study; (d) data collection procedures; (e) treatment of
data.
Selection of Subjects
Volunteer subjects will be sought throughout the Provo/Orem, Utah area. A
convenience sample of 40 married couples will provide data for the study. They will be
approached through referrals and door-to-door solicitation as necessary. First, subjects
will be gathered from throughout Utah County utilizing a snowball technique. They will
be referred first by acquaintances in traditional Latter-day Saint wards. Acquaintances of
the investigator will not participate in the study, but the acquaintances will provide
referrals. Approximately four acquaintances of the investigator will provide four referral
couples each that will in turn be asked to provide two additional referral couples. Besides
the snowball technique, a second effort to gather subjects will be made through door-to-
door solicitations at Brigham Young University married student housing as necessary to
complete data collection.
The major criteria for subject selection are married couples that have been
married for at least two years to the same individual. They will include 40 married
couples of all different ages and in different stages of the family life cycle. Children are
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
83
not a requirement. Race and religion will not effect subject selection, nor will occupation
or income.
These criteria were selected to give the study an external validity factor that
would allow the results to be generalized to an overall understanding of couples
throughout the course of the life cycle stages.
Instrumentation
The research questionnaire called the Marital Activity Profile or MAP is a
modified version of the Family Leisure Activity Profile (FLAP) (Zabriskie, 1999). The
FLAP has been modified to the MAP in order to better suit the couples that it will be
administered to. In creating the MAP, we have taken into consideration important new
concepts and ideas that pertain specifically to couples. The idea of work is especially
important as we look at the activities in which couples spend time engaged in together.
Two other important concepts that have been added are the idea of communication, and
intimacy, both aspects of a couples relationship system that were not included in the
original FLAP (Zabriskie, 1999) created for families.
Our idea is that the majority of a couple’s time together is spent engaged in
work/household maintenance. Neglecting to acknowledge this time together would leave
major holes in accounting for how couples spend their time. This can especially be true as
couples make their way through the life cycle, children, and the other responsibilities that
demand a couple’s time. As this occurs, often the only time couples have with each other
takes place while cooking, or cleaning, or doing routine household maintenance. We have
taken into account the findings concerning increased satisfaction that come to couples as
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
84
they engage in joint activities opposed to individual (Holman & Epperson, 1984), and the
benefits that ritualizing activities can bring to a relationship system (Doherty, 1997;
Wollin & Bennett, 1984) and have developed questions based around the core and
balance (Zabriskie, 1999) activities that couples participate in.
The questionnaire asks respondents to comment on activities done with their
spouse, how often the activities are engaged in, and how satisfied the spouse is with the
amount of participation in each activity (Zabriskie, 20000). Activities are divided into
domains, half core and half balance (Zabriskie, 1999). The initial questions are followed
by a satisfaction with Life Scale (SFWL), which has been modified from the Satisfaction
With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985). A small set of demographic
questions such as gender, age, ethnicity, and number of children will also be utilized for
reliability.
Design of the Study
Subjects will be contacted through referrals and if necessary, door-to-door
solicitation. Regardless of how subjects are obtained, all subjects will be administered the
Marital Activity Profile (MAP). The researcher will administer the questionnaires and
subjects will be asked to complete them in one week without any discussion with their
spouse concerning their responses. Surveys will be collected on a predetermined day and
time.
Data Collection Procedures
The following procedures will be followed during data collection. The
investigator has rewritten the FLAP (Zabriskie, 1999), creating an activity profile suitable
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
85
for married couples (MAP). Instructions will be given for those providing referrals to
refer couples that are from a variety of points in the life cycle. Using the referrals the
investigator will identify those eligible, interested subjects who meet the requirements for
the study. Once contacted, subjects will be administered a consent form. The form
explains the risk as well as the benefits, how the information will be used and contact
numbers. The consent form will also inform them that their answers will be kept
completely anonymous and will only be used for this study.
The surveys will be coded on a master list in order to keep track of surveys,
survey completion and survey collection.
Surveys will then be hand delivered to the subjects who have qualified. The
surveys will be dropped off at their homes and will be accompanied by an envelope for
them to place their completed surveys in. A letter explaining the problem and purpose of
the study as well as instructions for completing the survey will also accompany the
surveys. The letter will also ask for timely completion of the survey and will include the
pick up date on which finished surveys will be collected. The surveys will then be left
with the participants. Five days after the surveys are dropped off, a reminder phone call
will be made to remind subjects of their pick up date, schedule a pick up time, and
answer any questions subjects might have. One week later the investigator will return to
pick up the completed surveys. All the surveys will be collected and in the event that
enough surveys are not completed, door-to-door solicitation will take place if necessary
to collect the remaining number of surveys needed.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
86
Treatment of Data
Scores for the MAP will be calculated by multiplying the frequency and duration
of participation in each category. The summing of the core categories will provide a core
couple index and the same will be done with the balance categories. The two indices will
them be summed to create a total couple activity involvement index (Zabriskie, 2000).
