Appendix 1: Researching Couples' Long- Term Relationships

Home , Couple interview, Living apart together

Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships

Researching couples’ long-term relationships

This book is based on findings from our study Enduring Love? Couple Relationships in the 21st Century, which explored how couples experience, understand and sustain their long-term relationships. It was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC RES-062-23-3056) and carried out between 2011 and 2013. At the core of the study’s devel- opment was a commitment to ensuring not only its intellectual rigour but also its policy and practice relevance. We established, therefore, an advisory framework for the study which brought together leading aca- demics and independent researchers in the field as well as policymakers and representatives from third sector organisations with key roles in providing relationship support and education. Their interest, contributions and interventions have been invaluable and illustrate how our dialogic approach was central to the success of the study’s impact and public engagement. In designing and implementing the study, we sought to situate emotions at the conceptual, methodological and analytical heart of our

© The Author(s) 2018 145 J. Gabb, J. Fink, Couple Relationships in the 21st Century, Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59698-3 146 Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships research inquiry as relationships are comprised of a whole spectrum of feelings and experiences. Our aim in this was to access the ways that everyday experience and emotions interact but also to ensure that we were able to portray vibrant and visceral accounts of long-term relationships. We thus sought to resist the deployment of relationship typologies that feature in some academic studies and relationship support services, focusing instead on research practices that would facilitate exploration of how sets of contexts, predispositions and lifestyles might combine in myriad ways to form and reform couple relationships. We also left open the definition of what might constitute a long-term relationship in order to better understand how couples themselves experienced and imag- ined their relationship as an enduring one. To these ends, we deployed a mixed methods research design with qualitative methods being used to drill down into the embodied, lived experience of couples and a survey to generate a large-scale quantitative and qualitative dataset on couples’ everyday relationship practices. Participants who took part in the qualitative dimension of the study are identified by two pseudonyms: the first accompanies their individual data, the second their couple interview data. This is to ensure that assurances of confidentiality are honoured, with individual accounts being kept separate from those of the couple. Such assurances also mean that no biographical details about our participants can be provided in this outline of the Enduring Love? study. In some instances, however, couples spoke about sharing their data. In these circumstances we sometimes draw on ‘couple data’ from both partners to advance a particular analytical point. In the absence of dialogue and/or personal contact, quotations from survey participants remain anonymous.

Online survey

Our online survey was located on the study’s website www.enduring- love.co.uk and implemented using the free online survey and questionnaire software SurveyMonkey. It was implemented over a 12-month period. Participants were recruited through features and news coverage of the research study posted on various online forums, newsletters and Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships 147

community group noticeboards, especially those clustered around parenting, relationship support and the student population of the institutional host (The Open University). As a recruitment strategy for the qualitative dimension of the study and to boost under-represented groups in the survey cohort, the survey questionnaire was also implemented in hard copy format among ‘hard to reach’ community groups and networks. The survey generated 5445 responses worldwide. However, since our analysis in this book is concerned with the particular personal, socio-economic and political contexts of couple relationships in mainland Britain, our focus is on data from the survey’s UK cohort only. This comprised a convenience sample of 4494 respondents. In order to access the survey online, participants were required to go to the study’s website where detailed information on the scope and meth- odology of the research was provided, alongside frequently asked questions (FAQs) which were attentive to issues related to research ethics. The survey was designed so that only those participants who stated they were in a long-term couple relationship could go on to complete it. Details of the survey sample’s composition can be found in Appendix 2, Table A2.9. Like other large-scale studies on relationship support, our participation rates included a gendered skew, higher than average educational qualifications and a predominantly white cohort (Walker et al., 2010). The survey included three sets of multiple-choice statements, using Likert scale responses ranging from 1 to 5. These spoke to the structuring interests of the Enduring Love? study overall and enabled us to identify patterns in behaviour and the factors which appeared to signal relationship satisfaction. In analysing these data we devised scales of

• Relationship quality • Relationship with partner • Relationship maintenance • Happiness with relationship/partner • Happiness with life

Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation was used to produce these five relationship measures. We computed basic descriptive statistics for demographic information. Multivariate Analyses of Variance 148 Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships

(MANOVA) and correlation analyses were used to address more complex research questions, facilitating examination of relationship satisfaction and the patterning of relationship experience (for full details of survey design and analytical strategy, see Gabb et al., 2013). Examination of these relationship measures, however, falls outside the remit of this book and its concern with relationship practices. Instead, our analysis is focused on survey answers to multiple-choice questions and open, free-text questions, in which participants were asked to say what they liked and disliked about their relationship, and what their partner did that made them feel appreciated. These questions generated over 10,000 responses in total, all of which were systematically coded using a grounded theory approach. To facilitate mixed methods analysis, across the dataset, our quantitative and qualitative coding frames were consistent.

