Solidarity in Couple Relationships – A Mixed Methods Approach

Ayhan Adams 1 , Katrin Golsch 2  and Kai-Olaf Maiwald 3
  • 1 Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Seminarstr. 33, 49074, Osnabrück, Deutschland
  • 2 Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Seminarstr. 33, 49074, Osnabrück, Deutschland
  • 3 Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Seminarstr. 33, 49074, Osnabrück, Deutschland
Ayhan Adams
  • Corresponding author
  • Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Seminarstr. 33, 49074, Osnabrück, Deutschland
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Ayhan Adams, geb. 1991 in Heinsberg. Studium der Soziologie an der Universität zu Köln. Seit 2017 Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter und Promotionsstudent an der Universität Osnabrück im Fachgebiet für Quantitative Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung und Sozialstrukturanalyse. Forschungsschwerpunkte: Paar- und Familiensoziologie, Partnerschaftliche Unterstützung, Work-Family Balance, Quantitative Methoden.
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Katrin Golsch
  • Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Seminarstr. 33, 49074, Osnabrück, Deutschland
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Katrin Golsch, geb. 1975 in Bielefeld. Studium der Soziologie an der Universität Bielefeld. 2004 Promotion in Soziologie an der Universität Bielefeld. Seit 2014 Professorin für Quantitative Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung und Sozialstrukturanalyse an der Universität Osnabrück. Forschungsschwerpunkte: Quantitative Methoden insbesondere zur Analyse von Längsschnittdaten, Paar- und Familiensoziologie, Geschlechterforschung, soziale Ungleichheiten, Lebenslaufforschung, Work-Life Balance. Wichtigste Publikationen: Applied Panel Data Analysis for Economic and Social Surveys. Berlin u. Heidelberg: Springer 2013 (mit Hans-Jürgen Andreß und Alexander Schmidt)
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Kai-Olaf Maiwald
  • Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Seminarstr. 33, 49074, Osnabrück, Deutschland
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Kai-Olaf Maiwald, geb. 1963 in Engershausen. Studium der Soziologie in Bielefeld, Heidelberg und Frankfurt a. M., Promotion an der Universität Frankfurt a. M., Habilitation an der Universität Tübingen. 1994–2002 wissenschaftlicher Assistent Universität Tübingen, 2004–2010 Mitarbeiter im Institut für Sozialforschung Frankfurt a. M., seit 2010 Professor für Mikrosoziologie und qualitative Methoden an der Universität Osnabrück. Forschungsschwerpunkte: Paar- und Familiensoziologie, Geschlechterforschung, interaktionstheoretische Mikrosoziologie, qualitative Methoden. Aktuelle Publikationen: Microsociology. A Tool Kit for Interaction Analysis. London/New York: Routledge 2020 (mit Inken Sürig); Familiale Interaktion, Objektbesetzung und Sozialstruktur: Zur Bedeutung der ödipalen Triade in der strukturalen Familiensoziologie, WestEnd – Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 15 (2), 2018: S. 73–85; Liebe und Anerkennung in der Familie, in: J. Ecarius, A. Schierbaum (Hrsg.), Handbuch Familie: Gesellschaft und differentielle Felder. Wiesbaden: Springer VS 2020 (First Online)
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Abstract

In family research, there have not yet been many attempts to grasp theoretically and empirically solidarity in couple relationships, a gap that this study addresses combining qualitative and quantitative strategies. One purpose of this article is to develop a theoretical framework to understand solidarity as an overarching structural element of cooperation in couples. We then propose, in the best possible way, a measurement of solidarity to be used in quantitative analysis. To this end, data from the German Family Panel (pairfam, waves 2008–2017) are used in a longitudinal design. We offer an empirical test of our measurement by employing autoregressive cross-lagged analyses with random intercepts (n = 2,588 couples) and establish the cause-and-effect relationship between solidarity and one important dimension of relationship quality, i. e. relationship satisfaction. The results of this analysis lend support to our assumption that couples cooperate on a basic rule of solidarity, having a unidirectional influence on relationship quality.

  • Acock, A.C., 2013: Discovering Structural Equation Modeling using Stata. College Station, Texas: StataCorp LP.

  • Adachi, P. & T. Willoughby, 2015: Interpreting Effect Sizes when Controlling for Stability Effects in Longitudinal Autoregressive Models: Implications for Psychological Science. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 12: 116–128.

