Gershuny, Jonathan

van der Lippe, Tanja

Voorpostel, Marieke

RERO DOC Digital Library

Trends in Free Time with a Partner: A Transformationof Intimacy?Marieke Voorpostel Æ Tanja van der Lippe Æ Jonathan GershunyAccepted: 1 August 2008 / Published online: 13 December 2008 The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com1 IntroductionShared free time with one’s spouse is positively related to marital satisfaction (e.g.Crawford et al. 2002). Yet little is known about the amount of time partners actually spendtogether and its trend over time. This article investigates how much free time couplesspend in each other’s presence, how this has changed over the last four decades and to whatextent this is related to changed circumstances. Also, differences between men and womenherein are assessed.There are two main theoretical views on trends in the shared time of partners.(1) Competing demands result in a struggle between one’s own time and shared time(Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2001). Since the family has increasingly become anassociation of individual persons, each subject to different restrictions (Beck andBeck-Gernsheim 2001), it is increasingly difficult for partners to spend time together.Research shows that people indeed experience a shortage of family time (Daly 2001)and reveals a relationship between decreased shared time, lower marital satisfactionand higher likelihood of marital conflict (Rogers and Amato 1997).(2) Changes in society have led to changes in the nature of marriage, placing moreimportance on shared time. Partnerships are more strongly based on intimacy,implying partners are more focused on each other (Bellah et al. 1985). Giddens(1990) refers to this as a ‘transformation of intimacy’: personal ties guided morestrongly by mutuality of self-disclosure and a concern for self-fulfilment). OneM. Voorpostel (&)Swiss Foundation for Research in Social Sciences (FORS), University of Lausanne, Baˆtiment Vidy,CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerlande-mail: marieke.voorpostel@fors.unil.chT. van der LippeDepartment of Sociology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The NetherlandsJ. GershunyDepartment of Sociology, St. Hughs’ College, University of Oxford, Manor Road,Oxford OX1 3UQ, UK123Soc Indic Res (2009) 93:165–169DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9383-8empirical study indicates that contemporary couples’ lifestyles indeed cannot becharacterized as separated (Kalmijn and Bernasco 2001). Most indicative of intimacycan be expected to be joint free time, because people are relatively free in how andwith whom to spend this time. Indeed, people are found to enjoy leisure activitiesmore when they are done in the presence of a partner (Sullivan 1996).To establish whether the nature of marriage has changed over time, several characteristicsthat may have changed over time as well should be controlled for. First, whereas genderdifferences became smaller with respect to paid work and domestic work, they increased inthe amount of free time, especially after marriage and having children (Mattingly andBianchi 2003). Second, over recent decades, people have fewer children and at a later age(Johnson 2000). Care for children diminishes the time available for joint leisure, so coupleswith children have less shared free time (Hamermesh 2000). Third, changes in paid work,especially the increasing labor force participation of women, have led to more difficultiescombining work and family life (Van der Lippe et al. 2006).2 Data and MethodsData came from the American Heritage Time Use Study (AHTUS), (Fisher et al. 2006) andcovering the years 1965 (N = 2,021), 1975 (N = 2,846) and 2003 (N = 20,720). In allyears activities over 24 hours were assessed, as well as who else was present during theactivity. The years 1985 and 1992–94 could not be included, because presence of a spousewas not available in these datasets. The sample containing only individuals who were partof a couple included 15,249 diaries.2.1 Dependent VariableFree-time activities included: (1) attending sports events, (2) going to the cinema, theatre,concert, opera, museums and exhibitions, (3) going to a restaurant, cafe´, bar, party orreception, (4) receiving or visiting friends and other in-home social activities, (5) arts,crafts and hobbies, (6) watching television, and (7) listening to radio or music. The numberof minutes spent in these activities was summed, as were the minutes spent in theseactivities in the presence of a partner. Besides the partner others, such as children, could bepresent as well. The relative share of leisure in the presence of a partner could then becalculated with a mean of 67 percent.2.2 Independent VariablesYear of the survey was included (1965, 2003, reference group is 1975), and gender(1 = female), as well as the number of children younger than 5 years and the number ofchildren between 5 and 17, working arrangement (dual earner household, unemployedcouple, with the reference group being single earner households).2.3 Control VariablesThese included the age of the respondent (mean = 45 years), as well as age squared(divided by 100), level of education measured in six categories (from 1 = primary edu-cation to 6 = post-college), total hours of free time (mean = 3.8 h per day, and a dummyvariable for the day (1 = weekday, 0 = weekend day).166 M.Voorpostel et al.123Three regression models were estimated separately for men and women, using theproportion of shared leisure as the dependent variable. In the first model all variables wereincluded. Models 2 and 3 show results for different interactions of the independent vari-ables with the year 2003 to assess whether some characteristics have a different impact onshared leisure time in later years. Differences between coefficients for men and womenwere tested using seemingly unrelated estimation.3 ResultsOver the years, the total amount of time in the included leisure activities increased from179 and 171 minutes for men and women, respectively, on an average day in 1965, to 193and 200 minutes in 1975, and 230 and 206 minutes in 2003. In 1965 67% of the time spentin these activities by men was spent in the presence of a partner, for women this was less,53%; in 1975 it increased to 67% and 58% respectively, and further to 68% and 65% in2003. This result is in line with the model of transformed intimacy: not only do peoplehave more free time, they also spend a larger part of it in the presence of a partner. Thiswas especially true for women, the increase among men is only minimal.The second step in the analysis was to assess to what extent these differences areattributable to varying characteristics and varying importance of these characteristicsbetween the years. Table 1 shows the results of the regression analysis for men and womenseparately, with Model 1 showing that, controlled for varying characteristics, both men andwomen spent an increasing part of their leisure in the