Qualitative design and methods

The Enduring Love? study also had a major qualitative dimension. Our qualitative research sample consisted of 50 couples: women (n = 54), men (n = 43) and other/queer (n = 3). It included couples across three age cohorts: 18–34, 35–54 and 55–65+, with equal numbers of couples with and without children. Purposive sampling was used to recruit these three primary groups, enabling us to interrogate the study’s key analytical foci: gender, generation and parenthood. Our aim was not, however, to map relationship practices and gendered roles onto men and women but rather to examine the impact of socio-cultural norms, personal biogra- phies and social differences on how women and men behave in relationships and how they perceive emotional ties. Similarly, the age cohorts were not included as a means to impose determining criteria about the meanings of relationships for older or younger couples. They were used to facilitate an analysis attentive to the significance of ‘generation’ for understanding how being situated in a particular historical period might shape couple relationships and experience of life course transitions (Fink & Gabb, 2014; Nilsen & Brannen, 2014). Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships 149

Other areas of social diversity included education/socio-economic status, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity and religious belief. The final composition of the qualitative sample therefore comprised 30 per cent ‘working class’ (classified through education, employment and self- identification); 58 per cent either married or in a civil partnership; and 50 per cent with a religious belief, including several couples where faith was identified as a defining feature in their lives. Four couples described their relationships as non-monogamous or open. Two of the couples lived apart. While the sample was predominantly white/ British (76 per cent), we employed targeted strategies to recruit Asian participants (n = 14) so that we could complete meaningful analysis of racial and cultural differences among a clearly identified sample subset (Gabb & Singh, 2014). Similar strategies were deployed around sexual diversity, with the sample comprising 30 per cent lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer participants. Queer is used here as a category of self-identity. We also recruited among the ‘trans’ population and the sample includes four participants from this group. Recruitment among local community, parenting and family support groups as well as faith communities gave us access to ‘hard to reach’ groups such as socially disadvantaged and minority ethnic couples. Lesbian and gay couples were recruited through targeted online forums, local community groups and through snowballing techniques among personal networks. The research team comprised many different ‘voices’, with con- sultant researchers being appointed to boost this diversity. Our research strategy was built on the premise that ‘insider knowledge’ can sensitise a research project to the specificities of experience and, in so doing, provide situated insight (Gabb & Singh, 2014). In these contexts, a researcher’s ‘insider status’ often served to literally and conceptually often open doors (Gabb, 2004), affording an epistemic privilege (Fuss, 1991) and facilitating rapport. However, even where personal lives and identities coincided, the researcher typically remained a ‘trusted outsider’ (Bucerius, 2013) to more than one group of participants. This status served to further enhance the research relationship as knowledge about feelings could be entrusted to a researcher while, at the same time, a ‘professional’ distance was maintained. 150 Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships

The study’s qualitative interrogation of the minutiae and mundanities of couples’ relationship practices was undertaken using a rich palette of qualitative methods: emotion maps, diaries, individual interviews and photo-elicitation interviews with couples. Combined, these methods were designed to interrogate how couples sustain their relationships over time and to identify cross-cutting patterns of relationship experience. The complexity of our research design meant that in most instances fieldwork was completed over a one- to three-month period, including, on average, three to four research meetings that, for the majority of couples, took place in the privacy of their home. For those participants located in socially disadvantaged communities, however, we adapted research pro- cedures to accommodate their circumstances as required. In this context, multi-method fieldwork was typically conducted over two days, with individual and couple interviews being completed outside of the home, in community centre settings, cafes and on The Open University cam- pus. This did not presuppose that those in such circumstances lacked key skills and resources (Evangelou, Coxon, Sylva, Smith, & Chan, 2013) but instead aimed to respect issues of privacy that may have arisen due to overcrowded households. It also acknowledged the desires and/or needs of some participants to maintain personal boundaries, particularly where related to the social and territorial stigma of poverty which, as Wacquant (2008) says, may spoil, shape and mediate personal lives and relationships. The first two methods – emotion maps and diaries – were completed simultaneously over the course of one week. Emotion maps began with a sketch of the floor plan of the couple’s home and were designed to generate data on participants’ emotional geographies by situating interactions in the material environment of the home (Gabb, 2008; 2009). In LAT (living apart together) relationships, two floor plans were produced although it was the case that one of the households was used and/or perceived as the ‘couple home’, at least during this period of fieldwork. Participants were given sets of coloured emoticon stickers (denoting laughter, happiness, indifference, sadness, upset, grumpiness/anger and love/affection) to represent the different emotional interactions between everyone living in or visiting the home, including the participant, their partner, children, family, friends, pets, and so on. While most emoticons Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships 151 needed little explanation, participants were advised that the heart sticker could encompass any loving act, gesture or feeling, from a friendly cuddle to sex (Figure A1.1). Diaries aimed to generate temporal data on a couple’s everyday rou- tines but, with their status as a ‘confessional’ device (Harvey, 2011), they also enabled more personal reflections by participants. In addition, they gave the researcher insight into couples’ otherwise private ‘couple lexes’ (Gabb, 2008, p. 141), illustrating how they framed and made personal sense of encounters. Participants were offered the choice of producing either handwritten or electronic format diaries. With ‘hard to reach’ couples and/or those with limited literacy skills, diaries were completed ret- rospectively in dialogue with the researcher, in verbal format. Rather than adhere to the structured diurnal accounts that characterise time-use diary methods (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Gershuny & Sullivan, 1998), our diary format was extremely flexible and participants included photos and sketches as well as mementos of time spent together. Participants were, however, given clear guidelines on the kinds of experiences that they might write about in their diaries. These included time and activities spent together and apart from a partner; actions or words that had resulted in reflection about the relationship in some way; one good moment in each day and one challenging experience. These sugges- tions did not aim to delimit the scope of interactions that were included but were designed to ensure that we generated information on everyday relationship practices and experiences rather than highly charged or unusually significant events. Completed diaries were then discussed in the follow-up interview alongside emotion maps. The individual interviews were in two halves. In the first half, participants were invited to talk freely about experiences and different relationships across their life. This non-directive interview approach drew on methods advanced in psycho-social research (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000; Wengraf, 2001) and we thus posed the same single open question