  • Amato, P.R., A. Booth, D.R. Johnson & S.J. Rogers, 2007: Alone together. How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Antonucci, T.C., J.S. Jackson & S. Biggs, 2007: Intergenerational Relations: Theory, Research, and Policy. Journal of Social Issues 63: 679–693.

  • Baxter, J., S. Buchler, F. Perales & M. Western, 2015: A Life-Changing Event: First Births and Men’s and Women’s Attitudes to Mothering and Gender Divisions of Labor. Social Forces 93: 989–1014.

  • Baxter, J., M. Haynes, M. Western & B. Hewitt, 2013: Marriage, Parenthood and Perceived Fairness: Changes over the Life Course. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 4: 78–85.

  • Baxter, J., B. Hewitt & M. Haynes, 2008: Life Course Transitions and Housework: Marriage, Parenthood, and Time on Housework. Journal of Marriage and Family 70: 259–272.

  • Bayertz, K., 1999: Four Uses of “Solidarity”. S. 3–28 in: K. Bayertz (Hrsg.), Solidarity. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Beck, U. & E. Beck-Gernsheim, 1990: Das ganz normale Chaos der Liebe. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  • Beck, U. & E. Beck-Gernsheim, 2005: Das ganz normale Chaos der Liebe. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  • Becker, G.S., 1991: A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Bellani, D., G. Esping Andersen & L. Pessin, 2018: When Equity Matters for Marital Stability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35: 1273–1298.

  • Bengtson, V.L. & R.E.L. Roberts, 1991: Intergenerational Solidarity in Aging Families: An Example of Formal Theory Construction. Journal of Marriage and Family 53: 856–870.

  • Bengtson, V.L. & S.S. Schrader, 1982: Parent-child Relations. S. 115–185 in: D.J. Mangen & W.A. Peterson (Hrsg.), Research Instruments in Social Gerontology. Vol. 2: Social Roles and Social Participation. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Berg, C.A. & R. Upchurch, 2007: A Developmental-contextual Model of Couples Coping with Chronic Illness across the adult Life Span. Psychological Bulletin 133: 920–954.

  • Berger, P.L. & H. Kellner, 1965: Die Ehe und die Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit: Eine Abhandlung zur Mikrosoziologie des Wissens. Soziale Welt 16: 220–235.

  • Biehle, S.N. & K.D. Mickelson, 2012: Provision and Receipt of Emotional Spousal Support: The Impact of Visibility on Well-being. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice 1: 244–251.

  • Blair, S.L., 1993: Employment, Family, and Perceptions of Marital Quality Among Husbands and Wives. Journal of Family Issues 14: 189–212.

  • Bodenmann, G., 1995: A Systemic-transactional Conceptualization of Stress and Coping in Couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology: 34–49.

  • Bodenmann, G. & A. Cina, 2000: Stress und Coping als Prädiktoren für Scheidung: eine prospektive Fünf-Jahre-Längsschnittstudie. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 12: 5–20.

  • Bodenmann, G., S. Pihet & K. Kayser, 2006: The Relationship between Dyadic Coping and Marital Quality: a 2-year Longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology 20: 485–493.

  • Brüderl, J., S. Drobnič et al., 2018: Beziehungs- und Familienpanel (Pairfam). The German Family Panel (Pairfam). Cologne.

  • Busch, A., M. Bröckel & K. Golsch, 2014: Berufliche Aufstiege im partnerschaftlichen Kontext – Zur Bedeutung von Homogamie und sozialer Unterstützung durch den Partner. Journal of Family Research 26: 3–28.

  • Buunk, B.P. & N.W. Van Yperen, 1991: Referential Comparisons, Relational Comparisons, and Exchange Orientation: Their Relation to Marital Satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 709–717.

  • Cancian, F.M., 1987: Love in America. Gender and self-development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Carlson, D.S. & P.L. Perrewé, 1999: The Role of Social Support in the Stressor-Strain Relationship: An Examination of Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Management 25: 513–540.

  • Cherlin, A.J., 2004: The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 66: 848–861.

  • Coltrane, S., 2000: Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work. Journal of Marriage and Family 62: 1208–1233.