The couple leisure satisfaction score will be calculated by averaging the satisfaction with
participation with their spouses across the different categories (Zabriskie, 2000). Data
will also be entered into a database using SPSS that will help to distinguish correlations
that might exist.
Data will be analyzed appropriately, coded, and checked for data entry errors.
Findings will be analyzed for descriptive statistics.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
87
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Water, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 628-640.
Aubry, T., Tefft, B., & Kingsbury, N. (1990). Behavioral and psychological
consequences of unemployment in blue-collar couples. Journal of Community
Psychology: 18, 99-109.
Baldwin, J. H., Ellis G. D., & Baldwin, B. (1999). Marital satisfaction: An examination
of its relationship to spouse support and congruence of commitment among
runners. Leisure Sciences, 21, 117-131.
Belsky, J. (1985). Exploring individual differences in marital change across the transition
to parenthood: The role of violated expectations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 47, 1037-1044.
Belsky, J. (1990). Children and marriage. In F. D. Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds.). The
psychology of marriage (pp. 172-200). New York: Guilford Press.
Belsky, J., & Pensky, E. (1998). Marital change across the transition to parenthood.
Marriage and Family Review, 12, 133-156.
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across the transition to
parenthood: Pregnancy to three years post-partum. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 55, 5-20.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
88
Bloom, B.L., Asher, S. J., & White, S. W. (1978). Marital disruption as a stressor: A
review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 867-894.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1989). The contagion of
stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 175-183.
Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1989). Transmission of marital and family quality over the
generations: The effect of parental divorce and unhappiness. Journal of Divorce,
13, 41 58.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Cognition, emotion, and interaction in distressed and non-
distressedmarriages. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of
marital interaction. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in
close relationships (pp.127-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brody, G. H. (1998). Sibling relationship quality: Its causes and consequences. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 1-24.
Constantine, J. A., & Bahr, S. J. (1981). Locus of control and marital stability: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce, 4, 11-22.
Cordova, J., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Rushe, R. (1993). Negative reciprocity
and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 559-564.
Cox, M. J., Paley, B., Burchinal, M., & Payne, C. C. (1999). Marital perceptions and
interactions across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 611-625.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
89
Daly, K. J., (1996). Families & time: Keeping pace in a hurried culture. Thousand Oaks,
CA. SAGE Publications.
Dare, B., Welton, G., & Coe. (1998). Concepts of Leisure in Western Thought. Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Doherty, W. J., (1997). The intentional family: Simple rituals to strengthen family ties.
New York, NY. AVON BOOKS INC.
Emery, R. E. (1982). Inter-parental conflict and the children of discord and divorce.
Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310-330.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants,
consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A.
Krosnick (Eds.). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1990). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working
with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47-77.
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Kemp-Fincham, S. (1997). Marital quality: A new
theoretical perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.). Satisfaction in close
relationships (pp. 275-304). New York: Guilford Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: a
reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 797-809.Gillis, H. L., &
Gass, M. A (1993). Bringing adventure into marriage and family therapy: An
innovative experiential approach. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19,
273-286.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
90
Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look a t marital quality: Can spouses feel
positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11,
489-502.
Glenn, N. D. (1998). The course of marital success and failure in five American 10-year
marriage cohorts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 818-831.
Gottman, J. M. (1982). Temporal form: Toward a new language for describing
relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 943-962.
Gottman, J. M. (1990). How marriages change. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.). Depression and
aggression in family interaction (pp. 75-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenstein, T. N. (1990). Marital disruption and the employment of married women.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52, 657-676.
Groves, D. L. (1997). Family leisure interaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
16, 98-103.
Haggard, L. M., & Williams, D. R. 1991). Self identity benefits of leisure activities. In B.
L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson, (Eds.), Benefits of Leisure, (pp. 215-
247). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Halford, W. K., Gravestock, F. M., Lowe, R., & Scheldt, S. (1992). Toward a behavioral
ecology of stressful marital interactions. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 199-217.
Halford, W. K., Kelly. A., & Markman, H. J. (1997). The concept of a healthy marriage.