Figure A1.1 Emoticons 152 Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships to all participants: ‘Tell us about your relationship: how does it work?’ Researchers listened attentively to what was said and resisted making interventions which might steer the course of the interview. During the second half of the interview participants were invited to talk through the events and experiences described in their diary and depicted on the emotion map. Couple interviews were structured around discussion of a series of collages which had been pre-prepared by the research team. Here, couples were asked to reflect on how the depicted scenarios connected with or diverged from their personal experience of, and/or opinions about, the meanings of long-term relationships. The collages addressed our central research themes and included relationship work (such as household chores, gestures and gifts); physical affection and sex; children and child- hoods; money; ‘significant others’ (such as friends, family, in-laws, pets, faith community); social policy and welfare; and media representations. The method was also used as a participatory technique with small groups of participants attending local community centres in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In this context, collages were produced by the groups from a range of media materials provided by the researcher, whose field notes, in turn, generated ethnographic data. Both collage techniques were designed to facilitate new ways of ‘seeing’ (Fink & Lomax, 2012), interrogating the management of public–private boundaries (Gabb, 2013) and how cultural meanings and personal experience of couple relationships intersected. Our practices approach proved to be highly effective for this study of couples in long-term relationships. A focus on the everyday and ordi- nariness evinced the different ways, at different times and in different emotional and geographical spaces, that relationships were experienced, understood and rendered meaningful. Our research design also encour- aged reflexivity. Participants’ accounts were often highly disclosing and deeply personal. Most volunteered that the research experience had been a positive intervention, providing a pause for reflection in what were typically busy work–personal lives. This goes some way to explaining why, despite the significant commitment required from participants to the fieldwork, research attrition tended to happen at the point of recruitment rather than mid-process. The study offered participants ‘time out’ Appendix 1: Researching Couples’ Long-Term Relationships 153 to ‘look in’, affording the couple an opportunity to redress issues and, just as importantly, a breathing space that allowed them to appreciate their partner and the things they valued about their relationship. We do not, however, perceive the interview exchange to have been a therapeutic encounter (Laslett & Rapport, 1975); instead, we situate it within the context of psycho-social research which has suggested that it may be ‘reas- suring and therapeutic to talk’ about deeply personal or even troubling experience (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000, pp. 86–87). Research participation thus facilitated a critical intervention rather than therapeutic imita- tion or ‘faked friendship’ (Duncombe & Jessop, 2002). Couples expressed their thanks at being listened to and heard; we, as a research team, remain humbled and immensely grateful for the trust invested in us. Appendix 2: Tables

Table A2.1 ‘What does your partner do for you that makes you feel appreciated?’ All participants (UK) All Childless Childless women Mothers women All men Fathers men (% (% and (% and (% and (% and (% and and Items coded rank) rank) rank) rank) rank) rank) Says thank you 13.7 1 14.3 1 12.7 1 11.1 1 10.5 1 12 1 and/or gives me compliments Gives me cards, 8.5 2 9 3 7.7 6 6.4 8 6 9 6.8 8 gift, flowers, etc. Does/shares the 8 3 9.6 2 5.7 9 4.5 10 6.1 8 2.1 14 household chores and/or childcare Talks with me 7.8 4 6.5 5 9.9 2 7.8 5 7.5 5 8.1 4 and listens to me Is physically 7.7 5 6.5 6 9.4 3 7.7 6 7.3 6 9.9 2 affectionate (continued)

Table A2.1 (continued) All Childless Childless women Mothers women All men Fathers men (% (% and (% and (% and (% and (% and and Items coded rank) rank) rank) rank) rank) rank) Says and/or 7.3 6 6.6 7 8.2 5 7.7 7 7.3 7 7 6 shows s/he loves me Cooks some/all 7.3 7 6.2 8 8.4 4 8.1 4 9.4 3 6.2 9 of our meals Makes kind and 6.4 8 5.6 9 7.7 7 6.3 9 5.7 10 7 7 thoughtful gestures Makes me tea/ 6.2 9 7.4 4 4.3 11 1.2 15 1.3 15 1 15 coffee and/or breakfast in bed Supports and 5.7 10 5.4 10 6.1 8 9.1 2 9.9 2 7.9 5 looks after me Is always there 4.2 11 3.8 11 4.8 10 8.5 3 7.9 4 9.5 3 for me Values me and 3 12 3.2 12 2.7 12 3.8 11 4.1 11 3.1 12 respects my opinions Makes time to 2.1 13 1.7 14 2.6 13 2.6 13 1.6 14 3.5 10 be together, as a couple Supports my 2.1 14 2.5 13 1.4 14 3.4 12 3.4 12 3.3 11 personal interests/career Sexual intimacy 0.7 15 0.7 15 0.8 15 2.6 14 2.4 13 2.9 13 Others 9.3 11 7.6 9.2 9.6 9.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Appendix 2: Tables 157