  • Cruz-Saco, M.A. & S. Zelenev (Hrsg.), 2010: Intergenerational Solidarity. Strengthening Economic and Social Ties. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Cutrona, C., 1996: Social Support in Couples: Marriage as a Resource in Times of Stress. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Endendijk, J.J., B. Derks & J. Mesman, 2018: Does Parenthood Change Implicit Gender-Role Stereotypes and Behaviors? Journal of Marriage and Family 80: 61–79.

  • England, P., 2010: The Gender Revolution. Gender & Society 24: 149–166.

  • Esping-Andersen, G., D. Boertien, J. Bonke & P. Gracia, 2013: Couple Specialization in Multiple Equilibria. European Sociological Review 29: 1280–1294.

  • Ezzedeen, S.R. & K.G. Ritchey, 2008: The Man Behind the Woman. Journal of Family Issues 29: 1107–1135.

  • Feeney, B.C. & N.L. Collins, 2015: A new Look at Social Support: a Theoretical Perspective on Thriving through Relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review 19: 113–147.

  • Frisco, M.L. & K. Williams, 2003: Perceived Housework Equity, Marital Happiness, and Divorce in Dual-Earner Households. Journal of Family Issues 24: 51–73.

  • Gager, C.T., 2008: What’s Fair is Fair? Role of Justice in Family Labor Allocation Decisions. Marriage & Family Review 44: 511–545.

  • Giddens, A., 1992: The Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Giddens, A., 2000: Runaway World. How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. New York: Routledge.

  • Greenstein, T.N., 2009: National Context, Family Satisfaction, and Fairness in the Division of Household Labor. Journal of Marriage and Family 71: 1039–1051.

  • Grunow, D., F. Schulz & H.-P. Blossfeld, 2012: What Determines Change in the Division of Housework over the Course of Marriage? International Sociology 27: 289–307.

  • Hamaker, E.L., R.M. Kuiper & R.P.P.P. Grasman, 2015: A Critique of the Cross-lagged Panel Model. Psychological Methods 20: 102–116.

  • Heavey, C.L., C. Layne & A. Christensen, 1993: Gender and Conflict Structure in Marital Interaction: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 16–27.

  • Helgeson, V.S., K.A. Reynolds & P.L. Tomich, 2006: A Meta-Analytic Review of Benefit Finding and Growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74: 797–816.

  • Herzberg, P.Y., 2013: Coping in Relationships: the Interplay between Individual and Dyadic Coping and their Effects on Relationship Satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 26: 136–153.

  • Hochschild, A.R. & A. Machung, 1989: The Second Shift. Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking.

  • Hu, Y. & D. Yucel, 2018: What Fairness? Gendered Division of Housework and Family Life Satisfaction across 30 Countries. European Sociological Review 34: 92–105.

  • Huinink, J., 2001: Familienentwicklung im Lebensverlauf. Entscheidungs- und Vereinbarkeitsprobleme moderner Lebensgestaltung. S. 145–165 in: J. Huinink (Hrsg.), Solidarität in Partnerschaft und Familie. Zum Stand familiensoziologischer Theoriebildung. Würzburg: Ergon.

  • Huinink, J., J. Brüderl, B. Nauck, S. Walper, L. Castiglioni & M. Feldhaus, 2011: Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (Pairfam): Conceptual Framework and Design. Journal of Family Research 23: 77–101.

  • Impett, E.A. & L.A. Peplau, 2006: “His” and “Her” Relationships? A Review of the Empirical Evidence. S. 273–292 in: A.L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Hrsg.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jamieson, L., 1999: Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the ‘Pure Relationship’. Sociology 3: 477–494.

  • Johnson, D.R., L.K. White, J.N. Edwards & A. Booth, 1986: Dimensions of Marital Quality. Toward Methodological and Conceptual Refinement. Journal of Family Issues 7: 31–49.

  • Johnson, D.R. & R. Young, 2011: Toward Best Practices in Analyzing Datasets with Missing Data: Comparisons and Recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family 73: 926–945.

  • Johnson, M.D. & R.M. Horne, 2016: Temporal Ordering of Supportive Dyadic Coping, Commitment, and Willingness to Sacrifice. Family Relations 65: 314–326.

  • Johnson, M.D., R.M. Horne & A.M. Galovan, 2016: The Developmental Course of Supportive Dyadic Coping in Couples. Developmental Psychology 52.

  • Kahn, R.L. & T.C. Antonucci, 1980: Convoys over the Life Course: Attachment Roles, and Social Support. S. 253–286 in: P.B. Baltes & O.G. Brim (Hrsg.), Life-span Development and Behavior. New York: Academic Press.