presence of a partner in 2003compared to 1975. Additional tests support that the increase was higher for women than formen. Children had a negative impact on leisure in the presence of a partner, for women andmen both (there were no significant differences).Table 1 Regression coefficients for three models predicting proportion of shared leisure time of men andwomen1a Men 1b Women 2a Men 2b Women 3a Men 3b WomenB B B B B BIntercept .791*** .684*** .792*** .691*** .801*** .686***1965a -.016 -.043* -.014 -.035* -.016 -.043*2003a .026* .064*** .024 .050*** .008 -.060**Child\5b -.007 -.026** -.013 -.063*** -.007 -.026**Child 5-17b -.023*** -.012** -.023*** -.012** -.023*** -.013**2003*child\5 .010 .051**2003*dual earner .046* .009Age -.002*** .000 -.002*** .000 -.002*** .000Age sq/100 .006* .009*** .006* .010*** .006** .009***Educational level -.006 .000 -.006 .000 -.006 .000Dual earnerc -.048*** .023* -.048*** .023* -.080*** .016Both unemployedc -.012 .054** -.012 .055** -.008 .055**Total free time -.010*** -.010*** -.010*** -.009*** -.010*** -.010***Weekdayd -.071*** -.116*** -.071*** -.116*** -.071*** -.116***R2 .018 .048 .018 .049 .019 .048a 1975 is reference group, b No kids in the household is reference group, c Single earner households arereference group, d Weekend day is reference groupTrends in Free Time with a Partner: A Transformation of Intimacy? 167123Interestingly, men that were part of a dual earner couple reported lower levels ofleisure in the presence of a partner, whereas the association was positive for women.Finally, shared leisure on a weekday was less common than on a weekend day, and thiseffect was significantly stronger for women than for men. When both spouses wereunemployed, this negatively affected leisure in the presence of a partner for women, butnot for men.In Models 2 and 3 interaction effects were added. Only significant interactions arepresented. Model 2 includes an interaction term of children under the age of five with year,and it shows that although the presence of children in the household had a negative effecton the proportion of shared leisure, this was much less so in 2003 compared to earlieryears. These findings suggest that the presence of children is less consequential for cou-ples’ free time now compared to earlier years. No significant differences between men andwomen were found here. Model 3 shows that the negative effect of being part of a dualearner couple on leisure in the presence of a partner was less strong in 2003 compared to1975.The low explained variance indicates that the proportion of leisure spent in the presenceof a partner was difficult to predict and apparently dependent on factors that were notincluded in the model (like characteristics of the partner).4 ConclusionsNot only in proportions, but also in absolute minutes, partners spend more time together inleisure now than 40 years previously. This increase in shared leisure is in line withGiddens’ (1990) idea of a ‘transformation of intimacy’. This change, which is especiallystrong for women, persists after controlling for changes in social circumstances over theyears supporting theoretical research that psychological gratification is more central(Bellah et al. 1985) and that partners over time have come to construct their own forms oftogetherness (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2001). Despite the increased inequality in thegrowth of free time for men and women (Mattingly and Bianchi 2003; Sayer 2005),couples do still seem to find ways to spend increased time together.Our results further indicate that the importance of certain characteristics for partner co-presence at leisure activities varies over the years, and differs for men and women. Thepresence of children and being part of a dual earner couple in later years seems lessrestrictive to shared leisure. The gender discrepancy diminished in later years, indicatingmore gender equality. Being part of a dual earner couple has opposite effects for men andwomen. Perhaps a less available spouse makes men less likely to engage in shared leisureactivities, whereas working women may have less leisure time available, but are morelikely to spend it with their spouse. This finding warrants further research.Limitations of this study are the use of an indirect measure of intimacy, which does notinclude how the marriage is experienced, and analyzing individuals rather than couples.Notwithstanding its limitations, this study has provided a first glimpse into couples’spending increased amounts of free time together.Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncom-mercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided the original author(s) and source are credited.168 M.Voorpostel et al.123ReferencesBeck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001). Individualization. London: Sage.Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart:Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Crawford, D. W., Houts, R. M., Huston, T. L., & George, L. J. (2002). Compatibility, leisure, and satis-faction in marital relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 433–449.Daly, K. J. (2001). Deconstructing family time: From ideology to lived experience. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 63, 283–294.Fisher, K., Egerton, M., Torres, N., Pollmann, A., & Gershuny, J. (2006). American Heritage Time UseStudy (AHTUS) Codebook.Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Hamermesh, D. S. (2000). Working paper 7455. Togetherness: Spouses synchronous leisure, and the impactof children. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Johnson, C. L. (2000). Perspectives on American kinship in the later 1990s. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 62, 623–639.Kalmijn, M., & Bernasco, W. (2001). Joint and separated lifestyles in couple relationships. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 63, 639–654.Mattingly, M. J., & Bianchi, S. M. (2003). Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time: TheU.S. experience. Social Forces, 81, 999–1030.Rogers, S. J., & Amato, P. R. (1997). Is marital quality declining? the evidence from two generations. SocialForces, 75(3), 1089–1100.Sayer, L. C. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work andfree time. Social Forces, 84, 285–303.Sullivan, O. (1996). Time co-ordination, the domestic division of labour and affective relations: Time useand the enjoyment of activities within couples. Sociology, 30, 79–100.Van der Lippe, T., Jager, A., & Kops, Y. (2006). Combination pressure: The paid work-family balance ofmen and women in European countries. Acta Sociologica, 49, 303–319.Trends in Free Time with a Partner: A Transformation of Intimacy? 169123

Trends in Free Time with a Partner: A Transformation of Intimacy?

http://doc.rero.ch/record/315946/files/11205_2008_Article_9383.pdf

Trends in Free Time with a Partner: A Transformation of Intimacy?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library