Table A2.2 ‘What do you like best about your relationship?’ All participants (UK) All Childless women Mothers women All men Fathers Childless (% and (% and (% and (% and (% and men (% Items coded rank) rank) rank) rank) rank) and rank) Laughing 12.1 1 11.8 1 12.7 1 7.0 6 5.6 8 9.0 4 together Sharing 10.9 2 11.5 2 10.0 2 12.2 1 12.7 1 11.5 1 values and interests Being best 8.5 3 9.0 3 7.7 4 10.0 2 9.8 2 10.5 2 friends Being cared 7.8 4 7.9 5 7.4 5 7.2 5 6.6 5 8.0 5 for and feeling supported Feeling safe 7.3 5 8.2 4 5.7 9 5.8 8 5.2 9 6.5 7 and secure Being happy 6.7 7 5.5 7 8.7 3 7.7 4 6.7 4 9.2 3 Trust 6.7 6 6.9 6 6.3 6 5.9 7 6.5 6 5.0 10 Sharing a 5.3 8 4.9 9 6.0 8 8.0 3 8.1 3 7.8 6 close relationship Talking and 5.1 9 4.4 10 6.3 7 3.8 11 3.2 13 4.8 11 listening Being in love 5.0 10 5.2 8 4.6 11 5.2 9 5.1 10 5.3 9 and/or being loved Physical 4.3 11 3.4 12 5.7 10 3.8 12 2.7 15 5.5 8 affection Spending 3.8 12 3.2 13 4.6 12 3.7 13 4.4 12 2.9 13 time together Being a family 2.8 13 4.5 11 0.1 15 3.7 14 6.2 7 0.0 15 and/or having children We support 2.4 14 2.3 14 2.7 14 2.8 15 3.2 14 2.1 14 each other Sexual 2.4 15 2.2 15 2.8 13 4.8 10 5.0 11 4.6 12 intimacy Others 8.9 9.1 8.7 8.4 9.0 7.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 158 Appendix 2: Tables

Table A2.3 ‘What do you like least about your relationship?’ All participants (UK) All Childless Childless Women Mothers women All men Fathers men (% (% and (% and (% and (% and (% and and Items coded rank) rank) rank) rank) rank) rank) Poor 8.9 1 9 1 8.7 1 6.6 4 5 8 8.8 3 communication Arguments and/ 8.3 2 8.2 2 8.4 2 11.1 1 11.7 1 10.1 1 or conflicts Housework and/ 7.5 3 7 5 8.3 3 5 8 5.2 7 4.7 10 or childcare are not shared fairly Issues with 7 4 7.1 4 7 4 6.4 6 6.6 4 5.8 7 balancing work and home life Few shared 6.7 5 6.9 6 6.5 6 7.1 3 5.8 5 9.2 2 values and/or interests Not enough 6.7 6 7.4 3 5.5 8 6.5 5 7.4 3 5.4 8 couple time Money issues 6.4 7 6.4 7 6.5 7 5.3 7 4.9 9 6.1 6 Living apart 5 8 3.7 12 7 5 4.7 10 3.5 10 6.3 4 and/or housing issues Different needs/ 4.2 9 3.8 11 5 9 8.1 2 9.3 2 6.3 5 expectations around sexual intimacy Lack of closeness 4.1 10 4.4 8 3.7 10 3.4 13 3.4 11 3.4 13 Partner’s 3.9 11 4 10 3.4 12 3.6 12 3.1 12 4.5 11 undesirable personality traits Annoying 3.6 12 4.1 9 2.8 15 2.2 14 2.4 14 2 14 habits Issues with 3.4 13 3.4 13 3.5 11 3.7 11 2.8 13 5.2 9 partner’s friends or family Nothing 3.1 14 3.1 14 3.2 14 4.9 9 5.8 6 3.6 12 Trust issues 2.8 15 2.4 15 3.4 13 1.8 15 1.9 15 1.6 15 Others 18.4 19.1 17.1 19.6 21.2 17 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Appendix 2: Tables 159

Table A2.4 ‘Who is the most important person in your life?’ Gender and parenthood by age of youngest child Child under Child 5–9 Child 10–17 Child aged 18 5 years (%) years old (%) years old (%) and over (%) Mothers selecting 75 78 64 40 child/ren Fathers selecting 59 47 35 9 child/ren Mothers selecting 21 19 30 55 partner Fathers selecting 38 52 57 89 partner

Table A2.5 ‘My partner wants to have sex more often than I do’ by gender and parenthood Neither agree Strongly Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly disagree (%) (%) (%) (%) agree (%) Fathers 25.00 44.10 21.20 8.50 1.10 Childless 18.90 38.70 25.90 9.70 6.70 men Mothers 9.80 26.60 23.30 30.40 9.90 Childless 12.80 33.20 24.00 22.40 7.60 women

Table A2.6 ‘My partner wants to have sex more often than I do’ by relationship status and residency Neither Strongly Disagree agree nor Agree Strongly disagree (%) (%) disagree (%) (%) agree (%) Married 11.90 29.60 24.60 26.00 7.90 Civil partnership 17.00 35.50 24.10 16.30 7.10 Cohabiting 13.90 32.50 20.70 23.40 9.50 Living apart 19.00 36.20 22.30 17.20 5.30 together (LAT) Going out with 11.70 44.20 22.10 11.70 10.40 someone 160 Appendix 2: Tables

Table A2.7 ‘My partner wants to have sex more often than I do’ by parenthood and sexuality Strongly Neither disagree Disagree agree nor Agree Strongly (%) (%) disagree (%) (%) agree (%) LGBQ childfree 18.60 37.60 22.80 15.10 5.90 couples LGBQ parents 21.30 35.60 20.20 17.00 5.90 Heterosexual 13.00 33.10 24.70 21.30 7.90 childfree couples Heterosexual 12.20 29.40 23.20 26.80 8.40 parents

Table A2.8 Means and Standard Deviations for relationship measures by gender and parenting status Childfree Childfree women Mothers men Fathers Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Relationship quality 4.22 0.54 4.01 0.68 4.20 0.53 4.03 0.67 Relationship with 4.08 0.61 3.82 0.75 4.06 0.60 3.89 0.73 partner Relationship 4.19 0.56 3.83 0.71 4.16 0.52 3.84 0.71 maintenance Happiness with 4.45 0.72 4.24 0.89 4.47 0.66 4.36 0.82 relationship/ partner Happiness with life 4.03 0.79 4.12 0.79 4.05 0.77 4.04 0.81 Appendix 2: Tables 161