In W. K. Halford (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions
(pp. 3-12). New York: Wiley.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
91
Hannan, M. T., Tuma, N. B., & Groeneveld, L. P. (1977). Income and marital events:
Evidence from an income maintenance experiment. American Journal of
Sociology, 82, 1186-1211.
Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for
research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. New York: Harper.
Hill, M. S. (1988). Marital stability and spouses’ shared leisure time: A multidisciplinary
hypothesis. Journal of Family Issues. (9), 427-451.
Hoffman, L. W., & Manis, J. D. (1978). Influences of children on marital interaction and
parental satisfactions and dissatisfactions. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanior (Eds.).
Child influences on marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective (pp.
165-213). New York: Academic Press.
Holman, T. B., & Epperson, A. (1984). Family and leisure: A review of literature with
research recommendations. Journal of Leisure Research. 16, 277-294.
Holman, T. B., & Jaquart, M. (1988). Leisure –activity patterns and marital satisfaction:
A further test. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 60-77.
Huston, T. L., & Burgess, R. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships: An
overview. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Ed.), Social exchange in developing
relationships (pp. 3-28). San Diego, Ca: Academic Press.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
92
Jackson, D. D. (1959). Family interaction, family homeostasis and some implications for
conjoint family psychotherapy. In J. H. Masserman (Ed.), Individual and familial
dynamics (pp. 122-141). New York: Grune & Straton.
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psycholgical Bulletin, 118, 3-
34.
Kelly, J. R., Steinkamp, M. W., & Kelly, J. R. (1987). Later-Life Satisfaction: Does
leisure contribute? Leisure Sciences 9. 189-200.
Larson, R. W., Gillman, S.A., & Richards, M. H. (1997). Divergent experiences of family
leisure: Fathers, mothers, and young adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 29,
78-97.
Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27, 19-28.
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal
of Social Issues, 32, 21-47.
Malarkey, W. B., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Pearl, D., & Glasser, R. (1994). Hostile behavior
during marital conflict alters pituitary and adrenal hormones. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 56, 41-51.
Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760-762.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
93
Markman, H. J. (1991). Backwards into the future of couples therapy and couples therapy
research: A comment on Jacobson. Journal of Family Psychology, 40, 416-425.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crises. In H. I. Mc
Cubbin, A. E. Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.). Family stress, coping, and social
support (pp. 26-47). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Olsen, D. H., & DeFrain, J. (1994). Marriage and the family: Diversity and strengths.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Olsen, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and
family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and
clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3-28.
Orthner, D. K. (1998). Strengthening today’s families: A challenge to parks and
recreation. Parks and Recreation, 33, 87-98.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. (1980). Leisure behavior and group dynamics: The case of
the family. In S. E. Iso-Ahola (Ed.), Social perspective on leisure and recreation,
Social Perspectives on Leisure and Recreation, (pp. 307-328). Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and
cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research 22, 125-137.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1991). Benefits of leisure for family bonding. In B. L.
Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson, (Eds.), Benefits of Leisure, (pp. 215-247).
State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
94
Presvelou, C. (1971 ). Impact of differential leisure activities on intra-spousal dynamics.
Human Relations. 24, 565-574.
Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital
interaction: The roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology; 57, 651-659.
Rogers, S. J., & Amato, P. R. (1997). Is marital quality declining? The evidence from two
generations. Social Forces, 75, 1089-1100.
Rollins, S. J., & White, L. K. (1998). Satisfaction with parenting: The role of marital
happiness, family structure, and parents’ gender. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60, 293-308.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1994). Metaphors of Family Systems Theory: Toward new constraints.
New York; Guilford Press.
Sanders, M. R., Halford, W. K., & Behrens, B. C. (1999). Parental divorce and premarital
couple communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 60-74.
Shaver, P., Hazen, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The integration of
three behavioral systems. In R. J. Sternberg & M L. Barnes (Ed.). The psychology
of love (pp. 68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Smith, K. J., Snyder, T. J., & Monsma, B. R. (1988). Predicting relationship satisfaction
from couple’s use of leisure time. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 3-13.
Stack, S., & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 527-536.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
95
Stuart, R. B. (1969). Operant-interpersonal treatment for marital discord. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 675-682.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York:
Wiley.
Thomsen, D. G., & Gilbertm D. G., (1998). Factors characterizing marital conflict states
and traits: Physiological, affective, behavioral, and neurotic variable contributions
to marital conflict and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 25,
833-855.
Vaillant, C. O., & Vaillant, G. E. (1993). Is the U-curve of marital satisfaction an
illusion? A 40-year study of marriage. Journal of marriage and the Family, 55,
230-239.