  • Kalmijn, M., 1998: Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends. Annual Review of Sociology: 395–421.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • Kaufmann, J.-C., 1994: Schmutzige Wäsche. Zur ehelichen Konstruktion von Alltag. Konstanz: UVK.

  • Kaufmann, J.-C., 2005: Schmutzige Wäsche. Ein ungewöhnlicher Blick auf gewöhnliche Paarbeziehungen. Konstanz: UVK.

  • Kelle, U., 2014: Mixed Methods. S. 153–166 in: N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

  • Kenny, D.A., D.A. Kashy, W.L. Cook & J.A. Simpson, 2006: Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Kluwer, E.S., J.A.M. Heesink & E. Vliert, 2002: The Division of Labor Across the Transition to Parenthood: A Justice Perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 930–943.

  • König, R., 1974: Materialien zur Soziologie der Familie. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.

  • Kuhn, R., T.N. Bradbury, F.W. Nussbeck & G. Bodenmann, 2018: The Power of Listening: Lending an Ear to the Partner during Dyadic Coping Conversations. Journal of Family Psychology 32: 762–772.

  • Kühnel, S. & A. Mays, 2019: Probleme von Cross-Lagged Panelmodellen zur Analyse gegenseitiger Beeinflussung von Einstellung und Verhalten. S. 359–386 in: J. Mayerl, T. Krause, A. Wahl & M. Wuketich (Hrsg.), Einstellungen und Verhalten in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Analytische Konzepte, Anwendungen und Analyseverfahren. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

  • Lachance-Grzela, M. & G. Bouchard, 2010: Why Do Women Do the Lion’s Share of Housework? A Decade of Research. Sex Roles 63: 767–780.

  • Lee, H.J. & M.E. Szinovacz, 2016: Positive, Negative, and Ambivalent Interactions With Family and Friends: Associations With Well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family 78: 660–679.

  • Linley, P.A. & S. Joseph, 2004: Positive Change Following Trauma and Adversity: a Review. Journal of Traumatic Stress 17: 11–21.

  • Luhmann, N., 1990: Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  • Lundberg, S. & R.A. Pollak, 1994: Noncooperative Bargaining Models of Marriage. American Economic Review 84: 132–137.

  • Lundberg, S. & R.A. Pollak, 1996: Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives 10: 139–158.

  • Lundberg, S. & R.A. Pollak, 2003: Efficiency in Marriage. Review of Economics of the Household 1: 153–167.

  • Maiwald, K.-O., 2009: Die Herstellung von Gemeinsamkeit. Alltagspraktische Kooperation in Paarbeziehungen. WestEnd – Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6: 155–165.

  • Maiwald, K.-O., 2012: Familie als Beziehungsstruktur. Zur gegenwärtigen Lage der Familiensoziologie. WestEnd – Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 9: 112–125.

  • Maiwald, K.-O., 2013: Solidarität in Paarbeziehungen – Eine Fallrekonstruktion. S. 324–342 in: D.C. Krüger, H. Herma & A. Schierbaum (Hrsg.), Familie(n) heute. Entwicklungen, Kontroversen, Prognosen. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

  • Maiwald, K.-O., 2018: Objektive Hermeneutik. Von Keksen, inzestuöser Verführung und dem Problem, die Generationendifferenz zu denken. S. 442–478 in: L. Akremi, N. Baur, H. Knoblauch & B. Traue (Hrsg.), Handbuch Interpretativ forschen. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

  • Manser, M. & M. Brown, 1980: Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis. International Economic Review 21: 31–44.

  • Mickelson, K.D., S.T. Claffey & S.L. Williams, 2006: The Moderating Role of Gender and Gender Role Attitudes on the Link Between Spousal Support and Marital Quality. Sex Roles 55: 73–82.

  • Mund, M. & S. Nestler, 2018: Beyond the Cross-Lagged Panel Model: Next-generation Statistical Tools for Analyzing Interdependencies across the Life Course. Advances in Life Course Research.

  • Oevermann, U., 1981: Fallrekonstruktionen und Strukturgeneralisierung als Beitrag der objektiven Hermeneutik zur soziologisch-strukturtheoretischen Analyse. Frankfurt am Main: Goethe-Universität.