Table A2.9 Composition of survey sample % Numbers Gender Male 19.0 856 Female 80.4 3613 Other/missing 0.6 25 Sexual orientation Heterosexual 86.5 3886 Gay/lesbian 6.0 268 Bisexual 5.5 246 Other/not disclosed 2.0 94 Relationship status Married 59.7 2685 Civil partnership 2.8 124 Living together 24.3 1090 Living apart together (LAT) 11.1 501 Going out with someone 1.6 70 Other/not disclosed 0.5 24 Age 16–24; 25–34 (younger) 36.1 1621 35–44; 45–54 (middle) 44.6 2004 55–64; 65+ (older) 19.1 858 Not disclosed 0.2 11 Educational Alevels, voc. quals and below 26.7 1199 qualifications UG, PG and prof. quals 70.6 3174 Other/not disclosed 2.7 121 Religion Religion: Yes 44.3 1991 Religion: No 50.3 2259 Other/not disclosed 5.4 244 Children Parents (children living with/ 60.4 2715 left home) Childless 37.8 1696 Not disclosed 1.8 83 Ethnicity White 91.1 4095 BME/mixed race 5.7 253 Not disclosed 3.2 146 Total 4494 Bibliography

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary Methods: Capturing Life as It Is Lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 579–616. Bucerius, S. M. (2013). Becoming a ‘Trusted Outsider’: Gender, Ethnicity, and Inequality in Ethnographic Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 42(6), 690–721. Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2002). Doing Rapport and the Ethics of Faking Friendship. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research (pp. 107–123). London: Sage. Evangelou, M., Coxon, K., Sylva, K., Smith, S., & Chan, L. L. S. (2013). Seeking to Engage ‘Hard-to-Reach’ Families: Towards a Transferable Model of Intervention. Children & Society, 27(2), 127–138. Fink, J., & Gabb, J. (2014). Configuring Generations: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Families, Relationships and Societies, 3(3), 1–6. Fink, J., & Lomax, H. (2012). Introduction: Inequalities, Images and Insights for Policy and Research. Critical Social Policy, 32(1), 3–10. Fuss, D. (1991). Inside/Out. Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York: Routledge. Gabb, J. (2004). Critical Differentials: Querying the Contrarieties between Research on Lesbian Parent Families. Sexualities, 7(2), 171–187. Gershuny, J., & Sullivan, O. (1998). The Sociological Uses of Time-Use Diary Analysis. European Sociological Review, 14(1), 69–85.

Harvey, L. (2011). Intimate Reflections: Private Diaries in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research, 11(6), 664–682. Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000).Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Laslett, B., & Rapport, R. (1975). Collaborative Interviewing and Interactive Research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 968–977. Nilsen, A. & Brannen, J. (2014). An Intergenerational Approach to Transitions to Adulthood: The Importance of History and Biography.Sociological Research Online, 19(2). Retrieved from; http://www.socresonline.org.uk/19/12/19. html Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-structured Method. London: Sage. Index

A B Abshoff, K., 5 Back, L., 14, 65 abusive relationships, 2 banter, 15, 66–8, 80, 97 academic contexts of couple Barelds, D.P.H., 67 relationships, 5–6 Barelds-Dijkstra, P., 67 Acevedo, B.P., 68 Barker, M., 8, 57, 78, 106, 120 Adams, B., 136–8 Barlow, A., 56 affairs, 56, 123 Barrett, H., 3, 8, 49 age Bauman, Z., 109 age cohorts of couples, 148 Bawin-Legros, B., 10, 64 lesbian and gay ageing, 9 Baylis, F., 113 and marriage, 3 Beaumont, J., 3 and sexual intimacy, 15, 77, 96 Beck, U., 6, 44, 108, 109, 140 Allan, G., 6, 57, 91, 93 Beck-Gersheim, E., 6, 108, 140 appearance bedroom tax, 3, 94 and sexual intimacy, 86 Bell, C., 6 Appignanesi, L., 56 bereavement arguments, 15, 50, 61–6 coping with emotional behaviour Aron, A., 5, 68 around, 54, 60–1 Askham, J., 6 support from friends, 123–4 austerity measures, 4 Berlant, L., 10, 78

© The Author(s) 2018 165 J. Gabb, J. Fink, Couple Relationships in the 21st Century, Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59698-3 166 Index biographical interviews, 12 Charles, N., 113 Bird, M.H., 9, 117 childcare bisexual couples, 119, 125 and couple communication, 62 research on bisexuality, 78 and relationship work, 30, 32, Blood, R.O., 6 136 Bloomfield, B., 3 and sexual intimacy, 88 Blyth, C., 7 childfree couples, 5 bodies and date nights, 38 ageing bodies and sexual intimacy, and important others, 111 96–100 and love/loving relations, 70 Bolger, N., 151 men and communication, 63 Bonas, S., 113 and pets, 111–15 boundaries, 11 and sexual intimacy, 84, 85 and communication, 73 and shared faith, 117 and internet activity, 58 women and relationship quality, and LGBQ relationships, 33, 129 109 of romantic and companionate children. See also parenting love, 68, 138 bedtime, 71 and sexual intimacy, 94 parents’ love for, 68–70, 108–9 Bradbury, T.N., 6 and polyamorous relationships, 125 Brannen, J., 11, 53, 148 teenage, 39 breakfast in bed, 27, 28, 36 Christianity and marriage, 117–19 Brines, J., 63 civil partnerships, 3, 106 Britt, S.L., 64 Clark, D., 6 Brownlie, J., 8, 54 class Bucerius, S.M., 149 and couple communication, 62–5 Budgeon, S., 6, 11, 105, 106, 124 Clough, P.T., 78 Butler, M.H., 9, 117 Cobb, R.J., 5 Coleman, L., 2, 3, 29 collages, 152 C couple collage interviews, 12, Cameron, David, 5 65–6 capacity of love/loving relations, 68, 140 and couple communication, 51 Collard, J., 6, 53, 86 Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), 4 Collins, G., 113 Chan, L.L.S., 150 Coltrane, S., 30 Chang, Y.-S., 3, 8, 49 communication, 14, 49–74, 140–3. Chapman, Gary See also Conflict The Five Love Languages, 8 management Index 167