Waite, L. J., & Lillard, L. A. (1991). Children and marital disruption. American Journal
of Sociology, 96, 930-953.
Waltz, M., Bandura, B., Pfaff, H., & Schott, T. (1988). Marriage and the psychological
consequences of a heart attack: A longitudinal study of adaptation to chronic
illness after 3 years. Social Science and Medicine, 27, 149-158.
Witt, P. A., & Goodale, T. L. (1981). The relationship between barriers to leisure
enjoyment and family stages. Leisure Sciences, 4, 30-49.
Wolin, S. J., & Bennett, L. A., (1984). Family Rituals. Family Process, 23, 401-420.
Zabriskie, R. (2000). An examination of family and elisure behavior among families with
middle school aged children. Unpublished dissertation. Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
96
Zabriskie, R. &McCormick, B. (2000). An examination of family leisure contributions to
family life satisfaction. Abstracts from the 2000 Symposium on Leisure Research,
71. Ashburn, VA; National Park and Recreation Association.
Zabriskie, R. & McCormick, B. (1999). An examination of recreation and leisure
contributions to family cohesion and adaptability. Abstracts from the 1999
Symposium on Leisure Research,6. Ashburn, VA’ National Park and Recreation
Association.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
97
Appendix A-1
Marital Activity Profile (MAP)
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
98
Marital Activity Profile
(MAP)
The following questions ask about the activities you do with your spouse. Please refer to the last year or
so. These questions ask about groups of activities, so try to answer in terms of the group as opposed to
any one specific example. This may require you to “average” over a few different activities. Don’t worry
about getting it exactly “right.” Just give your best estimate.
Take a moment to look at the example below. This will give you some instruction on how to fill in your
answers.
QUESTION: Do you participate in home-based activities (for example watching TV/videos, listening to
music, reading books, singing, etc.) with your spouse?
YES X NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours x
At least weekly x 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
Last, how satisfied are you with your participation with your spouse in these activities? Please answer
this question EVEN IF YOU DO NOT do these activities with your spouse.
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
First do you do
these activities?
Next, how often do you
usually do these
activities? Then, about how long, on average,
do you typically do this type of
activity each time you do it?
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
99
Symbol Key
< = less than (e.g. < 1 hour reads “less than one hour”)
> = more than (e.g. > 10 hours reads “ more than ten hours”)
1. Do you participate in work activities (for example household maintenance, dishes, laundry, preparation
of meals, housework such as dusting, vacuuming etc.), with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly
At least annually
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
2. Do you participate in home-based activities (for example watching TV/videos, listening to music,
reading books, singing, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
100
3. Do you participate in regular communication (for example time set aside to talk, talking for an
extended period of time during meals, or before going to bed, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
4. Do you participate in games, crafts, and/or hobbies (for example playing cards, board games, video
games, drawing, scrap books, sewing, painting, ceramics, home improvement projects etc.) with your
spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
101
5. Do you participate in home-based or neighborhood based activities (for example star gazing, gardening,
yard work, playing catch, shooting baskets, bike rides, fitness activities, exercise, etc.) with your
spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
6. Do you attend and support your spouse’s individual activities (for example watching their sporting
events, musical performances, school/work programs and presentations, etc.)?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your participation with family members in these activities? (please circle one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
102
7. Do you participate in home-based religious/spiritual activities (for example scripture reading,
couple prayer, gospel discussions, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
8. Do you participate in community-based social activities (for example going to restaurants, parties,
shopping, picnics, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
9. Do you participate in spectator activities (for example going to movies, sporting events, concerts, plays
or theatrical performances, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
103
10. Do you participate in community-based sporting activities (for example bowling, golf, swimming,
skating, working out at the gym, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours > 1 day
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
11. Do you participate in community-based special events (for example visiting museums, zoos, theme
parks, fairs, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours
1 day 8 days 15 days
2 days 9 days 16 days
3 days 10 days 17 days
4 days 11 days 18 days
5 days 12 days 19 days
6 days 13 days 20 days
One week Two weeks 3 or more
weeks
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
104
12. Do you participate in outdoor activities (for example camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, water
skiing, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours
1 day 8 days 15 days
2 days 9 days 16 days
3 days 10 days 17 days
4 days 11 days 18 days
5 days 12 days 19 days
6 days 13 days 20 days
One week Two weeks 3 or more
weeks
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
13. Do you participate in community based religious activities (for example attending the temple together,
attending Sunday worship services, attending Institute religion classes etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly
(during season) 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours
1 day 8 days 15 days
2 days 9 days 16 days
3 days 10 days 17 days
4 days 11 days 18 days
5 days 12 days 19 days
6 days 13 days 20 days
One week Two weeks 3 or more
weeks
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
105
14. Do you participate in outdoor adventure activities (for example rock climbing, river rafting, off-road
vehicles, scuba diving, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours
1 day 8 days 15 days
2 days 9 days 16 days
3 days 10 days 17 days
4 days 11 days 18 days
5 days 12 days 19 days
6 days 13 days 20 days
One week Two weeks 3 or more
weeks
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
15. Do you participate in tourism activities (for example couple vacations, traveling, visiting historic sites,
visiting state/national parks, etc.) with your spouse?