  • Oevermann, U., 2000: Die Methode der Fallrekonstruktion in der Grundlagenforschung sowie der klinischen und pädagogischen Praxis. S. 58–153 in: K. Kraimer (Hrsg.), Die Fallrekonstruktion. Sinnverstehen in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  • Oevermann, U., 2001: Die Struktur sozialer Deutungsmuster – Versuch einer Aktualisierung. Sozialer Sinn 2: 35–82.

  • Parsons, T. & R.F. Bales, 1964: Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press.

  • Parsons, T. & E. Shils, 1951: Values, Motives, and Systems of Action. S. 47–275 in: T. Parsons, E. Shils & N.J. Smelser (Hrsg.), Toward a General Theory of Action. Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Perrewé, P.L. & D.S. Carlson, 2002: Do Men and Women Benefit from Social Support Equally? Results from a Field Examination within the Work and Family Context. S. 102–114 in: D.L. Nelson & R.J. Burke (Hrsg.), Gender, Work Stress, and Health: American Psychological Association.

  • Pollman-Schult, M., 2008: Familiengründung und gewünschter Erwerbsumfang von Männern – Eine Längsschnittanalyse für die alten Bundesländer. The Influence of Fatherhood on Preferred Working Hours: A Longitudinal Study for Germany. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 37: 498–515.

  • Previti, D. & P.R. Amato, 2003: Why Stay Married? Rewards, Barriers, and Marital Stability. Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 561–573.

  • Schelsky, H., 1967: Wandlungen der deutschen Familie in der Gegenwart. Darstellung und Deutung einer empirisch-soziologischen Tatbestandsaufnahme. Darstellung und Deutung einer empirisch-soziologischen Tatbestandsaufnahme. Stuttgart: Enke.

  • Selig, J.P. & T.D. Little, 2012: Autoregressive and Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis for Longitudinal Data. S. 265–278 in: B.P. Laursen, T.D. Little & N.A. Card (Hrsg.), Handbook of Developmental Research Methods. New York: Guilford.

  • Shrout, P.E., C.M. Herman & N. Bolger, 2006: The Costs and Benefits of Practical and Emotional Support on Adjustment: A Daily Diary Study of Couples Experiencing Acute Stress. Personal Relationships 13: 115–134.

  • Suitor, J.J., 1991: Marital Quality and Satisfaction with the Division of Household Labor across the Family Life Cycle. Journal of Marriage and Family 53: 221–230.

  • Teo, A.R., H. Choi & M. Valenstein, 2013: Social relationships and depression: ten-year follow-up from a nationally representative study. PloS one 8: 1–8.

  • Thönnissen, C., B. Wilhelm, P. Alt, S. Fiedrich & S. Walper, 2019: Scales and Instruments Manual. Anchor, Partner, Parenting, Child, Parents. Waves 1 to 10. Scales Manual of the German Family Panel.

  • Twenge, J.M., W.K. Campbell & C.A. Foster, 2003: Parenthood and Marital Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 574–583.

  • Vaisey, S. & A. Miles, 2017: What You Can—and Can’t—Do With Three-Wave Panel Data. Sociological Methods & Research 46: 44–67.

  • Van Willigen, M. & P. Drentea, 2001: Benefits of Equitable Relationships: The Impact of Sense of Fairness, Household Division of Labor, and Decision Making Power on Perceived Social Support. Sex Roles 44: 571–598.

  • VanLaningham, J., D.R. Johnson & P. Amato, 2001: Marital Happiness, Marital Duration, and the U-Shaped Curve: Evidence from a Five-Wave Panel Study. Social Forces 79: 1313–1341.

  • Wernet, A., 2009: Einführung in die Interpretationstechnik der objektiven Hermeneutik. Wiesbaden: VS.

  • Wernet, A., 2014: Hermeneutics and Objective Hermeneutics. S. 234–246 in: U. Flick (Hrsg.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage.

  • Xu, Y. & B. Burleson, 2001: Effects of Sex, Culture, and Support Type on Perceptions of Spousal Social Support: An Assessment of the “Support Gap” Hypothesis in Early Marriage. Human Communication Research 27: 535–566.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

The Zeitschrift für Soziologie publishes peer-reviewed articles from all areas of sociology, aiming to represent both the diversity of empirical research as well as the plurality of theoretical traditions. Founded in 1971, the journal aims to represent the discipline as comprehensively as possible, inviting contributions from sociologists regardless of their conceptual affinities and orientations.

Search