arguments, 15, 50, 61, 62 Davidoff, L., 52, 116 constructive and destructive forms Davies, C.A., 113 of, 73 Davis, A., 151 grievances, 50 deep knowing, 106 and intimate knowledge of each and relationship work, 51, 60 other, 60–2 deities and couple relationships, 15, laughter, humour and banter, 15, 116–19 66, 80, 96–100 depression, 41, 54 long-distance, 49 diaries, 12, 149–52 love and loving relations, 15, differences 68–74 and couple communication, 62 poor communication, 53 disclosure, 50–2 reflexive bickering, 50, 66 and infidelity, 56 relating to each other, 50, 54 non-disclosure and silence, 52–4 silence and non-disclosure, 52 and online pornography, 57 talking and listening, 50–4 and working class communities, and triadic relationships, 121 65 commuting to work, 136–8 diversity of couple relationships, 6, companionate love, 68, 138, 139 11, 106–8 computer games, 43 divorce, 3, 10, 98 conflict management, 9, 15, 60–6, dogs, 113 73 domestic chores/housework, 62, 141 arguments, 15, 50, 61, 62 Donovan, C., 105 and verbal expressions of love, 70 Doolittle, M., 52 cooking Doucet, A., 30 and love/loving relations, 70–4 Duck, S., 5 and relationship work, 32 Duncan, S., 6, 56, 126 couple displays, 16, 125–9 Duncombe, J., 9, 24, 53, 57, 86, Coxon, K., 150 153 Craig, J., 116 Crow, G., 6, 91, 93 cultural ideas of coupledom, 15, E 115–19 Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), 145 economic time values, 137 D Edelman, L., 78 Daly, K.J., 13, 144 Edgell, S., 6 dancing, 39–41, 141 educational background date nights, 36–9 and couple communication, 64 168 Index

Einarsdottir, A., 6, 65, 80 Finch, J., 30, 127 Eldén, S., 7, 49, 51, 67 Fineman, M.A., 116 emails, 49 Fink, J., 4, 14, 26, 52, 148, 152 emotion culture, 8 Fitzpatrick, M.A., 6 emotion maps, 12, 42, 90–5, 115, food practices and cooking, 32 149–51 Fox, R., 113 triadic relationships, 121, 122 Frank, A., 78 emotion work, 23 Fraser, A., 7 emotional security friendship in open relationships, 119 friendship between couples, 50, Ernst, E., 41 54–6 Evangelou, M., 150 and LGBQ couples, 125 Evans, M., 140 support from friends, 122–5 extra-marital relationship, 56, 122–4 friendship friendship between couples, 139 Frye, M., 78 F Furedi, F., 7, 49 families. See also parenting Fuss, D., 149 extended families and cultural differences, 116, 118 family breakdown, 4, 138, 143 G family practices, 2, 9 Gabb, J., 8–12, 14, 26, 28, 39, 72, government policy on, 4–5 79, 87, 91, 105, 109, 113, and polyamorous relationships, 116, 117, 127, 149–52 125 Gagnon, J., 77, 84 family planning Gardner, B.C., 9, 117 and pets, 114 Garthwaite, K., 69 fathers gay couples. See LGBQ relationships and couple communication, 63, gender, 5, 14, 96, 143 70 and conflict management, 62 and the parenting relationship, and cooking, 33 109 and emotion work, 24 and relationship work, 30 gendered division of labour, 9, 30, and sexual intimacy, 79, 84, 87 63, 87, 141 Featherstone, M., 72 and heterosexuality, 77 feminist research, 6, 29 and love/loving relations, 68, Ferri, E., 5 71–4 Field, N., 140 and parenthood, 5, 87 Figes, K., 7 and pets, 111 Index 169

and relationship work, 29–32, 46 heterosexual couples and sexual desire, 15 and emotion work, 25 and sexual intimacy, 77, 79–87 and the gendered division of and age, 96 labour, 9, 30, 63, 88, 141 gender and couple communication, and sexual intimacy, 84, 88 53, 62 heterosexuality generation, 5, 16, 105 compulsory, 106 and conflict management, 62 and gender, 77 Giddens, A., 6, 11, 44, 51, 65, 86, Hird, M., 5 105, 140 Hochschild, A., 24, 30, 88 gifts Hockey, J., 6, 10, 77 receiving, 8 Hodgkins, J., 7 and relationship work, 24–7, 36 Holden, K., 52 Gill, R., 8 Holland, J., 12, 13 Gillies, V., 12 Hollway, W., 151, 153 Gillis, J.R., 79 home, 2, 140 Glenn, F., 2 constraints on domestic Goldberg, A.E., 33 space, 59 Gottlieb, L., 7 and the gendered government policies on families, 4 division of labour, gratitude, economies of, 24 9, 30, 63, 88, 141 grey divorce, 7, 98 making space for intimacy, 90–5, Grosz, E., 79 140 homophobia, 125–129 Hooff, J.V., 6 H Huddleston-Casas, C.A., 118 Hakim, C., 57 humour, 15, 66, 88, 97 Halford, W.K., 3–4 Huston, S.J., 64 Hanmer, J., 50 happiness children as primary source of, 109 I Haraway, D., 113 Illouz, E., 72 Harding, R., 11 impotency, 95 Harrison, K., 57 Indian culture Harvey, L., 8 couple relationships in, 115–17 Heaphy, B., 6, 9, 33, 43, 65, 80, 82, individualisation 105 and parenthood, 108 Hearn, J., 50 and relationship work, 45 Hesse-Biber, S., 79 Ingraham, C., 127 170 Index