YES NO
If YES how often? For about how long per time? (check only one)
At least daily < 1 hour 1-2 hrs 2-3 hours
At least weekly 3-4 hours 4-5 hours 5-6hours
At least monthly 6-7 hours 7-8 hours 8-9 hours
At least annually 9-10 hours >10 hours
1 day 8 days 15 days
2 days 9 days 16 days
3 days 10 days 17 days
4 days 11 days 18 days
5 days 12 days 19 days
6 days 13 days 20 days
One week Two weeks 3 or more
weeks
How satisfied are you with your level of participation with your spouse in these activities? (please circle
one)
Very
Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
106
Next, please indicate how satisfied you are with the amount of time you spend with your spouse. Circle
the number that corresponds to your answer.
Not
Enough
Time
Just
About
Right
Too
Much
Time
1. The amount of time I spend with my
spouse overall 1 2 3 4 5
2. The amount of time I spend in home-based
spousal activities 1 2 3 4 5
3. The amount of time I spend in spousal
activities away from home 1 2 3 4 5
Below are seven statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale below, indicate
your agreement with each item by circling the appropriate number on the line following that item. Please
be open and honest in responding.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly
disagree disagree slightly
disagree neither agree
nor disagree slightly
agree agree strongly
agree
1. In most ways my married life is close to ideal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. The conditions of my married life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I am satisfied with my married life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in my married life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. If I could live my married life over, I would change almost
nothing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Marital activities are an important part of our married life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Marital activities add to the quality of our life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
107
Please answer the following questions in reference to your family currently. Please be as open and honest
as possible. All responses are strictly confidential.
Use the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5
Almost never Once in awhile Sometimes Frequently Almost always
Describe your family:
___ 1. Family members are supportive of each other during difficult times.
___ 2. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion.
___ 3. It is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than with other family members.
___ 4. Each family member has input regarding major family decisions.
___ 5. Our family gathers together in the same room.
___ 6. Children have a say in their discipline.
___ 7. Our family does things together.
___ 8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions.
___ 9. In our family, everyone goes his/her own way.
___ 10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person.
___ 11. Family members know each other’s close friends.
___ 12. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family.
___ 13. Family members consult other family members on personal decisions.
___ 14. Family members say what they want.
___ 15. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family.
___ 16. In solving problems, the children’s suggestions are followed.
___ 17. Family members feel very close to each other.
___ 18. Discipline is fair in our family.
___ 19. Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to other family members.
___ 20. Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems.
___ 21. Family members go along with what the family decides to do.
___ 22. In our family, everyone shares responsibilities.
___ 23. Family members like to spend their free time with each other.
___ 24. It is difficult to get a rule changed in our family.
___ 25. Family members avoid each other at home.
___ 26. When problems arise, we compromise.
___ 27. We approve of each other’s friends.
___ 28. Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds.
___ 29. Family members pair up rather than do things as a total family.
___ 30. Family members share interests and hobbies with each other.
COUPLE MARITAL LEISURE PATTERNS
108
The following section asks some general questions about you and your family.
Please complete the following on your current family.
Age
Sex
Ethnic
Background
Lives in
your home
In
Years
M or F
A=Asian/Pacific Islander
B= Black not Hispanic
H=Hispanic
N=Native American
W=White, not Hispanic
Yes or No
YOU
Your Partner
Child
Child
Child
Child
Child
Child
Child
How many years have you been married to your current spouse? (in years)
Have you ever been divorced? Yes No
Please indicate number of adults other than you & your partner that currently live full-time in the home.
______
Please indicate the estimated annual income for your family.
Less than $10,000 41,000 – 50,000 81,000 – 100,00
10,000 – 20,000 51,000 – 60,000 101,000 – 125,000
21,000 – 30,000 61,000 – 70,000 126,000 – 150,000
31,000 – 40,000 71,000 – 80,000 Over $150,000
Thank you for your time and effort! Please return both surveys in the envelope provided.