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Langhamer, C., 7 Trans and Intersex Laslett, B., 153 Association(ILGA), 126 LAT (living apart together) couples, internet 84, 150 online pornography, 57–8 laughter, 15, 66, 98 and time spent apart, 58 Lawrence, E., 5 interviews, 149 Lawson, A., 57 intimacy. See sex and intimacy letters, 49 Itzin, C., 50 Leupp, K., 63 IVF (in vitro fertilisation), 126 Lewis, J., 6 LGBQ relationships, 78, 119, 149 J bisexuality, 78, 119, 125 Jackson, S., 9, 10, 77, 88 couple display, 125, 143 James, G., 56 and emotion work, 25 Jamieson, L., 9, 10, 29, 51, 105, 107 and friendship, 125 Jefferson, T., 151, 153 queer critique of coupledom, 10, Jessop, J., 153 11, 106–7, 129 Johnson, P., 77 sexual intimacy, 84, 85 Johnson, V.E., 77 social attitudes to, 125 Lin, L.W., 118 Lindqvist, B., 7 K listening and talking, 50 Kakar, S., 116 Lomax, H., 4 Kimmel, M., 77 longitudinal studies, 5 kindness, acts of, 27 love Kinsey, A., 77 companionate love, Kipnis, L., 24 68, 138, 139 Klett-Davies, M., 26, 29 and couple communication, 15, Kneale, D., 3 65, 68 Koedt, A., 77 courtly love, 72 Kornich, S., 63 cultural context of, 10 Koropeckyj-Cox, T., 5 democratisation of, 6, 105 Kouneski, E.F., 6 and family and couple relationships, 4 loving gestures, 72, 138 L meanings of, 138 Langdridge, D., 78, 106 parental love, 68, 138 Langford, W., 77 and practices of intimacy, 10 Index 171

romantic love, 138, 139 and sexual intimacy, 84–5, and sexual intimacy, 72, 78 95–100 verbal expressions of, 70, 138–40 and shared faith, 117 lying, 57–58 mental health, 39–41 minority ethnic couples and love/loving relations, 71–2 M miscarriage, emotion work MacDonald, R., 69 following, 26 Mahoney, A., 118 money management, 53, 63 Mansfield, P, 53, 86 Montemurro. B., 2 Mansfield, P., 6 Morgan, D.H.J., 6, 9, 11, 91, Markham, H.J., 3 105, 141 marriage mothers and couple practices, 10 on love and loving relations, 68 decline of, 3 and the parenting relationship, 109 increase in, 3 and relationship work, 28–30 proposals of, 67 and sexual intimacy, 79, 84, 88 and relationship work, 23 and shared faith, 117 second time rounder, 32, 98 Murray-Swank, A., 118 and shared faith, 117 music, listening to, 40, 41 Marsden, D., 6, 9, 24, 53, 57, 86 mutuality Marshall, A.G., 87 in communication, 50 masculine identity in loving relationships, 105 and relationship work, 29–32 and sex, 96 and unemployment, 62–5 N Mashek, D., 5 Nath, R., 116 Mason, J., 113 NATSAL (National Survey of Sexual Masters, W.H., 77 Attitudes and Lifestyles), 7, McCarthy, J.R., 12 77, 84–5 McNicholas, J., 113 neo-liberalism Meadows, M., 77, 88 and ‘the couple’ ideology, 11 Meah, A., 6 networks of intimacy, 107 media and couple relationships, 7 Neustatter, A., 2 men. See also fathers; gender; Newby, H., 6 masculine identity Nilsen, A., 148 and couple communication, 53 non-monogamous relationships, and love/loving relations, 72 119–21, 149 and pets, 112 Norrick, N.R., 67 172 Index

O and family planning decisions, Oakley, A., 29 113–15 O’Hara, M., 4 human–animal relations, older couples 113–15 grey divorce, 7, 98 pet ownership in Britain, 112 and sexual intimacy, 97 Pevalin, D., 124 sharing of space, 43–4 Phillips, M., 6, 126 Olson, D.H., 6 Phoenix, A., 11 open relationships, 119, 149 phone calls, 49 ordinary affects, 1 physical touch/affection, 8, 78–83, 95 Pink, S., 11 P place, 11 Pahl, R., 124 relationship work and the sharing Pantzar, M., 11 of space, 44 parenting, 14, 37–9, 91, 105, Plummer, K., 9, 77 108–11. See also Children; policy responses families; fathers; mothers to family breakdown, 4 children’s bedtimes, 71 to support couple relationships, and conflict management, 62, 70 4–5 and date nights, 38 polyamorous relationships, 119–22, and gender, 5–6 125 and LGBQ relationships, 126 pornography parental love, 68, 138 watching online, 57 and pets, 113 power policy and parenting practices, 4 and sexual intimacy, 88 and relationship work, 29 and sexuality, 77 time out from parenting, 37–9 practices approach, 2–3, and sexual intimacy, 15, 77, 79, 8–12, 49, 135, 87–91 143, 152 family households, 91 psycho-social approach, 13, 153 Pargament, K.I., 118 Park, A., 56 Peel, E., 11 Q Pendell, G., 5 qualitative data, 13, 14 Perel, E., 56 quality time, 8 Peters, J.D., 49, 50 quantitative data, 13 pets, 15, 111–15 queer relationships. See LGBQ and the couple relationship, 111 relationships Index 173

R and time, 36, 43, 45–6 Rafaeli, E., 151 desire for ‘me-time, 44–5, 137 Rahman, M., 77 Relationships Alliance, 4, 43 Ramazanoglu, C., 13 religion Rand, J. I., 41 deities and couple relationships, Rapport, R., 153 15, 117 realities and dreams, 2 remarriage. See second-time rounders reciprocity research methods in communication, 50 online survey, 146–8 and dyadic relationships, 107 qualitative design and methods, in loving relationships, 105 148–53 reflexive bickering, 66 researcher subjectivity, 13 reflexivity, 9 researching couple relationships, and polyamorous relationships, 1–3, 6 125 Rich, A., 77, 106 and relationships with children Robert, J., 113 and partners, 109–11 Robinson, V., 6, 9 Reibstein, J., 7 romantic ideal, 6 relationship breakdown romantic love, 68, 138 and infidelity, 56 Roseneil, S., 6, 13, 105, 106, 124 and stress, 3 Rothman, A.D., 6 relationship duration Rothman, M.T., 6 and sexual intimacy, 90, 95 Rubin, G., 129 relationship work, 8, 14, 44–5, 137 Ruppanner, L., 63 cooking and food practices, 32–6 and couple communication, 51 couple time, 36–9 S ‘deep knowing’ dimension of, 51, same-sex relationships, 6, 77 60 civil partnerships, 3, 106 emotion work, 23–46 marriage, 106 gifts, 24–9, 36 and the queer critique of home comfort, 39–46 coupledom, 106 household chores and childcare, sexual intimacy in, 97 29–32 and ‘the couple’ ideology, 11 and Kipnis’ critique of marriage, Schober, P.S., 63 23 Scott, S., 9, 10 mutual, 46 second-time rounders thoughtful gestures, 27, 38, 46, and relationship work, 32 72 and sexual intimacy, 99 174 Index

Seidman, S., 78 Simmel, G., 107, 110 self-help literature, 8 Simon, W., 77, 84 service, acts of, 8 Singh, R., 72, 116, 149 sex and intimacy, 15–16, 77–100, Skaliotis, E., 29 139 Smart, C., 6, 9, 10, 39, 52, 68, 78, ageing bodies and relationship 105, 109, 110 duration, 95–100 Smith, A., 85 and cultural differences, 116 Smith, A.M., 11, 106 and date nights, 39 Smith, K., 5 democratisation of intimacy, 6, Smith, S., 150 105 social psychology divergences in sexual desire, 15, couple relationships in, 5 83–90, 97–8 socio-cultural contexts, 6–8 and friendship, 55 and couple communication, 49 ideals and practices, 79 soul mates, 41, 54, 69 the importance of sex, 84 Stacey, J., 107 and love, 72 Stein, A., 78 making space for, 90 Stevinson, C., 41 and online pornography, 57 Stewart, Kathleen and parenting, 16, 78, 79, 83, Ordinary Affects, 1 84, 87–90 stressful events, 143 physical affection, 79, 95 bereavement, 54, 60, 123 practices of intimacy, 2, and emotion work, 26–7 9–10, 15 Sullivan, O., 151 research on sexual behaviour and Sylva, K., 150 attitudes, 77 Szabo, M., 33 sexual fidelity, 56 sexual orientation, 14, 105 and couple communication, 62 T Sherwood, C., 3 talking and listening, 50 Shildrick, T., 69 taxation, 4, 94 shopping tea, making cups of, 27, 28, 45, 73, and relationship work, 31, 33, 87, 120, 136, 142 136 teenage children, 39 Shove, E., 11 television watching silence and couple communication, 59 around infidelity, 56 and relationship work, 34, 38, 40, and non-disclosure, 52 41, 43–4, 137 Silva, E.B., 9 texting, 49 Index 175 therapeutic discourses, 7, 49, 51 Walkerdine, V., 13 Thomae, M., 26 Waller, M., 7 thoughtful gestures, 27, 38, 46, 72, Watson, M., 11 136 Webster, C., 69 time, 11, 45, 136, 137 Weeks, J., 91, 124 economic time values, 137 welfare policies, 3, 94, 106 the internet and time spent apart, Wengraf, T., 151 58 Weston, K., 125 and relationship work, 36, 43 Wetherell, M., 34 desire for ‘me-time’, 45, 137 Whitty, M., 57 mundane nature of, 136 Wilkinson, E., 4, 11, 106 and sexual intimacy, 89–90 Williams, F., 6, 105 Tipper, B., 113 Williams, R., 49 transgendered couples, 41 Wilson, G., 3 triadic relationships, 15, 119 Wilton, T., 78 dimensions of, 108 Wolfe, D.M., 6 displaying, 128, 129 women. See also gender; mothers relationship work in, 32–4 and couple communication, 53, trust 62 and couple communication, 56–8 and emotion work, 24 and love/loving relations, 68 and relationship quality, 109 U and sexual intimacy, 85 unemployment, 63, 142 work, commuting to, 136 working at relationships agenda, 7–8. See also relationship work V working class communities, couple video games, 59 communication in, 65 work–life balance, 141

W Wacquant, L., 150 Z Walker, J., 3, 56, 87, 110, 147 Zelizer, V.A., 24